Strange how your question which 'cuts to the heart of the issue' doesn't address any situation that is found in the real world.
The question when a woman is pregnant is not regarding 100 frozen embryos, but regarding one growing embryo.
The question when a woman is pregnant is not whether she dies or the unborn dies, but whether the unborn will die to make the abortionist a buck.
The question when a woman is pregnant is very simple -- is the unborn child she is carrying a living human being or not?
If she wants to keep it, then it is treated as a living human being and anyone intentionally harming or killing the unborn may be charged with murder in many jurisdictions.
How is this possible if the unborn is just 'a parasite', a 'piece of the mother's body', just a 'potential human' and only a 'blob of undifferentiated tissue'?
If she doesn't want to keep it then it can be killed without consequence.
Does the medical status of the unborn differ if it is wanted or if it is not?
No.
It goes through EXACTLY the same path of growth and development either way.
Your question avoids the 'heart of the issue' and twists reality until it is pure fiction. No pregnant woman faces the choice that you claim 'cuts to the heart of the situation'.
But twisting things until they are fiction is nothing new to you.
One need only be reminded again how you attempted to twist the wikipedia article on 'Human Beings' to make it appear that the article supported your wild position that one is not a human being unless and until one is able to build a fire, produce art and produce literature.
Eorl wrote:
real life....
From Wiki:
Quote:
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (known as the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.
Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from individual families to nations, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through religion, science, philosophy and mythology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.
How many foetuses do you know who fit this definition? No medical tests have been done on foetus art, literature or fire building skills, so medical proof either way will be forthcoming.
So is an adult who has never built a fire considered a human being?
What about one who has never produced art or literature? Are they non-human also?
Not worth my time - it's just a personal observation of mine. :wink:
