A mass of cells that cannot exist outside the womb is a defenceless child, is it?
Anyway, we know where this is going so there's no point.
Printable View
Well if they do, I’d agree that is hypocritical. And the concept of the ‘Just War’ as it relates to Christianity was outlined by St Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago, but I’ve no interest in defending Christianity.
And life obviously begins at conception. Any other conclusion is arbitrary, illogical and wholly unscientific.
You might as well argue that a child is not fully human because it hasn’t yet grown to adulthood and cannot survive without adult protection and therefore should not be afforded the same protections in law. :shrug:
Instead we take the view thatbthat vulnerability is exactly why the law protects children even more than it does adults.
It therefore seems bizarre to me that we abandon this rationale when it comes to children at their most vulnerable - ie when they’re in the womb. It’s simply nonsensical.
Oh, and we’re all just ‘a mass of cells’, btw.
Is this the thing where the women are doing a sex ban?
But they can still take it up the bum or use a vibrator :shrug:
Yes, although I have issues with the concept of viability as a measure of whether or not we have the right to end a human life.
There are plenty of people who aren't 'viable' without the support and care of others, but we tend not to use that as an excuse for killing them.