bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,610
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No part of that vague rambling bears any resemblance whatsoever to any of the positions put forward by others in this thread.You are always going to get a distorted view if you look only at half of the picture.Can a racist can see a clump of cells that are non -insert least favoured colour here> and decide its not a person and thus kill it? Even if it is outside the womb?
No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!
But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?
Also I do not see a potential person in the womb. I see a person with unknown potential.
Hey Tigers, you can see the results of the unknown potential. I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!
Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.
Sure, that aborted fetus might have been the next Albert Einstein, the next Nelson Mandela, or the next William Shakespeare. But equally, it might have been the next Pol Pot, or the next Joseph Stalin, or even the next Celine Dion.
It’s not reasonable to look at the things that didn’t happen, and only imagine the good things that might have been; You also need to imagine the bad things. Or better still, drop your idle speculation about stuff that didn’t (or won’t) happen. It’s all imaginary, so it’s not worth getting excited about.
There’s a school of thought that regards ‘reacting to imaginary things, as though those things were real’ as the very definition of insanity.
I think it is down to a particular mode of thinking, that we got used to, say for example, the simplest of things, merely influenced by sight, edged on by individuals trying to explain the science of cells being merely cells, for example: along the line of early developement, as the conversation trend sometimes seems to portay on the thread, the rethoric goes, in a manner of speaking : "it doesn't look human therefore it ain't humanoid enough to matter the conscience, even if a human life IS devloping; so it's ok to end it's existence"
Nor does it in any way explain your insane treatment of a potential as though it were an instance of the real.