Uh, "try to give the strongest possible argument for". Opposite of 'strawman.'
So for people who really are plunging into 'what defines human,' then the question starts to lose its meaning or power, and other criteria start to get more interesting. Instead of 'human,' then something like 'ability to suffer' or 'moral reasoning' or whatever.
-
-
and I'm absolutely not saying those criteria are perfect (check my recent poll pointing out the contradictions with all these), but they're at least *reasonable*, in the same way I consider pro-life ideas to be reasonable. This is why some people go vegetarian.
-
And if your criteria for 'its bad to kill' isn't "is human", then it's gonna be something else that maybe babies don't pass. There's lots of animals that have greater ability to reason and feel and suffer, compared to babies, that we have no problem slaughtering.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t agree that it’s fuzzy. It’s black and white. Either something is a human or it’s not. Human life begins at conception.
-
I agree that it appears very black and white, and generally is. Something appearing black and white doesn't mean that it's necessarily that way, however. Do you believe in evolution?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.