- Nov 2005
No. It has a LOT to do with raw information.You're being dishonest - the axiom by which you assert that "women have a right to abortion" has nothing to do with raw information, which devoid of context, has no meaning at all.
The fetus is physically inside the woman's body, attached to her and requiring her to give sustenance. This scenario is the basis of the violinist analogy:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?
There is no logic to that statement.So I just asserted that because we all began as a "dot", the "dot" should have a right to life - why is this assertion "wrong"? - it's based on the very information you provided.
It assumes that any form we have in previous years is automatically to be granted the rights that we currently have. There is no logic to that assumption.
As I and others have pointed out, we don't look at an apple and proclaim that the seeds within the apple are "apple trees". It would be nonsensical to make that assessment.
There is a clear distinction between pre-birth and post-birth.