well, let's think about what a life is, and think about what alive is and then think about what a human life is.
What's the difference?
- A plant is alive, cells are alive, virus's are alive, so being 'alive' is no right to life.
- fending for yourself, outside of the womb, an animal can do that, and they have no right to life anymore than a virus does, so that doesnt hold up.
- being an individual. A person that can speak for themself, and give their own reason for why they have a right to live, that is a person. That's what gives you a right to life.
But if that is a person, then you have to be able to speak and rationalize to argue that, so that means that anything under like the age of 5 doesnt have a right to life.
No, you have to consider, the right to live in society is an individual, and if an individual cant defend themselves (child, coma etc) we have to define what an individual is for them, and the only way you can do that, is by looking at their DNA and the DNA from fertiliziation until death, through comatose, and lost limbs, or being forced to live in an iron lung, through all of that your DNA does not change.
So once taht DNA sequence is created, I argue that that individual exists, and if you destroy it, you are destroying the individual, and if an individual is what we define as a life, then you are comitting an act of murder.
I jsut dont think that you can say that fending for yourself compares to this argument.
|