Life 2

Okay, I really feel like picking on somebody right now. Two people come to mind, Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff and this website “Abortion is Pro life;” weird, huh? Somebody get a bucket of ice cuz I’m mad as an inferno! Here we go.

“A fetus is human,” so far so good, “in the sense that it contains human DNA;” okay a little touchy, “however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult).” Ouch. “As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree.” Barf.

I don’t know, but two and two aren’t making four. Let’s get a few major points out of this.

Okay, the opening line is about the fetus being human in the sense of having the same DNA as anybody else. That phrase “in the sense” bugs me. Of course fetuses have the same DNA! What does that prove; that babies have the same cellular structure as any other adult they grow up to be? I thought so.

Second argument: a fetus is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence… So what about those people in the world deformed, mentally retarded, etc. who can’t survive on their own physiologically? They aren’t fetuses anymore, but have they somehow become dehumanized? And another thing, I have absolutely no clue as to the difference between human and human being. A farmer doesn’t say to a visitor, “That there is my box of chicken like filled eggs, and over there is the chicken!”

Third argument: fetuses are “potential” human beings, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. For once draw a line. The example these people put forth is irrelevant: besides being made of cells and growth that is about all the similarities between man and plants ( i.e. trees do not have brains like the ones Peikoff and Rand trashed).

These two have made a very common error by interpreting the fetus as a bunch of live mindless tissue composed of DNA. People, let’s get one thing straight, we’re all made of DNA and tissue and just because something is smaller and less developed doesn’t make it less human. (I’m still developing and am human at the same time; imagine that!).

I’ll give one more quote from Peikoff and then shut-up on this subject. "All these forms of life have no rights. The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient." And who are YOU, Peikoff, to tell Anyone what his or her rights are? If a fetus is human, as you have still not disproved, you sound like someone from the eighteenth century, except they applied your rule to other races! I mentioned the Negro Project in The History Lesson…see if you can connect the dots, people. These writers don’t argue that the fetus isn’t alive, unlike some. They take their arguments even further by defining life as meaningful only in certain stages, which makes absolutely no sense.

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm