08-15-2015, 11:42 PM
(08-15-2015, 11:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You guys just aren't getting his point.
The point is, even though a fetus is, technically, "living", just like sperm cells or skin cells, it has not developed enough to be considered a human being. So the question being raised is, "Just because something is technically living, just like skin cells, bacteria, etc., does that mean it has rights?"
I was guessing he may be driving that way, but if that's his point, it's not a good one. I don't consider sperm cells or bacteria to be similar in importance to a "fetus".
As a human myself, maybe I'm biased. Sperm cells (on their own) and bacteria don't develop into human beings, whereas fetuses actually are human beings in the first stages of life.
In short, I really don't care too much about the lives of bacteria. I do think unborn human beings should have rights. I don't dehumanize them and think of them as being on a similar level to bacteria. You say that a fetus isn't developed enough to be considered a human being. What is "developed enough"? In my view, once the egg is fertilized and the genes of two humans are combined, it's a human life. Development in the womb is just part of the process of growing into an adult human.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
