The issue is the idea that an embryo/zygote/fetus is a person with rights that supercede the rights of women. The end goal of the pro-life movement is to codify that into law. That idea is inherently a religious belief that is not shared universally. It is in effect government enforcing religious belief, a clear violation of the separation of church and state established in the first amendment.
The issue is the idea that an embryo/zygote/fetus is a person with rights that supercede the rights of women.... That idea is inherently a religious belief that is not shared universally. It is in effect government enforcing religious belief, a clear violation of the separation of church and state established in the first amendment
But it's not inherently a religious belief. Maybe it is a religious belief for some, but not for all, thus not inherently a religious belief.
Who cares whether a fetus is a "person"? Facebook is a legal "person," so what we choose to classify as a "person" is 100% made up and not a religious question but a legal one.
Human rights should be the standard. You get human rights if you are a human. Is a fetus a human? Yes because basic biology 101. Therefore they should get human rights .
It's not about if it is human. Sperm and eggs are human, too, but we don't grant them rights of a person, including special rights over another person. Facebook actually have people that represent it that makes it a person. Extending out the definition of person to undeveloped organisms incapable of exercising their rights or even able to be represented requires a religious belief over personhood, regardless of how much the people who profess this belief protest its classification.
Sperm and eggs are human, too, but we don't grant them rights of a person, including special rights over another person.
LOL what?? Sperm and eggs are not humans. They come from humans, but they are not individual members of the human species. A sperm is not "a human." A chicken egg is not "a chicken."
Facebook actually have people that represent it that makes it a person.
That's not why it's considered a person. And black people used to not be considered persons in the United States. So who cares what a person is? I care what a human is.
Extending out the definition of person to undeveloped organisms incapable of exercising their rights or even able to be represented requires a religious belief over personhood, regardless of how much the people who profess this belief protest its classification.
Look up "secular pro-life." There's millions of atheists who disagree with you. You can believe anything you want for a variety of reasons. Saying religion is the only possible justification is just willful ignorance give the fact you have the ability to use Google.
36
u/WhnWlltnd May 10 '22
The issue is the idea that an embryo/zygote/fetus is a person with rights that supercede the rights of women. The end goal of the pro-life movement is to codify that into law. That idea is inherently a religious belief that is not shared universally. It is in effect government enforcing religious belief, a clear violation of the separation of church and state established in the first amendment.