How much have you studied history? Slave owners in America were not allowed to murder their slaves or torture them because they were considered human. "In State v. Hoover (1839) the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for a master who tortured his slave to death. Shortly before the Civil War, a few Southern states made rape of a slave a crime, although there is no instance of a white man being prosecuted for such a crime." Paul Finkelman, author of several books on American slavery and law.
Laws have varied over time and in different places. The Bible allows for some form of slavery so man being created in the image of God is not a sufficient argument for Abolition. I don't think my moral code allows for slavery, murder, or most other crimes. Therefore, I think it is a superior system when weighed by the outcomes of its implementation.
I get that your shtick as a blogger is to be inflammatory and argumentative, but when we strip the name-calling and silliness away from your posts, there's nothing left. It just doesn't feel productive. I've stated repeatedly what my moral code is, I've cited philosophical grounding for it (Kant, Bentham, the long tradition of Humanism), and I've provided definitions for seemingly every word I've used. I've told you what I believe and why. I honestly don't know what other kinds of justification you want.
Please provide a positive argument for your definitions. Explain to me why we should define the conceptus as a human.
And the Dred Scott decision? 3/5 of human ≠ human.
True, your moral code doesn't allow for slavery, murder, or most other crimes, but how many times do I have to ask you to justify your moral code and tell us why it's correct before you'll do so?
--"I think it is a superior system when weighed by the outcomes of its implementation."
Well, I'm sorry, but that judgment merely begs the question that your moral code is the correct one by which to judge outcomes.
--"the name-calling and silliness away from your posts"
Would it be asking too much if I asked you to quote me calling you a name?
--"Explain to me why we should define the conceptus as a human"
-of all the things I've said so far wrt the relatedness of murder, kidnapping, and slavery.
-"viability" is fraught with absurdities as I've demonstrated.
-the point of conception is the only time in the life of the baby at which bestowing rights is not arbitrarily up to the whim of the powerful.
-it's the verdict of science - http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
-it is a simple matter to reduce any pro-choicer to absurdity by taking a stepwise order of questioning. Like so:
Prochoice: Life begins with brainwaves
Prolife: What about one second before brainwaves occur? Is it human life then?
-a new human begins at conception - DNA, blood type, all that stuff.
-size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency do not affect personhood/humanity in any other case, so why would we think it affects it in this case?
-most importantly, b/c God has decreed that's when life begins, and you don't get to change it nor supersede His authority. It's not your life to take, and it's not the mother's either. Your argument is with God. You may not believe in God, but that changes nothing about the reality of the situation. You may say that the God hypothesis is irrational, but your absurd answers (and non-answers) to my questions belie the truth that's not the case.
One will search in vain for that level and quality of argumentation in the pro-baby-murder camp. Nothing to do with me, everything to do with truth.