|
I'd add two things:
First, using birth is a very crude and inappropriate way of determining when a fetus becomes a human, in my opinion. Premature infants are not born that way, yet we consider them "human" none the less. What we're really saying is that we're allowing technology to determine when a fetus becomes human. The farther we push back the time in which we can maintain a fetus outside of the womb, the farther we push back our definition of human. I think that's an absurd way of doing thing, as one day the entire gestation process will be done artificially. When that happens, then how do we determine what is human and what is not? Each stage of pregnancy will be viable outside the uterus, so is each stage of pregnancy then human? Will abortion then be completely outlawed?
I'd also say the arguing the 9 months of pregnancy on the part of the mother somehow outweighs a lifetime of the loss of a child on the part of a father is a bit callus. I realize the mother is going to sacrifice for 9 months to bring the child to term, but on the other hand you're asking a father to give up a lifetime with a child. You can argue one is purely physical (with some emotional, don't get me wrong) and the other is purely emotional, but I'd be pregnant (if I could) if it meant I was giving a lifetime of parent/offspring "togetherness." That's especially true if I willingly took the steps to get pregnant in the first place.
And if you're wondering, and you're probably not, where I define "human" it's at syngamy. At that point you have a genetically diverse organism that under an undisturbed environment will develop into a human.
|