1. What is it that constitutes a human being? Is it simply the possession of human DNA? The hair follicles that have all too rapidly been leaving the top of my head contain human DNA but are not considered to be a human.
2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.
3. What separates humans from other living animals? I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.
4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.
5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?
6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.
7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.
8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.
What constitutes a human being is being the original entity conceived by a sperm and egg. Like you.
2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.
This is not a pro-life arguement, but a pro-killing one.
3. What separates humans from other living animals?
Many things. We also have a lot in common.
I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.
Many of the already born fit the above criteria. Should others have the right to kill them? Isn't this a choice?
4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.
The woman has presumably already made her choice by having sex.
5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?
Negligence of having brought said person into being.
6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.
What's the question?
7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.
The paties in question should have thought of that before they entered the contract.
8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.
It's not the baby's fault that she took the risk of conception.