Replies

-Using the example of eating as a comparison to sex is a fundamentally flawed argument. Food provides daily sustenance and nutrition that we as humans need to survive. Sex does no such thing. One can not live much longer than a fortnight without food; one can live a lifetime without sex. Sex has no manifest daily importance in our lives. We do not die if we do not have sex. Thus, the urgency that some people apparently feel for sex may not be unfounded, but it can not be in any way compared with the urge to eat, which is roughly on par with the urge to live. Hey, sex may seem really important to you. But I don’t know of many great men who died saying something like: “Well, at least I got lots of action.”

-I don’t think you have any basis for saying a fertilized seed is the same as a fertilized human egg. That is lame and totally ignorant. Heck, you can’t even defend that in a utilitarian sense, dropping all morality.

-You know, this argument that a fetus is not human and therefore open to termination reminds me of other historical viewpoints. That African Americans were not human, and thus subject to the [“superior”] white man. That the Untermensch were somewhat lesser than humans and so could be cast aside and erased from the earth to make room for the rest of us. You will no doubt dismiss this comparison as ludicrous. But then after all, did the Germans react any differently than you when people like me stood up for those they oppressed? Did the plantation owners? You have all the “modern” science you need to convince you that no, you are in fact justified this time around in calling our subject less than human. But one day soon your science will be that of an ever-more-distant past. And so far my side of this argument has two victories, while yours has none. The question, I think, is are you prepared to be on the wrong side of history?