Prenatal Rights

The issue of prenatal rights is one of the most divisive issues in the American political culture today. On one side are the doctor-killing antifeminist Christian fascists, and on the other are the radical baby-killing satanists.

Personally, I am an atheist. So many of you will be disappointed by the fact that you can't use that ad hominem to discredit me. I am also a liberal (a communist, in fact, but we'll get to that later), so don't go sayingi don't care for people after birth. Yes, I am a male. But I seriously doubt that you believe me to be so important as to make or break the abortion debate with my gender. It would be absurd to state that human embryos and fetuses are not deserving of rights simply because some random person on the Internet has a penis.

And that is the core issue: are the thousands of creatures being killed daily by abortion organisms that other human beings have an obligation to not harm.

"Wait!", you may say. "You said 'other human beings', already assuming that there is a human being killed in an abortion. But before birth, there is no human being, merely an embryo or fetus. Your argument is circular and, thus, fallacious." I would posit you with this question:

Exactly what kind of fetus is it?

It can safely be assumed that we are discussing *human* fetuses in this debate. Thus, the fetus is indeed a human being, a living member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

I can already see you typing your responses. You're going to say that the fetus is "human", but not *a* human. We speak of a human embryo/fetus just as we speak of a human hair or a human sperm.

The problem here is confusing parts with wholes. While a gamete or somatic cell is merely part of a larger organism. The "masturbation is genocide" argument fails for this reason, so it is surprising how popular it is (but, hey, you can't expect everyone on the Internet to have a high school education!).

I have *actually* had people insist that the fetus is literally "part" of the mother. These exact same people will often call the fetus a parasite, which is interesting because the term is defined as follows:

par⋅a⋅site   [par-uh-sahyt]
–noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Clearly, the embryo or fetus does not fit the definition. But calling the human prenate ("prenate" being the term I will henceforth use to refer to any member of a viviparous species prior to birth) a parasite concedes that the he or she is a separate organism.

Many people are simply confused. They are, in the most literal definition of the word, ignorant. This is not an insult; what exactly constitutes an organism is not common knowledge. Many people believe that it has something to do with physical separation and/or biological independence. If examined further, both these criteria fall apart. The example of simbiotic relationships shines a light on why. In addition, ALL organisms require external sources of energy; to do otherwise would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In reality, an organism is any self-integrating living system. The prenate is clearly alive, as he or she is composed of living cells that metabolize, divide, and react to stimuli. The prenate's genetic code directs his or her development, so the prenate is self-integrating. I have had people contradict this, saying that a zygote left on a table will die. But notice I said self-directed and not self-sustained (which would be impossible, as I explained above).

So, the prenate is an organism. So, what kind?

Produced from human parents and possessing a human genome, the human prenate can be nothing but a living member of the species Homo s. sapiens.

Sigh. If you already knew this, I apologize. I do not mean to sound condescending, but some people need a quick primer on Biology 101, a reminder of high or possibly middle school science.

One last thing. Homicide is defined as follows:

hom⋅i⋅cide   [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-]
–noun
1.the killing of one human being by another.
2.a person who kills another; murderer.

Abortion of a human prenate is clearly homicide, as I have yet to hear of human prenates being aborted by lizards or cows or oak trees.

For the importance of species, clicky.

Notice that this was merely intended to demonstrate that the rules of morality can be validly applied to human prenates. As opposed to my opponents, my argument was founded upon the biological origins of morality and not based on arbitrary psychological distinctions or subjective æsthetic properties. The human prenate has the same rights as a human being at any other age.

Some will argue that abortion is justified even if the rules of morality can be validly applied to human prenates.

I will address you elsewhere.
But if you sincerely think that, you should not object to the personhood movement, as it wouldn't change anything. :P