Conniesim

After reading this lengthy set of posts I find most of the arguments nothing more than an intellectual exercise the purpose of which is to justify aggression against a completely vulnerable human being. It is a fact that after fertilization the embryo is human. Potential is irrelevant. The embryo will never be anything other than a human being. When we agree to justify our aggression against another human being we are complicit in all acts of aggression against other humans who for whatever reason are weaker than we are. A woman ( and I am one) is biologically designed to carry the new human to the level of development so that they are capable of existing outside the protected environment of the womb. Even at that point, the newborn infant is incapable of sustaining life without another human willing to care for them until they are capable of caring for themselves. The entire process of pregnancy and birth equip us to care for this helpless human. I posit that denying this biological imperative is the root of all aggression against humans including ourselves because it is contradictory to our deepest subconscious drive to live and perpetuate our species. The damage that occurs when we deny our most fundamental reason for existence isn't something we necessarily recognize or are aware of but is profound. Stefan has postulated that the reason that some women are so fixated on "helping" others is that because they are substituting the "others" for those children they do not have. I agree with him and would state that the drive to find substitutes demonstrates this fundamental drive. Abortion, is in direct opposition to our fundamental reason for being and is actually the ultimate aggression against ourselves and is therefore immoral.