| Comment | I’m not guessing what you’re thinking, I’m directly using your logical argument. I don’t need to defend my position. You haven’t attacked it in any logically solid way, just with this word “life”. Now unless you go around protecting viruses & bacteria, avoiding stepping on grass and being careful not to disturb flowers, you don’t have any moral objection to the termination of “life”.
Can you provide a good distinction of which life you are asserting is morally sacred? Otherwise your position of “life is sacred” is indefensible unless you are stating you conform to the utterly impossible standard mentioned above.
If you refine your definition to “human life”, then you might be able to self reason that’s enough. But it’s not. Are “human cells” the same as “human life”? Most people, including science and most of philosophy agree that until there is sentience, there’s no morality. In which case science is in very clear agreement of when sentience is reached. |
|---|