I fail to see the moral difference between deciding that, since the point at which the fetus becomes human is undetermined it is "correct" to allow it to be killed ( without knowing if it is human at that point or not), and the time honored position that "others" of a different religion or group, not being "human, like US" can be killed for reasons of convenience. In BOTH cases, the person allowing the killing has made the determination that the subject individual is not human ( by whatever standards) and thus does NOT have the protection against murder that socety has provided.
I don't KNOW that Snail is a human being: Does this give me the right to say it is allowable for someone to kill Snail? THAT seems ( correct me if I misunderstand your logic) what Amos has stated.
I recognize that (IMO) the fetus has reduced rights ( since society has NOT made miscarrage the equivalent of manslaughter) BUT it bothers me that the principles that those allowing for abortion BY CHOICE have brought forward would allow ( if applied ) for the killing of ANY group that it is decided "are not human beings".
How much difference is there between Vick killing those dogs that did not perform well in fights and the killing of those fetuses that are not "convenient"? In one case, the society is up in arms, and mets out punishment: In the other, those protesting the killings are told that, since THEY were not forced to kill, it is ok to let the killings continue.
Snail,
"Your bizarre, over the top response reinforces that view."
Please let me know what you consider a "bizarre, over the top response ". I fail to see any example in my post: YOUR comment as to what ** I ** would do might qualify, though.