Jebslund wrote:Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:This was always my issue with 90% of the pro-life arguments. If a fetus is given human rights based on the fact that its purpose is to develop into a walking, breathing human, then could you not use the same argument to defend sperm cells? Do they have human rights, too? If a fetus absorbs its twin (which happens more often than I initially expected), is that murder? There is no possible explanation for a fetus counting as a separate human being that doesn't bring up many other questions that, while definitely answerable, do not have answers that make logical sense.
That's because 90% of pro-life arguments are essentially knee-jerk reactions to killing what they perceive as a baby and imagining a born infant being torn apart with no regard for context. I noticed in IM's Operation Big Dog thread that people seemed to be making the same sort of knee-jerk reactions: Ignoring the context (there, dogs that had essentially been driven to the point of madness, here, a nonsapient clump of cells) and reacting based on a worst-case-scenario version of it (there, reacting as if the dogs in question were normal house animals, here, reacting as if we were talking about dismembering infants) out of a sense of moral outrage.
You're misunderstanding the context for that.
IM is someone who as in the past expressed vile loathing for dogs, and the desire to see them horribly killed. It terms of your analogy: he is someone who wants to dismember infants. He derives glee from doing so.
So when someone who loves dismembering infants creates, "hypothetical: for a million dollars, you have to dismember 3000 infants," you get a little suspicious as to their motivation.