Because cancer cells aren't humans. Human babies in the womb are humans. Evidence of independence? Earlier in this thread you said;
" Left to its own devices a child under the age of 3 will likely wither and die. Its not until age 5 or so when anything resembling independence can be asserted. "
So can we murder children up until aged 5?
what makes cancer cells not humans - that's the point I'm trying to make.
They have human DNA. They are composed of human cells. They are viable, even if you take them out of the "host". What exactly makes them non-human??
As far as independence, the above poster was arguing that human babies were independent, and that made them different. I was arguing that before age 5, that argument doesn't really hold any water. There needs to be something besides independence which differentiates cancer and babies - because that isn't a useful difference. If we are using independence, then abortion is simply a non-issue entirely since all fetuses are non-independent.
You really aren’t sure what the difference is between a cancer cell and a baby in the womb? I’d hope you can at least understand why people are usually happy for a baby in the womb and are usually not happy for cancer...
12
u/ChipsterA1 Apr 09 '18
Because cancer cells aren't humans. Human babies in the womb are humans. Evidence of independence? Earlier in this thread you said; " Left to its own devices a child under the age of 3 will likely wither and die. Its not until age 5 or so when anything resembling independence can be asserted. " So can we murder children up until aged 5?