/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>11869162
a. I never referenced religion >>11868952 it's not a religious argument
b. I also don't mean to suggest that abortion should be strictly outlawed. I know how the prohibition worked and having women throw themselves down the stairs as an alternative isn't a good idea.
c. The value to argue for here is the value of human life. post-death, post-birth, pre-birth, pre-conception; it doesn't matter.

All cultures have some means of paying respect to the dead. Why? We're on a cooking board. Why not eat them the moment they hit the ground? It's just meat! They're just a collection of cells, right? Health concerns? Pork has health concerns, look at this thread, we have the science we can cook it to the correct internal temperature and avoid the dangerous parts.

Why do we ever attempt to care about the future past the lives that we live ourselves? When I live, should I be held accountable for actions which prevent my potential great-grandchildren from living past the age of 10, or even to be conceived at all? These 'potential' individuals don't even exist yet, so if I pollute the earth so badly that it can no longer support human life in two generations, have I actually done anything immoral? Ah, you know it.

Assigning value to human life isn't going to be scientific, but we're going to do it anyway, even if we're not religious.
In all stages of life, there is one in particular that we have allowed ourselves to get carried away with reductionism towards; the human fetus. There may be moral justifications for abortion, just like there may be moral justifications for killing another person, but it is not a decision that can be done without weight. The whole concern about how shamed women are for their abortions, it's ludicrous. It's not shame they should feel, I hope it's guilt. Guilt of ending a future of human life that they might have had because they reduced human life to just a piece of meat that by their own argument claimed was inconvenient.