Rahvin writes:
Your belief is inconsistent, else you would be screaming about the moral imperative to find ways to save the 60% of pregnancies that fail prior to even being detected.
Ef every zygote is a human being with this "soul" thing you imagine might exist, then every human zygote carries equal moral weight to a fully grown human being.
If every zygote carries equal moral weight to a fully grown human being, then the same moral imperative to save the life of an adult (curing diseases, performing heart surgery, performing CPR, etc) applies to those zygotes who fail to implant on the uterine wall or otherwise fail to develop further.
If the same moral imperative to save life exists, then you should be advocating for new laws and medical technologies to help those poor human zygotes implant and develop properly, to the same degree that you advocate cancer research; more so, because the number of "children" who die because zygotes fail to implant in a given year would dwarf most other causes of death.
I already expressed my hope that science would do research in this area. I also note that the loss of zygotes you are discussing are natural not an intentional act by a person.
Rahvin writes:
If the same moral imperative exists, then just as a drunk driver is held morally accountable for anyone he kills while driving, so too would a mother be morally accountable for miscarrying due to alcohol or tobacco use.
I agree, women who abuse the human being in their womb should be warned about the dangers, but I don't see how that can be policed, but morally they should be aware of their actions.
Rahvin writes:
If the same moral imperative exists, then every woman who aborts a child and every doctor who performs an abortion is a murderer, and the rest of us are all accessories. You should think that everyone who supports a woman's right to choose is a supporter of baby murder.
I advocate the legal banning of abortion.
Rahvin writes:
And I certainly don't buy into the "soul" bullshit. There is no such thing as a soul. Nobody has one
I assume that conclusion is based upon rational proof, or is it just "your" belief? Are we now required to accept your beliefs as "the sine qua none" of our existence?