Again, the burden of proof is on your side. Your side must show why existing laws against murder, which you believe in, should not apply equally to all.
Nope. Your side is the one that pushes to extend the power of current laws over new territory. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Simple example. Dorothy is convinced her cat is the reincarnation of her grandmother, Wilma, and therefore should be accorded the respective rights Wilma once had. Before society does that, Dorothy must prove her claim. Society is under no obligation to accord the rights automatically and then try to disprove Dorothy's claim if they believe the cat is just a cat.
That's not true. Some of them are adopted and brought to term.
Certainly not the grades B, C, and D. Also, when there is no space, even grade A are flushed down the drain and nobody goes to jail over it.
I was pointing out why you ought to know that embryos are human and treat them as such.
I have never questioned that they are genetically human. My extension of rights is sociologically based as described in a different thread.
It's interesting to me that you aspire to be so rational and objective, yet you wish to further subjectify law with issues such as personhood or sentience.
Nothing subjective about it. Laws are about duties and rights. Both categories are fundamentally social, contextual, and conditional. Thus the natural way to handle them is sociological, not genetic.
Btw, the insistence on common genetics as a basis of absolute rights is rather curious to me. What if Homo Sapiens splits into multiple species, e.g. as a result of natural mutations or eugenics? What are you going to do then?
It's not my assumption, it's the logical extension of the concept of human rights we all agree to.
It is a logical extension only if rights are genetics-based. We certainly not all agree to that.
Btw, the skin cells you naturally shed every day are also genetically human. Should we afford them rights as well? I can take any one of them, extract the nucleus, clone it into a fertilized egg, and produce a new fistful in 9 months. Since your skin cell gave life to Fistful MkII, is it entitled to equal rights? If it is, we are all mass-murderers. If it is not, genetics is a poor basis for social rights.
Preventing the conception of the smart, beautiful fourteen-year-old, on the other hand, is called birth control. You're not opposed to that, are you?
I have no contradictions because I am both pro-choice and pro-birth-control. The question is where
you stand.
And this is not about birth control. Based on your position, you would have prevented her from existence, without being her parent.