In response to Whole Woman's Health vs Hellerstedt

In response to Whole Woman's Health vs Hellerstedt

As a preface, this is not a response to the Supreme Court's ruling directly nor the law it ruled as unconstitutional. This is simply my thought on some of the underlying issues.

I believe that abortion is wrong (at least in 80-98 percent of cases depending upon whose data you're looking at); I also believe that the death penalty is wrong. Now I know my position on these matters puts me at the fringe, but my reasoning is simple: I believe human life possesses intrinsic value. I deny the argument that this value is lost after some terrible offense and I deny the argument that this value is not gained until birth. 

For those that disagree over the death penalty: part of that intrinsic worth means that no amount of annual costs for keeping a prisoner alive is worth the value of that life itself. 

For those that disagree over abortion: I made the claim that human life possesses intrinsic value. Either you disagree then with the claim that human life is intrinsically valuable or you disagree with the idea that a fetus is a human life. I assume most would fall into the latter category, so allow me to petition my reasons. Is a fetus a human life? We'll certainly it's human, it possesses human DNA (as genetics is the main feature used in taxonomy), it is a human fetus. The main rub comes with classifying the fetus as a life. Again, I turn to biology where the working definition of a life is one that contains 5 characteristics: growth, response, energy use, metabolism, and reproduction. A fetus possesses all such characteristics. One might wish to interject that a fetus can't reproduce, but that qualification is simply if left to its natural life cycle. A fetus can reproduce as much as a 6 year old could, or a postmenopausal woman (or even someone who is simply infertile). A fetus is a stage of human life, akin to infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. The last argument I've heard posited is that the fetus is dependent upon the mother to be sustained. How is this any different than an infant dependent upon breastfeeding? And how does that deny the fetus life? I've heard fetuses likened to parasites as well, even a parasite is considered living. 

It is for these reasons that I defend that both the fetus and the convict are in both cases human life and that terminating such life (assuming intrinsic worth to human life) is wrong.