Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
point for point again (3.00 / 2)
Those characteristics aren't reasons to prefer an unborn fetus over a person.

Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?  Other than the fact that it hasn't developed as much as an infant?

  You want to weaken a woman's right to choose what to do with her body by assigning rights to that zygote, embryo, or fetus that I do not recognize.

Give me a good reason why an embryo or fetus isn't human.  An embryo is less developed than a fetus, a fetus, less developed than an infant.  A baby is less developed than a kid who is in puberty, a kid who's in puberty is less developed than a 30 year old.

Aside from how easy it is, is there a reason to think this is any different?  Am I less human than I will be when I'm 21?  What's the cutoff?

How is killing okay?

Abortions are legal, and that is not going to change.  You should find a way to get over it.

Well it can't be banned now.  There's too high a demand for it.  It'd just go underground, which could get ugly.

The key is to decrease demand.  Contraceptives, sex education, all those things that the religious right cringes about need to be let in because they work.  The US is more religious than France and has a much higher abortion rate.  That's a sign our sex education isn't enough.  Abstinence doesn't work.  We need to try harder to prevent this from ever happening.

Maybe we can agree on that?

As for the pro-life, pro-choice thing.  That's just what they're called.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 03:27:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is old ground. (4.00 / 4)
"Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?"

A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:10:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is obsurd (3.00 / 2)
A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

I'm sorry, but if a person is nothing more than a legal construct, why do we care about the holocaust?  Why do we care about the destruction of the native americans?

By your definition anyone can be denied the right to live if the law says so.

US law used to say that African Slaves count as 2/3 of a person.  Even if the law says it's so, that doesn't make it true.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Like Hitler and the Jews.  Like Cortez and the Aztecs...
You can deny and deny all you want.  You haven't made a LOGICAL case.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

All I've seen out of you are emotional pleas.  I haven't heard an ounce of logical discussion out of you.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:24:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I looked up the definition of person (2.67 / 2)
http://www.thefreedictionar y.com/person
1. A living human.

http://dictionary.reference .com/browse/person

1.  a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/person
1. Human, Individual

I'm starting to suspect that you made up a definition of "person" to suit your argument.  I couldn't find anything about a person being nothing but a legal construct.

Like many who hold the pro-choice view, there's a huge gap between the facts and whatever comes out of your mouths.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:43:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legal vs. Colloquial Definitions (4.20 / 4)
http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com/Person

Note that corporations are "persons", but that an unborn fetus is not a legal person.  A "person" is an entity that has certain rights that are recognized by all.

It seems that only anti-abortionists think of zygotes, embryos, or fetuses as persons -- although the number broadens when a fetus becomes "viable".  And although I think that a viable fetus that doesn't threaten its mother should be allowed to be born, I still don't really care that much because it doesn't think, it doesn't have emotions, it isn't conscious, makes no intentional attempts to communicate, and I can't shake hands with it.

It isn't a person, as I understand the word.

But I might be wrong once it becomes viable, so I'm interested in seeing that pregnancy proceed normally.  Nevertheless, I'll give the person, with whom I can shake hands, the benefit of the doubt in all other situations.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (4.20 / 4)
The category "human being" also be used to include creatures that have such deformities in the womb that they stand no chance of living after they've passed through the birth canal, possibly killing the mother.  "Human being" is not a sufficient categorization to prohibit abortions.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:32:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)