Johnlocke, I've already previously provided a link which indicates that a fetus is unable to feel until the 20th week. Their brains are not developed enough, which is the source of pain, not the heart.

I don't know of anyone who advocates third trimester elective abortions.

Yet do you truly believe this?

Removing Welfare harms innocent children, who had no choice in where they were born, or to whom.

Going to war against another nation harms innocent children.

Allowing companies to freely pollute the air and water harms innocent children.

The Jains really do believe in the absolute sanctity of life - to the point where a devout Jain will wear a cloth mask, and gently brush the ground before them as they walk, so as not to harm even a bug by accident.

To make the argument that all human life is equally sacred, we must consider these other areas as well. You might say, removing welfare may harm innocent children now, but in the long run it will help. OK, I can buy that logic, even if I don't agree with it. But one could argue the same thing about abortion. It harms these foetuses now, but in the long run, it subjects fewer born children to harm. We make these kinds of judgements all the time. As a nation, we are willing to sacrifice the lives of both foreign civilians and our own soldiers for what we consider a greater long-term good, every time we make war.

Though we may preach otherwise, all of us make decisions based on situational ethics. We do value certain lives more than others - both in the direct sense (families, friends) and in the abstract (Americans vs. Iraquis, etc).

The question which may be most pertinent to abortion then, is are there long term benefits from safe legal abortions? I truly don't know the answer to this - it is a deep and complex question. However, to take this argument down to the level of the sanctity of life is specious. It appeals to emotions, certainly, but unless we also apply this thinking to other issues, it is a false argument, because it is reflecting something (that all life is equally sacred) which we don't really believe.

In Texas you have the right to shoot someone dead who is running away with your TV. I believe this is true in most "red" states.

Definition. Anything more than that is simply subjective opinion. Hardly something to kill someone over...

Really?! Well then I disagree with that also, unless it's one of those $5,000 plasma screens. Then it's shoot to kill.


I would add to that (in light of your post). The question is: Are there benefits to abortion that are worth killing a human being. Let's not consider the benefits without considering the costs...

Barely there?

It's heart is beating and it's thinking. If it could breath, it would. You're opinion may be "barely there", but many of us believe it's either there or it's not. Left to nature, the chances are very, very high that "barely there" person would grown up to be an old lady/man.

And non-feeling? Non-congetive? Are these additional criteria used to justify killing?

Why not delve into what the baby has to be thinking if we know all these other things? Why justify it based on what we think we know? We know that babies brain's are working as soon as 6 weeks into a pregnancy. Babies can hear from the womb (my wife played music to our daughter all the time). Babies kick and stretch from inside the womb. Many of these things are well beyond simple muscle reflex.

But tell me, if a baby were capable of making this decision, do you think these children, based on what you tell it (i.e. "trust me, your life will suck. You're better off dead") would agree that death is the best option? This isn't like pulling the plug on a terminally ill patient. If we did nothing, statistically speaking, it will live and flourish (unless we fail to supply it with what it normally can't get for itself).

But my facetious point is the same. If you are going to interfere with a child's opportunity at life because you know it will be worse than death, why not legalize killing them at any age if you are going to use that excuse? Is it because an 8 year old can tell you to go to hell and a fetus can't? If it's because of pain, we have medicines that can deal with that.

All is not lost on me. The difference in our opinions are fundamental. You don't believe a viable fetus in the womb is human and not a person. And I strongly disagree. The difference between me and many other pro-life people is, I can agree that until a fetus has a beating heart and brain activity (which is our standard definition of not being dead), it's not alive. If we felt we had to do something (which I still don't agree with, but concede we need to deal with because it's the reality), that's the time to do it. Not wait 3 months later.

We have a scientific definition for the state of life

A fetus is most certainly alive at all stages of development from one second to nine months...

But I do believe a viable fetus is a person, I've never said otherwise.

We have a definition for person, too. A fetus fits it as well. A fetus, at all stages of development is a person.

By the American Heritage Dictionary a sperm, ovum, blastula, zygote and embryo is a person, turnea. When roughly 80% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously terminate is a person dying? Am I guilty of genocide for using a condom or a woman for using the pill? From sperm on up the ladder, they constitute life and they are distinctly human. Yet they are not considered persons.

If you would read the last link I had provided, you would see why I draw the distinction between a person at the ability to possess consciousness and survive outside the womb. Broadly applying the term person extends beyond what I think you're willing to go... unless of course you would similarly argue that contraception, masturbation and menstrual cycles are all forms of genocide and suicide?


So let me get this straight... they have equal rights, yet you support subverting the woman's right in order to give rights to what may or may not result as an individual member of society? A fetus may be human, but it is not an individual member of society, those persons we grant protection under law.


If I have a health condition which may or may not progress to endanger my life, I have the right to see a doctor about correcting it. Similarly, if a woman has a health condition which may or may not impose on or threaten her life, she too can see a doctor about correcting it. Pregnancy requires the woman to undergo nine months of biological changes that she has a choice about. She can either attempt to carry to term and deal with any and all health issues may come of it... OR she can choose not to take any risk at all and have the pregnancy terminated.

Denying a woman this choice is removing her rights to control what her body may or may not do. Pregnancy is a biological function a woman can control at different stages, even if she doesn't have a say in the process of conception.


I realize science might not be your thing, Dayton, but how many times must we explain that the heart isn't responsible for thinking or breathing? The heart develops much sooner than the lungs so by no stretch does a beating heart equate to breathing and thinking.

Left to nature, there's an 80% chance that the fertilized egg, at any stage of development, is likely to spontaneously terminate.

Our ability to think is what makes us distinctly human, DaytonRocker. The body is just a mass of tissue without the mind. There is a reason people who are brain dead do not get to make their decisions about their health.

Without the ability to think, a human does not have the ability to understand or express any rights. Besides this, we grant rights only to members of society, which a zygote, embryo or fetus is not guaranteed to become. They are no more or less a person than an individual sperm or ovum by the definition of person being thrown around. For the same reasons we don't grant rights to these individual gametes, we don't grant rights to blastulas, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.

A sperm cell is not a member of the species Homo sapiens. A sperm is a part of a member.

Man is an animal: True
Man is animal: false
Makes a world of difference...


Using the legal definition to justify itself again?


It is important to consider what rights come into play on both sides, I think the example I posted earlier applies.

You want to give legal rights, do you not?
You want to change the legal definition of a human to consider anything and everything that is part of our species, regardless of whether it can think, breathe or biologically function on its own. On what grounds do you propose to give an unconscious, unviable lifeform legal rights?

Remember, this is a lifeform which may or may not become a functioning member of either our species or our society. Genetically speaking, it is homo sapien. Genetically speaking, sperm and ovum are also homo sapien. So why should this slightly larger, but still unconscious and unviable, lifeform be granted any rights when it has no ability to understand or exercise them? Indeed, it may never have such an ability.

Furthermore, to give this lifeform rights requires the suspension of rights for an already viable member of both the species and society. It requires the suspension of rights for a conscious lifeform in favor of an unconscious one. This is a big difference from somebody stealing your television. That scenario involves two viable, conscious entities who are both members of the species and of society. Furthermore, stealing the television does not in anyway endanger the life of the home owner as pregnancy can the pregnant woman.

I see no reason at all to change the legal definition or to offer legal protection to a fertilized egg until it reaches a stage of viability and consciousness, which is roughly between the 25th and 30th week. No viable, conscious member of our species or society should be expected or forced to forgo her rights in the interest of an unconscious, unviable potential. And yes, it is only a potential. There is no guarantee what-so-ever that a blastula, zygote, embryo or fetus will be born a viable, conscious member of either our species or society.

Now we get down to the difficulty of subjective judgement. In my opinion, a fetus' status as a living person should be enough to grant it legal rights. Clearly you disagree.

The judgment on whose life is valuable enough to protect by law, however, is purely personal and subjective. Since the question asked was "Why is abortion legal?" I'm going to turn your question around a bit...

Why, based purely on your opinion that this person's life does not have value equal to that of a person after birth, would you support a legal situation that allows that person to be killed? If the final choice is subjective, why choose death?

Good question, and one which is individual to each 'chooser'. Most women do not 'choose death'. The ultimate question is, should the chooser be the carrier woman, or the government?

Here's where my liberal side shows itself...

I believe that the government has a responsibility to protect a person's life regardless of whether or not other people consider that person's life valuable. If I'm not mistaken we have made mistakes going down that particular road before. Public opinion should not rule this issue,

Better living through government...

Previously, turnea, you chose to define person as such:
My search from dictionary.com turned up different results:

• A living human...
  
  
• An individual of specified character...
  
  
• The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
  
  
• The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.[]*Physique and general appearance.
  
  
• Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
  
  

You've had a beef with my using the legal definition and say that anything more than what you provided from the dictionary is subjective opinion, despite omitting other definitions.

Yet, while you have carried on using the definition you found in the American Heritage Dictionary (from your search), you have also had a problem with my identifying a person as being a conscious and viable member of society. I have expanded my identification of a person to focus on consciousness and the ability to identify self, something characterized by dictionary.com's second and third definitions.


You and I still disagree on what constitutes a person deserving of rights. I don't consider anything with human characteristics that fits the definition of living to be a person. For me a person is an individual, a conscious lifeform with a sense of self and personality, however immature. A fetus prior to viability and consciousness does not fit this.

As I have said before, a human sperm is both distinctly human and alive, but clearly not a person. The sense of self and consciousness is to me, and others, what defines a person. This is also consistent with definitions provided by the dictionary, since this appears to be your litmus test of legitimacy. Without the capacity for consciousness, all that remains is a mass of tissue. An organism is no more capable of action or decisions without the capacity for consciousness than a rock.

Just as the case with once viable citizens who are rendered brain dead, the decisions made regarding their bodies is made by other conscious individuals. The difference between the two is that a zygote, embryo or fetus has at no time ever been a viable, conscious member of the species or society. Besides this, their presence directly affects the health and comfort of the pregnant woman.

You see this as putting one person above another, but there is as yet no other person to speak of. There is no separate consciousness to take into consideration, no separate self/individual. Meanwhile, there is a conscious woman with legal rights that you are arguing should be set aside in favor of what may or may not develop a consciousness and sense of self. What is being favored is placing the life of a potential individual over the life of an established individual.

The government should not subvert the right of any of its citizens in favor of a life which may or may not become an individual member of society. While individuals are alive, not all life represents an individual. Just as a sperm is alive but not a person, so too are zygotes, embryos and fetuses alive without representing individuals. The individual is the result of consciousness and sense of self. Without this all you have is tissue.

*Without the development of the brain leading to conscioussness there are also no signals prompting the body to continue functioning indpendent of the maternal biology, leaving not only a mass of tissue, but a lifeless mass of tissue.

Edited:For clarity between human and person. Change marked by like font... apologies for confusion

I didn't omit them, we already discussed them and I though the point of alternate definitions was settled since you didn't mention them in your four posts after I responded to your initial argument about them. Perhaps the difference is because the definition you quoted is that for "human" (I meant to make that bold type to indicate it was the word being defined, sorry if it caused confusion )

You have already implied you agree that according to the dictionary, a fetus is a person.

Do you stand by that conclusion?


It is true that the dictionary includes definition's that presuppose consciousness of the subject in question (in this case the fetus). However, it is not necessary that all these definitions apply in order for a fetus to be considered human.

For example not every "tank" has to be an armored vehicle to be a tank...

Anything that fits under the definitions can be described by the word being defined, therefore a fetus is a person.


..and yet we have already established it fits the definition of person as well...

A definition based only on your opinion of the meaning of the word. I am of the opinion that words must have objective definitions...

..and I think we really can't go any further until we reach a conclusion as to whether we both believe a fetus is human or not. Thoughts?

If you think you can get a Constitutional amendment passed that says that, hey, who am I to stop you? Go for it.

Ah, you did define human. Yet we haven't been arguing about whether an embryo or fetus is human, have we? The argument as been about the rights of persons to which the definition of human is irrelevant.


As this was in response to your presented definition of human, mistaken by me to be the definition of person, no I do not. I made the statement questioning the definition as a sperm, ovum, blastula, etc. are not persons. Now that I realize I was misreading the definition as that of a person, my confusion is cleared away.


Before we confuse definitions again, consciousness is not presupposed for being human but for being a person. We do agree that sperm and ovum on up to a fetus are human. What we disagree on is what constitutes a person. The capacity for consciousness is what distinguishes an individual, a person. If being human is all that is required for being a person then sperm, ovum, blasulas and zygotes could all be persons.


We have just cleared that up. It fits the definition of human, not the definition of a person. As I was getting at before, there is a difference.


Again, from the dictionary definition of person:

• An individual of specified character...
• The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

It is not merely my opinion of the word but part of the objective definition of a person. I pointed this out as it certainly does appear to be your litmus test.

We have already decided a fetus is a human. I have supported the distinction that a fetus is human from the start, short of any confusion over our definitions of person and human. A fetus is human... so is a sperm, ovum, blastula and zygote. Human does not equate to person though.

Let's look at my example of the word "tank again.

Anything that fall under any one of the definitions is a tank.

Now let's look at the definition of person.


A fetus is a person under definition one. This does not mean we can pick which definition we think is valid. A fetus is a person simply because one of these definitions applies. Make sense?

This is obviously an on going debate and I appear to have fallen behind so pardon me if these posts seems a little out of order.

MrsP...abortion is still legal well past the third trimester and "they can't feel it" is not a reason to mutilate human life.

Quark...your examples are far from similar to the topic at hand. To protect one's child from murder is not the same as protecting it from air pollution, save that air pollution was life threatening and the moment at hand was essential to life.



Edited to add: Getting lost in a definition takes away from the fact that people are murdering children.

There are at least three under which a fetus is not a person.

The fetus remains a lifeform without consciousness or the ability to survive independant of the woman's biological function. The woman has the choice over what she does or does not put into her body. She similarly has the choice over whether or not she maintains or removes something from her body.

No fertilized egg is guaranteed to develop into a conscious, independently viable lifeform. Our legal system grants rights to conscious, independently viable lifeforms that we identify as persons/individuals. With no guarantee of becoming a conscious, independently viable lifeform (whether you call this a person or not), such a lifeform should not be given rights which inherently subvert those of an already conscious and independantly viable member of our society.

There can not be equal rights given to both a fetus and a woman. To give a fetus any rights is to subvert the rights of women in favor of an unconscious and independently unviable mass of tissue. The woman has a right over those biological functions of her body which she can control. It is unable to retain such rights if bestowing rights upon any stage of fertilized egg because it immediately requires the woman to forgo her right to the reproductive process of her own body.

There is no reason I can see to subvert the rights of women in support of a potential individual which may or may not develop into a viable and conscious individual independent of the woman. Representing only the potential for an individual with the capacity for consciousness, no stage of development for a fertilized egg prior to independent viability and consciousness should be recognized as a citizen protected under the rights of our laws.

Abs,
Your explanation of how dependent a fetus is on its' mother only serves to push the argument that legislation need be in place to protect such a vulnerable baby. A one year old is long out of the womb and it is also dependent on it's mother. Furthermore if a woman doesn't want to have to "remove" this fetus from her body, she should be more concious about what she does "put" in her body. Babies need not suffer for the "mistakes" a woman makes. Women are not sovereign beings above the law and just because it's "their body" doesn't make it okay to murder.

As for the last part of your argument, Abs. I'll agree that granting too much sovereignty to the child could alienate the rights of perfectly good parents, but rightfully so a sword swings one way and comes back around again. Granting a mother complete sovereignty of her body (which nobody really has despite the illusion the Supreme Court would have us see) alienates the rights of the child. Hence some form of middle ground must be sought. It's usually the Liberals telling Conservatives that there are gray areas in life....this seems to be the opposite situation. If people had the actual choice about what goes into their body, I wouldn't be hiding joints at Bob Dylan Concerts

However, one years olds can be sent to an adoption center where they will be cared for. A 1 year old can survive without the help of the mother, as long as someone else can take care of it.

So, if you extend this to a fetus, which you are claiming is as much alive as a baby, then we should be able to send a fetus to an adoption center and have it taken care of.

Well then, why don't we just do that! In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the child, at whatever stage of development, is taken from the womb and sent to an adoption agency! I'm sure the procedure wouldn't be anymore taxing than a partial birth abortion.

Please note the difference between surviving indpendent of the woman's biological function rather than simply surviving outside the womb, John. A newborn infant which has reached a stage of independant viability and consciousness can survive outside the womb and tended by anyone. An embryo or undeveloped fetus can't survive without one specific woman's biological function.

Murder takes the life of an individual, John. As it stands, without the capacity for consciousness or a sense of self, there is no more of an individual being terminated than there is with any non-reproductive ejaculations (sperm) or menstruations (ovum).


There is no reason to grant any sovereignity or rights to a mass of tissue lacking the capacity for thought or the biological ability to survive independant of the woman's biological function. There are no rights granted to the zygote, embryo or fetus and none should be granted. While the potential for any embryo or fetus to develop into a conscious and viable individual, it is only a potential. We should not subvert the rights of an established individual, a viable and conscious member of our society, for the unknown potential of another.

There are a number of definitions under which an "Abrams'" is not a tank.

Clearly an Abrams is a tank, and a fetus is a person. Both statements are objectively true.


Purely your opinion. As I've mentioned before public opinion alone should not be the based for this country's abortion laws. Any person's life should be protected regardless of how many people consider his/her life valuable enough to protect.

A fetus no more qualifies as a person than a sperm or ovum (living human). They are not individuals with the capacity for consciousness, the abililty to survive independant of another organism's biological function or possess a sense of self. The one definition you're appealing to is also specified to be in regards to such usage as "chairperson, salesperson, etc."


For the same reason a brain dead patient on life support doesn't get in line for a liver transplant, an unviable embryo or fetus doesn't get to usurp the legally protected rights of a woman. There is no individual self to grant rights to when discussing a zygote, embryo or fetus. Brain dead individuals have the decisions about their life support made by conscious and viable individuals because without the capacity for consciousness they don't have the right to decide.

Like a sperm or ovum, a fetus is alive. Like a sperm or ovum, a fetus is human. They are not persons. Without the capacity for consciousness or the ability to survive independant of another's biological functions, a mass of tissue does not get to subvert the rights of that organism it relies on.

Our capacity for consciousness is what makes us distinctly human. It is the only thing which separates us from other animals and the various stages of development along the reproductive line. The only difference between a sperm or ovum and an embryo or fetus is the stage of development. Sperm, eggs and fetuses are all merely potential persons with no guarantee for any of them.

A fetus, lacking the ability to survive independant of the host organism and lacking the capacity for consciousness, shouldn't get to take over a woman's conscious decisions regarding her own body simply because of the potential it represents. There is no obligation for a woman or any organism to sustain the life of another at the expense of their own physical well being and rights to their own body.

I've been following this debate, and have noted that Abs Like Jesus has mentioned this in many of his responses. And each and every time, it was ignored by johnlocke and turnea. I've been waiting, and waiting, and waiting to see how they respond to this statement, and they haven't. They'd quote specific parts of Abs Like Jesus' posts and for some reason or another not respond to this one. So I'm going to jump in and just ask this question directly to turnea and johnlocke: why do you support placing the rights of a potential person (please don't start debating me about the meaning of the word person, that side argument simply is too long-winded for me to follow) above the rights of the mother, whom is already established in society, and whom has to sustain it? If you're going to argue the "innocence" factor, please note that whether someone is innocent or not is purely subjective. After all, that forming child does cause the mother extreme pain and discomfort, and all other sorts of nasty things I wouldn't know about because I've never been pregnant. It's guilty of draining the mother's resources and giving nothing in return, aka a parasite. It's not completely innocent of anything and everything.

Sorry if you think I've been avoiding the question, I just thought it was a secondary concern to the issue. My answer is simple, because a fetus is a living human being, I believe that its right to live should be legally protected except when the life of the mother is put at a significant risk. Along the same priciple as killing is self-defense.

That is to say a fetus, being a human being as much as you or I, should not have it's life ended simply because of the discomfort (extreme though it may be) which it unintentionally causes. Make Sense?

As to the definition of person: for the benefit of you and Abs Like Jesus I'll sum it up quickly. It really is quite simple and enlightening, I would appreciate your response to the argument SuzySteamboat. The debate has been pretty much between me and Abs and I want to make sure I make sense . To figure out whether a fetus is a person, look to the definition of person. In this case I will cite one to make things quick.

A fetus is a living human. Unlike a sperm or egg which is only part of a greater living human . Therefore a fetus is a person.
I, for one, find that clear, you're opinion?

We've already discussed this before, but I recap my argument above if you want to see it again...

There is a big difference between "specified to be used as" and "often used in" as I'm sure you know...

Believe me, as that zygote changes to a fetus and then a child it will sure as hell drain a lot of resources. The economic cost by the time it reaches 21 will be enormous. Let me tell you this, and I hope your parents can tell you the same, the returns are enormous. They can't be measured economically. That is the problem with the pro-abortion position, it thinks everything should be quantified economically.

Yep, we were all parasites once. Most of us , if allowed to, outgrow it.

Ah. But this philosophy is rarely carried out in any other situation. If I have type O blood and was the only one able to donate to a man with critical blood loss, I wouldn't have to donate my blood. Sure, it would save his life, but legally, I don't have to give up my body fluid in order to save someone else, even if my only objection is that it's "uncomfortable."

What makes this situation different?

Intentional killing versus allowing someone to die. A big difference. Not much morally, but there is (and should be) a difference legally. Abortion falls under the former category.

Certainly though, a woman is allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body. So then, if she did do something to her body without the intention of killing the child (but it did ultimately kill it), she would be letting it die as opposed to killing it.

Exactly, which (unless it were an "accidently on purpose" situation) should not be punished by law.

Good. I love getting into the abstract!

Lets say, hypothetically, there was a procedure that was known to kill a womans child. However, the baby itself was never touched. Lets say its elongating the womans hands, though it really doesn't matter.

Would you consider it illegal for a woman to elongate her hands and thus kill her unborn child?

A woman is allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body? Really? Can she pick up a baseball bat and hit someone over the head with it? Can she legally inhale marijuana? Can she drive drunk?

I take it the sterilization would not be the same thing as abortion, or adoption, but the blunt of this is some thing abortion is murder and some don’t. I stick by my thought that abortion is not a black and white issue, for example if people were getting pregnant so they could abort the child at nine months for no reason i would see no reason for allowing it to happen. Planned parenthood is not pro-abortion, they just look that way because they are not anti-abortion. What I mean by that is planned parenthood will look pro-abortion because they explain it to you as an option, they don’t force it down your throat to my knowing.

Is there any study that shows when a zygote or what not during pregnancy becomes alive with conscious thought, or more or less becomes a human, is there any study that has done that so we can post its link.

Is a women having a period the same, is it a human the instant sperm enters the egg, what definitions are people working with, or facts or anything, or is it just ideas about it taking turns going over the same points. pro-choice is pro-abortion, pro-life is anti-abortion, both are somewhat flawed names to use in light of the issue is abortion, nothing else.

would there be any negative effects of having abortion illegal, or handing it to a state by state basis for interpretation, what effect would that have. How many women have to have an abortion each year to save there life or something, maybe 3 or 4 million, does anyone have a stat, would all those women have to die, what real points are there to work with for either side to make a case, the debate just seems to be going in a circle, a rather stubborn one at that.

Bah, it was just getting interesting...

She is not allowed to pick up a base ball bat and directly attack someone. She is not allowed to operate machinary in a stupor condition. The legailty of marijuana is questionable at best.

But thats besides the point, she allowed to do anything to her body and her body alone. If she wants to punch herself in the head, she can! She cannot punch some else, because that is directly harming them.

Well, you caught onto my point quite well. What I was getting around to was more or less this: If somehow a woman stabbing herself could injure someone else, would it be illegal? This is what I was trying to angle it into, and I guess I failed. Maybe I should start another post... (Though I don't know what I'd call it). Oh well.

A woman is allowed to do anything with or to her own body which does not jeopardize another individual without their expressed consent. Any stage of fetal development short of viability or the capacity for consciousness leaves the organism in question unable to express any consent or dissent to activities. The fertilized egg, at whatever stage of development, is unable to make decisions about the consumption of alchohol, tobacco, sexuall transmitted disease or the ingestion of other harmful materials.


Standard birth control pills are more than capable of terminating a pregnancy. The most common birth control pill performs three functions:

• Prevent the release of an ovum
  
  
• Hinder the access of sperm to the uterus
  
  
• Prevent implantation along uterine wall
  
  

This is why the pill is so effective. If taken improperly, allowing the release of an ovum, an egg may be fertilized by a sperm which has managed to bypass the membrane into the uterus. However, such a fertilized egg may still be prevented from implanting along the uterine wall leading to the expulsion of a fertilized egg.


Turnea, a sperm or ovum is both living and human. To distinguish between them and an embryo or fetus requires portraying the embryo or fetus not simply as a "living human," in accordance with the definition, but as a living human being or person. You seem to be implying just this by the way you neglect the fact that a sperm and ovum are both living and human. They are in essence living humans... until you make the distinction between a "living human" and a living human being or person, at which point we turn to the remaining definitions to distinguish between a living human and a living human individual.

Based solely on the definition "living human" a sperm or ovum also qualify. You can't attempt to distinguish a fetus as a living human person when it is a person we are defining to begin with.

Regardless of the semantics, a woman has no obligation to lend her body to the development of a separate organism dependant upon her biological functioning. A zygote, embryo or fetus inside her womb does not claim ownership of her womb, which she may choose to empty at her discretion. Just as the developing human organism has no say about the ingestion of alchohol or tobacco, the ingestion of an abortion inducing drug, the transmission of disease, or other unsafe behavior, it too has no say or legal protection regarding what a woman allows or prohibits in her own uterus.

There is currently no way to extract and preserve the life of an embryo or fetus prior to independant viability from a woman's uterus. Perhaps it is something for science to work for. In the meantime, the presence of a dependant organism within the woman's body does not obligate her to tend to it or permit it to remain inside her. Pregnancy does not grant legal ownership or regulation of a woman's uterus, or any other part of her anatomy, to the government or to society or to an independantly unviable and consciousless organism.

Pregnant or not, whether you want to say a fetus is a person or not, a woman's body is still her own. The process of conception does not strip a woman of her right to her own body, giving it instead to the government, society or an unconscious and unviable potential individual dependant upon her healthy and continued biological functioning.

The only one "murdering" anything is your misuse of the English language. Murder is a legal term defined as killing that is against the law. Because abortion is legal, it cannot legitimately be referred to as murder. Please stop trying to hyper-emotionalize the debate.

Your comparison of a fetus to a 1-year old child is rather ridiculous. Yes, a 1-year old does require care, but that care can be provided by *ANYONE*. It doesn't have to be the mother, father, close relative, etc. It can be *ANYONE*. In the case of a fetus, no one can provide that care but the mother, whether she wishes to or not.

A woman does not agree to get pregnant every time she has sex. Ever hear of rape? Incest? Failed birth control? How about financial difficulty? Divorce? A damaged or defective fetus? Health concerns for the mother? There are plenty of reasons that an abortion may be the best alternative, both for the mother and for the fetus, but your hyper-emotionalism simply can't see that.

Abs like Jesus writes:


Well, not exactly true. A woman isn't allowed to take illegal drugs or to abuse legal ones. A woman isn't allowed to commit suicide under the law. A woman isn't allowed to go out and have a healthy limb amputated (at least I doubt she could find a reputable doctor who would do it and she'd likely end up in a mental ward). However, you are right that when it comes to her health and wellbeing, she has a wide range of options open to her.

nileriver writes:


I don't think anyone argues that a fetus is human, at least genetically speaking. The question for a lot of people is, should that fetus have a legally-protected status which over-rides the legal rights and protections of another individual, in this case, the mother. They can't grab you off a streetcorner, hook you up to another person and let them use your kidneys. You have a right to say no, even if it means the other person dies. You are under no legal obligation to keep them alive, and they are a legally-protected individual. A woman certainly bears no legal responsibility to keep a fetus which they do not want on her own brand of life support.

True. Although it leads me to a different conclusion than it seems to lead you. Take for example rape. A child under the age of consent cannot make decisions about sex, so the law protects that child by establishing that sex without consent is rape. I would argue that since the fetus cannot give consent to die, killing it would be (under most circumstances) murder.


I thought my emphasis on the words "a" in the definition of person as the difference between a gamete and a fetus implied that I understood gametes are both alive and human. Gametes are human, they are not, however, humans.

I see were going to have to discuss this definition in minutiae, so let's look at it yet again.

Definition of person:

Anything which fits this definition is a person.
Let's consider the word "a".

Specifically definition one, the definition that I believe is being applied in the definition of person.

The word I would like to bring focus to in this definition is "single". Let's examine it

This is only part of definition, but I believe it is the part which suits the purposes of this debate.
Let's consider a gamete in regard to this definition. The first definition could apply in certain situations, but it is rather relative, what we are searching for is a lasting definition. Something that can define a gamete at all times. The second does not really apply, a gamete has many parts, "b.)" refers to application for individuals, which I believe is not what we are talking about. and "c.)" does not apply at all times just like #1. Definition three applies, though level of brokenness is not particularly relevant either and it besides less true of ourselves (established "people") than of a gamete anyway...

Definition four a). The definition in question, as it seems to me, I doubt were talking about the number of opponents after. "separate from others individual; and distinct." Since single is an adjective, we must consider to what is is being applied so we go back to the definition of "person" where the only noun is human. A human is "a member of the genus Homo. What does it mean to be "member of the species"?

Let's see the definition of species as it pertains to biology, other's really would not be relevant.

Since we are not talking about the category but instead attempting to classify a subject, definition "b.)" is our focus. Particularly the words "an organism".

What's an organism?

For space's sake I cite the definition relevant to our discussion.
An individual form of life, this is where the gamete fails the test of personhood. "Individual" means

I relation to organism this refers to genetic individuality. Each individual organism is a representative of the genetic recombination that occurred to bring it's individuality about. As we know gametes can be traced back to their original owner because they contain the same genetic code (in half the amount) as every other cell in the rest of their "body of residence", shall we say. However, a fetus does indeed pass this test, being an individual organism of unique genetics separate from the mother or father. Even the transfer of nutrients is accomplished by diffusion over the gape between mother and offspring.
That is why a fetus is a person and a gamete is not.

Edited to add: All definitions are taken from "The American Heritage Dictionary" as provided by Dictionary.com

A person then must be a living human.

But what is the definition of living?
1. Possessing life

And life?
1. The interval of time between birth and death

So, I could technically claim that it isn't a person because isn't alive and therefore not a living human. Because, as turnea states, all definitions under the word are accurate, if a fetus doesn't fit my definition of life, it isn't a person.

The argument is becoming so circular, I must add something to bring it to a logical conclusion. Let's assume, for the purpose of this discussion, everything anti-abortionists want will come to fruition. This would require not only the eradication of Roe v Wade (which allows unrestricted abortion only until the end of the first trimester), but some sort of constitutional amendment granting personhood status to the embryo/fetus. An amendment which would (necessarily) supersede all rights of the mother during the course of her pregnancy, in favor of the entity within her.

What would the penalty be for a mother 'murdering' the life within her, and how would that be enforced? What about the penalty for negligence through irresponsible behavior (not taking vitamins, exercising too much, ect)? It's all very well and good to pontificate about the evils of abortion and wish to reduce them, but you'd better be prepared for the result if what you espouse comes to fruition.

Edited to add: Personhood status would actually require the highest penalty under the law. A life for a life, or life in prison for the premeditated murder of another. After all, she did use the coat hanger on her uterus when she was 8 weeks along. Clearly that requires a life sentence.

MrsP,
I am most likely going to abandon this thread. It seems that the issue is quite circular and redundant especially with the number of definitions being being thrown around and massacred as well as people rehashing old Supreme Court arguments as though they just thought of them.....but I have already brought up what you talk about.

My points were very clear:

Abortion is an atrocity and at best...I believe it's maladaptive.

It is like a tyranny for the Supreme court to take away our rights as states to choose what we can and can't do.

A child cannot have all encompassing sovereignty while in the womb. It would make for a terrible legal troubles.

A woman cannot have all encompassing sovereignty over her body. It does make for legalized murder.

People that believe they have authority over their body to put in or take out what ever they want are under a legal illusion. Women can murder the children in their womb but they can't smoke a joint. Funny isn't it?

This is precisely what you are continuing to do:
Edited for brevity and emphasis
So, in essense, you are extending the dictionary definition of a person which says "a living human" to read "living human person" exactly as I addressed in my previous post. You're attempting to define person as a person, which isn't defining anything at all.


So you're arguing on the basis of distinguishing genetics?

A child can be traced back to their "original owner" as well because they are genetically linked. Not every sperm cell or ovum within a single person is identical to one another, which is why couples who reproduce more than once can continue to produce different genetic variations. From what my biology book says, "every gamete a human produces contains one of about eight million possible combinations of maternal and paternal chromosomes," which in turn leaves sixty-four trillion possible combinations when a sperm and ovum unite.

The genetic code present in sperm and ovum is no more identical to the owner than that of an embryo or fetus. We can calculate the liklihood to trace either back to the original "donor" but there won't be a 100% match for either. Both the embryo and fetus, the sperm and ovum, represent different genetic combinations.

A fertilized egg at any stage of development, short of viability and the capacity for consciousness, is not a person. They can not be made so by defining a person as a "living human person" rather than simply a "living human," as has recently been attempted. The dictionary does not define a shoe as a shoe or a person as a person for a very reason: defining a word with that very word doesn't define anything.

There is no person to speak of when referring to a gamete, a blastula, a zygote, embryo or fetus. Who are we talking about? All of these represent developing organisms which may or may not fully develop. They each represent genetic variations of those who produced them. None of them possess the capacity for consciousness needed to possess a sense of self. Without a sense of self or the biological capacity to survive independently of another's biological function, there is no person to grant any rights to.

Assuming we were to grant rights in spite of this, it would require, as Mrs. Pigpen asserts, the suspension of rights for pregnant women. Any number of activities put a pregnancy at risk. You could lift your arms over your head too many times, exercise too much, consume too much alchohol or tobacco, practice unsafe sex or even sexual positions; you could ride the wrong rollercoaster or dislodge the placenta on the bumper cars; you could not eat enough or not eat healthy enough. And then there are those women with pre-existing health conditions who, while they are able to conceive, would be put in jeopardy if they attempted to carry to term. Should they be federally prohibited from any actions which may lead to conception on the basis that any resulting fertilized egg will require termination?

It isn't practical to suspend the rights of women in favor of consciousless organisms which may or may not develop into individual persons or members of society. At any given stage, the majority of fertilized eggs spontaneously terminate for a variety of reasons. At any given stage, the uncautious actions of a woman can contribute to the chance of spontaneous termination, hence all the prenatal care and advice pregnant women seek if they wish to be successful carrying to term. Neither society or the government should suspend the rights -- particularly the rights to one's own body -- of individual citizens in favor of an organism that represents only the potential to become one, and which also stands a great chance of not doing so.

Once we cease attempting to define a person as person, it is clear that a fetus prior to viability and the capacity for consciousness is not anymore a person than an individual gamete. Just as with gametes expelled without any further reproductive processing, a human is killed when a blastula on up to a fetus is terminated, whether by natural or artificial means. What is not killed, however, is a person. Without the death of a person, there is no more a murder taking place with abortion than there is suicide with a miscarriage or genocide with non-reproductive ejaculation or menstruation.

I see nothing at all circular about the argument. At least the one I put forth. I would appreciate anyone's comment on it rather than it simply being ignored. discussing consequences for violating any theoretical abortion law really isn't the topic of this thread. It is the law itself that is in question.



I agree with your definition of living. It is your definition of life which is incomplete.
Let's look at the definition which applies to a fetus:

A fetus then is alive, is a living human, and is a person.

You misunderstood what I meant by "applied in the definition of person"

the definition is "A Living human" I was elaborating on the use of the word "a" in that definition. I stated that the word "a" is being used in its capacity described by definition #1 of the word "a". How is that defining "person" using "person"?

Yes, and your elaboration on the use of the word a brought you to this definition for the word a:
By reading a to define person, applying this to the first definition of person, "A living human," the result would be to read the definition as "living human person," exchanging the a for its selected definition as "a person." By using a to represent a person, and then applying this to the a presented in the definition for a person, you are attempting to define a person as a person.

Both "a region" and "a person" are usage examples...

• 1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region;a person.

So is an unspecified thing. However, only the usage as it relates to person fits for you to justify a fetus as a person using "A living human." Certainly a fetus or any stage below it would not be defined as a person, and simultaneously separated from gametes, under the definitions:

• Living human region
• Living human thing

The usage of person is the only one which suits your purposes, and you can't reasonably define person as person anymore than you can a shoe as a shoe.

Abs,
In reference to your argument about gamete cells....they are miotic cells containing half the DNA (in a random combination) of a person. A blastula, the last I checked was a series of cells clumped together and that stage doesn't last long. Either way most people won't argue that that is not a human being. These are not the issues at hand. After these stages you begin to get into a real debate about what a human is. So tell me Abs, when is he or she human? Is he or she human at sixs mon