Umm... no

"Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing" is the definition it is in normal type on the original page.

"a region; a person" are usage example of this particular definition. They are not definitions in and of themselves. They are in italics on the original page for a reason.

I think I should have put a link to each definition or italicized them myself to make this clear. Sorry if it caused any confusion. But you do see now that I was not defining "person" as "person", do you not?

Definition of "A"

It is, indeed, circular, for the very reason that you cannot answer my direct question. The title of the thread is, "Abortion (murder)"

If abortion is, indeed, murder, it should carry the highest penalty under the law. The woman should be incarcerated for life and/or executed, and her husband/lover should be prosecuted as a conspirator to murder (unless he properly alerted the authorities if he had knowledge of her actions).

I would certainly give up the right to smoke a joint before I would endorse of concept of government enforced childbirth.

Having had a girlfriend who chose abortion and taken the time to research it, I have seen what it does to zygotes, embryos and fetuses. I am aware that medicinal abortions are essentially nothing more than a dislodgement of early development from the uterine walls, often embodied by little more than a heavy period and heavy cramping. I am aware of the different techniques used in surgical abortions, whereby there may be any combination of vacuum aspiration and cutterage to empty out the uterus.

I have seen the pictures offered by both pro-choice clinics and by pro-life clinics. I have seen the pictures offered by those from the middle of each issue and those from the extreme on the pro-life side. I have taken the additional step of watching video of the procedure to afford myself what I felt was the best opportunity to possibly change my mind. I have seen what abortions do, and I have read the details that go unseen by the naked eye. And this is my position.


As I have already stated on more than one occasion in this thread, sperm and ovum are human, as is the developing tissue resulting from union. That is not being disputed by me or by science. What is disputed by both science and the politics is at what point does human become human being. My position is that this occurs the moment we have viability independant of the woman's biological function and the distinctive human characteristic of consciousness.


A noun also does not suit your purposes for distinguishing "A living human" as applying to a fetus and not to individual gametes. As I have already been over, gametes are indeed both living and human. When you sought to distinguish the two, you did so by emphasizing the word A used in the definition of person. How else does the word A distinguish between a fetus and individual games by its definition except to appeal to its definition relating to persons?

Neither a noun, noun phrase, unspecified thing, or region allow for the word A to distinguish between a fetus and an individual gamete when applying it in the definition of person. The only way you can separate a fetus and individual gamete when discussing "A living human" is to appeal to the definition of A as it relates to persons, thereby applying the use of person in the very definition of person.


Definition one of the word A doesn't support any difference between a gamete and an embryo or fetus except to appeal to the definition of A as an unspecified person, or the usage as a person. Neither of these can be used in defining a person however or you attempt to define a person as a person. In no other way does the word A distinguish between a gamete and a fetus when discussing "A living human."

MrsP,
I have answered you. Abortion is murder. Perhaps all your definitions of murder do not include babies when they are dependent on the mother (as Abs' definition) but in my estimation that only serves to further the case against abortion. Terming life stages as embionic or fetal or blastulate, don't take away from the fact that you have a living organized and artfully structured mass of cells resembling a human being in your womb. Tell me this. If I kick a pregnant woman in the gut (an atrocious thought but not so much worse than the idea of forking it and sucking the left-overs out with a vacuum cleaner) and she miscarries that child...what sentence would I deserve for the crime I committed? According to you, all I have done is comitt assault upon the mother. Do you still agree with your argument?

As for "government enforced child birth", you had better be careful. The government can't make you live out the consequences if you don't irresponsibly get knocked up in the first place. And I tend to think of it as government enforced, rights for the unspoken for. In life there are consequences, not punishments for actions. Children are some of them. Just because a person gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, that doesn't give them the right to murder the baby. I can only imagine how many people might be dead if I could go around killing people every time I made a mistake I didn't want to have to live with.

1.Human being? Defined in our favorite dictionary as " Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing."

That applies to both gametes and fetuses.

2. "appeal to the definition of A as it relates to persons, thereby applying the use of person in the very definition of person."

What about my explanation of the usage examples did not make sense? Or are you now switching to a different reason on why I must be using person to define person? The definition of a is "Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing". Seeing as I was elaborating of the definition of person which is "A living human" I must then be considering "A" as it relates to "human" the object of "A" is the definition. I go on to explain how this differentiates fetus from gamete later in the post as you remember (you posted about it). If you disagree with this distinction, we can debate it. But let's get the defining "person" with "person" charge out of the way first , shall we?

Turnea, in your opening post, you asked,"So, why is abortion not illegal?" and entitled it Abortion (murder). Illegality would require punishment for the offense.

Every prolife poster thus far has reasoned that abortion is murder. I'm a practical person. We might discuss the repeal of Roe v Wade as one option. I wouldn't object to that, because I don't find it to be a constitutional ruling. This would give authority to the states. Since Roe only encompasses the first trimester, and 10 states are still willing to give elective abortions during the third, I don't believe this would cut down on the number of abortions much at all. We might have a constitutional amendment granting rights, or at least some sort of 'compelling life interest' to the child as it gains complexity. However, since almost 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester, that really wouldn't cut down on them much either. I would say the reason abortions aren't illegal, ultimately, is the fact that the problems with enforcing such a law would outweigh the benefits. Granting an embryo/ first trimester fetus rights as a person which usurp the rights of the carrier would require that murder status be given to the mother who aborts the fetus. It would require conspiracy to commit murder charges to anyone who helps or knows and does nothing. Does that sound like a good idea?

Edited to add: Johnlocke, If you kicked an obviously pregnant woman in the gut, it would be assault (as well as stupid). However, you would also be endangering the life of (or killing) a developed fetus. That is against the law in 40 states. If you kicked a skinny woman in the gut it would be assault also.
Now, if the point of this thread is to rant about the evils of abortion, I could rant all day. I (unlike most of the posters on this thread) have actually given birth and felt a child growing in my body. I think babies are wonderful and recommend them to families which can provide for them. I think that adoption is a wonderful and loving option. That doesn't have much to do with the opening post of this thread, though.
Edited again to add:
Your lecture to me about the consequences of sex is laughable.

Actually it does sound like a good idea. As I've said before "forced childbearing" seems like a frightning future, but "legalized intentional killing of innocent persons" doesn't sound great either. Finally, as to whether this is the reason abortion is not restricted.

A list of Fallacious Arguments

Thank you, Platypus

Since the premise for this entire argument is in favor of the illegality of abortion, I don't see how this fallacy applies. If something is illegal, there are consequences, correct? It isn't some fanciful potential happenstance. We are not debating the merits of abortion and why it is or isn't a good idea. We're debating its ultimate illegality, not 'wishful thinking'.

But, since it sounds like a great idea to you....You'll have to convince a lot of people that we need millions more in our correctional system, and millions of otherwise loving mothers and law- abiding women in line for the electric chair.

Note, the page merely said that "Wishful Thinking" was "closely related" not exactly the same thing. "Argument From Adverse Consequence" (the charge I made) certainly still applies. I would like to note, however, since I didn't make it clear in my last post, I do not bring this charge against you personally (seeing as you did not state that I "must be wrong") rather I bring this charge against what I likely to be the conclusion of the argument set forth. That a fetus cannot be a person because then (assuming laws were changed to protect these persons lives) women would have to be sentenced for murder for committing abortion, abortion doctors would be in chains, the sky would fall, sugar-free ice cream would be sold on every street corners, etc...

If a fetus is given personhood status, what would happen? If abortion is murder, there are consequences to murder. What would they be? I'm not suggesting that you are wrong because you think it's murder. I'm actually assuming, for the discussion, that you are right. I believe the drawbacks would outweigh the gains to such a policy, but what do you think should happen to those people? Life in prison? Electric chair?

That is where I see this possibly getting of topic. Discussion of consequences for breaking this theoretical law seems, to me at least, to be the stuff of another thread.

I don't see how we can discuss legality versus illegality without suggesting punishment for a crime.
Your question was, "Why isn't it illegal?" My answer was (basically),"because enforcing that sort of law (government enforced childbirth) would have consequences which would outweigh (by far) the gains". Law enforcement is fundamental to a discussion about the change or creation of a law.

OK then

The only "losses" you've referenced are sentences for those who committed the "crime". Seeing as these sentences can be variable, how it that a loss? It doesn't mean we execute everyone found guilty...

Using A does not distinguish between gametes and fetuses. You brought up the use of the word A and the definition of A to somehow try and distinguish between the two. While you may not be intending to define person as person, only the definition of A as it applies to persons suits your purpose in distinguishing between gametes and the developmental stages of a fertilized egg.


How do you perceive the single word A in "A living human" (used to define person) to distinguish between a fetus and a gamete, considering both are living and human? You focused specifically on the first definition of A attempting to set gametes apart as human, but not "humans." Without the defintions of A regarding an "unspecified person or... a person," the use of the word A in "A living human" does not make any distinction between a fetus and gametes.


Murder requires the taking of a person's life. If it could be applied to the taking of any life, we could consider non-reproductive ejaculation and the killing of animals as murder. My discussion about the biological dependance of a fetus to a woman had nothing to do with defining murder, but more to do with what constitutes a person.

As a blastula or embryo, a fertilized human egg doesn't resemble a human being in terms of appearance anymore than many animals undergoing the same development. Resemblance isn't a reason to grant an organism personhood. Terminating life stages -- including sperm and ovum -- is also not considered murder without a person being murdered. Not all killing is murder, John. If you have a better way of defining murder without the taking of a person's life, I'm willing to listen.


Until they can be shown to be persons, that's not a part of either our present or future. Thus far your interpretation of "A living human[/i]" as a person, while neglecting the other definitions, would include gametes as well. This would mean that "legalized intentionall killing of innocent persons" could also cover any non-reproductive sexual activity or the prevention of conception by women using birth control pills.

"Loss" depends on your perception. If all abortion were illegal and considered murder, anyone guilty would suffer the penalty for murder. Any person who was desperate to terminate a pregnancy would go to prison. Teenagers, mothers, twenty-something career women, ect. Many would die in the attempt, and some would obtain (probably very expensive) black market 'menstrual extraction kits'. Abortions would still be available but illegal and probably cost several thousand dollars. Women, who currently have a much lower prison population compared to men today would overpopulate the prison system and there would be need for more prisons and more law enforcement agents.

It would cost the country billions to prosecute and incarcerate those women, and law enforcement agents would be distracted from "other" violent crime protection. We would most likely have to hire many more policepeople to parol our streets. I'm certain there would be a lot of blackmail as well.

There would also be an underground protection for those women. Clearly, such 'protectors' would be considered murder conspirators and have prison sentences if caught as well. Obviously, abortificants would rise again and women would poison themselves. I would expect an increase in non genetic birth defects due to self poisoning as well.

There are so many more potentialities I won't go into, it really isn't necessary. History can be the judge. Abortions were once a state issue, and women died, but that would be nothing compared to giving rights to the fetus and eliminating all elective abortions throughout the United States on punishment of a murder sentence.

If we are considering a 'lesser punishment' that is admitting that abortion is not in fact, murder. Perhaps it is better to look for a more realistic solution to the abortion problem.

No, I'm using a different definition of life from the American Heritage Dictionary as provided by Dictionary.com

1. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.

What makes this term any less reasonable to a fetus besides the fact that it disagrees with your conclusions? Either your right and dictionary.com contradicts itself, or your wrong and a fetus is not a living human. What makes this definition of life invalid?

Turnea:
"Anything that fits under the definitions can be described by the word being defined"

Mrs. P is doing an excellent job debating all of you menfolk on this very difficult topic.

Are you guys basing your opinions on the assumption that in most pregnancies it is the woman who wants the abortion?? More often than not, the boyfriend, or whoever the guy is to the woman, asks her to terminate the pregnancy.
OR, she keeps the baby, and he's out the door, nowhere to be found.
How sad !

Abortion is not murder, folks. The law has acknowledged that, so why can't you? It might not be a good solution to the problem of unwanted/unexpected
pregnancies, but it is what it is. And it will not go away until the problems that cause the demand for it are solved.


By the way, I'm a mother too, and have experienced childbirth, and know, first-hand, the deep joy that it brings to a parent. How many of you guys that feel so strongly about this issue are fathers?? Just curious to know.........

But of course, by the very definition of murder, abortion *CANNOT* have that term applied to it. It is dishonest to speak in those terms. However, as has been pointed out previously, the majority of pregnancies never go full term. Spontaneous miscarriages are the rule, birth is the exception. If a fetus is given full rights and priviledges under the law, then any woman who has a miscarriage would be held just as responsible under the law for murder as one who purposely aborted.

I don't think we have enough prisons for every sexually active woman in the country, do we?

Abortions didn't stop when they were illegal prior to 1973, they wouldn't stop today. Anti-abortionists are living in a fantasy world if they think otherwise.

So then another positive point of abortion for those that dont like it is the fact people still get them, the main point being abortion legally is most likely a lot better then those done illegally for the fetus, zygote or whatever and the women involved.


I don’t have any children and or plan on having any children, i do not see how this rejects me from having a stance or ability to participate in the debate. Women who have had the children kill them after they have been born, what does that mean to this i don’t know, i just am trying to show my opinion is valid without the ability to give birth or being a father at this point.

My opinion of abortion is it is not a black and white issue. I agree fully with having regulation on it from a purely moral stance, as it should be hard and only with a good reason to get an abortion, really at latter stages of pregnancy. Abortion touches more then one person and goes into the freedom a female has with her body on something that is very important to society, a moral tone or black and white thinking will not solve the problem of abortion or get close to it. Many women have to get abortions due to medical reasons, we should also look over periods of time rather then just the now for insight into our stance on the issue.

Many good questions have been raised in this debate, the only downside of it is no new information from studies or related has been brought in to back them. I would think the same points we come to are the same the people who actually battle for each stance would have come to, so something along those lines must exist. I came across a statistic that stated nearly 42 million women would have to die within a decade if abortion became illegal. I don’t know if its real or not as it was a long time ago, but i feel that such studies if exist could help the debate. After all its a debate right, not two people telling each other they are wrong with no intention of learning.

It would appear that the dictionary contradicts itself on the issue of life just as it does in defining child. I wouldn't dispute that a fetus is either a human or alive. Clearly by its genetic makeup it is a human. With individual cells easily fitting the bill for life, an embryo or fetus passes this test as well. I hold that the issue is that of being a person.

Being distinctly human and alive isn't enough to qualify as a person, as such few requirements would include simple gametes. Nobody so far appears interested in defining safe sex as genocide or the suspension of gamete rights. We don't recognize or grant legal protection to groups of cells.

Much of the argument against abortion says that embryos and fetuses shouldn't be discounted as persons simply because they aren't fully developed and look exactly like a developed human person. A similar argument can then be raised about sperm and ovum which simply aren't fully developed either. Sperm and ovum, like an embryo or fetus, represent the potential to become independently viable and conscious persons. But they are all merely representative of a potential: just as a sperm or ovum may wither and die, so too may a blastula, zygote, embryo or fetus. Indeed, this is more than a common occurence; it happens to most fertilized eggs.

Until a stage of viability independent of the woman's biological function is reached, there is nothing modern medicine can do to thwart nature in the preservation of life. Alongside viability independent of the woman's biology a fetus is also without the necessary neurological development for human consciousness, what essentially separates our species from the rest of the animal kingdom and allows us to be individuals.

We protect individual persons in our society. As I have said, we do not grant legal protection to groups of cells or other forms of life short of individual persons. An embryo or fetus is not a person. These stages of development, short of independent viability and the capacity for consciousness, represent no more or less of a potential person than an individual sperm or ovum. Still representing nothing more than the potential of a gamete, an embryo or fetus shouldn't be considered anymore a person than a sperm or ovum.

Just as all life is not human, and not all forms of human life are persons, not all killing is murder. The charge of murder requires that a person be intentionally killed. Without being persons an embryo or fetus, prior to viability and the capacity for consciousness, is killed without being murdered. They are killed, but their deaths no more represent murder than the deaths of individual sperm or ovum. It is good to remember that cells do die and, despite being distinctly human, they do not represent the death of persons.

Embryos and fetuses are not persons, and without persons there is no applicable charge of murder for abortions carried out prior to fetal viability independent of the woman's biology and the capacity for consciousness.


Many women are often unaware of miscarriages, too. A late period is easily flushed and not given so much as a second thought. Miscarriages can occur at many stages of a pregnancy, sometimes passing early as a late period and sometimes passing late as a still-birth. There are those fertilized eggs which may die at a stage of development and be absorbed by the woman's body without the woman knowing anything of it.

There are a variety of behaviors and decisions which contribute to the possibility of miscarriage. While I would think that not all women who miscarried would be prosecutable under law were abortion made illegal, there would be those cases in which prosecutors could allege risky behavior was undertaken with the woman's knowledge that it could imperil the pregnancy. A mere potential would suspend a woman's right to her own body, both in what she allows to occur untreated within her and also in what actions she could perform with it.


Abortions were only illegal for roughly half a century in our country. Much of the reason they were prohibited by law was at the encouragement of the early American Medical Association who objected to unqualified persons seeking to practice medicine including the practice of abortion.

Cephus is right that abortions didn't stop. I doubt if the image of a coat hanger in reference to abortion is lost on anyone. If women weren't seeking help from unsterilized back alley clinics they were taking matters into their own hands. There weren't simply handfuls of women who continued to seek termination of a pregnancy; there were millions. And without proper medical attention two lives could easily be lost, one of which being a person, an established member of society.

Potentials should not come before absolutes. The rights of a certain individual should not be suspended in favor of what may or may not become one. There is no justification to suspend a woman's right to her own body in favor of a developing group of cells with unknown results. Abortion is taking a life, yes. Any ejaculation of sperm without reproductive purposes is also taking a life.

When a woman's life is at risk in carrying a pregnancy or delivering a baby, the woman gets the consideration first. It is at her discretion whether she proceeds or whether she saves her life by terminating another. A pregnancy may be terminated, and an opportunity lost, but a person has not died. Whether the situation be life or death for the pregnant woman, she has the choice over her body and any developing bodies it may contain.

Life is not a uniquely human thing, nor is it a thing limited to animals. Insects, plants, microbes and cells all represent different forms of life. They all live and die, whether by natural means or by the assault of another organism. We are more than capable of killing without taking the life of a person. This is the case with abortion: the cessation of one form of life without taking the life of a person.

Much of these arguments assume that a female who desires to terminate the 'life/fetus/baby' within her does it with total disregard, to 'murder her own child'.
Put into prespective, why would you think that a female can decide to 'murder' a life within her body? Do you, as males think that you view a child with MORE regard than the woman carrying it? If, as so many of you put it, it is in fact 'murder' of a baby, then how do you figure women can do it? Do you think we are overall, simply selfish, and have no regard for children? I think this argument reflects on women greatly, and mans view of her.

An easily proven fact, women are the basic caretakers of children and there are many more single mothers and too many dead beat dads.

Since it IS the female that concieves and carries, feels life or not, decides to carry or terminate, then what is is about the female that believes she may terminate if need be? Why is it NOT SHE that feels that termination is murder and abominable? Genetic defect? Dont you think that if anyone were to know, and make that choice, that the woman carrying would be able to decide if she was in fact committing murder, OR, is she able to make adequate decisions for her own life, possibly that of her present family, her future and the future of the unborn child, in most cases? What makes WOMAN able to commit this aweful crime, in your eyes? She kills her own child. How is a woman capable of such a thing? You would think SHE of ALL PEOPLE would Understand that SHE has CHILD within her.

Women have been capable of infantacide, in tribes, and in the modern world. WE as a gender, are thoroughly capable of murdering our own as fetuses or even infants, a decision not lightly made, for societal benefit. You as males are thoroughly capable of sending our youth to war, for the same reasons. Lets not be hypocritical about sanctity of life.

Not to lose the idea, if 'life' is so precious, especially to you men I see, ( why dont you support your children as a start?) and also, why do you think many women dont seem to feel it in the same way, enough to make abortion illegal? Women must be just selfish, ruthless, babyhating, genocidal monsters. I have no idea why they even entrust us with childcare, men should take over all childcare responsabilities, because we just dont have a clue what its about and there is no reason to trust us.

I have a better definition: the real one.

As turnea has said in the Debating Tactics thread:
Okay, according to every dictionary I've been able to locate, "murder" is defined as "the unlawful taking of a person's life" or similar. The word "unlawful" or "unlawfully" appears in every single one. This is why, for example, capital punishment is not considered "murder" - because, in most states in this country, it is lawful - just as abortion is. I would like to define capital punishment as "murder" - just as some would like to define abortion as "murder". Out of respect for the language - and the law - I can't. Neither should they.

Defining abortion (at least in the early stages of pregnancy) as murder is doubly wrong. It is not "unlawful" and it is not taking the life of "a person". Whether johnlocke, Dictionary Master turnea, or anyone else likes it or not, abortion is NOT murder. Unless you are talking about late-term abortion (which no one here is advocating), to define abortion as "murder" is to bastardize the English language. Sorry: you'll have to make your unscientific, emotional appeal on some other grounds.

How many of you, whom consider zygotes and/or fetuses to be individuals, or persons... would hold a funeral if that zygote/fetus died? Would you really go buy a coffin for, hold services for, and bury a four-week old embryo? Would you invite your relatives and close friends to bury a fetus? I'm saying "invite" because no one else knew the fetus but the parents, and even they wouldn't have anything to say about it. "Here lies Danielle, she was a pretty good kicker"? They wouldn't have anything at all to say about the zygote because it never had a personality they could learn to know.

Actually, I agree with your assertion that abortion is not murder. In naming this thread (I believe it was the first I ever created here) I chose to include the "(murder)" bit as a draw. I see now that was a mistake (I was young and foolish back then ). Little did I know that appealing to emotion that way was not at all nescessary in order to draw this forum's wonderfully opinionated members into a debate.

As for the rest of the debate, I'll need to do a little research, which will slow my rapid-fire pace a bit.

I'll be right back....

To fortify more on abortion being legal for medical reasons is this. If someone told you that if you step on a certain plan and take a ride you will die in a crash. No joke that you will die if you do that activity. For the various reasons of "sanity" i imagine most would turn down that flight. I think the same would work with pregnancy, as a female would not become pregnant or do that specific pregnancy if she knew it would kill her and or result in an abortion. Its common sense to me, but I think it is also a valid point in that most people that are "sane" don’t opt to kill themselves, unless you consider driving without a seatbelt. I don’t see the pro-life in forcing people to die in order to give birth, but the result still would be murder if made illegal, so that scenario would have to be justifiable homicide then, or maybe the government could give it a different name.

Some still consider abortion, the dislodging and removal of fetal tissue from the womb, despite science and conscience telling us different. Anyhow, for any that have seen a late term abortion, or any abortion past 3 months, we know better.

I thought that I have posted pictures before of many living babies still in the womb and I figured that people who had seen these pictures could have no recourse but to admit they were wrong. Once again, mankind surprised me and cared not for the lives of murdered babies. Oh well.

If those pictures on other threads didn't make you think twice, perhaps these articles with pictures will. They are definitive proof that babies smile and cry in the womb. On top of that they prove that babies in the womb also move their limbs at 8 weeks. At 11 and 12 weeks the babies are kicking and jumping in the womb. So much for the "no feeling before 5 months" theory. Does this make you ashamed of your stance yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0...1041287,00.html

and

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12773312,00.html

No, because movement doesn't imply feeling. I can make a dismembered frog's leg move; does that mean that the leg has feeling? Of course not; because the underlying nervous system is not there that is required for feeling. Likewise a fetus does not develop a nervous system sufficient for feeling in 8 or 11 weeks.

It would apparently amaze you to know that the mothers here (it seems the majority of which are prochoice) are intimately familiar with fetal developement. I know what a 12 month old looks like on an ultrasound, and I miscarried an asprin-sized piece of indiscernable tissue when I was about 6 weeks along. None of that information really changes my mind about an issue.

As for the 'feeling ashamed' assertion. It's funny. People feel shame for a great many things. I would, for instance, be ashamed if I dismissed every post and went into a repeated anti partial birth abortion rant, as though anyone were advocating them. I would be ashamed to repeatedly assert the moral authority over anyone whose position I would absolutely never be in. Apparently, some here see no shame in that. That puzzles me as well.

MrsP,
It's interesting that your upset tnough to personally attack me, but here's what's really interesting. All the mothers in the world could be ANTI-LIFE, that wouldn't bother me. In fact during the civil war I don't know of one Confederate that wasn't Christian. Yet they held that the ideaology behind slavery was okay. So did the supreme court at the time. People can be wrong even when the law is overwhelmingly on their side.

What else is interesting? The fact that I "ignored" several posts? Not really when you consider that I didn't ignore them. People became entrenched in a debate over the definition of these words: "a" "person" and "fetus". I try not to debate the definition of words except within the context of law which they were well out of. Why? Because definitions change over time and context. As more research like the kind I provided comes out the definitions of the words "fetus" and "person" and a slew over other words, will change. Abortion is an abomination and that is why eventually science will convict those who murder. In court or out.

As for Joe's assertion that babies in the womb don't feel: that is debatable. Joe is not in the womb nor does he remember it. That doesn't mean Babies can't feel it, nor is it reason enough to kill indiscrminantly. Also, I believe one of the articles says that we are not sure whether or not the baby is smiling because of an emotional reaction, or because it is an involuntary muscle spasm. I don't think we should be taking the risk of torturing living beings (human) if we're not sure that they can feel it.

I think abortion opponents would be better off using moral persuasion, rather than legal coercion. The fact is the fetus, in almost all abortions, is incapable of thought or feeling pain. Attempts to appeal to emotion by inferring they do are intellectually dishonest.

Abortion, except where the woman's life is in danger, does go against my personal moral code. I also recognize people, I respect greatly, have a different view on the issue. I also recognize that there are many areas where individuals moral code differs i.e. homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, adultery. None of these issues should be legislated. Attempt to persuade people, not coerce. Let me say one thing, once you call someone a murderer they are quite likely to lend a deaf ear to anything else you might have to say.

You know very well personal attacks are against the rules and such violations should be reported. Otherwise, it appears a cry wolf tactic and only distracts from the overall debate.

That is interesting. You can offer that anyone who doesn't favor the illegalization of abortion should be ashamed, but I cannot assert the opposite, because that is a 'personal attack'.

MrsP,
Splitting hairs aren't we? I'll admit guilt if you will. You still didn't answer my question about the inference that the babies might feel pain.

Actually JL, it has been answered fully sa few different time. The fetus doesnt have a central nervous system, therefore it doesnt feel pain. How hard it is to grasp that concept? Unless theres another part of the body that induces to feel pain that isnt the central nervous sytem. There are many things that are alive and dont have a central nervous system, so they dont feel pain (plant-life, for example)

Kim,
This report calls into question whether or not a "fetus" can have emotion and pain. I didn't this time. Also, it is quite clear that after 3 months a "fetus" or baby as I call them have a very strong sense of pain, because their central nervous system along with the brain is quite developed. Not fully, perhaps, but quite so. I would like to know why we continue to abort when there is a chance that at 8 weeks, the child has emotion. That is what the article supposed was possible.

Yes , I said that and it means exactly what it says. Any word that fits under any one of the definitions listed of a term can be described by that term. That doesn't mean we can choose a definition arbitrarily and then ignore the others. I am not trying to invalidate your "prefered" definition of life, however, that doesn't mean a fetus isn't alive because it doesn't fit that definition. Alternate definitions listed are just as valid.


Are you actually proposing that merely by listing alternate definitions a dictionary contradicts itself? Perhaps it is merely explaining the meaning of the word in the full range of circumstances it can correctly be applied...

Oh, I must of misunderstood. When you said "It is your definition of life which is incomplete," I thought that you were trying to somehow invalidate my preferred defintion.

So, my definition is valid. Your definition is valid. It ultimately puts us back to square one. If I consider my definition to be the most accurate, then a fetus isn't alive. By the same token, you could use your definition and claim a fetus IS alive.

It boils down the opinions that the fetus isn't alive and that it is alive. I could say that the circle has been completed.

While I am willing to use dictionary.com in this debate, I am even more willing to throw it out completely. It seems that other members have expressed a great distaste for it. The choice, however, is ultimately yours.

I'll admit it was grossly bad manners on my part. That was a reflex reaction to your grossly bad manners. Your previous lecture to me, specifically, about the consequences of sex 'you'd better watch it', coupled with 'aren't you ashamed yet?' is a condescending way to try to make a point. Had you said something more like,"Haven't you changed your mind yet?" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

My position is this:
1. Roe v Wade should be repealed, unless there is some sort of added amendment granting the right to an abortion, which I don't see forthcoming. States should decide.

2. I believe that there should be an amendment granting 'compelling interest' rights to the fetus as it matures. No elective abortions after the first trimester unless the fetus has a catastrophic deformity or the health of the mother is at risk.

3. Clinics should have jars with the fetus/embryo in different weeks from around the 6th to the 12th. This would offer the woman an idea what the fetus looks like. This would probably not change anyone's decision, because those fetuses are very small and barely developed, but it might for some.

I would not change anything else. Suggesting to make abortion illegal on the basis that it is murder would not only be wrong, but have many potentially awful consequences.

To answer your question about pain? No, fetuses before the 20th week cannot feel pain, as I've indicated on a previous link. That was an extensively researched physician document. Spontaneous muscle contractions don't indicate that the baby can feel pain.

Allow me, then, to break it. I would to refer you to an example I posted earlier in this thread to explain how alternate definitions in a dictionary work...

This is the definition of the term "tank".
It is not reasonable for one to choose, say definition #2 and then go around crying that an Abrams is not a tank because it doens't fit definition #2. Since a Abrams is "An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks." it is a tank. This does not mean the dictionary is contradicting itself and should be thrown out. It merely means there are a number of different things that can be accurately described as a tank. This is the point of alternate definitions in a dictionary. It doesn't mean the dictionary is being shifty

The same goes for the definition of life. Understand?

Therefore, I was not trying to invalidate your definition. (not saying it was incorrect). I was saying it was (as I said before) incomplete. Does this make any sense?

Anyone can answer on that note, I think I make sense on this note...

I realize that you cannot possibly invalidate a definition. However, I do believe what you are trying to do is invalidate it as it applies to a fetus/person.

If someone points to a tank, and says "thats a tank," we can quite clearly understand what tank that person is talking about. However, when you get into something like "life," the definitions are more abstract. It is not as clear to point to a fetus and say "that has life" because it depends on what that person considers life to be. A tank is something physical and the difference can clearly be seen, its easy to make the distinction between two tanks. But when you are trying to define life, both definitions can be applied with validity because "life" itself is an idea.

Life's meaning is within the brain of the beholder.

The fetus is alive, it might be brainless, but it is alive. It is an organic life form. It seems ridiculous tthat this is even up for debate.

To argue that the word "life" cannot have objective definition is to argue a falsehood. Without objective definitions we don't have a language. If you want to argue that certain words don't have definitions then I suppose the place to do so would be the "Comments and Suggestions Forum". Here, I would argue, the concept of objective definitions cannot be abandoned for us to still carry on a constructive debate.

Not merely alternative definitions. I am well aware, for example, that the word tank can refer to a storage container or a prison cell or a military machine. In regards to the child example, the dictionary provides two definitions placing it at two completely different times:

• A person between birth and puberty
  
• An unborn infant; a fetus
  

They are alternative definitions but they also contradict one another referring to time spans in the life of a human organism. Either way, though, I expanded on the quote you selected to explain that it still remains to identify a developing fetus as a person separate from sperm and ovum prior to consciousness and independent viability.


While this has already been addressed by Joe, kimpossible and Mrs.Pigpen, I might urge everyone to refrain from making scientific leaps like these. Just as a heart does not imply thinking or breathing (previously used), movement also does not imply any of the five senses or emotion.

Furthermore, neither article provided for these assertions (1, 2) says anything about sensory perception or emotions, asking questions rather than providing answers.

Regarding brain development, by studying mental activity represented by brain waves, science is aware of the different patterns necessary for feeling and emotion and the overall capacity for consciousness. While a fetus, like many emotionless organisms, may react to stimuli, the necessary linking of neurons for emotions and consciousness doesn't occur until approximately the beginning of the third trimester.


While I have little to no problem with the last two, I would respectfully disagree with number one. I don't see that it is the right of the states to decide what women's rights they will or won't suspend. I stand by the position that an organism representing only the potential to become an individual person should not be granted the authority to usurp the rights of a woman, restricting her rights to make decisions regarding her own body.

My CPU cut me off on the OTHER post I was going to make, so I'll try to make this short and to the point.

The word "Life" is inherently subjective, especially as it pertains to humans. Asking 100 different people what is beautiful is likely to yield 100 different results. Life, in this respect, is much like that. People have different criteria for what makes a human have "life."

The "life at birth" holds validity because the "baby" is not fully separated from it's mother until it's conceived. Once born, A child has independent bodily functioning and can be considered alive. For me, it takes more than movement and brain waves to consider a human alive. It's body must be able to sustain itself and function without any help. A child does not function by itself until the umbilical cord is severed. As dictionary.com reenforces, life is the interval between birth and death.

What, then, distinguishes a baby and a fetus? A baby's body outside the womb can process and develop food, has a functioning brain etc. A fetus placed outside the womb is dead, or might as well be. Place food within a 4 month old fetus's mouth, and it will be unable to process it. It's body is not capable of sustaining its own "life." Until it's body functions on it's own, it is not alive.

Or so I define it. As everyone has pointed out, there are many different opinions on what makes something alive. I consider my definition to hold validity, and that validity is underlined in dictionary.com.

That is my definition as it pertains to a child, fetus, person, human, living, etc. Some things are never born and can be consider alive. I use a different definition (interval) as it applies to something that can be born. Certainly, anything that has been born is alive and has a body that is functioning by itself until it dies.

That is to say that it is not alive in HUMAN terms. I admit that a fetus is a well alive thing. But then you have to consider what then makes a person (a living human, where living means "possessing life") a person, I don't consider a fetus to be a live person.

It looks like this debate has sunk to the level of those on one side denying that the product of conception is not alive and those on the other side claiming something without a brain could have emotions and suffer pain. Don't see a middle ground being reached anytime soon.

You keep trying to turn this into a hyper-emotional cry-fest, not the rational, intelligent, MEDICAL debate that it really is. Do you want your doctor to show you pictures of your appendix before you decide to have it removed? How about cancer? An abortion is medically and legally *NO DIFFERENT* than either of those operations. Just because you have an emotional over-reaction to it doesn't change reality.

turnea writes:


To be honest, science has a hard time defining what is alive and what is not anymore. There are many organisms that have some of the classic characteristics of life and some of non-life. There are now organisms that are "proto-alive" that have wholly non-living origins. It isn't a black-and-white definition where you can put all things that are 'alive' on one side and all things that are 'not alive' on the other.

However, I don't think anyone is really arguing that just because a fetus is alive, it should be protected. A cow is alive, but we have no problem bashing it on the head and making hamburgers out of it. Chickens are alive, but head on down to KFC and see how much we respect their life. Cancer cells are both alive and genetically human, why isn't anyone saving those? Same with your appendix and gall bladder.

In short, it's turned into little more than an over-emotional appeal to save a fetus that logic doesn't support. Just like humans want to save the cute animals, but not the ugly ones, the anti-abortion debate has its roots in emotion, nothing more.

Can we be any more insensitive? The reality is that abortions are a relatively new and controversial procedure that need to be discussed and respected with a little more tact than your giving the matter. Just because you feel that the life of an unborn child is less important and put in the category of the appendix doesn't mean that aren't women reading this site who haven't lost a child prematurely or now regret aborting their child.
There is a MAJOR difference in the operations. One is a life changing decision that the woman has to deal with for the rest of her life and YOU wouldn't be effected by in the least. I find your lack of sensitivity on this subject disturbing.

From www.plannedparenthood.com

How can I decide which choice is best for me?
Consider each of your choices carefully. Ask yourself:

Which choice(s) could I live with?

Which choice(s) would be impossible for me?

How would each choice affect my everyday life?

What would each choice mean to the people closest to me?
It may help to take time and ask yourself:

What is going on in my life?

What are my plans for the future?

What are my spiritual and moral beliefs?

What do I believe is best for me in the long run?

What can I afford?

Talk about your feelings with your partner, someone in your family, a clergyperson, or a trusted friend. All family planning clinics have specially trained counselors. These counselors can talk with you about your options. Your counselor will try to make sure that you are not being pressured into any decision against your will. You may bring your partner, your parents, or someone else, if you wish.
(end of quote)

You know, when I had my gall bladder removed, and that mole on my back removed, I don't remember being asked to consider all these questions. Boy, I wonder why?

And, as a side note, perhaps you could concentrate on not lumping us all together into a single stereo-type? Just a thought....



Not a bad question--I too would be interested in the answer. Also, from the other side of the coin, it would interesting to see how many on the other side of the camp are mothers?