Um, should I say it again? There's a difference between being biologically "human" and being a "person." Hence my point.
When anyone points out inconsistencies in your rebuttal, you fail to address them, and say the same thing over and over again.

Moderator: Fist and Faith
(That's American Heritage. Merriam-Webster sustitutes "person" for "human.")--again....they are the same thing.mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
A contradiction, since the definition clearly specifies murder as unlawful killing. If it's legal, it isn't murder, so legal murder is impossible.ur-bane wrote:So basically, we have "legalized murder."
Point. So let's change "murder" to "deliberate killing."Murrin wrote:A contradiction, since the definition clearly specifies murder as unlawful killing. If it's legal, it isn't murder, so legal murder is impossible.ur-bane wrote:So basically, we have "legalized murder."
Morally independent? Where'd that come from?Lord Mhoram wrote:The fetus is alive. It is human. But it is not biologically or morally independent. Therefore, this gives the mother the moral ability to determine whether or not she wants to go through with the pregnancy, and attempt to give birth. That's my pro-Choice stance.
I agree with you! But this statement doesn't fit in with the rest of your post:I would prefer that people did not have abortions.
I would prefer that people were responsible enough that they never had to make that choice.
I could never wholeheartedly choose abortion myself, but I cannot bring myself to judge others because of the way they feel about it.
You are, from what you said above, for the right to choose. Therefore, you're pro-Choice. Simple enough. So am I, I just feel it can be morally justified. If it isn't morally justifiable I cannot in good conscience be pro-Choice.Therefore, I fit the label of "pro-choice" for others.
War can be defined as a conflict between two parties or a concerted effort to put an end to something considered injurious. Obviously, this can be used to describe abortion, even if the war is one-sided. But not so obviously, wars are often fought over the use of resources. A woman's body will quite literally war against a fetus if the woman has limited resources (food, water, energy reserves). The fetus will die of malnutrition and much of it will be reabsorbed by the woman's body.Now I ask you, is "deliberate killing" OK in your book? And let's not say "Well, for a soldier at war......" because no zygote/fetus/baby will ever be at war.
OK, I think I understand the principle you have in mind. And the answer is No. It is never acceptable to sacrifice a child for a parent if only one or the other can be saved. The child should always be saved. A parent is supposed to do whatever it takes to keep the child alive. That's a responsibility we took on when we decided to have the child. If you have to cut my chest open with a spoon and take my heart out so it can replace my child's defective one, that's what you do. The child should never be sacrificed.Avatar wrote:Well, as the simplest example I can come up with off the cuff, (and never mind the likelihood, it's the principle I'm thinking about here) how about if an attacker were to offer the choice of releasing the mother in exchange for the child's life? Should the child be killed in that situation to preserve the mother?
If the answer is no, then the rights of the child after its birth are more important than the rights of the foetus before, seeing as it is permissable to kill the foetus to protect the mothers life.
How is it part of her body? When was the last time you took a human anatomy course?Well, it is a part of her body,
I do not have to agree to draw a line anywhere. I say a human being's journey begins at conception, and this person should be considered the unique being s/he is from that point on.Syl wrote:I know this is a forum for the religious and the philosophical, but we're never going to get anywhere talking about definitions of consciousness, sentience, etc. Not in this framework. The only way to define it is, as Mhoram pointed out, the point at which the fetus leaves the body. It is a line of demarcation, no more real than time zones, but we have to agree to draw the line somewhere.
Bah! There is no unique DNA involved in what you're talking about. Sperm and unfertilized eggs will never develop to the point where any of us would consider them to be human beings, or people, or whatever. I won't bother debating the moral shortcomings of guys who have wet dreams.Syl wrote:That was the point of my whole thought experiment, by the way (not that many people participated, but hey). For most of us, we wouldn't consider contraception to be murder, even though it is the intentional prevention of a human being coming into existence. If we could see time differently... On a long enough timeline, a person who chooses to never have children is a mass murderer.
Now THAT I agree with!Syl wrote:We can't mandate procreation; we can't regulate its results. Not with the limited way we see things. There's a better way, sure, but I think it requires the participation of society rather than the rigid control of the individual.