Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When it's developed to the point of being able to survive outside the womb.
Why? Why does the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother mean it shouldn't be considered a person? The child still needs the mother even after it comes out of the womb. It's still dependent on the mother even then, yet we wouldn't consider the mother justified in harming it then.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why does the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother mean it should be considered a person?dun dun dunnnn.
The abortion argument is stupid.
I never said the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother means it's a person... Otherwise none of us would be persons since none of us are still dependent on a mother for survival.
You're right.. That argument is pretty stupid. Thankfully it isn't mine. Nor, I believe, is it anyone's on this thread.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? Why does the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother mean it shouldn't be considered a person? The child still needs the mother even after it comes out of the womb. It's still dependent on the mother even then, yet we wouldn't consider the mother justified in harming it then.
Who said that the rights of the mother being more stringent than the rights of the fetus means that the fetus is not a person?
Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother means it's a person... Otherwise none of us would be persons since none of us are still dependent on a mother for survival.You're right.. That argument is pretty stupid. Thankfully it isn't mine. Nor, I believe, is it anyone's on this thread.
No, my point is that, the entire abortion argument in itself is stupid, the idea that there is some magical timeframe between which it is okay to a life form. There is no such timeframe, so the whole argument is arbitrary.
For the longest time, I thought your name was pronounced Adam "Poh"; eventually, I figured it might be Adam "Pee Oh Eee".
The Prince of Eternia thing never occured to me; I didn't really watch He-Man, so I didn't get the reference. Of course, I could still be completely mistaken anyway.
Just uh....thought you should know that.
On topic: I am pro-choice. Women's rights and all that jazz.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No, my point is that, the entire abortion argument in itself is stupid, the idea that there is some magical timeframe between which it is okay to a life form. There is no such timeframe, so the whole argument is arbitrary.
I don't know what you mean. The debate concerning abortion is over the status of the fetus. Should it be considered a person? Why or why not? It has to be one or the other.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you disagree with the death penalty?
The easiest answer would just be yes. Though, honestly, I'm on the fence about it. Though I do not see the two as the same. At any rate, there is a death sentence thread already.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The right to life of the fetus is not more stringent than the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body.
That isn't true. The right to life protects a child from being killed regardless of it's tole on the mother. We do not allow the killing of children just because they interfere with our comfort.
Originally posted by TacDaveyA fetus is a living thing. So the debate should only be "is it okay to kill a living thing". There is no point where a fetus is "kind of living" or not "kind of not living".
[B]I don't know what you mean. The debate concerning abortion is over the status of the fetus. Should it be considered a person? Why or why not? It has to be one or the other.
The easiest answer would just be yes. Though, honestly, I'm on the fence about it. Though I do not see the two as the same. At any rate, there is a death sentence thread already.
You said earlier that you believe that if a living thing is a person, it is therefore entitled to live. The implication is that an individual does not have the right to take another person's life. If you believe in the death penalty, though, then you admit that there are circumstances where a person loses their right to live.
Originally posted by TacDaveyI bolded the problematic word. A fetus can't survive (without a buttload of machines and drugs etc.) outside of the womb without the mother. But after it's developed, the mother can go ahead and die for all the child's literal survival is worth. It doesn't require the biological mother to continue living after birth. But it does require it in order to, you know, gestate and form. As part of my philosophy, if the fetus/baby can't survive outside the womb "naturally" (don't semantic me to death with what's 'natural or not'😉, as in no machines keeping it's heart and brain active, etc., then it's not yet a person.
Why? Why does the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother mean it shouldn't be considered a person? The child still needs the mother even after it comes out of the womb. It's still dependent on the mother even then, yet we wouldn't consider the mother justified in harming it then.
Just a bundle of cells without a mind or even the capacity to survive outside yet. And depending on the stage of development--not even capable of having a mind yet, what with the lack of brain. Or lungs, kidneys, etc. Just cells. I kill a more developed lifeform when I shoot crows in the field.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
A fetus is a living thing. So the debate should only be "is it okay to kill a living thing". There is no point where a fetus is "kind of living" or not "kind of not living".
It isn't whether or not the fetus is a living thing. It's whether the fetus is a person. There's a difference. A cow is a living thing, but a cow is not a person.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You said earlier that you believe that if a living thing is a person, it is therefore entitled to live. The implication is that an individual does not have the right to take another person's life. If you believe in the death penalty, though, then you admit that there are circumstances where a person loses their right to live.
Perhaps. Like I said, I'm on the fence about it. At any rate, even if I did accept the death penalty, I would only accept that a person looses the right to live if they were "evil" enough.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I bolded the problematic word. A fetus can't survive (without a buttload of machines and drugs etc.) outside of the womb without [b]the mother. But after it's developed, the mother can go ahead and die for all the child's literal survival is worth. It doesn't require the biological mother to continue living after birth. But it does require it in order to, you know, gestate and form. As part of my philosophy, if the fetus/baby can't survive outside the womb "naturally" (don't semantic me to death with what's 'natural or not'😉, as in no machines keeping it's heart and brain active, etc., then it's not yet a person.Just a bundle of cells without a mind or even the capacity to survive outside yet. And depending on the stage of development--not even capable of having a mind yet, what with the lack of brain. Or lungs, kidneys, etc. Just cells. I kill a more developed lifeform when I shoot crows in the field. [/B]
That seems to suggest that the requirement for something to be a person is that it isn't dependent on it's biological mother. Which makes absolutely no sense.
It's still dependent on A mother. But as long as it isn't dependent on it's biological mother it's a person for some reason? Explain that one to me.
Originally posted by TacDaveyHow? It's like trying to explain why I think chocolate is superior to vanilla. I can't explain this preference or this stance--it's not based on logic or rationality, just feeling. I just don't know how to give two shits about the "person-hood" of a mindless, undeveloped human. It will be a human, it could be a human, but until it is, I don't care if the mother decides to forfeit that future.
It's still dependent on [B]A mother. But as long as it isn't dependent on it's biological mother it's a person for some reason? Explain that one to me. [/B]
Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't whether or not the fetus is a living thing. It's whether the fetus is a person. There's a difference. A cow is a living thing, but a cow is not a person.
Except that a fetus by definition is not a child, Tac. As for a cow, it's not human, but I believe it will be always a more advanced life-form than a fetus, than ANY fetus. That is, more or less, what Lord Lucien is trying to say, I assume.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How? It's like trying to explain why I think chocolate is superior to vanilla. I can't explain this preference or this stance--it's not based on logic or rationality, just feeling. I just don't know how to give two shits about the "person-hood" of a mindless, undeveloped human. It will be a human, it could be a human, but until it is, I don't care if the mother decides to forfeit that future.
I see... Then there really isn't anywhere we can go from here. You've already admitted your view point is based on feeling.
Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Except that a fetus by definition is not a child, Tac. As for a cow, it's not human, but I believe it will be always a more advanced life-form than a fetus, than ANY fetus. That is, more or less, what Lord Lucien is trying to say, I assume.
No, it isn't technically a "child" but is it a person? The law has already determined that the fetus get's rights at some point in the womb. So to say the fetus, by definition, isn't a person is incorrect.
The question still remains as to WHEN the fetus should be treated as a person.