What facts support the claim that “human being” should be defined your way?
Why, specifically, and with reference to the legal standard of diminished capacity, is it unrealistic?
:dubious: Why is that relevant at all?
Say the kid is 2 years old and the father leaves and the mother is financially destitute, can she then just kill the kid to save money on medical bills?
A law needs a time frame, it IS as simple as that.
In case you didn’t notice, I was answering a specific question.
Human beings are mammals. That means they are multicellular animals with complex organ systems directed by a central nervous system that includes a brain. What makes human beings, or persons, unique from other animals or any other living entities is their higher cognitive abilities. This is not only a scientific definition of a human being, this is the generally-accepted definition of a human being.
Now there are human derivatives that can be isolated from human beings. Skin scrapings, cells from isolated tissues, sperm, eggs and embryos. These lack the defining characteristics of human beings. Calling a human embryo a baby or human being completely redefines a human being in way that makes it no different than any eukaryotic cell. It destroys the definition of a human being.
But you know this. You already admitted that your arguments defy logic and stretch the definition of human beings.
Why do women have to lose control of their bodies because you and others define human beings in such an irrational manner driven by your religion or whatever belief in the supernatural?
:dubious: Which one of these questions you responded too would illuminate your quote?
Does anyone know up to which point of gestation abortion is allowed?
Would the pro-choicers be ok about abortion at 23 weeks?
It’s generally better if the law defines the cases. I don’t think a fertilized egg is human, nor do I think a T-1 baby is part of a woman’s body. I think, like most things, the “truth” is somewhere in the grey, undefined and changing over time “middle”. It’s the job of society to draw the lines and make sure they’re responsive to the changing conditions of civilization.
As irishgirl noted in a previous post, most abortions take place before the 12 week gestation mark. Later abortions (very rare btw) mostly occur because a foetal abnormality is detected, especially ones that mean that the quality and quantity of life of the prospective child will be severely compromised.
But given that none of us here on the board can come up with an objective ‘cut-off’ mark to determine personhood of a foetus, perhaps we might like to leave that up to the mother. It’s her body, AND her pregnancy. Y’know, it’s sorta her choice??
And thus the picketers can still fuck off!! 
This is the viewpoint I have the most trouble reconciling with being categorically opposed to elective abortion because in order for it to be internally consistent you have to think that the primary intent behind abortion is to kill the fetus. Which is just crazy–women don’t exactly go around chanting “Kill the fetus! Drink his blood!” followed by a Dr. Evil mwahaha laugh, you know? Rather, the intent behind abortion is to stop being pregnant, to remove the fetus from a woman’s body. As you say, nobody is blind to the certainty that the fetus will almost certainly die during or as a result of the procedure, but it’s not the goal.
I don’t agree. A profoundly mentally retarded person does not possess, and will never possess, the kind of higher cognitive functions you discuss. We might easily imagine chimpanzees with higher cognitive functioning than a profoundly mentally retarded person.
Yet we, legally and socially, and CERTAINLY as a matter of general acceptance, regard the profoundly mentally retarded being as human, and the exceptionally bright chimpanzee as not.
True?
Well, all I can do is point out, yet again, that there exists a westernized democracy where the law has not defined the case, where the society has not drawn the lines… and nothing happened. Certainly Canadian “civilization” has not changed for the worse (or if it has, it must have done so in some subtle way I haven’t as yet noticed) and I see no reason the Americans could not follow our example. I know why they won’t, though, or at least not in the near future. In any case, you can talk about “truth” all the live-long day if it suits you. I figure you already have a pretty good idea where you think the “truth” should be, and if society disagrees, then society just doesn’t have all the facts.
True enough – but since we know the result of the effort to stop being pregnant is to kill the fetus, even if that’s not the primary intent, it’s not permissible.
In contrast, when the effort is to save the life of the mother, the death of the fetus as an unintended consequence is permissible.
The reason is obvious: “stopping being pregnant” is not worth the loss of human life; “saving a human life” is.
I’m not sure this is a fully honest description. I figure the goal is typically to stop being pregnant and avoid the various hassles of a child (or an additional child, as the case may be).
Not that it matters, of course.
I think it’s pretty much on the mark. If there existed technology to instantly, painlessly, and with no medcial side-effects remove and sustain even an embryo from a woman’s body at any point, I suspect the vast majority of pro-choice advocates would agree that this was an acceptable alternative. As I understand it, the viewpoint is primarily that the woman’s body is being used without her consent. If a pregnant woman could relieve herself of the pregnancy and give up the child for adoption without continuing to be pregnant and give birth, only a tiny minority would continue to demand that the pregnant woman still had the right to kill the child.
This theoretical solution causes me a degree of concern, though. It’s one I often think I would support, and then as I think further it does cause me certain issues. There’s a concern about bodily/personal integrity there - you could argue it would not be any different to (assuming the same restrictions - instant, painless and with no medical side effects) allowing the state to require a person to have blood or even say part of their liver removed and used for other people.
It would also fail to deal with a person’s potential mental condition - something you earlier (and I assume deliberately) did not include when you were listing where you thought abortion should be legal.
Given the basis of my support for abortion, I think I can overcome those concerns. But I don’t think it is quite as open and shut as you present.
I suspect the majority of pro-choicers would indeed support that solution, and that the majority of pro-lifers wouldn’t. It’d take them about ten seconds to realize that this plan a. would have to be state-funded to be viable and b. wouldn’t punish whores, and they’d be screaming bloody blue murder.
Donating a frozen embryo to an infertile couple is even less of a hassle, yet most couples don’t do it.
I totally agree with this and I’d even be willing to invest in such a device. Since, contrary to popular belief, my motivation is to protect the life of the unborn child.
How do you know that?
Funny how most of the people here (not all) that are opposed to abortion are men who cannot get pregnant and will never have to face the issue directly.
But yet they still want to tell pregnant women what to do.