Right, and I’d make the case that these laws are unconstitutional. Why?
There it is: born or naturalized. The state has no constitutional right to infringe on the rights of its citizen (the mother) to protect the non-existant rights of a being who’s not a citizen because it hasn’t been born yet.
You started this thread supposedly asking about a legal term: murder. You obviously don’t want a legal debate, or a clean debate, or anything else to asked for in the OP. You’ve used tactics which are emotionally manipulative, cherry-picked and changed your defintions to suit your whims without the agreement of your fellow debaters, introduced straw men and ad hominem attacks, attempted to trap people into saying things they didn’t intend, and misrepresented your purpose in this debate. Those are signs of a lousy debater, a dishonest person and a snake.
I am done with you, sir.
Sarahfeena, wm–, as always, I respect your logical consistency and moral integrity, while I may not agree with your conclusions. My Doper hat is once again off to you with respect.
So… either I’m evil outright, or I’m an unwitting pawn in a conspiracy to do evil. Not a very attractive choice.
I don’t think I’ve implied anything of the kind. You’re conflating me into your vision of some larger pro-life/anti-woman movement instead of responding to what I actually say, and I wish you’d stop.
I was thinking the same thing! I was also thinking of pitting myself for letting myself get sucked into another one so soon, which I swore I would not do.
The difference is that Dio, and I think all pro-choicers, are willing for anyone who wishes to act personally as if the fetus was a person to do so. There is no conceivable way of proving whether a fetus is a person or not, and, as John said, no way of discovering the moment the fetus becomes a person. I’d modify that to say that viability outside the womb would count, but no time before that.
Given this lack of proof, personal choice should rule. That a collection of little old ladies decide that their dogs are people, and start a pressure group to ban doggie deaths at pounds, doesn’t make the dogs people. (And before you get outraged, the point is that this is a stupid idea.)
The problem with that is what constitutes proof. Many pro-lifers who hold that view starting from a religious position would consider their holy book/edicts handed down from a religious leader to* be* proof, since they emanate (theoretically) from their deity of choice.
Another thing to consider is what’s at risk; if we accept the pro-choice position as correct, then the biggest problem to avoid is the lack of choice of the woman concerned. If we assume the pro-life position’s right, then the worst scenario is a life being terminated, which for them is the biggest sin. I’m sure there are many pro-lifers who would say “Perhaps we can’t be sure; but isn’t it better to err on the side of protecting life?”.
But if the fetus is a person, then the proper thing to do is to pass a law to protect its life. You can’t just say, well if you think killing a fetus is murder, then don’t kill any fetuses. That brings us right back to why any murder is considered a crime.
There’s another choice. You can reach out to those of us who are pro-choice and work towards a mutually acceptable resolution of our impasse.
I’ve told you what’s important to me. You will note that it does not revolve around ending the life of embryos and fetuses. While I was not elected spokesperson for the pro-choice community or anything, I think my priorities are not unusual among prochoicers: that women should be sexually autonomous, that women should be pregnant only when they wish to be (and decisively not non-pregnant only as a consequence of being non-sexual).
If you had compelling reason to believe that it would dramatically reduce the abortion rate, would you join with pro-choice folk to improve sex education, to make contraceptive technology and information ubiquitous, and to change popular attitudes so that young women are comforatable with and socially applauded for being infertile by default?
If I told you that many of us would be more tolerant of some restrictions on abortion if (but only if, and when) nonvolitional pregnancies are virtually eliminated, would that lead to you put your energies towards that as your first goal? (Keeping in mind that even without more restrictions in place, reducing nonvolitional pregnancies in and of itself would greatly reduce abortion rates)?
I am willing to compromise: if I see pro-life people doing pro-reproductive-freedom things that reduce the rate of nonvolitional pregnancies (without doing so via the imposition of chastity), I would respect that to the point of caring about your issue even though it isn’t my issue. I admit I would still want abortion to be available under some circumstances where pregnancy was originally volitional but the situation has gone awry, but I would not necessarily oppose all restrictions, given your level of discomfort with abortion. Suggest an appropriate restriction. (Life or health of the mother?)
How do you feel about “morning-after” pills, emergency contraception over the counter?
This is woman as incubator–where are her rights? She is not entitled to earn wages in her chosen field (if it involves toxic chemicals?) Who then supports this woman?
I firmly believe in giving people information, but what they do with it is their business. Morally, there isn’t much more you can do than that. You all do realize that you can’t legislate morality and that people act irrationally often? And to ask anyone to live a life without sex, to avoid the remote possiblity of pregnancy is messed up. What is being asked is that someone NOT live their life fully, to serve someone else’s moral agenda. That’s messed up.
I swore I’d never get sucked into another one of these “discussions”. I am most definetly pro-choice. But I also support strongly a solid sex ed program and the teaching of girls their options and the teaching of boys that sexual conquest is not the way to manhood. Yeah-it’s an uphill battle.
No, I don’t think so. For one thing, I don’t like the term “anti-abortion” as well as I like the term “pro-life,” as pro-life stands for an entire ethical world view that covers more than just abortion. And I would not characterize myself as pro-choice, either. I do not agree with abortion as an ethical means of ending a pregnancy. I think to term me “pro-choice” would imply that I think it is ok in certain circumstances. I have merely resigned myself to the idea that making abortion illegal is basically impossible.
Then can we alter the arbitrary legal definition of murder accordingly? You can have the moral victory of calling the fetus a person and abortion rights can be maintained. It’s win-win.
Murder and humanity are words, and nothing more. It’s the concepts they describe that matters, or rather, how the concepts are experienced.
Slowly changing concepts should have slowly changing definitions, there’s nothing magical about birth unless we think it is. As a fetus develops and gradually become “human” it probably becomes more and more capable of feeling pain, but that’s beside the point, really. There’s no way an unborn could be able of reflecting upon, and suffering from the thought of, it’s impending, sudden abortion. Whether it is a fetus, a human or something in between, and whether it is the subject of an abortion, an accident, a cold-hearted murder, or a nice, cozy one, it doesn’t know it and it never will.
It could, however, in time, learn a whole lot about how it’s unwanted, and how the family is uncapable of supporting it. The parents, too, have to live with this.
A spade is something you can dig with, whatever you call it, and calling abortion MURDER of HUMANS is a neat way of proving that you don’t have any real arguments against it.
I must admit, when I look at the arguments that have been put forth by the pro-choice community over the years, the ones that don’t give me a good warm feeling about “the logical ammunition on our side” are the ones that take the form
• Abortion should remain legal because it’s legal which makes it right.
• Abortion is not the killing of a person because a fetus is not a person, it says so in the law, end of story.
• Abortion is not murder because the law defines murder as the killing of a person, and no one is a person until they are born, it says so right here in the law, so there.
Those all strike me as defensive arguments. (I don’t know why I should so readily assume that most of us pro-choicers do not automatically believe that whatever The Establishment and Its Laws have deemed to be right is right and whatever it has deemed to be wrong is wrong…but I do. We are not otherwise enthralled with Authority).
C’mon. They are wrong. We need not hide behind what is legal, we have the moral authority, and if we continue to shrink away from discussions (or even apparently pointless arguments) revolving around what is right and moral, we’re going to continue to lose ground.
I don’t know if that was a serious post that you expected me to respond to, or just a joke. I’m not advocating that we do change the definition of a person, just pointing out that the current one isn’t religion dependent and it’s not the only definition that makes sense scientifically. The definition of murder, OTOH, isn’t an arbitrary thing and if we changed its defintion we’d need to invent a new word to convey the older meaning.