Actually, the American legal landscape being what it is, it’s probably perfectly fine to kick a trespasser out of your house and into a raging blizzard. In some jurisdictions you might even have the right to shoot him up some first :).
This argument isn’t about what the law is, it’s about what the law should be.
enipla, No, the embryo Is. A. Child. Not a ‘posability’ (sic.), a child. It’s a member of the human species, and a distinct human organism, at a particularly early stage of its life cycle. Same way as an apple seed represents a distinct individual of the domestic apple species, just at a particularly early stage of development. The embryo is as much a person as you or me, and compared to his of her life, the so-called ‘liberty’ and ‘autonomy’ of the mother are trivial and should not be our primary concern. whether or not she was raped, is irrelevant to whether she has the right to murder her baby, born or unborn.
I’m sure you do have rude things to say about my views, and since you’re apparently endorsing the dehumanization of the unborn as a prelude to justifying their deaths, I assure you the feeling is mutual.
Regarding ‘sentience’: I’m not a physicalist when it comes to mind/brain issues, but rather a substance dualist, so I don’t believe a brain is necessary for thought, and I don’t know exactly whether an embryo is sentient in some sense. That aside, I don’t regard whether a human being is capable of walking, talking and discussing Plato to be the guide to whether or not we can kill them. a human person is deserving of the right to life not because of what we can do, but because of what we are. and no amount of bluster about the developmental stages of the embryo and it’s ‘sentience’ or lack thereof, changes what it is.
Oh, I know. I also know that based on his posting history **Terr **is very likely to be in favour of any and all “Get the FUCK off my property !” laws along with castle doctrine, so this is still fun for me.
Well, *I *believe embryos are actually the living spawn of Loki Lie-Smith, will bring about Ragnärok and as such should not be allowed into this plane of existence, and since clearly baseless belief and gut feelings should be codified into law…
That is true. And what it is, to many people, sometimes is a burdensome clump of undifferentiated cells and the harbinger of one or more destroyed lives. Existing ones.
Kobal2 What species is a human embryo?
What species are the cells in each hair that fall off of your head every day? Should we outlaw hairs falling out?
What species are your fingernail cells? Should we outlaw clipping of ones fingernails?
I don’t think this rhetorical point carries the weight that you may think it does.
Well, obviously based upon my beliefs they’re half-jötunn.
So, the value of a person is to be based on whether or not they inconvenience other people? I see.
So, you’ll have no trouble showing us an example of a thought that didn’t come from a brain . . . right?
CMC fnord!
No. Terr was drawing an explicit comparison of abortion to manslaughter and homicide. He was trying to defend his belief that abortion is homicide, not that the law “should” hold it to be.
And here, you, too, fall into the fallacy of declaring that an opinion is a fact. Maybe the embryo should be a child; that’s your opinion, apparently. But it is not factually true.
That’s the major pisser of this thread at this time. It has utterly devolved into “Is,” “Isn’t,” “Is,” “Is not,” “Is so!” “'Tain’t neither!”
Neither side has anything to say that is in the least convincing to the other. We all just flat-out disagree. Lots of talking, no communicating.
Seriously, it’s time for this thread to die (be aborted) just as all of the other hundreds of abortion threads on the SDMB have been. It isn’t viable, and, worse, it has stopped growing. The fetus is dead. Let’s bury it, until the next time (may it be many trimesters from now.)
I often get good results from randomized mechanical processes, such as the “Dial-a-Thot” from Tom Weller’s “Cvltvre Made Stvpid.” It actually isn’t very hard to write a program that takes phrases and terms and puts them together algorithmically. Just as an example, “Penny Wise and Early to Bed, Saves Nine.”
Isn’t that elegant? Ideas that come from no brain, no mind, nowhere at all! 
And the scenario I described is, in fact, manslaughter, and in some jurisdictions probably second degree murder.
Oh, no, absolutely not. I mean, that was a token attempt to interject a modicum of human empathy into the proceedings, but the crux of the issue remains that I sincerely believe infants are going to bring on Ragnarök. The final conflict. The gods versus the Ice Giants, and the gods are gonna lose.
Therefore, since beliefs trump both hard facts and rational science, the law must say they gotta be ended, all of them.
And, since abortion is not manslaughter in any jurisdiction in the U.S., the comparison between the scenario you described and abortion completely fails.
You think that abortion should be considered manslaughter, but, at present it isn’t.
You continue to confuse these two states of reality.
Meanwhile, denying me the right to go out and kill strangers in the honor of Kali is severely infringing on my religious freedoms.
(But the courts were nice enough to let us engage in ritual use of Peyote…)
Now I have to find a religion that requires banks to give me large amounts of money… “The Church of John Dillinger?” Nah, it ends up with me getting my whizbang shot off.
Unless this person has never experienced consciousness, then I would say that such a person does have a sense of identity that would be destroyed should that person be killed. An early term fetus has no brain no sense of identity and never had one. It is only a potential, much like a ovum that is washed out in a menstral period is a potential.
As far as human DNA being all that matters, are stem cells babies?
No, it does not. I agree with the others who say this thread is going nowhere, but basic points like this have to be refuted.
Do I have to explain why a sleeping person is actually a human being? Really? My criteria are perfectly valid. They can be briefly transient, during sleep, unconsciousness, or even temporary comas of certain kinds. But the person has a history – a lifetime of experiences and memories and the moral right to their continuation. A newborn baby has a very limited history, but a history nonetheless, from at least its first breath and moment of sentience that endows it with its rightful moral standing among us in this world. Some might argue that it was sentient for some time even before birth, and that’s not a point particularly worth arguing as that’s not what the abortion debate is about.
But to assert that this is a human being – and a “human being” with rights to be protected by law against the best interests of the mother – is theocratic abject nonsense, with undertones of misogyny and cruel sanctimonious vindictiveness. And that’s what the abortion debate is about.
Or alternatively consider the question of human reproductive cloning which I realize is illegal, but can still provide an interesting intellectual exercise.
- take a skin cell (not a baby)
- extract its DNA (still not a baby?)
- take an egg cell (not a baby)
- remove its DNA (still not a baby?)
- put DNA from skin cell into empty egg (suddenly a baby?)
If so why? is it the human DNA (which the skin cell had) or the egg or what?
How can someone have a “sense of identity” in a coma?
Once again, does the person in a coma have “sentience, consciousness, awareness or intelligence”?
Now you’re moving goalposts. All that stuff doesn’t matter, to be a person one has to have “history”. Thus you should be able to kill full amnesiacs without any problem, right?