It really isn’t. It’s just a philosophical one: where does a bundle of cells become a human with rights?
It’s not.
To me it’s a simple issue. A fetus is not a life by any stretch of the imagination. Thus it has no rights.
That is my view, too, but it is not universally held.
Because I do not think that a fertilized egg represents a human life either.
My question is where you draw the distinction between the fertilized egg and the appendix. More precisely, why you believe the former to be a human life but not the latter.
As I said, not necessarily a cheerleader for abortion.
I am a cheerleader for accuracy, though.
Left alone, without killing it/removing it, there is exactly 0 chance that the appendix will be born and develop into an adult human. Unless you know something I don’t.
Wow. I consider myself a pro-choicer, but that is a bit extreme for me.
A fetus in its latter stages of development is a fully formed human being. During the last weeks of pregnancy it would in most cases be able to survive outside the mother’s body. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to call it a life.
Were you maybe thinking of an embryo?
The definition of “infant” is more complicated than you’re admitting. It’s certainly not “a human that’s not an adult.”
This is exactly backwards. Because it’s more ethical to kill a fetus than to kill an infant, we use different words for the acts. We don’t use the different words in order to make an ethical difference, any more than we call “bagels” and “doughnuts” by different words in order to let us cook them in different ways.
Do an experiment. Go out in the street and ask 20 random people “what’s a human that’s not an adult”. See what they answer.
I agree. The egg may one day become a child, the appendix won’t. I have said as much earlier.
But now we are back to the item of potential. We are no longer talking about what the egg currently is, but rather about what it could become.
You have chosen to define the point in time when a sperm fuses into an egg as the beginning of human life (and if you are religious probably as the moment when a soul is created). It must be that very moment - none earlier and none later. I believe that to be an arbitrary definition and I find it unconvincing. And that becomes a problem when that unconvincing definition is used to deny women the right to decide what happens in and with their body.
If you believe that the definition is not arbitrary, then I would like to know why. What makes the moment of fertilisation more relevant than for example the moment of implantation, or as Robert had it the moment of the first heartbeat?
It’s raining outside, so I have opted to ask wikipedia instead:
Seems that “infant” does not apply to the unborn.
It’s the same exact thing with the 1-day old baby. It’s about potential, not what it is.
You agreed that it’s “human life”. So - the non-arbitrariness here is the principle of not terminating a “human life” without an extreme reason.
If you want to argue that it is “human life” before implantation, then that becomes the non-arbitrary point as well.
Weaseling, again.
I didn’t say “ask what “infant” means”.
I said ask “what’s a human that’s not an adult”. The exact phrasing that ** Left Hand of Dorkness** used.
What do you think the 20 random people asked would answer?
I’m okay with calling a fetus “alive and human life” and still being pro-choice. If you prefer to let labels and not circumstances guide your views, so be it.
Take the example of “infanticide”. Even if we use the term as broadly as you describe, there is a notable circumstantial difference between “infanticide” of a fetus and “infanticide” of an infant, namely its location inside or not inside the body of another person. If you use “infanticide” to describe one and “infanticide” to describe the other* in the same sentence without noting the distinction*, what you have done also has a label; “prevarication”.
My immediate answer would be “a child”, for what it’s worth.
:dubious: You go do your dumbass experiment.
Exactly. Tell that to Left Hand of Dorkness
Is that so? I would not kill a 1-day old baby, even if it had no potential whatsoever. Would you?
I have agreed to no such thing. On the contrary. (Please read my post #204 again.)
When does a “human life” begin? You seem to be dead sure to know the very moment and yet you refuse to say how you know it.
I’m not sure what the point is; it’s just another label dispute, as though applying the perfect label would immediately resolve the issue. Sheer fantasy, in my book.
I would not kill a fetus either.
Ah that’s correct. AHunter3 and Bryan Ekers did. Then you injected yourself into the conversation. Ok - if you don’t consider it a “human life” then it is ok to kill it - for you. I was pursuing AHunter3’s and Bryan Ekers’s line of argument where they consider it a “human life” but are fine with killing it.