If you assume it's a baby, don't claim to be confused

[js_africanus]

[

I then hear the argument that one cannot reasonably defend the killing of innocent babies and then turn around and be horrified by the humane elimination of monsters that have proven themselves to be unfit to live in society.

](boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=233257)
If you assume that a feotus (however it is spelled) is a baby, you’ve assumed the argument. Duh.

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

So, what’s your point?

[js_africanus]

@Thea Logica

So, what’s your point?

@js_africanus

If you assume that a feotus (however it is spelled) is a baby, you’ve assumed the argument. Duh.

Blah, blah, motherfucking, blah! <–Hamster-required verbaige.

[iamthewalrus_3]

There’s more to the argument than that.

Read Judith Jarvis Thompson’s Defense of Abortion, which includes an argument for abortion even assuming that the fetus is granted personhood.

But going further should really be done in Great Debates.

[iamthewalrus_3]

Sorry, it’s Thomson

[duffer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thea Logica
So, what’s your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by js_africanus
If you assume that a feotus (however it is spelled) is a baby, you’ve assumed the argument. Duh.

Blah, blah, motherfucking, blah! <–Hamster-required verbaige.
Oh, please tell me you’re pro-choice. If not, just shut the fuck up. You’re not helping.

[yosemite]

[quote=duffer0 Oh, please tell me you’re pro-choice. If not, just shut the fuck up. You’re not helping.[/quote]
No one’s obligated to help you, you know.

[coffeecat]

I’ve never met anyone else who’s read J. J. Thomson! Maybe I just don’t get out enough, being surgically attached to a famous violinist and all.

[lavenderviolet]

@iamthewalrus(:3=

There’s more to the argument than that.
Read Judith Jarvis Thompson’s Defense of Abortion, which includes an argument for abortion even assuming that the fetus is granted personhood.

And then read this response to her analogy:
http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html

[kung_fu_lola]

Oh god, “Libertarians For Life”? Is Lib around? Can someone bring him in here, please? Perhaps he can explain these imbeciles.

They claim that;

Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional.

and then they say; right after;

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Sure. Reeeeeeeeeeal “scientific”, there. :rolleyes: Wackos.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

Well, according to their own literature the foetus is a biologically a person from fertilization. Granted, it’s their literature, but this layman can’t see anything wrong with it, and callin’ 'em wackos without argument isn’t going to convince anybody.

Of course, this is the pit.

[Larry_Mudd]

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Won’t somebody please think of the zygotes? :rolleyes:

[Nametag]

@Cheese Monster

Well, according to their own literature the foetus is a biologically a person from fertilization. Granted, it’s their literature, but this layman can’t see anything wrong with it, and callin’ 'em wackos without argument isn’t going to convince anybody.

Of course, this is the pit.

“Person” is not a biological concept; it’s a legal concept. One who claims that a fetus is “biologically a person” is therefore, at best, ill-informed. I’m sticking with the whacko option, meself.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Well, I claim to be confused. (Almost got my coding wrong - is there a jinx on this thread?)

If you’re going to call a fetus a person, does that make every egg and sperm a half-person? Are we all guilty of huge amounts of half-murder every time we ovulate or get rid of sperm that isn’t fertilized? Do all the half-murders add up to complete murders? Are we all a bunch of whackos? Does anybody really know what time it is?