There is a crime against the woman, not the fetus. The act would cause her great bodily and emotional harm, but she is the only victim in that scenario.
Diogenes
Since personhood is such a pointless term which has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the pro-life position all distinctions are going to be fairly meaningless but seriously dude, what did you expect?
You asked me to distinguish between humans prior to birth and ‘persons’ which is merely another term for humans after birth. My answer? One is the product of a birth and the other isn’t.
What other answer is possible?
The key principle it’s important for you to wrap your head around is that while pro-lifers accept that legally human beings (and for the purposes of sidestepping your inevitable semantic quibbling I’ll state right now that I’m using this term to refer to fetuses) do not become persons under the law until they’re born we don’t care! I’m not going to waste my time trying to argue that a fetus should be treated as a ‘person’. My position is that the whole concept of ‘personhood’ is entirely unnecessary.
In other words, pro-lifers do not recognise that there is any meaningful distinction between ‘human life’ and ‘person’ which would justify the formers status of persona non grata in the eyes of the law because they do not recognise the relevance of the latter appelation.
Clear?
Pertinent quote
A fetus is not just “tissue”. It is a developing human entity in its own right.
pizzabrat
You da-mn right we remember that. Knowing that’s what makes being a pro-lifer so goshgollydarned fun! We all hate women. Pro-lifers are evil misogynistic bastards who hate women and can only function sexually if they’re oppressing someone. However, this morning, while I was beating my wife around the head with a crucifix while she fellated me at gunpoint, I had an epiphany. No matter how vile and misogynistic you think we pro-lifers are, that doesn’t have any impact on the truth value of our arguments and conclusions.
If you want to argue for abortion rights from the standpoint that the mothers rights supercede those of the fetus that’s absolutely fine. I’d be glad to discuss that with you. Just don’t waste pixels insinuating that pro-lifers secretly hate women and have no concern for their welfare because (a) it’s not true and (b) Our concern or lack of such doesn’t make any fucking difference.
Blalron
I agree. However, that wasn’t my point. I was merely trying to demonstrate to Diogenes that in the context of pkbites statement baby=fetus.
This is absolutely incorrect. Where did you go to law school?
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter a whit what pro-lifers “recognize” or don’t recognize. You can believe whatever you want, but that belief does not give you the right to interfere with an another person’s body.
This DNA thing is a totally specious argument. The fact that a clump of tissue has unique DNA does not mean it’s not a clump of tissue and does not make it a person.
And I object to any attempted hijack of the language to try to define “fetus” and “baby” as synonomous.
I was asked for my personal opinion not a legal analysis. I’m aware that a person can be legally charged with the “murder” of a fetus. It’s a very bad law passed by mindless idealogues.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with punishing someone who does this with life in prison. I agree that it’s a reprehensible crime. I object only to defining it as “murder.” It’s an aggravated, felonious assault on a woman and it should be punished severely.
One word answer: Love.
Or, at least their skewed interpretation of it.
See, abortions kill poor unborn children - we must save them! We must enlighten everyone that this is The Truth!
And the Bible says you’ll go to Hell if you practice homosexuality - we must save them! We must enlighten everyone that this is The Truth!
We’re pretty sure that drugs, gambling, pornography and listening to rap music is bad for you - we must save them! We must enlighten everyone that this is The Truth!
That, and they think everyone who doesn’t agree with them has AN AGENDA, and are therefore bringing down western civilization as we know it, because It’s Not Like It Was Before, you know.
See? Can you feel the love?
Esprix
clears throat I once again remind everyone of this rather pertinent specification in the OP:
I happen to think this is an interesting issue in and of its own right, and would be happy to discuss it, but I’ll be damned if I’m willing to wade through a gajillion posts about the morality of abortion/homosexuality/whatever else to do it. Is it really that hard to respect the OP’s wishes in his or her own damn thread?
gr8guy - I kinda gave up on my own thread already. The actual topic must’ve been pretty dull. 
Diogenes the Cynic, just out of curiosity, do you have any children? The answer will aid my next post.
beagledave, you can take me of your list of people who say that.
I’d also like to haul this thing back to the OP (excuse me – this is going to take a bit of pulling!). I’m also going to play Devil’s Advocate and trust that the familiar names in this thread know me well enough to know I’m arguing for something which I firmly don’t believe.
[Devil’s Advocate]
If you firmly believe that homosexuality/gambling/drinking/following other religions is inherently, irredemably immoral as stated in various scriptures and/or church documents, then you believe a person who practices them is damaging something far more than their mortal body. They’re harming their eternal soul. Such a person is doomed to suffer, not for a few years, but for an eternity. As I understand their position, it goes a bit like this. If you could prevent someone from dying a horrible, lingering, painful death, you’d do everything you could to prevent it out of common concern and even love for them. To them, homosexuals/non-Christians, etc. are the traveller in Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan, lying broken, dying and in pain by the side of the road, and they are the Good Samaritans trying to help such people to their feet and set them on the path to wellness. They feel as obligated to stop them as I might feel obligated to stop a person from throwing themself of a cliff.
[/Devil’s Advocate]
It’s an interesting OP, despite the hijacks, and I hope this helps.
CJ
I’m a little unclear, so forgive me if I don’t get this right.
If you’re saying I should take you off the list because you didn’t say it…
I offer this
and
Or, are you saying to take you off “the list” because you changed your mind from your previous statements?
I’m saying take me off the list because I don’t hold that if pro life folks don’t use all forms of response, including violence, they are not serious about their philosophy…or are pacifistic cowards, and if I ever said that I did, then I misspoke.
If it doesn’t harm anybody, then having sex with your sister should be ok. you aren’t really hurting anybody.
Or how about sex with the dog, or sheep or any animal?
Or how about sex with a minor with agrees to have sex?
Or how about sex with a dead corpse of your wife?
Are those ok too?
I mean it’s ok if my friend has sex with his dead sister who was 16 and the parents watch and everyone is ok with it, right?
Do you actually think this is clever?
Ok, let’s take your specious analogies one by one.
1.) Sister banging: As long as both siblings are consenting adults, then yes it’s icky but nobody’s business.
2.) Bestiality: harms the animal and the animal can’t consent. It’s also quite unhygenic and can spread disease. So it’s not harmless. The analogy fails.
3.) kiddy raping: There is no such thing as “consent” from a minor. All sex with children is harmful. Your analogy fails.
4.) Humping corpses: Health issue again, also has the potential to cause great emotional damage to survivors of the victim (not to mention the corpse can’t consent). Not harmless. Your analogy fails.
Say it with me, “CONSENTING ADULTS.” Anything that two (or more) CONSENTING ADULTS want to do with each other is not per se immoral. If either one of the above conditions fails, you have a problem. Aside from the incest analogy, all of your above examples failed in one of those conditions rendering the analogies fallacious.
What is a minor? under 18? under 16? under 21?
What about a girl who is 16 or 17 who worked since 14 and has a full time job in a career she wants to do, is mature and ready to get married…
is that ok? Must I wait 1-2 years?
Isn’t it a health issue if you stick your thing in the anus unless you got a condom?
So the animal and corpse thing can be hygenic. One can wear condom, full body suit, whatever…
Consent… what if the dead wife before dying wrote a will saying that she would allow such an awful act?
I’m just saying where does the line stop? After homosexuality is “normal”, do sister bangers come out and ask for full legal rights? Will they have parades promoting their relationships?
Humping another of the same sex has the potential to cause great emotional damage to the parents of the people involved.
I know a friend that has a mother that tried to commit suicide because it is extremely frowned upon in the Korean culture when she found out that he was having sex with another man. She is now hospitalized.
Is that ok?
Why do you care so much, rookie? How does my relationship with my boyfriend affect you negatively?
Esprix
under 18.
Yes (and no one is ready to get married at 16).
I know it seems arbitrary to set a line at 18. Too bad. We have to set it somewhere, and of course, two sixteen-year-olds having sex is different than a sixteen-year-old and a thirty-year-old. There is grey area here, but the damage outside the grey area is so great that we need a bright (somewhat arbitrary line). We’re saying that we just aren’t taking any chances. An adult cannot have sex with a minor. Period.
It’s a health issue if you don’t wash your hands after you take a piss. The risk of STDs via unprotected sex is not in the same leagues as spreading airborne pathogens or contracting anthrax from a sheep. It’s the difference between risking your own health and endangering the health of those around you.
Wouldn’t help. Wouldn’t stop airborne pathogens (it’s not just humping the corpse, it’s having a corpse around at all that’s dangerous)…and with animals you still have the consent issue. Animals have a right to not get raped.
Irrelevant to the health issue.
I already told you: CONSENTING ADULTS.
Fine by me…and you can take the quotation marks off of “normal.” Homosexuality is normal. The AMA and the APA have both said for years that homosexuality is not a disorder and does not require treatment. It’s a perfectly normal orientation, not rhetorically “normal,” but actually normal.
Yes, it’s ok. Her son consented. I shouldn’t have to explain the difference between having a son who has consensual same sex relations as an adult and having somebody desecrate the corpse of a loved one.
Diogenes the Cynic, what exactly is “concent from an animal”?
Aside from sex, do we ever get concent from any animal?
I agree that raping and animal would be wrong, but what if the animal enjoys it? And aside from intercourse, what about any other sexual acts?
Can one animal give conent to another animal? ie breeding
The thought of sex with animals is disgusting, but the argument that is wrong because of concent is ridiculous.