(March 14, 2013 at 1:59 am)catfish Wrote: Then prove that it isn't an individual lifeform.
You can't and you know it.

Can it survive away from the mother?

If no, then it's no more an individual life form than your liver.

You guys are both funny, really you are. You will sit here and deny basic biology to support sanctioned murder... Weird, just weird...

Words you don't understand: Person. Rights. Murder.

---

Oh, and other people, ffs, how can you say a foetus inside a pergnant human isn't human? Of course it's a human foetus. It'd be incredibly surprising if it was a dolphin foetus.
But yeah, a foetus (human or dolphin) is no more a person than a flower seed is a flower.

Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>

Definition of MURDER
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Definition of HUMAN RIGHTS
: rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons

All definitions from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nope, looks like I do know the definitions of those words...
Care to redefine a person? Maybe a person doesn't (or didn't) exist as a fetus...

(March 14, 2013 at 4:20 am)catfish Wrote: Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>


Nope, looks like I do know the definitions of those words...
Care to redefine a person? Maybe a person doesn't (or didn't) exist as a fetus...

Or, alternately, we could just stop being difficult and see how bloody general that definition is. According to that definition a dead person is still a person; would you like to argue that one can murder a dead guy?

I think the key lies in that word "individual" there: how can we say that a fetus, not possessed of any of the experiences that make a person, is an individual? Or, hell, even human, really: it doesn't have any of the typical traits upon conception and a while thereafter.

We need a more specific definition to be useful, but you just go ahead, catfish: be as obtuse and frustrating as you want. It certainly wouldn't be any new ground for you.

(March 14, 2013 at 4:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: I think the key lies in that word "individual" there: how can we say that a fetus, not possessed of any of the experiences that make a person, is an individual?

So, do you claim that you never existed as a fetus?
.

Person comes from "persona", meaning a mask, from which a personality is expressed that identifies yourself as an individual.

Catholics also use "person" to express each part of the holy trinity - individual personalities, but the same substance.

But does a fertilized egg have a personality? A couple of years ago, in Mississippi, the extreme Right tried to pass a "personhood" law, stating just that - that a person is definied as a fertilized egg. It did fail to pass months later, since it's repercussions were well thought out. And the country mocked them, and by and large, the USA declared that a fertilized egg is not a person.

The way the "egg is a person" argument goes is like this: if a baby comes out of the womb, most will hold that it is a living person. So if so, then waht about one hour before, was it not a person? And the hour before that? And you go all the way back to a fertilized egg, which is the beginning. From that non-scientific argument, you have that very broad interpretation of "person".

But on the flip side, you have those who say that a fertilized egg is not a person, so it is ok to abort. What about an hour later? A day later? What about while the woman is in labor? What about after the baby is outside the womb?

And so you end up with both sides having a scale, with each individual having his or her own comfort level defined. And so you have the anti-abortion who says "No, in all cases!!! Well, except this one, that one...ok and that one". And then you have the pro-choice who goes "Yes!!! In all cases!!! Well, except that one, maybeee..." It used to be that abortion was always illegal, even at the cost of the mother's life. We have evolved from that perspective. Very few people would return to that day. Rape has been added to the discussion, which demonstrates the compassion of people.

But rather than extreme positions, there is a third path, a middle way, that nobody has yet to implement or even discuss. And you cannot have a discussion about abortion in some places, like you cannot have a reasonable discussion about guns in the USA. If you have the extremes making the decisions, they will never agree. Get the assholes out of the way, and reasonable people can succeed.

And as we see in this thread, a middle way would be very hard to acheive, never mind even talking about it.

(March 14, 2013 at 4:55 am)catfish Wrote:

(March 14, 2013 at 4:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: I think the key lies in that word "individual" there: how can we say that a fetus, not possessed of any of the experiences that make a person, is an individual?

So, do you claim that you never existed as a fetus?
.

The physical matter that composed my fetus existed, sure. But "me" as a person didn't. Because me as a person is built up of my memories and experience of the world, nothing more. Hence my distinction between the physical matter of the body and the person as an individual. A fetus, having had no memories or the apparatus to experience the world and exercise its conscious mind, is not a person.

I don't accept your definition of a person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_o...personhood

(March 14, 2013 at 5:43 am)catfish Wrote: I don't accept your definition of a person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_o...personhood

I know you don't. That doesn't, however, mean that you are correct, nor does it advance the argument any.

Got anything else?