Oh lord it's Heywood. Hello, love. Take out your dictionary and notice that murder is the unlawfully killing of a person.

For my part, I don't really care about definitions and legal terminology, here; definitions change and there's no guarantee that laws will be morally correct or even particularly effective at what they set out to do. What I'm more interested in is the moral argument: is abortion morally justifiable?

Barring bare assertions and equivocations, I've yet to really see a cogently made argument that it's not.

(June 20, 2014 at 8:06 am)Heywood Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But the law is against you. Fetuses are not human beings.

This brings you back to the status of mere busy-body trying to inject your religion (btw, your 'god' had no problem with killing babies let alone fetuses) onto someone else.

Negative Minimalist.

Fetuses are protected human beings under the law in many jurisdictions. Abortion is not murder because muder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is lawful so it is not technically murder. If you kill a fetus without the mothers consent you can be convicted of murder(because doing so is an unlawful killing of another human being). Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder in California of two human beings....one of which was the unborn child of Laci Peterson. There are several other instances of people being convicted of murder by assaulting pregnant women and causing them to miscarry.

So the mother's consent is what the law is based around in this regard. Fair enough.

But what does this have to do with the mother's choice to abort if she wishes to?

(June 20, 2014 at 8:38 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 8:06 am)Heywood Wrote: Negative Minimalist.

Fetuses are protected human beings under the law in many jurisdictions. Abortion is not murder because muder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is lawful so it is not technically murder. If you kill a fetus without the mothers consent you can be convicted of murder(because doing so is an unlawful killing of another human being). Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder in California of two human beings....one of which was the unborn child of Laci Peterson. There are several other instances of people being convicted of murder by assaulting pregnant women and causing them to miscarry.

So the mother's consent is what the law is based around in this regard. Fair enough.

But what does this have to do with the mother's choice to abort if she wishes to?

I was just disputing Minimalist's claim that fetuses are not human beings under the law.....they are. I'm still burnt out from the last abortion thread so I have no intention in getting into the nuts and bolts of this one.

(June 20, 2014 at 8:53 am)Heywood Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 8:38 am)Irrational Wrote: So the mother's consent is what the law is based around in this regard. Fair enough.

But what does this have to do with the mother's choice to abort if she wishes to?

I was just disputing Minimalist's claim that fetuses are not human beings under the law.....they are. I'm still burnt out from the last abortion thread so I have no intention in getting into the nuts and bolts of this one.

I don't know what the laws in America say, but (as far as I'm concerned) the abortion debate should not really be about whether or not fetuses are human beings or persons.

(June 20, 2014 at 3:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You haven't given a reason in your preempt.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The argument here, as far as I can tell, is over the definition of personhood and when it is morally and/or legally allowed to kill a person. It has not been challenged that it is morally and/or legally impermissible to kill a living non-person. There is also confusion between what is a person and what is a 'human being.' I'm going to use these terms interchangeably and reserve the term 'human tissue' for flesh which has a complete human genome but is not a person.
The definition I've seen here used by Arthur123 is incorporated in the claim that the fertilized egg is a human being. Justification for this claim appears to lie in the property of that egg to potentially develop into a person/human being if properly cared for.

Quote:Both sperm and egg are not human beings, and neither are isolated human cells. Arthur is defending the rights of human beings.

My contra-example question revolves around whether or not it is permissible to terminate the tissue in, for example, his inner cheek which, if properly cared for, can potentially develop into a person/human through the technical process of cloning. As an 'isolated human cell' it shares the same potential as the fertilized egg and I question why it is not afforded the same legal and/or moral rights.

I hope this clarifies. In return, could you please explain further your claim that

Quote:The zygote is a human being according to science.

Your use of the phrase 'according to science,' is pretty vague.



.

(June 20, 2014 at 8:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: For my part, I don't really care about definitions and legal terminology, here; definitions change and there's no guarantee that laws will be morally correct or even particularly effective at what they set out to do. What I'm more interested in is the moral argument: is abortion morally justifiable?

Barring bare assertions and equivocations, I've yet to really see a cogently made argument that it's not.

I just hate that he intentionally says it wrong just to help him prove his point, because the real definition doesn't work for him. It just drives me crazy.

(June 20, 2014 at 8:56 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 8:53 am)Heywood Wrote: I was just disputing Minimalist's claim that fetuses are not human beings under the law.....they are. I'm still burnt out from the last abortion thread so I have no intention in getting into the nuts and bolts of this one.

I don't know what the laws in America say, but (as far as I'm concerned) the abortion debate should not really be about whether or not fetuses are human beings or persons.

Debating if fetuses are human beings is like debating if the earth is round. You are correct in that we should not be debating whether or not fetuses are human beings as this is completely obvious(except to the stupid and incredulous). Personhood has a place in the debate I think so I disagree with you there.

(June 20, 2014 at 9:12 am)Heywood Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 8:56 am)Irrational Wrote: I don't know what the laws in America say, but (as far as I'm concerned) the abortion debate should not really be about whether or not fetuses are human beings or persons.

Debating if fetuses are human beings is like debating if the earth is round. You are correct in that we should not be debating whether or not fetuses are human beings as this is completely obvious(except to the stupid and incredulous). Personhood has a place in the debate I think so I disagree with you there.

No, it shouldn't. I said it before. This isn't about fetuses being persons or not. Rather, this is about fetus' rights (if they have any) vs host's rights.

Person argument is a red herring and, in my opinion, disingenuous.

(June 20, 2014 at 9:18 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 9:12 am)Heywood Wrote: Debating if fetuses are human beings is like debating if the earth is round. You are correct in that we should not be debating whether or not fetuses are human beings as this is completely obvious(except to the stupid and incredulous). Personhood has a place in the debate I think so I disagree with you there.

No, it shouldn't. I said it before. This isn't about fetuses being persons or not. Rather, this is about fetus' rights (if they have any) vs host's rights.

Person argument is a red herring and, in my opinion, disingenuous.

The claim would be that it is personhood that grants moral protection and not simply being a human being. I don't agree with that claim but I don't think it is a stupid or incredulous claim(like the claim that a fetus is not a human being).