Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 110:

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well.

But, in the strictest sense, they are not human, only potentially so.

why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"?

I could have worded that better, but as I explain above, they are "losers at being human", what with the lack of several defining characters.

if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Not necessary. We breed like cockroaches at the Escoes.

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it.

But only the fetus is human, in the strictest sense.

why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

I don't base my consideration on such, but on whether they are human or not. The point about pain and fear is to show they have some level of self-awareness. I accept my definition of self aware may not be the most common.

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"?

Of course they did. The failure to remember something has no effect on the actuality of that something.

for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care.

Many do care about the pain of a fetus, and so the abortion debate - the end result of this OP, imo - rages. I don't think we should make such considerations about ending a life on whether the life experiences pain or not.

what is the memory span of a fetus?

As a lifetime lover of all things marijuana, I'd dare say longer than mine.

Some clarificatin'...
My point in all this is that we should consider the fetus based not on whether it experiences pain, or is self aware, or that it can remember. It is a human; in form, in function, in all ways down to its DNA, which ova and sperm are not. I take tickitytak's angle - IMO - as a "dismissal" of the fetus, rather than as a "proper" consideration of the fact this is a human.
I am pro choice, and think a mother's right to her body is paramount, but I also think we should not sweep facts under the rug in order to discuss what I consider the ultimate end of this OP - the abortion issue.

[realthinker]

From Page 11 Post 110:

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well.

But, in the strictest sense, they are not human, only potentially so.

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"?

I could have worded that better, but as I explain above, they are "losers at being human", what with the lack of several defining characters.

if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Not necessary. We breed like cockroaches at the Escoes.

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it.

But only the fetus is human, in the strictest sense.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

I don't base my consideration on such, but on whether they are human or not. The point about pain and fear is to show they have some level of self-awareness. I accept my definition of self aware may not be the most common.

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"?

Of course they did. The failure to remember something has no effect on the actuality of that something.

for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care.

Many do care about the pain of a fetus, and so the abortion debate - the end result of this OP, imo - rages. I don't think we should make such considerations about ending a life on whether the life experiences pain or not.

what is the memory span of a fetus?

As a lifetime lover of all things marijuana, I'd dare say longer than mine.

Some clarificatin'...
My point in all this is that we should consider the fetus based not on whether it experiences pain, or is self aware, or that it can remember. It is a human; in form, in function, in all ways down to its DNA, which ova and sperm are not.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I take tickitytak's angle - IMO - as a "dismissal" of the fetus, rather than as a "proper" consideration of the fact this is a human.
I am pro choice, and think a mother's right to her body is paramount, but I also think we should not sweep facts under the rug in order to discuss what I consider the ultimate end of this OP - the abortion issue.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's. That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life. The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 12 Post 112:

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

Agreed up to the point anyone says a fetus is not a human.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

"Potential" human says little about a fetus, which is a human. In the strictest sense, it is a living person, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I accept what I understand as the medically accepted term of "viability", and consider it a much better determinate for abortion purposes than "self aware".

A fetus is, by virtue of its DNA a human. This is "not up for debate". A human is considered to go through various forms during the natural course of events, none of which negate that DNA is the best indicator of what it is to be human.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's.

For clarification I'm pro choice. My point is to not skirt around the issue of a fetus being a human, but to confront it headlong when considering abortion.

I've had a previous discussion about the slippery slope of calling a fetus a "person", where such is used as an end run around various Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion. In most uses I'd call a fetus a person, but would not do so as a matter of trying to stop abortion.

That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life.

Same here. My issue in this thread is ensuring we don't "dance around" difficult concepts and facts.

The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

With certain philosophical caveats I agree. I still consider the fetus a person, but I also consider the mother's reproductive rights as paramount in the case of abortion.

So, I disagree on the issue of person, but do agree on the issue of viability.

[realthinker]

From Page 12 Post 112:

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

Agreed up to the point anyone says a fetus is not a human.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

"Potential" human says little about a fetus, which is a human. In the strictest sense, it is a living person, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I accept what I understand as the medically accepted term of "viability", and consider it a much better determinate for abortion purposes than "self aware".

A fetus is, by virtue of its DNA a human. This is "not up for debate". A human is considered to go through various forms during the natural course of events, none of which negate that DNA is the best indicator of what it is to be human.

I think I can agree with the unique DNA signature being enough to call a fetus a distinct human.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's.

For clarification I'm pro choice. My point is to not skirt around the issue of a fetus being a human, but to confront it headlong when considering abortion.

I've had a previous discussion about the slippery slope of calling a fetus a "person", where such is used as an end run around various Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion. In most uses I'd call a fetus a person, but would not do so as a matter of trying to stop abortion.

That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life.

Same here. My issue in this thread is ensuring we don't "dance around" difficult concepts and facts.

The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

With certain philosophical caveats I agree. I still consider the fetus a person, but I also consider the mother's reproductive rights as paramount in the case of abortion.

So, I disagree on the issue of person, but do agree on the issue of viability.

I think we are essentially in agreement. But are you OK with saying that there are persons that do not have the same right to life as those born? Some will get hung up on the words.

[scourge99]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Yes, I am saying that. Given two legal equals, one individual cannot be made to give up what another is to gain.

But you ignore the differing conditions and intentions of individuals that our current legal system so plainly acknowledges in differing such things, for example, as murder from manslaughter, attempted murder from assault, and promiscuity from prostitution. However, when it comes to abortion you seem to ONLY see the issue in black or white, a dichotomy: violation of rights = death; no violation = no death. Do you disagree with our current justice system that differentiates between intent? Should all assaults be prosecuted as attempted murder? Should all deaths be treated as murder (no manslaughter). Why do you have one standard when it comes to fetuses but then another stance when it comes to full grown humans?

Obviously a fetus doesn't willfully "intend" to violate her mother's rights. Only for the most heinous crimes do you punish people with death and definitely not for manslaughter in this country. How is being an unwilling fetus an equal violation of rights as murder such that it deserves capital punishment?

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights.

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

Our justice system is a perfect example. Punishments differ with severity and intent of the offender. Do you disagree with that? Should all offenders be given the same exact punishment from stealing, to not paying taxes, to rape and murder?

Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous. And where justice is carried out for the most part fairly?

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term? Or is it something else entirely or some combination? Please elaborate.

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Then why did you avoid answering my previous questions? They were direct and easy to answer. Instead, you ignored them and repeated an answer from the previous post that doesn't address my question. When I posit examples that would merit a similar response you dismiss them without addressing them.

Then you go on to make an assertion about my perspective on your position but you refuse to substantiate it. You essentially said " No, you are wrong." and then didn't explain why. Do you not wish to debate this?

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

There is no "child". True, most would call the "child" a fetus. Why does that matter? Are you hoping labels make your argument for you? Couldn't I just claim the "fetus" is a "human" (another label)? See how that answer isn't compelling, how it isn't justified, how it isn't reasoned. Its simply begging the question... why does being a "child" or "human" matter?

[realthinker]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Yes, I am saying that. Given two legal equals, one individual cannot be made to give up what another is to gain.

But you ignore the differing conditions and intentions of individuals that our current legal system so plainly acknowledges in differing such things, for example, as murder from manslaughter, attempted murder from assault, and promiscuity from prostitution. However, when it comes to abortion you seem to ONLY see the issue in black or white, a dichotomy: violation of rights = death; no violation = no death. Do you disagree with our current justice system that differentiates between intent? Should all assaults be prosecuted as attempted murder? Should all deaths be treated as murder (no manslaughter). Why do you have one standard when it comes to fetuses but then another stance when it comes to full grown humans?

Obviously a fetus doesn't willfully "intend" to violate her mother's rights. Only for the most heinous crimes do you punish people with death and definitely not for manslaughter in this country. How is being an unwilling fetus an equal violation of rights as murder such that it deserves capital punishment?

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights.

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

Our justice system is a perfect example. Punishments differ with severity and intent of the offender. Do you disagree with that? Should all offenders be given the same exact punishment from stealing, to not paying taxes, to rape and murder?

I don't think I can grant that a spectrum of punishment is evidence of a disparity in the significance of rights. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I haven't thought about it enough to make a real statement about it.

Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

I simply disagree with this statement. You cannot give that fetus the right to another's life.

If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous. And where justice is carried out for the most part fairly?

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus.

No, that is how you chose to interpret what I said. I said nothing about why a mother may wish to abort. I said that a fetus whose life is not independent is an encumbrance. That's a biological fact.

You fail to grasp that the encumbrance is biological and necessary rather than cognitive or emotional. I don't care how the mother feels about it. The fetus lives only because the mother's body provides respiration, nutrition, and circulation. That is an encumbrance upon the mother's body. To protect that arrangement in a fashion that gives the fetus an equal consideration gives that fetus a right to the mother's life in addition to its own, because that is biologically, necessarily, the only way a fetus has life.

Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term? Or is it something else entirely or some combination? Please elaborate.

I've not changed anything. You seem to have used something I've said to alter your interpretation of it to mean something other than what I've said.

I don't care why a mother might wish to terminate a pregnancy. I've simply said that to do so is not a conflict with anyone's right to life if it's done before viability.

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Then why did you avoid answering my previous questions? They were direct and easy to answer. Instead, you ignored them and repeated an answer from the previous post that doesn't address my question. When I posit examples that would merit a similar response you dismiss them without addressing them.

Then you go on to make an assertion about my perspective on your position but you refuse to substantiate it. You essentially said " No, you are wrong." and then didn't explain why. Do you not wish to debate this?

No, I don't wish to debate with you when you continually expect me to defend your interpretation of what I've said rather than what I have actually said.

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

There is no "child". True, most would call the "child" a fetus. Why does that matter? Are you hoping labels make your argument for you? Couldn't I just claim the "fetus" is a "human" (another label)? See how that answer isn't compelling, how it isn't justified, how it isn't reasoned. Its simply begging the question... why does being a "child" or "human" matter?

You evidently fail to grasp the semantics of the words being used, even in your own statements.

I'm trying to make you understand that before viability a fetus is subordinate to a person and that it cannot be treated or considered in the same fashion. This is because its life is necessarily biologically dependent upon its mother's life. To give it a fully protected right to life would be to give it a right to its mother's life. The consequences of that would deny the mother her rights. I don't believe giving something entirely and necessarily subordinate the right to someone else's life is acceptable.

I've also explained that it's different than the dependence of a fully developed and born child because a child's life is not a necessary biological encumbrance upon any other person's life. The behavioral dependence - the care and feeding that a young child requires - is not a necessary dependence. It's transferrable to anyone capable. That means that the child's right to life can be fully protected independent of anyone else's.

[scourge99]

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

Our justice system is a perfect example. Punishments differ with severity and intent of the offender. Do you disagree with that? Should all offenders be given the same exact punishment from stealing, to not paying taxes, to rape and murder?

I don't think I can grant that a spectrum of punishment is evidence of a disparity in the significance of rights. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I haven't thought about it enough to make a real statement about it.

Wouldn't it be optimal to discuss it in a place like this? The worst thing that happens is that you discover a new perspective and you and/or I learn something new.

You fail to grasp that the encumbrance is biological and necessary rather than cognitive or emotional. I don't care how the mother feels about it. The fetus lives only because the mother's body provides respiration, nutrition, and circulation. That is an encumbrance upon the mother's body. To protect that arrangement in a fashion that gives the fetus an equal consideration gives that fetus a right to the mother's life in addition to its own, because that is biologically, necessarily, the only way a fetus has life.

Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

I simply disagree with this statement. You cannot give that fetus the right to another's life.

For the third time, if the mother's life is in danger I fully agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion. But what you are failing to address is that in most cases of abortion the mother's life is NOT in any danger. When the mother's life is NOT in danger why is it acceptable to kill the fetus/child? This is why we went into the discussion about the inequality of rights. However you have yet to elaborate further on that matter.

If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous. And where justice is carried out for the most part fairly?

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus.

No, that is how you chose to interpret what I said. I said nothing about why a mother may wish to abort. I said that a fetus whose life is not independent is an encumbrance. That's a biological fact.

Why does a biological fact matter in regards to morality and ethics? Do you think BIOLOGY determines morality? Fro example, if scientists define life at conception (which they do) then does that settle the matter on when civil rights begin? It doesn't because science is silent in regards to morality--unless you are claiming some type of "natural rights" position, which I don't believe you are. Nonetheless, people use scientific findings to refine their position and to add validity to their arguments. But that is NOT what you are doing. You are falling into fallacious reasoning by making appeals to authority, specifically appeals to science, hoping that it makes your argument for you. Please, use science to support your answer, but unless you are claiming some type of "natural rights" then it doesn't follow that scientific findings determine morality and ethics.

Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term? Or is it something else entirely or some combination? Please elaborate.

I don't care why a mother might wish to terminate a pregnancy. I've simply said that to do so is not a conflict with anyone's right to life if it's done before viability.

And as I've asked before, why does viability matter? This is why we went into the discussion on the disparity and inequality between rights. A discussion about how all rights and violations thereof are not equal. You forfeited that discussion by saying you needed time to think about it. So we are once again at an impasse until that issue is addressed.

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Then why did you avoid answering my previous questions? They were direct and easy to answer. Instead, you ignored them and repeated an answer from the previous post that doesn't address my question. When I posit examples that would merit a similar response you dismiss them without addressing them.

Then you go on to make an assertion about my perspective on your position but you refuse to substantiate it. You essentially said " No, you are wrong." and then didn't explain why. Do you not wish to debate this?

No, I don't wish to debate with you when you continually expect me to defend your interpretation of what I've said rather than what I have actually said.

Are you telling me this question is not simple to answer:

Is it acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon your rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even if that intrusion was caused by the victim?

My answer is, NO. No, it is not acceptable to kill another for any intrusion upon your rights unless your life, another's life, or your livelihood (an extension of your life) is in danger.

Why? Because the right to life trumps all other rights in most cases. Especially so when those rights are infringed upon unintentionally or due to the victim's own negligence.

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

There is no "child". True, most would call the "child" a fetus. Why does that matter? Are you hoping labels make your argument for you? Couldn't I just claim the "fetus" is a "human" (another label)? See how that answer isn't compelling, how it isn't justified, how it isn't reasoned. Its simply begging the question... why does being a "child" or "human" matter?

I'm trying to make you understand that before viability a fetus is subordinate to a person and that it cannot be treated or considered in the same fashion. This is because its life is necessarily biologically dependent upon its mother's life. To give it a fully protected right to life would be to give it a right to its mother's life.

No it doesn't!! Its gives the fetuses life precedence over the mother's rights up to some point but prior to her right to life.

The consequences of that would deny the mother her rights. I don't believe giving something entirely and necessarily subordinate the right to someone else's life is acceptable.

I agree!!! If the mother's life is in danger then she should be able to abort. But in most cases that isn't the case with abortion. What do you have to say about the cases where the mother's life isn't in danger??

I've also explained that it's different than the dependence of a fully developed and born child because a child's life is not a necessary biological encumbrance upon any other person's life.

But that biological encumbrance is not death 99% of the time. Are you arguing that it is? That the only reason people should be allowed to get abortions is if their is reason to believe the mother will die if they continue with pregnancy?

The behavioral dependence - the care and feeding that a young child requires - is not a necessary dependence. It's transferrable to anyone capable. That means that the child's right to life can be fully protected independent of anyone else's.

This is where our argument ended last time when I brought up the point about the inequality of rights that you deferred to address until later. I will wait for your response on that. We don't want to argue in circles and arrive at the same impasse.

[jwitness]

Psalm 139:13-16 – “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother… your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.�
Exodus 21:22,23 – “in case men should struggle with each other and the really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul.

[scourge99]

Psalm 139:13-16 – “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother… your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.�

"16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." ~Hosea 13:16

"12And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child." ~2 Kings 8:12

"34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" ~Deuteronomy 2:34

"3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." ~I Samuel 15:3

Exodus 21:22,23 – “in case men should struggle with each other and the really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul.

This scripture actually hurts your case. The fetus is considered of less value than a man's life because the offender is only fined and punished, not killed. However, if anyone kills another man he is put to death. It quite clear that God thinks fetuses (and woman and slaves, for that matter) are of less value then free men.

"12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. " ~Exodus 21:12

[Goat]

Psalm 139:13-16 – “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother… your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.�
Exodus 21:22,23 – “in case men should struggle with each other and the really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul.

Have you actually read those passages in context? It does not seem you are applying the phrases in context, as a matter of fact, I know you are not.

Quote mining is not a particularly convincing argument.