Just because the fetus is not a person (yet!), it does not mean we can kill it. What's so important about being a person, anyway?
One has to be BORN to be a legal person. What's so important? Well, having rights is important to persons. If a fetus had rights they would be in direct conflict with the rights of the woman it's in, so she wins. Yes, we can kill a fetus. And yes, they are scientifically parasites.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that being a person is important because of the rights we confer upon them? Do you have credible source/s backing this up, or is this your personal opinion? Its like I said above, parasites are usually of a different species than the host.
Ronald Reagan is dead...let him rest in peace. Or is that supposed to be a "Brilliant Pro-Life Argument" like the title of this thread says???
I was jealous of him. The last 10 years of his life, he slept with a different woman every night. Huhhh,, who are you.
NO, I clearly stated : ""One has to be BORN to be a legal person. What's so important? Well, having rights is important to persons. If a fetus had rights they would be in direct conflict with the rights of the woman it's in, so she wins.""" NO where did I say "" being a person is important because of the rights we confer upon them?""" Look up "parasite"...it is an entity that lives off another entity. A fetus sustains it's life by "feeding" off the woman it's in. The scientific term for that is parasite.
Now you’re being dishonest. This is just semantics. Define murder since you said earlier that we have different definitions (even though I pulled it straight from the dictionary). And it really concerns mean that you think that you can hold a belief that is irrational and still be correct. An irrational belief means that it is illogical and devoid of reason. We do not live in a universe where illogical things exist. So no an irrational belief by definition is illogical and unreasonable and therefore cannot be true.
Most of this I don’t disagree with and isn’t my position. I misspoke in my response. You are correct that women have the right to kill it because it’s they’re body. However I don’t think that this is the best argument. It’s not going to convince people who already have preconceived notions about the rights of the fetus.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So you don't think women have the same right to their body that YOU do? A. The fetus is NOT a legal person with rights UNTIL birth. It can't since any rights it could have would be overridden by the rights of the woman it's in....you seem to think a fetus can "swing it's arms" all it wants to harm another. B. Growing a fetus does physical harm to women's bodies so let's discuss self defense IF the fetus is this person with rights that you insist it is... C. When we're BORN and have rights, with those rights comes RESTRICTIONS. We cannot use another's body to sustain our own life. Why do you want the fetus to have more rights than the woman it's in?? Why not? It's all true. If people think fetuses have rights then you are correct, no amount of facts or logic will change their minds... I DO believe that the most important aspect of the issue of abortion rights IS the fact that laws against abortion will rob women of the right to their own bodies. That is the baseline, the Big Point.... You didn't answer the question "why do you want the fetus to have more rights than the woman it's in?"
But I did not ask you what it takes to be a legal person. But I did not ask you what is important to persons. No. A fetus can be said to exhibit parasitic behaviors, true, but technically it's not a true parasite. Usually parasites are of a different species from the host. Just because a fetus feeds off the woman, it does not make it a parasite. In fact, if you go consult any authoritative scientific literature on biology and you look under the heading of "parasites", you will NOT find human fetus listed there. And that's because the scientific community do not consider the unborn to be true parasites. If you disagree with this, provide proof to prove this wrong. There is no need to accuse me of dishonesty. Let's debate civilly. My definition of murder: the deliberate killing of a live human by another human. I know that the world at large uses a different one than I do, but I don't care. Nobody can dictate to me what definition to use. You are free to feel this way. I don't particularly care to convince you whether my beliefs are rational or not.
So when a soldier kills another in war is it murder? Or if I kill someone trying to kill me is that murder? So you’re on a debating platform discussing different beliefs but don’t think you should convince me your belief is rational?
Yes. It is murder, not in a legal sense (soldiers don't get sent to jail for killing enemy soldiers), but in a philosophical/moral sense. Why do you think so many ex-soldiers feel guilt about having killed enemy soldiers? This is different. You are killing to save your life. Exceptions like this can be made. I am only interested in talking about abortion. All that talk about whether beliefs should be rational or not is of no real interest to me.
Sure you can make up whatever definitions you want for words but it doesn’t mean your right. Your just wrong plain and simple. Those two examples are proof that your definition is flawed because they’re not murder. We were talking about abortion when I said that your starting point that killing a human being is wrong because it has some kind of intrinsic value is irrational, which you agree with. But as you’ve stated you don’t care if your belief is rational or not so I have nothing else to discuss with you. A wise man once said hell is a place where there is not reason, and you just dragged me into hell.
You are free to think I am wrong. I am free to think I am right. It's like I said, not in a legal sense. But in a moral sense, yes. You are free to stop responding to me anytime you want. If you think I am "dragging you into hell", you are free to stop responding to me.
There is a parasitical relationship given that a pre-viable fetus cannot survive outside of the woman/host. You made this statement; That means that if a woman has a miscarriage then she causes harm to the fetus which fits the definition of MANSLAUGHTER, AKA an unintentional killing! Manslaughter is 3rd degree murder. How will you be able to distinguish between a natural miscarriage and an induced miscarriage? You can't which means that either you treat ALL miscarriages as manslaughter or you allow "murderers" to walk free after they induced a miscarriage. That is the hole you have dug for yourself on this point. You don't get to change the laws to suit your uninformed opinion. Since abortion is not a crime no one has to prove anything. However if you did IMPOSE your uninformed opinion on our nation and make abortion a crime then there is DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of the harm that a fetus does to a woman's body which would constitute self defense. If you want to grant a fetus the same rights as a person under the Law of the Land then it would be violating the rights of the woman carrying it by the harm that it was causing to her. She can claim self defense because of that harm.
"""All that talk about whether beliefs should be rational or not is of no real interest to me""" OBVIOUSLY...….
