ya, i know. that was part of my point. just because a beauracracy decides that a human fetus that will turn into a human isnt a human *yet*, doesnt mean its 'right' to kill it. it doesnt even necesssrily mean its lawful. it just means its legal.
No, women have the right to kill the fetus with or without laws...there you are correct. Too bad women needed added protection from self-righteous misogynists and laws had to be passed... Make a fetus a "person" and women still have the right to kill it...
are you disagreeing with me about something in particular, or are you just angry that i support your right to do it while believing you are wrong/immoral if you excersize that right?
The dictionary is not full of "arbitrary definitions of occult beaurocrats who seek to alter reality". It's good for checking the meaning of words and checking the spelling and punctuation of words with red underlines.
You are reading way too much into what I wrote, why don't you just concentrate on the actual words. Your opinion of me is meaningless.
I never suggested that a fetus is a person or should be made a person. I dont think any of us should tolerate being called or treated as 'persons' being that the purpose of assigning each of us a corporate persona is so that we can be more easily (sureptitiously yet legally) treated as commodities by other, larger corporations.
Rape is forcible sexual intercourse. The "Society" in which forcible sexual intercourse takes place is irrelevant.
So, every society in the world uses that very definition? Can you prove that? You said it's objective. Meaning 100% of the population have to agree with your definition. That is, if you know what objective means. What is the definition of forcible, world wide, in every society?
Then your definition of when life begins is arbitrary on top of every thing else. So much for objective.
why would a law need to refer to a human or a human fetus as anything but a human or a human fetus? all humans have the same rights in a equitable system of law. if our system of law is equitable, then there needs be only one term and definition for all humans (and all human fetuses as they apparently arent the same...). What purpose does the word 'person' serve if not to 'dehumanize' in some way?
I believe the law does refer to it as fetus. What is the definition of fetus. What rights does the law afford a fetus? Can a fetus be claimed as a tax deduction? Where does the fetus become a fetus? Where does fetus become a person? You seem to have your very own special definition. Is it a fetus the day of or after conception? Right now there is a clear definition of person. Here is one. legal person Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech Can a fetus be an entity for any of the above?
i believe the law does refer to it as a fetus as well. once again- im not trying to label fetuses as persons. im unclear as to whats being debated here. could you (and others) do me a favor and specify which of my points you find contention with? it would help me out a lot.
You are unclear....You post things like , ""What purpose does the word 'person' serve if not to 'dehumanize' in some way?"" That's ridiculous as written.....maybe you could explain it better..... To make this clear, what is being debated here (in the Abortion Forum) is abortion. The word "person" is important because it designates who has rights, born persons. There has to be a word that denotes the difference between born and unborn because the unborn are inside of someone's body so it's not as simple as saying we're all equal.
Context is always important. To borrow a line from Hollywood the Bible tells "The Greatest Story Ever Told." It is good that you should look to the teaching, wisdom and direction within the Bible's cover. Many throughout history have, I think we are either exonerated or convicted by the teachings within it. I am not a theologian, never claimed to be, still don't but I do see some assumptions made that may not be entirely accurate. Murder is the willful taking of another's life. In the case cited above it was not the intention of either man to end the unborn's life within the mother's womb. if the miscarriage was the result of an unintentional act, I don't know if even the prosecutor of man's law would charge murder in the biblical reference above (however an example of willful murder, as defined by Man's law, was recognized at the conclusion of the Scott Peterson murder trial on November 12, 2004, a jury convicted Scott Peterson of first-degree murder in the death of Laci, who was eight months pregnant, and of second-degree murder in the death of his unborn son, Connor-I must conclude on its face that the State, law and jury must have seen Connor as human, perhaps even with some semblance of a right to life?). As to cited Numbers, I wonder if the ritual didn't allow the wife the opportunity to confess her sin, if she was without sin in this matter nothing untoward would become her. It is stated that the wages of sin are death, might sin also be known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. In that time that was the process followed, maybe still is in some cultures? Still I think that the preborn have importance to God as it is written in Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; " In this context, even if lacking in Mankind's eyes, it seems to me that we, even in our pre-womb and unborn life, are planned for and of great importance to God.
Yes, Laci's fetus was 8 months, past the legal limit for abortion and VIABLE..and THAT is why he was charged with second degree murder...the fetus has NO rights but it does have protections. Your: """I wonder if the ritual didn't allow the wife the opportunity to confess her sin, if she was without sin in this matter nothing untoward would become her" ...implies women should be punished for having sex...Oh, I am so surprised...not... And your oft-repeated but thoroughly debunked story of god addressing ONE person, Jeremiah, saying he KNEW him , does NOT show anything except he knew JEREMIAH before he was born. It does NOT say , "Abortion is wrong"....it does NOT say that.
Indeed, context is important. The OT was cobbled together from earlier writings and oral mythology. The thoughts and concepts included were those of relatively ignorant people who lived in a society of 3000-5000 years ago. They have little to no bearing on life today. For every good idea expressed, there are many more that are horrible by today's standards. Many of the stories are far from great. Teaching, wisdom and direction...
my point about 'persons' was an example. another debater here found an excellent definition: legal person Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech thats pretty dehumanizing, to refer to a human as something which commonly has such limited rights. definitions *are* important. I believe the precedent set by defining a fetus as 'other than human' and normalizing the practice of killing it out of convenience is another crack in the foundation of our humanity, in an agenda of slowly chipping away at our individuality, our sense of self, in the same way that regulating us as 'persons' instead of humans has been used to do. im still not saying that abortion should be illegal or even restricted, but i do think this agenda of dehumanization and the effects on our individuality, sense of self, and the sacredity of human life in general are important and need attention.
Sorry, but in the abortion debate the word "person" refers to a BORN human. Where does anyone do that ?? Who has said a fetus is "other than human". ?? Our humanity cracked thousands of years ago if we use your definition....people have been killing people out of 'convenience' since there have been people. , As those who try to legislate away women's rights do....... Yes, it's very dehumanizing to treat women as breeding cattle, I agree. I have no idea what the word "sacredity" means but if you means sanctity, religion has no place in the debate. If you knew anything at all about world history you'd see quite a bit of people not treating life as sacred..
*Conner, the unborn person, must have been human and had a right to life or a murder charge would not have been filed against the person convicted in his murder. **Being unfaithful is seen as sinful. You can title it any way you want but don't be blind to it. I realize that people can ignore that but truly it is unwise not to see what we've chosen. It is best to be honest with oneself. ***What God has given as an example with one can be had with all. It's our free will choice. Perhaps Matthew can share some insight on what God sees and values; Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. The thought that strikes me is God's creation is important to Him, we are important to Him. How much more significance is placed on each of us over sparrows? I believe a great deal. Where you seem to see an unborn child as a trifling inconvenience to be dealt with in a cold-hearted manner, I see someone. As the plight of slaves so it is for the unborn.
the definitions of words do not change from one debate to another. my point is that we are using a word that is commonly used to describe NON-human political or economical entities. I don't know how to explain it any other way... anyone who thinks it OK to kill them out of convenience, but not OK to kill a born human out of convenience, I would imagine views fetuses as other than human (or has some really bad cognitive dissonance going on) and in every case since thousands of years ago (and before) it was WRONG, just as it is in the context of abortion. Firstly, I'm not trying to do that, so AdHom. Second, the majority of those who want to ban or restrict abortion are trying to (somewhat ignortantly imo) save the lives of something they consider to be precious and sacred. Its an emotional response to something they love thats being slaughtered, NOT a desire to see women subjugated, and I think you (and a lot of pro-choicers) either know that and are being intentionally disingenuous to paint your political rivals as boogeymen, or are extremely disconnected and empathetically aloof. Me too, as does basically everyone else in the civilized world (save maybe a couple million migrants from a particularly socially backward and barbaric part of the world where women ARE cattle). Again, the arguments against abortion are not an attempt to subjugate women's reproduction. They are an attempt to protect something that humankind in general has revered as precious since forever. Its unfortunate that their goal of saving life *also happens* to violate your rights (which is precisely why I DON'T support a ban or restrictions, I want to re-iterate that again) but to claim that violating your rights is their purpose is, again, disingenuous or, at best, unempathetic. (Just as those who claim you support abortion because you enjoy killing is either disingenuinous or unempathic, it comes from both sides). I couldn't think of the right word and I made one up. I won't deny it. How about 'precious'? Human life, and especially YOUNG human life, is precious to most people, and has nothing to do with religion (although probably has to do with each persons spirituality if you get deep enough) and while I agree that spirituality has no place in the debate about whether to legislate against abortion, spirituality most certainly has a place in the debate on the morality of abortion. And in every case I hate that those people treat human life in such a way, just as I do with abortion.
