Location is better and more straightforward. Once a human being is born, it becomes a person. That's the way it is. Yes, of course. Mind you, the act of forcing it inside the body of another would kill both of them, so what we'd have is two dead people.
It's tough trying to defend the indefensible isn't it? Why does the 22 week old "fetus" suddenly become a person? It still has not fully developed right? Which is why we put such premature babies in ICU.
This is theoretical. If it would not kill them, then I disagree. Killing it would be murder. If embryo is not a person only because its inside another human, then embryos in vitro are persons? They are not inside anyone, just like born people.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to use scientific definitions/evidence to support our position -- that would contradict with the Liberal agenda. My apologies. The only reason you would use a subjective personhood system over an objective humanity system is to justify the legality of abortion. Abortion should be legal because the fetus is not a person, and the fetus is not a person because abortion should be legal -- that is the logic of the pro-choicers. Also, you guys may want to come up with another term that's not "fetus" since "fetus" actually translates to "a very young one," implying that the fetus is at a very young stage of development, while the pro-choice claim is that development starts once the baby is out of the uterus.
It isn't the same as a trespasser. By having sex unprotected she basically invited the fetus. Not only that, but it isn't conscious that it is "trespassing".
Wait a minute. We have TWO opinions here: 1.being able to survive biologically independently to another person makes you a person 2. being spatially outside another person makes you a person. In the first case, which is indeed an internal quality, conjoined twins would not be persons (or at least the one which is dependent on the other), even is they have a mind and are conscious. In the second case, which is not an internal quality, theoretical transplantation of a person into another would make it not a person, even when it has a mind and is conscious. Both positions have problems. Why not simply choose the presence of mind as a criterion for personhood? IMHO its obviously superior to all other alternatives.
That's right. It's a person because it has been born alive. It will be given a birth certificate and then a death certificate.
No, it doesn't. As long as you were born alive, yes. That's right. Once you are born alive you immediately become a person, no matter what happens to you after that. No, as it's too subjective. Besides ,how would you prove a foetus has a mind? How would it be observed? Being born alive is the criteria in law and that's not going to change because nothing else would work as well.
Neurology is an objective science, and presence / absence of mind is an objective fact. Thats the beauty of it - for our purposes we do not need to prove when a fetus has a mind, only when it has not (when it cannot have it), and allow abortions only until then (+ some buffer). From embryology, its fairly clear when higher brain function (the source of our mind) develops. Its also a fairly sharp process - from zero brain function at 20 weeks to well developed bilaterally synchronous brain waves at 24 weeks (one month).
Let's see some information about that. Brainwaves don't imply there's a mind. A mind implies there's some thoughts going on.
OK, if you say so. I sorta think a mind is essential in addition to being physically independent (as opposed to socially independent).
Yes, but lack of brainwaves implies there is not a mind. Thats all we need for our purpose - decide when the mind is surely not present. Brainwaves are a very good correlate of mental processes.
Brainwaves don't imply a mind at all. A five week old embryo has brainwaves, yet its brain is the size of a pinhead. How? Personhood is defined by being born alive and that's how it should be.
No it doesnt, its a pro-life propaganda myth. Brainwaves first appear in 5th month of fetal development: http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
Can any pro-choicer honestly tell me they think a human being becomes a person when (s)he is born not solely because abortion should be legal?
Yes, I do. It would cause all sorts of problems. Nobody has ever become a person until they have been born irrespective of whether abortion was legal or not. What about you? Is the reason you believe personhood should begin at conception because you oppose abortion?
Brainwaves are a correlate of mental processes, so yes, it is a strong implication of a presence of mind. It is also a proof of lack of mind before 5th month. Born babies obviously have a mind, and also unborn babies in late-term, as mind does not appear during birth.
Of course I can. I can say that because it's been the standard of all of humanity over all of human history. The question is how you can honestly say otherwise. You're the odd man out here, creating a new definition that contradicts well-established definitions. Your definition is clearly subjective, even if you mistakenly think it's not. Objective standards subjectively chosen are still subjective. As an example of that, skin color would be an objectively measurable thing, but choosing it as a standard would be subjective. I know my definition is subjective, but so is yours, so you have no cause to criticize there. You are free to believe in your definition, but if you want to force the entire planet to reverse itself and accept it, you'll need a better reason than "because I want it that way!".
I should mention I used to be pro-choice not too long ago. I thought it was uptight typical conservative propaganda to think otherwise, and that freedom meant you could kill a clump of cells. I was ignorant enough to believe that any point at which abortion is legal, the fetus is not conscious. However, I was presented with very logical arguments. I stuck my ground for a long time, and, eventually, my sole argument was that the fetus was not a person, and therefore could be killed. A pro-life said to me "so, abortion should be legal because the fetus is not a person, and the fetus is not a person because abortion should be legal -- that's circle logic." It didn't click right away, but when I was honest enough with myself I realized this is exactly what my position was. I leaned more and more toward the other side, and now I'm staunchly pro-life. The pro-choice position is that some human beings shouldn't deserve the same rights as others, and so they put subjective labels to try to justify that position. It seems your arguments have fallen to "well that's just the way it's always been." It had been WELL established that Blacks did not have the same rights as Whites until relatively recently. Does this mean that slavery was justifiable up until that point? Let's not let that crying and breathing baby be thrown in a bucket. Let's not let that baby who's too big for an abortion have his skull crushed in. Let's treat all human beings equally and not discriminate against age.
I'd like to know what these logical arguments are. I've never seen any myself. They're all appeals to emotion and/or religion and never take into account there is a woman's life involved, too. No, because they were born and human. They could be made people without limiting the rights of anyone else. That is not the case for unborn human entities. The pro choice position is that pregnant women should have the same the rights to bodily autonomy as every other person. There's nothing at all subjective about personhood beginning at birth. What's all this sentimental tosh about crying babies thrown into buckets? What is this logical argument that changed your mind?
