Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, that is not the case. I have not once argued that a fetus is like a cancer cell.

Indeed. Pardon my implication and any affiliated strawmen, Os. CoffeeSaint and Marilyn Monroe often argue that a fetus is a "parasite"--I'm addressing them moreso with this line. However, you believe a fetus can be discarded with as one would excise a tumor or remove an appendix, right?

Quote by: Osborn I have argued that a fetus does not possess reason as a fetus, it is not self-aware in regards to rights, it is not able to remember from the womb, it is not able to exercise ANY of its rights, much less a right to life of its own free-will UNLESS the mother ALLOWS that to happen.

Again, all the same could be said for a newborn. A child one minute from birth and one minute after has no identifiably different ability for self-awareness, memory, or action. His tragic downfall is his location inside a woman's uterus--nothing else.

Quote by: Osborn Fushigi, that is a shameless attempt to marginalize my position by association to your logical fallacy previously held position.

Again, apologies for any offense or involuntary straw men--I just wonder sometimes if you have stepped outside your political views to consider that this potential person--as you call him--is being wiped out of existence simply so another person can exercise her personal rights.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Fangrim We don't kill people because we recognize that everyone has the right to life, a fundamental right of individuals.

Why do they have that right? I believe it is because it would be detrimental to the society as a whole for people to kill other productive members of society. The keyword there is productive. I'll go into further detail in my response to ZNFYRH.

Quote by: ZNFYRH A couple things to note... Your life could be aborted... right now... and it would be murder. I've said it before, and even verified using old fashioned actual books that it's true, that the legal justification for the murder of a fetus is similar to the legal justification for removing a person from life support.

The difference is that the fetus has not been given that legal right to not be killed. A person on life support has. Now you are treading on a new issue, taking away that right to not be killed. If I am following you correctly then your argument is that a person who has reached the same level of inactivity as a fetus should also lose the right to live if we do not allow fetuses that right. Is that correct? I want to make sure I'm assuming this correctly before I respond.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Fangrim Simply because fetuses currently have no rights under the law has no bearing on whether they shouldn't have their rights recognized. I fully understand the differentiation of when rights should be recognized. As we age and progress through society, we attain different rights, the most obvious of which is the right to vote. Children don't have the right to vote, but this makes them no less a person deserving fundamental, human rights like that of life.

Children do not have a right to vote because as a society we believe that they are not matured enough to make an educated choice. In our society, rights are given as a person matures. The same applies to a fetus.

Fetuses are human persons, and their fundamental right to life should be recognized. Fetuses have, or at least ought to have, rights.

When they have matured to a certain point, they are given the right to live.

You say that I have a misperception in the derivation of rights within society. Then tell me, why do fetuses not deserve the recognition of their right to life, just like any child?

Because a fetus is not equal to a mature human being. The aspects which we have: thought, feeling, touch, taste, pain, etc - are not present, or not nearly as developed. That comes with time. Would you let a baby be the president? How about a 18 year old kid?

[WindWip]

Quote by: ZNFYRH So then the better, and much more challenging question, is why should a mother be able to legally kill her 5 month old fetus but not her 2 year old baby?

Because we need some point where we give the baby the right to life. The right to not be killed. We don't allow a 2 year old baby to be killed because the mother has decided to keep the child and to raise it, and because the child is much, much, much more developed than a fetus is. It would be a very bad idea to not give a born baby the right to life. Another person could simply kill the child with no repercussions after the mother went through 9 months of pregnancy and through birth. My thoughts on the matter.

[fushigi]

WindWip, you've made good arguments so far, and by the way welcome (belatedly) to Volconvo. Now, on this comment:

Quote by: WindWip Because we need some point where we give the baby the right to life. The right to not be killed.

Precisely. I propose we move that point back--to conception.

Quote by: WindWip We don't allow a 2 year old baby to be killed because the mother has decided to keep the child and to raise it, and because the child is much, much, much more developed than a fetus is.

As for the former, what if it's the mother who decides to kill the baby? According to this first standard, she should be permitted to. As for the latter, can you really argue that a baby is--one minute after birth--much, much more developed than a fetus?

Quote by: WindWip It would be a very bad idea to not give a born baby the right to life. Another person could simply kill the child with no repercussions after the mother went through 9 months of pregnancy and through birth. My thoughts on the matter.

So, do you support tougher laws against people whose actions result in the loss of--say--a fetus who is two weeks from being delivered? I do.

fushigi

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, says you. There is no logical basis for this whatsoever. It doesn't HAVE to be this way, it can be changed by a simple majority vote. Your entire argument is predicated on this principle, and it's supported by ...nothing. Read the definition for yourself. I think the ball is in YOUR court to show me ANY newborn infant that IS NOT a parasite under the 2nd definition: parasite - Definitions from Dictionary.com

There are three definitions. The one we're talking about is number one, the other two are really irrelevant.

A baby that has been born is going to live off of it's parents for at least 18 yrs. This could be considered parasitic, but they aren't living off the bodies of their parents. Their parents have to go to work to support them, and most anyone can care for them. A fetus is strictly under the mother's control.

[fushigi]

How about a person who needs a bone marrow transplant? They're certainly a parasite--sucking off the living for their own selfish survival while not giving anything in return.

Same thing for people who get heart transplants, kidney transplants, blood transplants, and so forth.

Parasites, all of them.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: fushigi (A) You're assuming that the death penalty is just, and (B) show me the fetus that has committed a crime worthy of capital punishment.

I do not feel the DP is just. I think it's a barbaric process.

Fetuses do what they do. Live off their mother or host.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Very liberal interpretation. A 5 month old fetus needs support just like a 2 year old baby. So then the better, and much more challenging question, is why should a mother be able to legally kill her 5 month old fetus but not her 2 year old baby?

I'm not sure how long a mother can get an abortion, but there should be limits on this. I think the first trimester is the most sensible timeframe.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=ZNFYRH;378471]

Where I am disagreeing with you... which you miserably fail to comprehend... is on your insistence that a fetus is not a "person."

I don't think a fetus is a person. It's human, but it's not complete. It's in a lower stage of existence.

[Fangrim]

[quote=Marilyn Monroe;378803]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I don't think a fetus is a person. It's human, but it's not complete. It's in a lower stage of existence.

What criteria are you using to determine whether something is "human?"
Please be comprehensive; list them all.
Also, how would you go about using these criteria to establish whether something is human? Do they have to have a majority of those traits? Or does lacking one trait mean lacking humanity?
Further, if you can be "partially" human, does that mean you have partial human rights, or no rights? If a partial human would have partial human rights, how do you go about determining which rights a partial human would have?

[fushigi]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Fetuses do what they do. Live off their mother or host.

No matter how hard you people try, you can't come up with a sustainable argument for this: a fetus's dependence on its mother does not strip him of the right to not be killed.

[ZNFYRH]

Marilyn

How is a fetus an incomplete human?

Follow this logic...

"Fetus" means "unborn baby" with the only regard for time being the point in development at which the fetus has all of its parts and just needs to grow in size. The rough estimate is 8 weeks.

But what you're basically saying is that the only thing separating "fetus" and "person" is birth. Two minutes before it is born, the baby isn't a person, yet after birth it is?

How are you defining "person?"

Not to sound rude, but I'm willing to bet you don't have children. A fetus can definitely exhibit not just reactions to stimulus, but actual preferences and personality traits as early as 11 weeks. This includes response to certain types of music, voices, and even a degree of playfulness.

A fetus can be more responsive than some people born with certain types of mental retardation. In fact, now that I think of it, a fetus is more complete than a person who is retarded. So should we euthanize retards?

So please tell me how a fetus isn't a person.

WindWip

Fushigi already beat me to the punch on the responses, but I'll respond anyway just to reinforce his words.

Quote by: WindWip Because we need some point where we give the baby the right to life. The right to not be killed.

Killed by someone other than its mother? Birth.

Case in point: you can be charged with murder if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill the fetus.

But while I won't speak for Fushigi, I think the mother reserves the right to kill the fetus because she is its source of support, and that includes both physical and emotional issues.

Quote by: WindWip We don't allow a 2 year old baby to be killed because the mother has decided to keep the child and to raise it, and because the child is much, much, much more developed than a fetus is.

Two problems here:

1. Not all mothers decide to keep the child and raise it. I've seen many girls, while counseling teens, who don't want the child but are sometimes forced to keep it.

2. I raised this issue above. A fetus is an unborn baby. You say "much much much more developed" but the only difference is birth. That's all. And again, with the issue raised above, what about retarded people that weren't fully developed in someway? What about someone born without an arm? A healthy fetus is literally more developed than the person born missing the arm... should the armless person die?

Quote by: WindWip It would be a very bad idea to not give a born baby the right to life. Another person could simply kill the child with no repercussions after the mother went through 9 months of pregnancy and through birth. My thoughts on the matter.

So the day before a baby is born, it has no right to life. But the day after, it does?

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Fangrim;378804]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What criteria are you using to determine whether something is "human?" Please be comprehensive; list them all. Also, how would you go about using these criteria to establish whether something is human? Do they have to have a majority of those traits? Or does lacking one trait mean lacking humanity? Further, if you can be "partially" human, does that mean you have partial human rights, or no rights? If a partial human would have partial human rights, how do you go about determining which rights a partial human would have?

My criteria is it came from a man and woman's reproductive organs, so it's human. It didn't come from a cow, or a pig etc.

Well if you look at children, they do not have the same rights as adults. Different stages of development and maturity offer different degrees of rights. Babies, children, adolescents all have varying degrees of rights. A baby wouldn't have the right to marry someone, or go to war, or vote.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Marilyn Babies, children, adolescents all have varying degrees of rights. A baby wouldn't have the right to marry someone, or go to war, or vote.

I can't remember which thread it was in, but it's because rights are derived from responsibility.

A baby isn't able to decide to marry someone, physically able to fight in a war, or understand enough to vote. Lack of physically ability and mental education are the reason those rights are not given.

A good example that refutes your point is that children can voice their concerns for their own well-being in their household and effectively divorce themselves from their parents.

Children as young as 4 years old can say that they don't feel safe at home, or express any number of concerns, and courts have a legal obligation to help the child. It is illegal to tell the child that they don't understand. A human being has stated that they evaluate their current situation to be unsafe and unhealthy, physically or emotionally or both.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi No matter how hard you people try, you can't come up with a sustainable argument for this: a fetus's dependence on its mother does not strip him of the right to not be killed.

Only because you're not paying attention. Understandable, since it seems there are about six different arguments going on at the same time in this thread.

First: you're begging the question in this statement, because you are presuming that the fetus has the right not to be killed, and my people's argument is stripping it of that right. I am arguing that the fetus only has those rights the mother grants it, because without her sacrifice/giving up of her bodily resources, the fetus could not survive on its own. This is the distinction between the unborn fetus and the born child: the fetus can only survive by taking resources from one person, and only one: its mothers. Nobody else can take her place. With a born child -- and with the bone marrow example, and with every other example you can think of -- the sacrifice is voluntary on the part of the person giving resources to the needy one. In every other case, the caregiver can walk away and surrender care to another person. It is only pregnancy in which the caregiver cannot give away the one cared for.

That means that, for the fetus to have the right to live, the mother must lose her right to bodily sovereignty. And, with medical technology the way it is now, the reverse is also true: for the mother to retain her right to bodily sovereignty, the fetus must lose its right to life, if it had one in the first place.

I have no idea how capable a fetus is of thinking and feeling, how similar it is to a born child at any given stage; I have never been involved with a pregnancy, never felt the thing kicking inside a woman. I never will. I'm not trying to be heartless -- not even with the parasite argument, though I admit that is intended to be a jab as well as being logical. My simple opinion is this: if one of these two has to lose, mother or fetus, it should be the fetus that loses.

The logic that supports that? If the two were separated, one would be able to retain her rights independent of the other, and the other would not. While the two are united, one is capable of rational thought and considered judgement, and one is not. Simple as that.

What is the rationale by which the mother should lose her rights so that the fetus can keep its rights? And if you say anything about "She should have kept her legs shut," I'm going to draw a frowny face, label it "fushigi," and poke it in the nose. You'd need to prove that unintended and uncontrollable consequences are logically one's responsibility, and thus merit a limitation of one's inherent rights.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=ZNFYRH;378817]Marilyn

Not to sound rude, but I'm willing to bet you don't have children. A fetus can definitely exhibit not just reactions to stimulus, but actual preferences and personality traits as early as 11 weeks. This includes response to certain types of music, voices, and even a degree of playfulness.

I know.

A fetus can be more responsive than some people born with certain types of mental retardation. In fact, now that I think of it, a fetus is more complete than a person who is retarded. So should we euthanize retards?

Not the same thing.

So please tell me how a fetus isn't a person.

A fetus is a fetus.

2. I raised this issue above. A fetus is an unborn baby. You say "much much much more developed" but the only difference is birth. That's all. And again, with the issue raised above, what about retarded people that weren't fully developed in someway? What about someone born without an arm? A healthy fetus is literally more developed than the person born missing the arm... should the armless person die?

Anything born is born. You could abort a retarded fetus, or a handicapped fetus if you so desired, but once it's born, it's born. Really a fetus isn't a baby yet. A baby is a very small child. People call fetuses babies, but there is a difference. In humans it's from about the eighth week after conception till birth that they are fetuses. An embryo is in the earliest stages of development in the womb.

We have had legalized abortion for over thirty years and there haven't been any killings of retarded people, or people without limbs that have been legal.

So the day before a baby is born, it has no right to life. But the day after, it does?

This is a state by state issue. It's usually up till viability which is maybe 20 to 27 weeks. There are a couple states that go all the way up till birth which to me is ridicules. Any coherent woman knows when she's pregnant. There's no need to wait till quickening. Once you miss that period you know. It's doesn't take a genius.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Children as young as 4 years old can say that they don't feel safe at home, or express any number of concerns, and courts have a legal obligation to help the child. It is illegal to tell the child that they don't understand. A human being has stated that they evaluate their current situation to be unsafe and unhealthy, physically or emotionally or both.

They have to tell an adult usually from the DCS who has been informed by another adult, and it would have to be evaluated. A 4 yr old can't just pick up and leave it's parents home. Until a kid is 18 the parents are responsible for it, and this can mean they can be sued if that child committs a crime. Parents are liable.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Marilyn A fetus is a fetus.

Not good enough.

How is a fetus not a person?

You said, "I know" to a fetus having a personality.

So how is a human with a personality not a human?

You are also contradicting yourself.

If you are arguing that a fetus is not a fully developed human, then a retard is not fully developed either.

So why does the retard have rights but a fetus doesn't?

Quote by: Marilyn Anything born is born. You could abort a retarded fetus, or a handicapped fetus if you so desired, but once it's born, it's born. Really a fetus isn't a baby yet. A baby is a very small child. People call fetuses babies, but there is a difference. In humans it's from about the eighth week after conception till birth that they are fetuses.

This is also contradictory. I already acknowledged the arbitrary 8 week mark, but otherwise a fetus is a baby.

Just do a "define:fetus" on Google. You'll get multiple examples.

an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until birth.

The only difference between a fetus, a born baby, a child, and an adult is size. Otherwise, all the parts are there.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint First: you're begging the question in this statement, because you are presuming that the fetus has the right not to be killed,

Actually it goes beyond that--I'm begging the question by presuming that ANYONE--born or unborn--has the right not to be killed.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I am arguing that the fetus only has those rights the mother grants it, because without her sacrifice/giving up of her bodily resources, the fetus could not survive on its own.

Same with the transplant patient...

Quote by: CoffeeSaint This is the distinction between the unborn fetus and the born child: the fetus can only survive by taking resources from one person, and only one: its mothers. Nobody else can take her place.

All right then, let's think of another example where exactly one person depends on exactly one other person for survival.

Siamese twins.

No joke.

If one half of a pair of Siamese twins commits suicide--against the other half's wishes--is that not murder?