Quote:
Originally posted by matthew330
Your wrong about the "conveniently" thing. It doesn't imply dishonesty at all - you just didn't bother to address at what point a fetus fits you definition of life (in all its wisdom).
|
You start out by saying you weren't being sarcastic by being sarcastic.
And I believe I've addressed your question 3 times now. I don't know when a fetus becomes a person, but I am comfortable with the laws as they are; being a compromise between giving all rights to the fetus or all rights to the mother. In the early stages of pregnancy I prefer to err on the side of the mother. In the later stages, I prefer to err on the side of the fetus.
Quote:
|
I'd also like to add that there are many adults that wouldn't fit half the criteria in that definition of life - severe mental retardation being one.
|
I disagree strongly with this statement.
To review:
Quote:
Mary Ann Warren defined them thus:
1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and /or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3) Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4) The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.
|
It can be argued that even a severly retarded person exihibits traits 1, 3, and 5 (and possibly 4), so that they meet Warren's definition of "person".
Quote:
|
Perhaps you should consider a definition of life that doesn't come from some pro-choice advocate and then explain to me how an eight week old fetus, as described below, and well within you "first two trimester" cut-off, is not alive.
|
Please.
I have spent 15 years formulating and debating my position on abortion. So address it or not, but don't try to brush it off as being from some "pro-choice advocate".
Quote:
|
Eight Week Fetus: All the major organs of your baby have formed now though they are not fully developed yet. Eyes and ears are growing now. The heart is beating strongly. When you have an ultrasound during this time, you can see the fetal heart pulsating.
|
See above.
Quote:
And for the record - the whole "murder, in my words." Yes i believe it is murder, but they are not my words, they are in fact yours - you just window dressed it with nicer words. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED that at a point (which you CANNOT define) the fetus is "alive."
|
No, I never said murder, I never meant murder. If you choose to use that word, then use it.
But please don't try to say I am using it or that I "really" meant that when I never did and don't.
Quote:
|
However your loose timeline of legal abortions certainly allows for the taking of a human (again - YOUR DEFINITION) life. And again you justify this killing for "self-determination of the woman."
|
I see.
So your main beef is that my argument allows the possibility of "murdering" a person. (And to be clear, my definition of "person" allows the possibility.)
Well yes, it does.
But neither of us know when a fetus becomes a person.
Your argument is that we should be "better safe than sorry" and declare the fetus a person at conception.
My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person.
Quote:
|
As i mentioned before - pro-choice advocates are always forced to reference rape, incest, in your case deformed (CERTAINLY NO REASON FOR KILLING A BABY). Being that these situations make up such a tiny percentage of all abortions that take place I'll leave it alone for now, for your benefit. I don't want you to get sidetracked on that. BABY STEPS for Lebell.
|
No, it is central to your position to tell us if you allow exceptions, because if you DO, then you are saying that it is ok to "murder a baby" if there is good enough cause. In otherwords, accept your line in the sand, but not mine.
So to side step the issue with more sarcasm and condescending witticism is disingenous and dishonest.
(As an aside note, please tone it down. If you can't post without resorting to this kind of nonsense, please don't post.)