Quote:
|
What we agree on is that the fetus is bioligically alive and is human by definition of its DNA. What we don't agree on is that the fetus is a person that deserves the same legal protections as a person.
|
This sounds a bit different than what you said previously
Quote:
|
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.
|
This is what I was referring to when i said we agree what the implications of abortion are. Where we differ is I believe it is always the taking of a human life, where as you believe it is the taking of a human life in certain instances - so it's fair to say that over time it is the taking of many human lives (innocent lives i might add) - from your perspective. What justifies the taking of these lives is to preserve the "rights and fredoms of someone that is a fully realized person", and the possibility of murdering a "fully realized person" (even by Warren's definition) in order to preserve these rights are an acceptable loss i suppose (not to put words in your mouth, but i see no other way of putting it.
I take issue with your description of these "rights" as "god-given and to deny would be a sin." Medical technology is not a God-Given right. Not to get corny but I would suggest that if anything in this particular argument is "god-given" it would be the gift of motherhood. Nobody ever argued that the steps of becoming a mother was "easy and convenient."
As far as the coma thing, it wasn't a significant point and I don't want to spend too much time on it but your questions
Quote:
|
How likely is the person likely to come out of their coma? How many people come out of persistent comas vs how many do not?
|
as they may be applied to a fetus - the overwhelming majority on both of these. You may have me on the not signing power of attorney one - fetus' don't do this. Besides Warren never said, these are no longer the criteria for life if they meet none now - but once did. Which was my point in the first place, her definition is incomplete, and suited to her agenda. A fetus at any stage would meet the criteria for every other definition of life i can find.
And Mael - the man "chose" to beat her, he should by all means pay the price. And by law, the woman doesn't have to choose to prosecute, the state can prosecute without her permission. And the whole "bad parents raising a kid could lead to a lot worse than a car accident" if you look at the statistics the incidence child abuse has risen since Roe v Wade. What makes sense to me as the article i posted a link to before would be that it is a result of people's attitudes toward the "sanctity" of life as one other poster put it. To be exact "We murder criminals, we make all kinds of exceptions when it comes to the sanctity of life." Yes - we murder incredibly violent criminals - and you would suggest that not only is there something sanctimonious about this murderer, but more so than a baby who hasn't been born yet. I just don't get that logic.
Nanofever the answer to your question is no - it's not murder, conception had not occurred.
I may have missed someone elses, but it's kinda difficult when it's 5 or 6 against one. I think I responded to most of them.