An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[Jaakko]

Nice juxtaposition Stefu, but when did you become a false analogy troll?

[Jaakko]

Okay Jon, so am I to understand you favour the same penalties for abortion that exist for murder (legal term) today?

[Stefu]

Nice juxtaposition Stefu, but when did you become a false analogy troll?

When it became irresistable.

But really now, is it such a false analogy? Most pro-choice discussion I've seen tends to base itself on smarmy attitude towards pro-lifers and sidestepping the real issue - is fetus a person deserving of same rights as other persons. "Woman's right to choose what happens with her body!" "Abortion ban will lead to back-alley abortions!" "It's not a murder, read the law book!" "Pro-lifers bomb clinics!" "Masturbation is homicide haa haa haa!"

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Okay Jon, so am I to understand you favour the same penalties for abortion that exist for murder (legal term) today?

it wouldn't be 1st degree, and in the US would probably com under manslaughter

but don't you see how they are the same? (particluar the reasons?)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

what do they do to the girls and women who kill their babies after they are born now

that seems to be the reasonable result

Jon Miller

[Jaakko]

Stefu, as far as I'm concerned, a woman's right to control her own body trumps any right the baby in her womb has. I am in favour of removing the baby alive if it can be done, assuming that it will be given care and the mother absolved of any responsibility (not a very practical idea, but...).
Combine that with the complete lack of practical downsides to the practice of abortion, and I have no reason to advocate banning it.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do see the annoyance factor in not confronting arguments properly. There's only one cure for that, and it's called www.straightdope.com
The analogy itself was very loaded, what with you using the slaveholder/abolitionist combo. Like it or not, it implicates a hell of a lot, and in bad way. The issue is not quite as cut and dry.

----------

Jon, I most definitely don't see abortion and ex-utero (big word ) killing as the same. Look above.
But now that you've given me the consistent answer on my question, I can't help but to echo our resident porn star and say "You lose. Sorry. Get over it."
It's just a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

[Jon Miller]

what is the difference between a baby 20 hours after its birth and 10 seconds before?

Jon Miller

[Jaakko]

Read my last post again Jon...

[Stefu]

Stefu, as far as I'm concerned, a woman's right to control her own body trumps any right the baby in her womb has.

Well, we disagree.

The funny thing is, I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here. I believe that Finnish abortion laws at the moment are what suits me, and I had a very good reason for this although I have forgotten it. But you can't have people arguing using wrong arguments even if they're arguing for the right cause, now can ye?

Anyway, what is the basis of absolute right to control own body, even allowing killing a baby? I believe it's one of those "my right to swing a fist ends at your nose" thingies.

The analogy itself was very loaded, what with you using the slaveholder/abolitionist combo. Like it or not, it implicates a hell of a lot, and in bad way.

Of course it was loaded. Let's face it, I was using a blunt instrument. But I think that that analogy can be useful to see some shortcomings in pro-choice arguing, and certainly how two sides are arguing two different things. If someone thinks I'm implying pro-choicers support slavery, they're just looking for a reason to be offended.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
what is the difference between a baby 20 hours after its birth and 10 seconds before?

Jon Miller

They can't hear the child's cries when she is still "protected" by the mother. The difference is that they can pretend that they are not really killing anyone. It is hard to pretend that it isn't human when the nurses and everyone is watching the knife as it penetrates the flesh of the infant.

[Jaakko]

Actually Stefu, considering that we're in a heavily American environment whenever we post, the slave analogy is way too blatant. Also I'm not even sure what your point is in some places, and the way it's more of a "slaver's monologue" doesn't help.

As for the "my right to swing a fist ends at your nose" angle, it's an oversimplification. Right now we've got the nose inside the hitter's body, an out of bounds case if there ever was one.
Right now I'm too tired to really say anything more, maybe I'll be in better form tomorrow.

But we got a far better discussion going than the others managed, don't we?

[Akka]

Already had this argument on Civfanatics, and already had pro-lifers unable to fight the evidence, and still sticking to their beliefs.

Let's see. Why abortion could be considered bad ? Because it would kill a person. Hence we have two possibilities :

1) the embryo is a person.
2) the embryo is not a person.

What define a person ? Some argued that it's the DNA. It's absurd. My skin cells have DNA, it does not make each of them a person. Some people have chromosomic anomalies (3 chromosoms 21) and they are still considered a person, though they do not share the same DNA as most humans. Twins have the same DNA and are still considered two persons.
So what make someone a disctinct person ?

Obviously, it' the mind. A sentient alien should be considered a distinct person as much as a twin.

So it's not ending LIFE which is bad (after all, when I'm cutting my hand, I kill it, and nobody think that I should be punished). What is bad is to destroy a MIND.

Has the embryo a mind ?

Well, for that we need to see WHERE the mind is located. This is very easy with simple observation : there is ample examples of men who lost their arms, their legs, their nose, well ANY part of their body, and stayed the same person.
Though, ANY damage on the brain bring changes on the personnality and mental abilities.
It's also impossible to replace the brain, while prothesis are available for about anything else.
Hence, the mind is located in the brain.

Has the embryo a brain ?
It has, after a while, a nervous system. Though, the brain does not start to appear before the 10-12 th week. After that, the embryo is no more an embryo, but a fetus.

Hence the answer : NO the embryo is not a person. Hence, there is nothing bad in abortion up to the 10th or 12th week, as you don't destroy a mind.

Case closed.

[monolith94]

I figure, the government won't let us kill those premarital sex sodomites, at least we get to kill their unborn children…

[Stefu]

Actually Stefu, considering that we're in a heavily American environment whenever we post, the slave analogy is way too blatant. Also I'm not even sure what your point is in some places, and the way it's more of a "slaver's monologue" doesn't help.

This is also the Internet, where standard debate fare is to compare people to Taliban, the Inquisition, Soviet Union and so on. People just have to manage. Every point has an analogy, and it's a slaver's monologue because I couldn't think up anything for the abolitionist to say.

As for the "my right to swing a fist ends at your nose" angle, it's an oversimplification. Right now we've got the nose inside the hitter's body, an out of bounds case if there ever was one.

No, not really. Placement of nose in space/time doesn't really have any bearing as to whether the right to swing a fist exists.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Already had this argument on Civfanatics, and already had pro-lifers unable to fight the evidence, and still sticking to their beliefs.

Let's see. Why abortion could be considered bad ? Because it would kill a person. Hence we have two possibilities :

1) the embryo is a person.
2) the embryo is not a person.

What define a person ? Some argued that it's the DNA. It's absurd. My skin cells have DNA, it does not make each of them a person. Some people have chromosomic anomalies (3 chromosoms 21) and they are still considered a person, though they do not share the same DNA as most humans. Twins have the same DNA and are still considered two persons.
So what make someone a disctinct person ?

Obviously, it' the mind. A sentient alien should be considered a distinct person as much as a twin.

So it's not ending LIFE which is bad (after all, when I'm cutting my hand, I kill it, and nobody think that I should be punished). What is bad is to destroy a MIND.

Has the embryo a mind ?

Well, for that we need to see WHERE the mind is located. This is very easy with simple observation : there is ample examples of men who lost their arms, their legs, their nose, well ANY part of their body, and stayed the same person.
Though, ANY damage on the brain bring changes on the personnality and mental abilities.
It's also impossible to replace the brain, while prothesis are available for about anything else.
Hence, the mind is located in the brain.

Has the embryo a brain ?
It has, after a while, a nervous system. Though, the brain does not start to appear before the 10-12 th week. After that, the embryo is no more an embryo, but a fetus.

Hence the answer : NO the embryo is not a person. Hence, there is nothing bad in abortion up to the 10th or 12th week, as you don't destroy a mind.

Case closed.

No it isn't.

Embryo. That word describes a stage in the life of a human being. A human being. It's not something else because it is at an earlier sage of it's life.