I take it that you consider an unborn infant with a beating heart, brain function and coordinated motion to be "non-existent?"
You are usually much more perspicacious. What Makedde and I are saying is, had we been aborted, we would not be here to regret the fact.
That wasn't my point Leo. Mak inferred that until the moment of birth the unborn child doesn't exist. My observation was that gievn that the child has vital signs it therefore exists.
If that is true, it will bear itself out. Why are you and yours so scared of the truth coming out? OH, I know why!
You would exist to the people who knew you existed, like the pregnant woman (assuming she knew she was pregnant) and anyone else who knew about the pregnancy, but to everyone else, you don't exist (officially) until you are born. The law doesn't see your existance until you are born.
Most abortions take place before there is too much vital activity. Does a person on life support with vital signs (being taken off life support would mean they are dead) also exist? I would argue that they don't.
that's rather bizarre, then what is the life support attached to? maybe you mean, they aren't sentient? and I am genuinely interested, what do you consider 'vital activity' and how much is 'too much'??
Fetuses do not have brain function until after 20th week of fetal develoment. I think therefore I am. I wouldnt care what happens to my body if it did not contain my mind ("caring" is a thought process, which requires functioning brain, or mind). Assigning rights to something which does not contain any mind (an object - a thing) is ridiculous. Assingning rights to unsentient embryos is as ridiculous as assigning rights to skin cells, braindead humans, plants or rocks! An object or a thing cannot be a moral agent or a person.
Exactly, and since she is "with child" it is quite obvious that the fetus is a child, or as numerous laws cite the child is a "child in utero".
There is no assigning of rights, there is merely the recognition of them. Being a human being is the only non arbitrary measure of when those rights start.
All moral/value statements (something SHOULD have rights / be protected by law..) are subjective, or "arbitrary", as opposed to fact statements. Your opinion that rights should be recognised based on DNA sequence is that, an opinion, which many do not share. Not a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factvalue_distinction
Not so arbitrary when they are consistent across a complete body of law. Therefore, all homicide laws should be consistent, and currently only Roe is out of line. Imminent risk of serious injury or death should be the only excuse for abortion, just as it is the requirement for a self defense -homicide defense. Our rights are recognized by our biological classification from the beginning of our nation forward. That is just fact. Biological classification is not arbitrary like "sentience" obviously is.
Current laws are not consistent, since killing braindead but biologically alive innocent humans is legal and happens in hospitals every day. Unless you want to ban transplantations, it will not be consistent. Besides, appeal to current legislation is a very weak argument, since it can be changed to be consistent one way or the other. Just repeal Unborn Victims of Violence (before 20th week) and it would be consistent with protection of mind. And you are wrong about Roe only being out of line. For example, killing a pregnant woman does not always result in two homicide charges, in about half of US states it is only one homicide or assault against a woman if she survives (depends also on trimester in question). Thus we can see that viewing foetii as something less valuable than a full human being is common in law. As for arbitrarity, the appearance of brainwaves is nor arbitrary, it is an objective scientific fact that they appear around 5th month of foetal development. Of course, it is a subjective moral view that abortion limit should be based on this criterion, just like with conception.
So in 4 pages is anybody here gonna get BACK to the topic of the thread? It's a pretty concise OP, how did it turn into 4 pages of babbling?
But they are not. The inconsistency is only perceived by you. Fetal homicide laws have nothing to do with abortions as it has been numerously shown you. that are as consistent as any other group of laws. Roe is not a law and even before Roe, abortion was not considered homicide. Give upi these fallacies, they hold no water. Really? Where did the founders refer to biological anything? No, that is just uninformed drivel. That is true but irrelevant.
I regret euthanizing a sick cat. Therefore, by pro-life standards, euthanizing sick animals is bad. Some women regret having children. Therefore, by pro-life standards, having children is bad. The point? This thread is based on an idiot premise, that "regret" for something proves the act is bad.
If I had been aborted, my mother would have had another child. It would have been a girl, named Wendy, who loved puppies and butterflies. Why do pro-lifers hate Wendy and all other little unconceived unborn girls so much? They need to take responsibility for their policies that prevent them from being born. If fact, why aren't all pro-lifers out there breeding like rabbits right this second? If they are truly devoted to human life, they need to be popping out more babies at every opportunity to prove it. Failure to do so is a conscious act to prevent the potential of human life from being realized.
Maybe we should create a thread on people's hemorrhoid surgery experience, whether it was positive or negative. Naturally, if there is lack of people willing to go into detail about it, that will prove ... well, something. Probably that proctologists are evil.
Actually it is a fact that the consitution does not discriminate against human beings with limited or no "sentience"
