The fetus is alive and human but is it a PERSON? If we can resolve this issue, we can draw the right conclusion on the proper political action.
The unborn is an embryo or a fetus-just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception-not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.
The fetus is not just a blob of tissue but that's not the question. If it's not a person with rights, what does it lack that would make it one?
The unborn isn't a person, with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal, and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?
Animals have no rights so it isn't a question of people having a greater right. Staying focused on the topic, what makes the born a person? This would be the characteristic that a fetus would have to lack to have no rights.
Are you saying the unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood?
The status of the born and the unborn should be determined on an objective basis. Can personhood be objectively determined?
A child in utero is no more a blob of tissue than a fully grown adult. Anyone can be dehumanized if the person in power wills it so. The human race has a rich history of dehumanization against various different groups they deem cumbersome or inferior. This isn't something new. If you support abortion today, there is a good chance you probably would have supported slavery in the 1800s. It is essentially the same thing. The unborn are the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s of modern society. (censored word rhymes with wiggers)
The anti-abortion position is a religious belief that threatens the vital separation of church and state.
Object this would be a great idea for a thread were it not for the fact that it's not likely to be treated with amount of intellectual honesty and consideration from those who want to keep elective abortions legal. For them, their starting point is denial. Good luck in your quest, anyway.
Blob of cells, really? Honestly, if you guys don't like it when lifers use emotional tactics and emotional vocabulary such as 'innocent baby/unborn child' then why do the exact same to emotionally dehumanize the fetus? Calling it a blob is doing the exact same thing. And no, blob is not a proper Scientific description either. A zygote is a collection of very organized, developing cells. Blob of cells my @ss. I am so sick of the stupid tangents people purposely go off on by their choice of words. The same can be said when people dog on pro-lifers who also happen to eat meat or pro-choicers who don't believe people should be allowed to choose to kill born humans even though it's a 'choice'. This is an abortion debate and so therefore the two standpoints are only used in regards to abortion. So why people run off on tangents outside of the debate is just... *EXASPERATED SIGH!!* Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I the only one who sees this nonsense!? And from both sides! Maybe I am just having a bad day but seriously. It's just outstanding to me...
"Personhood" is a nonempirical property, a sort of status that can only be analyzed philosophically. The status of person is in no way determined or defined by religious or supernatural considerations. Nonempirical properties are dealt with in the domain of metaphysics and logic, not magical thinking. I would say that a person is a kind of being that is the subject of certain rights-relations. There is every reason to suppose that a human zygote functions as the locus of such rights-relations, and counts therefore as a person. The essence of personhood is individual moral autonomy. Moral autonomy is a nonempirical property possessed by all organisms which have sufficiently rich connection to their surrounding environment, that they are at least in principle capable of self-consciously acting upon that environment (and correlatively, recognizing such action as their own action). It so happens that all members of the genus homo possess (ceteris paribus) this property of personhood. Moreover there is a strong presumption that certain select other species, including the higher primates and the cetaceans, do as well. All such beings are moral actors, entitled to the philosophical status of personhood. And all such beings are entitled to the rights and protections of personhood, as well. By the critierion discussed here, the human zygote is indisputably a person; and abortion on demand of human persons is, by any secular moral standard, unequivocally prohibited.
That is an opinion only, not a fact. How is a fetus autonomous? How does a fetus self-consciously act upon its environment? In your opinion... In what ways is the fetus a moral actor? In your opinion. By my moral standard, prohibiting abortion is misogynist and reduces women to second-class citizenship.
Only insofar as the claim that we possess rights is an opinion only. Please point out to me the fact that constitutes our possession of rights. I spoke of the zygote as possessing autonomy in principle. That is the critierion of moral autonomy. It belongs to a class of beings who so act. It does not need to actually so act, any more than you do when you are sleeping. Sorry, but that is a mere opinion. You've offered no argument for your beliefs at all.
its herson or herdaughter she has no right to take blessings from us due to her pesimisstic view and our desire to allow people to avoid their parenthood responsibilities. I do not believe it should be legal and that the obvious truth is easy to see and that defining new words for life is the things the english love to do best. A person is a being to say it becomes different beings is just changing what you call it. Those cells are the rights of the MOTHER and FATHER. We must adjust our laws to include them both or make it illegal. We should take active rolls inf inding the fathers of all babies and if the father and the mother do not agree on an abortion it will not be allowed. Now I also hope that one day we convince everyone that a child is a blessing and that it is a beautiful choice to give your baby upf or adoption and that you will feel so much better of yourself for delivering the baby and either keeping it or giving it up. I am also like to say that I lvoe living in Canada where this is legal and being debated. The ugliness of the action and the perception of the people who argue for our rights to it is pessimistic, ignorant but has so much truth on both sides of the issue. The sad part is we make it hard for ourselves in every nation. Over changing and not supporting the means to change this. It could be easy in canada for everyone to afford thier own house, thier own two cars and 12 kids. In fact we could have everyone do the same and afford this but our perceptions and theories greatly hold us back. The truth is simple abortion snuffs out human life and ends the life of a human being. To think one creator has more rights to it than another is a mistake. I support this being a choice until living becomes easier and until the perception of everyone would suggest that a child is always a blessing. Until then I will prove to people that its a blessing whether they kept it or aborted it.
In other words, the fetus is not autonomous in actuality, but only in principle. In other words, it doesn't sel-conscjiously act upon its environement. I have pointed out that your "facts" are mere opinion. The answers you gave to my questions demonstrated that. The phrases "In principle," "belongs to a class of beings" show me that you realize that the fetus is incapable of doing what you originally alleged, but you refuse to admit it. And the pro-lifers claim that the pro-choicers are the ones in denial.
Recognized by law and enforced as such. Pretty factual no? So reality is meaningless? But it has to have the capacity to act at any time and use any or all rights.
By your reasoning, then, we do not have a right unless we are consciously exercising it. That is just not a tenable position. The fetus qua fetus is not capable of functioning as a moral actor, but neither are you when you are unconscious. The human will function as a moral actor when it reaches that point in its development that is phenotypically appropriate for such functions to be be manifest. It is on the basis of this fact, that we say that it belongs to the class of moral actors. And it is its status as member of this class that confers upon it the prerogatives of personhood, not whether or not it is at any given moment exhibiting the archetypal functions of moral actors. This really is not that complicated. But instead we have the spectacle of choicers saying, "So what if the fetus is developmentally determined to function as a moral actor? It doesn't function that way right now, so if we kill it, no harm no foul!" By that reasoning, I guess you wouldn't have a problem with genital mutilation, either! Talk about indulging in self-serving denial...
No, because we CAN exercise them at any time. The it is NOT a moral actor. But by that time on IS a moral actor. And then then human will be a moral actor. Why? Because it serves your position? Why not include something into a category when that something actually meets the classification or definition of the category? Really? Does that mean that say a medical student is a doctor now not when (s)he will reach and demonstrate the necessary knowledge? And by what line of reasoning could you support that assertion? Or self serving reasoning and sophistry as demonstrated by you.
