I was thinking on authority, and I found a source to corroborate my definitions to some extent.

From dictionary.com

Human
1. a member of the genus Homo, especially H. sapiens
2. a person

Person
1. a living human
2. individual of specified character
3. composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality, the self
4. living body of a human
5. physique and general appearance
6. LAW - a human with legal rights and duties

I left off several of the other definitions under person because they are not really relevant to the discussion at hand. They are available to view, however, at dictionary.com. If I left a relevant one out of the discussion, please bring it to my attention, and we can discuss whether or not it is relevant.

Now, as we can clearly see from this authority, I am correct in asserting that the term human in its noun form only covers several distinct concepts. One of those concepts, person, includes the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality and a legal definition.

If we outline the characteristics that make up an individual personality, as I have done in previous posts, we note that the fetus does not meet the criteria, even though it clearly meets the biological criteria for being human. Therefore, my argument is valid when I assert that since the fetus is not a person, it is not fully human.

Furthermore, when we look at the legal definition of person, we see that it is a human with legal rights and duties. Granted, there may come a time when a fetus has legal rights, but there will never be a time when the fetus has legal duties, and even with this definition, we cannot call the fetus a full human.

I am more than willing to concede that a fetus meets the requirements of the strict biological definition, but it fails in both the legal and personhood concepts that also make up the term human.

This debate has never been about the justification of my use of terminology, but rather which concept we are going to use when we say human. And from just this simple exercise (which I probably should have done earlier in this discussion) I find all your bluster and talk about authority of definitions to be nothing other than the red herring I suspected.

1) A fetus can have legal 'duties' as a human, it just can't get itself into any situations where it would have need to exercise those duties. And whether or not a fetus has legal duties depends on what legal duties are assigned to the fetus, just as different legal duties are assigned to minors than are assigned to adults. So a fetus might not have need to exercise legal duties, but that it cannot be subject to these legal duties is not necessarily true. You would have to show not only that it is true that a fetus is not subject to legal duties, you would have to show that a fetus cannot, as a matter of necessity, possibly be subject to those legal duties. So let's hear it. Otherwise the fetus does not necessarily (there's that pesky word again) fail the legal definition of 'human'.

2) The characteristics which you assert make up an individual personality appear to be "cognition" and "the ability to exist independently". That's all I could find. Before I go on with my analysis of this, I need to make sure that these are in fact what you were referring to when you remarked that you had already laid out the characteristics that made up an individual personality. Perhaps you listed them in another thread? If you'd kindly provide me with a link, I could go there and read them and then perhaps better formulate a response. So far, from going back to the beginning of the thread and looking for anything that could possibly be what you were referring to, you really haven't given me much to go on. So yeah, I fully admit the possibility that I am missing something, so I'll wait for you to clarify before I start in on this part of the topic.

And

3) You still don't quite grasp the concept that something does not necessarily need to fulfill all possible definitions of a word in order for that word to fit that particular thing. Whether this is thickheadedness on your part or the result of an understanding that your argument sinks or swims based on the acceptability of the definitions you use in the context of the type of conclusion we are trying to reach (matter of fact, legal) is irrelevant. The basic fact of the matter is this: A thing does not need to satisfy all possible lexical or analytical definitions of a word, just those that apply in the context of the type of conclusion that is to be reached by the argument. So your earlier question can be answered. Does being human involve being a person? Not necessarily. Perhaps you were in favor of removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, because by your preferred definition, Terry Schiavo ceased to be a person at the moment she entered her coma. Does something become human only after it has achieved cognition (perhaps referring to I Think, Therefore I Am)? Not necessarily. Taking a closer look, the word "necessarily" comes from the word "necessity", and in this context, its use means that not only can something be true, but that in fact that somthing must be true. I suggest that we stick to the strict biological definition, because that is the definition that is the easiest to test and apply.

I think I've come up with a good, concise way to sum up what this debate amounts to:

The abhorrence of murder by human society is based on a perception of value of a human being. Some say that abortion is murder because it kills a human being. Does the assessment of this value come from the biological fact that a human has physical and genetic characteristics of a human or does this value come from the human's interactions with other people? Or does this value come from the potential of a human individual to benefit society in some way? The first and third answers lead us to view the fetus as valuable, regardless of whether or not it is a person, or even 'human', since it would still have value, at least in the case of the third possbility I listed. If a person is to hold the view that a fetus has no value, then he or she must only hold the second of the three possible answers to the question of the assessment of human value, and no combination of the other two with it. What we are trying to figure out is which of the three possible answers is/are most appropriate in determining if abortion is acceptable or not.

Time for my next class.

Quote: › 1) A fetus can have legal 'duties' as a human, it just can't get itself into any situations where it would have need to exercise those duties. And whether or not a fetus has legal duties depends on what legal duties are assigned to the fetus, just as different legal duties are assigned to minors than are assigned to adults. So a fetus might not have need to exercise legal duties, but that it cannot be subject to these legal duties is not necessarily true. You would have to show not only that it is true that a fetus is not subject to legal duties, you would have to show that a fetus cannot, as a matter of necessity, possibly be subject to those legal duties. So let's hear it. Otherwise the fetus does not necessarily (there's that pesky word again) fail the legal definition of 'human'.

What kind of legal duty could a fetus have? I cannot think of a single instance where a fetus would have any kind of legal duty whatsoever. I can think of all sorts of areas where it may have legal rights, but I cannot think of a single instance where it would have a duty in which it or the parent would be bound by law to fulfill something to another person. If you have an example of some duty a fetus could be bound to, then I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you are trumpeting at nothing.

And I say this because you know as well as I do that it is impossible to prove a negative assertion. All I can do is present a case that since the fetus is not a fully developed person, then it is not beholden to any other person for any other thing or service rendered for it, and thus has no legal duty. Anything else I can say on this can only be a refutation of any examples you provide where you think a fetus can have a legal duty.

Quote: › 2) The characteristics which you assert make up an individual personality appear to be "cognition" and "the ability to exist independently". That's all I could find. Before I go on with my analysis of this, I need to make sure that these are in fact what you were referring to when you remarked that you had already laid out the characteristics that made up an individual personality. Perhaps you listed them in another thread? If you'd kindly provide me with a link, I could go there and read them and then perhaps better formulate a response. So far, from going back to the beginning of the thread and looking for anything that could possibly be what you were referring to, you really haven't given me much to go on. So yeah, I fully admit the possibility that I am missing something, so I'll wait for you to clarify before I start in on this part of the topic.

To be certain, there are other traits that make up personhood. The two I have listed here are the biggest of those. And since they are the bare minimum of required traits, that would be a good place to start. Please remember, however, that when I speak of existing independently that in the context I was using the phrase, it means to exist as a completely separate entity and remain a viable life.

Quote: › You still don't quite grasp the concept that something does not necessarily need to fulfill all possible definitions of a word in order for that word to fit that particular thing.

No. I understand this perfectly. What you are having trouble grasping is that when multiple definitions exist with multiple concepts for a single term, we have to discern which definition is the most relevant to the case, and we cannot do that without exploring the nuances of each meaning/concept of the term. This means that I can say that a fetus is human in the sense that it is a member of H.sapiens, while at the same time I can say that the fetus is not human in the sense of legality or personhood. In other words, we are talking about different concepts, and before we can come to a conclusion concerning the morality of abortion, we must have taken a look at all the concepts associated with the term human and determined which is most relevant.

So, just because something matches one meaning of a word does not mean that it matches the most relevant concept of the term in the case we happen to be examining. Language is a tricky thing. Perhaps one day you will grasp just how difficult it is to understand.

Quote: › I suggest that we stick to the strict biological definition, because that is the definition that is the easiest to test and apply.

And because it is the only definition upon which your case can stand. But the problem is that even though you wish to use only the biological definition, you slip up and refer to fetuses as "someone else" in other posts, which shows that you are using the personhood definition. You may not recognize that you are doing this, but it is this that I called you and others on this board on earlier.

1) What I was getting at is that fetuses have no legal duties imposed on them, not that they could not possibly serve a legal duty. What about babies? Babies may be too young to understand the concept of gratitude or due repayment. Does this make them not a person? This is big. Somebody write their congressman and tell him that we've proven that a baby is not necessarily a person, and that killing your baby should be legalized! I could write my congressman to have him pass a bill that requires a fetus to go everywhere its mother goes, as long as it is in the womb. Then the fetus would have a legal duty, to go everywhere its mother goes as long as it is in the womb. And when it exits the womb, it would then be released from legal duties. But it is not impossible for a fetus to serve legal duties, there are simply limitations on which legal duties the fetus could serve. But as of right now, there is no such legal duty imposed on a fetus. It would, however, serve such a duty very naturally. The law would coincide with natural processes, but the fetus could still be bound to it, and held responsible once it exits the womb. Why someone would need to make such a law, is another question entirely. So there is one example of a legal duty a fetus could be subject to. It's not quite like paying income taxes, but then I doubt the fetus is even in a tax bracket. I am replying to this just to highlight the absurdity of your claim it is even appropriate that a fetus must be bound to laws of the land in order to be called a person. That is what you were trying to assert, wasn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. If not, then I guess we can not only kill fetuses, but kill our babies as well. According to what you have written on the nature of persons, killing babies is hardly different than aborting fetuses. Where would you otherwise make a distinction?

2) And if your definition of a person is to be accepted, then we have no argument. I agree that if it is a condition of personhood to be able to exist as a separate, independent entity and remain a viable life, then a fetus does not satisfy your definiton of 'person'. An individual hooked up to a heart-lung machine and with a feeding tube in them is also not a person by your definition, though they may be very much alive and sentient. So we have license to kill them too, when they become a burden to us financially or emotionally. If we do not have the license to kill someone dependent (the operative word) on a heart-lung machine then please educate me, while remaining consistent with your prior definition of 'person', on where the distinction is to be made. However, I am still thinking about the best way to show that it is inappropriate to demand that independence is a condition of either individuality or personhood. But I'm willing to put in the effort - it will be worth it to watch you do logical loop-de-loops in the sky to try to explain why independence is, in fact, a necessary condition of either personhood or individuality.

3) I am going back through and changing all my references to a fetus as a 'person' so that they are now references to the fetus as an 'individual'. Are you satisfied now? I don't think it changes my arguments very much. Or don't fetuses satisfy your definition of 'individual' as well?

4) I'm just curious to know: In your view, should aborting a fetus be viewed as of no more consequence than popping a zit?

5) VOX, the Voices of Planned Parenthood called. They want you to go on a speaking tour with them.

6) Back to seriousness - If we are to explore the nuances of each possible definition of 'person' to see whether it should be applicable to a fetus, then why isn't there very much exploring going on in your posts? It would certianly be to our benefit; as of right now I can't tell for sure exactly what is going on inside your mind. In all seriousness, I understand that each possible definition needs to be examined for applicability, and we need to have an idea of what type of definitions are consistent with the type of conclusions we are trying to reach. Do you view this question (is the fetus a human being) as a scientific (matter of fact) or a philosophical (matter of shared opinion) question? Your answer to this will help focus our debate even more. I think you already know that I feel that this is a scientific question, and that I feel that analyzing the topic from that angle would guarantee the most consistent application of the term 'human'.

7)

Quote: › Language is a tricky thing. Perhaps one day you will grasp just how difficult it is to understand.

How very condescending of you. I suppose I could only expect someone like you to fight fire with fire.

And now it's time for the usual appeals to pity that are oft characteristic of the pro-life crowd. In all of this, we haven't even examined the methods commonly used to abort fetuses and whether those are consistent with morality, or humane. We even try to treat animals, even those that we plan to process for meat, humanely. Have a look here: This is a four-part graphic of the Dilation and Extraction method being performed on a 23 week old fetus. It has been determined that at this stage of development, while Nator does not feel that the fetus may be called 'human', it can very much feel pain. It just can't breathe and scream.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html



What is most disturbing to me is that while it seems like everyone and her daughter is having an abortion these days, nobody wants to pay any attention to what they are actually doing. In the spring semester of this year, a pro-life group came to campus and set up a large display of pictures of aborted fetuses that had been in various stages of development before their abortion. In the days and weeks following, there was a massive outcry against such pictures being posted in public. Let me repeat - for the most part, we even treat our food animals humanely (though there are still horrific stories out there), but this process (with no anesthesia to the fetus), I feel, is inhumane. When I appeal to the fact that the process is inhumane, I am in no way requiring that the fetus be called human (though you can decide for yourself). D&E is just an action that does not represent the kind of behavior that we, as humans (though in some cases Nator might dispute) would like to think that we exhibit. Instead, it is something that we as society would like to believe doesn't happen.

Wake up, America, the truth is knocking at the door. if you're dead-set on having an abortion, or advising a female friend to have an abortion, at least understand what you are doing, and grieve that you must be responsible for deciding to perform such an act. And how much more should you grieve if your unwanted pregnancy was the result of a single, frivolous night of fun! Sit in the corner and cry and scream with grief!

Ok, appeals to pity [off].

Perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised that this discussion is running for as long as it is. The very concept of human rights in American government has its basis in the idea that we are endowed with our rights by a Creator. Remove that, and the only rights that you have are the ones that you are vocal or influential or persuasive enough to defend. Secular humanism claims to build in its own system of 'rights' but time will tell if this system of rights has the strength to remain unchanged and un-eroded in the face of vocal, persuasive, or influential challenge. God, on the other hand is not changed, because he is truly sovereign. It makes me glad that He is my God.

I am in agreement with theologian Dr. William Lane Craig, Th.D about the idea that without a higher authority (God), objective moral values cannot possibly exist, since we would otherwise have no higher authority than ourselves to define objective morals, and it would take no higher authority than ourselves to change them when a large group of people decide that they want to. So it may almost be fruitless to attempt to define abortion as moral or immoral when the moral values themselves are subject to arbitrary change.

Specific to abortion, the Bible says we have a soul from the moment of conception, and that God knows us before we are even born. A comprehensive proof for the existence of God is beyond the scope of this thread but I hope others who know more than I do are doing a better job of that elsewhere in the forum.

I'm going to make the decision to be done with this for the evening. Perhaps I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Just some more thoughts...

The fetus, is life. It was life from the very first moment. Unless there are dire circumstances (and I mean extreme), I really see no need for abortion.

I could have been aborted, but my mother didn't, since she didn't believe the doctors when they said I was just a tumor, for under their scientific (and seemingly superior) mindset, my mother couldn't bear any more children. They were wrong.

If the birthmothers of my two adopted children had aborted, I wouldn't have the infants I have today. They get a chance at life, at love, and at correctly founding a relationship with God, and hopefully keeping Him there.

My definitions were only to point out how many people might see it. Not how it is on any absolute level of understanding.

We have free will, and we have the freedom to choose. Even when we realize we could make the wrong choice, or one that doesn't quite fit the bill.

American law supports this freedom of choice, and yet restricts it enough that it doesn't get abused.

As Christians, we should do what is right by Christ, who re-iterated for us, the love, commandments, mercy, and justice of God.

It shouldn't be hard, for anyone, Christian or otherwise to be able to fully expand upon the concept of 'love thy neighbor', and to be able to apply such a concept to the situation at hand.

In many cases, semantics regarding definitions aside, the fetus is still a human being we are talking about, and that is why women must fully consider any decisions that effect such life, just as it would effect the individual as well.

Say out of 100 abortions, 90 percent were stable, and expected no extreme complications, nor were they related to rape or incest, etc.

That is 90 unnecessary deaths.

Which leaves 10 lives (not counting those who made the decision or their family, etc) which are subject to a more complex set of factors in which a decision must be made.

Social (including religious) changes must go into effect in order to begin changing the rate of abortion, and or unwanted pregnancies.

Being involved, and being responsible are a good place to start. Taking ownership of one's own actions, yet another step in the right direction.



Just throwing out some thoughts there...

Quote: › But it is not impossible for a fetus to serve legal duties, there are simply limitations on which legal duties the fetus could serve. But as of right now, there is no such legal duty imposed on a fetus. It would, however, serve such a duty very naturally. The law would coincide with natural processes, but the fetus could still be bound to it, and held responsible once it exits the womb. Why someone would need to make such a law, is another question entirely. So there is one example of a legal duty a fetus could be subject to.

This is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to form a response. Perhaps after I stop laughing and pick my jaw up from the floor I can come up with something.

Quote: › What about babies? Babies may be too young to understand the concept of gratitude or due repayment. Does this make them not a person?

Do babies not show other inherent traits of being a person? If there is a point at which such traits become apparent, even in small amounts, we cannot make this claim. This is beyond a stretch of what my claims are. Why is it every single pro-life person I discuss this with has the insane tendency to stretch my arguments beyond any reasonable and recognizable form?

Quote: › I am replying to this just to highlight the absurdity of your claim it is even appropriate that a fetus must be bound to laws of the land in order to be called a person. That is what you were trying to assert, wasn't it?

No, this is not what I was asserting at all. In fact, you couldn't get much further from my assertion if you tried. The only assertion made was that the fetus could not be called a person according to this definition of the word. It does not mean that I am dismissing the other definitions of the word outright. I am merely trying to examine all the definitions to find the one that fits best with the common usage of the word human in the context of this case. Let's not jump the gun here and conclude that my argument is that since the fetus fails to meet the criteria for the legal definition of person that it is fine to abort them. We still have other definitions to delve into. Then we have to determine which definition best fits the case. And only then can we determine the ethics of abortion (ie when it is wrong to have one and when it is not), and even then, we would still have to look at the specifics of each case.

Why do you want to make this overly simplistic?

Quote: › And if your definition of a person is to be accepted, then we have no argument. I agree that if it is a condition of personhood to be able to exist as a separate, independent entity and remain a viable life, then a fetus does not satisfy your definiton of 'person'. An individual hooked up to a heart-lung machine and with a feeding tube in them is also not a person by your definition, though they may be very much alive and sentient.

Whoa buddy. My definition only outlines the traits of personhood. It never states how many of the traits are required to be deemed a person. Plus, how does having mechanical assistance make one less of a separate entity? If that were the case, then if a robot ever achieved sentience, it could not be considered a person because without others to perform routine maintenance, it would deteriorate and shut down. Eagerness can be a virtue, but we have to step back and determine which traits and how many of them are necessary. And no, this will not be a simple task. I never claimed it to be. We are still in the examination phase, and I think it is still too early to draw conclusions.

Quote: › But I'm willing to put in the effort - it will be worth it to watch you do logical loop-de-loops in the sky to try to explain why independence is, in fact, a necessary condition of either personhood or individuality.

As I said earlier, it is still too early to draw conclusions. I've been looking for someone who would work through the examination of these traits with me so that we could determine which traits and how many are indeed necessary to make a person. I haven't had anyone willing to do that, so some of the ideas are still in a very rough state, and it will take some considerable work to fully examine them. Of course, this would work better with someone who was really intent on making the examination and then drawing conclusions instead of jumping off to the conclusions prior to a thorough examination.

Quote: › I am going back through and changing all my references to a fetus as a 'person' so that they are now references to the fetus as an 'individual'. Are you satisfied now? I don't think it changes my arguments very much. Or don't fetuses satisfy your definition of 'individual' as well?

From dictionary.com

Individual
1. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
2. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
3. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.

The same problem with human remains with the term individual. You will still have to justify your use of the term as you intend. We could just as easily hash the debate out on this term as the other.

Quote: › I'm just curious to know: In your view, should aborting a fetus be viewed as of no more consequence than popping a zit?

No. Here are the reasons:
1. There are much more serious medical consequences for having an abortion.
2. Abortion should be a last resort. It is not something that should be used as a form of birth control. In my view/opinion, women who become repeat users of abortion as birth control should have their ability to become pregnant removed. This is, after all, what they are expressing a desire for.

I understand that people make mistakes. Having sex before one is ready or fully understands the consequences is one such mistake. Those people should not have to make the sacrifice of having to have the child simply due to their mistake. However, they also have a responsibility to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. Thus my provision for repeat offenders.

If you reread my proposal on abortion with limitations, you will see my other views to some degree.

Why did you ask this? Would it make you feel better or more justified in arguing against me if you could see me as a baby killing monster instead of a person who cares? BTW, no offense meant in asking this. I am genuinely curious.

Quote: › If we are to explore the nuances of each possible definition of 'person' to see whether it should be applicable to a fetus, then why isn't there very much exploring going on in your posts?

Because no one has really sought to explore them since I posted them. I had a feeling as to how large an undertaking it would have been to explore them, and I really wanted someone to genuinely explore them with me. Can you blame a guy for wanting some company on such a large project?

Quote: › How very condescending of you. I suppose I could only expect someone like you to fight fire with fire.

Good assessment. I normally try to restrain that tendency with varying degrees of success. However, I come from a long line and large family full of smartasses. I guess sometimes my natural tendencies win out. I'll try to regain my restraint if you will attempt to do the same.

Quote: › This is a four-part graphic of the Dilation and Extraction method being performed on a 23 week old fetus. It has been determined that at this stage of development, while Nator does not feel that the fetus may be called 'human', it can very much feel pain. It just can't breathe and scream.

First of all, I firmly believe that there may be a point in fetal development where it exhibits the traits of personhood, and thus is worthy of protection. I have yet to hash out with anybody the traits to such a point that I have been able to determine when exactly that point is reached. I do know, however, that it is not in the early stages of development. That is why my proposal calls for no late term abortions except under two extreme conditions.

Please don't lump me in with the extremists. I want no part of the agenda of either extreme as neither represents my views.

Quote: › &E is just an action that does not represent the kind of behavior that we, as humans (though in some cases Nator might dispute) would like to think that we exhibit. Instead, it is something that we as society would like to believe doesn't happen.

If you reread my proposal, though I don't mention D&E explicitly, you will note that I am in agreement with you here.

Quote: › if you're dead-set on having an abortion, or advising a female friend to have an abortion, at least understand what you are doing, and grieve that you must be responsible for deciding to perform such an act.

I would qualify this to late term abortions.

Quote: › Specific to abortion, the Bible says we have a soul from the moment of conception, and that God knows us before we are even born.

I cannot find an instance where the Bible specifically says this. And I think that the verse that says God knew someone before they were born has been taken out of context. If you take a look at the context of that verse, it is not talking about just any normal person, but a prophet, and I think that alters the interpretation.

Of course, one can pull the omniscient card, but I have major philosophical problems with that that will not be addressed here as they are completely off topic.

Nor will I attempt to correct any of the misunderstanding of humanism in this thread. It is again, off topic.

Quote: › Social (including religious) changes must go into effect in order to begin changing the rate of abortion, and or unwanted pregnancies. Being involved, and being responsible are a good place to start. Taking ownership of one's own actions, yet another step in the right direction.

I agree. I want to see less abortions as much as the next person. I do not, however, see making it illegal as a workable option. I can see making D&E illegal except under extreme conditions, but that is only one procedure for abortion.

People should have access to it for legitimate mistakes. They, however, should not be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control. There are plenty of clinics that hand out pills and condoms for that. Besides, one could always abstain. If a person repeatedly gets abortions, thus abusing them as a form of birth control, I think we should be well within our rights to give this person what they really want and make it impossible for them to have children.

Quote: › You miss the point of defining person. As I have stated both here and at other places, a person is a human with cognition that can exist independently. This is important in this discussion.

So infants are persons either? They do not have the ability to exist independently.

Quote: › My stance is that if something has not met the requirements for personhood, then it is not immoral to kill it or let it die.

So if someone murdered your baby ranging from 0-12 months old you would not consider that person immoral? You've got to be kidding me.

Quote: › This is because such a thing does not have the same stature as a person, and therefore does not deserve the same protections.

You dont require stature to require rights or protections in this nation.

Quote: › That said, if you most likely cannot give a child a happy life then why would you bring them into the world? Consider, isn't it selfish of you to have to say to that child even though you don't have the resources, the responsibility or the know-how to raise it you are going to do it anyway?

There are so many adoptions agencies out there this isnt even an issue.

Quote: › Isn't it selfish of you to say to it that even though you can't take care of it you can give it away to the government to possibly be given to someone else?

No. Your giving that baby a chance. How about I decide if its selfish for me to decide if YOU get to live. You making that choice is selfish in itself. You cannot morally decide weather or not it would be selfish for you to let someone else to try to live thier life. That whole argument is flawed and moronic.

Thats like some crazy wacko coming up to you and saying that he is going to kill you and its going to be for your own good because he or she feels that you are unhappy. So he's going to do you a favor and kill you now. It's a cop out and I hate to be so blunt but its just stupid. If your going to abort atleast be real with yourself and realize you are doing it because it is what YOU want to do for YOURSELF.

Quote: › During the founding of America thousands of indians were killed in cold blood for land. So this statement is incorrect. The US was founded off of cold-blooded killing and we all know it.

Acts of war are completly different then acts commited by citizens. It wasn't right but it wasn't the same and you know it.

Quote: › This seems like a good option....unless you've ever been in an adoption agency or seen what happens to most children without blue eyes and blonde hair who enter them. These usually become the most troubled kids who never leave the system. Having to be born without someone who is responsible is the worst possible thing that could happen to you. Having to spend one second without loving parents is worse than death in my view. It's possible for you to find a way to have a good life coming from this situation but no one should ever have to be in it and it definately puts your chances for success at the bottom of the ladder. That's the facts and you know it.

Life is full of falures and troubles and problems but this is avoiding the question completly. The only thing to argue is. 'when does life start' or 'When do you become a human' Regardless of how you felt thier life might be that doesn't give you the right to kill them. Ancient civlizations used to kill anyone who had any birth defect including blindness. Tell me Blind people have a ton of different problems getting thru life and have a very hard life as well. Do you think we should kill them too?? Probobly not.

Quote: › I love children and I love life, I simply know the truth about what it means when your irresponsibility causes serious harm to another. Have you even taken that into consideration? Or do you assume that it will all be ok because we have CPS and adoption agencies

Everyone deserves a chance , bottom line. Your parrents gave you a chance. Everyone deserve's that chance, Regaurdless of how bad thier life may or may not be.

Quote: › I value all life, that's why I don't agree with irresponsible parents or pawning your children off on the government. These things lead to a lot of lives that shouldn't have ever been, being ruined and lost.

I agree many people do things they shouldn't do that cause this whole problem to arise but that doesn't mean the child should have to pay for the mistakes of the parrent and be killed. I know for a fact that if I was born to parents going into that circumstance that I would want to be put into an adoption agency isntead of being killed before given a chance. The whole argument lies in that its not our choice to make that decision. What If I felt that anyone working for minimum wage in the united states and living in a state of poverty is no way to live and they are misserable and it isnt right. Can I go kill them all? No I cant. Its wrong and the only difference is the age of the person. So argue that, not the stupid point of quality of life because that doesn't matter.

Quote: › American abortion doesn't actually murder anyone as far as I can tell. It simply stops the cells from developing any further.

That is where the argument is if you want to take that further. Fetus = life.
Stoping life = murder. Both of those 2 facts are supported by the scientific field. They have nothing to do with religion. Now lets see if you can connect the dots.

Quote: › Just as wether I'm 85 or 5 doesn't take away from the validity of my statements

Agreed and even supported by scripture.

Quote: › Adoption centers for most (though admittedly not all) children without blonde hair and blue eyes usually don't end up well

Untrue. Infact Any infant of any race without any disease or birthdefects normally gets adopted right away. The children that have problem normally have birth defects, are crack babies, born with AIDS or enter the scence after the age of 1. In this specific scenerio we are talking about entering the baby directly after birth. It would have a very high chance of getting adopte but this isn't what the argument is about.

You cannot base your argument of weather murder is wrong by comparing it to what type of quality of life you may or may not have.

Quote: › take a moment and ill repeat it: Abortion is not murder.

Saying it doesnt make it true. Nor does repeating it.

Quote: › However, it turns into a fetus, looks somewhat like a baby and a human, but i think that killing a fetus is not a baby and therefore is not a human

There is the problem. "I think" You dont know. You dont know the facts. You probobly haven't researched it. You dont back anything up with facts. Fact of the matter is most MD's and biologist consider life to begin either at conception or very very early in the Fetus's LIFE. Almost all belive it is considered life when there is an established heart which can happen before 12 weeks. It is easy to think but stupid to do so when uninformed.

Quote: › Besides the fact i believe in freethought and humanism, the time of the bible was a time where there was far fewer people on earth than today, and you must keep in mind that in order for peoples to survive they couldn't be killing thier babies no matter what instances. Now however, to the threat of overpopulation, abortions; which are not proven to be "murder" or harmless to fetus', i believe it is a good option for unwanted pregnancies.

Just because human's are "unneeded" doesnt make it ok to kill them which is basically what that argument states.

Quote: › I will think about this some more, and post updates on my thought about this topic later.

Do yourself a favor and think less and research more.

Quote: › "Athiest" (Learn to spell)

Stop critisizing spelling. It has no bearing on thier argument and makes you look superficial.

Quote: › anything written in the Biiibleee.... And usually this lack of self discipline and this notion of having the 'right' to sexual intercourse with a woman is driven by ... guess who ... that's right. men. I wonder how many unwanted pregnancies come from an ungodly man being unwilling to keep it in his pants, even if he knows he can't support the natural consequences* of his action

Everything was awesome up till here. It takes two to tango except in the horrid cases of rape the woman has equal responsibility in everything.

Quote: › In the other meaning, human strongly implies being a person and part of a community that has moral/ethical obligations (ie human rights) to one another. With this meaning, there is a set of traits beyond the physical and genetic that one must possess before being considered human. Fetuses, at best, only present some of the required traits for being persons and thus capable of inducing moral obligations at the later term of a pregnancy.

This has no basis what so ever. You do not have to be part of a community or have moral or ethical obligations in order to be human. You ahve to do that to be a part of society. In no way shape or form is being part of society a prerequisite for being human. It's been a while since ive heard such nonsence.

Quote: › Really what it boils down to is how we use the term in any given instance. I honestly think a compromised solution could work on this issue if the proponents for each side were not so die hard set that things must be their way. Here is what I propose.

Here is the problem. You dont compromise on something like Murder. Its cut and dry. Either it is or it isnt. If it isnt then it should be completly 100% legal. If it is then it should be 100% illegal (with the one exception that even applies with current murder laws, If your own life is at risk)

Quote: › This seems to be reasonable accomodation,

There is no reasonabl eaccomodation for murder. The fact you want there to be some limitations implies that there is something wrong with it.

Quote: › I'm glad you have at least grasped the problem, but I think I have already justified my points on one occassion.

Heh, I thought you were joking when you first wrote this. You've justified nothing and only made up a few opionions to 'try' to support your view. Zero logic to back them up and even less factual support. No third part support either. You've justified nothing except for the fact that it is ok to kill something that is not human. What you failed to do is participate in the argument about abortion since you've failed in jsutifing that a Fetus is not human. Therefor your justification that killing something non human is not wrong has no bearing towards this debate what so ever.

Quote: › especially one who so rudely discounts my views because I am not nearly as much an authority as Webster.

You've got to be kidding. You want to throw out random comments that you make up with no logical backing and want us to take them as a "given". If thats true then my Next argument is God is real. God helped man write the scripture. Scripture says Murder is wrong *. I win. I wont prove anything up with facts because you apparently dont think that is neccisary.

Quote: › Thus my point in seeking the definition and context being used to define something.

Well lets seek it and not just have you claim the truth on it.

Quote: › Now, I will not disagree with you that in a biological context, a human fetus is not human. However, in another context, that fetus is not human, because the second context refers to humans as persons, or individual agents, if you will with certain traits that make them what they are, and in that sense, no fetus can be human. What we have to mesh out in this bloody mess is not the definition of human, but rather in which context we are going to apply it.

Considering we are talking about a physical fetus and what it is. It is a think there for we are looking for the context of a Noun. Not any other definitions. Murder by law is when you kill someone who is "A" human. Not human. If someone doesn't show the other characteristics of being human, Such as belonging to society it does not make it Legal to murder that person. Therefor it doesn't matter if the fetus shows Human characteristics because it is human and there is already a basis in the law that proves that you do not have to show human characteristics to be considered human.

Quote: › As I said, words have different connotations and different contexts. Taking the easy way out by claiming your definition is justified because a third party confirms it is very poor form for a debate.

No it isnt. It's quite common in a debate when the third party is Noteworthy and a known authority in that subject.

Quote: › So, other than the third party authority, what makes your definition more valid than mine? That is what justification in a debate is about.

Well even if we were to assume that your words are worthwhile. The law has already established a base that you cannot kill someone if they do not show human characteristics. If it is a human you cannot kill it. Period. Therefor that whole argument that you are trying to propose is null and void.

Quote: › I added reasons for why I felt those portions should either be part of the definition or that a new concept should be introduced. This is a perfectly valid form of argumentation

Reasons with no backing, No factual information, no support.

Quote: › but rather to introduce the concept of personhood into the equation since I feel it has intense ramifications on the question under consideration.

You cant pick and choose when you want to add the concept of personhood. We are talkign about considering something Murder. You agree that a Fetus is a Physical Human. So its a human. You want to add the 'concept' that it is ok to kill a Human if it has no qualities of "personhood". If that was the case you cant not pick and choose. You would have to apply it across the board and say that it is ok to exicute any Human that had no qualities of "personhood". Not a very good argument.

Quote: › Unfortunately, if you give my arguments a fair reading, you will see that this is not the case at all. I provide justification for everything I argue.

Hmm, I fail to see it as well. Care to break it down point by point?

Quote: › No. This is a case of the definitions I have laid out and the ones you have laid out. Therefore, we both have to provide ample justification for why our definitions are of quality. Saying that it comes from a third party is not ample justification in a debate of this nature.

Well You have provided zero justification for your definitions. If you want to claim that her third party is not a leading authority then that is your responsibility to do so.

Quote: › At the same time, however, I realize that there are grave ramifications in making it illegal again (forcing those who want them into back alleys again, thus putting their lives at greater risk).

I wouldn't care if they have to put thier lives at risk if they are trying to kill an innocent human. Thats like saying you want to make bank robbing legal because you dont want to see a bank robber injured.

Quote: › That is why I think America needs more emphasis in teaching personal responsibility along with better sex education. And no, I'm not advancing a sex education that only focuses on condoms and pills. I'm all for a sex ed. that encourages abstinence but realizes the fact that many teens will not listen to that advice and because of that teaches them how to have sex as safely as possible.

Agreed but that wont solve the problem. How about teaching teens that they are responsible for thier actions and when they see thier friends get multiple abortions it gives them the idea. "why not" if it happens to me I'll get an abortion too. None of it makes sence.

Quote: › And while abortion should be the last thing on anyone's mind, we have to realize that sometimes it is necessary, and sometimes it will happen because of choice.

Thats the problem. Muder should never be a choice. It shouln't be an option to decide on. The issue here is "Is abortion Murder. If it is then it should be stopped completly ( as stated before unless the mother's life is at risk which is already a put into Laws ). If it isn't Murder. Well then its just morally wrong but so are strip clubs so make it fully legal. This is not taking into acct my Religious beliefs but that should be the basis of the argument. It isnt about making a choice, It is about weather or not it is murder.


* - Disclaimer, Although I belive the above to be true I dont consider that a real arguemnt and was only using it to prove a point.

Quote: › Furthermore, when we look at the legal definition of person, we see that it is a human with legal rights and duties. Granted, there may come a time when a fetus has legal rights, but there will never be a time when the fetus has legal duties, and even with this definition, we cannot call the fetus a full human. Furthermore, when we look at the legal definition of person, we see that it is a human with legal rights and duties. Granted, there may come a time when a fetus has legal rights, but there will never be a time when the fetus has legal duties, and even with this definition, we cannot call the fetus a full human.

So those who are handicapped and dont have Legal Duties arent Human? You've got to be kidding me. Go Murder a Handicap persont hat doesn't have any Legal Duties and try this defence in a court of law.

Quote: › And since they are the bare minimum of required traits,

It's never stated that is the bare minimum anywhere. Or if it does you failed to show where it does.

Quote: › Do babies not show other inherent traits of being a person? If there is a point at which such traits become apparent, even in small amounts,

You cant just choose when and where you want to apply your definitions.

Quote: › As I said earlier, it is still too early to draw conclusions. I've been looking for someone who would work through the examination of these traits with me so that we could determine which traits and how many are indeed necessary to make a person. I haven't had anyone willing to do that, so some of the ideas are still in a very rough state,

It seems Buszka is doing that. They are just disproving the need of yoru definitions and you refuse to go onto the next defintion. I think that we've proved that a human doesn't have to show characteristics of Society to be considered human. Therefor neither does the Fetus to be considered Human. Next definition please.

Quote: › and it will take some considerable work to fully examine them. Of course, this would work better with someone who was really intent on making the examination and then drawing conclusions instead of jumping off to the conclusions prior to a thorough examination.

I'd be amused by this and willing to do it when ever you like.

Quote: › Those people should not have to make the sacrifice of having to have the child simply due to their mistake

To many people in today's society dont belvie in accountability for ones own actions. Maybe we should let bank robbers off on the first time too if they promise to give the money back.

Quote: › Because no one has really sought to explore them since I posted them. I had a feeling as to how large an undertaking it would have been to explore them, and I really wanted someone to genuinely explore them with me. Can you blame a guy for wanting some company on such a large project?

Ok then, Lets start over then. List the definitions from multiple sources and from there we'll agree which ones are woth exploring and go from there.

Quote: › First of all, I firmly believe that there may be a point in fetal development where it exhibits the traits of personhood, and thus is worthy of protection. I have yet to hash out with anybody the traits to such a point that I have been able to determine when exactly that point is reached. I do know, however, that it is not in the early stages of development. That is why my proposal calls for no late term abortions except under two extreme conditions.

Wound't you consider this to undermine your argument over all? I mean obviously you don't otherwise you. Now I'm interested to see what exactly is needed to have 'traits of personhood'. I think that most of the posters hear have mentioned thiers. While you may not agree with them atleast they are posted and up to debate. I'll go fist.

Traits of Personhood in my honest opionion:

The potential to become a person.
Human DNA.

Rather simplistic. I'm sure your's is a bit more indepth.
I honestly am looking for a good discussion here and not a 'flame fest'. I'd like to see where you actually stand if you agree that a fetus can have "personhood" traits before birth then there is alot of stuff that we dont have to argue about.

( I started from the very begining of the thread and alot of my posts have already been addressed but <shrugs> that is just how I do things.)

God created suffering, I don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal of it
I find those pictures of the D&E kinda amusing, but I guess that's what you get when you do my job. When seen what I have seen, nothing is dusturbing anymore.

Quote: › So infants are persons either? They do not have the ability to exist independently.

Actually, I think an infant does exist independently. To be certain, it cannot fend for itself, but it exists as a separate entity from its mother. In other words, one could remove infant and mother from one another and both could survive.

This is why it is important to hash out the meaning of the terms and concepts here.

Quote: › You dont require stature to require rights or protections in this nation.

Actually, by legal definition, we do require stature to guarantee rights in this nation. Illegal aliens do not meet the stature requirements of the US, and therefore are not granted the same rights as US citizens.

Quote: › That is where the argument is if you want to take that further. Fetus = life. Stoping life = murder. Both of those 2 facts are supported by the scientific field. They have nothing to do with religion. Now lets see if you can connect the dots.

So, when you go to the fridge and cook some eggs for breakfast, are you guilty of murder? That is what your argument says. It does one well to differentiate with tighter concepts.

Quote: › This has no basis what so ever. You do not have to be part of a community or have moral or ethical obligations in order to be human. You ahve to do that to be a part of society. In no way shape or form is being part of society a prerequisite for being human. It's been a while since ive heard such nonsence.

No one seems to understand the argument that has spawned numerous comments of this sort. Therefore, since my terms make the reasoning so incomprehensible to creatures who only use one concept per term that they use, I will rescind this argument until I can find better terminology for explaining it.

Quote: › Here is the problem. You dont compromise on something like Murder. Its cut and dry. Either it is or it isnt. If it isnt then it should be completly 100% legal. If it is then it should be 100% illegal (with the one exception that even applies with current murder laws, If your own life is at risk)

And here is the deeper problem. We have to hash out what we mean by the terms we are using. We cannot mean multiple things in the same instance, and that is the problem with this issue.

Quote: › There is no reasonabl eaccomodation for murder. The fact you want there to be some limitations implies that there is something wrong with it.

No, it doesn't. It means that I think there is a point where abortion is not morally right because certain traits of personhood are beginning to manifest themselves in enough quantity to justify defining the fetus as human, and prior to that, there are not enough traits present to justify that definition. Please learn to think.

Quote: › Heh, I thought you were joking when you first wrote this. You've justified nothing and only made up a few opionions to 'try' to support your view. Zero logic to back them up and even less factual support. No third part support either. You've justified nothing except for the fact that it is ok to kill something that is not human. What you failed to do is participate in the argument about abortion since you've failed in jsutifing that a Fetus is not human. Therefor your justification that killing something non human is not wrong has no bearing towards this debate what so ever.

And no one has directly challenged my traits and opinions, thus leading to a form of unchallenged justification. I will gladly hash these out in order to better understand them myself and present a stronger case if someone would even get in the ring.

Quote: › No it isnt. It's quite common in a debate when the third party is Noteworthy and a known authority in that subject.

While this is true, it is more common for the debater to justify his/her usage of a particular third party over another, and that clearly has not been done here. All that had been presented was a single third party with no justification for why that third party's definition should be used at all.

Quote: › Well even if we were to assume that your words are worthwhile. The law has already established a base that you cannot kill someone if they do not show human characteristics. If it is a human you cannot kill it. Period. Therefor that whole argument that you are trying to propose is null and void.

Alright. Now, which traits make something human? Are they purely biological, or is there something more to being human? Does something need to only fit one definition of human, or does it need to meet further criteria?

See the bag of worms this opens up now? This is what I've been trying to point out.

Quote: › You cant pick and choose when you want to add the concept of personhood. We are talkign about considering something Murder. You agree that a Fetus is a Physical Human. So its a human. You want to add the 'concept' that it is ok to kill a Human if it has no qualities of "personhood". If that was the case you cant not pick and choose. You would have to apply it across the board and say that it is ok to exicute any Human that had no qualities of "personhood". Not a very good argument.

Incorrect assessment of the argument. The argument is asking what makes a human. If we cannot nail it down enough, then we have some major problems.

For instance, if an alien from a far off planet someday lands on earth and shows no physical human traits, but shows a great many of the "human" traits included in personhood and morality, then can we or can we not kill it and consider it murder? I think the same applies to fetuses.

Quote: › Agreed but that wont solve the problem. How about teaching teens that they are responsible for thier actions and when they see thier friends get multiple abortions it gives them the idea. "why not" if it happens to me I'll get an abortion too. None of it makes sence.

I only get part of this. Could you retype this in a manner that is more intelligible?

Quote: › Thats the problem. Muder should never be a choice. It shouln't be an option to decide on. The issue here is "Is abortion Murder. If it is then it should be stopped completly ( as stated before unless the mother's life is at risk which is already a put into Laws ). If it isn't Murder. Well then its just morally wrong but so are strip clubs so make it fully legal. This is not taking into acct my Religious beliefs but that should be the basis of the argument. It isnt about making a choice, It is about weather or not it is murder.

And that's what we're attempting to get at with hashing out these definitions.

Quote: › So those who are handicapped and dont have Legal Duties arent Human? You've got to be kidding me. Go Murder a Handicap persont hat doesn't have any Legal Duties and try this defence in a court of law.

From a legal definition, no. But is that the definition that matters? Figuring out which definitions apply is what we are getting at here.

Quote: › It's never stated that is the bare minimum anywhere. Or if it does you failed to show where it does.

Personhood has a set of traits without which, a human body cannot be said to be a person. Is there a minimum amount of traits that make one a person, or is 1 trait enough? Again, I think this needs to be hashed out.

Quote: › You cant just choose when and where you want to apply your definitions.

I'm not. I am attempting to use my definitions and delineate when exactly they do apply so as to remove the problem of subjectivity from the equation.

Quote: › It seems Buszka is doing that. They are just disproving the need of yoru definitions and you refuse to go onto the next defintion. I think that we've proved that a human doesn't have to show characteristics of Society to be considered human. Therefor neither does the Fetus to be considered Human. Next definition please.

The arguement is not about characteristics of society. It is about characteristics of personhood, including morality, which makes a person part of a moral community. Apparently nobody seems to understand that in the slightest, and quite frankly, the misunderstanding of this concept is really getting at my nerves.

Quote: › To many people in today's society dont belvie in accountability for ones own actions. Maybe we should let bank robbers off on the first time too if they promise to give the money back.

Comparing apples to oranges.

Quote: › Wound't you consider this to undermine your argument over all? I mean obviously you don't otherwise you. Now I'm interested to see what exactly is needed to have 'traits of personhood'. I think that most of the posters hear have mentioned thiers. While you may not agree with them atleast they are posted and up to debate.

No, I don't think this weakens my case in the least.

Quote: › I'll go fist. Traits of Personhood in my honest opionion: The potential to become a person. Human DNA.

These cannot be traits of a person. We cannot tell if something is a person simply because it has the potential to become one. That makes a fetus no more a person than metal's potential to become a boat makes it a boat.

Human DNA only makes something a member of the human species. What if robots someday become sentient (aware of self)? Would it not qualify as human since it does not share our DNA?

In other words, we need traits that differentiate the concept of person from the concept of physical human. I think cognition (ability to think) and ego (concept of self) should be on that list somewhere.