When is abortion wrong?

[Danoff]

In all your responses, I am seeing more emotional detachment and THAT is what I was talking about.

What's wrong with being emotionally detached? Are we to let emotions bring us to a "logical" conclusion in this discussion?

You want to minimize what a fetus is so that destroying unborn children becomes easier to stomach, which also helps in justifying reasons for those actions. If it's 'just' a fetus, a parasite tissue, then it seems like we're doing everyone a favor, but if you consider the fact that it is also a unborn child, then you begin to give it an identity making the thought of destroying it harder because it is a "child to be".

Fetus is the proper neutral word. It is medical terminology, as sterile and emotionally detached as possible - which is exactly how we should approach a logical discussion. Trying to make people emotionally invovled is the spin.

Calling is just a fetus is the spin here, saying they aren't unborn children because a 100% arn't born is the spin, not recognizing them as human because they arn't breathing air is the spin.

Calling it a fetus is simply accurate. Trying to tie emotion into this is counterproductive. Emotion gets in the way of clear thinking. Do you think that Einstein used his emotions to formulate relativity? Are we to use emotions when deciding whether it should be legal for people to worship Satan?


You cannot avoid the real argument. The abortion thread will continue to grow and grow and get nowhere as long as the people contributing to it refuse to acknowledge that there is only one real discussion here - when to give rights to our offspring (is that too emotional detached?).

Arguments like "abortion wouldn't be necessary if people wouldn't have sex unless they were willing to accept the consequences" are beside the point because it presupposes that abortion is bad (which is a conclusion one can only reach if one thinks that a fetus or embryo has rights). Arguments like "people need to accept the consequences of their actions" avoid the point because it presupposes that abortion is a bad thing. Arguments like "rape victims who become pregnant should not abort because it creates one more victim of the crime" are beside the point because it assumes that the fetus can be a victim.

There is only one discussion here. When human offspring should have rights - when their lives become protected by law. This is a discussion that must be approached logically. Only biological evidence should be used, and practicality should be considered. Religious or emotional arguments should not be, and are not the basis of law.

 

[Pako]

I have never denied calling an unborn child a fetus. Calling a human fetus a unborn child is scientifically proven. Why are you choosing to ignore the fact that abortion destroys unborn children? In making 'right' decisions, there has to be a balance between the mind (logic) and the heart (emotion). Extremes one way or the other, and your decision is one sided, although it may be logically correct, it may not be the right decision. This is what separates man from machine. It's logical to do a lot of things, but we make humane decisions because we're human, not some super computer calculating and executing solutions to all the world's problems. Logically, the earth is over populated, and logically speaking it would do us good to remove a portion of that consuming force we call humans. Just kill them off so that we can control disease, hunger, pollution, waste. Like I said, you have to have a balance, and ignoring one or the other does no justice to the problem and exhibits only ignorance and over confidence in ourselves.

 

[Famine]

Calling a human fetus a unborn child is scientifically proven.

No.

Logically, the earth is over populated, and logically speaking it would do us good to remove a portion of that consuming force we call humans. Just kill them off so that we can control disease, hunger, pollution, waste. Like I said, you have to have a balance, and ignoring one or the other does no justice to the problem and exhibits only ignorance and over confidence in ourselves.

The decision not to has nothing to do with emotion. I have no right to take away, directly or by vote, someone else's life. A cull of humans to prevent overpopulation is a contravention of this. No heart, or emotion, or religion is required.


As an aside, the Earth can support a population of 14 billion humans. We're not even halfway there.

 

[Swift]

What's wrong with being emotionally detached? Are we to let emotions bring us to a "logical" conclusion in this discussion?

just a quick question: Are you a vulcan? Because if not then you do have emotions.

Ok, just wanted to lighten the mood a bit

Actually, Vulcans have emotions too, they simply learn to suppress them. 💡

 

[Danoff]

Why are you choosing to ignore the fact that abortion destroys unborn children?

From my point of view, it prevents children from being born. Lots of things do that, condoms, abstinence, etc.

Again, the argument boils down to when human offspring should get rights.

In making 'right' decisions, there has to be a balance between the mind (logic) and the heart (emotion).

Not when deciding law. Emotion has a role to play in relationships - but that can be part of the logic.

Logically, the earth is over populated, and logically speaking it would do us good to remove a portion of that consuming force we call humans.

The premise and conclusion are both false.

Like I said, you have to have a balance, and ignoring one or the other does no justice to the problem and exhibits only ignorance and over confidence in ourselves

How does attempting to be objective and remove emotion from decisions about right and wrong imply over confidence? How does including emotion make us less condifent? Am I to believe that you think that by including emotion we are not only relying on our mind to make the decision - that instead we would be relying on something else? A higher power perhaps?

 

[Pako]

No.



The decision not to has nothing to do with emotion. I have no right to take away, directly or by vote, someone else's life. A cull of humans to prevent overpopulation is a contravention of this. No heart, or emotion, or religion is required.


As an aside, the Earth can support a population of 14 billion humans. We're not even halfway there.

I was just using that as an example, I'm sure you could come up with some better ones yourself. Old people that can't take care of themselves. To what logical use do they serve? They're families have abandoned them, and they will live out their days under the care of the state. State mental wards? What use do these patients serve other than to allow the study of different mental illnesses. Logically we should conclude to end their life regardless of their 'right to live' because not all 'right to live' is logical, and to what expense to we have a right to live. There's other resources besides logic that we look to for our laws today. Abortion shouldn't be any different. I am only bringing this up because danoff said we should only look at it logically and not emotionally. This notion is absurd at best. What scientific proof do you need that human fetus' are unborn children? We can regulate their growth, their maturity, and we can document and record their birth. We have scientific instruments that allow us a glimpse into the life of a human fetus. All a fetus needs is nutrients and time and it will mature into a child. This is not far from a child needing nutrients and time to become an adult. Are you looking for genetic proof or what? There is more to biology then genetics right, or is genetics the only scientific proof that you will accept? I'm not too up on genetics, but are there DNA strands that are specific to only humans? If there is, it would be interesting to see when this DNA can be detected in fetus'. Do you know Famine?

 

[Danoff]

What use do these patients serve other than to allow the study of different mental illnesses. Logically we should conclude to end their life regardless of their 'right to live' because not all 'right to live' is logical, and to what expense to we have a right to live.

The right to life is very logical and natural for a civilized society to have.

To what logical use do they serve? They're families have abandoned them, and they will live out their days under the care of the state.

They won't be in the care of the state if they were responsible with their finances.

What scientific proof do you need that human fetus' are unborn children? We can regulate their growth, their maturity, and we can document and record their birth. We have scientific instruments that allow us a glimpse into the life of a human fetus. All a fetus needs is nutrients and time and it will mature into a child.

All a sprem needs is an egg, nutrients and time and it will mature into a child. Are sperm therefore to be protected? What about eggs? This line of reasoning makes no sense - that given enough time under the right conditions it will become and child and so therefore we must protect it. Given the right conditions and enough time any two people could create a child, are all of these hypothetical children to be protected? Did I murder a child by not impregnating someone last night? To someone who doesn't consider a fetus a child, your argument against abortion sounds just like that.

...and around and around we will go. The only argument here is when human offspring should receive rights and protection from the state - at what point in their development.

I say that it is at the point in their development when they are independant individuals physiologically - meaning after birth. Until then they are part of the mother's body and therefore under her control.

 

[Pako]

The right to life is very logical and natural for a civilized society to have.



They won't be in the care of the state if they were responsible with their finances.



All a sprem needs is an egg, nutrients and time and it will mature into a child. Are sperm therefore to be protected? What about eggs? This line of reasoning makes no sense - that given enough time under the right conditions it will become and child and so therefore we must protect it. Given the right conditions and enough time any two people could create a child, are all of these hypothetical children to be protected? Did I murder a child by not impregnating someone last night? To someone who doesn't consider a fetus a child, your argument against abortion sounds just like that.

...and around and around we will go. The only argument here is when human offspring should receive rights and protection from the state - at what point in their development.

I say that it is at the point in their development when they are independant individuals physiologically - meaning after birth. Until then they are part of the mother's body and therefore under her control.

I would still like to have Famine's response when he gets a chance.....

Valuing the life of a elder that can’t take care of itself is not logical but emotional unless extenuating circumstances exist where by personal gain can be achieved by sustaining that life.



But to address the Sperm and the Egg issue....., the sperm is a product of the father, and has two possible outcomes, find a egg to fertilize or die. Either way it's existence ends when either of those situations occur. You can give a clump of sperm all the nutrients and time in the world, but it will never be more than a clump of sperm. The same goes with the egg, it is a part of the mother, with it's life purpose to get fertilized or to be rejected by the mother's body. The sperm and egg by itself is nothing more than a sperm and a egg, but once they are joined together and the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new life that never existed before begins to develop. That is the main differences here.

 

[Famine]

I was just using that as an example, I'm sure you could come up with some better ones yourself. Old people that can't take care of themselves. To what logical use do they serve? They're families have abandoned them, and they will live out their days under the care of the state. State mental wards? What use do these patients serve other than to allow the study of different mental illnesses. Logically we should conclude to end their life regardless of their 'right to live' because not all 'right to live' is logical, and to what expense to we have a right to live.

What do you mean "not all right to live" is logical? Of course it is. Ending someone's life - killing them - is not your right except in extenuating, you-or-them, circumstances.

If someone has the means to continue their life then it is not our right to terminate it.

What scientific proof do you need that human fetus' are unborn children?

What do you mean? I don't need - and there isn't any - scientific proof.

A foetus is a foetus. A child is a child. A foetus is not "an unborn child" because it may well not become a child.

We can regulate their growth, their maturity, and we can document and record their birth. We have scientific instruments that allow us a glimpse into the life of a human fetus. All a fetus needs is nutrients and time and it will mature into a child. This is not far from a child needing nutrients and time to become an adult. Are you looking for genetic proof or what? There is more to biology then genetics right, or is genetics the only scientific proof that you will accept? I'm not too up on genetics, but are there DNA strands that are specific to only humans? If there is, it would be interesting to see when this DNA can be detected in fetus'. Do you know Famine?

That was a bizarre leap. As I said I don't need any proof, genetic or otherwise (and no, I will accept anything that can be proven with the scientific method, regardless of discipline).

You can detect human DNA in cancer cells.

 

[Max_DC]

I just wanted to post this pic at least once in my life.... NO OFFENSE to anybody, this is just the expression of my impression, that this thread won't have winners and losers (of the discussion) in the end, but only two parties, that still keep their own opinions....
So nevermind...nobody is an idiot here... but that is the text of the pic and well it fits the situation a bit nevertheless.....

 

[Danoff]

But to address the Sperm and the Egg issue....., the sperm is a product of the father, and has two possible outcomes, find a egg to fertilize or die. Either way it's existence ends when either of those situations occur. You can give a clump of sperm all the nutrients and time in the world, but it will never be more than a clump of sperm. The same goes with the egg, it is a part of the mother, with it's life purpose to get fertilized or to be rejected by the mother's body. The sperm and egg by itself is nothing more than a sperm and a egg, but once they are joined together and the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new life that never existed before begins to develop. That is the main differences here.

A fetus by itself is nothing more than a fetus. You have to give it nutrients and protection for it to develop into something else. A sperm by itself is nothing more than a sperm, you have to give it an egg and then nutrients and protection for it to develop into something else.

They're exactly the same. If giving a fetus nutrients is not to be considered, then why is giving a sperm an egg (or vice versa)?

Look at it this way. A fetus requires outside assistance to become a person. A sperm requires outside assistance to become a person. An egg requires outside assistance to become a person.

the sperm is a product of the father, and has two possible outcomes, find a egg to fertilize or die

Yes the sperm has two possible outcomes, be given an egg or die. A fetus also has two possible outcomes, be given nutrients and protection or die.

 

[Pako]

What do you mean "not all right to live" is logical? Of course it is. Ending someone's life - killing them - is not your right except in extenuating, you-or-them, circumstances.

If someone has the means to continue their life then it is not our right to terminate it.



What do you mean? I don't need - and there isn't any - scientific proof.

A foetus is a foetus. A child is a child. A foetus is not "an unborn child" because it may well not become a child.



That was a bizarre leap. As I said I don't need any proof, genetic or otherwise (and no, I will accept anything that can be proven with the scientific method, regardless of discipline).

You can detect human DNA in cancer cells.

I guess these guys are wrong also:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fetus
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=fetus
http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1517424.asp

Here’s a list of resources:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=fetus&ls=a


It's odd how they are calling a fetus "the unborn young". Is not "young = child"? Somehow, I have a feeling that you will try to argue that "young" in these definitions are in fact different to a child in some way. I would love to hear this explanation, or you will agree that human fetus' are unborn children or to better fit the dictionaries definition, unborn young.

Either way, your response should be both entertaining and enlightening.

 

[Pako]

A fetus by itself is nothing more than a fetus. You have to give it nutrients and protection for it to develop into something else. A sperm by itself is nothing more than a sperm, you have to give it an egg and then nutrients and protection for it to develop into something else.

They're exactly the same. If giving a fetus nutrients is not to be considered, then why is giving a sperm an egg (or vice versa)?

Look at it this way. A fetus requires outside assistance to become a person. A sperm requires outside assistance to become a person. An egg requires outside assistance to become a person.



Yes the sperm has two possible outcomes, be given an egg or die. A fetus also has two possible outcomes, be given nutrients and protection or die.

Not quite sure where you're going with this, take a baby away from it's mother, and it will undoubtedly die if left to it's own devices.

 

[Danoff]

Not quite sure where you're going with this, take a baby away from it's mother, and it will undoubtedly die if left to it's own devices.

You want to give a fetus the rights of a child because it might become one, but you refuse to give a sperm or egg the rights of a child even though it might become one. It is incosistent. The situations are quite paraellel (unless you wish to discuss the magical mystical infusion of the soul at conception).

 

[Famine]

I guess these guys are wrong also:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fetus
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=fetus
http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1517424.asp

Here’s a list of resources:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=fetus&ls=a


It's odd how they are calling a fetus "the unborn young". Is not "young = child"? Somehow, I have a feeling that you will try to argue that "young" in these definitions are in fact different to a child in some way. I would love to hear this explanation, or you will agree that human fetus' are unborn children or to better fit the dictionaries definition, unborn young.

Either way, your response should be both entertaining and enlightening.

How they want to refer to foetuses is entirely their problem. They're wrong, but then so are all the people who refer to singular cubed throwing objects used in games of chance as "dice".

You are endowing characteristics (in this case of humanity - anthropomorphisation) onto something which does not yet possess them, but might after an event which may occur but may not, then proposing we make a law or judgement based on this. You never fully answered the earlier poser.

In the case of foetus/child you think that the following fits:
X (foetus) will one day be born and become Y (child).
Therefore X is merely an unborn Y and should be afforded the rights of Y.
X = Undeveloped Y

Yet you would not apply the same formula is X were child and Y were adult.

If a foetus at any stage has a right not to die (even when it isn't actually alive), then a child has a right to drive a car. If this is not your position then your position is inconsistant and should be reconsidered.


In your mind, if a woman miscarries does she lose her baby/child? In your mind is an ectopic pregnancy still an unborn child?


The cycle of pregnancy goes:
Sperm + egg -> blastular -> embryo -> foetus -> child

A foetus is no more an unborn child than an egg is an unfertilised embryo.

 

[Pako]

danoff,

Evidently I can't help you see the difference between a unborn child, and a egg or sperm. I apologize for my inadequacies in being able to explain this concept to you in a manner in which you can understand it.

Maybe this will help:

A fetus, being created out of conception, is the beginning of a new human life. A egg, and a sperm are means to help this conception get started, but of themselves are not the beginning of human life.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe this will help:

A fetus, being created out of conception, is the beginning of a new human life. A egg, and a sperm are means to help this conception get started, but of themselves are not the beginning of human life.

I'm afraid it didn't. Your above post assumes that life begins at conception. You say a fetus (I think you mean embryo), being created out of conception, is the beginning of a new human life. So it is the beginning of life because it was created from conception? That's a circular argument, or at best an incomplete one.

The whole argument is when life begins. You cannot simply state that it begins at conception without giving some reason. So far all I have seen is that you say because a fetus can become a child (with external help) it has rights. But I have shown you that a sperm or egg (with external help) can also become a child. It is an inconsistency in your argument that you haven't clarified. What is magical about conception?

 

[Pako]

How they want to refer to foetuses is entirely their problem. They're wrong, but then so are all the people who refer to singular cubed throwing objects used in games of chance as "dice".

You are endowing characteristics (in this case of humanity - anthropomorphisation) onto something which does not yet possess them, but might after an event which may occur but may not, then proposing we make a law or judgement based on this. You never fully answered the earlier poser.

In the case of foetus/child you think that the following fits:
X (foetus) will one day be born and become Y (child).
Therefore X is merely an unborn Y and should be afforded the rights of Y.
X = Undeveloped Y

Yet you would not apply the same formula is X were child and Y were adult.

If a foetus at any stage has a right not to die (even when it isn't actually alive), then a child has a right to drive a car. If this is not your position then your position is inconsistant and should be reconsidered.


In your mind, if a woman miscarries does she lose her baby/child? In your mind is an ectopic pregnancy still an unborn child?


The cycle of pregnancy goes:
Sperm + egg -> blastular -> embryo -> foetus -> child

A foetus is no more an unborn child than an egg is an unfertilised embryo.

I figured that everyone else was wrong and you were the only one that was right. You should really try to write these uneducated folk and inform them about their disservice that they are doing by misrepresenting reality by their definitions.

I'm saying that unborn children deserve a chance to live, not drive a car. (although the illustrated image in my head of a fetus driving is almost comical). There are some rights that belong to everyone, and other rights that have to be earned. The right to live, IMO, is one of those rights that everyone should have. The right to drive a car is something that needs to be earned through maturity and proven skills of actually driving.

Every woman that miscarries that I have ever talked with (granted only 5 of them that I can think of) have said that they have miscarried their baby, not one of them said that they miscarried a fetus. Ask them how they felt about it. None of them would tell you, "no big deal, it was only a fetus....it wasn't even human yet.".

In ectopic pregnancies, there is 0% chance that the unborn child will ever survive. That makes this situation, however unfortunate, unrelated to our topic. Until we have the proper technology to extract the fetus and implant into another host, there is no other option for the fetus, all we can do is save the mother.

 

[Famine]

I figured that everyone else was wrong and you were the only one that was right. You should really try to write these uneducated folk and inform them about their disservice that they are doing by misrepresenting reality by their definitions.

Evolution of language, I'm afraid. I can't stop "die" becoming "dice" or "foetus" becoming "unborn child" any more than I can stop the removal of a preposition from the phrase "write to".

I'm saying that unborn children deserve a chance to live, not drive a car. (although the illustrated image in my head of a fetus driving is almost comical). There are some rights that belong to everyone, and other rights that have to be earned. The right to live, IMO, is one of those rights that everyone should have. The right to drive a car is something that needs to be earned through maturity and proven skills of actually driving.

Not at all. When I first got into a car I'd had no experience at all. That's called a "Driving Lesson".

Again I will point it out for you.

You are arguing that because X (foetus) may one day become Y (child), after a process which may or may not happen, X (foetus) should be given all of the rights, off pat, that Y (child) has.

And yet you do not see the inconsistancy inherent in not wishing to apply this to any other situation.

The parallel situation I describe to you is that X (child) may one day become Y (adult), after a process which may or may not happen. Therefore by your own logic above, X (child) should be given all of the rights, off pat, that Y (adult) has.

One of these rights is to get into a car with a responsible adult (who, obviously, can also be a child now) and have a driving lesson. Others include the right, funds allowing, to go into a bar and purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage. Or operate heavy machinery. Or watch hardcore porn. Or join the army, smoke, play the state lottery, get married - and so on.

For some reason, even though the foetus-to-child transition seems logical to you, the exact same logic applied to a child-to-adult transition does not. This is what makes your position inconsistant. You cannot make law - or judgment - from this inconsistant position.

There are some rights that belong to everyone, and other rights that have to be earned. The right to live, IMO, is one of those rights that everyone should have.

Without question. But you're applying this to something which isn't classed as a person in law, isn't classed as a person in medicine and is currently residing in a pool of fluid, taking no breaths, in someone else's womb.

What, in your mind, is the population of the Earth? Is it the 6.25 billion people who are living and breathing, or do you add on every single pregnancy?

Every woman that miscarries that I have ever talked with (granted only 5 of them that I can think of) have said that they have miscarried their baby, not one of them said that they miscarried a fetus. Ask them how they felt about it. None of them would tell you, "no big deal, it was only a fetus....it wasn't even human yet."

I didn't ask for women's opinions. I asked you for yours.

In ectopic pregnancies, there is 0% chance that the unborn child will ever survive. That makes this situation, however unfortunate, unrelated to our topic. Until we have the proper technology to extract the fetus and implant into another host, there is no other option for the fetus, all we can do is save the mother.

Actually, 5% of ectopeses survive to term. So not only is it relevant, but telling that you only refer to it as a "fetus" to be "extracted", and not an "unborn child" which is "killed". Which is of course completely correct, but not consistant - except by inconsistancy - with your position.

 

[Danoff]

there are some rights that belong to everyone,

Pako,

Nobody is arguing that. I'm not arguing it, Famine is not arguing it... nobody. There is no need to make this statement because everyone agrees.


What we don't agree on is who or what is in the set of "everyone". You would include a fetus. I would not. Again, there is one argument, when we give rights to offsrping. Simply stating that everyone has rights will not further that discussion. What I want to know is WHY you think a fetus should have rights. So far your only argument has been that it should have them because it will have them in the future - which could be applied to the driving example or a sperm... so that argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Swift]

What I don't get is how you will say that a sperm is the same as a fetus. That doesn't make any sense. A sperm can do NOTHING by itself. Same with an egg. But when the two meet in their natural setting, you get the beginning of a new life. It's not longer a sperm or an egg, it's something completely different and given time, in it's CURRENT environment will grow and be born.

I just don't get the whole sperm egg thing.

 

[Danoff]

What I don't get is how you will say that a sperm is the same as a fetus. That doesn't make any sense. A sperm can do NOTHING by itself.

A fetus can also do nothing by itself.

in it's CURRENT environment will grow and be born.

Put a sperm near an egg in a womb and in their current environment the two will join and grow to be a child.

 

[Swift]

Put a sperm near an egg in a womb and in their current environment the two will join and grow to be a child.

That's what I said. In it's natural environment where they meet. Following sex.

If the sex never happens, the creation of a baby(conventionally) is impossible. Sperm will stay sperm and eggs will stay eggs.

So, how is that again?

 

[Pako]

Evolution of language, I'm afraid. I can't stop "die" becoming "dice" or "foetus" becoming "unborn child" any more than I can stop the removal of a preposition from the phrase "write to".

Don’t be afraid of change, embrace it. Language will continue to change as will culture and social behaviors. This is what cultures do. I almost edited my post to “write to” upon reviewing but decided to leave it. Nice catch, but either has become acceptable in communicating.

Not at all. When I first got into a car I'd had no experience at all. That's called a "Driving Lesson".

I didn’t say anything about experience. I mentioned maturity, which includes mental and physical maturity to be able to drive, experience can help with passing the driving test. You can unlawfully drive a car without earning your right by passing a test, but it isn’t a God given right, it has to be earned by passing the driving test (at least in the USA, I’m not familiar to non-US driving laws).

Again I will point it out for you.

You are arguing that because X (foetus) may one day become Y (child), after a process which may or may not happen, X (foetus) should be given all of the rights, off pat, that Y (child) has.

And yet you do not see the inconsistancy inherent in not wishing to apply this to any other situation.

The parallel situation I describe to you is that X (child) may one day become Y (adult), after a process which may or may not happen. Therefore by your own logic above, X (child) should be given all of the rights, off pat, that Y (adult) has.

One of these rights is to get into a car with a responsible adult (who, obviously, can also be a child now) and have a driving lesson. Others include the right, funds allowing, to go into a bar and purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage. Or operate heavy machinery. Or watch hardcore porn. Or join the army, smoke, play the state lottery, get married - and so on.

For some reason, even though the foetus-to-child transition seems logical to you, the exact same logic applied to a child-to-adult transition does not. This is what makes your position inconsistant. You cannot make law - or judgment - from this inconsistant position.

As I said before, we are not entitled to all rights, some rights have to be earned. Some rights everyone is entitled to. There is no inconsistency in what I am saying in regards to rights of X, Y, and Z. They share some rights, and don’t share some rights. The inconsistency is within the law, not with what I am saying. I am also in full support of why we have inconsistent laws in regards to different situations. We have to have this diversity in order to have the laws applicable to their specific situation.

Without question. But you're applying this to something which isn't classed as a person in law, isn't classed as a person in medicine and is currently residing in a pool of fluid, taking no breaths, in someone else's womb. What, in your mind, is the population of the Earth? Is it the 6.25 billion people who are living and breathing, or do you add on every single pregnancy?

I am applying this to an unborn child. We do not recognize unborn children for taxes, population census, attendance, this is so true, but the man-made-law doesn’t change the fact that a human fetus is an unborn child.

I didn't ask for women's opinions. I asked you for yours.

My opinion is derived from all of my environmental influences. If a woman miscarries her child and she says she “lost her baby”, I am not going to argue with her.

Actually, 5% of ectopeses survive to term. So not only is it relevant, but telling that you only refer to it as a "fetus" to be "extracted", and not an "unborn child" which is "killed". Which is of course completely correct, but not consistant - except by inconsistancy - with your position.

I read that 5% of pregnancies end up being ectopic pregnancies. I haven’t read that 5% of that 5% actually survive to term. I did read, however, that when a ectopic pregnancy occurs, that the fetus (unborn child) can be extracted (which will kill it) through surgery, or it can be injected with a fluid (which will also kill it) where the fetus (unborn child) will be dissolved and absorbed by the mothers body.

Clearly, I have accepted the fact that fetus = unborn child, therefore these terms are interchangeable. Using the term “extraction” is the action which takes place, the result of that action is the unborn child, or fetus, being killed during the process.

Question though, how can that 5% survive? How can the mother take it to term?

 

[Famine]

You're now arguing a point of law on an entity which doesn't legally exist?

Oh man.

And STILL a human foetus is not an unborn child - any more than an egg cell is an unfertilised embryo. You're STILL describing a an object at the start point of a complex and risky process by the probable end result.

I have yet to see any article of embryology which refers to the bundle of cells as an "unborn child".

(and you missed the point about "write to". The point was that, through evolution of language, you weren't wrong even though in the original language - mine - you were. The same will apply to both "dice" and "unborn child" because the vast majority of English speakers don't know any better, so it gets accepted by majority usage

Edit: And, by dictionary.com, it already has)

 

[Danoff]

That's what I said. In it's natural environment where they meet. Following sex.

If the sex never happens, the creation of a baby(conventionally) is impossible. Sperm will stay sperm and eggs will stay eggs.

So, how is that again?

So does the sperm have rights once it makes it inside the womb where an egg is present? Does the egg?

What might happen in the future has no bearing on legal rights as they are in the present. I might kill someone in the future, that doesn't mean that my rights should be removed now. I might create a baby in the future, that doesn't mean that this hypothetical future baby has rights. Unless you view a fetus as a child that has rights in the present, its posible future state as a baby has nothing to do with its present rights.

To me, a fetus is a potential child. Until it is brought to term, it has no rights because it has not yet been developed by its mother. Just as everything leading up to birth requires some input from others (be it sperm, or an eggg, or a womb), so too does a fetus require its mother. So until the fetus is born - physically separated from its mother, its process of becoming a human being with rights has not been completed - a process that requires continual re-affirmation by the mother.


My point is this. Yes, a fetus (or whatever you want to call it) might become a baby in the future. But a baby might also become an adult. A sperm and egg might become an embryo. Any of these scenarios is possible, but the potential outcome has no bearing on the rights at present.

 

[Famine]

So does the sperm have rights once it makes it inside the womb where an egg is present? Does the egg?

What might happen in the future has no bearing on legal rights as they are in the present. I might kill someone in the future, that doesn't mean that my rights should be removed now. I might create a baby in the future, that doesn't mean that this hypothetical future baby has rights. Unless you view a fetus as a child that has rights in the present, its posible future state as a baby has nothing to do with its present rights.

To me, a fetus is a potential child. Until it is brought to term, it has no rights because it has not yet been developed by its mother. Just as everything leading up to birth requires some input from others (be it sperm, or an eggg, or a womb), so too does a fetus require its mother. So until the fetus is born - physically separated from its mother, its process of becoming a human being with rights has not been completed - a process that requires continual re-affirmation by the mother.


My point is this. Yes, a fetus (or whatever you want to call it) might become a baby in the future. But a baby might also become an adult. A sperm and egg might become an embryo. Any of these scenarios is possible, but the potential outcome has no bearing on the rights at present.

^^^ What he said.

 

[Swift]

So, when does it become a viable entity? Exactly.

 

[Famine]

The time when it can support itself in the outside world. Exactly.

 

[Danoff]

So, when does it become a viable entity? Exactly.

The time when it can support itself in the outside world. Exactly.

^^ What he said. With the caviat that I don't think that's were abortion should become illegal because I don't associate viable entity with rights.