Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they frequently explain what a baby is. To them, a baby is what comes after birth. A fetus comes before birth. That also follows the scientific terms for things...noting that your stated latin definition of "fetus" means that exact same thing.
However, I do think a lot of pro-choicers would do well to think more about why they've made that divide.
I think such people typically just think, "We have to invent some type of divide or else there's no stopping point and we'll be euthanizing adults."
I don't think this is a terrible stopping point. The difference is in whether or not it's part of the woman's body anymore...so the argument goes that unless we consider it okay for the government to engage in very invasive things to us, we should be fine with all abortion, legally speaking.
I've heard another argument that goes, "Imagine that someone hooked someone up to your kidneys to survive for 9 months. They'll die if removed. Should you be legally obligated to keep them attached to your kidneys?"
I think that's a somewhat bad argument because I would be perfectly fine with the law mandating that you keep such a person connected to your kidneys for that temporary period of time...but that said, I could understand how a sufficiently small-government-wanting type of person would want us to have the legal option of disconnecting them from our kidneys. Also, as I've been repeating all over this forum...I'd say a self-aware person has a lot more to lose from death than a fetus.
I think a better argument would be that, that's how things work in most ways, but that euthanization of infants is still legal up to a year after birth if a strong argument could be made that it would benefit the baby.
That’s because you either have to be a compulsive liar, or suffer a mental illness to wrap your head around that.
If pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion, what “choice” are you demanding?
The choice to abort. You can want the option to abort, while wanting to reduce the number of abortions that occur....so no, you don't have to be a compulsive liar or mentally ill to believe that.
It's kind of like how most self-described environmentalists who are concerned about climate change still drive cars that use gas.
At most, all you need is a slightly different view of what "pro-abortion" means than you have, and a pretty reasonable view of what it means, at that.
As this thread is about human abortions, all of your off-topic irrelevant rambling is moot.
No...it's not off topic. It's vital that I talk about nonhumans as well as humans, in the context I was doing. I cannot possibly have a full conversation about the best arguments for pro-life and pro-choice views without doing so. Please stop trying to get out of responding to my valid criticisms of your views. I'm going to post a link to that comment again, because of how important it is: https://www.city-data.com/forum/63246464-post338.html
The moderators won't mind. We're still discussing the best arguments for, and against human abortion. We're on topic. It's not as if I went out of my way to veer the topic toward discussing whether or not lizards should get abortions for no reason.
No...it's not off topic. It's vital that I talk about nonhumans as well as humans, in the context I was doing. I cannot possibly have a full conversation about the best arguments for pro-life and pro-choice views without doing so. Please stop trying to get out of responding to my valid criticisms of your views. I'm going to post a link to that comment again, because of how important it is: https://www.city-data.com/forum/63246464-post338.html
Every single person thinks that there is something special about being human. Even if it is simply for the fact that they are human and wish to have their rights protected, that is enough for them to think we are special (or deserve special treatment). I dont wish to be disrespectful but your argument is not good and that is why I was surprised that you write so much with an argument that is very deficient.
Every single person thinks that there is something special about being human. Even if it is simply for the fact that they are human and wish to have their rights protected, that is enough for them to think we are special (or deserve special treatment). I dont wish to be disrespectful but your argument is not good and that is why I was surprised that you write so much with an argument that is very deficient.
My definition of "personhood" begins when an organism gains the ability to use language, with language being defined as the ability to use a finite number of symbols to communicate an infinite number of meanings. I don't know how else an organism could compose the advanced psychological constructs humans do without the ability to use language.
The use of language is the closest thing to a unique trait that I can think of that most humans (not all) might be said to possess. That said, bottlenose dolphins might also have the ability to use language. If they can, I will probably want them thought of as people. I would want them thought of as similar to if we found some aboriginal tribe of human beings who just so happened to like to swim a lot.
That said, my definition of a "person" does not not include babies, because they can't use language.
So no...I do not see anything special about just being human. I see special things related to traits most human have...but before the development of those traits I see nothing inherently special about being human.
I would literally consider eating a human baby, if I had to choose between that and eating an adult dolphin (at gunpoint), although I definitely wouldn't do either ordinarily.
Self-aware humans care about the rights you're talking about in ways fetuses don't. That's the primary difference between the two.
Abortion is such a divisive issue. I'm curious what the strongest arguments are, for and against. Post away!
Life is better than death. Living is better than killing. Babies should be held and loved, not murdered, shredded to pieces and used for organ and cell harvesting.
Seems like a pretty simple conclusion to reach. The confusion seems to appear when the endless rationalizations commence.
My definition of "personhood" begins when an organism gains the ability to use language, with language being defined as the ability to use a finite number of symbols to communicate an infinite number of meanings. I don't know how else an organism could compose the advanced psychological constructs humans do without the ability to use language.
The use of language is the closest thing to a unique trait that I can think of that most humans (not all) might be said to possess. That said, bottlenose dolphins might also have the ability to use language. If they can, I will probably want them thought of as people. I would want them thought of as similar to if we found some aboriginal tribe of human beings who just so happened to like to swim a lot.
That said, my definition of a "person" does not not include babies, because they can't use language.
So no...I do not see anything special about just being human. I see special things related to traits most human have...but before the development of those traits I see nothing inherently special about being human.
I would literally consider eating a human baby, if I had to choose between that and eating an adult dolphin (at gunpoint), although I definitely wouldn't do either ordinarily.
Self-aware humans care about the rights you're talking about in ways fetuses don't. That's the primary difference between the two.
You are an extreme outlier in this matter and so I dont think it makes sense for you to discuss it with others. Sure, let your position be known but to have a bunch of back and forth when your position is so far away from everyone's doesnt seem like it would be enjoyable for anyone. But hey, if you enjoy it then I guess you should do it.
Killing a baby is not a medical decision. It is a decision of convenience.
Let’s say you are adamantly against abortion. One day your 10 year old daughter is raped by a drug addicted and mentally defective psychopath. Your daughter weighs 75 pounds. She is impregnated. The infant is just as innocent under these circumstances, even though it was the result of rape, and will endanger your daughters health, as in the case of an abortion “for convenience”.
Your family reaches a decision that an abortion be performed for your child’s well being, but if she gets one, you parents will go to jail, because abortion has been deemed illegal by the government. Sound good?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
