Originally Posted by Dilettante

I agree that the definitions would be essential.
The stages of development would need to be specific and measurable.

However, I don't find the notion of giving rights to "part of a person" to be relevant. That the unborn are not, from conception on, "persons" is a view I can certainly understand.
However, I don't think the notion that they are just "part" of another person can stand. At the most basic level, they are about as genetically distinct as they will ever get. A scientist examining two tissues samples, one from the mother and one from the fetus, without knowing their origins, could conclusively declare that these samples did not come from the same individual.
Though I don't think having one's own unique genetic identity should entitle one to full personhood, I think it should suffice to distinguish one from a "body part." If I had to choose between the two limited analogies, I'd say the unborn resemble internal parasites more than they do appendixes.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Which fetus? The second month fetus or the ninth month fetus?
I'd certainly argue that the latter is considerably more like a human than a potato.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Since its Saturday and I REALLY don't feel like doing the research I should be doing right now, I thought I'd try and spark a little new life in this thread.

Specifically, I'd like to address the sentiments so aptly displayed in this quote from Hafke:


It strikes me that this kind of absolute either/or mentality is at least partially responsible for some of the divisiveness surrounding abortion because it makes each side feel that "everything" is somehow on the line.
I would like to suggest that this is a false dichotomy, and one that we've successfully dismissed in several other areas.

In deference to that irritating collection of semantically obsessive individuals who delight in pointing out that "murder" technically means unlawful killing, let us rephrase the essential claim as "either abortion is the intentional, unjustified killing of a person or it isn't."

Now, I think we can safely say that abortion IS intentional and it IS the killing of something, a collection of cells at the very least. So that leaves us asking whether the thing we're killing is a "person" and whether such killing is "unjustified."

And here we come to my dissatisfaction with this line of reasoning: it assumes that "personhood" (or, more specifically, its associated rights) is something that is either completely present or completely absent in a given human form. I submit that the attributes of personhood arrive piecemeal and thus the rights associated with those attributes should as well.

As it happens, we already acknowledge this with regard to both children and the senile elders. We may refer to children as "persons," but we recognize that they are not entitled to a full set of rights. Children may not be slain on a whim, but they may be, in some circumstances, confined against their will, denied goods and services, and even subjected to a restrained sort of physical assault (spankings). As a child develops toward adulthood, they take on more rights. They become entitled more goods and services and are less subject to involuntary confinement.
The process works in reverse for certain elders (and some others) who lose their physical and mental abilities. They lose certain rights, becoming subject to confinement against their will and, if their situation deteriorates far enough (e.g. vegetative state) the can be intentionally left to die.

The final point brings us to the question of what constitutes "unjustified" killing. Obviously not all killing is considered murder (or even unjustified). As described above, there are times at which a living human body can be intentionally and justifiably left to die. And naturally, most of us recognize that there are other cases (such as war and in self-defense) when the killing of another human is justifiable.

Taking this all back to abortion, I submit that it is sensible to propose that the basic "right to life" (which we all generally acknowledge should be present by birth) should be arrived at in stages, prior to birth. I.E. the killing becomes less and less justifiable as the human develops within the womb.
Pragmatically speaking, this would look something like this:
Abortion for any reason is acceptable up to developmental stage A.
Abortion for (...slightly more restrictive set of reasons...) is acceptable up to developmental stage B.
...etc...
Abortion is only acceptable for the life/health of the mother (i.e. "in self defense") after developmental stage X.
In short, I submit that rather than having to choose whether the full right to life should be granted at conception or at birth, it would be more sensible to recognize that the rights of the unborn child develop as the child does, and thus the killing of the unborn becomes less and less justifiable as they develop.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Who said anything about genetics? I actually made a comment about your fist analogy that a much better analogy could be made with siamese twins than with fists. The comment was deleted before posting the reply, though. But the point is that genetic identity doesn't matter.

What matters is solely that two or more entities are physically attached to each other, thereby making it impossible to exercise rights freely. When an entity is endowed with the right to perform an action but can't possibly perform it without violating the right of another, then it's not really a right to begin with. It's a conflict of rights.

Try bestow the same rights that you have upon infectious bacteria. Then you'll see it's not a matter of genetics.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Ah, but have you seen a Norwegian potato?

Originally Posted by Si modo

Thus, from the information in the first link, technological advancements over a twenty-year span indicate that survivability rates of premature births has increased (of course, those premature births require technology to survive in an attempt to mimic what would happen in a womb).

So, defining stage A and Stage B will be difficult as technology advancements likely will make a definition of viability change over time.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Again, neither rights or personhood should be tied to genetic uniqueness. I raised the point only to dismiss the notion that the unborn are analogous to just another "body part" of the women.
We don't grant rights or "personhood" to parasites or bacteria, but neither to should we confuse them for parts of the host's body.

Originally Posted by Si modo

This isn't Nazi Germany, soot. I understand that you are anti-abortion, yet that still does not change the fact that it is legal in the USA (and many other countries in the world) and has been since 1973. Thus, the fact is, it is not murder. Your opinion of those who are pro-choice is fine and good to know.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Killing another human is murder.

Period.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Period?

No exceptions?

Originally Posted by soot

-snip-
The exceptions would be in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Life, such as it is, begins at the moment of conception.

Originally Posted by Tautog

Technicaly you are correct, the term "murder" refers to the legality of the act. However, saying a woman who has an abortion is not a murderer is true in the same way as saying an SS officer who shot a jewish child in the head is not a murderer - as neither act was technically illegal. Either way this whole argument of semantics is beside the point.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

The unborn is physically attached to the woman. That and not genetic uniqueness is the sole point with the phrase "part of the persons body".

Originally Posted by goober

Here's my problem with a ban that allows abortion in case of rape or incest.
We are saying it's fine to abort the product of rape, but not of voluntary sex.
In both cases the child is not wanted by the pregnant female, or abortion wouldn't be an issue.
But the female may choose whether her womb is used for the product of a rape, but loses her rights when she has consensual sex. To me, that sounds like punishment for what is perfectly legal behavior. The forfeiting of the right to control one's own body, because one had engaged in sex voluntarily, sounds like a religious code, not a legal code.