Here's how it's done CT-wise: Take a definition and agree to part of it. Argue that the parts you don't like are attributed, not to the definition where they belong, but to the notion that "a small group of annointed ones" put it there. And, "all of a sudden by magic", the parts you don't agree with says Poof!! and vanishes into thin air. Along with the context.

Agreed...

In your opinion, and that's fine. Maybe one day, you'll see that law changed...

No, it's not. Abortion will be murder only if the law is changed and it is made unlawful. "Murder" is a legal term, and nothing more. As it stands right now, given the fact that abortion is lawful, it's not murder, since murder is unlawful. To use it in a discussion of abortion is assinine, as all it does is make a pathetic attempt to appeal to emotion.

But, since you can't back up your argument with facts, then I guess appealing to emotion is all you've got left...

Good enough then.

I don't care what the law says. If it's wrong it's wrong. In this case it is. So abortion is murder. Because it's "legal" isn't good enough.

For ME at least.

Because history has shown us many many times that laws can be wrong. That judges and decision makers can be wrong.

Humanity will never reach a point where it's "laws" are never wrong.

Exactly why I thought Steve's argument from legal definitions was the wrong one.

Granted that the fact something is legal doesn't make it right, you must also recognize that the fact it's legal doesn't make it wrong, either. You must show why it's wrong. Remember that the dispute is not over whether something is being killed, and not over whether that something is human. It's over whether it is a person. Remember that "human" and "person" are not synonymous. Start from there. Show me why.

Thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, wrong.

That should make completely dismissing your posts that much easier...

Can you explain the distinction?

I believe he did explain the difference earlier. There is human blood (of which I donate as often as possible), human hair, human feces, human genomes, etc. Of course, these come from persons, so one could say a person's blood. I suppose it would depend on whether one is using either term as an adjective or as a noun.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I appreciate the effort; honestly, but that doesn't really clarify anything...

"Human" and "person" are not the same thing. "Human" is an adjective used to describe any tissue, living or dead, belonging to the species homo sapiens. It also describes anything which originates from that species, e.g., human law, human art, human invention, the milk of human kindness, etc.

"Human" can also be a noun, in which case "a human" is also (for the present) "a person," although theoretically something could be a "person" without being human at all (e.g. an alien, or an artificial intelligence). But although this is a possible meaning of "human," it is not the only meaning, and this can create confusion.

The reason this is important in the abortion debate is because anti-choice people sometimes exploit (or are confused by) the multiple meanings, and thus pose deceptive questions such as "when does life begin?" or "when does the fetus become human?" A fetus is of course human from the beginning, and is also "human life," but that does not mean that it is a person -- and that's the important question.

That which is "human" is not necessarily a human -- a human being -- a person.

Actually, I'm just trying to work out on common starting point by clearing the semantic grounds. It is of considerable importance that we begin with the recognition that, as you say, "a relationship between parties exists..."; that we are dealing with multiple entities, rather than with just one.

I'm quite willing to concede that they are situated in such a way that their rights, assuming they both possess them, may conflict. However, I hardly think "that's really all there is to it."

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

If it makes you feel like a fancy pants to say that, so be it

Shouldn't it first have been shown why they are NOT "persons" BEFORE we decided to legalize killing them ?

We weren't. Not to my satisfaction. I'm one of many by the way.

Since the argument, in the end, is over what the definition of "person" IS, wouldn't it make the most sense to at least err on the side of caution ? That being not killing ?

I think so.

Thats all.

Its a very serious matter of judgement.

Actually, that's the default; it has always been believed that a fetus was not a person until it drew its first breath.

But if you want reasons why I believe that, I've given them. It has no brain, it has no mind, it has no personality, it has no feelings. My understanding of what a "person" is requires these attributes.

It's not that we don't know the facts of the matter, it's simply that we haven't agreed on the definition. There's no ignorance here that would require caution. We know that an embryo in the first three months of pregnancy does not have a mind, a personality, or feelings. To me, that means it is not a person and we don't need to treat it like one. If you don't agree, please tell us on what basis you would consider it to be a person. It has to be on the basis of something it has other than those, and the only things that come to mind are human DNA (which strikes me as irrelevant) and the potential to become a person (which may not be). The facts are known, there's no need to wait for them.

A full term baby is considered a fetus until it is out of the womb, which means that a fetus can have a brain, mind, etc. The actual stages of pregnancy are blastocyst, zygote, embryonic and then fetus at about the 9th week.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

If you killed me today, it would be criminal because you would be stealing my future. If you kill a human just formed a few hours ago you'd be stealing IT'S future too.

Yes, I know murder isn't defined as Stealing someones future from them but that is, in essence, exactly what you're doing and why we consider it a crime.

Which is why I consider abortion murder.

You're stealing almost the entire future life of a PERSON. That can never be considered right to anyone that values life.

It HAS a future. Until you take that from it.