Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[tickitytak]

My previous example of pain negates your statement. Just because someone can't speak of their thoughts doesn't mean they don't have them, and that they can indicate self-awareness.

if one can't indicate to another or even themself that they are self-aware, how could they possibly recognize that they are aware of the self?

What of the deaf mute who paints? Can they not produce a "telling" picture, full of information, meaning, and significance?

what's with the deaf mutes? they can still taste, see, and smell. they can still learn a language (i would consider "painting a picture" a language of symbols).

Oh no, no insult at all, neither expressed nor implied. My point was those animals were significant because they eventually led to me.

i didn't imply these animals were not significant in regards to my being here, so i fail to see why you wanted to make this point.

I'm seeing you arguing the position solely on my perception of you wanting to keep abortion legal. If this is the case, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree on the particulars.

my agenda is to show you the nature of significance and where we should logically draw the line in regards to human significance.

Those sperm that don't cross the goal are losers in the game of life, I give them little regard. The issue for me is this fetus, which so represents the future of humanity.

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

am i murdering potential babies by masturbating?

In the strictest sense I'd say yes. My point is there is more to a fetus than just sperm.

so is it morally wrong for me not to be procreating at every given chance with every female i can possibly find? if i continued to not "plant my seed", i would be murdering potential humans.

Tell that to the mother grieving the loss of her aborted fetus. I contend it matters not whether subjective or objective, folks are concerned for the fetus, sometimes to a seeming loss of concern for the mother and the circumstances that fetus may be born into.

i'll say it again, the fetus is only significant if you make it significant. she has created her own pain and perpetuates it by failing to recognize her emotional attachment to a thought and not an actual human.

[tickitytak]

I am not sure this is a correct statement. Can you back that up with a testable and verifiable method?

I mean, how well developed does the language have to be? My cat, for example, can communicate with a fairly large number of different calls that means specific things. He has one when he is hunting mice, he has a specific one when he wants out, or in, and he has a specific one that is used when he just wants to say hello.

My dog has different patterns of barking to convey different information. When she gets tangled outside on the leash, she has a specific call to inform me she needs help. Is that language enough?

What is a language but a method to convey information to others? Certainly cats and dogs do that, and for that matter, even birds.[/quote]

yeah it's quite a complicated issue and i don't really have a solid answer for it. i'm still thinking it all through.

before we can know for sure if one is self-aware, we have to answer the question "at what point does self-awareness become evident?" if reacting to one's environment is an indication of self-awareness, everything in the universe would be self-aware. but self-awareness is also considered to be tied with choice, and we know not everything in the universe can make a choice... so with that in mind, it is easy to assume that those without choice are not self-aware. this would mean a fetus is not self-aware.

now for animal like a dog or cat, it's a bit more complex. does the dog choose to walk around and sniff for food, or is it simply reacting on a chemical level?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 107:

if one can't indicate to another or even themself that they are self-aware, how could they possibly recognize that they are aware of the self?

My issue is with requiring an animal to tell me when it is self aware. That a fetus can't tell me it hurts or fears doesn't matter when I see it recoil from objects entering the womb.

what's with the deaf mutes? they can still taste, see, and smell. they can still learn a language (i would consider "painting a picture" a language of symbols).

My point is that one's inability to profess or quantify their own existence should not be a deciding factor in the abortion of human beings.

>on insults<

I wasn't insulted, by any means. May we chalk any perceived insults up to misunderstanding? You've comported yourself in an honorable, and likable fashion from my perspective.

my agenda is to show you the nature of significance and where we should logically draw the line in regards to human significance.

Human
-------------------------------------

My line is drawn. Surely it's just a semantic point, but I just don't see how we can consider another of our own species as insignificant.

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Sperm are potential humans, fetuses arehuman.

so is it morally wrong for me not to be procreating at every given chance with every female i can possibly find?

Ain't it? Still, procreation, or practicing procreation, is not the issue.

if i continued to not "plant my seed", i would be murdering potential humans.

Not murder, but you could rightly be considered, in the strictest definition, as comitting - no insults now - "spermicide" .

i'll say it again, the fetus is only significant if you make it significant.

And only we can make this fetus insignificant. It is my contention a fetus is significant because it is one of our own species.

she has created her own pain and perpetuates it by failing to recognize her emotional attachment to a thought and not an actual human.

A fetus meets all known criteria to be human, within its stage of development. Your protestations are noted, but the fact remains. The most accurate test for being a human is dna, not someone's opinion of what constitutes significance.

I would dare say these mothers had/have more than just a passing thought at the prospect of killing one of their own.

[tickitytak]

From Page 11 Post 107:

i would like a response to this part, especially since you've drawn the line at "human":

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it. why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"? for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care. what is the memory span of a fetus?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 110:

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well.

But, in the strictest sense, they are not human, only potentially so.

why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"?

I could have worded that better, but as I explain above, they are "losers at being human", what with the lack of several defining characters.

if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Not necessary. We breed like cockroaches at the Escoes.

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it.

But only the fetus is human, in the strictest sense.

why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

I don't base my consideration on such, but on whether they are human or not. The point about pain and fear is to show they have some level of self-awareness. I accept my definition of self aware may not be the most common.

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"?

Of course they did. The failure to remember something has no effect on the actuality of that something.

for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care.

Many do care about the pain of a fetus, and so the abortion debate - the end result of this OP, imo - rages. I don't think we should make such considerations about ending a life on whether the life experiences pain or not.

what is the memory span of a fetus?

As a lifetime lover of all things marijuana, I'd dare say longer than mine.

Some clarificatin'...
My point in all this is that we should consider the fetus based not on whether it experiences pain, or is self aware, or that it can remember. It is a human; in form, in function, in all ways down to its DNA, which ova and sperm are not. I take tickitytak's angle - IMO - as a "dismissal" of the fetus, rather than as a "proper" consideration of the fact this is a human.
I am pro choice, and think a mother's right to her body is paramount, but I also think we should not sweep facts under the rug in order to discuss what I consider the ultimate end of this OP - the abortion issue.

[realthinker]

From Page 11 Post 110:

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well.

But, in the strictest sense, they are not human, only potentially so.

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"?

I could have worded that better, but as I explain above, they are "losers at being human", what with the lack of several defining characters.

if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Not necessary. We breed like cockroaches at the Escoes.

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it.

But only the fetus is human, in the strictest sense.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

I don't base my consideration on such, but on whether they are human or not. The point about pain and fear is to show they have some level of self-awareness. I accept my definition of self aware may not be the most common.

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"?

Of course they did. The failure to remember something has no effect on the actuality of that something.

for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care.

Many do care about the pain of a fetus, and so the abortion debate - the end result of this OP, imo - rages. I don't think we should make such considerations about ending a life on whether the life experiences pain or not.

what is the memory span of a fetus?

As a lifetime lover of all things marijuana, I'd dare say longer than mine.

Some clarificatin'...
My point in all this is that we should consider the fetus based not on whether it experiences pain, or is self aware, or that it can remember. It is a human; in form, in function, in all ways down to its DNA, which ova and sperm are not.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I take tickitytak's angle - IMO - as a "dismissal" of the fetus, rather than as a "proper" consideration of the fact this is a human.
I am pro choice, and think a mother's right to her body is paramount, but I also think we should not sweep facts under the rug in order to discuss what I consider the ultimate end of this OP - the abortion issue.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's. That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life. The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 12 Post 112:

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

Agreed up to the point anyone says a fetus is not a human.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

"Potential" human says little about a fetus, which is a human. In the strictest sense, it is a living person, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I accept what I understand as the medically accepted term of "viability", and consider it a much better determinate for abortion purposes than "self aware".

A fetus is, by virtue of its DNA a human. This is "not up for debate". A human is considered to go through various forms during the natural course of events, none of which negate that DNA is the best indicator of what it is to be human.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's.

For clarification I'm pro choice. My point is to not skirt around the issue of a fetus being a human, but to confront it headlong when considering abortion.

I've had a previous discussion about the slippery slope of calling a fetus a "person", where such is used as an end run around various Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion. In most uses I'd call a fetus a person, but would not do so as a matter of trying to stop abortion.

That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life.

Same here. My issue in this thread is ensuring we don't "dance around" difficult concepts and facts.

The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

With certain philosophical caveats I agree. I still consider the fetus a person, but I also consider the mother's reproductive rights as paramount in the case of abortion.

So, I disagree on the issue of person, but do agree on the issue of viability.

[realthinker]

From Page 12 Post 112:

The same can be said for a fetus before viability. It is not a distinct living entity. It lives only with necessary support from another body, just as a sperm or egg does.

Agreed up to the point anyone says a fetus is not a human.

It is human, but it is still a potential human before viability. In the strictest sense, it is not a living person.

"Potential" human says little about a fetus, which is a human. In the strictest sense, it is a living person, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.

Before viability a fetus is NOT completely human in form and function. It is incompletely human and does not have independent life of its own.

I accept what I understand as the medically accepted term of "viability", and consider it a much better determinate for abortion purposes than "self aware".

A fetus is, by virtue of its DNA a human. This is "not up for debate". A human is considered to go through various forms during the natural course of events, none of which negate that DNA is the best indicator of what it is to be human.

I think I can agree with the unique DNA signature being enough to call a fetus a distinct human.

You are considering a mother's right to her life and her body. To consider a fetus before viability as a person and to give it rights to life is giving it a right to the mother's life as well, since its life is totally dependent upon the mother's.

For clarification I'm pro choice. My point is to not skirt around the issue of a fetus being a human, but to confront it headlong when considering abortion.

I've had a previous discussion about the slippery slope of calling a fetus a "person", where such is used as an end run around various Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion. In most uses I'd call a fetus a person, but would not do so as a matter of trying to stop abortion.

That is the fundamental problem I have with the abortion issue. One person does not have a right to another's life.

Same here. My issue in this thread is ensuring we don't "dance around" difficult concepts and facts.

The fact that a fetus is not an independent living human before viability and that it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life means that it cannot be considered a person, and that it does not have a right to life before viability.

With certain philosophical caveats I agree. I still consider the fetus a person, but I also consider the mother's reproductive rights as paramount in the case of abortion.

So, I disagree on the issue of person, but do agree on the issue of viability.

I think we are essentially in agreement. But are you OK with saying that there are persons that do not have the same right to life as those born? Some will get hung up on the words.

[scourge99]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Yes, I am saying that. Given two legal equals, one individual cannot be made to give up what another is to gain.

But you ignore the differing conditions and intentions of individuals that our current legal system so plainly acknowledges in differing such things, for example, as murder from manslaughter, attempted murder from assault, and promiscuity from prostitution. However, when it comes to abortion you seem to ONLY see the issue in black or white, a dichotomy: violation of rights = death; no violation = no death. Do you disagree with our current justice system that differentiates between intent? Should all assaults be prosecuted as attempted murder? Should all deaths be treated as murder (no manslaughter). Why do you have one standard when it comes to fetuses but then another stance when it comes to full grown humans?

Obviously a fetus doesn't willfully "intend" to violate her mother's rights. Only for the most heinous crimes do you punish people with death and definitely not for manslaughter in this country. How is being an unwilling fetus an equal violation of rights as murder such that it deserves capital punishment?

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights.

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

Our justice system is a perfect example. Punishments differ with severity and intent of the offender. Do you disagree with that? Should all offenders be given the same exact punishment from stealing, to not paying taxes, to rape and murder?

Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous. And where justice is carried out for the most part fairly?

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term? Or is it something else entirely or some combination? Please elaborate.

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Then why did you avoid answering my previous questions? They were direct and easy to answer. Instead, you ignored them and repeated an answer from the previous post that doesn't address my question. When I posit examples that would merit a similar response you dismiss them without addressing them.

Then you go on to make an assertion about my perspective on your position but you refuse to substantiate it. You essentially said " No, you are wrong." and then didn't explain why. Do you not wish to debate this?

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

There is no "child". True, most would call the "child" a fetus. Why does that matter? Are you hoping labels make your argument for you? Couldn't I just claim the "fetus" is a "human" (another label)? See how that answer isn't compelling, how it isn't justified, how it isn't reasoned. Its simply begging the question... why does being a "child" or "human" matter?

[realthinker]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Yes, I am saying that. Given two legal equals, one individual cannot be made to give up what another is to gain.

But you ignore the differing conditions and intentions of individuals that our current legal system so plainly acknowledges in differing such things, for example, as murder from manslaughter, attempted murder from assault, and promiscuity from prostitution. However, when it comes to abortion you seem to ONLY see the issue in black or white, a dichotomy: violation of rights = death; no violation = no death. Do you disagree with our current justice system that differentiates between intent? Should all assaults be prosecuted as attempted murder? Should all deaths be treated as murder (no manslaughter). Why do you have one standard when it comes to fetuses but then another stance when it comes to full grown humans?

Obviously a fetus doesn't willfully "intend" to violate her mother's rights. Only for the most heinous crimes do you punish people with death and definitely not for manslaughter in this country. How is being an unwilling fetus an equal violation of rights as murder such that it deserves capital punishment?

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights.

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

Our justice system is a perfect example. Punishments differ with severity and intent of the offender. Do you disagree with that? Should all offenders be given the same exact punishment from stealing, to not paying taxes, to rape and murder?

I don't think I can grant that a spectrum of punishment is evidence of a disparity in the significance of rights. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I haven't thought about it enough to make a real statement about it.

Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

I simply disagree with this statement. You cannot give that fetus the right to another's life.

If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous. And where justice is carried out for the most part fairly?

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus.

No, that is how you chose to interpret what I said. I said nothing about why a mother may wish to abort. I said that a fetus whose life is not independent is an encumbrance. That's a biological fact.

You fail to grasp that the encumbrance is biological and necessary rather than cognitive or emotional. I don't care how the mother feels about it. The fetus lives only because the mother's body provides respiration, nutrition, and circulation. That is an encumbrance upon the mother's body. To protect that arrangement in a fashion that gives the fetus an equal consideration gives that fetus a right to the mother's life in addition to its own, because that is biologically, necessarily, the only way a fetus has life.

Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term? Or is it something else entirely or some combination? Please elaborate.

I've not changed anything. You seem to have used something I've said to alter your interpretation of it to mean something other than what I've said.

I don't care why a mother might wish to terminate a pregnancy. I've simply said that to do so is not a conflict with anyone's right to life if it's done before viability.

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Then why did you avoid answering my previous questions? They were direct and easy to answer. Instead, you ignored them and repeated an answer from the previous post that doesn't address my question. When I posit examples that would merit a similar response you dismiss them without addressing them.

Then you go on to make an assertion about my perspective on your position but you refuse to substantiate it. You essentially said " No, you are wrong." and then didn't explain why. Do you not wish to debate this?

No, I don't wish to debate with you when you continually expect me to defend your interpretation of what I've said rather than what I have actually said.

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

There is no "child". True, most would call the "child" a fetus. Why does that matter? Are you hoping labels make your argument for you? Couldn't I just claim the "fetus" is a "human" (another label)? See how that answer isn't compelling, how it isn't justified, how it isn't reasoned. Its simply begging the question... why does being a "child" or "human" matter?

You evidently fail to grasp the semantics of the words being used, even in your own statements.

I'm trying to make you understand that before viability a fetus is subordinate to a person and that it cannot be treated or considered in the same fashion. This is because its life is necessarily biologically dependent upon its mother's life. To give it a fully protected right to life would be to give it a right to its mother's life. The consequences of that would deny the mother her rights. I don't believe giving something entirely and necessarily subordinate the right to someone else's life is acceptable.

I've also explained that it's different than the dependence of a fully developed and born child because a child's life is not a necessary biological encumbrance upon any other person's life. The behavioral dependence - the care and feeding that a young child requires - is not a necessary dependence. It's transferrable to anyone capable. That means that the child's right to life can be fully protected independent of anyone else's.