Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
They are living beings. Being captive in a woman's body doesn't make it any less viable.
Cells are living beings too. But they're not conscious beings or persons.
They are living beings. Being captive in a woman's body doesn't make it any less viable.
It's not potential 'til it reaches a woman's egg. Once the division of cells begin, it's on the way of becoming something unique.
A person is not conscious while asleep, passed out, or in a coma. Are we then justified in pulling the plug on life? Is awareness the only qualifier that warrants preservation of life? The sleeping man will eventually awake. The drunkard will eventually sober. The comatose man may some day revive. That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.Cells are living beings too. But they're not conscious beings or persons.
If it were a growth of any other kind, I would call it a cancer.So you're saying that a zygote or blastocyst is a person because it is a "potential" person? No..
Bowser said:A person is not conscious while asleep, passed out, or in a coma. Are we then justified in pulling the plug on life? Is awareness the only qualifier that warrants preservation of life? The sleeping man will eventually awake. The drunkard will eventually sober. The comatose man may some day revive. That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.
Well, take the jump. How would you define murder?I think in most states, "Murder" is legally defined. - Not a question for discusion in public forum, but for lawyers and legislators to discuss.
Really? As in seriously? Billy T was pretty explicit - '"Murder" is legally defined"Well, take the jump. How would you define murder?
Well to duck the question, I would say killing of some person who has aquired rights.Well, take the jump. How would you define murder?
Okay, I won't persist and leave it at that. My personal definition is, taking a life and the future it might have had.Well to duck the question, I would say killing of some person who has aquired rights.
A person is not conscious while asleep, passed out, or in a coma. Are we then justified in pulling the plug on life? Is awareness the only qualifier that warrants preservation of life? The sleeping man will eventually awake. The drunkard will eventually sober. The comatose man may some day revive. That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.
This is not entirely true."Murder" is a legal term. One does not get to re-define it to support one's own position
In order to be charged with murder, the victim must have already been born. You cannot be charged with murder if you kill a fetus that is still in its mother's uterus. Not even if you hack it out with a knife, not even if you flush it out with chemicals, not even if you manage to yank it out because the mother has already begun contractions.
Not without changing into something quite different. As with acorns not being trees, etc, it's not a person yet.bowser said:That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.
Iceaura said:Not without changing into something quite different. As with acorns not being trees, etc, it's not a person yet.
Note that when the writers (or perhaps the editors!) lapse into proper legal terminology, this crime is NOT defined as "murder" in all states. Only the Troglodytes in places like Arizona and Georgia get away with it. When we finally clean the Republican scum out of Congress this will probably be modernized.
Of course you ignore my point that your claim is not entirely true.Nonetheless, a properly performed abortion, with the mother's consent, is still legal in all U.S. states and territories. As the younger generations with their more liberal politics come to dominate the electorate, we will see considerably more support for abortion. The ridiculous state rules about the width of the hallways, hospital admission privileges, etc., will go down the toilet with racism and homophobia.
Great! Then take it out and allow it to become that conscious person. That solves both problems - the right of the mother to decide what is done with her body, and the "right" you demand for the fetus to develop into a conscious person.That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.
tali89and the known males who have offered up strong opinions have been belittled/browbeaten by the majority.
[have been browbeaten]Capracus and Bowser have been.
horse-patootyThe crux of the matter is at what point (if any) we consider a developing fetus to be a person, and it's clear that the woman has a conflict of interest when attempting to answer that question.
problem is, tali : you are getting defensiveThat's like saying that only white people should be allowed to vote on issues related to racism, because black/red/yellow/brown people would not be able to take an objective perspective on the subject. Oh wait, our predecessors actually tried that, didn't they?
BowserIt's not potential 'til it reaches a woman's egg. Once the division of cells begin, it's on the way of becoming something unique.
these are completely different situations... in the first two there is no need to pull a plug because the life is viable and simply at rest/drunkA person is not conscious while asleep, passed out, or in a coma. Are we then justified in pulling the plug on life?
you can google the legal definition for your state or country... it is very specific per the law, and it is not always the same in every location around the globeWell, take the jump. How would you define murder?
Really? As in seriously? Billy T was pretty explicit - '"Murder" is legally defined"
Go ahead, exert some effort - I bet even you can find the legal definition of murder in your jurisdiction. Google is your friend...
you really can google the definition ... just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it will be. especially WRT the law...Okay, I won't persist and leave it at that. My personal definition is, taking a life and the future it might have had.