Originally posted by no1marauderI think the deciding factor personhood, not survivability, should be the deciding factor.
My views on this matter have been stated on these forums many times; as a non-viable fetus cannot exist outside the confines of a woman's body it is her decision as to whether she wants to retain it or not - anything less would virtually destroy the pregnant woman's right to personal autonomy. Once it can so exist, then it has a right to personal autonomy as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderA baby is treated as a human being in Mosaic Law. The crime mentioned in Exodus 21 was the crime of killing of an unborn human being, not causing pain to a man's chattel.
The point is that even an accidental injury to the pregnant woman gets lex talionis treatment; if she dies, the person causing it gets death. Causing a miscarriage is a relatively minor offense in contrast which is punished only by a fine (because the husband's "property" rights have been infringed). A fetus is not treated as a human being in Mosaic Law.
Again, the killing of the baby was accidental, so was not treated as murder, but what we call manslaughter. They didn't have prisons back then in the Hebrew culture. They were a traveling group not yet entered into the "promised land". What were they supposed to do but impose a fine? It stands to reason the fine was not small.
By the way, fetus is the Latin word for baby. I read an article in the long ago past that I remember clearly, about a doctor who was suggesting people start using the word fetus for the express purpose of removing the word baby from the debate so the emotions that went along with the word baby would not interfere with the decision to abort. Rather underhanded of the abortion proponents.
Originally posted by rhemalogosWe can use the word embryo, if it bothers you so much.
By the way, fetus is the Latin word for baby. I read an article in the long ago past that I remember clearly, about a doctor who was suggesting people start using the word fetus for the express purpose of removing the word baby from the debate so the emotions that went along with the word baby would not interfere with the decision to abort. Rather underhanded of the abortion proponents.
Originally posted by RetrovirusMy point is: fetus or embryo, pro-abortionists go through all sorts mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid facing the fact they are killing an infant human being.
We can use the word embryo, if it bothers you so much.
The difference between a spleen and a baby in the womb is the baby eventually matures into what pro-abortionists call humans. Wheat in seed form is still wheat even though it hasn't matured yet.
2 edits
Originally posted by rhemalogosAre we discussing if A can become B given certain conditions, or whether A is B?
...
The difference between a spleen and a baby in the womb is the baby eventually matures into what pro-abortionists call humans. Wheat in seed form is still wheat even though it hasn't matured yet.
re: Wheat in seed form is still wheat even though it hasn't matured yet.
I do not think that wheat can be used as analogy. We call ending the life of persons "killing" ; wheat is not a person in either form, while a human is (Since conception, or since an active CNS develops or since birth - that's our discussion).
Even if we do consider that analogy - that's just verbal gymnastics , isn't it?
Tobacco is the name of the plant, but also of the leaves - and I can say that I am human/homo-sapiens, and a genetic analysis will point out that my spleen is also human/homo-sapiens.
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosYou are flat out wrong. A fetus wasn't considered a human being at all under Mosaic Law in the Talmud; only after birth was there a human being. Your reading of Exodus 21 is laughable; why does the accidental killing of the pregnant woman rate as worthy of death but not of a fetus? Please explain that.
A baby is treated as a human being in Mosaic Law. The crime mentioned in Exodus 21 was the crime of killing of an unborn human being, not causing pain to a man's chattel.
Again, the killing of the baby was accidental, so was not treated as murder, but what we call manslaughter. They didn't have prisons back then in the Hebrew culture. They were a trav uld not interfere with the decision to abort. Rather underhanded of the abortion proponents.
Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
Originally posted by RetrovirusPersonhood is too malleable a concept and doesn't take into account the right to personal autonomy of the woman. The "personhood" of the fetus argument reduces her to mere luggage.
I think the deciding factor personhood, not survivability, should be the deciding factor.
Originally posted by no1marauderSuppose, in an odd parallel universe, I acted so as to permit the possibility that another human being--a fully-fledged person--would become completely biologically dependent upon me for several months, until such time attained independent viability. Suppose then that this possibility came to pass. Would I therefore have the right to kill that completely biologically dependent person?
My views on this matter have been stated on these forums many times; as a non-viable fetus cannot exist outside the confines of a woman's body it is her decision as to whether she wants to retain it or not - anything less would virtually destroy the pregnant woman's right to personal autonomy. Once it can so exist, then it has a right to personal autonomy as well.
I think not.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI'm not interested in hypotheticals. In this universe, the question is easily resolved using Natural Law theories regarding the right to personal autonomy.
Suppose, in an odd parallel universe, I acted so as to permit the possibility that another human being--a fully-fledged person--would become completely biologically dependent upon me for several months, until such time attained independent viability. Suppose then that this possibility came to pass. Would I therefore have the right to kill that completely biologically dependent person?
I think not.
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't have time to reply much right now, but I'll be back later.
I'm not interested in hypotheticals. In this universe, the question is easily resolved using Natural Law theories regarding the right to personal autonomy.
Shooting from the hip, a person's personal autonomy is not an absolute right. A person's personal autonomy ends at the other person's nose. For example the right to yell "FIRE" in the crowded theatre is not the right of an individual in the name of personal autonomy.
Originally posted by rhemalogosrhemalogos: A person's personal autonomy ends at the other person's nose.
Don't have time to reply much right now, but I'll be back later.
Shooting from the hip, a person's personal autonomy is not an absolute right. A person's personal autonomy ends at the other person's nose. For example the right to yell "FIRE" in the crowded theatre is not the right of an individual in the name of personal autonomy.
Yes, not within their womb.
Originally posted by no1marauder...to continue: just as a person not having the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, a woman does not have the right to end the life of a infant human just because it resides in her body. Her right to personal autonomy ends when it comes to the life of her unborn child just as a mother's personal autonomy is "limited" when she has the moral committment to raise a child that has been born.
rhemalogos: A person's personal autonomy ends at the other person's nose.
Yes, not within their womb.
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosCuz you say so? Then don't get pregnant but leave other people's personal autonomy alone. The life of an infant human doesn't start until it can exist outside of a person's body.
...to continue: just as a person not having the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, a woman does not have the right to end the life of a infant human just because it resides in her body. Her right to personal autonomy ends when it comes to the life of her unborn child just as a mother's personal autonomy is "limited" when she has the moral committment to raise a child that has been born.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow other people view their personal autonomy matters very much to us all. John Dillinger, and I am not referring to anyone else but him, and his views of personal autonomy affected some people very much in a negative way. His personal autonomy had to be "bothered" for the good of society. A lot of peoples personal autonomy has to be "bothered" every day to keep our society sane.
Cuz you say so? Then don't get pregnant but leave other people's personal autonomy alone. The life of an infant human doesn't start until it can exist outside of a person's body.
Likewise, a society that allows innocent, defenseless infants to be murdered is definitely on the slippery slope.