Dr Rick

A human fetus is always a human, just as a human sperm is always human. Since rights are subjective constructs, the "right to life," as is the case with the rights to worship, assemble, and speak freely depend upon cultural and societal standards; rights are not fixed or immutable.

A fetus attains the "right to life" when we say it does.



That is the fallacy of "begging the question;" the debate is,"Should a fetus have the right to life, and at what stage?"

I do "know," or more accurately, believe whether a fetus should be granted such rights; imo, it's when a fetus can be cognizant. Pro-lifers believe that all fetuses at any stage have a right to life, but some make an exception for the health of the mother or in the case of rape. Whatever your beliefs are, you should feel free to follow them, too, but whether or not you have a right to impose those beliefs on others who don't believe as you do is another question, entirely.

I am "sure;" I believe that it does not have such rights until it can become cognizant. That is my opinion, and it is an arbitrary one just as many ethical positions are. Pro-lifers are "sure" that it has the right to life at the moment of conception, but there distinction is arbitrary, too: there is no reason that sperm and ova could not be granted such rights if we chose to do so.



I believe it's a lot safer than allowing a vocal minority to arbitrarily impose its views upon everyone else.



Careful thought and consideration of when we want to impose upon a woman's rights to her own life, privacy, and beliefs is one place to start.

We draw the line where our cultural norms direct us to, and we do it on our own authority.



A human fetus is human; so is a human gamete.



How is it that a pro-lifer has the authority to declare it for everyone?



That's more of a moral than legal argument; the Roe v Wade decision and most abortion laws do not address the "humanity" of a fetus.

Yes, and that's a tough question to answer.



It is human

How?



It may be innocent, and it is human, but that does not mean that we must confer rights upon it any more than we must confer rights upon sperm.

These are strawman questions.

.

In the US in the year 2003 A.C.E., you can make the decison for yourself where you want to up to the point of gestation where the state's interests in preserving life outweigh a womans right to privacy; this is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.

huh?

That's a fallacious conclusion in itself, the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. No where have you shown us that a woman's rights are not germane to the issue.

how so?



When we say so, when we say so, and because rights are subjective and devised by us.

Rick

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
There is some part of the body that comprises a living human being. Since I don't think any biologist will agree that a brainless embryo is not alive, it is obviously the knowledge of the potential of personhood that ought to grant the embryo rights to life.

You have already indirectly asserted that personhood resides in some portion. If you don't like the brain as the answer how about something else then? If I chop away parts, what part takes it from being a person to not being one? The part must reside above the neck as you didn't consider the beheaded guy alive. What is it?

I agree that your justification is logical if one forgets the scientific definition of humanity and ignores the laws of society.

The destruction of what part makes the charge murder instead of mayhem, assuming the rest of the body survives? I think any court in the land would say brain.
Every other part can either be omitted or replaced and we still consider it a person.

If we assume that the brain makes a human being, then abortion should be legal.

1) That's how the law sees it. Non-functional brain = dead person even when the rest of the body still works. Without this there would be no transplants of core organs other than living-donor transplants. Most transplant organs come from people who suffered lethal brain injury.

2) The only big difference between us and the animals is the brain.

Now why ought we to assume this? In order to make abortion legal? Again, you are so quick to assume I'm using logical fallacies, you fail to see yours.

The law supports my position.

You are basically using as an axiom the notion that abortion is wrong. That might work from the pulpit but it's a non-starter in a debate.

This is not accurate. I clearly defined my argument in my last post. This is blatantly attacking a strawman.

You finally did support your argument somewhat, although I do not consider it adequate. It's still basically it's a person because it's a person.

Murder: the premeditated killing of an innocent human being.

And when the doctor pulls the plug on a brain-dead patient it's murder?

I don't know. If it is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being, then it quite obviously is. If the law makes and exception in this case, ask yourself why. Because there is no chance for the human being to have any future away from life support and no chance for the regaining of
consciousness.

Partially correct. The law realizes personhood is gone at that point.

A normal embryo obviously does not fall into this category, therefore the only reason to make an exception to the murder of an embryo is for the convenience of the mother. This is not lawful.

The point is that I gave you an example of something meeting your definition but which the law does not regard as murder nor do most people.

But the change you're suggesting is arbitrary. Why should you get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't?

I'm willing to listen to other standards. I just regard it as immoral to have a standard that does not handle ET's/AI's. I regard it as the equivalent of saying that it doesn't matter if you kill a nigger.

It's my right. If you appeal to laws then you are picking and choosing which laws you want to follow and which you don't.

We could say the same about you ignoring the ET/AI case.

You are creating a hole in your rationality and failing to patch it up. You assume that your morality would work as law, but attempting to redefine humanity to allow the killing of some for the convenience of others is not a sound law system.

Conclusion assumed in argument, again! You're arguing that my morality is wrong because it conflicts with yours.

Abortion is a hole in the constitution, and I've yet to find reasoning that can even begin to patch it while allowing legal abortion to exist.

If it's so terrible why doesn't the Constitution say anything about it? Abortion was fairly common back then. Ru-486 might be new but natural versions have been known for ages.

But it is something she decides. A woman is free to have an abortion in this counrty whenever she wants.

The law sets the time beyond which she can not have an abortion. Very few states permit abortions past 6 months and I would have no problem with those few changing their laws.

Yet it is a living example of the species homo sapiens sapiens. It is viable based on the knowledge that there is some chance, however remote, that it will become a person.

Induce labor. Does it survive? No! It's not viable.

pilaar

------------------------------
Brighid:
Up to the point of brain and nervous system development that supports more then reflexive reaction without question, after that viability of the fetus should be determined on an individual basis by a woman's medical doctor, and the appropriate determination should be made based upon that conclusion. I support late-term abortion in the case of fetal defect and to save the life of the mother, but I support reasonable restrictions past 3 months.
-----------------------------

I agree with Brighid, up to the point of brain and nervous system development.

Abortion is not a straight cut issue, IMO. If the decision was to be made that the embryo is fully human with all human rights from the time of conception, there is still another full human being involved during pregnancy, that is a woman. Inevitably there will be an overlap of whos' human rights can over ride the other human rights as long as some other way is not found to bring the emryo through pregnancy. The embryo depends on the
womans' body to survive and as longs as it can not live outside of her body, the womans' issues take precedence over the embryo, IMO.

In nature, the primacy of the mother/parents is above their born & unbourn young, because
the young can not look after themselves and parents can try again later when the conditions are more suitable.
Kangaroo female, for example, can carry a number of embryos for months before the external conditions are right and she can
have a grater chance with the survival of herself and the joey. However, if the draught is too long and her body lacks nurishment, her body will reabosorb the embryos.
In human society, we have advanced enough to be able to look after others children in a limited degree, and there have been many improvements made to accomodate that. However, I don't think that our society is developed enough yet to be able to handle theprohibition of abortion and at the same time not impinge on the womans'
rights as a human being. How is prohibiting the abortion not going to
impinge on the rights of a woman? Will women have to go and get a doctors
certificate if they miss one two consecutive periods for example? Will a
woman have to prove that she did not do an illegal abortion & go through inquiry every time she naturally has a miscarriage. Will women live in a police state? How would it be policed so that the rights of a woman as a human being are not breached?
How do you make abortion illegal and at the same time preserve the womans rights over her
own body? How would the pregnancy be inforced. Would a woman, who may be under a suspicion that she may try the illegal abortion or to cause damage to her body in order to abort, be locked up for the
duration of pregnancy? Would the pregnancy be shortened to the minimal time
possible and the induced labour or a cesarian performed and the child be
put in the inkubator to grow to full term in order to try and give some human rights to the woman and not keep her locked for months? Will the society pay damages to the woman for the damages to her body, her lost time, lost income, lost opportunities etc. In cases of pregnancy happening
due to a problem with contraception, or rape, does the woman have to carry
all the consenquences? Does the woman have to carry the consenqueces of
pregnancy to her body of two people who have engaged in and ejoyed sex but did not want to conceive a child?
How can the woman be by law forced to give her body to the disposal of the embryo
if the pregnancy is not voluntary and how can that not cancel most of her rights as a human being?
If embryos have full human rights, what about the case of frozen embryos in
case of IVF treatment. Would women carriers have to be found and impregnated
so that all embryos can develop and be born?

Our society is not responisble enough for born children to accommodate the illegal abortion,
because it does not recognise the consenquences to the female body, work, time & sacrifices that are involved with giving birth and rearing children. If the womans' circumstances are not economically sound and the law prevents her from having an abortion, is the society prepared for the work which is involved in bringing up a child (hopefully above poverty level)
Do pro-lifers intend to change other laws and conditions as well so that the woman does not hold the sole responsibility once the unwanted child is born? Are there any suggestions on how to finance the orphanages, if great numbers of children are abanoned at birth? Are there enough potential adoptive parents around?
Or is the individual woman the only person who may have to carry all the consenquences of giving birth and then taking the responisibility to bring the child up, just because of her ability to bear children?
Are the pro-lifers prepared to pay more taxes to carry the financal costs involved
in paying the woman who would choose to keep the child, for her work and/or the cost for extra
orphanages? Is the society prepared to carry the cost of bringing up the
child, his/her education costs to give him/her a good start in life and a
quality childhood? Here in Australia, they have calculated that it currently
costs about AUD$400.000 to bring up a child. Is the society and are
pro-lifers prepared to carry that cost? Or would the girl/woman have to
forfeit the quality of her life & that of the child to do that, because she may have fallen
pregnant, she may have made a mistake because she is young, uneducated, an accident happened, pressure to
have sex from her boyfriends & peers, media, her inability to say no in order to keep the
boyfriend etc. Are the individual women the only ones who are supposed
to carry most of consenquences of an unwanted pregnancy and living in a police state for the act in which both men and women participate in?

Also, if the mother, due to the external circumstances, deems it necessary to abort
the baby, how is that different than when her body aborts the embryo due to
internal circumstances? Miscarriages are fairly common especially during the first trimester and that for a
number of reasons. There could be something wrong with the embryo, the conditions with womans' reproductive systems may not be right etc. Why are external circumstances (ecomonical, emotional immaturity, young age etc) less valid reasons to abort? Should not abortion, especially in the first trimester, be
called a misscarriage? What is the difference betwen the the inside of the body
(reproductive system) aborting because of not being ready to receive & support the embryo, or if
the outside living conditions are not ready to receive & support the embryo?
The body basically chooses to abort the pregnancy & reject the fetus because
'it' deems that it is not ready, what is the differnece when the woman with her
mind decides to abort the pregnancy?

---------------------------------------
long winded fool:
A terrible situation for both parties, yes. But it is clear that the mother
must be forced to sacrifice all but her life for the life of her unborn
human, as any human must be forced to sacrifice all but his right to life if
doing so is the only possible way to save the life of another innocent
human.
---------------------------------------

You are basically proposing that women live in a police state? And that the embryo's human rights override
the woman's human rights, even though the embryo is not even separate human being?


---------------------------------------
long winded fool:
Good question. How could the law choose one single person and force them to
donate to save another? I think in every case, someone will voluntarily
donate a non-vital organ to save the life of another, therefore this need
not be compulsory.
----------------------------------------

There are many people who are on a
waiting lists for organ donation, the situation is far far from finding a donated organ suitable to save the person who needs one.
If the right dead donor is not found, many of these people die, or they live for years in very hard circumstaces waiting and waiting. Not sure about the situation in USA, but here in Australia, organ donation is VOLUNTARY even when the person is dead and their body is no longer useful to them. People are encouraged to sign donation forms but are not by law forced to do so, even though they will be dead when their organs will be suitable for donation.
LWF imo, you seem to be able to dismis this one so easily because making the organ donation forced by law, would not only affect females, but males as well.
People need kidney, parts of the liver, lung etc transplantation and many die before the suitable dead donor is dead. Organs suitable for transplantation are needed in order to save human lives. A kidney, lung & liver parts can be taken from a living human being and transplated into a sick person, which saves lives. It would then make sense to create dna info for every citizen, then call upon them when their organs matched and are needed to save another person. And every citizen would by law be required toundergo the procedure, even if the procedure would have to be forced. Why would you object to that and how is that different from abortion question and womans' human rights? Would you be a murderer if you objected? Are you to be considered a murderer now, because I am sure there that there is a person in a world who could use your organs/parts of your organs and live. And you are not doing anything about it?

pilaar

dk

From about 1700-1950 in the US the persons protected under the title of legal personhood expanded to include blacks, women, labor, minorities and children, who in the gray world of legal eagles were once denied equal standing before the courts. Abortion is important because reverses a long historical trend.

long winded fool

Why do I need to prove that the fetus is a person?

I feel sorry for women in these terrible situations. This does not change the legality of murder. Self-defense is the only acceptable motive for murder in this society. Appealing to women's rights without dealing with human rights is a red herring argument and not rational.

Rights are fixed by the laws. The laws are changeable, however to have contradictory laws is not rational.

A human fetus is human just as human sperm is human.
A human fetus is a human being. A human sperm is not. Ask any biologist. Therefore, it is logical that a fetus has human rights and sperm do not.

The first logical thing to do when presented with this argument is to find out if the fetus already has the right to life. In this case, it does, as I've shown. Therefore the debate is, "Should the fetus' right to life be revoked and on what grounds?"

I believe it's a lot safer than allowing a vocal minority to arbitrarily impose its views upon everyone else.

I see you are familiar with begging the question. Do you see that this shoots you in the foot? You now must prove that the fetus is not "everyone else." And an easy way to do so is to refute my primary argument presented a few posts back.

A human fetus is human; so is a human gamete.

Straw man. I've shown the error of this logic.

How is it that a pro-lifer has the authority to declare it for everyone?

It has been declared in the constitution. How is it that a pro-choicer has the right to ignore it, and why can't a pro-lifer ignore laws as they see fit as well?

That's more of a moral than legal argument; the Roe v Wade decision and most abortion laws do not address the "humanity" of a fetus.

Which is precisely why they are contradictory. They are laws that, by chance or design, skirt the messy issue of murder and allow the killing of inconvenient human beings without trial or examination of any kind. "Looking the other way" so that a majority can have more rights than a minority is not responsible and not constitutional.

It may be innocent, and it is human, but that does not mean that we must confer rights upon it any more than we must confer rights upon sperm.

Since you may have come in late, I'll repost my argument:

Murder: the premeditated killing of an innocent human being.
Human being: a member of the family Hominidae, of the group homo, specifically homo sapiens.
(No "redefining" here. These are the definitions.)

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Since an embryo is inarguably an innocent human being by scientific definition, (guilty of no crimes, or at the very least, no crimes of which execution is justified) and since murder is illegal, abortion of the embryo should be illegal.

To refute me, show how an embryo is not an innocent human being, or how murder is not always wrong by the laws of this country.

That's a fallacious conclusion in itself, the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. No where have you shown us that a woman's rights are not germane to the issue.

The above argument shows exactly this. Inalienable HUMAN rights are germane to the issue. The appeal to the rights of a woman to privacy and other issues not related to her inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a red herring. (And be wary of trying to refute the argument based on the second two inalienable rights of women. You must first show that the fetus does not also have these rights.)

The argument is that it has inalienable rights because it is a human being. The inalienable rights of clinically dead patients who are still being respirated are revoked because there is no hope of revival. This does not apply to revoking the rights of a fetus. Unborn humans have much hope of independent survival. The fetus' rights can be revoked if the mother is in imminent danger of losing her inalienable rights, according to the logic of this country's laws as they were before abortion laws came into play which nullified any rational parallels with the already established laws.

LWF: It's my right. If you appeal to laws then you are picking and choosing which laws you want to follow and which you don't.

LP: We could say the same about you ignoring the ET/AI case.

How am I picking and choosing what laws to follow? There are no laws prohibiting the murder of fictional entities. When the entity is proven non-fictional, then we must pass corresponding laws.

Conclusion assumed in argument, again! You're arguing that my morality is wrong because it conflicts with yours.

I am arguing that your morality is wrong because it is irrational. If our moralities conflict, then at least one of us must be wrong. I have shown where yours is irrational. While my morality might also be wrong, unless you show me where it is irrational, I must assume that it is right.

If it's so terrible why doesn't the Constitution say anything about it? Abortion was fairly common back then. Ru-486 might be new but natural versions have been known for ages.

The constitution clearly states that all human beings have inalienable human rights. In order to say that this doesn't apply to abortion, you MUST prove that unborn homo sapiens sapiens are not human beings.

Induce labor. Does it survive? No! It's not viable.

Viable: Capable of life or normal growth and development. "A viable fetus."

A healthy fetus is viable. You are thinking of independently autonomous. A human being capable of normal growth and development, (such as an embryo) is a viable human being.

I proposed none of these things. If a woman commits murder, the police come and haul her away. An embryo's inalienable rights override all but the woman's inalienable rights because it IS a separate human being. Dependent maybe, but separate. The other rights of an embryo are less clear. My mother had certain rights over me that I didn't have over her when I was under her responsibility, but both our inalienable human rights were clear and equal. The mother has the right to do as she pleases with her body. She does not have the right to do what she pleases with another's body even if said body is absolutely dependent on her. A Siamese twin cannot kill his or her brother or sister, though he or she is infringing on the other's right to privacy and convenience.

And I wouldn't object to being forced to sacrifice temporary comfort to save the life of another. This is why abortion is legal in this society. Because the majority do. However, failing to provide an autonomous human with necessary organs is not akin to actively destroying a human I brought into the world. This would be an example of something morally wrong, but that no law prohibits. Not donating vital organs is not premeditated murder. Actively aborting a fetus is under the accepted definitions. A miscarriage is not premeditated murder, unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the miscarriage was intentional.

pilaar

------------------------
long winded fool:

The mother has the right to do as she pleases with her body. She does not have the right to do what she pleases with another's body even if said body is absolutely dependent on her.
------------------------

Exactly! The mother has the right to her body as everybody else. It is one of her rights as a human being. She may have an abortion which expells the embryo from her body. The embryonic cells unfortunately can not live & develop outside on their own.

pilaar

pilaar

----------------------
long winded fool:

A Siamese twin cannot kill his or her brother or sister, though he or she is infringing on the other's right to privacy and convenience.
----------------------

What about human chimeras? Human chimeras occur naturally when two eggs become fertilized but, instead of developing into twins, one is fused into another in the womb, making a single individual with two distinct sets of genes. Does that mean that one has killed another human being and should be tried for murder? Or was it that two sets of embryos/cells merged?


pilaar

alek0

And how could that be proven? Do you think that every miscarriage should be investigated?

You keep referring to pregnancy as temporary discomfort. This is simply not true. Pregnancy can result in death of a woman, pregnancy can cause a disability and lasting damage. Forcing the woman to continue pregnancy is infringing on her right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. While risking one's life and bodily integrity to preserve life of another is admirable, it is not justified to force everyone to do so. Same as forced organ donations would not be justifiable. If pro-lifers would spend as much effort on developing methods to sustain fetuses outside bodies of woman who are unwilling to continue pregnancy instead of trying to make abortion illegal, the whole problem would have been solved long ago.

Also, I am curious what do you think about wars? Should we make them illegal? Since innocent human beings are getting killed, getting hurt and are suffering (unlike first trimester fetuses who are most likely not capable of suffering), shouldn't wars be illegal?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
Why do I need to prove that the fetus is a person?

Because that's the only justification for your position.

A human fetus is human just as human sperm is human.
A human fetus is a human being. A human sperm is not. Ask any biologist. Therefore, it is logical that a fetus has human rights and sperm do not.

A human fetus is a human fetus.

I see you are familiar with begging the question. Do you see that this shoots you in the foot? You now must prove that the fetus is not "everyone else." And an easy way to do so is to refute my primary argument presented a few posts back.

You're the vocal minority. My estimate of the true pro-life people in this country is only about 10% if that. The reason you accomplish anything at all is that you have a bunch of allies who want to punish women and don't really care about the fetus.

It has been declared in the constitution. How is it that a pro-choicer has the right to ignore it, and why can't a pro-lifer ignore laws as they see fit as well?

Where does the constitution address a fetus at all?

Which is precisely why they are contradictory. They are laws that, by chance or design, skirt the messy issue of murder and allow the killing of inconvenient human beings without trial or examination of any kind. "Looking the other way" so that a majority can have more rights than a minority is not responsible and not constitutional.

Note that pre Roe vs Wade there were *NO* laws that in effect declared the fetus a person. The act of having an abortion was *NOT* punished. The only crime was performing one.

LWF: It's my right. If you appeal to laws then you are picking and choosing which laws you want to follow and which you don't.

LP: We could say the same about you ignoring the ET/AI case.

How am I picking and choosing what laws to follow? There are no laws prohibiting the murder of fictional entities. When the entity is proven non-fictional, then we must pass corresponding laws.

Who knows about ET, but the AI case is a very real issue--if there is no catastrophe it's *GOING* to happen. Since we don't know what makes a mind work there's no way of predicting when but the raw power will be there in 10 years. It will be on your desktop in 20.
As far as I am concerned, ignoring this until a real case comes along is tantamount to permitting murder.

I am arguing that your morality is wrong because it is irrational. If our moralities conflict, then at least one of us must be wrong. I have shown where yours is irrational. While my morality might also be wrong, unless you show me where it is irrational, I must assume that it is right.

No. Moralities can differ without either being wrong.

The constitution clearly states that all human beings have inalienable human rights. In order to say that this doesn't apply to abortion, you MUST prove that unborn homo sapiens sapiens are not human beings.

Well, back when the constitution was written abortion was legal and a non-issue. Obviously the protections weren't meant to apply to the fetus.

Induce labor. Does it survive? No! It's not viable.

Viable: Capable of life or normal growth and development. "A viable fetus."

Ask a doctor that one.

A miscarriage is not premeditated murder, unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the miscarriage was intentional.

However, *ALL* deaths are investigated unless a doctor signs off on it that the death was due to known medical problems.

Therefore all miscarriages would have to be investigated. An autopsy would be required. Faillure to save the material would send you to jail, same as improper disposition of a corpse would.

long winded fool

This is patently false. You are inventing criteria and assuming it to be a priori. Because killing a person is murder does not make personhood the criteria that must be violated for killing a life form to be murder. I have proven this. Claiming I haven't without refuting me is not logical.

A human fetus is a human fetus.

Allow me to make an analogous argument that will hopefully put this objection to rest.

LP: A basketball is orange
A basketball is not a fruit
Therefore not all orange things are fruits.

LWF: All oranges are fruits
Socrates is holding an orange
Therefore Socrates is holding a fruit.

Both are valid and sound arguments based on axioms. Do you see that the conclusion of your argument does not logically refute mine? Do you see that I am not assuming my conclusion in my argument? Do you see that this is a fallacy of attacking a straw man? The subject of your conclusion is an adjective, while the subject of my premise is a noun.

You're the vocal minority. My estimate of the true pro-life people in this country is only about 10% if that. The reason you accomplish anything at all is that you have a bunch of allies who want to punish women and don't really care about the fetus.

Another straw man. The goal is not to punish women. The goal is to abolish abortion. Punishment is incidental. Not really caring about another human being does not deserve legal punishment. Destroying a human being does.

Where does the constitution address a fetus at all?

The Declaration of Independence, when in context with the Constitution and The Bill of Rights addresses the fetus as often as it addresses blacks.

Note that pre Roe vs Wade there were *NO* laws that in effect declared the fetus a person. The act of having an abortion was *NOT* punished. The only crime was performing one.

Fortunately for my argument, you don't have to kill a person to commit murder.

Who knows about ET, but the AI case is a very real issue--if there is no catastrophe it's *GOING* to happen. Since we don't know what makes a mind work there's no way of predicting when but the raw power will be there in 10 years. It will be on your desktop in 20.
As far as I am concerned, ignoring this until a real case comes along is tantamount to permitting murder.

Since when are we required to create and enforce laws prohibiting theoretical occurrences, and how is it rational to apply such a law to something that is neither an ET nor an AI?

No. Moralities can differ without either being wrong.

Moralities may differ, but they can't contradict one another without at least one being wrong. This is simple logic. If we have differences of opinion, then one or both of us is not being completely honest or rational. If my morality tells me to poke you in the eye, you are going to know that either my morality is wrong, or yours is. As long as you are a being capable of rational thought, morality is not relative and there are such things as absolutely wrong morals, though we may differ on what exactly those are.

Well, back when the constitution was written abortion was legal and a non-issue. Obviously the protections weren't meant to apply to the fetus.

Neither were they meant to apply to Africans, yet science shows that they do apply to both. Now more so than then since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the UN.

Ask a doctor that one.

It may be the case that some doctors only consider a life form viable if it can survive without assistance, however this is not the definition of viable. If it is able to grow and develop normally (i.e. naturally), it is viable.

However, *ALL* deaths are investigated unless a doctor signs off on it that the death was due to known medical problems.

Therefore all miscarriages would have to be investigated. An autopsy would be required. Failure to save the material would send you to jail, same as improper disposition of a corpse would.

Only if the mother is proven to be the cause of the death. Since most miscarriages are due to natural medical problems, most would not have to be investigated. I am aware that abortion would be an easy crime to get away with if it were illegal, but I am simply arguing that in order to have a strong system of law in this country, laws cannot contradict each other. A law not based on the accepted framework of the system of laws, allowing the unnecessary disregard for accepted laws is not a law, it is essentially anarchy. The ability to satisfactorily enforce a law has nothing to do with whether or not the law is rational. Rather is says more about the irrationality of those under the law.

alek0
Also, I am curious what do you think about wars? Should we make them illegal? Since innocent human beings are getting killed, getting hurt and are suffering (unlike first trimester fetuses who are most likely not capable of suffering), shouldn't wars be illegal?

Wars don't fall under law because they are essentially lawlessness. While both sides may agree on accepted protocols, how are these enforced? Simply by going to war. I am certainly against war unless there is no other way to protect my country. If my inalienable rights are being unjustly violated, I am justified in violating the rights of the individual who is violating mine until he stops. If someone else's inalienable rights are being unjustly violated, I am justified in protecting this human being by violating the violator's inalienable rights. (He has surrendered his inalienable rights by forsaking his innocence.) Killing a boy on the battlefield is generally the equivalent of murder in self-defense. While doing such a thing might be terrible and traumatizing, it would be justified. Sort of like forcing a woman to endure a healthy pregnancy is terrible, traumatizing, and justified.