Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Um, actually, yes it IS. Murder does not read knowledge--it reads intent. If there was premeditation and malice aforethought, then it is murder, regardless if you KNOW that is the definition or not.

Theft still is theft, even if you didn't know it was theft.
Because, for the first trimester, that is really all it is, and little more. It is a potential--nothing else.
What is the defining aspect of humanity? The DNA? Then you are basically commiting murder 24-7 as you shed skin cells and regrow them. Is it form? Could we then not make simulacrums that are alike to us in form and call them human? Is it consciousness? What part of consciousness is it? If it is consciousness, can an advanced AI neural network be able to be considered a human?

WHAT DEFINES HUMAN? The definition of human/person is quite ambiguous when we're talking about creatures such as you and I. Throw in an undeveloped one, and you have huge problems.

Call potentials what they are.
Outright false. Psychopaths don't know what right and wrong really means in a moral context. Not that they don't want to know it--not wanting to know it implies a base knowledge of there being moral right and wrong. It is simply that they don't know that moral right and wrong exist at all.
[quote]
This is likely true of many women who abort as well, but divining their intent in a courtroom setting would be a nightmare. [QUOTE]
No, not in the LEAST. They are not even close to being on par with a psychopath on any scale.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by yguy
Thank you, that's the point. The same mechanism used to legalize abortion can be used to legalize infanticide.

The law? Well, no shit Sherlock.

Originally posted by yguy
The right of a mother to kill her unborn child except when it threatens her own life is a legal fabrication - nothing more.

So is the Constitution.

Originally posted by yguy
Of course I made it up. You gonna answer the question?

I'm afraid I'm not in the habit of answering questions whose premises are fallacious.

Originally posted by yguy
QED

Who do you think you are now - Baruch Fucking Spinoza?

Originally posted by yguy
You think maybe there were a few public policy issues in the way of legalization of abortion?

Yes, I think maybe there was, are, and will continue to be.

Originally posted by yguy
So we draw the line at viability because some pregnancies are more viable than others?

No. We draw a line at viability because the Court has been struggling with this issue for some time. Furthermore the line has always been drawn at some form of viability. It used to be called quickening.

By the way, have you ever actually read either Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Or both? If not, you should. Read Griswold v. Connecticut first though.

Originally posted by yguy
How in hell does that constitute an answer to my question?

Funny. "Where would you draw the line" was the question I put to you some time ago. You never answered it, so you have some balls insisting that I invent new criteria.

Originally posted by yguy
Hey - put the right people in power, and lots of people may not be viable.

That's right.

Originally posted by yguy
But you are not in favor of her right to kill her newborn because...?

That would be murder.

Originally posted by yguy
Me too - especially which idiots they sleep with, and when.

Hmm, maybe it's just me, but that remark smacks of misogyny. Is that what's at the root of all your objections? Because you've thus far completely avoided addressing the issue of the prospective mother's rights.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

For yguy:

Given that murder is the premeditated act of killing a human being, with malice aforethought:

Define a human being such that the following is true:
a fetus qualifies as one
a pile of inanimate flesh in the form and of the DNA of a h. sapiens (with requisite organs, and no trauma to preclude life--no brain damage from lack of oxygen, etc) does not qualify as one
and an artificial intelligence does not qualify as one.
a simulacrum that appears to be h spaiens, but really isn't, and lacks the same cognitive abilites of the typical human does not qualify as one.
The genome of an h sapiens does not qualify.
A sperm does not qualify, nor does an egg.

You may only use secular reasons for your definition. I will heartily examine them. You must be able to differentiate a fetus from each of those, also using secular reasoning.

If you wish, you may include the simulacrums and AI units as "human" if you wish.

You must also find a way to keep a fertilized egg out of this (unless you want to make your mother a killer of her children, as 80% or thereabouts of all fertilized eggs do not even implant into the uterus). If you intend to make your mother a killer of her children, then go ahead and acknowledge this.

If you like, you may put conditions on when a fetus counts as human, but you must put secular reasons alone. Again, you still must meet the other conditions.

If you can do that, you can give a legal basis for outlawing abortion in principle.

Until you do so, calling abortion murder or manslaughter or killing of a human is unjustified.

m00ner

How about if we just go through and say whether or not we're Pro-Choice or Pro-Life...?

long winded fool

How about: noun Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae and of the genus homo.

A pile of inanimate flesh with the DNA of a homo sapiens that is not identifiable as a living or extinct individual member of the species, is not a human, though it may be a piece of one. A simulacrum that appears to be h sapiens but really isn't obviously is not included. The genome of h sapiens is not human because a genome is not identifiable as an individual member of the species homo sapiens, even if it does describe one. Neither a sperm nor egg of a homo sapiens is a member of the family Hominidae and of the genus homo, though they are produced by such a being. The zygote, of course, would be identifiable by virtually any biologist as a living individual example of the species homo sapiens, and would therefore fall under the definition of a human being.

yguy

See the problem?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Notice my use of words--
KILLER as opposed to murderer.

You can be a killer without being a murderer. Example would be if you were attacked, and were forced to kill a man to defend yourself. That is not murder.

Reread the post and not my deliberate distinction between murder and killer.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Which would then make your mother a killer.


And still leave the question about advanced AIs being capable of rational, indpendent thought. What is it when someone destroyes the computer that houses the AI? Something indeed is lost, something that is not different other than the form of the flesh that contains it from a human. Under your definition, this would not be murder. But the AI was not emotionally or mentally different from a human. What is it then?

The point I was trying to demonstrate is what is the defining quality of being human. I do not think it to be member of a similar species--such a line is as arbitrary as any other, and excludes other rational entities from the definition.

Autonemesis

We can also, by the same logic, declare a sperm to be a human, and excute boys who masturbate for murdering their unfertilized gamete. The line between fertilized and non-fertlized is just as arbitrary as the line between viable and not-viable, born and not-born, and one-year-old and one-minute-old.

Welcome to the real world of moral relativism.

Autonemesis

It can also be argued that homo sapiens' proclivity for breeding beyond the capability of its environment to support the population without harm to itself or other species is incredibly destructive, and abortion is part of the remedy for this sad state of affairs.