long winded fool

Aren't newborn infants also less sentient than cats? Can't cats at least observe their environment and choose the best course of action that appears to be availible to get what they desire? I would assume that infanticide would be entirely compatible with granting the right to life based on sentience. Should killing an unwanted infant carry the same moral value as putting an unwanted animal to sleep?

Killing those who disagree with you is also a practical solution to a disagreement. If you can find no other solution to a disagreement, do you then kill your opponent? Since killing a human being just because they make you uncomfortable is always wrong, isn't it necessary to endure the discomfort when no other practical solution presents itself? Is it moral to change your philosophy from "whatever is good for everyone," to "whatever is good only for people I can relate to?" If life=good, then pro-abortion is good for women with unwanted pregnancies and not fetuses. Anti-abortion is necessarily good for both, assuming the woman can survive the birth process. If personal convenience=good and life is irrelevant, then pro-abortion is good for women, bad for fetuses, and anti-abortion is bad for women and good for fetuses. Only if personal convenience is more important than human life, (a self-contradiction if I ever saw one,) can abortion be a controversial issue.

Dr Rick

You would once again be formulating another non sequitur. Infants are sentient.

A marvelously irrelevant analogy: fetuses aren't "opponents" or analagous to them, and no abortion was ever performed because of a "disagreement" with an embryo.

Another false analogy, since abortions aren't performed just for comfort.

Strawman. No one has suggested or implied this.

You really ought to seriously consider taking a course in logic or at least reading an introductory book on the subject. It only takes the most basic understanding of logic to see the nonsensical formulation of your arguments. In lieu of that, there's a nice, easy read on The System of Logics and Words thread that would only take a few minutes to go through.

A false dilemma fallacy if I ever saw one, (and since I began reading your posts, I've seen a lot of fallacies). There are many issues that bear on abortion such as freedom, self-determination, and privacy.

Rick

long winded fool

So are cats.

A marvelously irrelevant analogy: fetuses aren't "opponents" or analagous to them, and no abortion was ever performed because of a "disagreement" with an embryo.

You constantly redefine logic to suit your argument Dr. Rick. Here is a lesson in interpreting comparisons that I don't think you need, but are pretending to anyway:

Killing those who disagree with you = aborting fetuses

a practical solution to a disagreement = practical solution to unwanted pregnancies

The two are analogous. It is as true that killing those who disagree with you is a practical solution to a disagreement as aborting fetuses is a practical solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Both are practical solutions. Why is one wrong and not the other? According to your logic, solely because one is legal and the other is not.

Another false analogy, since abortions aren't performed just for comfort.

See above and apply logic.

Strawman. No one has suggested or implied this.

False. All pro-choice philosophy depends on this. Everyone includes fetuses. Only those I can relate to excludes all human beings I cannot relate to.

A false dilemma fallacy if I ever saw one, (and since I began reading your posts, I've seen a lot of fallacies). There are many issues that bear on abortion such as freedom, self-determination, and privacy.

Rick

The other issues (freedom, self-determination, and privacy) apply to all human beings and not just women do they not? Only if these freedoms are more important than human life (still a self-contradiction, since life is a prerequisite to freedom) can abortion be a controversial issue. The logical dilemma stands.

Dr Rick

If lwf would just take a few minutes to learn about logic and it's modern symbolism, he might realize that his "arguement" is literally translated into language as "Killing those who disagree with you is aborting fetuses" and "a practical solution to a disagreement is a practical solution to unwanted pregnancies."

That probably is not what he intends, but with his grasp of reasoning and logic, who knows? It just might be.

This one really points out how poorly his reasoning in these arguements is constructed.

If we begin with:

P1) All sentient beings have a right to life
P2) Cats are sentient
P3) Infants are sentient

..the logical conclusion is not "Infants don't have a right to life" ; the logical conclusion is that "Cats and infants both have a right to life."

These are not my premises, nor are they the complete premises of many other pro-choicers, some of whom argue that "sentient humans (not cats) have a right to life," but isn't it just breathtaking how lwf took them and came up with something so absurdly irrational as:

Wow!...maybe he really truly believes that ""Killing those who disagree with you is aborting fetuses."

Let's leave this one as a homework assignment for lwf.

Rick

Jinto

Dr. Rick, perhaps you'd best let me defend my own argument.

And a baby's constant crying doesn't get them what they desire? But I digress: the point I think you are trying to make is that the event of birth does not magically raise the sentience of the baby beyond whatever threshold we might use to determine right to life, so why am I then using the event to determine right to life? There are several reasons:

1. Simplicity: birth is a far easier event to recognize than attainment of some level of sentience.

2. Distinction: prior to birth, the mother and the fetus are directly connected, such that the fetus is NOT a separate life-form. As such, a definitional argument can be made that not being a separate life-form, it can not have separate rights.

3. Practicality: Subsequent to birth, it becomes possible to place an infant in the care of another if the original parents are unwilling to take care of it. Prior to birth, this is not feasable.

Actually, it usually isn't, but that's another discussion.

If there really was no other practical solution (say, our disagreement is over whether he has the right to gut me with the dull knife in his hand), then OF COURSE I kill him. It's called self-defense, nutcase.

Uh... what part of abortion constitutes killing a human being? You're killing a bloody fetus, which cannot be considered a "being" by any reasonable definition of the word, especially during the first trimester of the pregnancy which is when most abortions are actually performed.

And now to disprove the other half of your argument: should a slave avoid revolt against their masters in order to avoid the bloodshed and just bear the discomfort of being slaves?

I'll tell you when you complete those sentences. You have a subject, now you need a verb. Unless your sentence is based on the subject being "whatever." In which case, is "whatever" good for you, then? Is there anybody who "whatever" is not good for? And just what is this "whatever" stuff in the first place?

Okay, then I can assume that you would not kill anyone for the personal convenience of being able to choose your government? After all, people have survived under undemocratic, repressive governments before, so you don't need the convenience of being able to influence you leaders and bring them to account. To think that there are people who would kill for that minor convenience. It's utterly horrid.

Oh, and may I remind you that fetuses are not people? That's kind of the whole point here, but you seem to have gotten a little bit off course.

long winded fool

I agree with numbers 1 and 3. However number 2 is untrue. Utter dependence doesn't take away a life form’s species and individuality. The fetus is a separate life form because as a member of the family Hominidae and genus homo, is clearly distinct from its mother, has a separate genetic code, and grows separately. (The mother's death will probably result in the death of the fetus, however two deaths occur, not just one.) Indeed, calling the fetus a "part of the mother" shows an ignorance of modern science.

Because a human being cannot live without another human being doesn't mean that the second human being ought to have the legal ability to kill the first for any reason he or she so chooses. The fetus can be using another human's body without her consent and still ought logically be entitled to the right to life, because there are other situations in which this is the case. Say you donate several of your organs and they wind up in a little girl. Say you begin to have health problems which lead to financial problems because of your missing organs. Can you now forcibly remove them from the girl and take them back? What if your organs were taken against your will? Can you kill the girl who needs them to get them back? Isn't it true that the only thing you can do is punish the party which removed your organs against your will? Even if the girl could survive without your organs, you cannot take them back by force. Her rights are equal to your rights, not because she is a girl, not because she's reached a certain age, not because she's "sentient enough," not because she looks kind of like you... She has equal fundamental rights solely because she is a member of the family Hominidae and genus homo. She has equal human rights because she's a human.

If there really was no other practical solution (say, our disagreement is over whether he has the right to gut me with the dull knife in his hand), then OF COURSE I kill him. It's called self-defense, nutcase.

Careful. You didn't say the most practical solution. The most practical solution to an unwanted pregnancy is to wait nine months and give the baby up for adoption. It is as practical a solution to kill the baby immediately as it is to kill a person you disagree with. It is fast, easy, and no other things considered, practical. It might be more practical, when one considers other things such as morality and laws, to endure the displeasure of the disagreement and communicate with said individual to try to get him or her to change their mind, but it is practical for me, all other things ignored, to just kill anyone I don't like and be done with it.

Uh... what part of abortion constitutes killing a human being? You're killing a bloody fetus, which cannot be considered a "being" by any reasonable definition of the word, especially during the first trimester of the pregnancy which is when most abortions are actually performed.

Is the fetus a human being? What is a human being? A human being is by definition a living or extinct member of the family Hominidae and genus homo. Any material things that fall into this category are human beings. If a fetus falls into this category, it is inarguably a human being. An aborted fetus falls into this category. Therefore abortion is killing a human being. There is no way around this logic. The only pro-choice conclusion is that not all human beings have rights.

Oh, and may I remind you that fetuses are not people? That's kind of the whole point here, but you seem to have gotten a little bit off course.

Fetuses don't need to be people. They merely need to be humans. There was a time when slaves weren't people either. Applying inalienable rights to all animals that are human beings ensures that discriminating against those who are not defined as persons cannot remove their rights. This is why we adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as opposed to "People Rights," or "Caucasian Rights."

And now to disprove the other half of your argument: should a slave avoid revolt against their masters in order to avoid the bloodshed and just bear the discomfort of being slaves?

Okay, then I can assume that you would not kill anyone for the personal convenience of being able to choose your government? After all, people have survived under undemocratic, repressive governments before, so you don't need the convenience of being able to influence you leaders and bring them to account. To think that there are people who would kill for that minor convenience. It's utterly horrid.

I think you are being sarcastic, but I'm not sure. I think you are advocating violent rebellion and defending those who engage in it. So are you saying that if you don't like the people who run the land on which you live, you should (or can) kill them and take the land for yourself? I understand murder in self-defense, but I do not understand conquest, which is what is occurring when one decides that he would rather have a given land run his way than the way it is currently run. Yes, you are correct. I would not kill anyone for the personal convenience of being able to choose my own government. I enjoy this convenience, but it is not required for my survival, therefore it is wrong to kill someone in order for me to retain it. I would kill someone else only to protect myself from being killed and only if that someone else is the one threatening my life. If I don't like the way somebody runs their land, I won't live there. No government can survive if no one lives there. Bloodshed is not needed except in the case of personal defense of one's life. Those who engage in it solely to change the government when their lives are not being threatened are wrong. (At least by the laws of this country which state that disagreement with the law does not excuse killing a human being, which is what we are talking about anyway. This is why, incidentally, that it is wrong to kill doctors who perform abortions, even if one is pro-life. Wanting things to be your way is never an excuse to kill someone else... except apparently in the case of abortion.)

Jinto

While #2 is hardly a nessecary part of my argument, I would nonetheless like to point out that a separate genetic code does not nessecarily provide grounds for considering something a separate life-form. As you mention later, if one of my organs were to be removed and transplanted to someone else, that organ would be considered a part of their body and I would have no right to recover it, in spite of the fact that it has a different genetic code from all their other cells. Further, in order to be considered a seperate member of homo sapiens, it would have to be an entirely seperate organism.

or·gan·ism (n.) 1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life

As you are well aware, a fetuses organs do NOT work to sustain it's life. The lungs are useless, suspended in unbreathable amniotic fluid. The digestive system has nothing to digest, filtration of blood is provided by the mother. The only way to consider a fetus a complete organism is to group it with the mother, otherwise, it is no more an organism than an arm or a leg.

And in your case, the girl is NOT using my body without my consent: even in the case of stolen organs, they are now a part of HER body, and so I fail to see what the point you are trying to make with your analogy is, unless you are defining an organism as a group of cells with the same DNA, in which case, I would refer you to the dictionary definition above.

Speciesist. I suppose that you would grant no rights whatsoever to a nonhuman sentience?

I'd hardly call nine months of pregnancy a practical solution. Unless you have been pregnant before, I would ask you to take the word of young women everywhere on this. It's more practical to simply terminate the fetus. This is not morally objectionable, because the fetus is not a sentient being. Now as to your assertation that killing people I disagree with is a practical solution, please consider the following:

1. People who I disagree with are all sentient (otherwise, they would not have opinions FOR me to disagree with). Therefore, killing them is morally objectionable, if one cares about that sort of thing.

2. There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Odds are that I disagree with most of them on something or other. Where am I going to find enough ammunition to kill six billion people?

3. Killing people because I disagree with them deprives me of potential allies on issues that we agree on.

4. Not to mention that it also makes people unwilling to do business with me, for fear of death.

5. Further, some of the people I disagree with are likely to have friends: if I kill them, I will only increase the number of my enemies.

6. IT IS POSSIBLE TO WALK AWAY FROM SOMEONE I DISAGREE WITH. This requires far less effort than killing them.

7. A person persuaded to my pont of view becomes an ally. A person killed is simply dead.

8. Killing people is likely to discredit my viewpoint in the eyes of others.

9. A high death count will make me a potential threat to all others, thus encouraging them to take group action against me.

10. In the case of political disagreement, I realize that one vote will not make that much of a difference anyway, so I'm really just wasting resources.

11. I can walk away from people I disagree with. This has been said before, but it bears repeating: having people on the planet who I disagree with does me no harm, because if I ever tire of listening to them I DON'T HAVE TO.

Even disregarding morality and law, killing people is NOT a practical solution to a disagreement. It simply does not work: that's why people don't do it.

Uh... no. That is the definition of human. BEING is defined as follows:

be·ing (n.) 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence
2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.
3. a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf).
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

Definition 1 is incompatable with the context. Definition 2 is purely philosophical. While you could be saying "a human that is thought to exist," I doubt that you would resort to such redundancy, and that certainly is not the use of "being" that I was stating. No, it is definition 3 which makes sense, and thus "human being" can be logically construed to mean only one thing: "a person who happens to be a member of the genus homo." The important part being the being - a non-person may be a human, but cannot be a human being, and that is an important distinction. A corpse may be a human, but it is hardly a human being, and that is why it does not make sense to give any rights to a corpse.

Fallacy of equivication: you are swapping the common definition of person for the legal definition. By the way, if it's nessecary to use "human" in order to prevent the loophole of defining someone as a nonperson, then is it your opinion that the fourteenth amendment holds no legal force?

An interesting position, especially given that if it wasn't for those who disagreed with it the country in which you live, where it actually IS possible to influence you government nonviolently, wouldn't even exist. While I know this will make you uncomfortable, it is a fact that the reason why democracy exists today is because there are people willing to fight for it. While I understand your position, I have to disagree with it, simply on the grounds that it leaves you at the mercy of anyone who does not agree with your sense of morality.

long winded fool

The fetus has organelles which work together to carry on the various processes of life. Even zygotes have them. The fetus is an individual form of life, i.e. discernable as an entirely separate (though attached) life form that is entirely dependent upon another for survival. Your definition of organism must include fetal life. Pointing out parts of a thing that do not work to sustain life does not necessarily preclude the thing from being an organism. Lots of organisms have vestigial parts that serve no discernable purpose. I'm sure you'll admit that organs that are not currently working do not automatically preclude something from being an organism, especially if the organs are only temporarily not working.

And in your case, the girl is NOT using my body without my consent: even in the case of stolen organs, they are now a part of HER body, and so I fail to see what the point you are trying to make with your analogy is, unless you are defining an organism as a group of cells with the same DNA, in which case, I would refer you to the dictionary definition above.

The fetus was analogous to the girl, (both being human beings) not your organs. If the fetus is using your body, you have no more right (or equal right) to deny it your organs than you have the right to deny the girl your organs which she's using for survival.

Speciesist. I suppose that you would grant no rights whatsoever to a nonhuman sentience?

I don't grant anyone rights. The law grants human rights to a group of species which fall under the category "human." The law grants no rights to nonhuman sentience, because no nonhuman sentience is known to exist. If a nonhuman species with sentience were discovered, rights might be granted to this species, however since there is no nonhuman sentience, this is a red herring. Non-humans are not relevant to the issue of abortion.

Even disregarding morality and law, killing people is NOT a practical solution to a disagreement. It simply does not work: that's why people don't do it.

It does work. It works very well. The only reason it causes harm to the killer is because we've decided to make a law forbidding it. If it were as legal as abortion, it would be just as practical. If I want food and someone else wants it instead, it is practical to kill him, morality aside. It works.

Uh... no. That is the definition of human. BEING is defined as follows:

be·ing (n.) 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence
2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.
3. a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf).
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

Definition 1 is incompatable with the context. Definition 2 is purely philosophical. While you could be saying "a human that is thought to exist," I doubt that you would resort to such redundancy, and that certainly is not the use of "being" that I was stating. No, it is definition 3 which makes sense, and thus "human being" can be logically construed to mean only one thing: "a person who happens to be a member of the genus homo." The important part being the being - a non-person may be a human, but cannot be a human being, and that is an important distinction. A corpse may be a human, but it is hardly a human being, and that is why it does not make sense to give any rights to a corpse.

False. A corpse is a "human being" if it is a living or extinct member of the family Hominidae and genus homo. The definitions of "being" and "human being" are different, but not incompatible. While the right to life ought to apply to all beings, the fact is that it only applies to all human beings. While a fetus or a slave might not fall under the definition of "being," if and only if "being" is defined as "person," both must fall under the definition of human being.

By the way, you are arguing about persons. "Beings" are not all persons, though all persons are beings. According to the HyperDic online Dictionary:

being: noun A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

That's verbatim. Ironically, the definition is also interchangeable with the word "organism." Therefore, "human being" can be read "human organism." Which, in turn, means a human that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. (Necessarily inlcuding fetuses.)

Fallacy of equivication: you are swapping the common definition of person for the legal definition. By the way, if it's nessecary to use "human" in order to prevent the loophole of defining someone as a nonperson, then is it your opinion that the fourteenth amendment holds no legal force?

Of course not. It holds legal force for all persons. It holds no legal force for any human beings who aren't persons. Since no nonpersons can be directly affected by the 14th Amendment, it is unnecessary to apply it to nonpersons. Almost all laws fall into this category. Applying US citizenship laws to persons in general is enough, since no one argues that nonpersons should be US citizens. Nonpersons can be directly affected by laws legalizing their destruction. Applying the equal and inalienable right to life to persons only and not all humans is not wise, because people do argue that when it comes to the right to life, nonpersons shouldn't be arbitrarily discriminated against. Discrimination against nonperson humans is prevented by the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roe vs. Wade has violated this declaration and made discrimination against human beings legal.

An interesting position, especially given that if it wasn't for those who disagreed with it the country in which you live, where it actually IS possible to influence you government nonviolently, wouldn't even exist. While I know this will make you uncomfortable, it is a fact that the reason why democracy exists today is because there are people willing to fight for it. While I understand your position, I have to disagree with it, simply on the grounds that it leaves you at the mercy of anyone who does not agree with your sense of morality.

Very true. If it weren't for those who think it moral to kill for political power, I might have a king instead of a president. I also might have a tribe of Native Americans as neighbors. Is it bad to be at the mercy of those who do not agree with my morality? What harm can come of this? Certainly no physical harm, since I reserve the right to defend myself or others with force, thus putting us back on equal grounds and making me no longer "at their mercy." I can kill for my personal safety or for the safety of another; I cannot kill for my personal opinion or the opinion of another.

Jinto

I'm not pointing out that some of it's parts are useless, I'm pointing out that all of it's parts are useless or redundant, excepting the heart. It is the mother's organs that work to sustain the fetus's life not the fetus's, so it cannot be considered a seperate organism.

The organs in the girl's body are no longer a part of my body, in the case of a fetus, the organs ARE a part of my body. Now if some little girl comes up to me and starts trying to use my organs to sustain her life while they're still attached, I have every right to cut her off. Of course, that is quite an absurd situation, and therefore not something I reasonably have to worry about. A teenage girl who has been raped on the other hand...

Oh give me a fucking break and stop using plays from dk's book. When asked a question about your own moral system, don't just hand me the "I don't make that decision in real life" bullshit, you answer the fucking question.

It's relevant as far as my own moral code goes: why do we grant humans rights? Because they are sentient. Therefore, if a human is not sentient, are we still justified in granting it rights? Answer: no. To answer otherwise is to declare that nonsentient life-forms ought to be given special privileges because of their DNA sequence.

LWF, please go back and READ my post. I listed 11 reasons INDEPENDENT of the law, why killing people simply is not an effective solution. You have apparently ignored all of them.

No. It is a human, not a human being. There IS a difference.

How is a slave not a person?

Being is PART of human being. That's why the definition of "being" is important to the definition of "human being," human in this case being an adjective for the word "being." Grammar 101.

Aside from the fact that I don't think HyperDic is the best authority on the issue, I would like to point out that your arguemnt logically leads to the "every sperm is sacred" position.

Proof:

1. Your argument defines human being as "a human that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently."

2. A single sperm, if united with an egg, and given a nearly perfect biochemical environment known as a uterus (which is still too complex to replicate artificially), can develop the ability to act independently.

3. Therefore, masturbation is mass murder.

You see why your definitional games are absurd.

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are trying to say here. I think that you are trying to say that rights ought to be given to nonpeople. Then why restrict this to humans? Why not give rights to ALL nonpeople, starting with chimpanzees, since they're also members of the human family.

Oh no, that's not what you said, flyboy. "Killing a human being just because they make you uncomfortable is always wrong, isn't it necessary to endure the discomfort when no other practical solution presents itself?" Now that includes any level of physical harm short of actually killing you, including:

not having food, water, or medical supplies
being exposed to unsanitary and unsafe conditions
having a fucking leech stealing vital nutrients from your blood
endless toil under the yoke of slavery

That is what you said. You said nothing about not killing for your "opinion." In fact, by your own morality, you would be more justified in bombing abortion clinics than you would in fighting against slavery, since at least in the former case you can claim defense of another human life.

long winded fool

Not true. The fetus’s organelles do work to sustain its life from conception. (An organelle is a sub-cellular structure that performs a role within a cell.) The fact that these organelles are dependent on outside nutrients to provide support is irrelevant. All organelles are. The need for outside support could then logically extend to infants and any humans who can't live without the support of other humans.

The organs in the girl's body are no longer a part of my body, in the case of a fetus, the organs ARE a part of my body. Now if some little girl comes up to me and starts trying to use my organs to sustain her life while they're still attached, I have every right to cut her off. Of course, that is quite an absurd situation, and therefore not something I reasonably have to worry about. A teenage girl who has been raped on the other hand...

The fetus's organs are not a part of your body, they are a part of its body. Because its body is inside another body is no reason to blur the line between the two. The fetus is using organs that were a part of your body and are now vital to its continued survival. Just like in the unwilling organ donor example. The difference is only the location of the organs. You have the right to deny the girl the right to use your organs. You do NOT have the right to take away the use of your organs that are already being used and vital to her survival, regardless of where the organs are located. No woman should be forced to get pregnant. All women should be forced to not kill other human beings unless their lives are in danger.

Oh give me a fucking break and stop using plays from dk's book. When asked a question about your own moral system, don't just hand me the "I don't make that decision in real life" bullshit, you answer the fucking question.

But it’s true! I don't have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. The laws of the country are the authority to which I must appeal. To do otherwise presents a personal opinion irrelevant to the issue. If the laws state that all human beings ought to indiscriminately have the right to life, and a law is passed taking the right to life away from some humans, then the law has contradicted itself and become powerless on the issue.

It's relevant as far as my own moral code goes: why do we grant humans rights? Because they are sentient. Therefore, if a human is not sentient, are we still justified in granting it rights? Answer: no. To answer otherwise is to declare that nonsentient life-forms ought to be given special privileges because of their DNA sequence.

We seem to agree that all "persons" ought to have the right to life. If any species contains persons, it is logical to assume that all members of the species are, or given time have the ability to become, persons. Therefore, all members of said species ought to have the right to life, if nothing else, whether they are all persons at any given time or not. "Person" should never be redefined to exclude some members of a species while including others, if equal inalienable rights are good things. Therefore it is logical to apply certain inalienable rights (the primary of which is the right to life) to all members of a species that contains any persons.

Since a fetus is a human being who will become a person if left to natural growth, it ought to have the right to life.

LWF, please go back and READ my post. I listed 11 reasons INDEPENDENT of the law, why killing people simply is not an effective solution. You have apparently ignored all of them.

Those reasons are not independent of the law. (Most of) those reasons are why the law is in effect. They essentially are contained in the law. Many of those reasons can apply to fetuses if you change "disagree" to "find inconvenient."

No. It is a human, not a human being. There IS a difference.

They are listed as synonymous in the dictionary. You are appealing to what many would call "personhood," which is not relevant. Rights apply to the human species only, not only persons. When rights apply to persons only, discrimination runs rampant. A slave is not a person because he or she is the wrong skin color and is by definition property only. Disagree? Well, if the majority doesn't then slaves can legally be killed with no repercussions. A slave is a human being because he or she is a living member of the family Hominidae and species homo. Since "human being" is not a nebulous definition, and since it is scientifically verifiable as opposed to "personhood," membership in a species that is a human being is a far more logical criteria for inalienable rights than "personhood," since whether or not a thing is a human is objective whereas whether or not a thing is a person is subjective. Unless of course your goal is solely to discriminate against certain human beings. That is the fundamental motive behind all pro-choice philosophy, whether one realizes it or not. No one can come to this conclusion without first desiring to discriminate against fetuses for the convenience of the majority. It is rationalizing a selfish desire, however masked it is in pseudo-compassionate appeals to women's rights. Changing human rights to person rights is always solely about discrimination.

Aside from the fact that I don't think HyperDic is the best authority on the issue, I would like to point out that your arguemnt logically leads to the "every sperm is sacred" position.

Proof:

1. Your argument defines human being as "a human that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently."

2. A single sperm, if united with an egg, and given a nearly perfect biochemical environment known as a uterus (which is still too complex to replicate artificially), can develop the ability to act independently.

3. Therefore, masturbation is mass murder.

A sperm is not a human until it combines with the egg and creates an individual member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Neither the sperm nor eggs are individual members of the human species, according to modern biology. The conceptus is. The sperm and the egg both have the ability to develop into a life than can function independently. The inalienable human right to life cannot logically apply unless the thing that can develop the ability to function independently is a human. Neither the sperm nor eggs are examples of individual humans, though they may be identifiable as "of human origin." Rights apply to all humans. Not everything that is of human origin.

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are trying to say here. I think that you are trying to say that rights ought to be given to nonpeople. Then why restrict this to humans? Why not give rights to ALL nonpeople, starting with chimpanzees, since they're also members of the human family.

There are no persons in any species except for human species. In a species which contains persons, (all species of the genus homo) one must assume that all members of said species have the ability to be persons given time and proper care. To use "personhood" to discriminate against inconvenient members of said species is immoral and an example of the "might makes right" mentality. Redefining the right to life to exclude some members of the human species and include others is fascist, authoritarian rule of the powerful majority. It is deciding who gets to live and who must die by examining our selfish personal desires and acting accordingly. Appealing to their sense of xenophobia, or fear/distaste of those different from us, we can try to convince others of our class that we're right in declaring these certain human beings who aren't old enough, young enough, white enough, or smart enough, not fundamentally worthy of living in the world that we control until we specifically decide that they are. This is fascism. To be pro-choice is to be a conservative fascist, whether we choose to see it or not. There is no logical reason to discriminate against fetal humans and not other humans. The same logic can be used to discriminate against any humans we want. The ability to redefine "person," a definition almost all pro-choice already admit is nebulous and subjective to avoid drawing a defining line, to include only those we desire is a detrimental freedom. It is a freedom that hurts society instead of helping it. (It is essentially the freedom to murder with an imaginative qualifier.) One might think this is a necessary freedom on an overcrowded planet, but I disagree 100%.

Oh no, that's not what you said, flyboy. "Killing a human being just because they make you uncomfortable is always wrong, isn't it necessary to endure the discomfort when no other practical solution presents itself?" Now that includes any level of physical harm short of actually killing you, including:

not having food, water, or medical supplies
being exposed to unsanitary and unsafe conditions
having a fucking leech stealing vital nutrients from your blood
endless toil under the yoke of slavery

This is true. It is wrong to kill another human being in all these circumstances. If I were in any of these circumstances, I would not become a killer. As unhappy as I might be, I'd like to think that my sense of morality would prevent me from taking my unhappiness out on others. I would leave these circumstances and go somewhere else the first chance I got. If I were physically prevented from leaving by someone, I'd force my way out. When my life is put in mortal danger, I am then authorized (by my own morality, I mean) to kill those who are putting my life in mortal danger.

You might find this a minor quibble but it is necessary to clarify. Your morality (apparently) allows you seek out and kill those responsible for the terrible conditions. Mine allows me only to leave the conditions or attempt to change the conditions non-violently. When active violence is directed at me or others around me, only then can I return it and only for the motive of protection, not governmental or circumstantial change.

That is what you said. You said nothing about not killing for your "opinion." In fact, by your own morality, you would be more justified in bombing abortion clinics than you would in fighting against slavery, since at least in the former case you can claim defense of another human life.

That's true. Killing an abortion doctor is more justified than killing a slaver. Neither, however, is justified if there is any possibility of saving one life without taking another. A "trade off" is not a good thing. Saving both lives is the only good. If a robber, however, is about to kill my daughter and my only option is to kill him, I will trade his life for my daughter's. This is not a good thing, but it is a justifiable thing. Even if everyone on the planet hates my daughter except for me, aren't I still justified in killing her attempted killer? Even if I am frowned upon or even thrown in jail?