Quote:
A fetus is given sustenance if a woman chooses to give it, if a woman chooses not to give it, the fetus takes it anyway until it is removed.
For the nth time, I am not attempting to "classify" the unborn as parasites. They are parasitical, that is LIKE a parasite in some ways, that is not a scientifical classification. Parasitical is an adjective, that is a descriptive word.
|
You cannot have it both ways. The abortion debate has legal and scientific implications. If your classification of the unborn as parasitical is not scientific then it has no legal or physiological relevance. What you're doing is akin to saying that society can legally treat a man like a bear because he is big and hairy.
Quote:
|
It's all very easy to say the damage to someone else's body is "easily mitigated and of little consequence."
|
It's easy to say this because it's true. Most of those effects are only permanant if a woman chooses not to adress them. They are easily mitigated and of little consequence to one's overall health.
Quote:
|
A woman, usually a young woman, has to live with the damage for the rest of her life, often having corrective surgery which risks her life again, and even so, surgery never makes it the same again. Those are prices some women are willing to pay, but if a woman isn't willing, she shouldn't ever be forced.
|
Remember that we are speaking to the hypothetical situation that the unborn have a right to life, and none of these consequences are a legitimate reason to violate that right.
Quote:
|
Even if they are not currently exhibiting those qualities, they possess them.
|
They possess them? How so? In order to possess intelligence or self awareness one must be capable of exercising them. Coma patients only have the potential to exercise them, and according to you there is no such thing as a potential person.
Quote:
|
You can deny your moral responsibility or any other responsibility all you like, it remains your responsibility.
|
Says who? How does one quantify a moral responsibility? How do coma patients have a moral responsibility?
Quote:
|
It's simple: Personhood requires certain characteristics that are missing in the fetus.
|
This makes absolutely no sense at all. Why does personhood
require characterisitcs that are missing in the fetus, besides the obvious implications it has on your political agenda?
All those characterisitcs you gave me were completely circular. They made no sense. It doesn't suprise me that you're having trouble defending a viewpoint you couldn't articulate without the help of some pro-choice network. Do you have a personal definition of a person or do you simply allow the pro-choice movement to dictate that for you?
Quote:
|
While the whole of society may not agree on exactly WHAT characteristics are necessary to qualify for personhood, it is clear to a majority of the populace that the fetus is lacking in sufficient characteristics to qualify for personhood. Since it is an opinion, you are free to treat any fetus residing within you as a person if you wish. I wouldn't try getting a social security number or any number of other things. Others are free to disregard the idea of personhood for the fetus.
|
Once again, it doesn't matter what society
thinks a fetus is if science can determine what it
actually is. Personhood is not outside the scope of scientific application, therefore we have a moral obligation to analyse that viewpoint.
Quote:
|
No law "fails" because a zef is not a person. But classification of a zef as a person is immaterial anyway, the vital point, the only point is WHERE the fetus resides and whether it has a right to stay there. You cannot give a fetus the right to stay where it is not wanted without seriously infringing upon a woman's rights.
|
How many times are we going to have this conversation before you realize you are wrong? You have failed to prove that another right can supercede the right to life, therefore your entire point is irrelevant. The only instance where this is even partially true is Roe v Wade, and as I am currently contesting the validity of that law its implications have no bearing on our discussion.
Quote:
|
I'm not referring to RvW.
|
Then what are you refering to?
Lastly, you did not answer my question...
So, you agree, that pro-choicers, unless they confer the status of personhood upon some primates, are not being consistent in their interpretation and application of the law?
There's that selectiveness again...