Quote:
|
Parasitical is not a classification but a description and as such it is accurate.
|
In what way!? In what way is it an accurate description? The unborn meet none of the requirements to be considered parasitical. Furthermore, there is no difference between classifying something as parasitical and describing it as such. It's the same thing and carries with it the same legal and scientific connotations.
If I described you as an idiot instead of classifying you as one what difference would it make?
Quote:
|
Describing something in a comparative way does not imply that the compared has to be or can be treated as the compared to.
|
That's exactly what Granny and 1069 are trying to do. She's using the unborn's supposed status as parasitical to rationalize their termination.
Quote:
|
Important thing is accuracy and in that respect the parasitic description is very accurate and appropriate.
|
No, it's not. It's not even remotely close. Here is a comparable analogy to your parasite scenario...
Both the unborn and prokaryotes exhibit the properties of life, therefore, due to their commonality in this regard, the unborn are prokaryotic.
This is the logic you are using. Despite the irrelevance of the unborn's commonality to a parasite you still seek to classify/describe them as such.
Quote:
|
That is patently false. You simply do not know that.
|
stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
The only serious effect I see here is PFD and it is not part of a natural pregnancy as it only occurs in one of every three women.
The other side-effects are mainly aestetic and pose no risk to a woman's overall health.
But more importantly, we're assuming the unborn have the same rights as a person and I don't see any of these effects as being a rationale for their violation.
Quote:
|
Simply because DNA alone does not amount to what society recognizes as a parson, with or with out a political agenda.
|
I never specified what my definition of a person is, nor do I care what society cares to recognize, only what science can establish as factual. Also, this does not adress the agenda-driven nature of Granny's definition.
It makes no sense to say that the definition of a person
requires characteristics a fetus does not have unless said requirement helps your political agenda. My definition of a person does not require characterisitcs a fetus lacks, so what wrong with that? Oh, wait. I remember now. It doesn't mesh with your political agenda.
Quote:
|
Society does not collectively think, it does however recognize what a person is and a fetus is not one.
|
I'm simply repeating what Granny said. Also, it doesn't matter what society is willing to recognize, all that matters is what is factual. Society may choose not to recognize those facts but it doesn't change them.
Quote:
Personhood is a human construct and not in the scope of "exact sciences."
Indeed science has brought a thorough knowledge of what a fetus is, but how is that relevant to the issue?
|
How is personhood outside the realm of science? If one applies science to personhood a question and hypothetical answer are easily distinguishable. Observe...
How does one scientifically define personhood? Simply identify the characterisitcs that all persons share, and that cannot be attributed to organisms not of the human species. Science can accomplish this and as such we can have a scientific definition of a person.
So, what characterisitcs do all person share that no other organisms possess? A: A complete set of human DNA. B: Life. C. Development.
In combination these three characteristics include all persons and exclude all non-human species. I garuntee you if there were no question of abortion you wouldn't blink in accepting this definition, but since you're blinded by your political agenda you lack the ability to think critically and pragmatically.
Quote:
Can you prove the existence of a right to life? If it exists, what legal document is it part of?
R v. W is not a law it is a SCOTUS decision, it rendered some laws unconstitutional.
|
You need to have your head examined.
Quote:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
| Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
| Quote:
The right to life is enshrined in article 3 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, making it a legally enforceable right in every United Nations member state:
“ Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. ”
-Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
| |