If a fetus is part of a woman's body, would it not follow with reason that the woman is part of the fetus's body too? (If said fetus had a brain) Explain to me how that would not be logical.
Any rights of the woman that extend upon the fetus could also be an example of how the fetus's rights extend upon the woman. Your argument works both ways.
Except a fetus has no rights. Explain how a woman can exist without a fetus but a fetus can't exist without a woman.
And I thought that I had explained this so that even an idiot could understand, but clearly I was mistaken. I realize that the adjective form "human," differs from the noun form. Nevertheless, they are intrinsically related. One does not use the adjective "human," except to indicate that it is something "of humanity." Human civilization, means the civilization of humans. How many examples would you like me to cite, to make the connection clearer, for you? Your previous "explanation" that a ZEF is human, the adjective, but not a human being, is a nonsensical statement. The way that the adjective form of human would apply to a fetus, without implying that the fetus is a human, is in the perfectly clear phrase, "a human fetus." In that case, it differentiates the fetus to be of the human variety, as opposed to some other animal's fetus. But this, accepted use of the word, would not require any explanation, and it was not what you were, apparently, arguing. This is what you said: That is a bunch of words, saying nothing: "a human ZEF is human," is as meaningless an argument, as saying that "an orange car is orange, but it's not an orange." Notice that the second usage, of both "orange," and "human," serve absolutely no purpose, in their respective statements. Remove them, and it makes no difference to the meaning: "a human ZEF...is not a human being..." But when I took you at your word, you replied: FoxHastings said: ↑ Until you realize that I did NOT WRITE THE UVVA then further discussion is silly. Until you quit "misreprenting" what I said : You claim I said "with your belief that a ZEF is not human," NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY A HUMAN ZEF WASN'T HUMAN. WHY are you claiming I did???? So are we to take it now, that you are objecting to both my (corrected) translating of your words to mean that you do think a ZEF is human, as well as my original translating of your having said that you don't think it is human? Well, it looks like I brought this argument about hypocrisy to the right thread: you are obviously making a disingenuous argument, if you are denying both positions-- there is no third option. Until you figure out on which side of that fence you wish to sit, you are really in no position to make condescending implications about anyone else's comprehension of English; your own sentences are absurdities. This is only due, one would imagine, to your personal ambiguity, regarding whether a (human) fetus is, or is not, a human being. My own view, again, is that this is a time-sensitive question (i.e., the transformation between categories, occurs during gestation). I must admit, though, that this still allows for @ShadowX to see the charging of homicide to one who kills an early stage ZEF, as hypocrisy. I would argue that this is, again, a special case, because of the ZEF's potential to become a human being, to which the mother is given an exception, prior to the completion of that transition to personhood status (as, e.g., self-defense can be an exception from a criminal charge, for killing someone). Logically, though, I must concede that a different charge should be called for, when someone kills a ZEF, prior to its having become fully human, as opposed to afterward.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Until you realize that I did NOT WRITE THE UVVA then further discussion is silly. Until you quit "misreprenting" what I said : You claim I said "with your belief that a ZEF is not human," NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY A HUMAN ZEF WASN'T HUMAN. WHY are you claiming I did???? A human ZEF(zygote/embryo/fetus) is human ( adjective) it is NOT A human being (noun) as in legal human being, it has NO rights, it is a part of the woman it's in .
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2017/01/man_charged_with_capital_murde_4.html That’s just the first one I came across. There are hundreds out there like that. Again. Either it is murder because the fetus is a living human. Or it’s not murder because the fetus is not a living human. But you CANNOT have it both ways.
The fetus was past the point of viability, it's illegal to either abort or in any way kill a fetus that is beyond 23 weeks ( viability)....it still was NOT a born human being with rights
This hardly seems a rebuttal, as I used both of the quotes that make up your reply, in my own post that, presumably, your repetion of them, is meant to contradict. It does not. You are apparently hiding behind the law-- but I am asking for your personal opinion, not the law. Do you have one? I have, in fact, already made this point, to you: I will remind you, yet again, that the argument which you chose to join, was specifically about whether or not it is hypocritical to charge someone for killing a ZEF, but not to charge the mother. I have explained my position. You have not given yours: citing the UVVA, is not answering whether or not the law is hypocritical. Yes, the law is the law. The question, in case you somehow haven't noticed, is whether or not that law is hypocritical. This can only be answered through one's personal opinion. If you do not have your own opinion on this, other than agreeing with whatever the law says, then the onus would be on you to defend that law, which you have not done, either. In fact, your reply quotes yourself, telling me: FoxHastings said: ↑ Until you realize that I did NOT WRITE THE UVVA then further discussion is silly. So you are clearly not associating your personal view with the UVVA but nevertheless use the law to skirt the question. Again, one must ask why you would think to involve yourself in a discussion of personal opinions about a topic in which you either have no personal view, or refuse to share it.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Until you realize that I did NOT WRITE THE UVVA then further discussion is silly. Until you quit "misreprenting" what I said : You claim I said "with your belief that a ZEF is not human," NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY A HUMAN ZEF WASN'T HUMAN. WHY are you claiming I did???? A human ZEF(zygote/embryo/fetus) is human ( adjective) it is NOT A human being (noun) as in legal human being, it has NO rights, it is a part of the woman it's in. LOL, I'm not hiding behind anything, I stated the law... OH such a good """""weasel around/dodge/change of subject when losing "" You claimed I used words the law used....and I did not...I explained how I did not write the laws so that the laws words were not mine....your insistence that I wrote the law so that I use the same words and support it is ridiculous...
You've reminded me that sometimes when a pregnant woman is brain-dead and carrying a child they won't pull the plug on her right away, but will keep her on life support until the baby is born.
kazenatsu said: ↑ It's interesting that it has separate DNA, isn't it? And a separate beating heart, and a separate circulatory system, and a separate brain... Separate arms and legs, and it is only connected to the woman via an umbilical cord. We've been over this a thousand times, FoxHastings. It's not part of the woman's body just because it is inside her, and it's not part of her body just because it is connected to her. I could easily disprove either of those by giving examples that would require you to come to absurd conclusions. So what else do you have, FoxHastings? What other logical argument do you have that it is "hers"? Yes, they have to keep her on life support why? Because the fetus is attached to her and part of her...
That is all drivel. My prior post, could be reduced to one question, which you haven't answered, through many replies-- though it is the central question of this side- debate: is a ZEF, a human being? Your saying, "not legally," is a non sequitur, and meaningless response. We are talking about our own, individual impressions. Please do not waste space by re-posting your same, old, comments, a third or fourth time: none of them speak to this, most basic, part of the question we are discussing. If you have nothing to say, of your own view on this, then you have nothing to add to this aspect of the debate.
Rights only pertain to individuals and a fetus is not an individual. I am getting really sick of having to repeat this over and over again and I know for a fact that Fox actually has answered your question many times. Why don't you yourself start by telling us what it is that makes a ZEF a human being with rights?
It is not logical because it makes no sense at all. If a cake is inside a cardboard box that does not mean that the cardboard box is also inside the cake, does it? A fetus literally lives inside the woman. Not only that, it also lives of her. It is very ignorant to deny the very basic and perceptually obvious fact of reality that is that a fetus is part of the woman's body.
As far as the abortion debate is concerned, that is utterly and completely uninteresting. Is an unique genetic code, arms and legs and a heartbeat really what generates rights? Why? Furthermore, it is not even entirely true that the DNA you get at conception is all that will make up what will be you, there is an entire field called epigenetics that proves not everything is cooked into the DNA. So, being part of her body does not mean it is part of her body? What? It is her body. This is really not even debatable. I thought that even the most stubborn anti-abortionist knew and recognised this.
You cannot forcefully drag an individual to your property and then accuse them of violating your property and torture them for it. He can do whatever he wants in his basement as long as he is not violating anyone else's rights. I am starting to seriously believe you have no idea what rights are or how they work. The difference is that she did not want it. I know it is hard for you to understand, but women are human beings with rights too. You cannot force them to have sex with you just because you want it. True. It is for example not okay to be rude for the sake of being rude, but there is also a difference between moral and legal. Even if it is not OK to be, it does not mean it is or should be illegal. 100% yes. Having your sexual desires satisfied is not a right.
You obviously have no idea of the debate you are now trying to enter. I brought a specific abortion- related issue here, from a geopolitical thread. Your comment shows that you are not even familiar with this side- argument. I am Pro- Choice, by the way. Actually, the person I was debating from that other thread, ShadowX, says that he is Pro-Choice (or at least not anti-abortion), himself. He only contends that the law is hypocritical, when it comes to ZEF death, when it is accountable to the actions of some assailant. I have already fully laid out my opinion. If you wish to weigh- in, here is the, essentially, OP, for our side- debate, #207, on pg. 9: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...choice-argument.595872/page-9#post-1073342491 The dialog between Fox & myself, constitutes most of the rest of that page; in that conversation, though, Fox does not address the question-- as my post (to which you replied) explained.
@Ritter -- for your convenience: My position, I summarize, in my last paragraph of post #255, on pg. 10. I feel that a fetus starts out, not being a human; at the point of viability, it is a person. The law reflects this, by allowing criminal charges to be filed, over the killing of this "person," by someone assaulting a pregnant woman, for example. I believe this is the case, even before the point of viability, but I see that as an exceptional circumstance, when a person can be charged for killing someone who is not (yet) a person, because of the ZEF's potential to become a person. Nevertheless, the mother is also considered as an exceptional case, if she wishes to end her pregnancy (before viability). My final conclusion was that the penalties for killing a fetus should be more severe, beyond the point of viability, when abortion is also outlawed, than for killing the ZEF, before that point. I would not be surprised, however, if the law, in practice, already does differentiate, at least in some states, between the non- sanctioned killing of an early- term ZEF, versus of one which has surpassed the viability threshold.
So long the woman is carrying it, it is part of her body and dependent on her body and her health for its survival be it viable or not. Furthermore, personhood is only attained at birth because that is when it gains the qualities that make rights possible. I am not an expert on the law and do not know exactly what it says, but I believe that the only reason for such law to exist is to protect the woman, she is the standard of value. You are terminating her pregnancy without her concent and that is the crime that is being committed. Her rights are being viokated. The fetus has no rights. I do not know. However, it should not ever treat a ZEF as a being with rights.
Well that is the entire basis of this side discussion, as I have, a couple of times, explained: in my previous post, to you, and when I first brought the argument to this thread, from a geopolitical thread, which had run way off topic. ShadowX was not claiming that abortion should not be legal, only that the law uses a double- standard, when it comes to charging assailants on pregnant women, who kill their developing fetus, with murder. So the question is, why do people here, who know nothing about this, keep on trying to nonetheless, insert their views? You are, then, FYI, endorsing what would fit with ShadowX's position: namely, that since a fetus is not considered a person, when it is "aborted," therefore it should not be possible to charge anyone for killing it, even someone who did so, while assaulting a pregnant woman; in that case, he would only be charged with assault on the woman. But even Fox Hastings has pointed out that the law calls for heavier punishment, when a fetus is killed in an attack. So, regardless of whether you think the law "should treat a ZEF as a being," it does. That is the starting point, of this, specific side issue, within the larger abortion debate. Therefore, if you wish to contest ShadowX's original posit, you should get some evidence of it. I have accepted as true, that an assaulter, who kills a pregnant woman's ZEF, can & has been charged with crimes like, at least, manslaughter, which have always been defined as ending the life of a human being. If you had not bothered to read the link in my last post, which I told you could be considered this discussion's OP, then I suggest you do that, if you wish to continue participating in this debate. Again, this one question, need not monopolize the thread; there are side- debates, on related aspects of any given thread, by pairs or small numbers of participants, in many if not even most threads. That's what this is. So you were objecting, without even knowing the context of the argument-- that's your bad. What you say, above, is a partial opinion, but not an argument. Following the logic of your assertion, though, are you then, saying, that the law IS using a double- standard, if it charges anyone with an offense, traditionally reserved for incidents of killing of humans, when they have only killed the unborn? Like all your statements, so far, this is not based in the facts. The charge, if in beating up a pregnant woman, someone kills her ZEF, is not, "terminating pregnancy without consent," or, as Fox Hastings had put it, taking away the woman's choice, or "right to choose." So, again, you two are putting forth arguments that appear not to fit within the framework of this debate. Unless shown to be otherwise, we have taken as a given, that people, killing ZEFs, through violence directed at a pregnant woman, can be, and are, charged with crimes, defined as taking away a human life. The primary question is: is this a legal double-standard? Please try to offer comments which fall within the context of this argument. Your argument that the reason for the law is to "protect women," has no basis in fact (unsurprisingly, as you preface it, by professing your ignorance of both this specific law, and law, in general). Just to remind you, without reiterating my arguments (which are readily available, should you be interested), I have taken the "con," position, to ShadowX's "pro." I explain how a woman aborting her pre- viability fetus (through a doctor's intervention) can not be considered killing a person, while someone else's killing it, can be, without meaning that there is a double standard, only that these are two different types of situations which are comparable to the way, throughout our laws, there are precedents for judging similar events, completely differently. There is, however, to be consistent with laws against late- term abortions, a reason to differentiate in the severity of charges, for someone who kills a pre- viable fetus, versus one who kills a fetus which is beyond the stage at which abortion would be allowed.
I never claimed I knew the basis of the law. In fact, I very clearly stated that I do not know. I would not be at all surprised if it was based on silly premises that imply a fetus has rights. Politicians barely understand rights and all politicians and experts have thoughts that are full of contradictions. I only ever said what the purpose of such law ought to be and that is to protect the woman's individual rights.
Your internal organs do not have any rights. However, that does not mean that I can cut you open, take out your liver and sell it to someone else. The reason this is illegal is because it violates your rights. It is not a violation of your liver's rights because it has no rights.
Glad you could get that off your chest. However, it does not address the question we are debating. Your attitude suggests, though, since actual legal practice does not follow your ideal-- that is, the laws against killing fetuses & embryos, are clearly intended to protect the lives of those yet to be people, not just "the woman's individual rights"-- that you would support @ShadowX 's argument, of a legal double- standard. Are you bold enough, though, in your beliefs, to actually come out and say that no one should be charged with any offense that has always been defined as killing a person (such as murder, or homicide, or manslaughter), if they beat a fetus to death? Why the hesitation?
