Quote: Originally Posted by
blu
Quote: Originally Posted by
☭proletarian☭
Abortion harms another.
Another organism is not your body.
By definition.
So your position fails by your own criteria.
lol... appealing to fetus is a person etc
Do we really need to stick the definition of person up here for the upteenth time? i guess so.
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century
1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
Let's look at these various definitions one by one and see if fetus meets any of the criteria.
1) Most definately (though this one horribly confused JD)
2)No, but then again a lot born individuals would be ruled out as well as it dependent on a specific context
3)Debateable depending on your relgious beliefs
4) Definately again
5)Again debateable. Does a fetus at some point have a concept of self? Heck, does an infant really have a concept of self?
6)Believe it or not case law indicates that the unborn indeed do have rights.
Legal Status of the Unborn And before you make the lame excuse that JD does and attack the site rather than critically examining what is written, just please read what is written
7)A fetus could again be considered a person under this context.
This should be incontravertible proof that an unborn child indeed is a person. The only two definition that don't pass any muster at all are the religious one and the context of guise. But again both are context sensative and would require elimination of many many more than just the unborn if they were sole definition of personhood. The likes of you and JD believe you have this justification based on fact when it comes to personhood and justifying abortion as a result. But you just plain don't. You need to come up with a different rationale as to why the unborn should not be afforded legal protection against late term abortion for convenience because saying it's okay because they aren't persons simply is untrue.