Abortion Denied

[The Tovian Way]

So are you saying that humans are evolved from something not human? Because a fetus will turn into a human so in that case you are saying this:
Fetus - human
Nonhuman - human
What??? How can a nonhuman turn into a human?

The fetus has certain basic human characteristics, starting with DNA, but it is not a person. For one, it does not have a birth certificate, or any sort of legal document recognizing its existence as one.

I deny that any legal documentation is necessary for one to be classified as a person, and further deny that classification as a person has any bearing on whether or not one may kill a human being.

[Liriena]

1. Bullshit. In some cases, next-of-kins can terminate the life of a relative that cannot make the decision on their own.
2. Therefor, next-of-kins.
3. Read above.
4. Or when the next-of-kins consider "euthanasing" the fetus a merciful act.

Indeed it is legal in some cases.
Hence, I oppose euthanasia absent the consent of the individual to be killed.

Then what are we to do with suffering, terminally-ill newborns? Or comatose patients? Let them and their families suffer through a long torture until they can no longer afford treatment or they die on their own?

[Vindex Nation]

So are you saying that humans are evolved from something not human? Because a fetus will turn into a human so in that case you are saying this:
Fetus - human
Nonhuman - human
What??? How can a nonhuman turn into a human?

The fetus has certain basic human characteristics, starting with DNA, but it is not a person. For one, it does not have a birth certificate, or any sort of legal document recognizing its existence as one.

So are you saying it takes a birth certificate to be human?

[New Libertarian States]

That is the LITERAL BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION.
Your taking a PIECE of that definition, and applying it.
Take the WHOLE definition of it, and it DOES NOT MATCH UP.

The literal biological definition is the only one with which I'm concerned, as this definition proves quite clearly that the fetus is a human being.

YOU USED A PIECE, A PIECE, OF THE DEFINITION.
NOT THE WHOLE DEFINITION.
That's like saying
"I breathe oxygen. So does a lizard. Therefore, Humans are lizards".
Here is another site that use the full definition you left out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Humans (variously Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3] Humans are distinguished from other primates by their bipedal locomotion, and especially by their relatively larger brain with its particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, which enable high levels of abstract reasoning, language, problem solving, and culture through social learning. Humans use tools to a much higher degree than any other animal, and are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.

Now, SHOW ME WHERE A FETUS CAN DO THIS.OR, has the POSSIBILITY TO DO SO.

[The Tovian Way]

Indeed it is legal in some cases.
Hence, I oppose euthanasia absent the consent of the individual to be killed.

Then what are we to do with suffering, terminally-ill newborns? Or comatose patients? Let them and their families suffer through a long torture until they can no longer afford treatment or they die on their own?

You may do any number of things with them. I do not propose to say what must be done, or what ought to be done, in such instances.
I merely claim that there are certain things you may not do to them, namely, take their life without their consent.

[Timothia]

I know it's a lot to ask of the Internet, but I think we could all go for a civilized discussion, don't you?

You've been here for less than two months. If you think this is "uncivilized", NSG isn't the place for you.

I know this isn't the worst it gets, I've read through some of the painful torching that have happened in the past. I just think that this is bad enough for someone to inject some sanity. There's no need to be so emotionally attached to the subject.

[Neutraligon]

Again you cannot use the term infantacide, as the generally accepted definition of an infant is a born creature. Furthermore, infaticide is also by definition illegal, abortion is not, and so it cannot be called infanticide.

I disagree with any definition of "infant" which includes a conditional clause requiring birth to have occurred.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition; it is a descriptive term for a specific act, an act that is frequently illegal in many countries.
If only it were illegal in my own country in every instance.

Then you are using the term infant in a way it is not generally (if ever) used. Again we are using the medical and in this case legal definitions of terms. Infanticide i by definition an illegal act, just like murder is by definition an illegal act. Thus an act that is legal does not fall within the definition of infanticide or murder.

Please show were your definition of infant has ever been used in a medical context.

[Liriena]

Again you cannot use the term infantacide, as the generally accepted definition of an infant is a born creature. Furthermore, infaticide is also by definition illegal, abortion is not, and so it cannot be called infanticide.

I disagree with any definition of "infant" which includes a conditional clause requiring birth to have occurred.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition; it is a descriptive term for a specific act, an act that is frequently illegal in many countries.
If only it were illegal in my own country in every instance.

Your disagreement is cute and all... but it's also worthless. Unless you have actual scientific grounds to change the medical definition of infant to include fetuses (in which case you may want to collect your Nobel Prize ASAP), your refusal to recognize said definition is purely childish whining and, frankly, it's annoying as hell.

[Sun Wukong]

Then what are we to do with suffering, terminally-ill newborns? Or comatose patients? Let them and their families suffer through a long torture until they can no longer afford treatment or they die on their own?

You may do any number of things with them. I do not propose to say what must be done, or what ought to be done, in such instances.
I merely claim that there are certain things you may not do to them, namely, take their life without their consent.

How does a fetus consent?

[Liriena]

The fetus has certain basic human characteristics, starting with DNA, but it is not a person. For one, it does not have a birth certificate, or any sort of legal document recognizing its existence as one.

I deny that any legal documentation is necessary for one to be classified as a person, and further deny that classification as a person has any bearing on whether or not one may kill a human being.

Then I suggest you go live in another universe.

[Enadail]

Actually, you hit the nail on the head: a fetus cannot give consent... because it does not have the legal right to do so, and is given no legal protection. Its perfectly legal in reality.

So are you saying that humans are evolved from something not human? Because a fetus will turn into a human so in that case you are saying this:
Fetus - human
Nonhuman - human
What??? How can a nonhuman turn into a human?

Show me where I said its not human?

[Liriena]

The fetus has certain basic human characteristics, starting with DNA, but it is not a person. For one, it does not have a birth certificate, or any sort of legal document recognizing its existence as one.

So are you saying it takes a birth certificate to be human?

Human? No.
A person in the eyes of the law? Not necessarily. Some people don't get birth certificates when they are born, and that doesn't mean they are not people.

[The Tovian Way]

I disagree with any definition of "infant" which includes a conditional clause requiring birth to have occurred.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition; it is a descriptive term for a specific act, an act that is frequently illegal in many countries.
If only it were illegal in my own country in every instance.

Then you are using the term infant in a way it is not generally (if ever) used. Again we are using the medical and in this case legal definitions of terms. Infanticide i by definition an illegal act, just like murder is by definition an illegal act. Thus an act that is legal does not fall within the definition of infanticide or murder.

How many people use the incorrect definition are irrelevant.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition, it is an act which is also illegal. Killing an infant would still be infanticide even if there were no legal prohibition against killing infants. The term is descriptive, not normative. So too for murder.
Infanticide is indeed legal in certain cases, namely abortion. That's why I continue to oppose abortion and push at every opportunity, for changing the laws until infanticide is illegal in every case, absent the necessity of self defense.

[Liriena]

Then what are we to do with suffering, terminally-ill newborns? Or comatose patients? Let them and their families suffer through a long torture until they can no longer afford treatment or they die on their own?

You may do any number of things with them. I do not propose to say what must be done, or what ought to be done, in such instances.
I merely claim that there are certain things you may not do to them, namely, take their life without their consent.

So, what? What do you propose? Don't sugar-coat your bullshit.

[Enadail]

The fetus has certain basic human characteristics, starting with DNA, but it is not a person. For one, it does not have a birth certificate, or any sort of legal document recognizing its existence as one.

So are you saying it takes a birth certificate to be human?

No, but it takes being born for a human to be legally recognized as a person. It helps if you know the difference between a colloquial person and a legal person.

[Vindex Nation]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

[The Tovian Way]

I deny that any legal documentation is necessary for one to be classified as a person, and further deny that classification as a person has any bearing on whether or not one may kill a human being.

Then I suggest you go live in another universe.

No need, when this universe already contains a nation, of which I am a member, wherein it is possible for me to act to bring about my views through the democratic process.
I need not pursue another universe when it suffices to stay involved in the pro-life movement to further and further restrict access to and legality of abortion, until the entire procedure is illegal in every case absent the necessity of self defense.

[Sun Wukong]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

[Enadail]

How many people use the incorrect definition are irrelevant.

You have yet to show that the definition is in any way incorrect other then "I feel like using it differently".

Infanticide is not illegal by definition, it is an act which is also illegal. Killing an infant would still be infanticide even if there were no legal prohibition against killing infants. The term is descriptive, not normative. So too for murder.

Actually, no, murder is a legal term.

Infanticide is indeed legal in certain cases, namely abortion.

Only in a world where every person gets to make up their own definition for every word they use.

That's why I continue to oppose abortion and push at every opportunity, for changing the laws until infanticide is illegal in every case, absent the necessity of self defense.

See, people who make morality arguments or sanctity of life arguments, those I can understand and respect, even if I completely disagree. Someone who doesn't want to use words like the rest of society does and only uses that as an argument deserves nothing but contempt.

[New Libertarian States]

Pro-Life defendsthe unborn lives a fetus
Pro-Choice defends the rightto kill a lesser human? to not carry a fetus if you don't want to, for economic, emotional, or medical concerns.

Fixed.

[Vindex Nation]

Pro-Life defends a fetus the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the rightto kill a lesser human? to not carry a fetus if you don't want to, for economic, emotional, or medical concerns.

Fixed.

Now aren't you a sick person

[Enadail]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

Or, pro-choice defends the right of a mother to have autonomy over their own bodies.

Strawman much?

[Neutraligon]

Then you are using the term infant in a way it is not generally (if ever) used. Again we are using the medical and in this case legal definitions of terms. Infanticide i by definition an illegal act, just like murder is by definition an illegal act. Thus an act that is legal does not fall within the definition of infanticide or murder.

How many people use the incorrect definition are irrelevant.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition, it is an act which is also illegal. Killing an infant would still be infanticide even if there were no legal prohibition against killing infants. The term is descriptive, not normative. So too for murder.
Infanticide is indeed legal in certain cases, namely abortion. That's why I continue to oppose abortion and push at every opportunity, for changing the laws until infanticide is illegal in every case, absent the necessity of self defense.

No infanticide is illegal because the definition if infanticide includes the fact that it is the illegal killing of an infant, thus by definition it is illegal. The legal killing of an infant (for instance in a car crash where the infant dies) is not infanticide because it is no illegal. The term is not descriptive, especially as we are dealing with a legal definition.

[The Tovian Way]

You may do any number of things with them. I do not propose to say what must be done, or what ought to be done, in such instances.
I merely claim that there are certain things you may not do to them, namely, take their life without their consent.

So, what? What do you propose? Don't sugar-coat your bullshit.

I don't propose any positive action, that is not my place.
All rights are negative, and specify only what may not be done to you. The right to life prevents others from taking yours.
As for positive actions, I defer to the right to self-autonomy. A person may exercise their rights as they will, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

[Enadail]

Fixed.

Now aren't you a sick person

Because they're accurate?