"Freak, you try to post Webster dictionary-type definitions of "life" and some sort of cookie-cutter analysis of what a child or a human life is, but the concepts we're dealing with here are much more abstract, and there is much more gray area than you would ever care to admit. You want this to be cut & dry, because it's simple and is convenient for your zealotry on the topic, but it just isn't that way."
Words have definitions for a reason Lorax. The reason is so that people can understand what others are trying to communicate. For you to state that the 'fetus' is not a 'human being' goes against the very definitions of the words. While there is certainly gray area when discussing abortions, there is no gray area in determining the genetics. There is not gray area in determining whether it exists. THAT is my point. So if you would quit YOUR knee jerk 'I am going to disagree with anything he says' then perhaps you would realize that it is YOU that is being completely unreasonable on this topic.
"To start with, we're talking about stages of development. Fetus is one; child is another. Would anyone argue that these are not 2 completely different stages of development? Why do you try to equate them?"
A child is the offspring of two adults. If that term bothers you, then I will refer to it as offspring from now on. Does that make you more comfortable?
"Since you brought up the "vegetative state" thing before, it's also appropriate to point out that 'quality of life' considerations are considered in life or death matters, including brain & neural function. No one would unplug a human from life support if it was the equivalent of "murder" or "killing," emotionally charged words which you tend to use in this debate."
I did not bring up vegetative state. You did. You had stated that the fetus wasn't 'fully functional' as a rationale for saying it wasn't a 'human being'. I pointed out that there are many people that are not 'fully functional' and asked if you would thus pretend they too were not human beings. I am referring to all those who are not 'fully functional' whether they be limited physically or mentally. I was not referring specifically to those who are vegetables.
"Now, please, take a moment to breathe before you knee-jerk response to what I wrote above; I am not comparing a fetus to an adult human in a vegetative state. I used that example to illustrate another point. I am fully aware that, if it's development is not interrupted, a fetus will become a human being."
LOL... see this is what I find amusing. You ask me not to compare one stage of development with another, yet that is EXACTLY what you tried to do with your analogy with the acorn. A fetus is a STAGE of a human beings development. As is child. As is teen. As is adult. Just as an acorn can grow into a tree. At no time is the fetus anything other than human. At no time (after conception) is it anything other than alive or in existence. So do take that deep breath yourself and realize how ridiculous you sound when you pretend it is not a human being. Either that or please describe how it 'turns into a human being'. Tell us again about the magic baby fairy that grants it human being status.
"But, in weighing that stage of development against another person's right to their own body, which yes, does entail having the choice to not have to carry a fetus to term w/ all that includes, it's a no brainer to me; the right of the host body clearly outweighs that of the "potential" human being."
Here you are talking about human rights. THIS is where you have a legitimate argument. As I stated, this is where the issue should be debated. Obviously you feel the woman's rights supercede that of the unborn offspring. Or that the offspring should not be entitled to human rights protections. I disagree, but at least can respect your beliefs on this point.
"I've used this example before, but it is appropriate: if it was medically possible to implant a zygote into any body, male or female, without that individual's consent, would you force that person to carry the fetus to term? If you say yes, you are more Draconian & more of a zealot than I thought. "
Rape is the obvious extreme every pro-abortionist goes to. Despite the fact that rape is not the cause of the pregnancy in the vast majority of abortions. But I will answer you anyway. Obviously rape is the only instance where the woman did not have a choice (or a man in your scenario) in the pregnancy. To force her to carry the child is wrong. To support killing the child is wrong (to me). So if both are wrong, which should the law support (in my opinion)???? From a legal perspective, the law cannot force anyone to do either. Thus in the case of rape it has to be legal to get an abortion. From a personal level, I would encourage the woman to carry the child to term. If it were myself in your scenario, I would carry the child. As I personally place the life of the child at a higher value. Would it be tough in a situation where I was implanted without consent... without question.
There shouldn't even be debate on this topic; an undeveloped fetus is not the equivalent of a child, and the woman has the right to decide not to carry that fetus. Roe is actually a great compromise; it recognizes the complexities of all of the issues surrounding this topic much more than you ever will...
