Ah, yes.
Nothing persuades me to someone's point of view like beeing ass raped and infected with AIDS.

Indeed, especially since murder is a legal term.

I would think that calling it a "person" or not is simply a way to apply an arbitrary line and really doesn't relate in any way except that people want to call it a "person" in order to gain an emotive response to the issue.

We can use information on capacity for suffering in order to determine how humane particular actions are. We can also look at this from the perspective of the value of the different lives involved. When the woman is pregnant, can we determine which is more valuable, the woman or the blastocyst/fetus? Most people determine that the woman is more valuable. We can see this when we notice that even some of the most extreme anti-abortion laws allow for abotrion if the woman's health is in danger - even in the latest stages of pregnancy. Hence, the woman's life is legally valued above that of the fetus or blastocyst. This makes logical sense as well, as the woman is much more capeable of suffering than the fetus/blastocyst.

Technically, there's never a point that it isn't human. But then, technically, cancers are human, and even ailing body parts that we amputate ... Something being human is obviously not a good determination of what should be kept or discarded in the species.

Indeed, although the capacity in the fetus is not the same as that of the woman, and the overall value of each is likely to be different. As in, how many are affected if the woman is lost or suffers greatly as compared to if the fetus does?

The difference between all of those examples and a fetus is that the fetus is connected to and biologically dependant on an individual that may not desire to or be able to choose to care for it. Individuals caring for the retarded, old people, or the very sick usually have a choice and are not physically attatched to them.

Indeed, it seems silly, doesn't it? The acorn is still genetically an oak. However, the acorn does not have the same value as the tree. To be honest, I think that's a poor analogy as well, as we use humans and oak trees in very different manners. However, the question of value is still available in the comparison.

It doesn't have to be completely arbitrary. We can use some steps in critical thinking to at least come to some conclusions in regards to the issue in order to address it with some practicality.

It would be wise to include the word "dependant" in there somewhere. There are scenarios that one could come up with in which we could question if the woman should deliver the fetus early due to it being able to live outside the womb even when she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. Indeed, it is a part of medical practises to occasionally do this when a woman's life is in danger. However, it is rarely mentioned because people don't regard it within the context of this issue because the fetus is allowed to live. I do agree with your assessment, but this is really where the hazy area seems to lie, especially since there are cases where the woman's life is in danger and the fetus can't be saved in saving the woman. The majority of late term abortions occur in such situations, or in situations where the fetus is dead or is severely ill and won't be able to survive.

I think this is a poor analogy. Most laws that have intruder laws account for perceived or definate threats. This does not apply to a fetus in a woman's belly.

The adults who care for a newborn are not connected to it, they can pass it around to other adults who can take care of it. Elders who are ill are also not connected to people in a physical manner in order to survive, indeed they can be cared for by multiple people who can make the choice to care for them. The same applies to the grocer ...

When you make a comparison like this, it is a good idea to explain why it applies, otherwise it sounds like a red herring. The reason why it is important to consider flies and rodents is due to what we understand of their neurological development. Flies and Rodents have a greater neurological capacity than blastocysts and most fetuses that are aborted. We readily kill flies and rodents when they are problematic, cause physical problems or are otherwise bothersome, whereas many who are willing to kill flies and rodents for these reasons won't allow for the blastocyst or fetus which has a lower development and survival capacity to be aborted based on similar, or even better reasons.

And why is the difference in genetic code important here? Please explain.

No matter which way you look at it, abortion is, by definition, a form of birth control. It does not matter if the woman is going in for her first or her 15th. Although, it seems to me that a woman who is in for her 15th is really among the last of people whe have any business reproducing. Why should someone be able to limit the rights of an individual simply because you think they've had too many? Nobody should be able to draw such a line, and it is impractical to do so.

Intentions are relevant - even you bothered to mention in this statement "if you're hurting me," so it seems that it matters to even you. A mentally ill person walking into your house who happens to be confused and is obviously not a threat is not someone that you have the right to kill in most states, with good reason.

Most abortions take place for reasons of self-defense in some sense or another. The defense is not the same as what you would take with an intruder in your house, but it is a form of defense in regards to some aspect of their lives, no matter if it is a defense of a financial situation, or defense against a medical condition.

I agree - I have a tendency to be the same way. I think some arguments are poor, and often find myself debating both sides of the issue due to people using poor argumentation or misinformation.

They might, unless you're trying to change the definition of an intruder. Legally speaking, someone can be determined to be an intruder and still not be someone that you can legally kill. Although, considering that people fall on either side of the "if you should kill an intruder" debate, I think that makes this even more of a poor analogy.

Sort-of. You'd both be killing it, and it would be dying from inability to survive a circumstance. But it is no different from a spider killing a fly while the fly is dying from an inability to survive the circumstance. When we see it in that sense, then we can realize it doesn't matter if we're killing it or it is dying due to surviveability. It seems this argument is developed to detract from the concept of one killing another - there's no need for this. We can admit that if we get an abortion, that the fetus or blastocyst is being killed. Also, an abortion is not necesarily an "ejection," we have to use tools to remove the remnants the blastocyst/fetus in most cases - it isn't simply catapulted out of our bodies.

It is neither an intruder or a kidnapped victim, either. I would say they are both inadequate descriptions. a blastocyst/fetus is something that develops based on the actions of the two who had sex, yes, but it isn't necesarily the case that the two could predict if the pregnancy would occur, or that they really "choose" to be pregnant. What they really made a choice about was having sex (most of the time), and then the development of the blastocyst or fetus is a consequence of that. It is a consequence, but it isn't a very consistent consequence or one that can necesarily be pre-determined.

I agree about the birth control, although, I disagree about the comment on abstinence. It isn't that abstinence is unacceptable, it is that even abstinence, due to natural human tendencies, is not 100% effecive, either. In fact, in many studes done on contraception, you find that of those who claim to have used abstinence still have a small percentage of pregnancies. That obviously calls for a wtf? moment, but knowing how people work helps us understand what happened. The reality is, they *were* using abstinence, until they could no longer control themselves, or until they did something that still transferred sperm, even if they weren't actively having intercourse. The other complaint against abstinence is in regards to sex education, and for the sake of not wanting to hijack this particular thread, I'm not going to jump into it except to say, it is simply impractical.

Not always.

Indeed, although opting for an abortion can often be seen as an action in taking responsibility.

I tend to think that it varies from person to person if such is moral or not. Is it really a moral/immoral action in getting an abortion? This can easily venture into a debate on ethics and philosophical ideas on morality. Hence, I try to keep arguments in the realm of what is practical. One person can see an abortion as something that is a moral stance, while others see it as an immoral one ...

I tend to think that the parasite arguments "could" be used in a more practical fashion, but not in the manner that most use them. I think they would be valid if the person used them similar to the way I described the fly and rodent points earlier, then it would be more valid.

Actually, it is always a cluster of cells. I'm a cluster of cells, you're a cluster of cells ... my cats are clusters of cells ... even any flies on the walls, or rodents that someone may encounter. It really has to do with what the cluster of cells is capeable of and does.

Well, it is never really a "shapeless blob." There are particular developmental processes that it goes through that have definate shapes and stages.

Likewise.

That's very sad. I wish that they would all be simply more educated about it. I wouldn't wish harm on them.

Abortion generally has fewer adverse side-effects than a full term pregnancy. We can look directly to studies done on this to support that information. And on studies done on the mental side-effects on abortion, it is often the case that the individual who suffers such side-effects is doing so due to social circumstances, such as them being made to feel guilty due to others.

If you decide you don't want a person you kidnapped in your house anymore, let them go. They probably don't want to be there.

If you decide you don't want a fetus you put in your body anymore, get it out. It's your body and you have absolute exclusive control over it.

Why not? If the fetus is harming it's mother, and the fetus doesn't own it's mother, the fetus is harmful.

"If you're hurting me" and "If you're intentionally hurting me" are two different things. I did not mention intention in that phrase because intention was not relevant.

I don't care if they're mentally ill or not. If someone is walking into my house uninvited and without my permission, I'd at least point a gun at them and tell them to get out. After all, I can't tell why they're there, and it's not possible to ascertain their intentions quickly enough that if they had bad intentions they could not hurt you or your property before you could get away, it's safest for me to assume the worst intentions until I can know their true intentions.

Legal doesn't necessarily mean right nor does illegal necessarily mean wrong. It's just a matter of what the government will throw you in a cage for doing.

Okay, so the analogy might not be the best, but I think the logic of it is understood.

If she doesn't want the fetus there, and she believes she'd be better off without it, then in a sense it's harming her.

I consider legality irrelevant. If abortion is illegal none of this would matter as abortion would be illegal anyways.

Those states are wrong.

Well, this arguement really depends on conditions too specific to be worth going into.

I consider legality irrelevant, I'm arguing ethics.

I agree. The analogy given happened to be the one that jumped to mind at the time.

If the mother owns her body, she has the exclusive absolute irresponsible right to decide what she does with her body...as long as that fetus is a part of her body, she owns it. Because she owns her body, she can decide that any part of it should be removed, including infected tonsils, and fetuses. In order for the fetus to be a person, the fetus must be able to act like a person and subject to all the rules a person is subject to. If the fetus is a person, it is a person that does not respect the ownership of the mother to her own body if the mother wants the fetus gone and the fetus does not comply. "Harm" is a word I used for any detrimental effects, which are not relevant, desiring to not have a fetus and having one, while having a method of removing it, could be such a kind of harm.

I believe we should carry on the discussion of home defense and use of force in another thread, I believe the discussion is hijacking this thread. Would you like to make another thread for this and continue the discussion there?

None come to mind at the moment, I'm afraid. I might just continue arguing without analogies.

I object to the assertion that one human being can own another in modern society. I am not even certain "ownership" is the right term for our own bodies... I would prefer "responsibility" or "stewardship".

I've presented ample information, there's no need for me to make a blind assertion to support my stance. I would much rather support my stance on the basis of things I can varify.

You claimed that people valued their own lives infinately, I gave reasons why this was not the case. There's a clear limit on the value most place on their own lives. Are you trying to redefine "infinity" in order to support your stance?

Social values and neurological deveopments of the fetus ... I've mentioned this before.

Actually, this is still very much in debate in the legal system and politics, people are continuously fighting for more lee-way while others fight for more restrictions, we've hardly reached an agreement.

If the fetus is a person, the fetus has all the obligations that come with being a person, including respecting others' property rights. If it's not a person, then whether it is human or not is completely irrelevant.

Ah...because somebody else actually "owns" it and they just lend it to us to take care of...what's his name? God?

Well if I let you borrow something, I'm giving you absolute control over it, but you're still responsible to me for it. If you let someone borrow it and tell them they don't have to bring it back in decent shape or at all, then you're giving it to them as property.

My idea of person doesn't necessarily mean human nor human necessarily mean person. If aliens came down on earth, I'd say they have all the rights any person has, despite not being human, they would be "people" in my eyes (provided they didn't attack us). I also contend that if someone tries to kill you, they are giving up all their rights to life, liberty, and property, which is why it's just to kill in self-defense. Basically my criteria for personhood are self-awareness and respect for ownership, since that gives you self-ownership, which is where the rights of life, liberty, and property come from.

I agree, which is why I think a fetus isn't a person. It is incapable of understanding or respecting property rights, and so it's in no place to be able to demand any rights, including the right to life, which people have.

Meh. It's the word that jumped to mind. Sorry if it's confusing.