Abortion whats your stance?

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

kizzyr please don't feed the troll

LOL you sound like a sign in the zoo:)

Feeding was not my intention but it did make me think of how intelligent primates are and how very close we are to them. Yet we still will use them to our own ends.
Take this hypothetical scenario: you're walking home one evening and on your way you happen across a burning building. The building is a medical facility. You rush in to see if anyone is left behind and needs your help. You spot a 3 month old baby that has been left behind, an orangutan locked in a cage but is screaming loudly and reaches out to you for help when it sees you, and finally a tray of embryos. You have time to rescue only one of these items, what do you go for? The baby, everyone takes the baby, its something the can see and hear, something they can identify with.
If we go back to the burning building and this time there is no baby just the orangutan and the tray of human embyros. Which do you rescue?
I'd go for the orangutan, its a living breathing entity, the embryos are embryos and as far as I am concerned aren't alive.

Hagar

You have the key to the locked cage with you then? :D

F.A.

eveie wrote: »

if i was raped tomorrow and the doctor said ok eveie were're going to remove your stomach becuase that'l rid you of any pain or hurt you feel, id be reporting him to the gards, an abortion will NOT cure the hurt of being raped, a womens body has already been violated.

Eveie, can you please stop using analogies that simply do not work? :rolleyes: It is getting a bit tiring. HOW is your STOMACH the result of a rape?? Obviously, it isn't. A pregnancy can very well be the result of a rape. So stop comparing apples with oranges.

As for all your stories and experiences - with all due respect, we all have those and they will coveniently support whatever stance we take because - guess what! - that is simply the way they work! Our experience dictates to quite an extent how we see this world, rightly or wrongly. For every horror story you come up with, there is at least one fairy tale story pro choice supporters can tell you. Likewise, all your positive experience with women voting against abortion can easily be matched by tragedy and drama for women who also voted against it. Stories like that may shape what you believe, but they may as well serve what you believe so that you become blind to any stories not fitting in with that belief of yours. Which is why they don't really count for much. Stick to actual scientific and rational arguments to make your case.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

Take this hypothetical scenario: you're walking home one evening and on your way you happen across a burning building. The building is a medical facility. You rush in to see if anyone is left behind and needs your help. You spot a 3 month old baby that has been left behind, an orangutan locked in a cage but is screaming loudly and reaches out to you for help when it sees you, and finally a tray of embryos. You have time to rescue only one of these items, what do you go for?

I'd have tried at least to release the ape before picking up the baby, that said, a panicked orang-utan could be lethal!

If we go back to the burning building and this time there is no baby just the orangutan and the tray of human embyros. Which do you rescue?

I already covered the embyros with you I taught? However, if I knew they were embyros (don't think I'd recognise them) I don't know if I'd risk my life tbh. As I said before, seeing as they aren't in the womb...
If there were magical artificial wombs with fertilised eggs in them, I'd like to think I'd kill myself trying to rescue as many as I can.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

I'd have tried at least to release the ape before picking up the baby, that said, a panicked orang-utan could be lethal!
I already covered the embyros with you I taught? However, if I knew they were embyros (don't think I'd recognise them) I don't know if I'd risk my life tbh. As I said before, seeing as they aren't in the womb...
If there were magical artificial wombs with fertilised eggs in them, I'd like to think I'd kill myself trying to rescue as many as I can.

I wasn't trying to go over old ground with you again. I was trying to get a gut reaction from everyone as to which of the things I listed they'd save when there was only time to save one. To see, to really see, if everyone really believes that life begins with conception. If they do an embryo should be an embryo no matter how it was created.
The debate (as far as I see it) is more about choice rather than the moral and ethical rights and wrongs of abortion. I believe that someone (in this case a woman as she is the one who gets pregnant and gives birth and deals with the consequences of giving birth in a physical sense) has the right to decide what will and won't happen to their body. I see it as their right to choose. I supported the man in the frozen embryo case that was recently through our courts, I felt he had the right not to become a parent again.
I think there are times and situations when abortion is the best option, in fact the most humane option. There are times when I think it is abused and I don't agree with it in that way. But overall I do think each and every woman should have the right to chose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not. Then those that are fundamentally opposed to it do not have to avail of it, can teach their children that they believe abortion to be morally wrong. Those that chose to avail of it can do so in their own country without being shipped off like a criminal to have the procedure in secret.

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

I wasn't trying to go over old ground with you again. I was trying to get a gut reaction from everyone as to which of the things I listed they'd save when there was only time to save one.

If the embryos were capable of life yes, if they had died no, but could you try stick with the main argument without making hypothetical situations here? It's always better to deal with what is real than what is imaginary.

kizzyr wrote: »

But overall I do think each and every woman should have the right to chose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not. Then those that are fundamentally opposed to it do not have to avail of it, can teach their children that they believe abortion to be morally wrong.

If I hadn't heard about Russia and China where abortion is treated like a contraceptive method, on a miniscule scale there may have been some chance I'd agree with you. However I don't agree with a murder that is on the same scale as 7 Holocaust's in one year across the world (50 million). I thought reading about the killings of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsys was bad enough, but contemplate 7 times more.

F.A.

kizzyr wrote: »

I think there are times and situations when abortion is the best option, in fact the most humane option. There are times when I think it is abused and I don't agree with it in that way. But overall I do think each and every woman should have the right to chose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

I couldn't agree more. Some countries like Germany only allow for abortion up to the end of the 12th week once the woman has undergone a councelling session to discuss her situation (unless the abortion is for medical reasons or after a rape). I think that is quite a sensible approach. I am not sure how it works in the UK, but I believe no woman should be left alone in a situation like this, and non-judgemental outside councelling can help prevent tragedies. That is how I regard pro choice: non-judgemental, open to discussion of both options without scaremongering or scapegoating - both of which I find the anti-abortion league in this thread guilty of.

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

No, no, we understand the concept perfectly well.

It's just that we don't selfishly limit the "choice" to the mother.
We also acknowledge the choice of the child to live.

To the anti-abortion lobby, the choice to live outweighs the choice to not suffer the inconvenience of a pregnancy.

Come to think of it, we're about as pro "choice" as could be. But seeing as you, the "abortion is acceptable if it suits you" lobby, reject the childs choice to live, you aren't really pro-choice. It's more like "pro my choice, and death to anyone else".

Not a very liberal attitude really.

still evading the question I see, andyour suggestion that your pro choice is laughable,it doesn't even warrant an argument

eveie

believe it or not i have the capicy to think ethically, that is why im against abortion, it is not ethical to kill a living being!
how is it humane to abort? please explain this? because its not humane on the unborn baby
and of course my life experiences count for something, everyone is shaped by their life experiences, however the unborn child doesnt get to experience anything bar being killed.
how can aborting a child hel with the trauma of being raped? give me a reasonable answer and yes i now the women has to carry the child but the child is half hers, the child did not prepertrate the rape, it is merely a result of it. a women that finds herself in this senario needs councelling and support not another violation of her body.
china and russia have the worst human rights ive ever come across, it emerged this week that women who are carring a disabled child are advised if not forced to have an abortion, in the opening cermony for the par olymics the people doing a chorographed dance in wheel chairs were abled bodied people, the girl singing was not the girl we saw because she wasnt pretty enough. the chinese one child policy is disgracful at every level, in russia for every child that is born 2 children are aborted

eveie

carlybabe zulu has a very valid point
whats pro-choice about only vesting interest in the mother and not even considering the child?

F.A.

eveie wrote: »

how is it humane to abort? please explain this? because its not humane on the unborn baby
and of course my life experiences count for something, everyone is shaped by their life experiences, however the unborn child doesnt get to experience anything bar being killed.

Can you first of all explain what humane is? I have before shown that such terms are ARBITRARY. You believe it is humane to let an embryo develop instead of being aborted, no matter what, yet you refuse to extent the courtesy of humane treatment to other completely innocent creatures that are actually born and very much capable of feeling pain such as animals. That makes no sense and only goes to show that you use the term as it fits YOU. It is therefore arbitrary! You claim we have the right to kill animals and eat them as we are somewhat superior, or different, or whatever suits your hypocritical stance, failing to see that such differentiations can just as easily be used when making a case for pro choice.

how can aborting a child hel with the trauma of being raped? give me a reasonable answer and yes i now the women has to carry the child but the child is half hers, the child did not prepertrate the rape, it is merely a result of it. a women that finds herself in this senario needs councelling and support not another violation of her body.

Has it ever occured to you that a raped woman may actually consider pregnancy as a continued violation of her body? That would make an abortion very much part of the solution! She did not ask to be raped, nor was she prepared to become pregnant and carry the fruit of the violation to her body. Do you further realise that if you take that stance, you give men an excuse to rape women in order to make her have his child?

eveie

the best advice any women can get is from an agency that doesnt profit from abortions! abortion is a highly profitable business.
hoe can every women or doctor be exact as to the date of conception? seeing as most abortions are carried out because the pregnancy wasnt planned?

kizzyr

eveie wrote: »

believe it or not i have the capicy to think ethically, that is why im against abortion, it is not ethical to kill a living being!
how is it humane to abort? please explain this? because its not humane on the unborn baby
and of course my life experiences count for something, everyone is shaped by their life experiences, however the unborn child doesnt get to experience anything bar being killed.
how can aborting a child hel with the trauma of being raped? give me a reasonable answer and yes i now the women has to carry the child but the child is half hers, the child did not prepertrate the rape, it is merely a result of it. a women that finds herself in this senario needs councelling and support not another violation of her body.
china and russia have the worst human rights ive ever come across, it emerged this week that women who are carring a disabled child are advised if not forced to have an abortion, in the opening cermony for the par olymics the people doing a chorographed dance in wheel chairs were abled bodied people, the girl singing was not the girl we saw because she wasnt pretty enough. the chinese one child policy is disgracful at every level, in russia for every child that is born 2 children are aborted

eveie wrote: »

carlybabe zulu has a very valid point
whats pro-choice about only vesting interest in the mother and not even considering the child?

Because it is a foetus not a child.
As for how can it be human to terminate, I think if there are severe foetal abnormalities it is better to terminate than continue with the pregnancy. You will be bringing into the world an person that will suffer greatly every day of their life, they will endure life and I think it is supremely selfish of anyone to insist that they create a life like this.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

If the embryos were capable of life yes, if they had died no, but could you try stick with the main argument without making hypothetical situations here? It's always better to deal with what is real than what is imaginary.
.

The embryos are capable of life, that is why they were created. I created the hypothetical situation to see what the knee jerk reaction would be, to see if people really did prize life at conception in all circumstances.

eveie

ok first off we are taking about humans here about women who have abortion, i dont know of any animal that has abortions.
if a law was brought in tomorrow that said we couldnt kill or concume any meat products becuase they have a right to life and it is inhumane i would abide by the law......but we all know thats nevr going to happen.
so the child doesnt get a chance, the child doesnt have any rights? only the women?
the rape hapens the women becomes pregnant(now remember this only accounts for less than 1% in fact .2% of all abortions) the women has rights yet the unborn doesnt? thats your belief?
and are you using the rape issue as a way of justifing ALL abortions? would like you to answer that one please?

eveie

selfish? the only selfish thing is to deny that child life? if a child was so severly disabled the pregnancy would usually not go to full term and the women would miscarry. so you think my aunt and uncle are selfish? would you say that to them? would you look into my cousin eyes and still feel the same? my cousin has an excellent quality of life, she is loved and cared for. would you say the same to people who have cystic fybrosis?

kizzyr

eveie wrote: »

ok first off we are taking about humans here about women who have abortion, i dont know of any animal that has abortions.
if a law was brought in tomorrow that said we couldnt kill or concume any meat products becuase they have a right to life and it is inhumane i would abide by the law......but we all know thats nevr going to happen.
so the child doesnt get a chance, the child doesnt have any rights? only the women?
the rape hapens the women becomes pregnant(now remember this only accounts for less than 1% in fact .2% of all abortions) the women has rights yet the unborn doesnt? thats your belief?
and are you using the rape issue as a way of justifing ALL abortions? would like you to answer that one please?

I never tried to use rape as a means of justifying all or any abortions. Whether a woman has been raped or not she should be able to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. No woman who has been raped should have to be saddled with the burden of proof in order to obtain a termination.

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

Because it is a foetus not a child.
As for how can it be human to terminate, I think if there are severe foetal abnormalities it is better to terminate than continue with the pregnancy. You will be bringing into the world an person that will suffer greatly every day of their life, they will endure life and I think it is supremely selfish of anyone to insist that they create a life like this.

Again this is merely the product of de legitimizing life until it is in the general public perception that it is not life anymore. Again I would wish that people could just own up to what they actually support.

Many of the children who are aborted, have formed a lot of the features considered with a baby for a start. Secondly, if a zygote is the prior stage in the womb before a baby is born to the outside world, surely that is a developing human lifeform. If the zygote was just there, and just stayed there, and didn't develop into anything it wouldn't be a lifeform at all. However since it is, it is a human lifeform it shouldn't be killed.

F.A.

eveie wrote: »

ok first off we are taking about humans here about women who have abortion, i dont know of any animal that has abortions.
if a law was brought in tomorrow that said we couldnt kill or concume any meat products becuase they have a right to life and it is inhumane i would abide by the law......but we all know thats nevr going to happen.
so the child doesnt get a chance, the child doesnt have any rights? only the women?
the rape hapens the women becomes pregnant(now remember this only accounts for less than 1% in fact .2% of all abortions) the women has rights yet the unborn doesnt? thats your belief?
and are you using the rape issue as a way of justifing ALL abortions? would like you to answer that one please?

I do not consider an embryo to be a child. I believe that since many pregnancies fail during the first trimester, it is well within a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during that time. Arbitrary I hear you cry, but nature terminates many pregnancies that way without us demanding a funeral. How come if the embryo is indeed the same as a child? I simply trust nature in that there is not enough development completed the first 12 weeks to give the embryo any rights.

So during that timeframe, I do not need to "use" rape as a means to justify all abortions. In a way you could say that I would be willing to allow women to use the power of nature during that time.

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. Some countries like Germany only allow for abortion up to the end of the 12th week once the woman has undergone a councelling session to discuss her situation (unless the abortion is for medical reasons or after a rape).

How on earth do they manage that considering Germany's official stance is "illegal but unenforced".

Virgil°

eveie wrote: »

ok first off we are taking about humans here about women who have abortion, i dont know of any animal that has abortions.

Animals having abortions was never ever the issue here. It was brought in, to question the reason why such value is placed on an unborn child.To attempt to prove that the pro life side of things is an emotionally fuelled stance rather than one based on logic.

if a law was brought in tomorrow that said we couldnt kill or concume any meat products becuase they have a right to life and it is inhumane i would abide by the law......but we all know thats nevr going to happen.

However legalised abortions in Ireland isnt beyond the realm of possibility.And using the law as a means to validate pro life isnt a fantastic strategy IMO.
Do you automatically assume that something is right because its the law?

the rape hapens the women becomes pregnant(now remember this only accounts for less than 1% in fact .2% of all abortions) the women has rights yet the unborn doesnt? thats your belief
and are you using the rape issue as a way of justifing ALL abortions? would like you to answer that one please?

Its not meant to justify all abortions. But simply point out yet again that pro life is based upon emotion rather than logic in alot of cases. And in most of the cases ive seen here.I think it was wicknight who made this point earlier. Pro lifers dont like the idea of killing what they see as a child or potential child, but equally they dont like the idea of a woman being forced to carry a child that was forcefully implanted there. And so their position becomes muddled.

I remember having this exact discussion with my family at one stage awhile ago(they're all pro life). And the discussion hit a brick wall the second they mentioned potential human.I realised there wasnt a point in continuing. Because no matter how hard they tried they couldnt force me to value an embryo with the "potential" to become a person. And vise versa.
And that was fine by me i couldnt( nor would i ) force my opinion on them.

F.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

philologos

F.A it's just the map I got from Wikipedia said that it was illegal but unenforced in Germany. There's probably an error on it.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

still evading the question I see

Carlybabe, to suggest I'm dodging questions is pathetic. And a lie.
Let me stress this: I've answered all you questions. If I omitted one, I apologise.
Please point it out and I'll answer it now.

I say AGAIN:

Zulu wrote: »

Answer these questions:
Question 1 (second line)
Question 1 again. Question 2. (How would it limit her "horizons" if she offered it up for adoption?)
Question 3
Question 4 ...and for the record NO evidence was provided, just a like to an embryology page.
Question 4 again
You know, the one's you haven't answered.

I've answered all you questions. If I omitted one, I apologise.

Please point it out and I'll answer it now.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

Because it is a foetus not a child.

...in your opinion.
However, according to the dictionary, a foetus is:
a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

Let me stress, a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

eveie

law is there to protect us, it also protects the unborn child.
everyone is aware that many women have miscarraiges, this is a natural thing NOT a CHOICE, Abortion is a decision women make, no one decides to have a miscarraige

eveie

Zulu i love the way you stress your points, brings a smile to my face

F.A.

Zulu wrote: »

...in your opinion.
However, according to the dictionary, a foetus is:
a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

Let me stress, a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

Young human being maybe, but not a child:

a person between birth and full growth;

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

...in your opinion.
However, according to the dictionary, a foetus is:
a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

Let me stress, a young human being, animal, bird etc in the early stages of development before it is born or hatched.

However it isnt a person. Thats what pro choice would rather put importance upon.

eveie wrote:

law is there to protect us, it also protects the unborn child.

Because the law says its there to protect you , you assume that its right? No questions asked?

Zulu

F.A. wrote: »

Young human being maybe, but not a child:

a person between birth and full growth;

:rolleyes:
Read your link:
Child: 4. a human fetus.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

However it isnt a person. Thats what pro choice would rather put importance upon.

Oh dear.
person:
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

philologos

F.A if it is a human being it is to be afforded the same rights as other human beings.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

Oh dear.
person:
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

I really couldnt care less what the dictionary says the word "person" should mean.
When i say person i meant someone with experiences, emotion,memory etc...... All those things which separate it from a developing clump of cells.Perhaps there isnt a defined word for it.

philologos

Virgil° wrote: »

I really couldnt care less what the dictionary says the word "person" should mean.
When i say person i meant someone with experiences, emotion,memory etc...... All those things which separate it from a developing clump of cells.Perhaps there isnt a defined word for it.

It's rather simple:

developing clump of cells => developing human life form:

Thus human being.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

I really couldnt care less what the dictionary says the word "person" should mean.

Of course you couldn't, however you did raise the point.

I only explained (and provided proof) that a foetus = human = person in the interests of clarity.

When i say person i meant someone with experiences, emotion,memory etc...... All those things which separate it from a developing clump of cells.Perhaps there isnt a defined word for it.

A new born baby has no experiences, emotion, memory etc. would you kill them as well?

Zulu

eveie wrote: »

Zulu i love the way you stress your points, brings a smile to my face

I wish I didn't have to.
But it's all good so long as it brings a smile to someones face

Virgil°

Jakkass wrote: »

It's rather simple:

developing clump of cells => developing human life form:

Thus human being.

Sorry, few things are so black and white. Sperm = 1/2 of an undeveloped "human being".
Would you decree the death of a sperm to be of great importance?

zulu wrote:

Of course you couldn't, however you did raise the point.

I only explained (and provided proof) that a foetus = human = person in the interests of clarity.

Your own clarity perhaps. Not shared by a certain group of people. Probably never will be either. I dont trust the dictionary to tell me the definition of what makes a person a person. It only gives a brief definition of whats its most common uses in the english language mean in their contexts.

A new born baby has no experiences, emotion, memory etc.

Gonna prove that one with a dictionary quote too?

F.A.

God, what a silly discussion! If an embryo is the same as a child, why on earth isn't a child the same as a teenager or an adult?? There are differences in development, and these differences come with a different range of rights. Or are you trying to tell me that children should have the right to buy houses, take out loans, marry, vote, drink, have sex etc.? I dare say you're not. Fact of the matter is that adults make the rules for children, and in many cases children will tell you that they find these rules unfair. Doesn't mean adults get overruled by children. The older a human being gets, the more rights are awarded. An embryo, in my opinion, doesn't have rights.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Gonna prove that one with a dictionary quote too?

No. I just won't kill it to be on the safe side.

F.A. wrote: »

The older a human being gets, the more rights are awarded. An embryo, in my opinion, doesn't have rights.

Similarly, time was the whiter a human being got, the more rights it was awarded.

Thankfully society as a whole acknowledged how preposterous that was.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

No. I just won't kill it to be on the safe side.

Neither would i.
However there is a point previous to it being a new born that i would.
Due in no small part to the fact that it doesnt have a brain to bestow these important qualities upon it.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Neither would i.
However there is a point previous to it being a new born that i would.
Due in no small part to the fact that it doesnt have a brain to bestow these important qualities upon it.

I'm just not comfortable killing people regardless of how developed their brain is.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

I'm just not comfortable killing people regardless of how developed their brain is.

What if the brain was non existant?

F.A.

Zulu wrote: »

Similarly, time was the whiter a human being got, the more rights it was awarded.

Thankfully society as a whole acknowledged how preposterous that was.

So you believe that children are the victims of unfair segregation and should have the very same rights as adults? Fascinating take and easily a good topic for a different thread, but maybe not exactly helpful when dealing with reality. If you get your will, I look forward to six year olds marrying and toasting to their new rights to take out loans to buy all the toys they want and anticipating their next visit to the cinema to watch the newest erotic crime thriller.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

What if the brain was non existant?

I taught it was a given, but let me clarify:
I'm just not comfortable killing people

Zulu

F.A. wrote: »

So you believe that children are the victims of unfair segregation and should have the very same rights as adults? Fascinating take blah, blah, blah

I never said that.
What is it with some of the abortion supporters on this thread, that you misquote posters, and make up false positions?

If your own argument is so weak that you feel the need to do this - perhaps you should consider why.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

I taught it was a given, but let me clarify:
I'm just not comfortable killing people

I got that bit.
But you thought what was a given? Ive not caught you here.
Were a person without a brain, would you deem it "murder" of a "human being"?
You do know that foetuses arent conceived with a brain yeah?

F.A.

Err, Zulu, to my remark that humans are awarded more rights the older they get (which is reality), you replied:

Similarly, time was the whiter a human being got, the more rights it was awarded.

Thankfully society as a whole acknowledged how preposterous that was.

This obviously suggests you find reality quite as preposterous as racial segretation. I therefore openely wondered if you would like to change that reality and what it would look like. So, in order to not misquote, do you acknowledge that the older a human being is, the more rights it has? AND do you believe this to be justified?

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

I got that bit.
But you thought what was a given? Ive not caught you here.

I'm not sure I can be any clearer tbh.

I'm not comfortable killing a person.
I also established that a foetus = human = person.
So, I'm not comfortable killing a human.
And, I'm not comfortable killing a foetus.

Were a person without a brain, would you deem it "murder" of a "human being"?

Would I consider murdering a person without a brain, murder? Is that what you are asking me?
If so, yes, I'd see it as murder.

You do know that foetuses arent conceived with a brain yeah?

I do know that people aren't conceived without a brain - yes.
Without arms and legs, and much else too boot.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not sure I can be any clearer tbh.

I'm not comfortable killing a person.
I also established that a foetus = human = person.
So, I'm not comfortable killing a human.
And, I'm not comfortable killing a foetus.

Yeah i got that bit. But i dont consider it a person nor do pro choice. So theres not much point in continuing down that line is there?

Would I consider murdering a person without a brain, murder? Is that what you are asking me?
If so, yes, I'd see it as murder.

That is in fact what i was asking. I dont see it as murder. To me the brain and the consciousness formed by it is what makes a person a person. And one without a brain isnt capable of consciousness. Ergo i dont see it as murdering a person.
Similarly with a foetus. Once(and i dont know when this point is) the brain begins its formation,i would become uneasy of terminating said foetus.

Heres another one....Do you consider this "murder" of a human without a brain to be immoral?

I do know that people aren't conceived without a brain - yes.
Without arms and legs, and much else too boot.

A touch irrelevant mayhap.

Zulu

F.A. wrote: »

This obviously suggests you find reality quite as preposterous as racial segretation.

No it doesn't. I made an observation, that segregation can be preposterous.
You assumed the rest.
What I was hinting at is that basic rights (should) exist regardless of race, creed, or development status. Basic rights like the right to life.

in order to not misquote, do you acknowledge that the older a human being is, the more rights it has?

Law awards adults the ability to decide for themselves. Society acknowledges that children require care for their well being and attempts to protect them from themselves and negligent parents by enforcing age restrictions on certain thing. Cigarettes, drink, adult content material etc..

However, some rights supersede these restrictions.
The right to life.
The right to an education.
The right to worship without interference, to name a few.

AND do you believe this to be justified?

So, do I believe that the state is justified to enforce laws that protect children: absolutely, so long as these restrictions don't impede the childs basic human rights.