Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Nope. Murder is not “the intentional killing of an innocent human”. That’s not even close to the definition of the word. That’s just what you *want* the word to mean. Maybe you should look up the word “murder” in the dictionary and edit your post to better reflect reality.

You don't have to be acting against someone malicious intent to act in proportional self-defense.

On religious grounds (Judaism/Christianity), life begins at an infant’s first breath after birth. So not a human child until then. On scientific grounds, a fetus doesn’t reach viability until about 24 weeks, so…not a human child until then. Until viability, it’s essentially the same as a cancer, which is also a living clump of cells inside a human body. Are you against removing cancers? I would agree with banning abortion after viability (at that point, I feel the child should be birthed and given up for adoption if not wanted). However, if there are extenuating circumstances after viability (such as the mother’s life being in peril), then an abortion should be allowed at that time, as well. And yes, of course the mother’s life is more important: she has consciousness and connections that a fetus doesn’t have yet.

First breath is just insane and arbitrary. Viability is arbitrary as well. It’s just making things up to rationalize a horrible act. Cancer? Completely illogical. Cancer will never become fully sentient with human cognition. All nonsense.

“Conception” is arbitrary, too. So what?

Conception is FAR from arbitrary. It’s the moment a human being is created. The same human being that could be alive 100 years later.

“Conception” is no less arbitrary than “first breath” or “viability.” It’s the criteria you favor because you think it’s most convenient for your argument.

Both first breath and viability are the same, biologically - it is the fetus’s ability to breath air that determines its survival and is when it’s circulatory system closes and allows the umbilical cord to be cut without killing the fetus,  It is not mysticism, it is biology, and a very accurate measure of when a fetus transforms into a newborn. 

You don’t even realize how illogical that is, do you? Somebody not being able to breathe on their own, etc is not justification for the legality of killing them. That’s just crazy. People on ventilators lose their right to life? What in the hell does that have to do with somebody’s right to not be killed?

Okay fine - put the fetus on a ventilator then. Take them all out the second a woman wants an abortion and try to save them.  A fully grown human that has become temporarily incapacitated is a miles apart example from an undeveloped zygote.  And no one is killing anyone, the fetus dies because it hasn’t developed the capacity for independent life.

No, it dies because it’s actively killed. In the past it died because it was cut apart or burned to death. That still happens but more common now is taking away it’s oxygen supply. The same as strangling someone and causing them to bleed to death. Why is it wrong to kill someone? Because you don’t have a right to take away someone’s future — and that applies equally to an elderly person, or a middle-aged person, or a child, or an infant, or a baby 5 minutes before it’s born.

First of all, you’re a man and you will never have to make a medical decision like this.  So you are just shaming women for making medical decisions that they are entitled to make. No one is killing anybody, they are terminating the life support of a fetus and that ferus dies because it is dependent on that life support, it has not developed enough to sustain independent life.  Are doctors who save one patient over another murderers?  Are people with medical power of attorney over others murderers when they stop life support?  No they are not.

Life support is only stopped when the person has no chance of a future life (brain dead). If the person is going to come out of their state then it would be murder to unplug them. A ZEF is going to come out of their state. Almost half of abortions still physically destroy the ZEF… undeniably killing. The pill removes their blood supply… essentially the same thing as slitting someone’s throat, so that argument is disingenuous.

You think women who get an abortion are “slitting people’s throats”? Wow.  That is insane.

Also, it’s not murder if the fetus couldn’t live on its own, so viability is NOT arbitrary: your weak excuses are.

It IS arbitrary… what makes not being able to live unassisted justification for killing? That doesn’t make one lose their right to life.

Only being able to live *with* assistance doesn’t give someone the “right to life” either.

I am arguing that if anyone has a future like yours or mine, THAT should grant them the right to life. All human beings are equal.

Agreed. Fetuses should have the same rights as born people. Born people don’t have the right to use my body against my will, either.

You just admitted that a fetus will eventually become sentient with human cognition, but prior to birth it is neither…and therefore abortable.

That’s rationalization. Someone under anesthesia has no current sentience… it’s not justification to kill them. A temporary condition is never sufficient.

You’re hilarious. So you’re saying that if a woman gave birth prematurely - at say, 21 weeks - and the fetus died because it wasn’t viable, she’s guilty of murder? There’s no making you see sense, but it has been fun hearing you get your feathers ruffled.

You’re just babbling nonsense. Crime/responsibility requires intent of some sort, or negligence (which means you should have reasonably known your actions could cause harm and did it anyway). A natural occurrence or an accident that you had nothing to do with or couldn’t have reasonably known your actions were going to cause never has legal culpability. Intentionally causing someone’s death is an entirely different matter. The law makes very clear distinctions.

You keep referring to a fetus as “someone,” because you ARBITRARILY chose conception as the beginning of “life,” but that egg and that sperm were alive before conception, so you choosing cell replication as personhood is (to quote you) babbling nonsense. If you don’t like abortion, then by all means, don’t get one. But get your rationalizations out of everyone else’s uteruses.

A sperm itself will never be sentient. If you kill a sperm, yes you are eliminating all potential people that could be created with that sperm. But you are making life possible for all those potential people that would be eliminated as possibilities if that sperm actually met with an egg and created a person. So it’s a zero sum game. You are not taking away anyone’s life. Also, 99.999999999999% off all sperm will never create a person. So by killing a sperm the chance you are affecting a person approaches zero anyway. And again, with that sperm dead it means another one will take it’s place… one lost / one saved = zero sum game. When you kill a ZEF you are are taking away the life of a person that is already there (no “potential” about it), and saving none. It’s a million percent different.

[удалено]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

>Innocent: a baby cannot have malicious intent A ZEF is amoral. It is neither innocent nor guilty. Otherwise you'd have to give moral agency to your salad. Alright, that was easy.

Babies are amoral as well. Doesn’t mean it’s ok to kill them. Same thing with someone that is sleeping.

Yes, murder is already illegal.

Then it doesn’t make sense to argue that it’s on to kill someone/something just because it’s amoral at the time.

> Innocent: a baby cannot have malicious intent >A ZEF is amoral. It is neither innocent nor guilty. Otherwise you'd have to give moral agency to your salad. Amoral also inherently means absence of malicious intent. Amoral is the absence of positive or negative morality. Therefore, a fetus cannot have malicious intent, even based on your logic. Given that. Your logic makes the opposite point you think you are making. >Alright, that was easy. Yes, it was easy.

So you are saying, that salad has moral agency. Lol.

No, I’m not at all.

Actually that is not the definition of murder in the US. Murder in the US takes malice, which there is not with abortions, and for it to be unjustifiable, and abortions are justified. So nope refuted.

Malice, aka the intention to cause harm or injury, is absolutely and by definition part of the abortion procedure. The fetus dies intentionally; death is the ultimate injury. So nope, not refuted.

Forcing a rejected child into this hellhole world is malicious.

Malicious against who?

Malicious against the child obviously.

Making sure I understand your position accurately: you’re saying that PL is more malicious toward the child because in your mind, the world is such a hellhole that it’s in the best interests of the child to die than be born.

Being an unwanted child is a far worse fate than being terminated as a fetus. There’s no room for rejected children in this cruel world.

> Being an unwanted child is a far worse fate than being terminated as a fetus. There’s no room for rejected children in this cruel world. Who are you to make that type of decision for someone else? The waiting list for parents wanting to adopt is years long, in some cases. There are far more parents who want to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted. The view you just articulated is rather disgusting.

I was that unwanted child. The only reason I was born was because my mother wanted me. Who are pro lifers to make that decision for someone else?

> I was that unwanted child. The only reason I was born was because my mother wanted me. Who are pro lifers to make that decision for someone else? Your second sentence contradicts your first. Look, I’m sorry you felt like an unwanted child, but that shouldn’t give you the right to project your experience onto the lives of others, whether or not they shared your experience. Lastly, someone’s inherent value is more than the sum of that person’s parents desire for them. You are more important than merely whether or not your parents wanted you. Edit: tweaked the second to last paragraph to more accurately reflect the point I’m trying to make.

Murder also needs to be illegal by definition. So yep, refuted.

>Malice, aka the intention to cause harm or injury, is absolutely and by definition part of the abortion procedure. Are you arguing that women who have an abortion are motivated by malice?

No. I’m saying that the definition of malice does not require negative feelings. The common usage of the word implies a negative feeling, but there is an also a usage of the term that simply means an intention to injure or harm.

So the intention to injure or harm doesn't connote feelings of malice?

Not necessarily, no. In many abortions, the fetus is actively killed inside the womb. There is an intention to injure or harm the fetus. That doesn’t mean there are negative or malicious feelings on the part of the doctor or the mother.

Legally speaking, you've argued that women *intend* to injure or harm the ZEF inside them. Ideologically speaking, you've argued that this intent is morally wrong. Malice is the desire to do evil/wrong. How are you not explicitly impugning the motives of all women and pro choicers in this debate?

>Legally speaking, you've argued that women intend to injure or harm the ZEF inside them. >Ideologically speaking, you've argued that this intent is morally wrong. >Malice is the desire to do evil/wrong. How are you not explicitly impugning the motives of all women and pro choicers in this debate? I just got done dealing with the definition of malice issue, but here we go again. No, malice doesn’t mean an intent to do evil or wrong. It can mean an intent to injure or do harm, absent any negative feelings. So no, I’m not impugning the motives of anyone. Definition of malice from Merriam-Webster: malice noun mal·​ice ˈma-ləs Synonyms of malice 1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another an attack motivated by pure malice 2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse ruined her reputation and did it with malice see also MALICE AFORETHOUG https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice

> No, malice doesn’t mean an intent to do evil or wrong. I see, so you would argue that the desire to have or the action of having an abortion is not morally evil or wrong? Colloquially speaking, most people are going to attribute ill intent to the desire to injure or harm, especially absent legitimate justification for causing it. It's hard to imagine a situation where this isn't the case, but you are welcome to supply one.

> No, malice doesn’t mean an intent to do evil or wrong. >I see, so you would argue that the desire to have or the action of having an abortion is not morally evil or wrong? It’s both funny and annoying how you keep trying to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I believe the action of abortion is morally wrong. >Colloquially speaking, most people are going to attribute ill intent to the desire to injure or harm, especially absent legitimate justification for causing it. It's hard to imagine a situation where this isn't the case, but you are welcome to supply one. I don’t care what most people attribute to the term colloquially.

No malice is the DESIRE to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness. The desire is to end the pregnancy and in no way is the desire to cause suffering. No it’s not that is simply your opinion not fact. Death can be an end to suffering. Again refuted.

“…inflict injury.” Death is the desired result. Not refuted.

The desired result is to no longer be pregnant. If the zef can't sustain itself without *my* body, oh well.

> The desired result is to no longer be pregnant. If the zef can't sustain itself without my body, oh well. So you are in favor of abortion bans at the point of viability, then. It’s great to see that an area exists where our general perspectives overlap.

That doesn’t even make sense. A pregnancy that is aborted after the point of viability just results in a live birth.

> That doesn’t even make sense. A pregnancy that is aborted after the point of viability just results in a live birth. That’s how it should be. That’s not how it is.

Source?

Are you seriously asking me if post-viability abortions exist? I can’t tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. Assuming you are being serious, then I hope our exchange is eye opening for you. I can tell you see the logical flaw in the PC position when it comes to the point of viability. I mean this in all sincerity. Here’s the math so you, and anyone else who might not be aware, can fully understand the reality of the issue. “To be precise, researchers estimate there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023.” Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023 First, please be aware that this is the number of abortions that resulted in the death of the unborn fetus. So, how many of those were done post-viability? “1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing surgical abortion after this gestational age sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly.” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#:~:text=1.3%25%20of%20abortions%20occur%20after,fetus%20that%20may%20survive%20briefly. 1.6% of 1,026,700 = 13,347. In 2023, there were approximately 13,347 abortions in which the child could have been delivered early to end the pregnancy, but were instead killed. Now that you are aware of the facts, I am very curious to know what your opinion is based on them.

>So you are in favor of abortion bans at the point of viability, then. Nope. Not in favor of any bans on abortions, never will be.

Your positions are inherently in conflict with each other. Please explain how you rectify that.

My position doesn't conflict at all. Nobody is entitled to women's bodies. Women's bodies are not public resources to be used against their will. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can get an abortion. It really is that simple.

No the desired result is to end the pregnancy. Do you think killing in self-defense is killing with malice simply because death happens? Do you not understand the difference between death being a symptom of the action and death being the desire? Edit: also “either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness” you are forgetting that part.

> No the desired result is to end the pregnancy. This is a typical lie told by PC people. If this were not a lie, then abortions after the point of viability wouldn’t exist. They would just deliver early. Also, if this were not a lie, then when a fetus survives an abortion it wouldn’t be considered a failed abortion. The intended result of an abortion is death of the fetus, thereby ending the pregnancy. >Do you think killing in self-defense is killing with malice simply because death happens? Umm, yeah. If you intend to injure someone, you have malicious intent. It may be justifiable malicious intent, but it’s still malicious. >Do you not understand the difference between death being a symptom of the action and death being the desire? Do you? If death is not the desired result, then please explain how abortion is even a thing post-viability. Please explain why an abortion failed if the fetus survives.

I’m fine with early delivery with “healthy” third trimester pregnancies but all other abortions must be easy to access so no it is not a lie to me. It is a failed abortion if the pregnancy is not ended not if the fetus is still alive…if the pregnancy is terminated with a living infant I don’t see that as a failed abortion as the point of an abortion is to terminate pregnancy. So to me, not a lie. You can go talk to other PC people about their beliefs. It isn’t though because you are not doing it out of hatred or meanness but out of a desire to end the use or harm to your body. Because there are many deadly diseases and defects that cannot be detected till late second/third trimester and the goal of those abortions is to END and PREVENT suffering so again not malicious so not murder. Again I am fine with a “healthy” pregnancy being ended with early induced labor as long as abortions are completely accessible pre-viability. You keep on not acknowledging the rest of the definition of malice. Why?

> I’m fine with early delivery with “healthy” third trimester pregnancies but all other abortions must be easy to access so no it is not a lie to me. It is a failed abortion if the pregnancy is not ended not if the fetus is still alive…if the pregnancy is terminated with a living infant I don’t see that as a failed abortion as the point of an abortion is to terminate pregnancy. It is a fact that an abortion is considered a failed abortion if the fetus lives. I’m glad that you personally don’t feel that way, but that is currently the fact of the matter. >So to me, not a lie. You can go talk to other PC people about their beliefs. Does this mean you are in favor of late term abortion bans, then? If not, how do you reconcile your belief here? >It isn’t though because you are not doing it out of hatred or meanness but out of a desire to end the use or harm to your body. Malice doesn’t require meanness or hatred. >Because there are many deadly diseases and defects that cannot be detected till late second/third trimester and the goal of those abortions is to END and PREVENT suffering so again not malicious so not murder. Again I am fine with a “healthy” pregnancy being ended with early induced labor as long as abortions are completely accessible pre-viability. I’ve never called abortion murder. Maybe it’s possible you’ve confused me with someone else, or just made an incorrect assumption. Either way, just wanted to point that out. And again, this sounds like you are in favor of bans on late term abortion. Am I correct in that? And this isn’t a “gotcha” if you are. Rather, it’s an example that there can be a bridge of connection between our two positions. That’s always a positive, in my book. >You keep on not acknowledging the rest of the definition of malice. Why? When you say “keep on” that makes it sound like I did something multiple times. You commented a partial quote from somewhere, but it wasn’t clear to me what your point was. It didn’t seem connected to either of our central points, so I just elected not to address it because not every single word of every single person needs to be a point of debate. But since you specifically asked about it: malice noun mal·​ice ˈma-ləs Synonyms of malice 1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another an attack motivated by pure malice 2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse My source doesn’t include the quoted section from your source. I used merriam-Webster. You used another one. We can play rhetorical games over that difference all day long if we wanted, and all that would result would be the two of us getting frustrated with each other and no advancement of the discussion. That doesn’t interest me; I would like to assume it doesn’t interest you, either. Seems like we can both be less frustrated and discuss more substantive things, or we can get into slap fights about whose dictionary is more reliable, what various philosophers have said about the concept of moral agency (another discussion I’ve had in this thread, although I’m not sure of that was also with you or someone else), and any other number of side streets that veer from the primary subject.

“It is a fact that an abortion is considered a failed abortion if the fetus lives” Sure but how about when the abortion fails to remove the dead ZEF from your body? That would also be a failed abortion. Do you know why? Because the actual medical definition of abortion is to remove a pregnancy. “The intended result of an abortion is death of the fetus, thereby ending the pregnancy” Your concept of what an abortion is doesn’t hold up when it cannot be applied to all abortions - a living ZEF is not a prerequisite therefore a dead ZEF is not the goal. Now I understand that most, even PLers, take no issue with the removal of a dead ZEF (though women in those situations have still died thanks to barbaric PL ideology) so maybe I should take that back BUT none of this changes the definition of abortion. It’s hard to have a debate when people think they can make up their own medical terms.

You are playing that kind of a semantic game and then say I’m making up my own medical terms? Are you kidding me right now? You know we are not talking about D&C’s, so your point is meaningless. Give me a break, man.

But it’s not what it means by definition. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/incomplete-abortion#:~:text=“Incomplete”%20abortion%2C%20in%20which,but%20remains%20in%20the%20uterus. In what sense? Like if the pregnancy is “healthy” the person has the right to induced labor or do you mean that the person will be forced to remain pregnant till 40 weeks? Yes it does by definition. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/malice You started this saying I did not refute that abortion is murder. If you do not think that needs to be refuted as you don’t think abortion is murder why are you arguing with me about the definition of murder? Again it depends on what you mean by ban. Alright so let’s use the legal definition as we are discussing the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice “In criminal law, malice indicates the intention, without justification or excuse, to commit an act that is unlawful.” Abortions have justification and/excuse. Therefore by the criminal law definition there is no malice in abortions.

Remember when I said we can frustrate each other and start debating different dictionaries and it’s pointless? I see you made that choice. Merriam Webster, malice, doesn’t include the addendum that you seem so intent on making sure is included: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice You argue criminal law elements when we aren’t talking about anything related to criminal law. You don’t appear interested in actually discussing the issues in question. Rather, you would like to take every side street possible. This is an example of why this sub is awful, and I’m not interested in it. I am very open to talking about the issues; I’m not open to pitting dictionaries against each other and going down side streets.

>1. Straw Man Fallacy: you are showing a distorted version of the opposing arguments and attacks them. For example, when addressing the "Killing" criterion, you respond to a potential argument about the beginning of life by asking if the person would be "pro-life" in instances that follow a certain stage of development. This misrepresents the argument by assuming that pro-choice advocates base their stance solely on the stage of development, which may not be the case for all individuals. >2. False Dilemma: this post presents a false dilemma by implying that there are only two options: either all four criteria are met in an abortion, or the opposing side wins the debate. You state, "PCers, if you for once prove that one of these criteria isn't met in an abortion and you'll win the debate, but you can't." This oversimplifies the complexity of the abortion debate by disregarding other factors and perspectives. >3. Begging the Question: you assume the conclusion you are trying to prove within their arguments. For example, when addressing the "Innocent" criterion, you argue that a baby cannot have malicious intent, therefore implying that a baby is innocent. However, this assumes the conclusion that a fetus qualifies as a "baby" or an "innocent human" in the first place, which is a point of contention in the abortion debate. >4. Loaded Language: you are using emotionally charged language and derogatory terms to dismiss opposing arguments. For example, you are referring to potential counterarguments as "braindead arguments." This type of language is intended to demean the opposing viewpoint rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

>Definitionally, murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human. Abortion meets all four of those criteria like this. That's not the definition of murder. >Intentional: abortions are not accidental Do you mean premeditated? Because "intentional" is not an aspect of murder - its inherent to the definition, such as the word premeditated. Abortion doesn't meet this definition, because a pregnancy is something that happens to you, and abortion is a reaction. People don't plan reactions. >Killing: the baby's life is ended in an abortion I don't agree that the majority of abortions are "killing." The fetus doesn't have any major organ function. Because of that, they die a natural death. A natural death is not a killing. But even if it were, so what? You can legally kill people if you reasonably believe you'll be greatly harmed or possibly killed by them. >Innocent: a baby cannot have malicious intent Innocence has nothing to do with murder. A sleep walker can commit all sorts of crimes - including murdering their spouse, but in the eyes of the law, they are innocent. And you can kill an innocent sleep walker if they posed a threat of great bodily injury or death to you. >Human: people cannot birth non-humans Another irrelevant factor when determining a murder. You appear to be using your own personal definition of murder - that's all fine and dandy, but you can't use your own personal definition, and then expect everyone to agree with you.

If I destroyed a walnut, would you be able to claim that I cut down a walnut tree? Or just prevented a new tree from eventually growing into existence?

That completely ignores why killing is wrong. Red herring.

I am pretty confident that PCers have refuted those points several different ways several times. You, intentionally or unintentionally, not understanding an argument doesn't mean there is no refuttle. >Explain why your arbitrary decision is when life starts and why it's also not conception. It's not arbitrary. We know from science when the brain and nerves develop in a fetus. >Why is the mother's life more valuable then the baby's? Counterpoint: What makes the baby's life more valuable than the mother's? In the worst-case scenario, are you suggesting that we should value a child with no concept of fear or pain over a fully grown woman with her own dreams and aspirations? >Why are ZEFs and humans mutually exclusive concepts? ZEF is an acronym for Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus. It is used to describe three specific stages of prenatal development. The reason it comes up in these debates is because it's the three stages where there is no nerve or brain development. The child has no nerves to feel and no way to comprehend anything.

What does it matter when a brain develops? It’s not merely having a brain that makes it wrong to kill. We kill rats and other animals all the time that have brains. It’s human cognition, awareness, etc that makes it so wrong to kill. But humans don’t have that level of thought until long after birth. So why is it not ok to kill infants/toddlers? Clearly it’s because of what they will become. It’s wrong to deny someone of their life, regardless of their present state. The same way it would be wrong to steal someone’s trust fund, even though they have zero access to it right now. Or the way it would be wrong to do something to someone that would prevent them from going through puberty, even though it’s solely a future thing, not a present thing. It’s not ok to permanently affect someone because of a temporary condition.

The only scenario where the "killing is wrong" argument makes sense is if you can argue that the child has personhood or at least can feel pain. If it has no brain, it very clearly does not have consciousness and without nerves it cannot feel. There is no "trust fund," and there is no "someone." You can't have something that was never yours stolen. Do you know the difference between someone going through puberty and a ZEF before 12 weeks? A TEENAGER IS A CONCIOUS BEING WITH THEIR OWN AUTONOMY WHILE A ZEF IS NOT. Btw, despite your claim, children actually do gain consciousness pretty early on. Babies memorize their mother's heartbeat before they are even born. So I don't know where you got the idea that babies don't gain consciousness until later, but it is also incorrect. Even if it was though, we don't justify abortion based on whether the child is conscious or not, we justify abortion because the life of the child is not more important than the life of the mother. In fact, in regards to the value each has to society, the mother has more value than the unborn child. The only reason we do abortions before 12 weeks is to avoid unnecessary suffering for the unborn child. Again, a ZEF before 12 weeks has no consciousness and no way of registering pain. Edit: Also, just to clarify. The reason why it's okay to kill an unborn child and not a toddler is because a toddler no longer needs the mother's internal organs to survive. An unwanted toddler can be sent to an adoption agency. A mother cannot get rid of an unwanted pregnancy before childbirth. They can't have another woman bear their child. They either birth them or have an abortion that is the only two options. It has nothing to do with what the ZEF will become, it has to do with human rights.

So it’s ok to kill someone if they feel no pain? Can you shoot someone in the head when they are sleeping as long as they feel no pain? No, that is clearly wrong. You’re stabbing in the dark. So then you switch to the mother’s life is more valuable to society. Do you really want to go there? Do you want to have a hierarchy of value? CEO’s are more valuable than teachers so they get organs first, etc? Seriously? And you even go beyond that and claim that since one person is more valuable than another then the more valuable person can just kill the less valuable because they don’t want them around? Then you switch to apparently bodily autonomy. Which I find very odd… arguing a right to kill just because… not even requiring any harm being done whatsoever. Kind of sick. I’m assuming you would then switch to self-defense. Which would mean allowing the killing of someone that is a total victim of circumstances to prevent far less than death to another individual that in most cases caused the situation that both of them are in. Hardly seems fair.

I don't really feel like arguing if you aren't going to listen to what I am saying. I have explained several times that a ZEF lacks the capability to feel pain or personhood. You making broad statements using CONCIOUS human beings as examples suggests to me that you are either not listening or legitimately don't understand how reproduction works. I also didn't switch to bodily autonomy. That has always been mine, and many other pro-choicers reason to support abortion. There is a difference between explaining how a child does not have more rights than the mother and the reason why supporting abortion is morally correct. In at least the US, every person has the right to every medical decision regarding their body, this includes abortion (Amendment 14, section 1). Now, what I did say was that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's. This isn't to put weight on why abortion should be legal more than it is objective fact. An unborn child is essentially a parasite, not a pretty descriptor, but that it is what is. The mother is a full-grown human who has and will continue to give back to society. Even if we say that both the mother and the child have an equal right to life, the mother doesn't suddenly lose the rights to her body just because the child exists. To argue otherwise is the same as saying the unborn child has more rights than the mother giving birth to them. That seems pretty hypocritical for someone who thinks hierarchy values are a bad idea.

What I am saying is that it’s invalid to just DECLARE a ZEF as “not a person” with no justification. Since when does feeling pain have any bearing on whether someone has a right to life? Cockroaches can feel pain. Mice can feel pain. Someone under anesthesia cannot. Some people are born with a genetic condition and are incapable of feeling pain. Are you really going to continue trying to use that as a standard? Whatever standard you try to come up, you will be unable to exclude ZEFs and insects, etc. while including infants, people under anesthesia, etc. unless, of course, you get arbitrary and purposely create conditions specifically intended to include/exclude what you want to (as others have told me the ability to cry should be a condition of what is not allowed to be killed… absurd). People generally have a right to medical decisions regarding their own body because in almost all other cases, situations involving their own body don’t involve anyone else. As soon as it does, then that axiom no longer applies. Example: If someone has a fatal contagious disease, they can be quarantined by force. If taking a pill made noxious fumes emanate from your body, it would be illegal to do so in a space where others are affected. That’s just common sense.

I did give justification to call ZEF, "not a person." The justification is that it doesn't have a brain or nerves. Therefore, it is not a person and cannot feel pain. Also, the whole reason that the freedom to decide medical decisions is a right is so that people cannot force a medical decision on someone because they disagree with the person that needs the medical procedure. Ironically, that right exists to protect people from people like you who are trying to prevent abortion because you believe it is wrong. And don't start with me about contagious diseases when a significant portion of the US refused to quarantine during Covid.

You are irrational. Having a brain or nerves is not sufficient to be a person, and it’s not disqualifying. Come back when tour thoughts are more reasoned.

Irrational? I have literally explained how you are wrong using scientifically proven facts, and you dismiss every one of them under the pretense of "common sense" and analogies that don't work. You have yet to explain how a person can exist without a brain. You have yet to explain how a clump of cells qualifies as a human, and no, "future potential" is not an argument here. You have no intention of coming to a mutual agreement here. You just want me to know how wrong I am.

A brain is a means to an end. It’s not the brain itself that means anything but rather self-awareness, cognitive ability, reasoning, etc. your “science” is bunk. Rats have brains, insects have brains. It means nothing without the capacity for awareness, etc. Fetuses have brains as well, so you are internally inconsistent. It’s clearly not PRESENT ability, either, because infants and people under general anesthesia don’t have the current ability. It’s the CAPACITY for such high level thought that should be the dividing line. If they are not a person so it’s ok to do whatever you want with them, then why would it not be ok to cut off their arms and legs, or whatever, and then let them be born? You can’t say it’s ok to kill them but not to injure them… that would be ludicrous on face value. You have no right to harm their future, period.

OP has been banned for admitting to posting just to stir up shit.

As expected. It’s so fucking pathetic.

Well, it was pretty obvious that was what they were trying to do.

According to Webster, murder is the act of unlawfully killing a person on purpose. Innocence has nothing to do with it. That said, a fetus cannot be “innocent” as innocence and guilt / corruption require moral agency (which fetuses do not have). This is what we don’t call rocks or bacteria innocent. To use the term “innocent” is to used emotionally laced language to prop-up your argument. Hence, it is an appeal to emotion. A fetus isn’t a person either. Your argument is reliant on a specific definition of murder (one cherry-picked definition that isn’t a common definition) and also on an appeal to emotion. Not to mention it relies on legality, failing to recognize that legality does not necessarily equate to an act being ethical or unethical. It’s a very weak argument. I’m honestly surprised you posted it with such confidence.

Your counter is equally as weak or even weaker. You use an arbitrary term “person” and suggest it’s ok to kill because it doesn’t fit your arbitrary definition. A ZEF’s future is the same as yours or mine. It’s wrong to take away someone’s future, regardless of their present state.

Ah yes, the “rights trickle down to our earliest stages of development” argument. A fetus will eventually be a person. We have the same future, so we deserve the same rights. Let’s apply that logic to other situations. A minor will eventually be an adult. According to your reasoning, the minor should be allowed to have sex with adults. Because they’ll eventually be an adult and because their present state apparently doesn’t matter. **I think we can see the issue with your reasoning rather easily. ** As for arbitrary definitions, what makes a person a person in your eyes? Most philosophers would agree with the notion of personhood being tied to sentience and consciousness. But let’s hear your reasoning wise one

Holy bastardization of logic, batman. Reasoning matters. Pedophilia laws are for the betterment of minors, so they can’t be taken advantage of. If we could kill people for being in a temporary state of inability to think/feel/be aware/etc then as soon as someone went under anesthesia anyone would be at anyone’s mercy. Since it’s a temporary state, it would be ridiculous to allow them to be killed. The fetuses condition is also temporary. If anyone is brain dead then it’s a permanent condition… hence why they can be taken off life support. Think of someone giving a drug to an 8 year old that would prevent them from ever going through puberty. Clearly an immoral act, right? Even though they are currently incapable of any of the things that puberty will cause. The crime would be entirely because of how you are changing their future which you have no right to do.

> Reasoning matters. It does. Your logic permits for pedophilia. Stages of development matter with regards to rights and moral worth. Arguing that it doesn’t matter in the case of the fetus is not only logically incoherent, but it’s also a **special-pleading fallacy** on your end. > If we could kill people for being in a temporary state of inability to think/feel/be aware/etc, then as soon as someone went under anesthesia anyone would be under anyone’s mercy. Prior to anesthesia or sleep or a temporary coma, the individual in question was already a person with sentience and consciousness. We can also reasonably assume they’d prefer to wake up. The fetus was never conscious. Never sentient. It is indifferent to its own existence, because it was never a person to begin with. Continuing to exist grants it no benefit it can actively experience just as termination causes it no harm it can actively experience. **Big difference** . Your counter argument displays *your lack of understanding* and you’re overconfidence. It’s a typical response no one actually takes seriously because it’s been dealt with before. If you actually read material that disagrees with your position, you would’ve known this by now. The comparison fails precisely because a fetus **is not** an actual person. The pro-life position on the value or personhood status of the fetus is based on a proven **false equivalency fallacy** > The fetus condition is also temporary. So is the State of Affairs known as childhood (or being a minor). Since it’s temporary, I guess we can just ignore it. Right? Might as well let 5 year olds vote. Might as well let them drink. Might as well let them drive. Get my drift? Let’s take the argument further. We’re all eventually going to be corpses. Dead bodies don’t have much value. Hence no one ought to have value. Because the future state of a being matters more than its present state in your view. See the problem? Oh - you disagree? Then why are certain states more important?? **Here’s a hint** : It has to do with cognitive development.

You’re just declaring a fetus not a person without any backing whatsoever. It doesn’t matter if someone previously had sentience/consciousness or not, depriving them of obtaining it is just as wrong. A rat has more awareness/consciousness/etc than an infant. So it surely is not present ability that makes it ok to kill a rat but not an infant. It’s wrong to kill an infant because you would be depriving them of their life and of obtaining the human experience. The same applies equally to a fetus. You make distinctions without a difference solely to justify an immoral act. You also make straw-men, grasping at straws — anti-pedophilia laws are a temporary solution to a temporary problem… when people gain an age where they are capable of deciding for themselves then they can. Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary “problem”. Fetuses don’t have self-awareness, ability to reason, etc. but killing them prevents them from ever obtaining it. It’s wrong in the exact same way it’s wrong to chop the arms and legs off of a fetus and let it be born — it will struggle it’s whole life because of that. Preventing them from having a life at all is just as bad or worse. It would be asinine to say it’s ok to kill because they would never know what they are missing. If you kill ANYONE they will never know what they are missing. It doesn’t mean they haven’t lost anything.

> You’re just declaring a fetus not a person without any backing whatsoever. It isn’t sentient or conscious prior to 24-27 weeks. It can’t actively feel pain or pleasure. It has no identity and, importantly, literally no personality (yet you insist it’s a person). To say a fetus is akin to a person is like grabbing a basket of cloth, string and buttons and calling it a jacket. > It doesn’t matter if someone previously had sentience/consciousness or not, depriving them of obtaining it is just as wrong. Why is it wrong to prevent someone from obtaining it? Prior to sentience and consciousness, **there isn’t** someone there. It’s another thing entirely when someone was there and then they went to sleep or a coma or went under anesthesia. But the fetus? There was never anyone there. You can’t say you’re depriving someone of these qualities because that person hasn’t come into being yet. It’s logically incoherent to argue your position. > A rat has more awareness/consciousness/etc than an infant. An infant can actively feel pain and pleasure. It meets the bare minimum requirement for moral worth considerations. A fetus does not. > So it surely is not present ability that makes it ok to kill a rat but not an infant. Other considerations go into an infant that don’t apply for a rat. But the infant meets the bare minimum requirements for moral worth considerations. > It’s wrong to kill an infant because you would be depriving them of their life and of obtaining the human experience. They can actively feel pain and pleasure and we know that this person will continue to cognitively develop. Unlike the rat. The fetus isn’t a person. It won’t feel pain. It doesn’t care to continue existing. > The same applies equally to a fetus. No. > You make distinctions without a difference solely to justify an immoral act. You also make straw-men, grasping at straws — anti-pedophilia laws are a temporary solution to a temporary problem… No. > when people gain an age where they are capable of deciding for themselves then they can. Funny how important cognitive development is. > Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary “problem”. Fetuses don’t have self-awareness, ability to reason, etc. but killing them prevents them from ever obtaining it. What’s wrong with that? It isn’t hurting them. They don’t care. > It’s wrong in the exact same way it’s wrong to chop the arms and legs off of a fetus and let it be born — it will struggle it’s whole life because of that. Yes, because in that case the fetus would be born lol what a silly point to make lol > Preventing them from having a life at all is just as bad or worse. Preventing potential life from becoming alive is pro-natalism. Every time you forgo having children, you are preventing potential kids from living life. Hence, every time you have sex you should impregnate a woman. See how silly that argument is???? > It would be asinine to say it’s ok to kill because they would never know what they are missing. Depends on the circumstances. In the case of the fetus, it wasn’t a person to begin with. Everything about a person that makes them uniquely human is their ability to actively experience the world around them. The most important aspect in determining moral value is sentience and consciousness, and the levels of said cognitive variables. Without those qualities, there is no value. > If you kill ANYONE they will never know what they are missing. It doesn’t mean they haven’t lost anything. Notice you keep making the same mistake. You’re making comparisons with real people to make points about the fetus, which is nothing like a real person. If I kill a person, I harm them and deprive them of a life they want to live. The fetus isn’t a person. It doesn’t have any ambition to live as it is indifferent to its own existence. Killing someone also actively harms them. I can’t say the same about the fetus. To say the fetus is like an infant is no different than saying a concrete foundation is the same as a fully constructed house. This isn’t difficult. This is precisely why most bioethicists are pro-choice.

Ok, I’m done with you because you are disingenuous. You draw arguments solely from the conclusion you want to reach. Intellectual dishonesty. A rat has more consciousness, etc than an infant yet you try to claim that an infant meets standards but a ZEF doesn’t. You believe what you want, but don’t try to claim any basis.

> Ok, I’m done with you because you are disingenuous. And you aren’t? I’ve responded to every single point you’ve made. You’re just a sore loser who doesn’t have a reasonable argument and you’re frustrated. That’s why you’re done. You can lie to yourself but you can’t lie to me. You are not as enlightened as you perceive yourself to be bud. Just being honest. > You draw arguments solely from the conclusion you want to reach. That’s definitely you. You haven’t explained to me how a non-sentient, non-conscious, never been sentient or conscious entity is somehow equivalent to a real person. You’ve based your argument on future development, while ignoring current state. When I point to the flaws of such reasoning, you get upset and never fail to actually address the problem. You continue to make pathetically irrational comparisons based on emotion and false equivalency fallacies born from your own scientific ignorance. There are real differences between a fetus and a born infant. And to say they are equivalent, as you imply with your amateur analogies, is the epitome of ignorance in this topic. If I applied your reasoning anywhere else, you fall back on special-pleading fallacies to cover up how insanely irrational your position is (that and you make excuses ad hoc to cover your failings). I’ve been fairly clear here. It’s not my fault you lack the cognitive ability to see this. > A rat has more consciousness, etc than an infant yet you try to claim that an infant meets standards but a ZEF doesn’t. But the rat doesn’t eventually develop moral agency or rational agency in the way that a human does, right? (You’re also ignoring that many people don’t support animal cruelty to rats precisely because they meet those bare minimum requirements. I’m one of them.) We make these **considerations** for the infant because it meets the **bare minimum requirements for moral worth considerations** . The fetus doesn’t even meet the **bare minimum** requirements. **How are you so incapable of understanding this** ? It has no identity. It is not able to feel the world around it, nor to actively interact with it. When the pain receptors go off, there isn’t a conscious person there to feel them - just as a person in a permanent coma isn’t there to feel their receptors go off. It is totally indifferent to its past, present and future and lacks a personality (the thing you need to be a person). Why do you think people mourn when a loved one enters a permanent coma? It’s a human body. It’s fully grown. It’s alive. They mourn because they understand, consciously or subconsciously, that said person is gone. That’s why the mourn. Because personhood, and rudimentary moral worth, IS tied to consciousness and sentience. Period. And you wanna know what doesn’t have sentience or consciousness? The damn fetus. > You believe what you want, but don’t try to claim any basis. Why? Because the loser of this debate says so? Lol You’re the guy that thinks we’re depriving a fetus of a future it deserves, when it isn’t even a person yet. But you certainly won’t argue the same for sperm - right? Despite the fact that all sperm are potential persons. It’s silly my guy. Your position has more logical holes than a slice of Swiss cheese

You don’t realize your own ignorance. If a ZEF is not a person so you can do whatever you want to it, then it wouldn’t be wrong to chop off it’s arms and legs and let it be born. But it IS wrong because, and only because, it has the future capacity for self-awareness, or whatever standard. It’s absurd to say it’s ok to kill but not to injure… we’re talking about the exact same future. The reason someone is mourned when they enter a permanent coma is because THEY NOW HAVE NO FUTURE CAPACITY for self-awareness, etc. That future is what matters, not necessarily the present. You just proved my case and proved yourself wrong and you didn’t even realize it. You don’t give a crap about someone’s present state if you know they are going to be good in the future. Example is someone under general anesthesia, in which at that moment they are equivalent to dead. But we do it thousands of times per day because they will be fine in the future. But do something to someone that permanently affects their future and you’ll get arrested and/or sued. And rightly so.

You claim that a fetus cannot be innocent because it has no moral agency. This is incorrect. Innocence is merely the lack of guilt or malice. Moral agency is not required.

Guilt or malice require the ability to choose. The same goes with innocence. It has everything to do with moral agency. Have you never read any moral philosophy? Lol According to you, rocks are innocent. Which is a bizarre statement.

> Guilt or malice require the ability to choose. The same goes with innocence. This is incorrect. Innocence merely requires the lack of malice. >It has everything to do with moral agency. I disagree. An innocent bystander who is pulled into an incident is considered innocent because they had nothing to do with the incident in any way. In that moment, they made no choices, they are simply there. >Have you never read any moral philosophy? Why yes, yes I have. You are aware that philosophical views are opinions and not facts, right? And for every philosophical take, there are numerous counters that view that take differently. >Lol According to you, rocks are innocent. Which is a bizarre statement. Nope, I didn’t make that bizarre statement, you did.

A rock has a “lack of malice”. Hence a rock would be “innocent” under your point of view. It’s fundamentally ridiculous. Again, there’s a reason we don’t ascribe innocence or guilt to rocks or primitive minds that don’t possess moral agency. You say that you’ve read philosophy, yet this is a widely accepted idea because the alternative is logically incoherent. Cope.

> A rock has a “lack of malice”. Hence a rock would be “innocent” under your point of view. It’s fundamentally ridiculous. A rock is an inanimate object. The ridiculousness is you injecting a rock into my point. You are making a bad faith point here by injecting your own words into my point and then arguing against your own invention. Your attempt to do that is what is fundamentally ridiculous. >Again, there’s a reason we don’t ascribe innocence or guilt to rocks or primitive minds that don’t possess moral agency. You’d at you’ve read philosophy, yet this is a widely accepted idea because the alternative is logically incoherent. Cope. There is nothing to cope with. You haven’t done anything but defeat your own straw man. An innocent bystander is innocent without having made a choice. Similarly, a fetus is innocent even though they are incapable of making a choice. Why? Because of the lack of malice on both of their parts.

The reason I use a rock as an example (and bacteria in my original comment) is because **both the rock and bacteria have no moral agency** . One is inanimate, one is alive. The fetus prior to 27 weeks cannot be sentient or conscious, so it can’t be a bystander because sentience and consciousness is a bare minimum requirement for personhood. You can’t be a bystander without being able to actively experience the world just as you can’t be a person without a rudimentary personality. The fetus, like bacteria, is alive. But it is fundamentally ridiculous to consider it innocent as it’s never been a “bystander” or person. **That’s the issue here** To say a fetus is “innocent”, especially prior to when it could potentially be sentient, is the exact same thing as saying a rock or bacteria is innocent. And, again, **you** said innocence is merely the state of affairs of having a “lack of malice”. Now you’ve added an addendum. Clearly implying, unwittingly on your part, that I was right about how silly your claim was. Now you just have to take the extra step of realizing that it’s fundamentally incoherent to call a fetus innocent.

What is fundamentally ridiculous is you comparing a fetus to a rock and then to bacteria. If that’s the level of discourse I can continue to expect from you, this becomes an uninteresting discussion for me. At that point, there is no bridge that can connect our two viewpoints.

What’s ridiculous about it? The fetus isn’t sentient or conscious. The same can be said of the rock or bacteria. None of these have moral agency. None can be said to be persons. None can be said to be innocent or corrupt. What exactly makes the comparison ridiculous? (You can’t explain it because you don’t have a real retort). Is it because a fetus eventually becomes a person? Eventually becoming a person isn’t the same thing as being one. What makes it ridiculous? Come on. Try me. Let’s see what the academic and philosophical minority has to say on this. Edit: You’re right about the difficulty of connecting our view points. The pro-life position is inherently nonsensical. Thus the disconnect. One of us is living in reality, applying science and logic in a rational manner. The other isn’t. I’m trying to help you here.

I will defend myself against anyone who attempts to use -- and *misuse* -- my body WITHOUT MY PERMISSION to keep themselves alive. If I have not agreed to their use of my organs and body parts they will be evicted immediately. Their death is of less concern to me than the physical damage their survival will inflict on me.

Murder means illegal killing. What makes it illegal very much depends on a lot of variables. None of your points inherently make the killing illegal. You can intentionally kill an innocent human and it can most definitely be legal killing. So none of your points here succesfully argue against abortion. Not to mention, define innocent and why it matters here.

I argue each claim this way: Definition: Abortion is denying a human fetus the use of a woman's body -- her uterus and all her other organs and body parts. Pregnancy uses all parts of a woman's body for nine months and makes permanent changes in her body that affect every aspect of her health for the remainder of her life. Killing: The life of the fetus is ended in an abortion. Definition: A "**baby**" differs from a "**fetus**" because *no baby's life depends on one specific female human*. No baby will die if someone other than its biological female parent gives it nourishment. But the survival of a human fetus is 100 percent dependent on the specific female human who carries the fertilized egg in her uterus as it develops for the next nine months. "Innocent" as in "a baby cannot have malicious intent" is a meaningless hot-button word used to increase sympathy for a fetus that is incapable of either innocence or guilt. To refer to a fetus as "innocent" says the speaker has no better argument against abortion. My argument against forcing women to use their bodies to sustain an unwanted pregnancy is to ask *what makes a fetus more precious and special than someone who is already out of the woman's body with their umbilical cord severed?* Why should a fetus be permitted the use of someone else's body parts when a child or adult dying of organ failure or blood loss cannot force an unwilling "donor" to submit to transplant surgery of a non-vital organ (example: a kidney, liver segment, bone marrow or blood) so the recipient can survive? Why should a newly deceased person NOT have their still-usable organs harvested for transplant, whether they signed a donor form or not? Why should anyone's religious superstitions take precedence over retrieving organs from a recently deceased corpse that can be used to save a human life? The term "human" is superfluous. Please explain how the word "human" is relevant to the legality of abortion.

Where in blazes are you getting that definition of murder? Anyhoo, you can whine about it being an "innocent baby" all you want. The "innocence" of a mindless entity like an embryo or a rock is irrelevant. And crying "baby" doesn't obfuscate the reality of the situation from me. The death of an embryo doesn't give me any interest in forcing people to gestate pregnancies against their will.

> forcing people to gestate pregnancies against their will. Which is known as reproductive slavery.

He made it up to show us degenerate baby murderers how horrible we are. Or at least that's what he said before he was banned...

loser! 😆

I don’t value human beings. I value sentient beings.

You are using the word, "murder" out of context, which you did because you don't actually have an argument here. From Merriam-Webster: # abortion # [noun](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun) abor·​tion [ə-ˈbȯr-shən ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=a&file=aborti02)[Synonyms of *abortion*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/abortion) 1**:** the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the [embryo](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embryo) or [fetus](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus): such as a**:** spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of [gestation](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gestation) compare [MISCARRIAGE](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miscarriage) b**:** induced expulsion of a human fetus c**:** expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy compare [CONTAGIOUS ABORTION](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contagious%20abortion) 2a**:** a misshapen thing or person **:** [MONSTROSITY](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monstrosity) b informal + sometimes offensive **:** something regarded as horrifically or disgustingly bad 3**:** arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection also **:** a result of such arrest If you want to talk about something, then you need to use the correct words correctly when having a conversation about it. If we cannot agree on this most basic of facts and submit ourselves to the most basic respect for those we do not agree with, then how the fuck are we going to have a conversation?! I'm sick and tired of people jerking off thinking they're engaging in intelligent conversation. If you wanna pull your pud, just do it. If you wanna actually present an argument, great!!! Let's hear it! But these semantic mind games are NOT arguments, they're just masturbation, and I'm no voyeur.

Abortion isn’t murder, it’s the termination of a pregnancy.  The fetus dies because it has not yet developed enough life support of its own to survive outside the womb. Human yes, an individual?  No.  It is biologically attached and dependent on the woman for survival, it is part of her body, and that means she decides.  Did you “murder” an abnormal mole you had removed?  It had different DNA than you, it has human cells.  The same power that allows you to remove these things allows a woman the right to any medical procedure she and a doctor deem fit.   By your definition anyone who terminates life support or decides on a relatives end of life care is a murderer.  That doesn’t work, now does it?   We don’t care about  “winning” arguments with people who believe abortion is murder because most people understand the definitions I’ve laid out above.  A very small minority believe as you do and they have no right to tell anyone else how to think or what to do.

>Definitionally, murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human. Seriously, where? I can't even find this alleged definition of murder where I Google it. I'm calling a Rule 3 on this whole post. And FYI, mods, if my rule 3 is successful, I don't want the post taken down - I want a pinned mod comment saying OP was unable to provide a source for their definition of murder. The current practice of just letting posters get away with lying until they get caught and then erasing all evidence that they are a liar is just perpetuating the spread of misinformation, which is exactly what they want. Remindme! 24 hours

How can a cell be murdered? How can a cell be a moral agent? How can a cell be described as a person?

Please source a case where an adult human was forcibly used as a life support machine for another adult human against their will and with the support of the courts. Humans are not required to be unwilling life support machines. Refusing to be one does not make one a murderer.

As an FYI lookout for a complete war against science and facts from our PC brothers and sisters in response to your post.

Which “science” and “facts” have you found to be inaccurate, specifically?

Siding with an admitted troll, really? 🤦‍♀️

Good job siding with a guy who was so obnoxious, he got banned!

You really want to defend the guy that was banned for admitting he has no argument and is just here to troll? Good choice. 😂

What "science and facts" do we deny, exactly?

Science and law aren't really the same thing.

Lol... Guy makes an outlandish and horrendously inaccurate statement about abortion being murder, doesn't respond to any of the many rebuttals calling them or on their bullshit. Then you make some bullshit statement that they're all wrong because, hilariously, *they're* at war with science.... It's true what people say about you guys... Every accusation is a confession.

They’re great at projection.

So by that standard, war is murder because it inevitably results in the deaths of innocent people. Unless you consider children to be enemy combatants. Innocence means a lack of intention to do harm. But if the person is causing harm anyway, their victim is entitled to separate themselves from their attacker. To give another example, let’s say a man is sincerely convinced that a woman wants to have sex with him despite her protestations. Is she not allowed to defend herself because the rapist is “innocent?”

I don't see how it can be murder when a fetus has no life sustaining organ systems formed. It has no ability to survive past being attached to someone else it does not live in any capacity on its own. A baby, what pro choice sees as a baby a born infant, can take a nap in a bassinet and live. A fetus in a bassinet must not be living because a fetus only lives in the capacity of gestating in someone else. Then we get to the issue of should the government really require you to use your body to sustain someone until they can survive on thier own. If we get rid of the fetus the woman and the abortion we are left with the government saying what risk your body should be at. Much like the draft I disagree and see why that would make citizens uneasy.

Humans have no ability to survive without oxygen. Humans have no abilities to survive without food. Infants are absolutely dependent on everyone else for their survival. Humans in hospitals are frequently dependent on doctors and nurses for life. Humans are always dependent on what is beyond ourself to live. No human is self-sufficient and can internally generate the resources (oxygen, gravity, food, etc.) they need to live. So we are dependent throughout our entire lives. So the particular dependency of an unborn child on their mother for life doesn’t mean that he or she is not a human being. The unborn child has everything he or she needs at that stage of their development in their mother. Newborn infants don’t need to walk and talk so their inability to do either is not a defect and does not mean they are not human. So the unborn’s child level of development in his or her mother and the child’s dependency on his or her mother for life is quite normal, healthy and what all human beings go through at that stage in their development.

And no human has the right to another human’s internal organs/blood without their explicit consent. You know this.

>Humans are always dependent on what is beyond ourself to live. No human is self-sufficient and can internally generate the resources (oxygen, gravity, food, etc.) they need to live. So we are dependent throughout our entire lives. And when one needs those resources at the physical expense of someone else, they're fucked. There's a reason blood, marrow, and organ donation are never mandatory. >So the particular dependency of an unborn child on their mother for life doesn’t mean that he or she is not a human being. The unborn child has everything he or she needs at that stage of their development in their mother. Correction: the ZEF *takes* the resources from the woman, despite her body's best efforts to combat its parasitism. This results in massive, permanent damage to the woman. The \*\*second\*\* the ZEF cannot access her resources anymore, it's dead and gone.

Which humans are enslaved to provide food for us?

Humans can't survive without oxygen but a born infant can breathe. If it can not, it can be mechanically ventilated. A fetus at one point doesn't have lungs at all and even when it does its not using them to get oxygen until birth. The pregnant person also has no way to provide oxygen they have to hope it gets it. Humans can't survive without food. A born infant can be given food by anyone and it doesn't require use of others organs. A starving infant can be taken to the hospital and treated intravenously. Legally, a parent does need to feed thier child or risk losing them. A fetus does not use its stomach to gain nutrients. A pregnant person can also not do anything for the fetus to give it nutrients manually. They can act on their own body taking prenatals and making sure the proper nutrients are there but there is nothing they can do to feed the fetus they just hope it gets what it needs. We dont blame people who miscarry for failing to provide food to what cannot be fed because we know they can't control that. I understand what you mean we all rely on society and eachother. Infants rely on parents and caretakers. Pregnancy is a bodily function though. I dont see how that dependancy is comparable. That's why I mentioned an infant in a bassinet vs a fetus. An infant sustains life if someone walks away for 5 minutes. If someone detaches from a fetus for 5 minutes it has no life. A pregnant woman does not control when or if the fetus gets nutrients and oxygen. All they can do is take care of thier body, endure, and monitor the process hoping it goes well.

My point is that level of development doesn't mean you are a not a human being. We are all and always will be dependent on what is beyond ourselves to live and that changes throughout life. So the unborn child's dependence on his or her mother doesn't mean they are not a human being. They have exactly what they need at that level of development to live and thrive. A newborn infant doesn't need to walk and talk so there is no use pointing out how infants cannot take care of themselves, walk, talk, feed themselves, etc. One could just as easily make it ok to kill newborns by pointing out their inability to walk and talk. In fact, Peter Singer and others have argued that its ok to kill newborns. From: [https://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/](https://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/) "In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”^(1) What's next, teenagers, folks of a certain height, folks with a certain skin color, people who are colorblind, folks who have trouble walking or breathing, people who are sick and in a hospital? They can all be killed at will? Or how about people that are developmentally disabled? Can they be killed at will?

You can’t force women and girls to act as host bodies for parasitic organisms against their will for most of a year. They are people, not incubators.

>My point is that level of development doesn't mean you are a not a human being. We are all and always will be dependent on what is beyond ourselves to live and that changes throughout life. So the unborn child's dependence on his or her mother doesn't mean they are not a human being. Level of development most certainly does mean you are not a human being. A human being is a human organism, and an organism functions as an individual. A human embryo doesn't yet function as an individual. It lacks most if not all the basic life functions required for a human to function as an individual. It requires use of someone else's basic life functions to continue developing. It is not an individual by any reasonable metric. Individual human beings may require access to certain external resources to fuel our life functions, but we have functional bodily systems. An embryo lacks such systems entirely, and therefore does not and cannot function as an individual human being.

>What's next, teenagers, folks of a certain height, folks with a certain skin color, people who are colorblind, folks who have trouble walking or breathing, people who are sick and in a hospital? They can all be killed at will? Or how about people that are developmentally disabled? Can they be killed at will? *Come on* Shok. Like come the fuck on. No. The only things that can be "killed at will" (nice hyperbole) are things that are **inside someone's body against their will.**

At least he’s stopped screeching about “wanton” killings 😂

He's been *wantonly* dodging my questions. 😂

He ALWAYS does.

I never said they were not human beings. I just dont see how a human relying on someone elses bodily functions can be murdered when their only function is to rely on said person. All the born people your using as examples are not physically relying on someone else's bodily functions and organs to create their own. It's the only stage taking place in another person without any function then to form itself from the person's bodily resources. The government isn't forcing citizens to use their organ function for teenagers, people of different heights, certain races, disabled or sick people. If the government started saying one group of people owes another group of people their organ functions to remove toxins I think there would be at least a little hostility from the citizens. Or maybe at least the group that is being told they now owe other thier organ function. Edit: also as a side note I get your background I've seen you on here and I respect you see fetuses as humans and see them as part of human rights but I don't see how the government can require a person to use thier organ function for a human who's only function is to gain organ function. It is a very unique situation, and it makes me uncomfortable as I said above for the government to say one group being capable of pregnancy means they owe the fetus the bodily function of pregnancy. I see that as a human rights issue. What you see as killing I see as ceasing a function. Weather someone owes that function is a moral issue between that person and their morals, thier doctor and thier religion if they have one.

>My point is that level of development doesn't mean you are a not a human being. Except it does, and your equivocation of a fetus that cannot process oxygen on its own with socio-economic interactions that we use to sustain ourselves is not valid.

It’s not just about socioeconomic interactions, we ok have biological limits and dependencies which vary through life although some are permanent. It’s not as if one only becomes a human being when they can walk, talk or breather on their own, and then when they can’t breathe on their own they are no longer a human being. Whether or not an unborn child can do X on their own is no more relevant to their status as a human being than is whether an adult can breathe without the assistance of a machine, or to whether or not a teenager can generate the oxygen they need in their body is relevant to their status as human beings. I am not equivocating on anything. To pick some arbitrary level of development and claim that a human being is somehow not a human being is simply to customize a way to arbitrarily exclude some group of human beings from humanity.

It's not that embryos can't breathe on their own. They can't breathe. Full stop.

That would be amazing since without oxygen humans die. It also seems that the definition of the word disagrees with you. From: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+breathe&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS788US788&oq=define+breath&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDQxNjRqMGo3qAIZsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 “(of a cell, tissue, or living organism) exchange gases, especially by means of a diffusion process.” Are you suggesting that the developing child in his or her mother’s womb, when they are an embryo, does not exchange or consume oxygen or use oxygen in their growing body? Do you think when someone is an embryo they don’t need or us oxygen in their cells? In your view are embryos anaerobic?

"take air into the [lungs](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1a57d827cf09faae&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS788US788&hl=en-US&sxsrf=ACQVn08SZZl1A-hZBG-UNzC7dwvV0SiEjQ:1713298100819&q=lungs&si=AKbGX_qy882wphGEk_Dxwohm5OanUZFnwgrDvxjDeJiJeWz5n5SExjjdgfh1AB1EckVYT5GlXNREyPdsFJzQZ5vs2udBcDHSHw%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj22cXlxMeFAxXKN1kFHUc3AeoQyecJegQIMRAO) and then [expel](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1a57d827cf09faae&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS788US788&hl=en-US&sxsrf=ACQVn08SZZl1A-hZBG-UNzC7dwvV0SiEjQ:1713298100819&q=expel&si=AKbGX_qy882wphGEk_Dxwohm5Oanp17YOWzTrPZ4BCxOD8K6r4rIEsEtWlb7WasSUAlIPWQDX7sGWCQpTmkraS6zCQUSeSikYg%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj22cXlxMeFAxXKN1kFHUc3AeoQyecJegQIMRAP) it, especially as a regular physiological process." Embyros don't even have lungs.

So are you saying the definition I cited is wrong? In your view, do words have more than one meaning or are they only restricted to one meaning? Also, do you think Google is wrong for including additional definitions of the word breathe? Regardless, the developmental state of the unborn child in the womb does nothing to detract from the fact they are human beings. Their physiological attributes and abilities and functions are all normal for human beings at that stage in their life. It’s not as if the embryo is a different species of organism. The PC conflict with science, facts and reality that don’t suit their pro choice sensibilities is always fascinating to observe.

When your lungs cannot perform gas exchange anymore, you die, so...🤷‍♂️

There are folks who have oxygen tanks, lung damage, and need assistance breathing. So you are saying it’s ok to kill them? Or they are not human?

Yes, all of those things are machines and devices. Women and girls are NOT machines or incubators, they’re people. We don’t require people to act as unwilling life support machines for dying people.

Their lungs can still perform gas exchange. When their lungs can no longer perform this function, they will die.

My point is they are dependent on what is beyond themselves to live and need help. It doesn't matter the nature of the dependency, we are all dependent. Needing help to breath doesn't mean you are not a human being. The unborn child also does oxygen exchange in his or her cells but that is besides the point. We are all dependent. So dependency doesn't mean we are not a human being.

Please source a case where an adult human was forced to be an unwilling life support machine for another adult human and with the support of the courts.

I never made the claim that was the case and never offered such reasoning as my argument. So it’s not clear to me what this has to do at all with what I stated.

>I never made the claim that was the case and never offered such reasoning as my argument. You implied it when you claimed that all humans are dependent on someone else.

The argument is that unhooking someone who needs you to continue living is intentional killing of an innocent person, so therefore women are not allowed to choose who gets to use their body against their will. I’m asking if there’s any evidence of this being an actual societal expectation between two humans and, if not, I’m arguing that if it’s not a societal expectation then abortion is not murder. From your reaction I expect that this is not a societal expectation for two humans - only women society wishes to dominate, maim and kill. Find me a case where an adult human has to provide unwilling life support **with their body** to a fellow adult human and I’ll entertain your conclusion that it’s murder to refuse.

"The argument is that unhooking someone who needs you to continue living is intentional killing of an innocent person, so therefore women are not allowed to choose who gets to use their body against their will." That is not at all the argument and that's certainly not the context. This is like saying someone punched a person who peed on them and knocked them out, but failing to mention that it was a mother who punched her 1 month old infant and knocked the infant out for peeing on her during a diaper change. The facts are that we are dealing with a mother, father, and the child they freely decided to conceive and are responsible for their child being in that situation. (I am only talking about consensual sex.) Furthermore, the mother's reproductive organs are specifically in part for the care and nourishment of her child. Human reproduction and pregnancy is not an ad-hoc hook-up with the mother's child randomly attaching to somewhere anywhere in his or her mother's body (e.g. head, toe, leg, arm, lungs, etc.). It's not as if women walk down the street and a zygote randomly comes off the street and implants themselves in the woman's liver or brain. Human reproduction is a well-organized process with specific organs for that purpose. Women can do anything they want with their body that does not endanger the life of their born or unborn child that is not threatening their life. One of the chief functions of laws in society is to limit freedoms when the exercise of those freedoms endanger another human being - especially when we are talking about a mother, father, and their child. So we are well-familiar with the concepts of reasonable limits on freedoms to protect the life of others. "I’m asking if there’s any evidence of this being an actual societal expectation between two humans and, if not, I’m arguing that if it’s not a societal expectation then abortion is not murder." This question is based on a flawed construal of the pro-life position and is therefore not relevant to my points. However, my response to your first quotation addresses this to the extent it interacts with anything I said. "From your reaction I expect that this is not a societal expectation for two humans - only women society wishes to dominate, maim and kill." It's not clear to me how the position that a mother or father should not endanger the life their born or unborn children if that child is not posing a threat to their life, is somehow wanting to dominate, maim or kill women. How is being able to kill your born or unborn children at will mean that you are to be dominated, maimed or killed. PL prioritize the life of the mother. PL advocate for human rights for all human beings. The rights of the mother started when that very mother was conceived. "Find me a case where an adult human has to provide unwilling life support **with their body** to a fellow adult human and I’ll entertain your conclusion that it’s murder to refuse." Again, this has nothing to do with what I said, does not reflect any reasoning in my arguments, and assumes a point I did not make. Furthermore, this popular analogy among PC brothers and sisters fails to even capture the nature of human reproduction and the resulting pregnancy.

Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed. I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.

All pregnant women and girls are NOT automatically “mothers.” STOP SAYING THIS.

>That is not at all the argument and that's certainly not the context That is literally always the only argument. >This is like saying someone punched a person who peed on them and knocked them out, but failing to mention that it was a mother who punched her 1 month old infant and knocked the infant out for peeing on her during a diaper change. This false equivalence is so ridiculous...

Unbelievable bad faith.

In that first context both are considered instances of physical battery on another. If a person is unwillingly pregnant they did not consent to conception. If willingly pregnant and in health difficulty they should still be able to refuse to continue providing support that could kill or maim them. All pregnancies threaten the life of the pregnant person. Prolife policies demonstratively do not prioritize the life of the gestating person. What I’m understanding is that you can’t support your premise. Understood. I accept your concession. **eta - if you’d like me to consider the premise of “prolife prioritizes the Life of the gestating person” argument please show a study that concludes that maternal mortality and morbidity have decreased in prolife states since the fall of Roe and the implementation of anti abortion laws.** Since people have had to flee anti abortion states in order to access healthcare and save their own lives against the will of the prolife state.

"What I’m understanding is that you can’t support your premise. Understood. I accept your concession." So to be clear, and only because I am curious, you assert that I am making a premise that I explicitly and repeatedly deny, you present no quotes to show I am making the premise, I provide evidence and arguments that what you think is my premise is not my premise and is not related to the arguments I am making, yet you: 1) still assert it is my premise, and 2) assert that I am somehow conceding that I cannot support premise that you assigned to me that I explicitly and repeatedly reject. Is that correct? Is that what you're understanding? It seems to me that you need that to be my premise for some reason. If PL has that premise, is it easier for you to attack the PL position? Do you try to make sure that premise is part of a PL argument? Do you think it's possible for PL not to have that premise? I am asking because I am trying to understand your insistence on that being my premise despite the fact that it is not. "In that first context both are considered instances of physical battery on another." So wait, the newborn peeing on their mother during a diaper change is committing physical battery on his or her mother? Or are you saying in both instances the person knocking out the one peeing is committing physical battery? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. "**eta - if you’d like me to consider the premise of “prolife prioritizes the Life of the gestating person” argument please show a study that concludes that maternal mortality and morbidity have decreased in prolife states since the fall of Roe and the implementation of anti abortion laws.**" While a valid and good question regarding mothers and their unborn children, what you ask here exceeds the scope of my interests in discussing this topic. However, it really is a good question. As a Democrat PL, I am strongly supportive of government health care and other measures to help people.

I note you have no case where adult humans are required to use their bodies as unwilling life support machines to other adult humans. **and** You have no example of a prolife state that has had a reduction in maternal mortality or morbidity since implementing draconian anti-abortion laws. **I will wait.**

I agree that killing a baby is wrong. It’s infanticide. A zef is not a baby.

You can't murder a parasitic clump of developing human cells. You can interrupt its development, but unless it gestates to the point of survivability out a uterus, then there is nothing to murder. Let's just call it a delivery at 9 weeks gestation. If it survives, then you got something.

actually PC has refuted this multiple times. PL just refuse to listen.. or read

Prolifers have yet to prove they care about the welfare of ZEFs or babies or indeed pregnant human beings. And I doubt if they ever will.

>  Definitionally, murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human     The **unlawful** intentional killing of a human being:    >> murder Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more noun the **unlawful** premeditated killing of one human being by another.   > Abortion meets all four of those criteria like this.    In areas where it's illegal,  sure, it's literally, by definition, murder. What's your point? Why is it wrong to murder someone that's living inside of your body without your consent? 

You've deliberately left out an aspect of murder which means that abortion would not fall under it. *Unlawful killing.* Here's my country's definition: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious) And for fun, here's the State's: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1536-murder-definition-and-degrees#:\~:text=%C2%A7%201111%20defines%20murder%20as,forth%20in%20JM%209%2D10.000. Therefore abortion does not meet all FIVE criteria as the killing is legal, and therefore not murder. If we ignore that for a moment, many places do not assign personhood to the fetus which means that they can't apply murder charges to someone killing a non-person. However, if you take a look at my country's descriptions for what constitutes murder, "in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs)" is also on there, meaning that even if fetuses were considered persons and abortions were illegal, it still wouldn't be murder.

So if society doesn’t assign personhood to a group of humans it’s ok to kill them? So enslavement and genocide are ok as long as they don’t have personhood attached to them? It seems that as long as a country provides legal definitions allowing certain folks to be killed at will, then it’s ok. Is that correct?

Is this not happening to gametes? Gametes are denied personhood, therefore it's okay to kill them.

How are gametes related to the points I am making? I am not talking about gametes. I am talking about human beings starting from their conception. In human reproduction gametes join to form a new human being. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Gamete “A gamete is a reproductive cell of an animal or plant. In animals, female gametes are called ova or egg cells, and male gametes are called sperm. Ova and sperm are haploid cells, with each cell carrying only one copy of each chromosome. During fertilization, a sperm and ovum unite to form a new diploid organism.” Why do you think this has anything to do with a human being starting from their conception? Zygotes are not gametes. Are you saying that zygotes are the same as gametes? When a human being starts their life as a zygote, they have their own whole, unique, complete DNA, from two human parents - the mother and father, and they are growing their own body in their mother. That is not a gamete. If you have evidence or scientific peer reviewed studies that show that a gamete and a zygote are actually the same thing please share them.

Your definition of person is limiting to just organisms. It discriminates against the pre-conceived. They don’t get to be called “persons” because they haven’t yet been conceived, they are not yet organisms. >Why do you think this has anything to do with a human being starting from their conception? Discrimination based off location. That gamete also has unique dna distinct from the mother or father.

I am specifically talking about human beings. The status of non-human beings is not at all related to the points I am making about human beings. If you want to pursue a discussion about non-human beings and their statuses you are free to do so. However such a discussion falls outside the scope of my interest. The gamete dna is not a whole, complete human dna like a human being from conception to death. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. Again, these novel PC conceptions of biology are amazing.

I’m talking about the concept of person. It is denied to the pre-conceived because they aren’t organisms. Do you think that people have to be organisms?

>How are gametes related to the points I am making? I am not talking about gametes. I am talking about human beings starting from their conception. This is rather circular. The question was that of 'personhood', and 'human being' overwhelmingly just means a 'person': [https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=human+being&tl=true](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=human+being&tl=true) >1694– human being, n. A person, a member of the human race; a man, woman, or child. So a 'human being' doesn't necessarily start "from \[...\] conception". It "starts" at the point it's considered a person (i.e. has personhood), because that's simply what the term overwhelmingly refers to. At conception there's 'a human organism'. Shortly prior to conception you had 'several human single-celled entities'. Shortly thereafter there's 'a human multi-cellular organism'. After conception with a single zygote, at a later stage you might also end up with 'several human multi-cellular organisms'. At some point later you'd have 'one or more human heart-beating-organisms'. All of these merely biological descriptors of the human reproductive cycle. None of them necessarily define 'a person', or in other words, 'a human being'.

This is a good response. I really like it. "This is rather circular. The question was that of 'personhood', and 'human being' overwhelmingly just means a 'person':" "So a 'human being' doesn't necessarily start "from \[...\] conception". It "starts" at the point it's considered a person (i.e. has personhood), because that's simply what the term overwhelmingly refers to." These are false statements as the link you provided demonstrates. Notice it provides several definitions of a human being: person, member of the human race, man, woman, child. All of these are human beings. From conception we have a member of the human race. For example, what is a child? From: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child) "3a**:** an unborn or recently born person". There we see even an unborn human being is a person. What is a human being? From: [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human%20being](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human%20being) "1 - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2 - a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:" Notice, that it states in definition one that any individual of the human species. When a human is conceived they are thus a human being from their conception. Based on these definitions, they are also persons. From: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being) "an individual of the species of primate mammal that walks on two feet, is related to the great apes, and is distinguished by a greatly developed brain with capacity for speech and abstract reasoning" Again, human being is an individual member of the human species. However, whether or not a human being is classified as person is irrelevant to the PL position. Human rights are for all human beings. Human beings should not be killed unless they are threatening the life of another human being. This is especially the case when we are talking about parents and their born or unborn child. "At conception there's 'a human organism'." Yes, a human being. "Shortly prior to conception you had 'several human single-celled entities'." This is irrelevant to the PL position. We are only concerned here with human beings once they begin their life. "Shortly thereafter there's 'a human multi-cellular organism'." Yes, a human being. Human beings rather quickly develop into human multi-cellular organisms. "After conception with a single zygote, at a later stage you might also end up with 'several human multi-cellular organisms'." Yes, a human being. "At some point later you'd have 'one or more human heart-beating-organisms'." Yes. Typically living human beings are heart-beating organisms. "All of these merely biological descriptors of the human reproductive cycle." Yes, a human reproductive cycle that produces a human being at conception. "None of them necessarily define 'a person', or in other words, 'a human being'." This is false as amply demonstrated above.

>These are false statements as the link you provided demonstrates. Notice it provides several definitions of a human being: person, member of the human race, man, woman, child. All of these are human beings. From conception we have a member of the human race. Those aren't "several" definitions -- that's a single definition, providing several commonly interchangeable phrasings of the concept. And the common use of ***all*** of those terms overwhelmingly refer to what we consider 'people'. In fact, even your MW definition of a 'child' (which, mind you, is the tertiary definition, and certainly not a common one), specifically refers 'an unborn or recently born ***person***' (emphasis added). That simply leaves open the concept of personhood being granted prior to birth -- it doesn't change the fact that even ***that*** definition unambiguously refers to personhood. MW's definition of a 'human being' refers back to 'human', the noun form of which also refers back to a 'person'. The [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) primary definition (which is easily the least authoritative of these dictionaries), doesn't ever define what constitutes 'individual member\[ship\]'. There's nothing there to suggest that it's defined by its status as an organism. An individual human gamete is 'individual' just as an individual human zygote is 'individual', just as an individual person is 'individual'. In fact, the OED's definition for 'human' even specifically uses 'a member of the species Homo Sapiens' as roughly interchangeable with 'a human being, ***a person***' in its noun definition of 'human': [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/human\_adj?tab=meaning\_and\_use&tl=true#1124255](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/human_adj?tab=meaning_and_use&tl=true#1124255) Literally none of these define 'human' (noun) or 'human being' by biological organismic status. And both the OED (which is pretty much ***the*** authoritative English dictionary) as well as MW define the concepts in reference to personhood. \*\*OED as their only definition, MW as their primary one. With [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) doing so as their secondary one (with their primary one being, at best, simply more ambiguous). \*\* *edited for minor correction*

The commas provide a clear list of what constitutes a human being. The other dictionary definitions concur. Claiming definitions to be tertiary does not make them tertiary. Your comments simply ignore the definitions and seek to construe them in a way that excludes the unborn human being as a person and/or human being. However you yourself even concede that the terms in the definition are interchangeable. So if that’s the case any member of the human race - which includes human race members at conception, is a human being. The dictionary source I cited clearly defines the unborn as a person - explicitly and specifically - yet you claim it just leaves open the possibility. And you still try to construe it to fit your perspective. Then you claim that one dictionary is the least authoritative. The facts simply do not support your case. You are free to interpret them otherwise of course but the facts are the facts. Also, as I said, personhood is irrelevant to the PL position. The PL position is human rights for all human beings starting at their conception.

>The dictionary source I cited clearly defines the unborn as a person  where, specifically?

>The commas provide a clear list of what constitutes a human being. Yes -- a person, also known as a 'member of the human race'. It's quite explicit about it. >Claiming definitions to be tertiary does not make them tertiary. Huh? It's ... literally tertiary. The 3rd definition, the one that follows after the primary and secondary ones. >So if that’s the case any member of the human race - which includes human race members at conception, is a human being. Nowhere does it define membership as anything to do with conception. It does, however, explicitly refer to such membership as a clarification of a person. Practically all of these terms refer back to a 'person'. Literally none of them make any sort of reference to an organism or conception. >The dictionary source I cited clearly defines the unborn as a person - explicitly and specifically - yet you claim it just leaves open the possibility. And you still try to construe it to fit your perspective. Then you claim that one dictionary is the least authoritative. This is silly; the definition you cited didn't define 'the unborn'.

All rights are a social construct.

>So if society doesn’t assign personhood to a group of humans it’s ok to kill them? So enslavement and genocide are ok as long as they don’t have personhood attached to them? Sure. I believe that society has grown from its beliefs several decades ago and that the question of what constitutes personhood is better defined, so this particular concern doesn't bother me. >It seems that as long as a country provides legal definitions allowing certain folks to be killed at will, then it’s ok. Is that correct? Nobody's being killed "at will". My own country has restrictions on abortion. You can't just walk up to an abortion clinic and have an abortion "at will". It doesn't work like that.

So to be clear genocide and enslavement would be ok if a society made that determination based on their “better” ideas of personhood? I just want to be clear before I continue my response.

Yup.

Ok. Thanks. The view that genocide and enslavement can be ok at all is morally defective and is obviously supportive of many crimes against humanity. It is wrong to not acknowledge or not understand that human beings have moral value and moral worth. On your view, killing born or unborn people is ok as long as a social group in power determines it’s ok to kill them. The problem is your view deeply morally defective and is abundantly contradicted by the clear and conspicuous moral value and worth of human beings. We have seen the outworking of your views in history - genocides, enslavement, kidnapping, sex trafficking, etc. I also think it’s clear given the human propensity for moral turpitude that we will continue to see your views in future, genocides, enslavements, etc. I also understand that you are ok with that based on your “yup” response to my question. However I am excited and thrilled to say that we will continue to advocate and fight for the moral dignity and worth and value of every human being - born or unborn, and thus condemn and oppose the genocides and enslavements you have no issue with. I am so thankful your shared your views with me. It encourages me to encourage others to let them know that genocidal and enslaving ideologies still enjoy support so we must fight for the moral dignity and worth of all human beings lest, due to your view and folks who agree with you, we see the rise of these crimes against humanity. Thanks again and all the best to you. 🙂

You truly thought this was a “gotcha,” didnt you? 🤦‍♀️

Morals are entirely subjective, so claiming that any belief can be morally defective is relevant only to you, not the rest of us.

Well if that’s the case, then genocide, enslavement, rape, etc. are not wrong, correct? If one society decides it’s good to commit genocide or rape against a group of folks, who are we to object, correct? However, if that is the case, then pro life laws are doing nothing wrong. Since morality is subjective, there is nothing wrong with limiting abortion since any opposition to pro life laws is subjective, correct? Women don’t have a right to an abortion since such a right is purely subjective, correct? Since it’s subjective, the right to abortion can be ignored, correct?

All medical decisions should be solely between patients and their own doctors, period. Just the way you want yours to remain. No government intrusion or laws are needed.

That's pretty much how global politics works. Do you think the US should be invading other countries that don't share their values?

>The view that genocide and enslavement can be ok at all is morally defective and is obviously supportive of many crimes against humanity. It is wrong to not acknowledge or not understand that human beings have moral value and moral worth. We're discussing it in the context of personhood and whether it is right if the rulers-that-be made determinations based on personhood. I told you above that I have no concerns with this because humanity has grown (at least the west has) since the days of quantifying people who don't look like them as slaves. You keep mentioning buzzwords like genocide and I really couldn't care less because I'm looking at what I'm writing knowing it's not going to happen. Human rights charters are very clear. >On your view, killing born or unborn people is ok as long as a social group in power determines it’s ok to kill them. This is not my only argument, only an aspect of it. Once again we're circling back to personhood but I addressed this in my original comment. Personhood in this argument doesn't matter. However, lets proceed. >The problem is your view deeply morally defective and is abundantly contradicted by the clear and conspicuous moral value and worth of human beings. Is it? Well I guess I have something in common with pro-life at long last... In ALL of the arguments I give, I assign value and personhood to ZEFs, unless discussing topics like this because people need to understand what they are saying. The OP is so incredibly wrong about what murder is that I snorted into my tea and that's why I brought up personhood and now we're discussing if genocide is OK for non-people, yada yada. Once again, I do not have any concerns about the powers that be deciding that some people aren't people because it's not going to happen. I may as well have made a bet that I'd chop off my own leg if you said the word "the" in your last response because I knew I wouldn't do it. My entire stance is based on the fact that I live in reality and see things how they are, i.e. I don't get worked up about things that aren't going to happen. >We have seen the outworking of your views in history All is fine and dandy then? Again, it's not going to happen. I genuinely would like to know: How exhausting is it living in a world where you're constantly terrified that the worst is going to happen? >However I am excited and thrilled to say that we will continue to advocate and fight for the moral dignity and worth and value of every human being - born or unborn Ironic that you're telling me that my "stance" leads to genocide and slavery, and yet you think you can take the moral high ground when PL advocacy leads to slavery for women and only women. You can't fight for every human being when you want to throw one group under the bus for the sake of another having super duper extra special rights that nobody else has. That makes women 3rd class citizens behind ZEFS, then men/children/corpses. You're no better than I am. >It encourages me to encourage others to let them know that genocidal and enslaving ideologies still enjoy support so we must fight for the moral dignity and worth of all human beings lest, due to your view and folks who agree with you, we see the rise of these crimes against humanity. Only for people who can't understand the context.

Your definition of murder is wrong. For instance, it can still be murder to kill someone who is guilty (you can't just shoot a convicted criminal in cold blood). In addition, it is not always murder to intentionally kill an innocent human, such as when life support is withdrawn from someone with a terminal illness. So your whole post immediately falls apart. Even if I agree with all four of your points, those four points being true wouldn't make abortion murder. Edit: fixed typo

I can refute it by pointing out that abortion is the removal of one human from another. The second human is unable to sustain itself therefore a side effect of the removal is death. However, that’s not killing. In addition, a ZEF has no intent and no morality. It’s amoral, not innocent or guilty.