If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
Webster says autonomous is:
a : existing or capable of existing independently By this definition, a baby is not autonomous since it relies completely on its mother for shelter and nourishment for many months after its born. Just as it does before it is born. "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Except a fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. A human being is an autonomous being and a fetus is just the opposite. In humans, a fetus is the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. Nice lesson in biology, but totally irrelevant. A fetus is a human being. A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being. Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother. You can call a leg and arm, but until it has fingers rather than toes, it's still a leg. The operative word here, in a legal, rather than biological sense, is AUTOMOMOUS. |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote: A fetus is a human being. A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being. Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother. A fetus is most definitely not an appendage of the mother. It is a genetically distinct entity. Whether people want to deny or extend rights to that entity is the root of the abortion debate. -- Bob Noel |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... A fetus is most definitely not an appendage of the mother. It is a genetically distinct entity. Whether people want to deny or extend rights to that entity is the root of the abortion debate. It is also related to "rights" and the balance of those rights. One way to look at it is that it starts out with the mother only having rights and then as time and the process progresses the other entity has increasing rights. As has been mentioned before, giving one entity rights frequently means some other entity loses some rights and this is a good example of that. Society and government frequently defines some (perhaps arbitrary) point where the entity has as many, if not sometimes more, rights than the mother. Religious background plays a big part in the determination of where this point lies, with some religions saying it is at fertilization. This makes it a balance of rights issue and there is no universally "right" answer. I am, however, against the government making laws based on one particular religious belief. If a huge percentage of people are devout followers of that religious belief and its tenets then the primary reason for such laws must be either to enforce that religious belief on either followers who wish to have an exemption or to force the issue on followers of alternate belief systems, both of which seem like an overextension of the legitimate power of government. So, what does that say about my political orientation? Not much except that I prefer smaller rather than bigger government, that I prefer fewer rather than more laws, and that I want the absolute minimal amount of connection between government and religion. I am neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, and I want to make up my own mind on each issue independant of the "party line." And, tomorrow I may feel different... |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions are NOT murder. I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the abortion is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of abortion tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that abortion is murder. Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all of those). Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder. George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions are NOT murder. I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the abortion is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of abortion tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that abortion is murder. Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all of those). Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder. Well...DUH!!! :~) |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being. Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother. You can call a leg and arm, but until it has fingers rather than toes, it's still a leg. The operative word here, in a legal, rather than biological sense, is AUTOMOMOUS. The mother can move her leg at will, but she cannot move the baby's leg. The baby moves at it's own will. A fetus is an autonomous human being. |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all of those). Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder. Says who? |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all of those). Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder. Says who? The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law. George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law. Are you sure? Yesterday you said murder is a legal definition made by the State. |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law. Are you sure? Yesterday you said murder is a legal definition made by the State. Yes. It's defined in law. It's been defined in law for centuries. The OED echoes that definition. The State determines what specific killings are illegal. For a killing to be murder, the victim must be human, the killing must have been intentional, it must have been premeditated, and it must be illegal. The State defines what is murder and what is not. George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Owning | 314 | June 21st 04 06:10 PM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |