Luke T. said:
That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:
1a : an unborn or recently born person
So abortion can be murder.
Virtually all abortion argument comes back to the same core assumption I refer to in my first post. It all depends on when you consider life to start. From there we can do all the rhetorical gymnastics we want to; come up with labels for those we disagree or for ourselves to accentuate the positive (Pro-life or Pro-choice); and try to make those that disagree sound more and more like unprincipled cretins that must really hate (children/women) and who wouldn't understand justice if it crapped on their forehead....
Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until someone gets violent or someone smarter starts arguing about the even more divisive issue in American Life, the Bowl Championship Series. Same difference.
It doesn't matter. Most of this is trying to use logic to invalidate/validate a premise, and from what I recall from the "Logic I" class I took many moons ago at massively prestigious West Virginia Wesleyan College I can state with some authority:
That dog won't hunt.
Just doesn't work. Never will. If it did someone smarter than we are would have figured it out already and we could move on to USC vs. LSU.
My opinion? Glad you asked....
I don't think life begins at conception any more than it begins at "your place or mine" or "I'll pull out, I promise."(premise 1) Then again, I would also say that life begins before birth, using a newborn baby as my benchmark for "life."(premise 2) When exactly is gray however. So I'll go with the Supremes (not Diana Ross -- The other ones) and set that at the third trimester as a handy dandy line.(premise 3)
So, abortion before the third trimester is not the killing of a human being. However, it isn't calling out for a pizza either. As a case of morality I would only justify it for a Very Good Reason. However, as a legal matter I am unwilling to leave the determination of what is a Very Good Reason up to the government, as I place the rights of the woman well above the state interest in what will perhaps be a person. (premise 4) Thus, it is left to the individual whether a Very Good Reason exists.
During the third trimester things are more dicey. We can almost call the fetus a person, but not quite as long as the fetus is still inside. It is "human life" but given it's particular circumstance of being attatched to a second human being it really is not a distinct person. At this point as far as morality goes I would say it is justified only in case of Mortal Danger to the Mother, sort of like self defense but not quite as it defies analogy for the most part.
Again, however, legally, I'm not willing to leave that to the government. An argument could be made that since pregnancy itself carries risk of death to the mother, that Mortal Danger exists at all times. To fairly criminalize the behaviour the state would have to be pretty up to date on the state of medicine, and decide what an acceptable amount of risk of death one must have before that person is in enough Mortal Danger to justify their action. This seems to amount to a pretty serious governmental intrusion. For some women just being pregnant turns out to be massively dangerous, and for others not so much.
There. I just made that up off the top of my head.
