it’s what the laws and courts say it is…b/c they’re infallible (?)
Yea not sure why their definition is THE definition since it seems like it’s built on a bed of sand
Well, legally it’s a mixed bag. There are as many laws saying a fetus is a person. The trouble is that no pro abortion person will even post a definition of person, on which they base their whole case.
Homicide is not always murder. So again, you only support what I have been saying.
I don’t want an abortion so the law is irrelevant to me.
Also, do they grant personhood to ALL fetuses?
You aren’t the first person to use this old argument…and failed.
Keep backpedalling with those goal posts.
No, you are wrong again. It is a term that people come up with based on morality, ethics and facts. In fact, that is how you came up with your definition of human being.
If you weren’t so obsessed with having an enemy to argue with you would note that I never took a stand on how I personally feel about abortion. I am simply saying that we need to know exactly why we believe when a human being is a human being. Science has its limits.
Then you tell me why abortion is not murder (a legal term, btw).
Many abortions are murder.
Why do you want to know my PERSONAL definition? That is not the point. The point is that there is a legal definition that we have right now and the reason why that definition does not include a zygote is because it is not a scientific fact that it is a human being.
Provide some cases where that is true, and even if it is, why isn’t it always murder?
OK what facts, and what’s the definition?
In half the US a zygote is legally defined as a person. Where I live, it’s legally a person.
Check the definition of homicide, i posted it above. Regardless homicide involves 2 human beings.
That may all be true but it is still the definition we have. Science cannot define it for us. If people are able to change the definition then science can only provide evidence that a fetus falls under that definition.
I’m not saying I agree with the legal definition, only that it exists, and it exists as it does because the definition of human being does not cover a zygote or fetus. States can extend limited personhood to a fetus but that does not mean they are always persons. It does seem contradictory, because it is, but it is still the reality from a legal standpoint.
It isn’t always murder. The rest of your post is irrelevant.
The defining legal difference if an abortion is or isn’t murder is if the woman want the abortion or not. Are you suggesting that is what defines a human being?
Check the definition. one definition of homicide is murder. so you are now dropping the human being argument?
Is abortion illegal? Also, the fact that it is half the US shows that there is no definitive consensus, legal or otherwise, on the personhood of a zygote. If science has already proven it then why is this true?
And? you have said nothing that negates what I said. It isn’t always murder.
As you’ve already stated, the personhood argument has nothing to do with facts. the legality of abortion depends on external circumstances…
Obviously that is how it is. Now, if you are asking if I agree with that, all I can say is that I won’t state my opinion here.