[anna]

It's not a baby.

It is a baby, with his or her own DNA, distinct from the mother's DNA.

[late]

It is a baby, with his or her own DNA, distinct from the mother's DNA.

It's a foetus, you don't get to rewrite science or law...

[anna]

It's a foetus, you don't get to rewrite science or law...

Semantics.

When I was pregnant, I didn't say "Hey everyone! I'm going to have a FETUS!!"

[late]

Semantics.

BS...

It's a secular legal system, religious arguments are disallowed.

[anna]

BS...

It's a secular legal system, religious arguments are disallowed.

Is it a religious argument to say it has its own DNA?

[late]

Is it a religious argument to say it has its own DNA?

'The intent makes the crime'

[anna]

'The intent makes the crime'

No. You don't have to be religious to understand that the body you're carrying is a different body than your own. This is scientific fact. It's also an uncomfortable fact when you're considering abortion.

[late]

No. You don't have to be religious to understand that the body you're carrying is a different body than your own. This is scientific fact. It's also an uncomfortable fact when you're considering abortion.

From a legal POV, this is about timing. When do we confer legal rights. Science is of no use here, it's arbitrary. The simplest, and best, way to handle this is to confer rights at birth.

As technology keeps extending our ability to save premies, that is going eventually end our current compromise. When you can gestate a fertilised egg outside the womb, viability loses relevance...

You're not actually addressing the issue, you know.

[anna]

From a legal POV, this is about timing. When do we confer legal rights. Science is of no use here, it's arbitrary. The simplest, and best, way to handle this is to confer rights at birth.

As technology keeps extending our ability to save premies, that is going eventually end our current compromise. When you can gestate a fertilised egg outside the womb, viability loses relevance...

You're not actually addressing the issue, you know.

I'm not? What is the issue, then? You said it wasn't a baby, I said it was. Please clarify what I'm not addressing.

[Pants-of-dog]

I find the whole “is a fetus a baby” thing to be boring and less relevant than it seems.

For one, most pro-lifers do not actually see all fertilised embryos as the equivalent of a real baby.

Secondly, most pro-choice arguments are still correct even if we assume that the fertilised embryo is a baby.

[late]

I'm not? What is the issue, then? You said it wasn't a baby, I said it was. Please clarify what I'm not addressing.

Abortion...

I've laid out my thoughts quite plainly. You haven't responded on point, and you haven't told us what you think the law should be.

[wat0n]

I find the whole “is a fetus a baby” thing to be boring and less relevant than it seems.

For one, most pro-lifers do not actually see all fertilised embryos as the equivalent of a real baby.

Secondly, most pro-choice arguments are still correct even if we assume that the fertilised embryo is a baby.

Would you apply those arguments to an already born baby?

Does a biological mother owe any responsibilities to the already born baby? How about if it was a toddler, child or teen?

[Pants-of-dog]

Would you apply those arguments to an already born baby?

Does a biological mother owe any responsibilities to the already born baby? How about if it was a toddler, child or teen?

Since born babies are never aborted and cannot be aborted, I would argue that arguments against or for abortion do not apply to born people.

[wat0n]

Since born babies are never aborted and cannot be aborted, I would argue that arguments against or for abortion do not apply to born people.

I would not be so sure. Opponents to abortion see it as a form of infanticide, after all. Why would it be radically different to kill a baby while it's in the womb vs doing so the day after it's out of it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but whether the fetus is actually a baby is a key outstanding issue here. Not the only one, perhaps - I recall you came up with a very interesting experiment a few years ago where you could make a case for something akin to a "post-birth abortion" that I still think about whenever this issue comes up; plus there is the case when abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or to spare her the risk of delivering an inviable baby -, but it's still the most important one. In particular, if there is an agreement on when the fetus is actually a person, with rights, then we can easily regulate abortion based on it - from making it on-demand to banning it outright.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would not be so sure. Opponents to abortion see it as a form of infanticide, after all. Why would it be radically different to kill a baby while it's in the womb vs doing so the day after it's out of it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but whether the fetus is actually a baby is a key outstanding issue here. Not the only one, perhaps - I recall you came up with a very interesting experiment a few years ago where you could make a case for something akin to a "post-birth abortion" that I still think about whenever this issue comes up; plus there is the case when abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or to spare her the risk of delivering an inviable baby -, but it's still the most important one. In particular, if there is an agreement on when the fetus is actually a person, with rights, then we can easily regulate abortion based on it - from making it on-demand to banning it outright.

Feel free to make an argument.

[wat0n]

Feel free to make an argument.

I don't have a clear view on when is the fetus a person, it seems to be fairly subjective. Even if you try to add some biological criteria (e.g. being conscious or being able to feel pain), you run into problems (e.g. in the latter two, a comatose human could be seen as not a person anymore).

But I do think that having that discussion would likely solve the abortion debate as a subproduct.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

What exactly is your argument?

[anna]

Abortion...

I've laid out my thoughts quite plainly. You haven't responded on point

I made it clear I believe the unborn baby is a person in their own right. I responded specifically to your post saying that "it's not a baby," so yes, I was very much "on point." I'm not interested in the thought experiment.

, and you haven't told us what you think the law should be.

You didn't ask me what I thought "the law should be," though, did you?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog "I do think that having that discussion would likely solve the abortion debate as a subproduct"

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog "I do think that having that discussion would likely solve the abortion debate as a subproduct"

Well, I can think of at least one country where the abortion debate was decided and the issue of whether or not the fetus was a baby was completely irrelevant.

So, one real world example contradicts you.