Categories Are Meaningful: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life

hanno wrote:

I could see where it would depend on the womans intentions or lack there of to give birth, and that either way calling it two is a valid generalization.

But if mommy decides to end it, I mean, if a bum needed some of my blood to live and I said no, who could blame me? Just because the symbiotic relationship is part of a woman's traditional role in society I don't see why it's so sacred. I find the whole thing insensitive toward bums. And that's worst case scenario, person vs. person, whereas unless there's a little mysticism in your thinking, there's got to be a point before which the abortee is not a person...

OK, so the mandatory abortion thing I said was mainly rhetorical - but with unfit mothers, and birth defects, and overpopulation, you get my drift, if someone choses abortion why argue?

Taking a passive attitude toward assisting a stranger (a bum) ..............

.........and taking active measures to slice the body of the unborn limb from limb with a scalpel and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner ......

........................are two different things.

Do you understand the difference between active and passive?

But the real question, as you touched upon it, is:

EXACTLY when does the unborn become a person?

Do you know?

If not, doesn't it make sense to allow the benefit of the doubt, rather than recklessly going forward and exterminating (what even you admit) could be a human life?

Forget mysticism. If man has no 'spirit' or 'soul' , then the body is all there is, right?

On that basis, the unborn is as human as he is ever going to be.

Why is it human 'if mommy decides she wants it' and NOT human 'if mommy decides she doesn't want it' ?

The attitude of the woman cannot be a rational basis for deciding if one is a living human being or not.

KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Three murder charges were filed Tuesday against Andrew Guerrero in the deaths of his ex-wife, her daughter and her unborn child.

Ana Rosa Rodriguez
Look at the picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez on the left. At first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side in October of 1991. Ana Rosa was 32 weeks old at the time of the abortion. It was performed by legal abortionist Abu Hayat. Rosa, Ana Rosa's mother (who was only 20 years old at the time), had told Hayat that she had changed her mind and didn't want to go through with the abortion.

"He said that it was impossible to stop, that I had to continue," Rosa told New York Newsday. According to Rosa, Hayat's assistants held her down while he sedated her. When she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, baby Ana Rosa was born. Aside from the loss of her right arm, Ana Rosa is a perfectly healthy little girl.

As unfortunate as the maiming of Ana Rosa was, she and her mother are very lucky they escaped from Hayat without further injury. Other incidents Hayat, a member of the National Abortion Federation, was involved in:

* On September 18, 1990, Hayat performed an abortion on 17 year old Sophie McCoy. The next day she was taken to a hospital and found to have a perforated uterus and sepsis. An emergency hysterectomy was performed, but Sophie developed disseminated intravascular coagulopahty and died on September 26. Sophie's mother found paperwork for Hayat's facility in Sophie's coat pocket. The case was reported to the district attorney and the New York Health Department, but nobody took any action against Hayat
* In March 1991, Hayat refused to complete an abortion on Marie Moise after he demanded an additional payment of $500 in the middle of the abortion and Moise's husband could not pay the $500. He forced the woman to leave the clinic bleeding and with an incomplete abortion. She nearly died from the resulting infection.
* There have been several allegations accusing Hayat of sexually assaulting/fondling his abortion patients.

Even though all of the above happened before Ana Rosa's brush with Hayat, these previous incidents were not considered "serious enough" by New York authorities to take any action against Hayat. The maiming of Ana Rosa may have also gone ignored except that it drew intense media scrutiny. When news broke of Hayat's arrest in connection with the assault on Ana Rosa, at least seven women called a police hotline to claim he had also botched their abortions.

Hanno,

You are no doubt aware that in many states you can be charged with murder of an unborn child.

from http://www.kmbc.com/news/15226792/detail.html

Quote:

KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Three murder charges were filed Tuesday against Andrew Guerrero in the deaths of his ex-wife, her daughter and her unborn child.

But you say it's up to mom if it's a person or not.

So, here's the scene. Mom and unborn are shot and killed, and it is not known whether mom comtemplated or intended to abort or not. She never said she was thinking about it, but maybe she did.

Should the murder charge be applied for the death of the unborn?

Here's another scenario. Mom goes in for an abortion, but it fails and the baby is born alive, but handicapped.

Now it's a living person, even by your definition.

Does the living child have any recourse or deserve any compensation for the damages suffered (and TO BE suffered for the rest of his/her life) ?

If you think this doesn't happen, it does.

I can show you testimony from abortion survivors

If the unborn is not a person, how can a shooter be charged with two murders for mom AND the baby?

real life wrote:

If the unborn is not a person, how can a shooter be charged with two murders for mom AND the baby?

This is only possible in some jurisdictions. In others, for example the United Kingdom, it is not. An unborn child has no legal personality, and a foetus has no recognisable right at law unless it is born alive. Once born alive it can apply retrospective rights for criminal or civil wrong.

If the unborn is not a person, how can a shooter be charged with two murders for mom AND the baby?

It's interesting that humans must create abstract categories, sets, and classes in order to deal with the world of "things". We must group them into categories in terms of similarities and differences. This is necessary for everyday life and for scientific investigation, but when we wish to determine philosophical matters, like when does life or personhood begin, we find our efforts blocked by abstract categories that obstruct our access to concrete realities.

How can it be 'wronged' if it was not a person at the time of the deed?

real life wrote:

How can it be 'wronged' if it was not a person at the time of the deed?

Because Parliament has decided to have it that way. If you don't like it, don't come and live in Britain. It is a person once it has been born, and if it has been e.g. disabled because of medical negligence during its gestation or delivery it is only common sense that it should, via its parents, be able to sue.