“Man! I am BORED out of my GOURD!”

As one might expect, abortion is one of the topics that can be relied upon to spark a lively discussion every time it is raised on Ethics Alarms. This is because abortion is a true ethics dilemma, where valid ethical considerations point in opposite directions. In addition, this ethics dilemma cannot easily be solved by balancing, because determining which of the ethical values involved, personal autonomy and the primacy of human life, should hold the superior priority involves resolving conflicting definitions.Complicating things further is the fact that the three main ethics systems—reciprocity, Kantian ethics, and Utilitarianism— reach disparate conclusions.

The subject of this intense and extensive comment by Zoltar Speaks! is another commenters assertion that the unborn do not qualify as “persons” within the protection of the law because they do not, as far as we know, have self awareness and are incapable of thought. I personally detest this argument, but I’ll leave the exposition to Zoltar. He got extra credit for beginning with the trademark quote that Ethics Alarms uses to designate a “Popeye.“

Here is the Zoltar Speaks! Comment of the Day on the post, Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/13/17: Rushing In Panic Around My Boston Hotel Room Because I Didn’t Get My Wake-Up Call Edition:

“I ain’t gonna take it, ’cause I can’t take no more!”

My understanding from your comments is that you don’t agree with a lot of what abortion activists use as arguments. However, you’re regurgitating intentionally modified long standing definitions to fit an agenda instead of using the definitions as they are. You are not parsing the words of an existing definition, you are not simply misunderstanding an existing definition, you are literally adding things to the definition of “person” that do not exist in the definition.

You are saying that a person is not a person until they can think and feel, and that is by definition false (see below.)

You say that “intelligent, informed pro-choice advocates” talk about thinking and feeling is when a person becomes a person.  I don’t care who presents that as an argument, it’s false. It is literally uninformed, and since you used it in this way it is literally showing a low level of intelligence. It’s bastardizing the English language into agenda-driven rhetoric:

Bastardizing:corrupt or debase (something such as a language or art form), typically by adding new elements.

I looked up as many definitions for the word “person”  as I could find and I found an obvious common thread: Person:A human being regarded as an individual. A human individual. A human being. A human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. An individual human. The common thread is human and individual. Tthere is nothing in any definition I could find that could be construed as holding that a person is only a person if he or she can think and feel.

 Human Being, furthermore, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Is an unborn child a human being? Yes.

Individual is a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. Is an unborn human being an individual? Also yes..

Is an unborn human being a person, then? Yes. The argument that an unborn child is not a person until they can think and feel is literally false.

I’ve been thinking about what you’ve been talking about as you have been trying to define the point where an unborn human being becomes a “person” as being when they can think and feel.  I’ve begun to lean towards the conclusion that as you and others arbitrarily define a point where you think life begins, you think it’s justifiable  to end the potential of the growing human being as long as it is before that predefined arbitrary point. Is this not trying to distinguish  being alive vs. not being alive in such a way that abortion can’t possibly be “murder” (as some choose call it) since it has been conveniently defined as neither a person nor “living”?

WHAT IF YOU ARE ALL WRONG?

What is life? Life:The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Does a fertilized egg have life?  Yes, but the viability of that life, as in continued growth of that life, is only possible after the implantation of the fertilized egg.

Alive:(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead. Having life.

Is a fertilized egg alive. Yes.

What is death? Death:the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism. Is abortion causing death, yes.

Kill:cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). Does abortion kill? Yes.

Murder:the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Is abortion murder? Abortion is currently legal under certain conditions; therefore, abortion is not murder.

There will be those that attack this opinion implying that it should be ignored because it’s nothing but semantics; to those who think that, you need to understand that words have real meaning, and when that meaning is bastardized, the constructs of the English language begin to break apart. Then no one knows what anyone else is talking about.

Lastly…

My opinion on abortion has morphed over the years, As I have matured and grown to understand more, my opinion is currently…

…The end result of pro-life is literally life.

…The end result of pro-choice is literally death. A mother making a pro-choice choice has to live the rest of her life with choosing to kill a human being over allowing that human being to live.

…Abortion is literally choosing to end the life of a human being when it is most vulnerable and unprotected by law. What is happening to these lives via abortion might currently be legal, but it is clearly immoral.

…I have absolutely no problem with any form of contraceptive that prevents a fertilized egg from properly implanting.