It is a "pro-life" term.

Yes, yes...thanks for amusing me SWTX.

Oh, apparently it's my raison d'être - or so I've been told. :rolleyes:

This is an appeal to authority from a rhetorical standpoint:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.htm

Perhaps we are using two totally different definitions, which would explain the problems in communication. I teach rhetoric - so that's my basis for using the term. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

We were discussing the legal status of unaborted fetuses/babies/collection of cells - my point is that the federal government has already, through the passage of law, determined that there are SOME rights which an unborn fetus has. They are limited, they are still subject to interpretation, and they fall into the "grey" area you reference, but still - it's not a twisting of the idea of women's rights, or a begging of the question. The statement was made that the whatever-you-wish-to-call-the-potential human has no "rights", and I was addressing that. And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life. If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

I've changed my mind once, and while I'm pretty sure I won't go back, I do have an honest and sincere interest in the thinking behind those who hold different views.

eta - and as an aside, I'd be perfectly happy to leave the subject up to the states to determine. But that a whole 'nother political discussion.

I agree.

So is this supposed to be a discussion about the poll or what?

Ah we left that topic a long time ago! Then again, GC threads NEVER wander do they?!;)

I think this is a slightly different issue, and for a number of reasons, I don't think the abortion question has any place in the debate over a SCOTUS justice (despite the fact that it's one of the most talked about issues). But, again, that's a whole other issue.

:p Yea.. everyone is just talking in circles... and the whole abortion debate deal has been done many times over. I guess I just thought the whole point of this thread was about the Gallop poll, but alas, it is not

You are taking the analogy too far.

Is killing a tadpole, frog, etc. the same thing, from a legal standpoint, the same as killing a person? You're taking the comparison too far - in fact, that's kind of a running theme in this discussion to date. I'm not using "killing" as part of the analogy at all - the argument, put more simply, is this:

1. You introduced "potential human" as an analog for "actual human"
2. You claim that a fetus is a "potential" human, thus it is a "human"
3. There are multiple examples of transformations that help to illustrate that a "potential" human is not the same as a "human".

Don't read anything more into it.

Besides this, you haven't at all addressed the key issue here, although you touch on it here:

I'm not 'accusing' you of doing this, I'm simply saying that it is basically implicit in using any definition other than medical viability (yes, even using your "heartbeat" standard below).

OK - you've selected an incredibly arbitrary standard, but that's no different than any other completely arbitrary standard (including medical viability). I can definitely respect the choice, even if I completely disagree with it ("It has a heartbeat! People have heartbeats! It's a person!" seems very loose to me - almost reductive - but I don't really have an issue with it if that's what you want to use).

That's one of the key problems with any real substantive abortion discussion, and that's the impasse.