You've failed to support your arguments of 'personhood' to such an extent that I rather wonder if you actually stand behind your own words while away from the computer. If you do, I see it as being more a case of "but I really want it to be right" than any science. If you don't, then thank you for opening a debate that's given me (and others, I'm sure) more of a reason to research and consider the standing evidence and once again reaffirm why it's so important to petition legislation.
I'm no longer following this discussion because it isn't even worth calling a discussion. You have made claims and used nothing more than sketchy websites to cite as evidence after ample opportunity. I'd like to leave you with this scenario, using your own argument of 'personhood'
It's perfectly legal to kill an intruder that's inside another person's house.
-What? A fetus didn't break in to burglarize you? You ASKED for it by having sex? (I'll insert your argument here for you)
Well actually, an intruder can be described as anyone who is in your immediate presence upon your property that doesn't leave after being instructed or warned to do so, when there is a CHANCE of bodily danger.
~~Just because you invited your neighbor in to use the phone doesn't mean he can come back later and rob you.~~
A fetus, even one deserving of 'personhood' by your standards carries the risk of bodily harm, therefor manslaughter laws do not apply.
((Yes, this even includes the self-defense killing of a person without aptitude of the decision making process)) ~See, I'll even toss in THAT argument for you, too.~
. You can still shoot a mentally retarded person that is a threat, the government just can't execute them. Imminent danger laws are not the same as state decided death penalty.`
In fact, some states allow you to kill a person without there even being PROOF of danger. You just have to "feel threatened while they are on your property"
-Texas State Law
A woman's body is always her property.
All pregnancies carry the risk of danger.
Supporting the right of women to make their own choice regarding abortion is very different from buying a season pass to the abortion factory.
Personally, I believe that all women have the right to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester, but that is not a decision that I would ever consider making for myself. Just because I couldn't morally justify it to myself doesn't mean that other women don't have the same right to make that decision for themselves. Who am I to decide what other people do with their lives and their bodies?
1. Yes, I'd say a sentient artificial life form (like Data of Startrek TNG) is a "person". So is a sentient alien. Further, it could be argued that a highly intelligent non-human primate would qualify as a "person" (being self-aware, having feelings, etc). If you are going to take a hard-line, black-and-white stance like you are, you need to more clearly define what a "person" is, and argue why none of these things qualify (if they don't fit your definition) but a zygote does.
The pro-choice stance is less problematic in this regard. It admits that abortion is a very difficult moral/ethical area, and that it is not really possible make a rule about what is right or wrong which will apply in all cases. The decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, and the person best able to make that decision is the woman.
2. You said: "Not in this particular case, because she was unaware that she was pregnant. Though I'm not sure how anyone would find out."
What Dave G said, plus... You mention the fact that nobody would find out?!? How does that enter into a discussion of right and wrong? If you can get away with murder without getting caught, it's OK?
"Just because you invited your neighbor in to use the phone doesn't mean he can come back later and rob you."
That is entirely different. The fetus does not leave the room for a coffee break, then come back in.
You wake up aboard an airplane, right before a transatlantic flight. A while into the trip, the owner of the plane insists that you are trespassing, and orders you to leave. Of course, you are thousands of feet above the middle of the Atlantic, but this does not matter. Neither does it matter if the owner was the one to kidnap you, as the owner retains the right to withdraw consent at any time. All that matters is that you, at the current moment, are on the owner’s property without consent, and you don’t have a right to be on the airplane without ongoing, explicit consent. Now, the owner opens a door, and pushes you out. Through a meat grinder. Keep in mind that this is entirely justified, as the owner has the right to remove you from the plane.
Of course, this is absurd. The right to life supercedes all others.
Very nice attempted side step, but you didn't at all mention the BASIC point of the law, being that the trespasser is a threat to yourself or others on-board.
If you fall asleep and wake up confused, you are hardly a threat. Pushing you out 'though a meat grinder' (again, nice attempt to distract with emotions) is not justified.
If you are wielding a knife, attacking flight attendants or posing a threat, then it is perfectly legal to go to whatever means to assure the safety of the crew and their customers.
Until all pregnancies are 100% safe, they are a threat, therefor she has the right to decide who "stays on board" or not.
Would you like to try again?
And by the way, I see below...but only those against pro-choice need to define personhood. That's YOUR argument, your responsibility to define it and uphold it... though I see Dave did a great job yet again.