>Ok I'm back..... San Francisco is beautiful even on a business trip.
>
>You sort of disappoint me.
>I thought you were going to come back with lots of scientific proof to illustrate that unborn child is not human.

Not my science. I don't feel competent there; I can only rely on common sense, which seems to be not something we have in common (OK, this is a crossbreed between a paradox and oxymoron, but that's English for you ;).

So, recap: I stick to what common sense tells me here - but it seems to be telling you something else. Either one of us is a tin ear, or this common sense isn't so common.

>>You say "good for you". Do you go around and fix everyone's logical errors? If she feels it's a child - well, she's expectant, and she's expecting to see it soon, as it will be when it is born, not as it is at the moment. She's looking into the future - that's how I understand the word "expect".
>
>This is where I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that the unborn child isn't human.

It is human - a human fetus. But it is not a child, not yet.

>So, I guess you disagree with some states charging the murder of a pregnant woman with double homicide as in the Scott Peterson case.

I skipped that case - it was too much of a distraction. It got a full runaway bride treatment, I really didn't care what happened there. Still don't know any details, and still don't care. Larger tragedies happen every month, this one was picked as a perfect storm to bind people's attention so they wouldn't notice what the magician's other hand was doing at the time. Probably preparing some sort of "all your social security are belong to us" vanishing trick.

Generally, the fetus is not even a John Doe - it's not a dead somebody whose identity may become known someday. It still has no identity. It is not a person, not yet. And in a murder it will never be - which makes the murder harder and more cruel and should add a degree to its qualification and should merit a heavier punishment. But should not count as one more murder, simply because nobody can positively hope to have an answer as to identity of the alleged victim. The parents are the victims - their future is nil, even if one parent survives. The family is gone.

>>>I said this before in other thread, I can live with early term abortion. It's late term abortion that gives me grief.
>>
>>Same here - late term is just dangerous and does bring up ethical questions. But the point of contention is the campaign to stretch this to any abortion in general, and to leave women without a choice. And that was the main question: should people be free to choose whether and when to have children, or not? Sounds like a no-brainer to me, but somehow it became an issue.
>
>Just dehumanize them and you won't have any reason to feel bad, they're just clump of tissues.

Just pretend they're already human because they told you so, and next thing you know you will have to pay dowry for your daughters so they can get married, and they will have to ask permission to speak, and will have to speak only when spoken to, reply to their husband with "yes, sir" and will have to wash their father-in-law's feet. And adultery will be punished by stoning.

Because that's exactly where this fallacy leads. Straight into the bright past.

If fetus is a person, what is a wet dream then? A genocide?