Abortion

[Coyote]

In a sense I suppose we are all just potential on the continuum of life.

 

[vyo476]

In a sense I suppose we are all just potential on the continuum of life.

Ooooh, that was deep.

 

[Coyote]

Ooooh, that was deep.

Straight from the back of a cereal box

 

[Libsmasher]

.

There is no argument that it is human.

Nor that it is alive. Ergo, it is a live human being.

The argument is whether it has full rights equal to or exceeding the mother's, and the value of it's life in relation to the mother's rights to her own life and body.

The notion that the fetus' and mother's rights are somehow in conflict is a fiction.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

In a sense I suppose we are all just potential on the continuum of life.

That IS a key point. What do babies know? What memory do they have? What thoughts? Experts say they can't even distinguish themselves from the environment until they are one year old. It is such considerations that has led Peter Singer and others to call for the legalization of infanticide. Obama supported it in illinois for abortions where the baby is produced live. No problem - just let it die. Might take an hour. How about real old people? Are they really human beings? They can't walk, or can't walk well. They are confused. Can see well. Can't hear well. Can't work. Sounds like they aren't really human beings. Might as well off them, too. What's the cutoff point - 80? 75? Hmmmm... maybe 70? How about profoundly retarded people - are they really human beings? Gosh, when you think about it, you could get rid of lots of people by defining them out of the human race. Arbitrary definitions have great power. During WWII, the nazis called jews untermenchen, ie "subhumans". In doing so, they weren't just trying to give an insult, they were actually defining jews as not human, so it didn't matter what happened to them. Amazing what can happen when you start defining people out of the human race. Who knows, maybe some time in the future YOU will be "defined out"?

 

[numinus]

Ooooh, that was deep.

Can I change sides now? I mean its no fun arguing a sure thing.

 

[Coyote]

Nor that it is alive. Ergo, it is a live human being.

Depends what is meant by "human being".

It is of the species homosapiens. That is all you can say about it.

The notion that the fetus' and mother's rights are somehow in conflict is a fiction.

No. That is a lie. The most obvious rebuttal is when the fetus puts the mother's life in danger, such as with the Rh factor.

 

[Coyote]

That IS a key point. What do babies know? What memory do they have? What thoughts? Experts say they can't even distinguish themselves from the environment until they are one year old. It is such considerations that has led Peter Singer and others to call for the legalization of infanticide. Obama supported it in illinois for abortions where the baby is produced live. No problem - just let it die. Might take an hour. How about real old people? Are they really human beings? They can't walk, or can't walk well. They are confused. Can see well. Can't hear well. Can't work. Sounds like they aren't really human beings. Might as well off them, too. What's the cutoff point - 80? 75? Hmmmm... maybe 70? How about profoundly retarded people - are they really human beings? Gosh, when you think about it, you could get rid of lots of people by defining them out of the human race. Arbitrary definitions have great power. During WWII, the nazis called jews untermenchen, ie "subhumans". In doing so, they weren't just trying to give an insult, they were actually defining jews as not human, so it didn't matter what happened to them. Amazing what can happen when you start defining people out of the human race. Who knows, maybe some time in the future YOU will be "defined out"?

The question isn't whether they are of the human species. The question is:

are they person's in their own right? Why? Are chromosomes enough to give rights?
are their rights equal to or above that of the human being in whom they are housed?
at what point do they acquire rights?
what gives them rights - their value to other human beings?
what are the rights of a human being to their own selves and bodies? Can another human being justifiably claim rights to your body or a portion of it if their life depends on it?

I don't see it as clear cut at all - except that what ever the mother is carrying is undeniably a human species. I see many more questions then answers and no clean easy lines to draw. I see an inseperable tangle of rights between that of the fetus and that of the mother. At some point one exceed's the other's. I know what choices I would make for myself - but I won't pretend to have the answers for anyone else right now.

The only thing I feel sure of is when two people engage in voluntary sex, those two people do so knowing there is a risk of pregnancy and they are responsible, together, for producing a new human being should that occur.

That is all.

 

[numinus]

Since the moderators are clearly ignoring me, I'll go ahead and switch sides.

If there is any rational avenue against pro-life, it is in personhood - the only thing that is debatable, imo.

Personhood is discerned from the statement - 'the offspring of human beings is a human being'. While that may be intuitively true, it does not pass logical rigor since it is a self-referencing hypothesis. It is at best, paradoxical, or at worst, an outright circular fallacy.

 

[9sublime]

What are the mods supposed to be doing num old chum?

 

[Libsmasher]

.

The question isn't whether they are of the human species. The question is:

Don't skip the other half - that a fetus is unquestionably alive. Repeat: 1. it is of the species homo sapiens. 2. It is unquestionably alive. Therfore, it is a live human being.

are they person's in their own right?

What does it take to be a person in your own right? Not be dependent on someone else for nutrition? Then infants don't have rights?

Why? Are chromosomes enough to give rights?

Is being of the species homo sapiens, being alive, having a brain, arms, legs, internal organs, blood, nerve cells, bones, movement enough to be called a human with rights? WHO is it that is actually the one really stretching to say a fetus doesn't have rights?

are their rights equal to or above that of the human being in whom they are housed?

Are they any less? Why?

at what point do they acquire rights?

You tell me - give GOOD reasons.

what gives them rights - their value to other human beings?

What a bizarre notion of rights. All great charters of rights either explicitly or implicitly aver that you have rights merely by your existence as a human being.

what are the rights of a human being to their own selves and bodies?

Not being contested - the issue is the other body within yours. Do I have the right to stick a knife in someone? That would be control of my own body, my arm and my hand, wouldn't it? Apparently your right to control your own body is not unlimited.

Can another human being justifiably claim rights to your body or a portion of it if their life depends on it?

Is wanting to kill a fetus that you have willfully or negligently created really the same as a person who has a bad kidney and demands one of your's?

I don't see it as clear cut at all - except that what ever the mother is carrying is undeniably a human species.

AND alive.

I see many more questions then answers and no clean easy lines to draw. I see an inseperable tangle of rights between that of the fetus and that of the mother. At some point one exceed's the other's. I know what choices I would make for myself - but I won't pretend to have the answers for anyone else right now.

I think people who are uncertain might adopt the following philosophy:

There has never been a real abortion debate in this country. The issue was decided in one fell swoop by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, one of the most poorly argued pieces of legislation to ever come from the bench. Since then most of what has happened is an exchange of slogans, including the most successful purely political slogan ever in the US polity: "A woman has the right to control her own body." This, in lieu of a careful national REAL debate using the input of scientists, philosphers, and medical researchers. Until such time as that occurs, prudent people would call for a halt to abortion, since what may be happening when an abortion occurs is something horrifying.

 

[Coyote]

Don't skip the other half - that a fetus is unquestionably alive. Repeat: 1. it is of the species homo sapiens. 2. It is unquestionably alive. Therfore, it is a live human being.

You're kidney is alive too. So is a tumor. It's questionable at what point it can be considered a living human being seperate from the mother and with rights seperate from the mother.

What does it take to be a person in your own right? Not be dependent on someone else for nutrition? Then infants don't have rights?

That is one of the big points of contention isn't it? Does a newly fertilized but unimplanted egg have the same rights as a toddler? I don't have an answer yet.

Is being of the species homo sapiens, being alive, having a brain, arms, legs, internal organs, blood, nerve cells, bones, movement enough to be called a human with rights?

Maybe not. See, I don't necessarily see the bare fact of being human as deserving of rights over other species.

[quo WHO is it that is actually the one really stretching to say a fetus doesn't have rights?

Eons of human history.

Are they any less? Why?

You answer a question with a question. I believe Armchair General expressed the view that rights depend on how much something or someone is valued. Certainly - that is evident in history. Even now - many people who are pro-life only extend that consideration to the unborn. But to answer your question - I don't think their rights are equal to the mothers because, in the end - if it's a choice between the baby's life and the mother's, the mother's life is paramount. Likewise if the mother's health forces her to take a medication that could be detrimental to the fetus - her rights over rule the fetus'.

You tell me - give GOOD reasons.

I'm not pretending to have the answers to very complex questions. And that is one of the questions I'm still struggling with. So sorry, you won't get your pat answer from me.

What a bizarre notion of rights. All great charters of rights either explicitly or implicitly aver that you have rights merely by your existence as a human being.

Not really, and not historically. Look at the death penalty. Look at abortion. Look at fetal homicide. It's not universally applied. It only applies when the fetus has value to the parents - when it's wanted.

Not being contested - the issue is the other body within yours. Do I have the right to stick a knife in someone? That would be control of my own body, my arm and my hand, wouldn't it? Apparently your right to control your own body is not unlimited.

Oh, but it is being contested. You have two unique situations here. You have one where a segment of the human race can have all rights to decisions regarding it's physical body and even life, taken away - through no choice or act of their own (if it's rape). That person faces potential mortality, health risks, financial hardship, and a major life change and has no say in the matter and may have no help in facing it. You have another segment of the human race that - through no fault of it's own, has been forced into the body of another and is entirely dependent on it for life for nine months. So there is a real conflict of rights here centering around life and the right to have control over one's own body.

Is wanting to kill a fetus that you have willfully or negligently created really the same as a person who has a bad kidney and demands one of your's?

That doesn't answer the question. Particularly if it's the product of rape.

AND alive.



I think people who are uncertain might adopt the following philosophy:

There has never been a real abortion debate in this country. The issue was decided in one fell swoop by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, one of the most poorly argued pieces of legislation to ever come from the bench. Since then most of what has happened is an exchange of slogans, including the most successful purely political slogan ever in the US polity: "A woman has the right to control her own body." This, in lieu of a careful national REAL debate using the input of scientists, philosphers, and medical researchers. Until such time as that occurs, prudent people would call for a halt to abortion, since what may be happening when an abortion occurs is something horrifying.

You propose an interesting debate. I'm not sure it would resolve anything though. As a woman - I find the possibility that someone else (who doesn't know me, or care about me) might be able to control my body and decisions surrounding it - frankly terrifying. Every other human being seems to have the right to control their body except women and fetus'. I do not think I would call for a blanket ban on all abortions. My feeling is it should be rare, restricted and every option for help in making a different decision given and supported. I would not have one, and I would council a friend not to. But I am not the one to live with the decision. I don't think I have the right to force that decision on someone else.

 

[numinus]

What are the mods supposed to be doing num old chum?

Tell me its ok to argue the position of the other side, maybe? I don't know the rules that govern members who flip-flop in a debate and I want to try to invigorate an otherwise lost cause.

 

[9sublime]

I don't care if you swap sides.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Don't skip the other half - that a fetus is unquestionably alive. Repeat: 1. it is of the species homo sapiens. 2. It is unquestionably alive. Therfore, it is a live human being.

You're kidney is alive too. So is a tumor. It's questionable at what point it can be considered a living human being seperate from the mother and with rights seperate from the mother.

My kidney or a tumor will never evolve into a adult human being. Pointless comparison.

Quote:
What does it take to be a person in your own right? Not be dependent on someone else for nutrition? Then infants don't have rights?

That is one of the big points of contention isn't it? Does a newly fertilized but unimplanted egg have the same rights as a toddler? I don't have an answer yet.

Human beings have various rights conferred at various stages. A fetus has only the right to live. A toddler has few more rights. A 16 year old in many places has the right to drive, but not vote or drink. An 18 year old has the right to drive and vote, but many places can't drink. A 21 year old has full rights. The picture is one of gradually increasing rights. The irreducible right, however, is the right to exist, since without that, no other rights can have any meaning.

Quote:
Is being of the species homo sapiens, being alive, having a brain, arms, legs, internal organs, blood, nerve cells, bones, movement enough to be called a human with rights?

Maybe not. See, I don't necessarily see the bare fact of being human as deserving of rights over other species.

The thrust of my comment was the peculiarness of holding that a being with such characteristics could be considered not a live human being, not one about the relationship of humans to other species.

Quote:
[quo WHO is it that is actually the one really stretching to say a fetus doesn't have rights?

Eons of human history.

You misconstrued my point, but following that, slavery was approved for eons too.

Quote:
Are they any less? Why?

You answer a question with a question. I believe Armchair General expressed the view that rights depend on how much something or someone is valued.
Certainly - that is evident in history.

And that was the vile viewpoint of unenlightened times - eg, slaves have no rights, beacuse they are valued less than non-slaves. I completely reject that notion, as does for example our constitution.

Even now - many people who are pro-life only extend that consideration to the unborn. But to answer your question - I don't think their rights are equal to the mothers because, in the end - if it's a choice between the baby's life and the mother's, the mother's life is paramount. Likewise if the mother's health forces her to take a medication that could be detrimental to the fetus - her rights over rule the fetus'

.

The only thing with any validity in that is that if it REALLY is a choice between the mother or the fetus living, and such choices must be extremely rare in the US in this day and age. Other than that, what is the conflict? We are to believe that a fetus' right to exist, the most fundamental right there is, is overruled by the woman's supposed right to not be incovenienced by pregnancy??? The latter is certainly NOT a right, and if it were, would any reasonable person adjudicate such an apparent conflict of rights in favor of the latter over the former???

Quote:
What a bizarre notion of rights. All great charters of rights either explicitly or implicitly aver that you have rights merely by your existence as a human being.

Not really, and not historically. Look at the death penalty. Look at abortion. Look at fetal homicide. It's not universally applied. It only applies when the fetus has value to the parents - when it's wanted.

The death penalty is a valid objection. But you repeatedly bring up what has happened historically - what has been done in the past is not at all a valid argument for what should be done.

Quote:
Not being contested - the issue is the other body within yours. Do I have the right to stick a knife in someone? That would be control of my own body, my arm and my hand, wouldn't it? Apparently your right to control your own body is not unlimited.

Oh, but it is being contested. You have two unique situations here. You have one where a segment of the human race can have all rights to decisions regarding it's physical body and even life, taken away - through no choice or act of their own (if it's rape). That person faces potential mortality, health risks, financial hardship, and a major life change and has no say in the matter and may have no help in facing it. You have another segment of the human race that - through no fault of it's own, has been forced into the body of another and is entirely dependent on it for life for nine months. So there is a real conflict of rights here centering around life and the right to have control over one's own body.

As I said before, I don't recognize "not being inconvenienced for 9 months" as a right, and if your argument hangs on the situation of rape, then are you willing to outlaw other abortion situations, since rape is less than 1% of the reasons for abortion??

Quote:
Is wanting to kill a fetus that you have willfully or negligently created really the same as a person who has a bad kidney and demands one of your's?

That doesn't answer the question. Particularly if it's the product of rape.

Putting aside the rape issue for the moment the answer is: If you are pregnant, it is due to you own willful acts or negligence. That being the case, it seems even more absurd to say that your "right" of not being inconvenienced for nine months is trumped by the fetus' right to exist.

Quote:
AND alive.



I think people who are uncertain might adopt the following philosophy:

There has never been a real abortion debate in this country. The issue was decided in one fell swoop by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, one of the most poorly argued pieces of legislation to ever come from the bench. Since then most of what has happened is an exchange of slogans, including the most successful purely political slogan ever in the US polity: "A woman has the right to control her own body." This, in lieu of a careful national REAL debate using the input of scientists, philosphers, and medical researchers. Until such time as that occurs, prudent people would call for a halt to abortion, since what may be happening when an abortion occurs is something horrifying.

You propose an interesting debate. I'm not sure it would resolve anything though.

We'll never know till we try - and certainly for such an important issue, we should try.

As a woman - I find the possibility that someone else (who doesn't know me, or care about me) might be able to control my body and decisions surrounding it - frankly terrifying. Every other human being seems to have the right to control their body except women and fetus'. I do not think I would call for a blanket ban on all abortions. My feeling is it should be rare, restricted and every option for help in making a different decision given and supported. I would not have one, and I would council a friend not to. But I am not the one to live with the decision. I don't think I have the right to force that decision on someone else.

The claim that women are being "controlled" by someone else is a distortion. If a woman has sex, she voluntarily is entertaining the risk of becoming pregnant, even by accident, as is well known. THAT is her point of control. If she DOES become pregnant, (according to the pro-life view) she has now entered into a contract with the fetus to allow it to exist. Again, except for rape, women don't become pregnant because someone is in control of their life.

Here's an analogy: Nobody will force me to sell my home. I have control of it. But what if I do agree to sell it, and then sign a sales contract. Then suppose there are side consequences I don't like - say the value of my house skyrockets. Then I complain that I am being "forced" to sell my home. But my decision point has come and gone, when I signed - after that I only illegitimately complain that I am being forced by the majority, through their laws, to do something I don't want to do.