Abortion

[vyo476]

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

You don't really lack for self-confidence, do you?

 

[palerider]

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.

A kidney is a kidney, and a tumor is a tumor. Neither is a human being and there is no question at all over when we become human beings, separate from our mother's. We have already covered this ground and now, as then, you, nor anyone else can provide a bit of credible science that suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being, and there is also no credible science that would suggest that the unborn is ever part of its mother's body. It is inside of, but never part of her body. Being inside doesn't make one part of.

An unborn is no more part of its mothers body when it is inside than you are part of your house or car when you are inside.

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.

Of course you have an answer. You might not like it as it tends to make people with a pro choice view (and a conscience) somewhat uncomfortable, but you do have an answer.

First, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, neither egg nor sperm continue to exist as egg and sperm. There is a zygote which is a new human being.

What is a zygote? It is the earliest stage of a human being. What is an embryo? It is a more mature human being than a zygote. What is a fetus? It is a more mature human being than an embryo. What is an infant? It is a more mature human being than a fetus. What is a toddler? It is a more mature human being than an infant. What is an adolescent? It is a more mature human being than a toddler? What is an adult? It is a more mature human being than an adolescent. Do you see a trend here? All are equally human beings and since our most basic rights aren't dependent upon our level of maturity, it stands to reason that we have those rights from the time we come into being.

The right to live is our most basic right. Doesn't it stand to reason that even the most basic humans posess it?

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

We aren't talking about other species here. We are talking about whether human beings have the right to live.

Eons of human history.

Are you saying that with a straight face? Does saying something like that make you feel a bit like top gun?

You answer a question with a question.

That is a perfectly valid debate technique, especially when the underpinning philosophy that brought about the first question is, in and of itself, questionable. It is often better to help a person find the right answer than to simply give it to them and that is often done by answering questions with questions.

I believe Armchair General expressed the view that rights depend on how much something or someone is valued.

Armchair general made an emotional appeal with that statement. It was sophistry. Sophistry is a method of reasoning that appears rational on the surface but loses all rationality when you look below. If basic rights are a product of how much someone is valued, does that mean that a homless bum with no family has less right to live than anyone else. If you answer no, then that whole line of thought becomes invalid.

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.

If it a question between your life and mine in that you are threatening my life, then mine is paramount. I have the right to defend myself. But if you are not threatening my life in any real and immediate way, then no right that I can claim takes precedence over your most basic right to live your one and only life.

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'.

No argument there but then that isn't what abortion is about, is it?

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.

These aren't complex questions. The pro choice side tries very hard to make them seem complex. They do all they can to hide the very simple truth and apply all sorts of sophistry and eroneous philosophical principles in their effort that you would certainly not stand for if it were your one and only life on the line. When you look at an infant you have no doubt that that person has a right to live and that anyone who could intenionally tear it limb from limb is a monster. An unborn, at any stage of development, is just as much a human being as that infant. The only difference is the level of maturity. That infant that you freely admit has the right to live is exactly the same being that it was at the time it was concieved and it is less than a year away from being fully mature than it was when it was concieved.

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.

We have been through that as well. Before you can be put to death, you are entitled to your day in court and multiple appeals. Let each unborn have its day in court and the requisite appeals and you won't have any argument from me.

 

[palerider]

You don't really lack for self-confidence, do you?

When you are right, and you have all the facts on your side to prove that you are right, why would you be anything but self confident?

 

[Coyote]

A kidney is a kidney, and a tumor is a tumor. Neither is a human being and there is no question at all over when we become human beings, separate from our mother's. We have already covered this ground and now, as then, you, nor anyone else can provide a bit of credible science that suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being, and there is also no credible science that would suggest that the unborn is ever part of its mother's body. It is inside of, but never part of her body. Being inside doesn't make one part of.

Read what I wrote:

I am not arguing that a kidney or a tumor is a human being. Nor am I arguing that a fetus is anything but a member of the human species.

I'm stating that if you are going to argue that it's alive - well so are other things.

As far as the unborn being or not being part of it's mother's body during development - I disagree with your analysis. It's biologically and chemically intertwined with all it's mother's systems to the extent that for much of it's development it can not survive with out those connections and those connections change the mother's own chemistry and vice versa. At any point early on, the mother's body can reabsorb. To argue that it is a totally seperate human being is dishonest - it isn't until birth after which any person can provide for it's needs.

An unborn is no more part of its mothers body when it is inside than you are part of your house or car when you are inside.

I disagree.

Of course you have an answer. You might not like it as it tends to make people with a pro choice view (and a conscience) somewhat uncomfortable, but you do have an answer.

First, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, neither egg nor sperm continue to exist as egg and sperm. There is a zygote which is a new human being.

I'm not arguing that - it's semantics. Whether you call it a fertilized egg or a zygote is irrelevent. It is what it is.

What is a zygote? It is the earliest stage of a human being. What is an embryo? It is a more mature human being than a zygote. What is a fetus? It is a more mature human being than an embryo. What is an infant? It is a more mature human being than a fetus. What is a toddler? It is a more mature human being than an infant. What is an adolescent? It is a more mature human being than a toddler? What is an adult? It is a more mature human being than an adolescent. Do you see a trend here? All are equally human beings and since our most basic rights aren't dependent upon our level of maturity, it stands to reason that we have those rights from the time we come into being.

I see the trend. I recognize the trend. But there is a substantial difference between the fetus and all that precedes that stage and an infant and all that succeeds that stage. That substantial difference - in my mind, is that there is another human being, with right involved in the most intimate way possible.

The right to live is our most basic right. Doesn't it stand to reason that even the most basic humans posess it?

If so, then why can't the law require you to donate a kidney (knowing you will be left with a fully functioning one and no harm done to you - only and inconvenience) so a dying person can live?

We aren't talking about other species here. We are talking about whether human beings have the right to live.

Maybe. Life isn't confined to the human species, however a regard for it is. If one regards the right to life as sacred - then should not that regard be extended further then the human species? I think it's the natural extension of that ethic.

Are you saying that with a straight face? Does saying something like that make you feel a bit like top gun?

No, it doesn't and yes, I'm saying it with a straight face albeit somewhat flippantly.

It was the answer this question deserved: WHO is it that is actually the one really stretching to say a fetus doesn't have rights?

First: eons of human history sets a certain level of precedent, I'm not arguing right or wrong, I'm just stating what is.

Second: I never said a fetus doesn't have (any) rights as that statement implied.

That is a perfectly valid debate technique, especially when the underpinning philosophy that brought about the first question is, in and of itself, questionable. It is often better to help a person find the right answer than to simply give it to them and that is often done by answering questions with questions.

Maybe, in some cases yes - but in others, it can be a way of avoiding answering. Which is it here?

Armchair general made an emotional appeal with that statement. It was sophistry. Sophistry is a method of reasoning that appears rational on the surface but loses all rationality when you look below. If basic rights are a product of how much someone is valued, does that mean that a homless bum with no family has less right to live than anyone else. If you answer no, then that whole line of thought becomes invalid.

I didn't get the impression it was an emotional appeal, and without him here arguing his side, I can't be sure. My impression of value in regards to rights is more in terms of the law. The right to life in American society today is selective: it excludes the unborn and it excludes death row. I don't have answers - I only have questions because I've only started exploring the question this past year: with you, Numinus, Armchair (who I know in other places) and others.

Where do rights come from? Do we have inate rights by mere fact of being humans? Do certain rights exist by virtue of life itself? Or are rights dependent on who grants and recognizes them (that is where value would come in I think).

If it a question between your life and mine in that you are threatening my life, then mine is paramount. I have the right to defend myself. But if you are not threatening my life in any real and immediate way, then no right that I can claim takes precedence over your most basic right to live your one and only life.

No argument there but then that isn't what abortion is about, is it?

These aren't complex questions. The pro choice side tries very hard to make them seem complex. They do all they can to hide the very simple truth and apply all sorts of sophistry and eroneous philosophical principles in their effort that you would certainly not stand for if it were your one and only life on the line.

Abortion is about a conflict of rights - that is how I see it. I do not see it as whether or not a fetus has any rights, or is a human being - because it is. I see it as what rights does it have and what rights does the mother have and when do the rights of one over rule the other.

They ARE complex questions. They are complex because - historically, a fetus was not considered a person until birth. They are complex because advancements in science have allowed us to understand the reproductive process, and the process of prenatal development in much greater detail then ever before. Those same advancements have freed women from what was essentially reproductive slavery and put them on the same footing as men in being able to choose pregnancy. We are able to genetically tamper with a fetus, we are able to abort based on convenience, gender, disability and, real need. We may someday be able to choose to abort based on color of eyes or hair or any number of things because there is no law preventing this. We can create thousands of embryos - many probably defective - in hopes of inpregnating an infertile couple. With the corresponding advancement in science we are now in a state of flux regarding ethics -- there has not been a corresponding expansion of ethics and these should be ethics not only for humans but regarding life itself in all it's variety. You and Numinus are able to see it very simply, black and white. That is not the way I think. All I see are questions to which I am slowly arriving at answers.

When you look at an infant you have no doubt that that person has a right to live and that anyone who could intenionally tear it limb from limb is a monster. An unborn, at any stage of development, is just as much a human being as that infant. The only difference is the level of maturity. That infant that you freely admit has the right to live is exactly the same being that it was at the time it was concieved and it is less than a year away from being fully mature than it was when it was concieved.

Now WHO is appealing to emotion?

We have been through that as well. Before you can be put to death, you are entitled to your day in court and multiple appeals. Let each unborn have its day in court and the requisite appeals and you won't have any argument from me.

We have been through that, and we don't agree there. In this regard I lean more toward's Numinus' point of view: the right to life must extend to all humans.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Who or what decides that? And who decides that a woman can be forced to bear a burden, that could cost her in health and even life unwillingly when she did nothing to cause it?

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.

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

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.

Given that, why should not some rights be extended beyond the human species?

On the constitution - slavery was justified under it. Which is why I wonder about where rights come from, who or what determines it - and value.

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???

You are using the same term as Pale: convenience. If you think pregnancy is a mere matter of "convenience" you have either never been pregnant or never had complications. To minimize pregnancy and childbirth to mere "convenience" marginalizes the entire process of having children into something no more different then removing a hangnail.

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.

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??

I am willing to leave it up to the states, which is really where it belongs or to have serious restrictions placed on it - but not a total outlawing.

I don't recognize pregnancy as an "inconvenience".

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.

Agreed, I have already said as much.

However, pregnancy is not an "inconvenience".

For example, if you do not have health insurance you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section. This does not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems (not uncommon if the mother is underage or poor), neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early.

If you are talking about pregnant teenagers and children, you are also looking at significant health risks for the mother.

Hardly an "inconvenience". In fact, I think labeling it an inconvenience is nothing more then sophistry.

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

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.

We don't disagree here - I've already said as much - as long as it's voluntary.

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.

Again - we don't disagree when it's voluntary.

 

[numinus]

You don't really lack for self-confidence, do you?

Not really. I am merely pointing out the weakness in pale's and my argument - that the definition of personhood is a self-referencing statement.

'The offspring of human beings is a human being' is bordering on a circular fallacy.

 

[Coyote]

Not really. I am merely pointing out the weakness in pale's and my argument - that the definition of personhood is a self-referencing statement.

'The offspring of human beings is a human being' is bordering on a circular fallacy.

How would you address that fallacy?

 

[numinus]

How would you address that fallacy?

That would be for the pro-life position to address, since I just changed sides.

 

[numinus]

The second argument for personhood is legal precedent.

The thing about jurisprudence is that it is based largely on the principles of natural law, which in turn is based on theological speculation. While jurisprudence have distanced itself from theology, it is firm on its adherence to natural law.

Natural law doesn't define personhood in any rigorous manner - it merely presumes it to be self-evident. And the the standard for demonstrating the most fundamental epistemological principle is cogito ergo sum.

 

[Coyote]

The second argument for personhood is legal precedent.

The thing about jurisprudence is that it is based largely on the principles of natural law, which in turn is based on theological speculation. While jurisprudence have distanced itself from theology, it is firm on its adherence to natural law.

Natural law doesn't define personhood in any rigorous manner - it merely presumes it to be self-evident. And the the standard for demonstrating the most fundamental epistemological principle is cogito ergo sum.

I haven't been able to successfully argue "personhood". I will be interested to see what Palerider says.

I must say - whether I agree or disagree, your arguments are always interesting and enlightening.

 

[numinus]

I haven't been able to successfully argue "personhood". I will be interested to see what Palerider says.

I must say - whether I agree or disagree, your arguments are always interesting and enlightening.

Aw schucks! You're making me blush.

The last argument for personhood is the human genome. This is at once the weakest argument and the subject I have limited competence with, so I leave it to my betters.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

 

[Coyote]

Aw schucks! You're making me blush.

The last argument for personhood is the human genome. This is at once the weakest argument and the subject I have limited competence with, so I leave it to my betters.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

I hadn't thought of "personhood" in terms of biology but rather as something more philosophical? I'm not surprised about the genome though. It's the same way with dogs - genetically you can not tell the difference between dogs and wolves.

 

[numinus]

I hadn't thought of "personhood" in terms of biology but rather as something more philosophical? I'm not surprised about the genome though. It's the same way with dogs - genetically you can not tell the difference between dogs and wolves.

That's why its the weakest. I'm surprised pale even made mention of it.

 

[numinus]

It would seem I got away with murder.

 

[palerider]

That's why its the weakest. I'm surprised pale even made mention of it.

Abortion must always come down to a legal discussion and that being the case, the issue of personhood is not the weakest, but one of the most iron clad.

In a court of law, if a dispute arises between sides over what a word means, the legal dictionary comes out and the matter is decided based on what the dictionary says. Refer to any legal dictionary and look up the word person. The definition invariably states that a person is a human being (or a particular type of corporate entity that is treated like a human being). Since, in the eyes of the law the terms human being and person are interchangable, there is little argument to be made on the subject of personhood.

Philosophical slight of hand with regard to personhood as practiced by the pro choice side of the argument is no more than a dodge designed precicely to distract from the fact that in a court of law where this issue will ultimately be decided, the issue of personhood has already been decided.