Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 355
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.

Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)

Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.

Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
The same selectively moral system that supports armed conflict as a means to an end.

Not to mention the morally biased system that is currently wholly reliant upon living matter as a source of nutrition.
#3
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
No one can Ben.
#4
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Sure. Check out my debate on abortion, the second one, also the first one (but that one's not as good in my opinion.)
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why not cite your source? What. we're supposed to go hunt for it? if it's worth argument, it's worth citing. Give us a link.
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Unfortunately, at least legally [as opposed to morally, and I do support your position] 1USC §8 stipulates that a "human" is not "human" until fully "born alive." I disagree with the current legal definition because, by DNA, that entity is human by genetics from the point of conception when its DNA is established. It will never be anything else but human at birth, so it should be considered human at conception, not just at birth. Further, since the zygote/embryo/fetus, plus all amniotic, placental, and umbilical tissue shares DNA, and not with the mother, none of the tissue is "part of" the mother's body, regardless of privacy rights of the 4A and 14A declaring the woman's right to her own body. The placenta and amniotic sac, and everything in it is much like a ping pong ball held in a fist. The fist fully contains the ball, but open the fist, what happens? If it were not so, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out but for the distinction that her tongue truly is part of her body.

None of that is moral truth, but it is scientific truth.
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
It's literally like two clicks, but if you want to be semantic and ignorant.... nah I still don't feel like giving it to you, mostly out of spite. I'll pm it to Benjamin though.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
I did Mr E.......Short term memory loss....things are looking bleak old boy.

So where's Benny?
Topic's author
#9
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4

The same selectively moral system that supports armed conflict as a means to an end.

Not to mention the morally biased system that is currently wholly reliant upon living matter as a source of nutrition.
Well, you need to explain how that system works.

You are bacically saying: abortion is moral - deal with it

I asked you to explain why human rights exist but still abortion is morally acceptable
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights exist, when it suits....

And morality is a variable human concept.

And my two examples are one and the same system, and are self explanatory.....A selective, biased and variably moral system.

Namely, Human Society.




Topic's author
#11
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Human rights exist, when it suits....

And morality is a variable human concept.
Hitler would definately agree
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
For some people  Muslim Jihadists are fellow human beings....Others think that it's right and good to bomb the fuck out of them.

Some people think that an embryo is an inconsequential blob of goo....Others think differently.

Selective and variable morality.......Deal with it.
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
And Hitler was as Hitler did.....

And I cannot disagree with you.
Topic's author
#14
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Selective and variable morality.......Deal with it.
So basicly you are saying: human rights do not matter - you can kill the jews and you can take an abortion as long as you see it fit.

This is the worst system of morality ever expressed - it is the same as no morality.
Topic's author
#15
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
 It will never be anything else but human at birth
Brilliant argument.
Topic's author
#16
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
As nobody has been able to support such a morality - we can assume it does not exist.

Therefore, I proceed with my argument:

  1. All humans are created equal, and they are endowned by their creator certain inalienable rights, among them the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness
  2. So all humans are equally valuable regardless of sexual orientantion, age, body, personality, ethnicity, religion, language, etc.
  3. Since all humans are equally valueable - everyone should be treated equally - this is called human rights.
  4. A right is the same as the removal of a freedom: you have a right to life so you have no freedom to murder.
  5. Humans have a right to die a natural death - therefore humans have no right to kill each other, including through abortion

If a moral system does not accept every being with human DNA to have human rights, then that moral system undermines human rights. This is what Hitler did, he limited human value to only be applicable to humans with certain biological traits (such as not being a jew). I see no difference between a jew and an unborn baby with regards to their humanity.

#17
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Not sure why You tagged me, I don't think I
 support abortion 
#18
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Although I do disagree that every human is equally valuable. I think humans have an innate dignity but a person's actions can devoid them of value.
#19
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
All of those were assertions, claims, I'd like you to demonstrate them; here's my foundation of morality, or at least one version of it.

P1: Humans value their own well-being
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being

Furthermore this system is dependent on human personhood, if an organism does not have personhood, then it does morally consider the same, without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality. Even more, this is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong then the forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy. 

Topic's author
#20
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
REBUTTALS:

P1: Humans value their own well-being
Correct.
1. Can you prove that a baby cannot have well being?
2. A baby right before and right after birth are basically the same. Is post-birth abortion acceptable? What about child murder?
3. Well being is an ill-defined term. Well-being 

P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
1. Not necessarily. Hitler did not "ought" to respect other peoples well being.
2. Animals can also have well-being, but we still do not think that hunting is immoral. We would never put an animal as more valuable than actual humans?
3. What does "respect" mean in this case? Its a substitute for moral duty, not an explanation for it.
4. This allows for people to be immoral if they do not desire their well being to be respected.

Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
This is exactly what you said in P1. - your logic is circular.



CRITIQUE:

 this system is dependent on human personhood
It is based on a feeling animals can have but many humans do not have. A rat can have the well-being a human baby cannot have (according to pro-choice arguments).


without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality
This is exactly what Hitler thought, he called the Jews insects and rats, and by doing that he removed their personhood - then he killed them in the absence of human rights.



forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy
I have bodily autonomy, I could kill people. Would you force me to stop and violate my bodily anatomy?


 is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong
Yes. Killing a human being, even if that human being is not as developed as me, is morally wrong.



CONCLUSION:

without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality
Exactly - this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible.

Under this theory, a society can choose which humans should deserve human rights and who should not - by choosing who is a "person" and whom to call "animal/fetus/etc"

Conclusion: this theory does not support human rights. Therefore this theory fails to meet my criteria.
Topic's author
#21
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sorry for this critique. The theory just has an innate flaw: dividing between "humans who have a clear personality" and "humans without human rights". 
#22
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
I will answer each "critque" later, it doesn't understand basic logic, and you are quite wrong in your points, but I'll answer it whenever I have more time.
Topic's author
#23
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You failed to explain why your theory supports universal human rights.
#24
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
And I said I would correct your understanding later, the entire point of that was to say, "I am in class, I don't feel like and don't have the time to address this rn, so wait till later."
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
You've completely avoided the issues that I set out.....Which is typical of a selective moralist.

All you have offered is emotive soundbites....... In an attempt to drown out all the other cries of anguish that you casually choose to overlook....

How do you like my emotive soundbite?

So why are you perfectly moral Ben?


Topic's author
#26
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So why are you perfectly moral Ben?
I am not. Neither are you. If you claim to be a perfectly moral being then nobody will ever believe you.
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Thanks.

I will further add that even the pro-choice argument of viability [able to function post-womb] is being accomplished at earlier and earlier points in gestation, completely obliterating the idea of not just late, but mid-term abortion. The record is a successful premature birth at nineteen weeks.
Topic's author
#28
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I would argue that the very idea, that human value is dependent on their viability, is bad. A 2 year old cannot survive without the parents. Can they kill it or even starve it to death? No, obviously not. So what is the difference between a two-year-old and a two week old?
#29
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.
I disagree with this definition of human rights. If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Still, even under said definition, women are human thus should not be enslaved by deranged people like Todd Adkins and his ilk.
#30
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
In case it is unclear, I I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to term, or similarly legally forcing them to have abortions. In the US, constitutional amendments thankfully prohibit both.