Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 355
#271
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Sorry let me qualify that last post. You are claiming that abortion is unethical and I have not yet made any claim regarding this. That actually puts the burden of proof on you. 

IF you think personal freedom is a human right THEN everything is permissible until there is a specific reason to limit personal freedom. 

So either you are arguing against personal freedom, at least on some level, or you have a specific reason to limit a woman's personal freedom to have an abortion should she choose. This actually requires more than simply being unethical since there is no law against lying to your boss about why you are late or cheating on your boyfriend. There may be social consequences but there are, generally speaking, social consequences for every conceivable action.
Topic's author
#272
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Wow abortion is not illegal therefore it is not immoral.
Topic's author
#273
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

#274
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Wow abortion is not illegal therefore it is not immoral.
Immoral and illegal are two very different ideas and not necessarily connected, though one hopes there would be as much overlap as possible, but I did not actually make a claim either way. I simply asked for clarification of your claim.

If you do not have a specific reason to consider abortion unethical or immoral or whatever subjective term you would like to use then you have no real argument. 

That in mind I ask you again. Why is abortion unethical?
#275
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
Two issues right away.

Firstly what are we using as the definition of human being? Be careful as it is very hard to give a definition which applies to everyone(thing) that you think should be afforded human rights and yet which excludes everything(one) that you think should not be afforded those rights.

Secondly your status does determine your rights at least in part. Prisoners are not afforded the same right to personal freedom and autonomy while the poor have much less freedom to choose than the rich. A poor man cannot simply decide to go to Barbados on a whim for example. 

On a completely separate note I'm not really sure what this has to do with abortion at all unless your argument is that a pregnant woman should not have the same right to bodily autonomy that a non organ donor is afforded.


Topic's author
#276
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
#277
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
Why wouldi do that? I am not having a discussion with that august body at the moment I am having a discussion with you. Are my questions too difficult to answer?
Topic's author
#278
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
P1. Killing a human is morally wrong
P2. A fetus is a human
C. Abortion is morally wrong
#279
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
P1 allowing a human to die when you could prevented that death is morally wrong.
P2 some humans will die if they do not receive a kidney transplant 
C it is morally wrong to be in possession of two kidneys.
Topic's author
#280
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
P1 rebuttal: non-actions are not in the same category as actions

#281
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
P1 rebuttal: non-actions are not in the same category as actions

Rebuttal to rebuttal 1 either the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy or it doesn't. 

Rebuttal to rebuttal 2 please detail how the category is important in this metric. For example if you walked past a drowning child without trying to save them would you be absolved of any immorality for your inaction? Why or why not?
Topic's author
#282
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
not helping a child is not the same as actively harming it.
#283
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Assuming a fetus is an individual and deserving of some rights, which I am in all honesty not really convinced of, no individual has the implicit right to my body for the purposes of maintaining their own. 

(Redacted to avoid a possible confirming the consequence fallacy)

Unless you are willing to give me your kidney I don't have much sympathy for your position that a woman is obligated to donate her uterus and then eighteen years of her life to a person (or arguably a person) she hasn't met yet and without her consent.
#284
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The fetus is not human because it cannot breathe. For you religious people remember that  God gives you the breath of life.
“The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Genesis 2:7.

This is why God created miscarriages.



#285
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
Somebody already did:

In the HMR 2017 Resolution, there was an adopted text under the general title of 35/18 Elimination of discrimination against woman and girls, under document E is this statement:
“Reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the dignity, integrity and autonomy of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences,” 

#286
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
I would agree in some respects - not doing something can be negligent and harmful; however, the problem here is that I do not think humans have intrinsic value, IF you support the claim that people matter, THEN they have value. I am not convinced that being "people" is enough to matter, however, else it would only be a speciest lens that made us only care for humans and not every species equally. Well then, what is the difference between humans and other species, such as flies or slugs, I think that is pretty obvious; our ability to suffer or to have well-being, personhood, all of these make us different. IF we value these things, THEN humans matter. Therefore things without these things have no value, IN CONCLUSION, Fetuses do not have any of these things, if they had even one of the three then we could value them, as they have none, I see no reason to value them as people. Whenever fetuses develop these things, abortion is simply c-section, a perfectly fine operation.
#287
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@FLRW
For you religious people 
Who are specifically Christian and specifically believe in that verse in a way that can be specifically applied in the manner you are suggesting, which is exactly the problem with addressing religious beliefs. A person's religious beliefs are shaped by their views rather than the other way around. Every Christian will claim to "agree" with the bible even while disagreeing with other Christians about the "proper way" to interpret individual verses or even the bible as a whole. If you think the bible is saying that fetuses are not people and they view fetuses as people then you must be interpreting it "wrong" because the bible agrees with them. This is entirely unremarkable. All people's views shape their philosophy. You can't disagree with yourself about what is "right" and "wrong". 
#288
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Kindly supply your preferred definition of personhood. It is more difficult than you think and can even depend on the situation. On a raft that will support the weight of 8 people a 200lb sack of potatoes does count as a person. 
#289
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
This is not even considering the fact that it is not moral to force a woman to donate, their body, mental state, and possibly their life if they do not agree to have a child. Why is it that people find the initial "contract" so binding? Because people don't want to let the impregnated, primarily women, change their mind? Are people not allowed to change their mind regarding such a huge decision and future impact on their own well-being? Did you know that the depression and suicide rate of pregnant women are actually significantly higher than average? That fetuses do not develop a significant percentage of the time in the womb? Did you know that 1/16 women report that their first sexual intercourse is rape, and that 56% report being coerced into having sex [LINK]  [LINK]? 

#290
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The quality or condition of being an individual person.

Thats the definition that Lexico provides and the one I'm going with, in order otbe an "individual person" a person must be able to have thought, fetuses are not able to think until at a minimum of 20 weeks.
#291
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
(Once a baby develops sufficient as to be bodily self sufficient) abortion is simply c-section, a perfectly fine operation.
Well stated. I remain unconvinced that newborns possess self awareness and therefore I'm uncertain if personhood is a thing we start life with or when exactly we develop it.
#292
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Requested definition: personhood.

Reply
The quality or condition of being an individual person.
This is unfortunately a circular definition. Happiness is the state of being happy begs the question what does it mean to be happy.
#293
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that the most reasonable claim for the development of personhood would be between 20 weeks and several months borne, but by then they can suffer, therefore I would argue that a fetus might have moral weight starting at around 25 weeks. Probably later though, more research is needed into when they can suffer, and they can't suffer mentally so there is more doubt here.
#294
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I elaborated, and the elaboration makes the definition work, I do not mean "person" as in "personhood" I mean "person" as in the quality of thinking in a human manner, such is not a circle definition - you are conflating person and personhood. They are not the same.
#295
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can a dog suffer? Can a pig? How about a chicken? Can a fish suffer? Are any of these people? Should they be awarded human rights? Different rights? What does each level of sentience afford one? Or is there some cutoff beyond which a thing can no longer be considered "person"? 

My point here is that it would be a serious issue if you were to allow the rights of a thing you suspect is a person (by whatever metric) to supercede the rights of a woman who you are certain is a person. 
#296
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it. So yes, pigs should have moral value, not as much as people, because they are not as sentient as humans, but they should be granted some.
#297
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
And I wasn't suggesting that at all, is that what you thought I was doing? Even if the fetus was a person it would not supersede the women's rights, please read my posts in their entirety before making assumptions
#298
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it. So yes, pigs should have moral value, not as much as people, because they are not as sentient as humans, but they should be granted some.
What does it mean more sentient? Is a diwns syndrome patient less sentient? Is a chimpanzee? This is not criticism by the way I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
And I wasn't suggesting that at all, is that what you thought I was doing? Even if the fetus was a person it would not supersede the women's rights, please read my posts in their entirety before making assumptions
I was making no accusations. Call it advanced clarification. 
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it.
How do you quantify this?

Should we stop killing pigs for food?
#300
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Having more or less sentience is essentially more or less self-awareness. However; I would say that an ability to suffer is more important than sentience while determining moral value. People with syndromes are still self-aware and it would be a bit arbitrary to take or add moral value based on minute differences in this, after the organism crosses the line of  "self-awareness without doubt"  Furthermore, intelligence isn't necessarily sentience, they are different aspects.