Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 355
#31
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I did Mr E.......
You didn't Z-man.

Short term memory loss....
Still better than lying.

...things are looking bleak old boy.
You are aware, that your nerves don't terminate in my brain aren't you? Oh wait, you're a liberal, you think your perceptions are universal.

So where's Benny?
Benny Hill sadly, has died. Are you sure you live where you said you did? 
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
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 
Because you clearly don't understand what this implies - this is saying each individual human values their own well-being - baby and fetus aren't synonymous. In order for something like this to have well-being they must have personhood, the majority of fetus's that are aborted do not have personhood. Any abortion that late into the trimester would not be termination, but surgery to remove the fetus. Abortion is not murder, abortion is terminating the pregnancy. In later stages that is equivalent to removing the fetus; however less than 10% of abortions happen after 13 weeks, and less than 0.1% after 21. 

Are you asking what well being is? Because a 10 second google search would render the answer - "The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy", again, in order for something to be any of those things it has to have personhood. 


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.
You are missing on something, evolutionarily speaking, everyone values their own well-being, this is why people quickly draw their hand away from flame whenever they touch it, this is why humans feel fear of death, this is why humans innovate, you do not understand that simple principle and it shows. Hitler wasn't being moral, of course he didn't. He was wrong, and we know that - why would he fall into the syllogism? As for respect, it means if you want your well-being to be acknowledged by others you ought to acknowledge theirs. This is intuitive. You just said that well-being was ill defined, and then you try to attribute it to animals? How can you simoutanously ask what a term means and then claim that a category of things have it? Sounds like bullshit to me. 


Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
This is exactly what you said in P1. - your logic is circular.
This is what I meant whenever you were being illogical, do you not understand nuance? Premise 1 was: "Human-beings value their own well-being" this is saying you ought to value other people's well-being. You have literally no idea what you are talking about.


 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).
Wrong, demonstrate that rats are suffciently sentient to have personhood, and babies do have well-being, fetus don't. There is a biological distinction. This is a strawman.


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.
So you don't have an argument to deconstruct what I was saying? You're just saying, "You're being Hitler." If you think that makes a cogent moral argument you are sorely mistaken. Hitler dehumanized Jews, called them not human, fetus's literally don't have personhood - it is not the same comparison. "Personhood" funny how you don't even know what that word means and you're throwing it around, Hitler said literally nothing about personhood. Your short and quippy responses make sense, as your arguments have little substance.


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?
That is not the same thing - bodily autonomy is having the right to your body, you can, for example: masturbate, and nobody could stop you. Also... murdering is violating someone elses bodily autonomy, I see you are trying to compare abortion to murder, demonstrate that please. Further more, if someone was attacking you, or causing you great suffering and depression, you could defend yourself... yes. 


 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.
Demonstrate that claim. You are making a fallacy of possibility currently.


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.
You are very incorrect here - no one chooses what does and doesn't have personhood, things either do or do not have them. Do you think that this is aribtary? It is probably the farthest from arbitrary of any moral system. Also, "this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible" is A) you conceding, and B) based on the assumption that abortion is wrong, you have not demonstrated that. You don't understand how basic personhood works, funny.
#33
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Ethical systems are much more complicated than good vs bad.
What we have now is better than the government forcing a (fully developed conscious) woman to carry till labour.
Assuming she doesn’t use a coat hanger first.

What ethical system would you propose that is better? abstinence from sex? Don’t delude yourself. 
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
And so you still avoid the issues I raised .

And as you are not perfectly moral, then why do you expect others to be perfectly moral?
#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Funny you should remember Benny Hill.


Topic's author
#36
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to term
A women is not forces to carry, carrying is a biological necesity. The difference is that the government would not pay for the big abortion industry - if abortions were immoral.

legally forcing them to have abortions
I am not sure this is possible even if it was written in the law.


If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Am I not? I have the same human value to both of those people - neither of us should be murdered or enslaved.

The verry idea of human rights is that no matter your oppinion about someone, they share the same value and rights as you do.

Human rights will not work if one starts to rip certain groups of their rights because of a society's oppinion about them.

This includes the jews and unborn babies. Jews were considdered to be less valueable, but they were not - they were maybe a different culture and were called animals, but they had human DNA.
Topic's author
#37
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
CLARIFICATION:

You came with a lot of accusations, but for the sake of the debate I will ignore the critique against me personally, without argumentation.

 You're just saying, "You're being Hitler."
When I use the term "Hitler" - I refer to a violation of universal human rights. Thus, saying "Youre being Hitler" is an actual argument, I could translate it to: "your moral system does not support universal human rigths."



REBUTTALLS:

 baby and fetus aren't synonymous
Correct. Lets check the definitions.

Fetus: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/fetus]

Baby: A very young child.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/baby]

Child: A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/child]

CLEARLY, A FETUS IS A CHILD BY DEFINITION - BUT A CHILD IS NOT NECESARILLY A FETUS.



fetus's that are aborted do not have personhood
Personhood: The quality or condition of being an individual person.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/personhood]

Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/person]

Individual: A single human being as distinct from a group.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/individual]

CLEARLY, EVERY HUMAN IS A PERSON - 


 you are trying to compare abortion to murder, demonstrate that please.  Abortion is not murder.
Correct.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/murder]

Kill: Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)[https://www.lexico.com/definition/kill]

An abortion is a human (the doctor), killing every living cell that belongs to another human.
As abortion is legal, it is not murder, neither was holocaust. But if a fetus is not an innamate object, a plant or an animal, abortion is to kill a human.


You are very incorrect here - no one chooses what does and doesn't have personhood, things either do or do not have them.
Society chooses which humans to call "person" and which humans to call "animal/unwanted/fetus/etc" - therefore society can take personhood from any group.
In our society fetuses are not regarded as persons, and in nazi germany the jews and the handicapped were not regarded as persons - it's the same thing.

What "same thing" are we talking about? Its simple: measuring human value from a standard - like "personhood" or "ethnicity" - instead of having universal human value.


 You don't understand how basic personhood works, funny.
As far as the definitions are concerned, I do.


CONCLUSION:

You have failed to provide the necesary moral ground to support universal human rights. Instead you focus on attacking me and my position. 

I provided a simplistic theistic moral ground: "all humans have the same creator - therefore all have the same value". This is a relgious reason for human rights.

I want you to explain why your moral system can support human rights and still deem abortion moral. You have the burden of proof.


Also, you syllogism does not explain why killing another human is wrong. It is a reason for morality, not an actual system.


Ultimately: my point still stands.

#38
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
This is the first topic we have agreed on lmao. 
Topic's author
#39
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
AND causality
#40
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Can you summarise your moral system alternate to the current one please?
Topic's author
#41
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Can you summarise your moral system alternate to the current one please?
First of all - my moral system has nothing to do with this debate - you (as a defender of abortion) has been challenged to support human rights and abortion at the same time.

Secondly, here is my moral system boiled down:

"All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."

Men: every creature with distict DNA from the species homo sapiens

Freedom: you can do whatever you want

Right: what others should not do to you, you should not do to others - if you don't want to be murdered do not murder others - a right is the opposite to a freedom

Ethics: the rules which humans follow. The important part is that we do not treat different humans differently. I cannot justify murdering ONLY jews, or babies, or anyone


The important thing about Human rights is that it applies to everyone. So if you accept the "termination" of a human fetus, you must also accept every other killing of a human.

#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump
But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces  in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human. 
#43
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
First of all - my moral system has nothing to do with this debate - you (as a defender of abortion) has been challenged to support human rights and abortion at the same time.
If by “human rights” you mean the official Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and not just something you like to say, then okay. 
The laws surrounding abortion are clearly pro-choice.  Can you find any laws that are specifically against it?

Secondly, here is my moral system boiled down:

"All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."
That’s just flowery wording with no substance. Is there anything that directly talks about abortion or is it just interpretation? You might as well use the bible. I find it amusing you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence in this circumstance.

Men: every creature with distict DNA from the species homo sapiens
Agreed.

Freedom: you can do whatever you want
Not very substantive, but okay.


Right: what others should not do to you, you should not do to others - if you don't want to be murdered do not murder others - a right is the opposite to a freedom
Murder is a legal term. I assume you’re not using it as such when it comes to legal abortion.

Ethics: the rules which humans follow. The important part is that we do not treat different humans differently. I cannot justify murdering ONLY jews, or babies, or anyone
What about fetuses, embryos, zygotes and gametes?

The important thing about Human rights is that it applies to everyone. So if you accept the "termination" of a human fetus, you must also accept every other killing of a human.
Where are you getting your human rights from? 

What about people in comas? Why do we treat them differently to those that are conscious? 

#44
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces  in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human. 
Some people say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. I say not when stupidity’s on your side. 

#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
a person's actions can devoid them of value.
I'd agree with that, and I take your word that you do not agree with abortion, so I'd think you'd agree that an unborn, having human DNA, though not legally afforded the title "human" by law, at least 1 USC §8, they are still innocent sufficient to be accorded human rights. Besides, the law also recognizes the death of an unborn killed due to another's violent act against the mother as murder of the unborn, as well, so the law is clearly conflicted on the point.
#46
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
@Benjamin
Benjamin, your argument to Edge is an impassioned, and mostly legitimate argument, except for one detail: the legal definition of "human," at present, is conflicted because of 1 USC 8, compared to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004], which calls the unborn victim of violence to the mother causing death of both "a victim of murder." Only humans can be murdered, legally. All other living things are merely killed. Murder is a distinctive act to humans, only, which, by this law, includes the unborn. I suppose the difference is that abortion is not considered a violent act, though I imagine a fetus so treated, if it had a voice, would not accept that consideration.

I ask the question to those favoring abortion: What if the fetus , by natural selection [mutation] develops the ability to resist abortion? What, then? To date, no answer.
#47
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
I beg to differ 
Topic's author
#48
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I do not understand what you mean. I know that murder is the killing of a human - and that by definition a "fetus" is a human, just like a "child". What are you trying to tell? 
#49
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Are you going to reply to me?

I did say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly pro-choice.
#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101

Some people say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. I say not when stupidity’s on your side. 
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.

That’s just flowery wording with no substance.
The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?

Is there anything that directly talks about abortion or is it just interpretation?
Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.

I find it amusing you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence in this circumstance.
Why? The Declaration of Independence establishes that we all have  human rights and that those rights are inalienable and from God. Absolutely pertinent to Ben's argument.

Where are you getting your human rights from? 
From the same place the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it. But you've already told us you think the Declaration of Independence lacks "substance". (!!!)

I did say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly pro-choice.
And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge. 
#51
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Benjamin
I speaking against legally forcing women to carry fetuses to term
A women is not forces to carry, carrying is a biological necesity. The difference is that the government would not pay for the big abortion industry - if abortions were immoral.
Many do want to force women, and want the law to reflect their personal belief. As for abortion not being paid for under socialized medicine... That much seems fair (it's not even an expensive procedure)... So long as you're not talking about a general opposition to birth control (yeah, some ulta conservatives in the USA believe every sperm is sacred, and any time a woman isn't actively pregnant it is the exact same thing as her getting an abortion).


legally forcing them to have abortions
I am not sure this is possible even if it was written in the law.
#China


If human rights exist as you defined them, you are equally valuable to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Am I not? I have the same human value to both of those people - neither of us should be murdered or enslaved.

The verry idea of human rights is that no matter your oppinion about someone, they share the same value and rights as you do.

Human rights will not work if one starts to rip certain groups of their rights because of a society's oppinion about them.
That all have some value, is not the same as equal value. Let's take a hypothetical: There's a burning building, trapped inside are Biden, Trump, and your daughter. You can only save one. Under your definition for human rights, so long as you believe in human rights, they are all of identical value so you would save whomever you reach first.

Similarly the situation of a daycare in a fertility clinic which catches fire, you would save the fertilized embryos instead of the children... At least if you're being consistent with your stated beliefs.


This includes the jews and unborn babies. Jews were considdered to be less valueable, but they were not - they were maybe a different culture and were called animals, but they had human DNA.

Honestly, I prefer a personhood standard of intellect. Take the movie Ted as an example. Laws focused on human DNA consider kidnaping, torturing, maiming, and even outright killing Ted to be a-okay, in spite of him clearly being a person by any reasonable standard. Heck, one day we might be transferring our minds to computers, yet going by a human DNA standard, those people would be wholly without rights. Whereas if a can of Pepsi had human DNA (I seem to recall a recent debate along those lines), it would have equal protections to any one of us.
#52
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.
Keep in mind you said: “But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces  in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human”

Don’t be disingenuous. Or I’ll keep treating you as such. 

The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?
Do you really think the quote Benjamin referred to was in direct reference to abortion? 
“All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."

Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.

Why? The Declaration of Independence establishes that we all have  human rights and that those rights are inalienable and from God. Absolutely pertinent to Ben's argument
You can interpret it all day long, it doesn’t change the fact the Declaration of Independence doesn’t refer to abortion directly, or does it?

From the same place the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it. But you've already told us you think the Declaration of Independence lacks "substance". (!!!)
The quote Benjamin used lacks substance when it comes to abortion. I would consider that self-evident. 

And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge
Neither of you know what you’re talking about. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly. There’s no contradiction that I know of. It’s clear as day.
#53
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.

Keep in mind you said: “But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces  in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human”

Is anything I said there wrong?

Don’t be disingenuous. Or I’ll keep treating you as such. 
You can treat me any way you like, asking as I have the same right. I stand by my comment that when stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. You seemed to agree.

The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?
Do you really think the quote Benjamin referred to was in direct reference to abortion? 
I asked you about a comment YOU made. You said it was without substance. Will you answer?

Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights

Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
No. That is YOUR thinking as a liberal. We believe every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.

You can interpret it all day long, it doesn’t change the fact the Declaration of Independence doesn’t refer to abortion directly, or does it?
It refers to all humans. Babies are humans.

The quote Benjamin used lacks substance when it comes to abortion. I would consider that self-evident.
How? Babies are human. The "all men" in the DoI is referring to humans. The declaration doesn't mention women, but I bet you won't say it "lacks substance" when it comes to women's rights. Who's being disingenuous now?

And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge

Neither of you know what you’re talking about. 
As you are dodging his challenge, it's clear who it is that doesn't know what he's talking about.
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
I'm saying that legally, the definition of "human" is vague because 1 USC §8 [which says "human" begins at live birth, regardless of state of development, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004], which implies humanity prior to live birth,  disagree with one another on the point of when humanity begins. As it happens, I believe the "beginning" doesn't exist, because both male and female gametes are already human by DNA, and alive, even before conception and before coitus. In essence, life, let alone humanity, never begins as it already exists before coitus conception.
#55
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You can treat me any way you like, asking as I have the same right. I stand by my comment that when stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. You seemed to agree
I guess I’ll have to be more direct. Conservatism isn’t famous for its intelligentsia. 

I asked you about a comment YOU made. You said it was without substance. Will you answer?
I was referring to a particular quote. You lack basic reading comprehension. 

No. That is YOUR thinking as a liberal. We believe every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.

It refers to all humans. Babies are humans.

How? Babies are human.
Simple thinking for simple folk.

The "all men" in the DoI is referring to humans. The declaration doesn't mention women, but I bet you won't say it "lacks substance" when it comes to women's rights. Who's being disingenuous now?
Benjamin and I previously agreed to what “Men” means. I didn’t want to create an unnecessary tangent. But yes, women throughout much of history have been treated as second-class citizens/cattle.  Conservatism hasn’t helped.

And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge
As I said, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly. It’s clearly pro-choice.

As you are dodging his challenge, it's clear who it is that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Dodging what exactly? Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly.

#56
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
I ask the question to those favoring abortion: What if the fetus , by natural selection [mutation] develops the ability to resist abortion? What, then? To date, no answer.
Favouring abortion might be too strong a term, but alright. 

Natural selection requires reproduction. it doesn’t work if the fetus is aborted in the first place. It doesn’t work from the get-go.
Topic's author
#57
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly.
So the DECLARATION of human rights has changed?

They began by claiming that "all humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person" 

But now they make an exception: "humans with a specific trait, being a fetus, do not have human rights".


This change is clearly not a result of "human rights". This is an attempt to justify abortion. Try to explain, using the basic idea of human rights, why abortion is justified?


Also, my challenge still stands: give me a set of principles from which you can explain both human rights and abortion as equally moral.
Topic's author
#58
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Benjamin and I previously agreed to what “Men” means. I didn’t want to create an unnecessary tangent. But yes, women throughout much of history have been treated as second-class citizens/cattle.  Conservatism hasn’t helped.
You misunderstand "conservatism". In China, communists are the conservatives. If you think of "conservatism" as the current day American conservatism - YES it helped a lot.




Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.
You clearly misunderstand human rights. The important thing is not exactly how people are treated, but that they are treated FAIRLY, aka as equal beings. Yes, the government can't afford good healthcare to people (unlike in Norway), but they are not paying healthcare ONLY for a particular group like jews, women, or layers. Poor people have a higher priority for healthcare not because their human value is greater, but because their ability to fend for themselves is weaker than other groups.


Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.

Dodging what exactly?
The question: "What is an ethical system that supports human rights and abortion at the same time?"

You cannot refer to law. Killing Jews is not moral just because in a particular society they did not consider Jews to be humans. Come with a moral theory, like Theweakeredge.
#59
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
So the DECLARATION of human rights has changed?

They began by claiming that "all humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person" 

But now they make an exception: "humans with a specific trait, being a fetus, do not have human rights".
Believe it or not, the world is much more complicated than "All humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person.” Seriously! 

This change is clearly not a result of "human rights". This is an attempt to justify abortion. Try to explain, using the basic idea of human rights, why abortion is justified?
The main reason is a fetus infringes on a women’s bodily autonomy. Just as meany medical issues do. 

There’s also circumstances such as rape/incest/major disabilities and life threatening complications for mother/infant. 
Do you see where abortion could be morally justified? Or no abortion at all? I wouldn’t be surprised if you said no abortion at all with the rhetoric you’ve been spouting. 

Also, my challenge still stands: give me a set of principles from which you can explain both human rights and abortion as equally moral.
Is the above sufficient? 
Topic's author
#60
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Do you see where abortion could be morally justified?
When there is a danger to both humans, the mother and the "fetus baby".


Is the above sufficient? 
You have not added any moral system - just a lot of moral claims.


The main reason is a fetus infringes on a women’s bodily autonomy.
So what. If you sit in a train that is fully packed - you might end up severely uncomfortable. You cannot just kill the other humans and throw them out to feel comfortable.
"Bodily autonomy" does not triumph over human rights. 

You agreed that all with human DNA are humans - that includes a fetus. So if human rights exist it is immoral to legally gass a jew, and immoral to legally kill a fetus.