-->
@Tejretics
ECTOGENESIS FTW.
Abortion and human rights
Posts
Total:
355
Congratulations, you’ve defined your way into success.
I knew it would be a challenge - I created it in that way. And yes, the people I have discussed with accepted my definitions.
I argue, for example, that being human is not a sufficient condition for rights. Rather, I argue that you have to be capable of conscious experience
In other words - UNIVERSAL human rights should not exist. We should instead set up a set of standards to evaluate the value of individuals.
This position is reasonable - but it undermines human rights.
-->
@Tejretics
Congratulations, you’ve defined your way into success.
I knew it would be a challenge - I created it in that way. And yes, the people I have discussed with accepted my definitions.
I argue, for example, that being human is not a sufficient condition for rights. Rather, I argue that you have to be capable of conscious experience
In other words - UNIVERSAL human rights should not exist. We should instead set up a set of standards to evaluate the value of individuals.
This position is reasonable - but it undermines human rights.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion.Well stated.
I would like to remind you that the rich part of the world has literally no deaths by starvation.
-->
@Benjamin
Is it moral for the "rich part of the world" not to freely feed all the starving kids......Or isn't this just as immoral as abortion.
I wonder how many pious anti-abortionists have nightmares worrying about the starving kids that don't life in Dreamland, Down Town America.
As he sat down in his air conditioned den to watch the Superbowl on his 56 inch TV, Hypo said between bites of his Pizza Hut meat lovers Pizza,
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion.
The people who cause kids to starve are invisible, so kill the kids so that they don't starve!
The real issue is that Hypo would not have that big screen TV, that air condition, or that pizza if there were no kids starving. He is the people who cause kids to starve, but he doesn't want to be troubled, so he aborts the kids, and can then eat his 30$ pizza in peace. Problem solved.
That 30$ would have fed 5 kids for a month. But our caring hero thinks it would just be better to abort those 5 kids. That way, they don't suffer, and he gets to bet 50$ on the winner of the Superbowl.
-->
@ethang5
@zedvictor4
I wonder how many pious anti-abortionists have nightmares worrying about the starving kids that don't life in Dreamland, Down Town America.
Good point. Hypocrisy exists, but this does not affect our debate.
Is it moral for the "rich part of the world" not to freely feed all the starving kids......Or isn't this just as immoral as abortion.
Since "not giving to charity" is not an action it cannot be immoral.
It's a human right not to owe anyone anything without your own consent - this is called freedom. Capitalism has made everyone richer - even the poor countries.
We cannot make anyone entitled to others labour - therefore "right to be fed" is not a human right.
Of course, individuals might have religious or philosophical moralities that expect them to give to the poor.
-->
@Benjamin
Moral or immoral is what ever one considers it to be....Assuming a moral code for others is arrogant.
And so I would say that regarding feeding starving kids as charity, is not only as immoral as you consider abortion to be, but also arrogant.
So selective morality abounds and you readily buy into this system...Therefore your moral viewpoint is no more or less worthy than anyone else's.
And Human Rights and hypocrisy go hand in hand...always have and always probably will.....it's not something that can be ignored for the sake of a whimsical debate.
-->
@zedvictor4
Moral or immoral is what ever one considers it to be....Assuming a moral code for others is arrogant.
So human rights are arrogant? Is the world arrogant?
Ethics are objective. Ethics are the principles on which we base our actions. Morality is how we actually live. Ethics are the tools we use to evaluate the morality of society and individuals. What I want to prove in this forum is that "abortion" is an immoral act: it does not abide by the principles of ethics. The ethics that were the basis for human rights contradict the ethics that allow abortions. Human rights are built upon the assumption that all humans are equally valuable regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The ethics that allow abortions assumes that humans itself are not valuable - just their abilities, like well-being. Universal human rights would deem a person with Alzheimer's or a "fetus" equally valuable to other humans - while the underlying ethics of abortion would say that since they have not the same capacity for well being.
In conclusion: Abortion is not immoral, but unethical.
Sorry, mean that I want to prove that abortion is an unethical act.
-->
@Benjamin
At the beginning of this discussion you set a challenge...To which I responded ....To which you failed to respond.
We already live in societies where human rights are selectively applied, in order to to suit the needs and demands of societies.
In such societies morality and immorality are also variously applied to suit the same needs and demands.
You already live there and live by the dictate of those needs and demands.
And that either does or does not include legal abortion.....And therefore the needs and demands in either case dictate how societies view abortion in respect of human rights and morality.
Your personal views of such issues, are just that....As are mine.
And furthermore, deliberately misinterpreting my statement regarding the arrogance of assuming for others, was unworthy.
-->
@zedvictor4
In such societies morality and immorality are also variously applied to suit the same needs and demands.
Good point. This is the only reason why abortion is legal.
As I said - abortion undermines human rights. But society does not care - this we agree on.
Sorry if I misread your claim.
-->
@Benjamin
As I said - abortion undermines human rights. But society does not care - this we agree on.
The foundation of human rights is personhood. You probably consider personhood at the moment of conception right? Well official human rights laws don’t. You’re going by your own definition. Anyway you must view the morning after pill the same as legal abortion, correct? If not, where’s the cut off point for you?
-->
@Benjamin
OK.
And yes, this is why abortion is legal, and similarly why it is also considered right to kill others as an act of war or as an act of punishment.
What this goes to show is that human rights and morality are variable and never set in stone.
Therefore, whilst we continue to accept the need for a variable and selectively moral society....We must therefore accept that such criteria cannot undermine a set of variable standards....otherwise this would be a contradiction of expectancies
As for society not caring...Well this is a sweeping statement aimed at those who do not agree whole heartedly with your viewpoint...And once again is unworthy, given the real nature of a societies demands and needs.
IN CONCLUSION:
- My statement was correct - abortion undermines human rights
- Holocaust, oppression, terrorism, and state brutality also undermine human rights
- Therefore, the west cannot judge other states for breaking human rights when they also do
SOCIETY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE HUMAN RIGHTS - NOT EVEN IN THE WEST.
-->
@Benjamin
IN CONCLUSION:
- My statement was correct - abortion undermines human rights
Your own definition of human rights that you share with pro-lifers-until-birthers.
- Holocaust, oppression, terrorism, and state brutality also undermine human rights
Also denial of medical and financial safety nets.
- Therefore, the west cannot judge other states for breaking human rights when they also do
I agree but for reasons other than for zygotes, embryos and fetuses that don’t have developed nervous systems.
SOCIETY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE HUMAN RIGHTS - NOT EVEN IN THE WEST.
By your own twisted definition of them.
-->
@Reece101
By your own twisted definition of them.
Fine.
Here is the official description:
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.
Tell me, exactly when does a fetus become "human"? The answer: when it starts to exist.
Therefore, abortion is a discrimination based on age, body and situation.
-->
@Benjamin
Fine.Here is the official description: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.Tell me, exactly when does a fetus become "human"? The answer: when it starts to exist.
Like I said, the foundation of official human rights laws is personhood.
Anything with human DNA is human. My finger nail is human. But does it have personhood? No.
Don’t you believe personhood starts at conception? Or do you genuinely not know the different stages of development in the womb?
Therefore, abortion is a discrimination based on age, body and situation.
A lot of the time it seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
-->
@Reece101
My finger nail is human. But does it have personhood? No.
That is a faulty argument because your fingernail is not expressive of your entire DNA molecule, but only of that part that is defined by the several genes that make your fingernails. Nor is your finger. The entire organism expresses the entire DNA molecule, regardless of what organism is expressed. You do not parse the organism and call it by its 'blueprint.' This is the truth behind the additionally faulty argument that the fetus is part of the woman's body because her DNA and that of the fetus, amniotic sac and fluid, the umbilical, and the placenta do NOT share DNA, and there is even a blood barrier between mother and offspring. Were it otherwise, as I've argued numerous times, if the fetus were part of the woman's body, it would not fall out of it when full gestation is reached, just as her tongue does not fall out when she opens her mouth, because that organ is part of her body. This is also true of that which you eat and is not absorbed as nutrients for your body's cells; the remainder is expelled because that is not part of your body, either.
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a faulty argument because your fingernail is not expressive of your entire DNA molecule, but only of that part that is defined by the several genes that make your fingernails. Nor is your finger.
No DNA is expressive of its entire DNA molecule. There’s a lot DNA that isn’t expressive at all in our genome.
Regardless, I don’t see how any of this refutes the argument I was making with personhood.
-->
@Reece101
There’s a lot DNA that isn’t expressive at all in our genome.
Wrong. There is about 50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read, and presume it is garbage. Until we learned to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I have, it was thought junk pictures, and not a fully developed syntax of complicated structure. It's a matter of proper approach. Perhaps there is junk, but until we know for sure, it is wrong to assume any of it is junk. I met and spoke with James Watson, co-Nobel Prize recipient, and first to have his genome read, when I was 17 when he lectured at UCLA in the mid-60s. This was his advice, way back then. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain.
Personhood is a legally contradictory fact. 1 U.S.C. §8 defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development. But, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 defines a person as unborn at virtually any state of development, because it carries a murder charge, and murder is legally an unjustified act against another person, and nothing else. So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on. Certainly not on science, because even before conception, if you agree that the DNA molecule defines personal characteristics, these are defined by the male and female gametes, in effect 2 unzipped, or RNA strands, that each can only be described as human, even before they ever join during, or shortly after coitus, so it is not even just at conception. What's your argument? A social factor? Not right for the part.
-->
@fauxlaw
Wrong. There is about 50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read, and presume it is garbage. Until we learned to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I have, it was thought junk pictures, and not a fully developed syntax of complicated structure. It's a matter of proper approach. Perhaps there is junk, but until we know for sure, it is wrong to assume any of it is junk. I met and spoke with James Watson, co-Nobel Prize recipient, and first to have his genome read, when I was 17 when he lectured at UCLA in the mid-60s. This was his advice, way back then. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain.
50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read? How so? I hesitate calling any DNA junk. There’s a difference between it being junk and it being non-expressive. Just look at the history of human migration and mutations that previously were not expressed anywhere else.
Personhood is a legally contradictory fact. 1 U.S.C. §8 defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development. But, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 defines a person as unborn at virtually any state of development, because it carries a murder charge, and murder is legally an unjustified act against another person, and nothing else. So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on. Certainly not on science, because even before conception, if you agree that the DNA molecule defines personal characteristics, these are defined by the male and female gametes, in effect 2 unzipped, or RNA strands, that each can only be described as human, even before they ever join during, or shortly after coitus, so it is not even just at conception. What's your argument? A social factor? Not right for the part.
We are talking about human rights though which personhood is defined in the situation of abortion.
-->
@Benjamin
IN CONCLUSION.
Your conclusion is your conclusion....And rightly so.
Others will conclude differently.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
the foundation of official human rights laws is personhood.
No - it's being human. We do not discriminate against people with a weaker personality.
Since all humans are 100% humans human rights grants everyone rights.
Listen to your own argument. You argue that "personhood" is what gives humans value - this clearly undermines human rights. Why? Because it's your humanity, not your development stage or biology that grants you human rights. Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans, which the human rights is clearly against.
What does "personhood" even mean? Is a fetus the day before birth not a person but a baby just after birth is? No of course not, the difference is non-existent.
Personhood is not a binary like "being a human", therefore humans are not equally valuable if personhood gives them value - this applies to adults too.
Therefore, that moral system would discriminate between all humans, not only between fetuses and already born.
It's not my own conclusion - it's the only logical conclusion.
-->
@Benjamin
No - it's being human. We do not discriminate against people with a weaker personality.Since all humans are 100% humans human rights grants everyone rights.
Look, I can bring up examples of coma patients, prisoners, etc again, but I know you’ll just dodge.
Therefore, that moral system would discriminate between all humans, not only between fetuses and already born.It's not my own conclusion - it's the only logical conclusion.
In legal terms you’ve lost the argument when it comes to human rights, personhood and pro-choice.
Can you admit that?
If you want to talk about the morality of it, then I would consider legal abortion amoral. Why do you consider it inherently immoral?
Before you reply keep asking yourself why each time you come to an answer, until you can’t answer yourself anymore.
And then give me your final conclusion.
-->
@Reece101
Why do you consider it inherently immoral?
Because I think all humans are equally valueable.
Why are all humans equally valuable? It does not matter. Personally, I think God, but any reason will be sufficient.
But to think that all humans are equally valuable, EXCEPT for some groups - it is illogical.
One must think either of these:
- All humans are worthless. This view undermines human rights but supports abortion.
- All humans are equally valuable - this view supports human rights but also undermines abortion.
- Humans are not equally valuable, it depends on the traits of each human. This view undermines human rights but supports abortion.
Therefore, if one supports human rights one must necessarily be pro-life. People are inconsistency if they are pro-choice and think human rights are valid.
-->
@Benjamin
Your final conclusion is God? Apart from outright infanticide, this is one of his takes on abortion...
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousycome over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
-->
@Reece101
Your final conclusion is God?
Yes - God. So why do you quote the Bible? I am an intellectual theist, not a religious person.
-->
@Benjamin
Your final conclusion is God?
Yes - God. So why do you quote the Bible? I am an intellectual theist, not a religious person.
So you have nothing to go by other than “because God”? Very intellectual.