Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 355
Topic's author
#121
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
I have intellectual reasons to believe in the existence of God and the existence of a soul. That does not mean I have to believe anything written in the Bible to be "Infallible".
#122
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
You’re pivoting. The existence of God and soul aren’t being brought into question.
We’re talking about the validity of God being your final conclusion to be against abortion. 

You’ve shown that you believe biblical scripture is not infallible.
So what reason do you have other than “because God”? 



#123
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
#124
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Your final conclusion is God? 
I note that Benjamin preceded his argument, and did not conclude with God. Have reading comprehension issues? You don't comprehend DNA well, either. As I said, I have conversed face-to-face with one of its premier advocates; James Watson.  You?
Topic's author
#125
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
@fauxlaw
Reece, your accusations are groundless and almost ridiculous. Your position is internally contradictory as I have proved. 

Regardless, your accusation is pure stupidity:
So you have nothing to go by other than “because God”?
I am against abortion not because I believe in God but because I believe in human rights. I clearly stated that ANY reason would suffice.

God is simply ONE reason to believe in human rights - but since you are in this debate you have the same belief in human rights.



Not believing in God does not mean that one must be pro-choice, that assertion is false, dishonest, ridiculous and misleading.

But being pro-choice clearly invalidates one from also supporting human rights - assuming intellectual honesty is a thing you value.

Therefore, one can either support human rights or be pro-choice. Doing both simultaneously is contradictory and intellectually dishonest. This point I have clearly proven.





The only reason for being against abortion is if you believe in human rights - religion or such has no weight whatsoever besides influencing your acceptance/denial of them.



I hate to break your bubble, but your entire world view is probably incoherent unless you reject either abortion or human rights. 

Since there is virtually no one that has moral objections to human rights, and virtually nobody can defend abortion logically consistently -- it is clear which of them is garbage.



In conclusion: Reject abortion, reject human rights or admit intellectual dishonesty.
#126
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin

So, don't all miscarried or aborted fetuses go to Heaven?
Wouldn't that be better than the 3 million children that suffered from dying of starvation last year?
Oh that's right, God loves suffering. He didn't save his only son from suffering.


#127
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
What was this for? Did it substantiate your claim 50% of DNA we can not read?

Your final conclusion is God? 
I note that Benjamin preceded his argument, and did not conclude with God. Have reading comprehension issues?
Did you read everything in context? Please do.

You don't comprehend DNA well, either. As I said, I have conversed face-to-face with one of its premier advocates; James Watson.  You?
Appealing to authority in terms of “I meet the guy”, is not really convincing. 
#128
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Reece, your accusations are groundless and almost ridiculous. Your position is internally contradictory as I have proved. 
In legal terms, no you have not. In moral terms you’ve barely scratched the surface of my beliefs. 

I am against abortion not because I believe in God but because I believe in human rights. I clearly stated that ANY reason would suffice.

God is simply ONE reason to believe in human rights - but since you are in this debate you have the same belief in human rights.
You accepted God is your final conclusion to be against abortion. Don’t be a weasel. You believe in your own subjective version of human rights rather than the official. You’re coming from a “moral” standpoint, not an omnimoral one (the consideration of all moral factors).

Not believing in God does not mean that one must be pro-choice, that assertion is false, dishonest, ridiculous and misleading.

But being pro-choice clearly invalidates one from also supporting human rights - assuming intellectual honesty is a thing you value.

Therefore, one can either support human rights or be pro-choice. Doing both simultaneously is contradictory and intellectually dishonest. This point I have clearly proven.

The only reason for being against abortion is if you believe in human rights - religion or such has no weight whatsoever besides influencing your acceptance/denial of them.

I hate to break your bubble, but your entire world view is probably incoherent unless you reject either abortion or human rights. 
Again, you’re using your own version of human rights, not the official.

Since there is virtually no one that has moral objections to human rights, and virtually nobody can defend abortion logically consistently -- it is clear which of them is garbage.
If you want to discuss abortion purely in terms of morality, I’m all for it. But don’t bring up “human rights” half way through when you have nothing else to argue.

In conclusion: Reject abortion, reject human rights or admit intellectual dishonesty.
Again, you believe in your own human rights. You use “human rights” that same as “God”. 




#129
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
What was this for? Did it substantiate your claim 50% of DNA we can not read?
I'm not your tutor. Read.
#130
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not your tutor. Read.
That was a waste of time. 

The general knowledge I already knew. 

It said no where that 50% of DNA we can’t read.

It stated:  “Using the six approaches, the project was able to identify biochemical activity for 80% of the bases in the genome []. Although this does not necessarily mean that all of those predicted functional regions actually do serve a purpose, it strongly suggests that there is a biological role for much more than the 1% of our DNA that forms genes.”

#131
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
Your logical conclusion is what you deem to be logical.

Other peoples ideas of logic will be different.

You do not set standards for either logical or moral concepts.
Topic's author
#132
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Again, you’re using your own version of human rights, not the official.
I used the official one:

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.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]


I do not use "God" and "human rights" interchangeably. Atheists have believed in human rights while theists have refused to believe in them. As I said, my moral system has God as one of many reasons - God is not the moral principle. Reducing God to be interchangeable with "human rights" would be ignorance.
Topic's author
#133
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Your logical conclusion is what you deem to be logical.
Incorrect.


Logic goes like this:

Premise 1: A is B

Premise 2: B is C

Conclusion: A is C


This is objective. Whoever you are, if you have the same information you would come to the same conclusions if you just know this formula.
#134
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
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.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
You don’t think your anti-abortionist beliefs would create far more problems, both morally and legally which includes the above?
How do you think these rights are upheld? 

I do not use "God" and "human rights" interchangeably. Atheists have believed in human rights while theists have refused to believe in them. As I said, my moral system has God as one of many reasons - God is not the moral principle. Reducing God to be interchangeable with "human rights" would be ignorance.
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion. 
Topic's author
#135
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion. 
LIE. I use human rights to prove that abortion is immoral. If you do not agree with human rights, only then can you justify abortion.

The rest of your comment makes no sense. How does being pro-life create problems not related to the topic of abortion? Unless you think that "abortion" is why slavery is illegal then your statement makes no sense.
#136
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion.
LIE. I use human rights to prove that abortion is immoral. If you do not agree with human rights, only then can you justify abortion
You said it’s a lie and then you pivoted.  
(Comment #119 if anyone’s interested.)
You’re such a bad faith actor.

The rest of your comment makes no sense. How does being pro-life create problems not related to the topic of abortion? Unless you think that "abortion" is why slavery is illegal then your statement makes no sense.
Human rights are upheld by laws, correct? How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?  
#137
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
That would depend wholly upon the nature of the information.

Logic and morality are essentially concepts, based upon acquired data, but variously open to interpretation.

Therefore A.B.C. are similarly open to interpretation.

The formula may be constant, but the outcome will vary, relative to the individual interpretation of data.

In short.......Logic is as logic does.....Rather than, logic does as logic is.
Topic's author
#138
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
In order not to admit defeat you have descended to the point where you do not even regard a syllogism as objective.


This is obviously false: a syllogism always renders the same result with the same data. The only difference between human conclusions are which premises they use. I have succesfully shown that the premises which support human rights also undermine abortion as being against human rights.

But if you believe that logic is subjective go on with your fallacies.
#139
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights? 
Well stated.
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
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.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
You seem to have overlooked bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
So, don't all miscarried or aborted fetuses go to Heaven?
Wouldn't that be better than the 3 million children that suffered from dying of starvation last year?
Good point.
#142
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
We already live in societies where human rights are selectively applied, in order to to suit the needs and demands of societies.
Well stated.
#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
The fetus is part of the woman's body because the OVUM is undeniably part of the woman's body.

The female gamete or ovum which, when fertilized by a spermatozoon, can give rise to a new individual. The egg is a very large cell, compared with other body cells, and contains only 23 chromosomes, half the normal number (haploid). Like most other cells ova contain many mitochondria each containing many copies of mitochondrial DNA. [**]

In the same way that the parents and or legal guardians of someone in a coma can make life and death decisions for the unconscious individual, the parents and or legal guardians of someone in utero can make life and death decisions for the unconscious individual.
Topic's author
#144
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?  
Human rights are the opposite of freedoms. We have the freedom to murder - but we value our own survival more than we value the freedom to kill. That's the right to life.

By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime? No. 

Infringing human rights means to use your freedom regardless of the rights of others. Killing another person infringes human rights.

However, preventing people from infringing human rights does not infringe human rights - and if it did that would just be to reject all laws instantly as "infringements".

Laws make sure human rights are not infringed. Therefore, if humans have a right to life then abortions can be illegal without infringing human rights as you claim.



Well stated
Interesting comment. I agree - the statement was well stated, however, it was not correct.



You seem to have overlooked bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
I wrote nothing of that - it is a quote from the UN official page regarding human rights - I provided a link. Bodily sovereignty - the right not to forced to do anything with your body by another human.


If you consider "being in the belly" as infringing human rights I would consider we stop giving them the death penalty and instead let them go through a fair trial first. LOL



#145
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on.
Doesn't that statement obviously cut both ways?
#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime?
Police routinely infringe human rights.
Topic's author
#147
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't that statement obviously cut both ways?
No. Human rights states that all humans have a right to life. If the law is conflicted then the human rights should decide - after all what else could be considered human rights if not rights that applied to humans regardless of how cruel the regime was. Hitler broke human rights - but the law supported him. The "law is on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.
Topic's author
#148
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Police routinely infringe human rights.
Very well.


So we should legalize all crimes?

It is that or it would be morally just to make abortions illegal.

3RU7AL, you have not read the entire argument - but I (and fauxlaw) have thoroughly dismantled every argument supporting abortion.



The opponents has no argument left but that "logic is also subjective"


My argument still stands: abortion undermines human rights - unless all syllogisms are subjective.
#149
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
My essential point is - prove that the fetus has the moral weight to consider it something I have an obligation to not terminate it - and demonstrate that the bodily autonomy of people who are impregnated (over 50% against their will) have the moral obligation to incubate, let develop, and birthe that fetus, furthermore that the inherent suffering of the majority of "would-be aborted" children's lives aren't increased suffering, which they are. 

#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
The "law is on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.
The "law is NOT on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.