Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 355
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Police routinely infringe human rights.
So we should legalize all crimes?
Of course not.  Nobody ever suggested "legalize all crimes".

Don't you think it's possible to have effective law enforcement without violating human rights?
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
but I (and fauxlaw) have thoroughly dismantled every argument supporting abortion.
You've certainly done a fine job of convincing yourselves.
Topic's author
#153
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Sorry, I was in a hurry and wrote the wrong statement. 


I meant that I and fauxlaw have dismantled every argument that suggests "abortion does not undermine human rights"

Obviously, there are countless arguments impossible to reject - like "I don't care" and "I do not believe that".


#154
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
I have yet to hear your demonstration that gives fetus which are aborted moral weight. You are making a category error.
Topic's author
#155
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course not.  Nobody ever suggested "legalize all crimes".

Don't you think it's possible to have effective law enforcement without violating human rights?
You yourself said that it was a well-stated argument that prohibiting abortion would infringe human rights, and later you admitted that police infringe them routinely.

I think that prohibiting abortion, from a human rights standpoint, is much more moral than any other law - with the same status as any other law protecting human life.

Topic's author
#156
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let me explain why a fetus is just as valuable as me.


  1. My life has value today
  2. Yesterday I were just as valuable
  3. We can apply that statement to yesterday and find that 3 weeks ago I were equally valuable
  4. Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
Since I am as valuable yesterday, today and tomorrow - we can conclude that human life is equally valuable regardless of its age.


Therefore, since a fetus is a human that is just young and has little development - it must have the same value as me.

So killing a fetus is like killing me. Claiming otherwise would also imply that children have less value than adults and that smarter (arbitrary word) people are more valuable.
Topic's author
#157
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
You are making a category error.
No, I'm not. 

All I am claiming is that human value and rights are not "magically" granted at birth or any given stage.


The bill goes on to say that anyone (except the mother) who "intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive" can be prosecuted for "intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/28/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/
This was a DENIAL of the accusations against the bill - not the real accusations.

How can a mother kill the newborn baby and not be legally prosecuted? Even if the bill was not passed this is clearly not a category error - this is a fallacy of discrimination.


#158
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I'll clarify before I give this response that I'm probably one of the very few people who don't take a moral stance on abortion or the right to life of any stage of development. I am myself pro-choice, but my reasons are largely pragmatic, addressing issues with implementing a pro-life system of law.

That being said, I do have other strong feelings on the topic of abortion, even if I don't take a stance on it morally. This argument starts down that path:

Since I am as valuable yesterday, today and tomorrow - we can conclude that human life is equally valuable regardless of its age.


Therefore, since a fetus is a human that is just young and has little development - it must have the same value as me.
To me, this argument has always been infinitely regressive: if we view all stages of development as equally valuable, then we should view those stages that precede even the zygote in the same light. Many can and have argued with me before that the zygote is different from stages that come before for a variety of reasons, but that argument is subject to similarly problematic logic employed by those who claim that specific stages of development pre-birth are what make a human being a human being. Why is the formation of a unique genetic code what makes a human being? Why is the number of chromosomes sufficient? Why does the formation of a single cell, rather than being split between different cell types, make one human? If all we care about is protecting any form of human life, then why is a zygote (or a fetus, or an embryo, or any stage that comes during gestation) the absolute starting point?

#159
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
the OVUM is undeniably part of the woman's body.
Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized. While currently not a scientific reality, the social reality will be required to change when medical/anatomical science achieves the definition of a person per 1 USC §8, which defines a "person" as "born alive regardless of stage of development," and that development is no further along than initial, one-celled conception; the zygote. When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights. Given that potential, only the current status of viability prevents the law from recognizing its definition of "person" to that extreme. The point is, the law need not change; only our social perception of its broader scope. Since that is [will be] the case, your [social] perception of the zygote being part of the woman's body must also change, even while accepting that the female gamete, although unique in its structure from every other cell in the female [or male] body. As representing merely half the complete DNA molecule, the gamete may, even legally, alter its perception as part of the woman's body because it has no continuing purpose or function within her body other than to become something entirely different than every other cell in her body. And considering that, uniquely, the count of ova, as opposed to sperm, is set at conception of every female, thus not duplicating themselves as does every other cell in her body, does that alter the status of "ownership" by the female as functional cells for and on behalf of her body?
Topic's author
#160
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
Explaining the context
After countless questions like this from theweakeredge:
I have yet to hear your demonstration that gives fetus which are aborted moral weight.
I argued that a fetus was a human using this argument:
  1. My life has value today
  2. Yesterday I were just as valuable
  3. We can apply that statement to yesterday and find that 3 weeks ago I were equally valuable
  4. Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
Since I am as valuable yesterday, today and tomorrow - we can conclude that human life is equally valuable regardless of its age.
Whiteflame has repplied:

this argument has always been infinitely regressive ... then we should view those stages that precede even the zygote in the same light
Excellent question! 
Finally, a good QUESTION regarding my stance. I hope to provide a sufficient answer to at least establish firmly my position.




Setup
Let us say I have an enemy and I want to kill him. But I have my own enemies that want to kill me. In the end, everyone will die. Therefore we sign a contract which states that "no human being shall be killed" - we have now a basic morality. This is one reason for the rights of life - but many reasons exist such as religion, philosophy, and so forth. The important thing is not "why" we have human rights but that we have them.

Conclusion: humans have human rights - no human can be killed and the action called morally just. (the state is ignored for now).


My position
What makes something a human? Having human DNA? But as you said the DNA is not innately valuable, cells die all the time without moral concerns. DNA is just an identification, it tells us which human every cell works for, per se. We know that a human is an organism built of a single DNA. This tells us two things:
  • DNA is not worth anything - a human is.
  • If we look at all cells randomly only the DNA identifies which human each cell belongs to 
Again, we have not defined what a human is - we just know that each human has a unique DNA. Obviously, this already has proved that abortion is to kill a human - but if we call a period "murder" then murder will seem less immoral, the period will not seem immoral. So the simple reduction to "what has human DNA" is insufficient. What identifies an actual human amongst the many "empty" entities like sperm? I would like to make the argument that a human is [a] many cells together (personhood) or [b] a single cell (or a few of them) actively reproducing and building towards [a].

My position is this: A human is: cell(s) that is, or is actively becoming, an adult - the basis for human rights. A zygote and a fetus are both humans while a sperm cell is not.

To me, this makes a lot of sense. I will proceed to back this claim up with arguments.


A human in the making
This situation is exactly how we determine a child to be a human. A child is not an adult, but it will become in the future - no doubt exists regarding this unavoidable process. So if we can deem a child equally valuable to an adult despite their differences we can also deem a fetus to be equally valuable to a child - because it is actively becoming just that, a child. A sperm cell on the other hand is not becoming an adult - it will die as a single cell, a full life circle of a sperm cell. We have no reason to protect it, it's death will not affect the future human population. 


Well being
I will allow myself to use Theweakeredges defense of morality:
P1: Humans value their own well-being
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
He says the value of a person is their well-being.

Imagine a person - he is sleeping - not conscious and killing him would not inflict any real pain onto him, and not remove any pleasure he feels. Is it morally justifiable to kill him because it will not make him feel anything? No - most would say. According to the basic morality we constructed in the setup I have an obligation to respect his FUTURE well-being. I would not want to be killed while sleeping, therefore I should not kill anyone - not even those not able to tell me that they want to live. Similarly, since I would not wish to have been killed while being a fetus in the past, I will not kill people who are fetuses. I hope this addressed especially Theweakeredges moral objections to giving a fetus human rights even though it technically has not yet reached the biological threshold of complexity for "well-being" to make any sense. Few, if anyone,  would want to travel back in time and kill their fetuses. Therefore one ought to respects fetuses' life because you respect human life. This is entirely logical.

I conclude my argument: a fetus is similar to an unconscious person - both have no well-being but have the potential for future well-being.



Biology
Why is the formation of a unique genetic code what makes a human being? Why is the number of chromosomes sufficient? Why does the formation of a single cell, rather than being split between different cell types, make one human?
Simply speaking, this question was incredibly honest from whiteflame. Thank you.

Answer:
  1. A sperm cell and an egg cell cannot become a human on their own - this combination is simply a "potential" human being
  2. A zygote or a fetus WILL become a human on its own - it is an individual by biological standards and it represents a future life with future well being
  3. Therefore, the point of conception is when a human becomes real rather than potential
I know what is coming. You will now ask why a sperm cell and a fetus - both possibly a future human being, are different in value. This is not simple, but hear me out.

There are four main ideas that differentiate between them:
  1. Not creating a human (having sex) is not the same as ending the life of a human (abortion)
  2. A fetus is already becoming an adult, while the sperm simply has potential for doing so (very low chances of course)
  3. Sperm will die naturally, while a fetus must be killed artificially and intentionally (any natural death is not immoral - not even spontaneous abortion.)
  4. Sperm and egg cells are not unique - there are thousands of the exact same combinations that could occur to create a fetus with the same DNA

Therefore, there is no reason to reject the idea of a fetus because sperm dies al the time. Oh, and lastly, I quote fauxlaw (the fact-spitter):
Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized. While currently not a scientific reality, the social reality will be required to change when medical/anatomical science achieves the definition of a person per 1 USC §8, which defines a "person" as "born alive regardless of stage of development," and that development is no further along than initial, one-celled conception; the zygote. When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights. Given that potential, only the current status of viability prevents the law from recognizing its definition of "person" to that extreme. The point is, the law need not change; only our social perception of its broader scope. Since that is [will be] the case, your [social] perception of the zygote being part of the woman's body must also change, even while accepting that the female gamete, although unique in its structure from every other cell in the female [or male] body. As representing merely half the complete DNA molecule, the gamete may, even legally, alter its perception as part of the woman's body because it has no continuing purpose or function within her body other than to become something entirely different than every other cell in her body. And considering that, uniquely, the count of ova, as opposed to sperm, is set at conception of every female, thus not duplicating themselves as does every other cell in her body, does that alter the status of "ownership" by the female as functional cells for and on behalf of her body?
So yeah, even if you do not take my word, take HIS word. In short - a fetus is a human while a sperm and an egg simply have the potential of becoming a human.
 

Conclusion:
If a child is equally valuable to an adult, then a fetus is equally valuable to a child.
If you cannot kill a sleeping person you cannot kill a "sleeping" fetus - both will have future lives which you have no right to terminate prematurely.

I hope this was interesting.


Feel free to present counterarguments. But I am tired of small, emotional critiques from some of you. 

I especially hope you, Theweakeredge and whiteflame will rebut - I wrote this for you.
#161
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Also wrong, that is the fallacy of possibility, furthermore fetus lack anything else to consider it worth moral weight. 
#162
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
He says the value of a person is their well-being.

Imagine a person - he is sleeping - not conscious and killing him would not inflict any real pain onto him, and not remove any pleasure he feels. Is it morally justifiable to kill him because it will not make him feel anything? No - most would say. According to the basic morality we constructed in the setup I have an obligation to respect his FUTURE well-being. I would not want to be killed while sleeping, therefore I should not kill anyone - not even those not able to tell me that they want to live. Similarly, since I would not wish to have been killed while being a fetus in the past, I will not kill people who are fetuses. I hope this addressed especially Theweakeredges moral objections to giving a fetus human rights even though it technically has not yet reached the biological threshold of complexity for "well-being" to make any sense. Few, if anyone,  would want to travel back in time and kill their fetuses. Therefore one ought to respects fetuses' life because you respect human life. This is entirely logical.

I conclude my argument: a fetus is similar to an unconscious person - both have no well-being but have the potential for future well-being.
Well... no, because you would still be harming their well-being their state of being doesn't matter, as long as they have well-being and personhood. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Topic's author
#163
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also wrong, that is the fallacy of possibility, furthermore fetus lack anything else to consider it worth moral weight. 
I have proven beyond doubt (when I say I I mean mostly fauxlaw of course) that a fetus is a human being. Claiming otherwise would be to reject science.


Would you allow me to time travel and kill your fetus? Would you now tell me that you think that would be morally acceptable? No of course not - I would kill you indirectly.


Therefore, unless you accept the killing of you today (as an attempt to make up for the lack of time machines) - you should not accept the killing of other fetuses.

#164
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
If you were to say that simply being human is enough to consider something worth moral rights then sperm, and every cell of skin would be considered a human - there must be some other sort of consideration. Humans have no inherent value without some sort of morality, you have not effectively established that. I don't care to argue it again, I have already done that. You present no new objections, and there are others who are already objecting to your claims. 
Topic's author
#165
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you for reading my text. 

Could you please read it again, it already answered your questions.
#166
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
The Establishment of the Moral Standard (1)

Before we can actually begin to talk about the moral ramifications of abortion, we must discuss the actual moral component. Such questions as: What is the standard? How can we measure that standard? How valid is that standard? I have a simple answer to these questions. Well-being. As I described above, well being is, The positive state of one's physical and mental state. This is easily measured, by using the physical and mental state of the person, which is the most accurate you can get in regards to morality. Finally, the validity of the standard is proved by the syllogism. 


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

To simplify, this argument is contingent on humans valuing their physical and mental state. It is almost intuitive at this point, whenever you fear retribution, social shaming, have anxiety, are nervous of acceptance, etcetera. The fact that you jump back at pain, humans value their well-being. This isn't a particularly controversial point. Well-being is simply your state of being, how you are, and this is so commonly accepted as a value that a part of standard conversation is asking, "how are you." And people talking about how dry the response are, and that we ought to go deeper there. 

As I wrote in the first category here, in order for us to use this as a standard we must establish quite a few things. First, the actual standard. That's been defined the most, reltaviely, within my argument, so I won't go back into that yet. Instead let's move to the next regard, how can we measure well-being? I answered by using your physical and mental being, but what specifically am I speaking of? Specifcally, morality in this instance is with regards to the behavior of an action, and that standard is the tool used to decalre it moral, immoral, or amoral. So, how exactly does your state of being apply here?

Quite simply, if an action were to detract from this well-being overall (as in short term vs long term), then we could call this action necessarily immoral. Now, maybe an example would be helpful. Yelling at children? Some may say, "But that detracts from their emotional well-being so is yelling therefore bad?" Ah ah ah, that's where the anylasis of short vs long term well-being comes into play. Was that specific interaction used to discipline an action that ought to be discouraged? Well then it wouldn't be immoral, was the yelling simply the parent being angry for no valid reason? Then it is immoral. 


  • Pre-emptive Rebuttal
A common response to my point of well-being is suicide. "If people are suicidal then obviously they don't value their own well-being?" Two questions then: Should they value their well being? and Why don't they value their well being? 

The first question is quite obviously, yes. The evidence is quite clear, if you care about your mental and physical state, you will benefit [1] [2]. You will improve physically and mentally, so regardless of if you think that you value well-being individually is of no concern, you will empirically be benefited from thinking so. While that isn't to say we should always do what is most practical, this standard creates clear incentives to adopt it, and is already what the majority of people adopt, loosely, with regards to a moral system. Next, let's get into, why people don't value their own well being. 

"Youth who report frequently bullying others and youth who report being frequently bullied are atincreased risk for suicide-related behavior." [3] This is another commonly accepted fact, those who are bullied or abused or at higher risk for suicidal behavior. Therefore, it is quite easy to make the following argument: They did value their own well-being, and through expressions of bullying began to less and less. We acknowledge that suicide is not a good thing, that it needs to be prevented, thereby, suicidal thought isn't the rule, but the exception to the rule of what people value. To provide impact to this argument:

In 2015, 55 million people died (55,000,000) [4] Around 800,000 of those deaths were attributed due to suicide [5] Using some simple calculations (55,000,000 divided by 800,000 and converting to percentages) we get a suicide to be 1.6875% of the annual deaths globally. (Ignoring the lower rate from Who for the sake of giving the benefit of the doubt to Con) In the USA there were 1.4 million attempts at suicide (1,400,000) [6] Taking this to the population of the USA (330,700,000) [7] we can find out the rate of suicide attempters in the USA. Using the two number provided, we find that if every suicide attempted was doing so out of no care for their well-being then that would 0.42% of the population who feels that way. 

#167
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
That's my full argument, but also you missed the point and didn't address my argument, also you didn't address all of them - over half of fetuses die of miscarriage, so... the same thing that applies to eggs in an ovary applies to the zygote and the fetus. Furthermore, you are presuming that humans have some sort of inherent moral value, I don't accept that. Demonstrate that moral value.
Topic's author
#168
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, your standard affirms my resolution.

If you kill another person, your are only causing him pain for a short period of time. However, killing way worse than torturing people for a short period of time.

That fact is only true if we measure the FUTURE well being as well. Therefore, if killing is worse than inflicting immediate pain then future well-being matters


So if killing is worse than merely beating someone, then a fetus also has value - by nature of necessarily carrying future well-being, a trait only shared by other humans.




Again, I accept your preemptive rebuttal and your syllogism. I just point out that it ultimately undermines abortion - just like human rights do.

I will sleep now.
#169
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
incorrect, as usual, you haven't demonstrated that fetuses have any moral weight themselves, as they lack personhood to even have well-being. Furthermore, you are not counting on the continuous suffering of both the potential fetus or the impregnated. Which is worse, much worse, than the (sometimes) termination of fetuses. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a fetus, sometimes the two line up, but ending pregnancy can occur in other ways; such as c-section.
#170
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Alright, there’s a lot here, so I’ll start by just scaling it down to a single argument which, at least from my perspective, is the one that your stance relies entirely upon:
 
Potential.
 
Essentially, your argument is that the potential of a being to become… actually, I’m a bit unclear on this aspect. You’re disposed to see all stages of development as a human being, so they don’t become a human being. I guess the possibility to be born into the world alive? To become an adult at some stage? You suggest the latter, but I’m not really sure what it is about an adult that confers basic human rights, especially as they’re given to children as well. However, that’s a minor quibble because your basic argument makes sense: if something can develop into a stage of human that we would all agree should be given human rights, then that something is a human being and deserving of those same rights. Let me know if I’m getting this wrong, but that’s what I’m reading.
 
I appreciate your dismissing the “DNA makes us human” argument, so we can set that aside. In doing so, you’re essentially setting aside any single characteristic as a means to determine whether a given cell/group of cells/organism is human. Instead, your position is that it’s a collection of traits that impart a capacity to reach a later stage of development.
 
This is the point where we part ways for a few reasons. To start, that does still designate a set of traits (some may be undefined, but they are still traits) that confer this potential upon zygotes, blastocysts and other early stages of development. From my perspective, that’s no less arbitrary than selecting DNA as the factor that establishes us as worthy of rights. Granted, I don’t think any of the other traits (a beating heart, functioning brain, etc.) are any less arbitrary, but I just generally have trouble with the arbitrary selection of characteristics as a basis for affording an entity rights. Not saying that that perspective makes things easier (if anything, it makes it a lot harder), though I do think even a discrete group of traits, particularly ones present post-fusion of gametes, oversimplifies what makes one a human being.
 
Second, let’s take a step back from whether there should be a selection of traits and focus on the traits you’ve chosen. To delineate between gametes and a zygote, you argue that the individual haploid cells “cannot become a human on their own – this combination is simply a ‘potential’ human being” and that a zygote “WILL become a human on its own – it is an individual by biological standards”, then brace yourself for some responses. I’ll get to those in a moment, but I’ll start here. It’s interesting that you include the word “potential” in this context, a term often lambasted by others who are pro-life when it is applied to other stages of development. I also find it odd that you keep referring to a zygote and a fetus as “becom[ing] a human” when your argument appears to be that they ARE a human, and thus must be afforded the same rights.
 
But I’ll leave semantics out of this. The problem with this argument is that the second argument is flawed: a zygote, embryo or even a fetus will absolutely not continue to develop in the absence of outside influence. We can dismiss the nutrient contributions of the mother, perhaps, but I don’t see how you can dismiss all manner of outside chemical and biological signals that provide essential information to the unborn and activate various processes that would not happen in their absence. The fusion of gametes in an extra step, yes, but I don’t see how that additional step fundamentally alters anything except probability. Just like gamete fusion requires that both gametes be present and active in the body at the same time, the zygote requires a great deal of outside influence. Why does the latter get treated as though it’s functionally independent while the former does not?
 
But let’s get down to your defensive claims that followed this.
 
"1.     Not creating a human (having sex) is not the same as ending the life of a human (abortion)"
 
I’m not really sure what to make of this point. I’m not saying that the act of not having sex is ending a life. I’m saying that the decision to actively and knowingly end the life of gametes should, based on your argument, be considered similarly to abortion. Male masturbation is most certainly and knowingly ending the lives of many sperm cells. You mentioned earlier that periods should not be considered murder, and this is a basis for that view, but it doesn’t cover the whole argument. For that matter, what about the usage of spermicide during sex?
 
"2.      A fetus is already becoming an adult, while the sperm simply has potential for doing so(very low chances of course)"
 
Again, this seems to be based on probability. I’m not sure why potential suddenly becomes less important simply because likelihood diminishes, but if that’s the case, then there are valid arguments to be made regarding issues like miscarriage, which are far more likely in the early stages of pregnancy. If probability should affect our perception of what stages of development are and are not due human rights, then you’re introducing yet another arbitrary measuring stick into the equation. At what point does likelihood become too low?
 
"3.      Sperm will die naturally, while a fetus must be killed artificially and intentionally(any natural death is not immoral - not even spontaneous abortion.)"
 
I would argue that miscarriage is often also a natural death. Again, this seems more a measure of probability (which is more likely to die on its own if we do nothing) rather than a clear delineation. You seem to be covering for that by arguing that natural deaths aren’t immoral, but by that logic, any unnatural death should be deemed at least potentially immoral. I don’t see how that excludes the deaths of gametes.
 
"4.      Sperm and egg cells are not unique - there are thousands of the exact same combinations that could occur to create a fetus with the same DNA"
 
Uniqueness is an interesting argument, one I’ve heard before, but it doesn’t work very well, particularly with your argument. You already stated that DNA should not be a basis for determining what makes a human, yet you now seem to be going by the argument that it confers uniqueness and therefore confers humanity to the zygote. Not sure why you’re shifting here. I’m also not sure why uniqueness confers humanity at all. Would a genetic clone not be due the same rights? Would a twin? I understand that there are MORE clones for sperm and egg cells than there would ever likely be for humans, but again, this seems like an issue of degree. Why is that smaller degree less important than the larger one?
 
"5.      I quote fauxlaw (the fact-spitter):"
 
Not going to respond to everything here since this is largely between us right now(fauxlaw can jump in if he wishes), but I’ll address the essential points. If we’re focused on the possibility of future scientific creations, then we’re dealing in a separate issue: when does the unborn become “viable”? I agree, that would be an important consideration should that happen (or, as the case may be, when it happens). However, the argument he’s giving is that that potential future tech should shift our perception now. I disagree. Future tech could resolve a lot of problems, but that doesn’t mean that we should now grant the unborn the same rights because we are not yet past those problems. In general, though, I could apply the same point to gametes: we could create an artificial womb, artificially inseminate that womb, and generate a zygote that gestates in said womb. Why does the fact that one was plucked from a natural womb as a zygote and one was plucked as an ovum make the two distinct in this regard?
 
The latter argument is not really relevant to this discussion because it’s about an entirely separate point, i.e. ownership of the cells at various stages and, therefore, a legal capacity to choose to abort. That’s not pertinent to my argument. I guess there’s a point to be made here about ownership of a sperm or ovum being distinct, but I’d have to squint pretty hard to find how it applies to my point. If you want to get into this, I’d need you to rephrase this in a way that sets it as a challenge to my point rather than to someone else’s.

#171
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.

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

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

Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
Sure. I invoke the concept of individualist morality. In particular, every individual is his/her own sovereign with an exclusive claim to his/her person. And given that this is all-encompassing, this applies to everyone regardless of their traits, position, and views. So then, how does on respond to the dilemma of abortion while invoking individualist philosophy? First, I wish to suppose a few things:

1. A (pregnant) woman is human.
2. A zygote/embryo/fetus is human.
3. A (pregnant) woman is a moral agent.
4. A zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a moral agent.
5. Humans have rights to their persons.

Normally, I'd argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a moral agent, and therefore cannot be included in any moral analysis, much less afforded "right"--moral concepts which establish a condition in which we ought to live. But let's also suppose these, which may contradict a couple of my earlier suppositions:

1. A fetus is a moral agent.
2. A fetus is its own sovereign.

The act of abortion where the fetus is merely expelled from its mother's womb is not immoral, much less in violation of human rights. I'll try to illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario: suppose the city in which I dwell is grounds for one of the worst blizzards in human history. My home is one of the few homes with power and heat. A stranger braves the blizzard outside, and I spotting the stranger invite him into my home. I allow the stranger to spend some time inside and warm up, but sometime along the way, I get whimsical and decide to expel this stranger from my home because I don't like the color of his scarf. The stranger returns outside to the blizzard where he would succumb to the harsh cold and die. Did I kill/murder this stranger? No. I was a douchebag; I wasn't a good Samaritan; but that does not constitute my taking a life, much less taking it with "malice aforethought." The stranger died because he succumbed to the blizzard. You can argue that if I didn't expelled him from my home, he would've survived, and that would be credible. But I could also argue that if he had an extra layer of clothing, he might have survived, or if he were located in another city, he could've survived. All conditions aside, succumbing to the blizzard produced his death.

So, let's apply the same logic to a mother and its zygote/embryo/fetus. The mother decides to expel the zygote/embryo/fetus from her body. Because the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't viable, it dies immediately outside of its mother's womb. Did its mother kill/murder it any more than I killed/murdered the stranger in my hypothetical scenario? Or was it the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's lack of physiological development which disallows its capacity to sustain itself outside of its mother's womb? Even if one were to argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human, or a living being (which I don't object to by the way) how does this create an entitlement for the fetus to occupy its mother's womb? Even if the fetus "needs" its mother's womb to survive, the womb would still part be of its mother's person. And as her own sovereign especially as it relates to her person, she has a prerogative to determine how she behaves it. To undermine this is to violate her right, which would fall within the domain of human rights. The difference between the premise which informs the mother's right, and the one which informs the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's right is substantially sound.

I can explain the reason, but first I'd like to see your thoughts on that which I've argued thus far.


#172
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
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.
Rights to education/work and away from slavery/torture applies more so to a woman that’s forced to carry and give birth, than to fetuses or embryos that aren’t developed/conscious.

By the way I’ll remind you again, murder is a legal term and has legal connotations. That’s why you like using the word “murder” because everyone associates murder with wrong/illegal. Legal abortion is not illegal. It is not murder. Do you understand?

By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime? No. 
I’m glad you agree with my take on prisoners. 

Infringing human rights means to use your freedom regardless of the rights of others. Killing another person infringes human rights.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I’m surprised you didn’t say murder. Well you did bring up cops fighting crime in the last question you proposed.

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".
But you said “By locking up another human you infringe human rights.”
So does that mean only some prisoners?

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.
Rights to education/work and away from slavery/torture applies more so to a woman that’s forced to carry and give birth, than to fetuses or embryos that aren’t developed/conscious. If you don’t agree, can you fundamentally tell me why?
#173
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
And so...Your conclusion was inconclusive, just as one would expect.

Which just goes to show that self righteousness doesn't solve arguments.


And in terms of definition a foetus is not necessarily a human being....Once again we have the benefit of selectivity.

Just check out a definition and apply interpretation accordingly.....Your interpretation will be no more or less valid than mine.

Topic's author
#174
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Thank you for your response - a very intelligent one I might add.



Clearance about setup
I also find it odd that you keep referring to a zygote and a fetus as “becom[ing] a human” when your argument appears to be that they ARE a human, and thus must be afforded the same rights.
Sorry that I was a bit unclear. I meant that a fetus IS a human BECOMING an adult - it is not simply BECOMING a human.

 I’m not really sure what it is about an adult that confers basic human rights, especially as they’re given to children as well
Adults have human rights because they agree not to kill each other - even though they could. I know this seems ridiculous but basically, that is what it boils down to. People value the fact that they are not killed. People also value the fact that they were not killed in the past. And since adults do not want to be killed as children they also agree not to kill children. The logic should extend down all the way to the point where a human becomes a human. 


I just generally have trouble with the arbitrary selection of characteristics as a basis for affording an entity rights.
I agree.

We both agree that children are valuable regardless of whether or not you like them - because they will become adults in the future. That is also why we consider a baby valuable because it will become a child. We would consider a child more valuable than a sperm - that's for sure. But we can apply that same theory of "becoming" to a fetus and find that since both children and a fetus actively becomes an adult - both carry the same value. So regardless of "when" a cell becomes a human - abortion is already immoral. The question is: when is it not immoral anymore to kill the "seeds" for an adult - when does the seed actually become a human.


particularly ones present post-fusion of gametes, oversimplifies what makes one a human being.
I completely agree. Any differentiation of post-fusion is arbitrary and has no real weight.



It’s interesting that you include the word “potential” in this context
Sorry if I was unclear, let me elaborate:
  • Only adults matter in the first place (because adults made the human rights) - only adults are entitled to human rights
  • Children (in any stage of development) has the potential of becoming adults
  • Therefore, children (and all other humans) have human rights 

I am not claiming that a fetus "has the potential to become a human", I claim that it IS a human. But all humans have the potential to become adults - the threshold for rights.

What makes any human valuable is the potential to become an adult. Therefore if killing a two-year-old is immoral then that same thing applies to a 1-year old or younger.

You get the gist. Only humans have value - therefore, a potential human has no value. But a child is not a "potential" human - it IS a human. We can trace this back and claim that a fetus also has value because it is just a younger human. And since all humans have equal value, a fetus also cannot be killed morally. 

The real question is not whether or not abortion is immoral - but where it stops. Why is killing a sperm cell not immoral?


However, you ask me "why" chose the moment of conception as the exact moment when a human starts to exist as a human being. The decision is not arbitrary, here is the logical reasoning behind it:
  1. All humans have equal value - therefore we must choose a single event that makes a human a human (or dismiss human rights as subjective)
  2. Conception is the single QUALITATIVE change that happens. (pregnancy starts de facto with conception)
  3. Therefore, conception is the de facto moment where a human gets human rights (if human rights apply equally to all humans)

I also want to point out that the difference between a gamete and a zygote is qualitative, not quantitive. How can we say this?

I would like to quote myself:
  • DNA is not worth anything - a human is.
  • If we look at all cells randomly only the DNA identifies which human each cell belongs to 

So therefore, DNA in itself does not grant you human rights - your own DNA only grants you the status of being a human.



If human rights are a thing, all humans have an innate value.



Conclusion: DNA does not grant a fetus human rights - human rights do. DNA only shows us WHO are humans. Therefore, what has human DNA has rights if humans have value.


Topic's author
#175
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
SUMMARY:

What is not my argument:
Human DNA is innately valuable. No, it merely identifies a cell as being human. This means that DNA only tells us WHO are humans. Killing all cells with the same DNA is murder.


"Potential" for becoming a human gives one value. No. But the potential for becoming an adult gives you the same value as an adult. Killing a child is equal to killing an adult.


Value is inherent in the traits. No - that would be discrimination and a violation of human rights. The only trait that matters is the fact that I am a human.






My real argument is as follows.

Why do humans have human rights?
Human rights have some set of justifications - what or why does not matter. It can be God or whatever - but it objectively exists
 -- Therefore, killing a human is objectively wrong, and Adults are beyond doubt humans.


Who qualifies as being a human?
Adults are humans. Adults want their lives to be protected throughout their entire lives
 -- Therefore, "nothing" that will eventually (without an unnatural death)  become an adult can justly be killed intentionally (more lives at stake being the exception)


All humans have distinct DNA, it identifies individuals. The killing of a single cell is not immoral - but the killing of all cells with the same full set of human DNA is murder.
 -- A human is all the cells with the same human DNA, so long as it is complete. (a single zygote alone is a human being - it will eventually become an adult)


CONCLUSION:

1. If adults have human rights then all humans have human rights.

2. Every (non-arbitrary) way to identify a human supports the theory that a zygote and a fetus is a human.

Since adults have human rights - killing a fetus is wrong.





Later I will rebut your argument.
#176
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights.
ECTOGENESIS FTW!
#177
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
the OVUM is undeniably part of the woman's body.
Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized.
Who "owns" the spermatozoon?

It seems fair to rule that the woman who possesses it also owns it.
#178
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
I think that prohibiting abortion, from a human rights standpoint, is much more moral than any other law
The key "problem" here is ENFORCEMENT.

More specifically, bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.

I actually agree with you that miscarriage and abortion are "morally repulsive".

I'm just not sure how I can accuse my neighbor of "murder" and or "manslaughter" without also committing a gross invasion of their personal privacy.
#179
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VALUE EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET WITH EQUAL FEROCITY.

Why can't the smartest people solve the problems we all agree on?
Topic's author
#180
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
More specifically, bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
Yes. Nobody will prevent her from killing the baby. But the doctor will not be permitted to perform an abortion, because of the ethical problems I have explained.
The only exception being to save the mother or both from a deadly birth.

How can you even justify stating such a delusion:
The key "problem" here is ENFORCEMENT.
Tell me, why do you think that we need to enforce this rule? We just need to prohibit abortion - women cannot perform them themselves (except after birth).
Prohibiting abortion clinics will not infringe "bodily sovereignty", denying someone an abortion is not raping them. 


Why would anyone be entitled to murdering their own child? Again, if the baby infringes her sovereignty it must get a fair trial before execution.