-->
@coal
Your opinion is wrong, but less wrong, sort of, than the person you're arguing with.
How so? I’m curious.
Abortion - Responsibility and Rights
Posts
Total:
94
-->
@Reece101
It is clear from some of your responses that you have not read anything of my position and you are constructing strawmans of my positions. If you aren't going to be an honest agent then why should I waste my time discussing anything with you?
Oh, also, most of your initial questions as well as you new ones have already been addressed in the thread (some in the OP itself), though you complete misunderstanding of biology is a new one.
-->
@coal
Your opinion is very wrong.
Okay, how? Or did you think actually addressing the issue is beneath you?
-->
@coal
Opinions are always right.
Even though we might disagree with the content of an opinion.
Whether abortion is or isn't actually right or wrong is unknown, because there is no greater authority.
All that you have is your own righteous opinion.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Come back to me when you’re less defensive.
-->
@Bones
No I don't feel I'm supporting the wrong side I'm tired of talking in circles around morons that bring up things like oh if I lose my birth certificate are you allowed to kill me because it's stupid and it doesn't mean anything.
-->
@zedvictor4
But...but, my opinions ARE always right! ;-p
-->
@TheMorningsStar
am I correct in saying that it is then almost solely due to the woman's bodily autonomy that abortion is permissible?
The entire debate is the woman’s bodily autonomy vs. the fetus’s right to life. Everything else is a sub category.
Whether something is intended or not is not usually relevant when it comes to the obligations/responsibilities one must take on
But what forces these obligations onto them in the first place?
This brings us back to the core question of whether you view an early stage fetus as a human being. If you concede that it is not, you can no longer use the responsibility argument you’re attaching to sex in this debate without claiming sex is in fact punishable. If you do, then this is where the debate lies so the rest of it is moot.
-->
@Bones
Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated. The unborn don't have rights you cannot violate them.A fetus is scientifically...
Science doesn't make legal determinations. Rights are associated with personhood, and personhood is attached at birth.
-->
@Reece101
Anyone that takes a look at this thread will find that I have had respectful dialogues with those who advocate pro-choice policies, even when there have been challenges to my view. You need to ask yourself why I do not show the same respect to you, and the answer is obvious. I have no reason to show respect to those that strawman what I say.
-->
@Double_R
This brings us back to the core question of whether you view an early stage fetus as a human being.
Out of curiosity, what reasons are there that make you think it isn't a human being during the early stages?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No I don't feel I'm supporting the wrong side I'm tired of talking in circles around morons that bring up things like oh if I lose my birth certificate are you allowed to kill me because it's stupid and it doesn't mean anything.
No I only bring up such a stupid point to expose how stupid your initial point was. Recall, you said
The unborn don't have rights they don't have identification they don't have a birth certificate they don't have anything to verify their even alive
which logically follows that those who don't have identification, a birth certificate or anything to verify their even alive, can be killed, albeit them being fully grown human beings. This is what your criterion allows for.
If you feel like your supporting the right side, then let's debate. After all, I'm a moron right?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated. The unborn don't have rights you cannot violate them.A fetus is scientifically...Science doesn't make legal determinations. Rights are associated with personhood, and personhood is attached at birth.
True, but laws don't make moral determinations. You saying that rights are associated with personhood is as arbitrary as me saying "rights are associated only with white people". Obviously wrong. Moreover, you don't' really think coming out of the womb converts the right to life, do you? Would you allow abortion of a 9 month old "fetus"?
-->
@zedvictor4
Opinions are always right.
Mine is, sure.
Yours, less so.
-->
@Reece101
If you are a woman who happens to have an abortion, it is you who will stand before God on your day of judgment and account for your actions; just as the rest of us will do the same, for ours.
So I clearly oppose abortion. But that is my opinion. What right do I have to force my opinion on others? None, of course. And the state would have even less.
The moral stakes of abortion are not for the state to resolve. The extent of the controversy surrounding the abortion debate is itself evidence of the fact that government has no place weighing in on its morality. Some people viscerally oppose it, while others support it with the same or greater intensity. The debate rages on, as it has, for the last almost 50 years.
So what, then, should be the default position?
Liberty, of course. The liberty to act according to your own conscience, based on your own values.
-->
@SkepticalOne
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. We all have rights - my rights don't trump your rights and vice versa. I have a right to do what I want with my body, as do you.If I'm dying and can be saved with the help of your body, I don't automatically get what I need to survive and that doesn't mean my right to life has been denied. My right to life doesn't overule anyone else's rights.Besides that, a blastocyst has no rights. A zygote has no rights. An embryo has no rights. Individual rights are attached at birth.
Sorry it took so long to respond. I’ve been quite busy with moving.
Just because individual rights are assigned at birth under our current system doesn’t mean that that is the best system. Being the status quo is not an argument in the realm of abortion.
Furthermore, your analogy is not a direct comparison. You imply there is no relationship between your critical health condition and my actions, while that is not the case for abortion. Except for the rare exception of rape, that need for health assistance is a direct result of the woman’s actions (and father).
To say that your actions can affect what is recognized as your right is not controversial at all. Based on what crimes you commit under the status quo (something you appealed to in your argument), you can lose your “right” to vote because of a felony, you can lose your right to life (death penalty), right to freely move (being held captive by the state in a prison).
Many of those are things that many people consider rights. Many of them can be taken away. So to claim that the supposed right to bodily autonomy should be absolute would need a much more substantive argument to make me believe that is so. Why can’t creating a living being also be another valid basis for revocation of another right?
Finally, your rights can be weighed against others! Your right to free speech is of a lower rank than the right of safety for others. That is why you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded area. While your right to free speech is important, we generally recognize that the right of people to not be trampled is more important, hence why we allow controlling of speech instead of allowing it in that case.
Gametes are unique DNA unlike other DNA of the parent....
That’s quite simply untrue. Police use semen in their DNA tests and can trace it to who it belongs to.
Gametes share the DNA of the individual they come from. A child is a unique DNA created from the gametes of two separate adults. Hence, it is a separate person with its own set of rights.
Humans are related to all life on the planet, so 'because human DNA' is insufficient to disallow rights from animals.. in fact, this argument would demand more closely related organisms be granted more human rights.
That kinda seems to be how we do things. Mammals generally have more rights than other types of animals.
But regardless, I don’t understand where this argument is coming from. One reasonable theory COULD be to assign rights as you say, but then again, how would you choose which rights were applied at which percentage of relation to people? I simply deem it important that humans rights are applied to humans instead of applying human rights to non-humans. That seems to be the most reasonable thought process to me.
I think the odds are pretty close to 50/50 successful implantation will occur and less a 'walking, talking, eating,' thinking human will be the result. Assuming what will be isn't an argument for granting rights to what is.
Why aren’t assumptions considered? Do you think it is the same thing to “pull the plug” on someone who is entirely braindead as it is to stop life support for someone with a 50% chance of recovering from a coma?
-->
@coal
I’m pro-choice too though.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Anyone that takes a look at this thread will find that I have had respectful dialogues with those who advocate pro-choice policies, even when there have been challenges to my view. You need to ask yourself why I do not show the same respect to you, and the answer is obvious. I have no reason to show respect to those that strawman what I say.
Oh, so you have no reason. I figured as much! I’m joking I’m joking.
Where did I strawman?
-->
@coal
That's your valid opinion.
And as valid as any other opinion.
-->
@SkepticalOne
See above.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
what reasons are there that make you think it isn't a human being during the early stages?
Because it doesn’t have any of the defining characteristics. It has no self awareness, no emotions, no desires, no memories… essentially is holds none of the traits that differentiate it from any other type of life, like say a plant. The reason we value it is not because of what it is, but rather because of what it will become. But as I already pointed out, reaching it’s potential requires the mothers body so without it what it will become is meaningless.
-->
@Bones
True, but laws don't make moral determinations. You saying that rights are associated with personhood is as arbitrary as me saying "rights are associated only with white people". Obviously wrong. Moreover, you don't' really think coming out of the womb converts the right to life, do you? Would you allow abortion of a 9 month old "fetus"?
Personhood is a legal term regarding rights. Science doesn't deal with rights - it also doesn't deal with moral determinations. Appeal to an authority related to your subject, and your point will be better received.
Also, since abortions late in the pregnancy aren't done on a whim and generally have to do with preserving maternal health - yes, I would absolutely allow it. Women don't go through 9 months of pregnancy and THEN decide to abort.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Being the status quo is not an argument in the realm of abortion.
Cool trick.
Furthermore, your analogy is not a direct comparison.
This has been addressed. Keep the analogy exactly the same with my injury being caused by you. ...I still have no right to your body. So the argument that being responsible for someone else's predicament means you forfeit your body to their needs is false.
Finally, your rights can be weighed against others! Your right to free speech is of a lower rank than the right of safety for others.
No. All rights carry equal weight because every one of them is necessary for protection of human dignity. For example, if all human life has the right to life but not the right to speech, then life is incomplete.
Based on what crimes you commit under the status quo (something you appealed to in your argument), you can lose your “right” to vote because of a felony, you can lose your right to life (death penalty), right to freely move (being held captive by the state in a prison).
Pregnancy is analogous to punishment? Is that really where you want to go? Removal of rights occurs because an individual has established themselves to be a danger to society. Is being pregnant a danger to society?
Gametes are unique DNA unlike other DNA of the parent....That’s quite simply untrue. Police use semen in their DNA tests and can trace it to who it belongs to.
The DNA of gametes is not identical to the parent DNA. Paternity tests are also a thing, so I don't see your point. Being unique doesn't mean we can't tell where it came from.
That kinda seems to be how we do things. Mammals generally have more rights than other types of animals.
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.
Assuming what will be isn't an argument for granting rights to what is.Why aren’t assumptions considered? Do you think it is the same thing to “pull the plug” on someone who is entirely braindead as it is to stop life support for someone with a 50% chance of recovering from a coma?
You should be answering that question since you think making assumptions is a good way to determine rights. Do you think someone with a 50% chance of dying is dead?
-->
@zedvictor4
You are thief of joy, sir. ;-)
-->
@SkepticalOne
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.
But their rights to not be abused while alive are above those of, say, chickens (birds). But again, I don't think this is even a good idea of how to apply rights to non-humans.
This has been addressed. Keep the analogy exactly the same with my injury being caused by you. ...I still have no right to your body. So the argument that being responsible for someone else's predicament means you forfeit your body to their needs is false.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?
No. All rights carry equal weight because every one of them is necessary for protection of human dignity. For example, if all human life has the right to life but not the right to speech, then life is incomplete.
Then our lives are incomplete unless we can yell "fire" in crowded areas? Is that what you believe? Because, as I pointed out, this is a limit on speech, which you believe is one of our rights.
Pregnancy is analogous to punishment? Is that really where you want to go? Removal of rights occurs because an individual has established themselves to be a danger to society. Is being pregnant a danger to society?
No. Don't purposely misrepresent my argument. Rights can be removed because of actions, which you seem to agree to, yes?
The DNA of gametes is not identical to the parent DNA. Paternity tests are also a thing, so I don't see your point. Being unique doesn't mean we can't tell where it came from.
That's unrelated to my argument. We do have paternity tests. They show that your DNA partially came from said father. It doesn't matter where you came from. You are now a unique being.
You should be answering that question since you think making assumptions is a good way to determine rights. Do you think someone with a 50% chance of dying is dead?
No, I don't think that someone who has a fairly high chance of dying is dead.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.But their rights to not be abused while alive are above those of, say, chickens (birds). But again, I don't think this is even a good idea of how to apply rights to non-humans.
Agreed, but I'm not the one touting the supreme importance of DNA to rights. ;-)
As far as I am concerned, personhood does not require DNA. Consciousness, self awareness, the ability to reason are the defining characteristics of a person. At conception, we don't even have the jug to hold these things.
This is getting way off track though. Personhood is not relevant to this discussion. People don't get to use other people without consent.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?
Perhaps, but not with your blood, flesh, or organs....
Then our lives are incomplete unless we can yell "fire" in crowded areas? Is that what you believe? Because, as I pointed out, this is a limit on speech, which you believe is one of our rights.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.
No. Don't purposely misrepresent my argument. Rights can be removed because of actions, which you seem to agree to, yes?
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.
It doesn't matter where you came from. You are now a unique being.
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.
True, but laws don't make moral determinations. You saying that rights are associated with personhood is as arbitrary as me saying "rights are associated only with white people". Obviously wrong. Moreover, you don't' really think coming out of the womb converts the right to life, do you? Would you allow abortion of a 9 month old "fetus"?Personhood is a legal term regarding rights. Science doesn't deal with rights -
True, but science is able to give objective facts useful for the making of laws. For example, murder is wrong can only be enforced if a degree of science i.e., it can be determined that the agent is alive and has been killed. If science determines that a fetus is a human being (done) and murder is the killing of a human being (tautology) then abortion is murder.
Also, since abortions late in the pregnancy aren't done on a whim and generally have to do with preserving maternal health - yes, I would absolutely allow it.
So despite something being immoral, as agreed by you, as long as the immoral act is not done often, it should be legalised?
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is getting way off track though. Personhood is not relevant to this discussion. People don't get to use other people without consent.
Perhaps we don't need to touch on that, but I think that personhood is really the deciding factor. If it is a person, you can't murder it. If it is some valueless object, then who cares? But I guess that would have to come after the rights discussion.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?Perhaps, but not with your blood, flesh, or organs....
While it isn't the status quo to help people you push down stairs with your blood, flesh, and organs, I think a very good argument could be made for that.
So since you believe there is some obligation to the person you injure, why would you stop at monetary obligations?
Let's say that when you are pushed down the stairs, you damage your liver and need a transplant, but there aren't any available donors. However, it just so happens that the person that pushed you down the stairs is a usable donor. Should you be able to force the person who put you in that position to give you a liver transplant or do you think you should be left to die? I'd say that you should force the transplant.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.
But no rights are truly equal. Some are more important than others. Having a life without free speech is quite different from having no life at all. The fact that free speech is limited to preserve life shows that you weight those two differently. You restrict one to defend another.
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.
Getting pregnant when you don't want to is to some degree a bad action. It's reckless.
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.
The fact that people change over time seems to support what I am saying. You must take their entire life into account, as there will be dramatic changes. Even abortion proponents use the future of that life to justify their actions. They say that the life of that kid won't be good because they don't have a lot of money to care for it. But then the question is, is a bad life better or worse than no life at all?
-->
@bmdrocks21
So since you believe there is some obligation to the person you injure, why would you stop at monetary obligations?
This is very 'eye for an eye' type mentality. I object to that in principle because it blurs the line between crime and punishment. If crime is something to be avoided, then punishment should not look exactly like it. Its a bit like the parent spanking their child for hitting others. It doesn't make sense.
Should you be able to force the person who put you in that position to give you a liver transplant or do you think you should be left to die?
This seems extreme and improbable. Nonetheless, I would not want to be responsible for someone else's death.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.But no rights are truly equal. Some are more important than others. Having a life without free speech is quite different from having no life at all. The fact that free speech is limited to preserve life shows that you weight those two differently. You restrict one to defend another.
I believe I gave 'life without speech' as an illustration of an incomplete life. Obviously a life without bodily autonomy, freedom of thought, or, yes, life - would be incomplete as well. You're reading something into statement which isn't there.
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.Getting pregnant when you don't want to is to some degree a bad action. It's reckless.
...but is it a crime?
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.The fact that people change over time seems to support what I am saying. You must take their entire life into account, as there will be dramatic changes. Even abortion proponents use the future of that life to justify their actions. They say that the life of that kid won't be good because they don't have a lot of money to care for it. But then the question is, is a bad life better or worse than no life at all?
I'm not an antinatalist, but I do accept a life never coming to exist is much more humane than forcing a miserable existence.
...but you're getting ahead of yourself. My statement was pointing to the fact that, even though some cells with my DNA existed at conception, I didn't.
That being said, this is more personhood talk - it an unnecessary debate for abortion.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Can the legal and moral responsibilities to take care of the unborn be compared, on some level, to those to take care of a newborn? The pro-choice position would conclude no while the pro-life position would be to conclude yes.
At no time is it morally correct to force one human being to give their body over to the use of another without their consent. I accept this axiomatically and would need to be convinced otherwise before I could entertain a "prolife" stance.