Novice_II

• Do you believe an unborn (that is a biological human being at any stage of pregnancy) should have any rights? 
  

 abortion is the right of the mother to utilise surgical and medical procedures to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

• What is the argument for this? 
  

I take it you think none of my previous comments are rational then?

• I don't know if I even understand what you are asking for/implying. If I take it that you want me to state a logical problem with anything you said, that may not be true inherently unless there is an internal contradiction. This can be the case, however I don't know as of now whether or not there is one yet. If there is not an internal contradiction, and the position just leads to conclusions which I am satisfied will deter people from accepting those views, that could also lead me to conclude that if most people rationalized the issue they would become pro life. 
  

What other harms of democracy do you see? 

• The situation you described is an instance of the continuous harms of Democracy's predication: majority control. Other examples of this in the past have been with slavery, segregation, certain wars etc. Personally, I don't know what form of would be better, I just interpret very obvious harms of Democracy that exist currently, and remain open towards looking for ways to control them. 
  

If every state let their people vote today on whether or not abortion would be legal, that would be letting the people speak to what they support. And almost all, if not all, states would vote to make it legal.

• I don't really care what the majority of people would think, I just see it as one of the continuous harms of democracy. Unfortunately, there were periods of human history where slavery was supported by the majority of people. These both seem like descriptive claims from which normative conclusions cannot necessarily be derived. That being said, it seems to me that most people would become pro life if they actually rationalized the issue. 
  

This is simply not true. If there were to be an user who constantly troll voted, obviously there is action done and has been action done in the past. 

• This is false. There are two examples of this currently. FLRW and Shila. Nothing, to my knowledge has been done to either of them as a consequence. 
  
• Apart from this I am not seeing any cogent response to these arguments. Why isn't casting a troll vote a penalty enough to warrant removing voting permissions? What is the argument that people ought not to lose certain freedoms for committing violations of established regulations. You label this as "authoritarian," however it seems like the foundation for any civil society. 
  

• First, I am not seeing an answer to my question, and I am not sure why you are not answering. 
  

If the human being existed prior to her “placing them there” then my position would be very different. 

• Second, in this case you would say that an abortion from an IVF embryo transfer pregnancy should be illegal given that the biological human being had already existed? Yes entailing the contradiction "you do and do not think abortion should be allowed," and no entailing the contradiction that "killing a human being should and should not be legal after you have placed them in your body." 
  

The mother has the right to her own body, it’s the fetus that is the foreign occupier. Therefore the mother has the right to decide if the fetus remains there.

• Does the mother have the right to decide to remove a human being from her body, even when she was the one that placed them there, in a state where the human being is temporarily dependent on her for its survival? 
  

• What is the argument for why abortion is not one of those things? 

• So do we agree that we should be able to prevent people from doing at least some things with their body?  
  

• Interesting. 
  

• Well, do you acknowledge that it is a logical contradiction to say that "someone should and should not be allowed to do what they want to themselves when pregnant." If you do, (which you should) I will note that you contradicted yourself. 
  
• This is the problem with bodily autonomy arguments for abortion, at least that I have seen. They seem to entail absurd conclusions.  

• Okay, so amidst all this, your answer was yes. That is all I am interested in. Now, the reductio I will use here is not complex, and I was assuming we could deliberate around a few different ones. 
  
• Do you think one should be hypothetically allowed to genetically modify an unborn to be a serial killer? 
  

Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant? 

• How about a yes or no? With all due respect, you kind of went on a ramble there. I just want an answer. Is that fair to ask? So, to be clear,  I am talking about your normative ethical views, not what happens currently or what people do. 

• Okay, let me see if I can ask the question in a clearer way, because I only want to see specifically where the disconnect is. I am hoping for a yes/no: do you grant that the unborn is a separate biological human being than the mother scientifically? 
  

The potentiality argument is one single argument for the pro-life position - the fetal potentiality position is not a requisite to the actual position. 

• I am not sure I even understand what pro choice people mean when they say potentiality does not mean actuality as a response to pro life normative ethics these days. My impression is that most people tend to argue that (p1) humans ought to have human rights (p2) the unborn are human (c) unborn ought to have human rights. Maybe I am not considering where the "potential," is. 
  

• Do you know what normative ethics are? This could be yes or no. If yes, we may have an easier time here. If no, I am just asking about your views.  Let me try to make this as simple as possible just so we don't get sidetracked or derail the conversation. 
  
• You claimed that an unborn person has no rights. Obviously, I take this to mean that you also believe an unborn should not have rights. Given that, can you give me your standard that determines whether or not any entity has rights? 
  

You asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.

• Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no

law is the absolute definitive demarcation establishing legally (juxtaposed socially, culturally and scientifically) when personhood is factually established. 

• Do you believe currently legal, is synonymous with moral, or something that ought to be the case? I wonder. 
  
• Like I said, I tend not to have any interest in these semantic disputes. I want to get to the precise root of the disagreement here. So, when I use the word "person," I use it in a way that is generally used philosophically: denoting whether an entity has moral consideration/the right to life and other fundamental rights. When you use the person, do you mean something else? 
  

A pregnancy is NOT an "unborn person."

• I can grant that for the sake of argument, (as your view) I was only speaking in my view there. 
  
• Do you plan on answering the question, or do you just refuse to answer? I am fine with either, frankly. 
  

A potential human being (i.e., [a] person) not yet actualized (i.e., upon birth)

• Maybe we can go back to the 14th amendment argument. The argument seems to be 14th amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.," therefore personhood begins at birth.  Here are some problems with this: 
  

1. The first amendment does not say unborn are not persons, so to assume such is the negative inference fallacy. 
   
2. Even if I were to grant that the amendment says this, this would be an appeal to the law, and thus, is not a normative ethical argument. I am not interested in having a disconnect in how we are speaking to one another/in understanding. When I use the term "person," I am referring to a living thing that should have moral consideration and the right to life. 
   

• Well, that's fine if you just refuse to answer the question. At least we have a clear statement of this. Maybe I can make my own thread later and see if I can get these answers from someone else. 
  

1. Abortion involves one person, the female, be it a girl or a woman who is [a] person. She has rights. The pregnancy does not have any rights, regardless of gestational stage.

I know where you are going with the nonsensical "form of rights to non-persons," and it is a both irrelevant and a red herring. 

• I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason.
  
• If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights. 
  
• If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not. 

2. 14th Amendment.

• The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth? 
  

• Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder). 
  
• Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body. 
  
• Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2. 
  

1. Utterly irrelevant to this debate/discussion

2.  Birth

• Can you give the argument for that? 
  

1. Do non-persons have rights and, 
   
2. What are the criteria of traits that make one a person? 
   

• You seemed to be making a modus ponens inference: "abortion reduces crime therefore abortion should be legal."
  
• I am using your same inference, and applying it to other potential policies: "killing people with low IQ reduces crime therefore killing people with low IQ should be legal"
  

Abortion reduces crime

• My view is that, I don't necessarily see how this would lead to the conclusion that abortion should be legal. I can grant this true or not, but killing all people with low IQ would reduce crime, and that does not seem to suggest this should be legal.