Errr, no. Zygote, embryo, fetus-- they all denote stages of development. Those have to be something (i.e., a human, a dog, a horse, a cat, etc.). Sure, you can always find the odd outlier here and there who disagree with the majority (i.e., PZ Meyers or Allan-something) and find them to be standalone things, but this does not change the fact that we’re dealing with well-accepted scientific realities.
…Besides, does surviving otuside the womb mean with without aid or with aid? If, tomorrow, there is a miraculous breakthrough in medical technology which allows the unborn to survive outside the womb at all gestational ages, then does abortion become impermissible?
The point isn’t whether or not you view the two as the same or different, but rather whether you would allow someone to engage in action X because no one knew they would have engaged in it.
I did answer it. I said (paraphrasing here because I don’t remember my exact words) “wantedness is not grounds to do to another as you please”. To make an imperfect example, if my non-existent mother-in-law comes over to stay and I don’t want her here, I can’t beat her to an inch of her life, throw her out on the street and watch her die. I’d go to jail, regardless of the fact that I didn’t want her at my apartment.
Well, that’s too bad as that’s just you refusing to accept a scientific fact.
So what? That doesn’t make the unborn non-human beings. Some biologists, doctors and bio-ethicists agree that infanticide should be legal. I doubt them doing so means that newborns (or persons up to a certain age) are non-humans. There’s a difference between an opinion on an action or policy and acknowledging a scientific truth.
Okay, and…? This is precisely what I was responding to in post #428. You’re treating things such as level of awareness, intelligence and cognitive ability as the de facto criteria for determining whether or not humans are afforded the status of “personhood”. Why, exactly, do those things matter? Why not race? Ancestry? Being born? Time elapsed after one is born? Being able to walk? To talk? To solve complex differential equations?
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. As I point out time and time again, you can provide no valid justification as to why one should accept your criteria for what humans are afforded “personhood” status over a slaveowner’s criteria, the Nazi’s criteria, Peter Singer’s criteria or anyone else’s besides you liking your criteria more.
Again, the direct implication of legal abortion is that no one has control over their body. If someone is afforded the right to kill you, then you only have control over your body so long as someone else says you do. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about that. It’s actualy quite simple.
Errr, yes. You should treat zygotes as human because they are. At this point, it’s either that you accept that fact or you don’t, or you accept that fact and acknowledge the idea that all humans are entitled to the same basic rights or you accept that fact but reject the idea that all humans are entitled to the same basic rights. You’ve chosen to do the latter, which requires explaining why-- say-- someone like the Nazis would be wrong in defining which humans are entitled to basic rights and which ones aren’t while you are correct in defining with humans are entitled to basic rights and which ones aren’t.
Unfortunately, it’s a gargantuan exercise and-- dare I say it?-- impossible to do without treating your own arguments as self-evident.
I don’t understand why people continue to use this as a means of arguing the permissibility of abortion. If you must know, I’d save the crying baby. Why? Because it’s a crying baby. Now, to extend this argument, if, for example, I had a chance of saving a crying baby or a hundred seventy year-olds, I’d save the crying baby. Why? Because it’s a crying baby. What does that mean about the hundred seventy year-olds? It means nothing, because it says nothing about them.
No, the absolute best way to reduce abortions is to make abortions illegal and hard to procure.
Aaand… Hey, look! Bryan came back (without having responded to the post he said he was going to respond to, but that’s neither here nor there…)
Wrong. It proves that people do, indeed, accept the concept of human rights and athat ll humans should be afforded the same basic rights. At least, when it suits them to do so anyway.
I vaguely remember going over this with you before-- multiple times. Heck, I even distinctly remember going over that in this thread. In fact, I think I did in post #436, when I said:
And, as is the case-- and will be the case-- you will inevitably respond with something along the lines of “Yeah, well abortion is different, therefore the woman’s liberty and/or happiness is paramount to the life of the unborn child!”. After which I’ll ask you why abortion should be treated differently to everything else, to which you’ll respond because it’s different from everything else, to which I’ll point out that’s not a rebuttal as no two things are exactly alike and differences can be found between any two or more given situations, to which you’ll just repeat the whole “Because it’s different!”. At that point I’ll laugh at you, point out that you’re not providing a justification for your argument and then point out to you that if this is the way pro-choicers like to argue that it’s no surprise that the pro-life movement is kicking the crap out of the pro-choice one (even in Canada, as I usually say), after which you’ll attempt to not-so-slyly divert the argument to some other tangent either minimally or not at all related to the one we were talking about to begin with.
Oh, and concerning the bold, when you get tired of throwing out that straw man, lemme’ know. It wasn’t any less of a straw man the first time you tried it, and it’s not any less of a straw man the millionth time you’ve tried it, either.
…Really?
The scientific illiteracy on this board is appalling-- which is rather funny considering the political leanings of this board and how often Republicans/conservatives get demonized for “hating” education or some stupid crap like that. As some total no name once said, irony is wasted on the stupid. Now, before I begin I’d like to say that the above quoted is TRULY– I mean astoundingly-- ridiculous. Where the hell are some of you guys and gals getting your “facts” from? I’ve actually been wondering this for a while. It must be the same place which states that a fetus is nothing more than tissue, that (haploid) sex cells are humans and that somatic cells and the organs they form are the same as the entire organism (all things I’ve frankly laughed at in this thread alone and called ridiculous).
But I digress. Forget the fact that a woman’s body actually directs nutrients to the unborn child, or the fact that a woman’s body accomodates her unborn child, because that’s totally unimportant (/unbelievablyheavydoseofsarcasm). whatever nutrients the mother needs to survive goes to her first, and then her unborn child second. This is why you generally do not get a perfectly healthy baby when you have a malnourished mother. When the mother is malnourished, both the placenta and the fetus experience declined growth. It’s not like fetus is competing against the mother and will fatten itself up or whatever to the detriment of the mother.
I mean, really now. To say that the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is adversarial is just… so ridiculous.
(This serves as a response to the other chick whose name I can’t remember atm.)
Because one is born and the other isn’t, therefore their levels of dependency are not, nor cannot, be equal.
I’ve asked pro-lifer a few times what level of enforcement they had in mind. If I get an answer at all, the pro-lifer typically defers to the states/courts/legislatures i.e. it doesn’t matter what the penalties are, or what the costs and effects of enforcement is, as long as abortion is banned.
And occasionally I see a pro-lifer dismiss the idea that a ban would cause an increase in deaths and injuries of women seeking abortions but who now can’t get them safely and legally. I figure this is tied inexorably to how strictly the law is enforced, i.e. in places where enforcement is lax, sympathetic doctors will continue to perform the procedure with just a bit of wink-wink fudging of medical records. Where enforcement is strict, doctors will be arrested and delicensed or driven from the venue, depriving the community of all the other services they offer, leaving abortion to less-trained practitioners using less-effective medical equipment. Death numbers won’t get as high as pre-penicillin days, of course, but getting a pro-lifer to recognize even this degree of consequences is a battle. The response is typically “Abortion is immoral. End transmission.”
If zygotes are included as those who get human rights, than no- I don’t believe that all humans are entitled to basic rights. But when I use the word “human”- I’m using the common use of the word, which doesn’t include zygotes. Yes, zygotes are biologically human, but nevertheless, not human in most other ways. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken (in the common use of the word chicken).
I’m actually treating the characteristic of “zygote-ness” as a criteria. Are you a zygote? Then no, you don’t get the rights. Or you could say I’m treating the characteristic of “viable-outside-the-womb-ness” as a criteria- are you viable outside the womb? Congrats, you get the rights.
And you haven’t challenged me that much by saying that I’m right and the Nazis are wrong. Yes, I truly believe that I am right, and the Nazis were wrong.
People are smart- they can figure out that (if they agree with me) excluding zygotes does NOT mean that others (post birth) can be excluded. We can hold and understand complex ideas- not that it’s that complicated.
If the other is inside your body without your consent, then yes- I believe you can do as you please to it. I guess you’ll leave the little dude in your butt, but I won’t. And I won’t feel bad about throwing him out. I agree with you about grandma in the apartment. But if grandma crawls inside your body, then yes, you can take action to evict her. Your body is not an apartment- it’s your body, and I believe morally and legally it should be treated differently.
You chose the crying baby over the bucket of fertilized eggs. You may not be able to logically, fully explain why, but intuitively you seem to get my argument. Fertilized eggs are different then babies, and I’d burn a billion of 'em without even thinking to save one baby’s life. I’m not sure I agree about the baby vs 100 old people- that’s a damn tough dilemmna.
Does contraception use increase enough in the absence of abortion to reduce the incidence of unwanted children or at least comes close?
How do you know that they are persons?
So you seem to believe that human rights attach at fertilization.
So if I hold in one hand a cannister with 10 frozen embryo’s and a baby in the other hand and I am going to drop one of them into a volcano but I let you save teh cannister or the baby, you would choose the lesser of two evils and save the 10 frozen embyros?
This is true of what you believe as well.
When you say valid, do you mean one that you agree with or one that that the reasonable man would agree with ebcause I think a lot of people would day that personhood does not start until well after fertilization.
Except in the case of rape, the zygote didn’t crawl inside her.
If I needed your kidney would you have to give it to me? What? Just because its your body? We’re talking about my life here.
Who is begging the question? You presuppose that the blastocyst is a person and then insist that people are claiming it is not a person into order to deprive this person of its human rights.
You would call a blob of cells a “human” deserving of the full spectrum of human rights?
For argument’s sake, let’s start from the position that only some, not all, humans are entitled to basic rights. …The instinctive response will be, “Why not?”.
Now to provide a bit of context, Individual A is White while Individual X is Black; Individual B is of some ethnoreligious group while Individual Y is of another; and Individual C is is born while Individual Z is unborn.
[/quote]
Individual A and B would be wrong and individual C MIGHT be wrong. The reason is that Individual C is not a person. They cannot think, they are simply human tissue at this point.
An unthinking blastocyst is no more “human” than a corpse.
But, even if you were to say they had rights. Does anyone have the right to force you to carry them in their body for 9 months, even if their life depends on it?
Yeah, except common sense.
Yeah you might want to let kids know about how they work and perhaps a discussion of the birds and the bees first.
Right, they are human up until the point that you might have to chip in to pay to feed them.
You would at least have to be willing to pay a bit more in taxes to fund teh foster child program, wouldn’t you?
Ah so you agree that a fetus might become a person sometime before birth. But you would rather err on the side of killing that person so another person could exercise choice rather than erring on the side of saving the person even if it takes choice away from another person? How about we try some rough justice and give pregnant women a reasonable time to get an abortion (say the first 3 months) and permit abortions for medical reasons after that? Or does your philosophy permit elective third trimester abortions?
You keep assuming that all the unborn are humans. I think a lot of people would agree that a viable fetus is human, or that a fetus with conscious brain activity is human but you seem to want to define a fertilizede egg as human, deserving of the same rights as any other human. How would you choose between ten frozen embryos and a live baby?
Are you saying that people are straining to come up with a definition of person that doesn’t include a fertilized egg? At some point in teh pregnancy the fetus develops to the point where the sin of killing the fetus outweighs the sin of forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn’t want but its not the morning after sex or even the month after sex.
Well, as for me not responding to the post I said I would - my first draft was really really good, quite a well-composed bit of reasoning and rhetoric that addressed and undermined OMG’s points, such as they are, but then I clicked the little X by mistake and lost it.
The second draft was mostly an effort to recapture the magic of the first draft while it was still fresh in memory. Even as I was writing it, I knew I was missing things. It was during my checking of a past thread for a relevant statement of yours that said, in effect, that no individual should have rights at all, that all decisions should be checked with higher authority first, that I misclicked and lost the second draft, at which point I needed a break from the SDMB for a bit and went out did some of that, whadyacallit, “real life” stuff.
By the time I felt like typing up another draft, the points I’d wanted to make had lost their currency so I let it go. One minor aside, though, when you asked why I discussed this with you, my answer is simple - I enjoy it. It hones my writing skills. Even though 98% of what you write on this subject, as far as I can tell, is straight from the Pro-Life 101 Textbook of Homilies, you occasionally sneak in a wrinkle that forces me to add some nuance to my own arguments. My responses are for my benefit, not yours. In fact, since you’ve been posting here, I’m not sure I’ve seen any evolution in your positions on any topic, though I admit I don’t follow you around with a checklist and a log book. Heck, even if I’d finished my first draft and it was indeed some masterfully detailed and well-reasoned essay, I have no illusions of getting a “You know, you make a good point and I’ll have to think about it” from you. I gather your persona on this board (I’ve no idea what you’re like in person) is someone who will not allow a change in his position, because the board is populated by lefty liberals, and lefty liberals are always wrong.
No, it just means you’re refusing to recognize specific circumstances when it suits you. I’ll offer up a really, really, really simple example (again, for my own edification):
Person A likes to work at the factory. Really really really likes it. Person A really really really likes to walk to work with a song in his/her heart and a skip in his/her step.
Person B likes their property. Really really really likes it. Person B likes to have exclusive use of his/her property and does not want Person A walking through it to get to work, as Person A has been doing ever since he/she landed that factory job.
A conflict has arisen and a decision must be made - it’s not enough to declare “it’s a tie” and just let the situation continue (in effect, siding with A). Either A gets an easement and the right to walk across B’s property, or B gets the right to exclude A, even if this means A’s travel time is quadrupled, even if it means A will lose the factory job - the consequences to A not being relevant to B’s right.
Similarly, it’s not enough to look at a pregnant woman, look at a fetus, and declare “it’s a tie”, with the effect of siding with the fetus, until the situation resolves itself.
Yes, when you described a priority system for “life”, “liberty” and “happiness”. The problem with such reasoning, of course, is that if the unique circumstance of pregnancy are indeed utterly irrelevant, then I’d like to see you explain why blood and non-lethal (or even lethal) organ donations are not mandatory. Somebody is sick and will die without a kidney. You have two kidneys and they are a match. Why can your right to “liberty” not be overridden by their right to “life” and one of your kidneys taken? Can blood donations be made mandatory? Bone marrow donations? Can the heart of a middle-aged adult be harvested for a sick child, with the reasoning being that the adult has only about 25 more years of “life”, while the child could have 80, thus the greater “life” amount has priority?
Well, your laughter won’t cover your lack of facts but maybe it’ll console you a bit. I’m mildly curious how this “kicking the crap out of” is manifesting (even in Canada) - I suppose some U.S. states will harden on the issue, adding more regulatory hoop-jumps, while others will soften. I’m not sure if a future Republican President who is actually determined to push for a Federal ban can even get elected - the current tea-party scramble is as nuts as Lewis Carroll’s version, and though it’s barely begun, the most moderate of the candidates is already being hailed as the winner. I figure Romney will make fewer and fewer statements about abortion as the process rolls on - he won’t risk alienating moderates and he’ll no longer need to mollify the froot-loopery of the early-state races. He’ll probably lose, anyway, barring some disaster for Obama.
So you’re telling me for the millionth time not to exaggerate? Heh. Well, that critical element (the one you’re calling a straw man) isn’t going to go away, whether you choose to recognize it or not. And if I can address something you said earlier, a hypothetical about what would happen if you posted that homosexuals did not deserve the same rights as straights? I agree with you wholeheartedly and unreservedly - if a straight person finds themselves with a unwanted homosexual inside their body and they don’t wish the homosexual to stay there, the straight should have the right to remove the homosexual, regardless of the consequences to the homosexual. If anyone starts trumpeting the cause for homosexuals to have the right to take up residence inside the bodies of unwilling hosts, I will oppose it. It’s the right thing to do.
How so? Last time I checked, abortion is legal in this country.
Every time we have an abortion thread like this, I say it, and I’m gonna say it again: arguments like this make me want to run out and have an abortion, even though I’m not even pregnant. (Just out of spite)
This is one of the reasons the debate is worth participating in. Every so often – rarely, but it happens – someone says something new. A new metaphor, a new implication… All too often, a new fatuous platitude…
When the loyal opposition fails to evolve, the debate becomes extraordinarily boring… It’s like the joke about people telling jokes by the numbers. Every so often, someone tells one we haven’t heard before!
Gack! I keep wanting to press like on the posts that I agree with (I obviously spend too much time on Facebook :D). This debate is interesting to me. I have actually had to think a minute and have done some research - I read the Violinist argument which is pretty compelling as well as a rebuff of that argument which was full of bad logic.
Omg, banning abortions will not make contraceptive use go up (well it may a little bit) but educating women will. Abortion is vary rarely used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use.
From the same site:
In other words most unwanted pregnancies occur due more to individual carelessness and have nothing to do with the availability of abortion. I do agree that pre-abortion counselling should be mandatory (actually I thought it was in the States).
[QUOTE=Omg]
Besides, does surviving otuside the womb mean with without aid or with aid? If, tomorrow, there is a miraculous breakthrough in medical technology which allows the unborn to survive outside the womb at all gestational ages, then does abortion become impermissible?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I would have no problem with that. That would be the ideal situation. I presume you would be willing to foot that medical bill, right?
Which makes you fundamentally no better than any other group which took it upon themselves to define some segment of the human population out of rights held by the other segments of that population.
lolwut? Yeah, that’s the only adequate response I could come up with.
Other ways like what? I’m curious as to what you’re going to say, because there is no quality you can think of which all humans exhibit at any given time.
Chickens are oviparious. A fertilized chicken egg isn’t a chicken because chickens develop inside of an egg (the, usually oval, usually white one) instead of an egg (the usually oval, usually white one) developing into a chicken.
So you’re differentiating based on stage of development. How is this any better than differentiating based on race, gender, nationality or any other such characteristic?
And henceforth the problem; you believe you’re right and they were wrong. You cannot objectively explain why you are right and they are wrong, simply because there is no basis on which you can.
I’ve explained this three times now; I’m not sure how else I can explain it.
When you say all humans are entitled to the same basic rights, it means no one can define anyone else out of rights. When you say that some humans are entitled to basic rights, it means that someone gets decide who does and does not get rights. So who gets to decide? You believe you do. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what happens when the power to decide is given to someone else and they decide that you are to be defined out of rights? You would have no basis upon which to say they could not, since only some humans are entitled to basic protections. Sure, you could argue that you’re a person because this and that and yada yada yada, but the other individual would be under no obligation to treat any of your criteria as meaningful.
Sure I can. It’s a crying baby. I like babies. Therefore, I will almost always choose the baby no matter what it’s pitted against-- unless you pit it against (1) more than one baby or (2) a moderate-to-decent-to-attractive 20’ish year old woman or (3) a family member or someone I like. But guess what? That doesn’t speak to whether or not it’s permissible to kill the one I wouldn’t save. It’s a meaningless question.
Contraceptive use increases, the number of unwanted pregnancies goes down but the number of unwanted births goes up.
I don’t. Which-- as you will note throughout all of my posts-- I don’t bother trying to argue who is and isn’t a person. Only the pro-choicers do that, and even then they’re not justifying it beyond “Well, that’s what I think a person is!”.
Human rights begin when the life of a human begins. Quite simple, if I do say so myself.
I’d save the baby. So what? If you had a baby in one hand and a 70 year old in the other, I’d save the baby. If you had a baby in one hand and a ten year old in the other, I’d save the ten year old. If you had a ten year old in one hand and a 20-something year old female in the other, I’d save the 20-something year old female. What, exactly, can you derive about each individual based on those actions? Nothing at all.
Henceforth why you’ve yet to see me start of my argument with “I believe”. What one believes is irrelevant. You can believe whatever you want, but not act in accordance to those beliefs just because they are your beliefs. Would you let Peter Singer, if he wanted, kill a newborn in accordance with his beliefs? What about a Celtic druid? Would you allow one to engage in human sacrifice in accordance with his beliefs?
No, I mean something objective, not subjective.
No, and I will explain why a little further down when I get to Bryan’s post.
I would like to see where I’ve presupposed anything about a blastocyst, or anything about personhood at all. In this very thread, I’ve said that personhood is irrelevant because it cannot be qualified, so I’m curious as to how you came to the above conclusion.
Yes, I’d consider you a human deserving of the full spectrum of human rights.
Why would A and B be wrong? You see, you can provide no objective reason why A and B are wrong while C is not wrong. The same way you are seemingly arguing that A and B are wrong, someone could argue that B and C are wrong or that A and C are wrong. By saying that only some humans are entitled to basic rights, you have no basis upon which to say that A, B or C are any more wrong than the others.
And why isn’t it? Why does it matter if you think or not?
The right in question isn’t to use someone else’s body; the right is to not be killed. If upholding the right to not be killed involves the “use” of someone else’s body, then it is what it is.
As the saying goes, common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. What is common sense to one person isn’t to another and really isn’t much .
[quote]
Yeah you might want to let kids know about how they work and perhaps a discussion of the birds and the bees first.
What does this have to do with the availability of contraceptives?
Whether or not they are human, or persons or whatever else, has nothing to do with whether or not someone should be given welfare simply for having children.
Nope. The refusal to care for or provide for those who would otherwise be killed by the government’s euthanasia program has no bearing on one’s ability to speak out against said program.
[quote]
You keep assuming that all the unborn are humans. I think a lot of people would agree that a viable fetus is human, or that a fetus with conscious brain activity is human but you seem to want to define a fertilizede egg as human, deserving of the same rights as any other human.
Again with this question? Again I point out that I’d save the baby. So what?
Similarly… You have no idea what it was were you supposed to be responding to, do you? Tell me, if you can (you probably can’t), what’s wrong with the following.
Person A in regards to abortion: “Just because you’re a human doesn’t mean you’re entitled to same basic rights as all other humans!”
Person A in regards to some other issue: “Why shouldn’t (s)he be entitled those basic rights? (S)he’s a human just like you or me!”
Don’t think too hard.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Maybe it’s because I like fighting ignorance (the name of this board is a total misnomer, by the way, as people will continue to deny something even if the evidence is right in front of them)? Or maybe it’s because I’m a sucker for punishment? Either way, it all ends the same. But moving on. Surely, you know the difference between positive and negative rights? That’s a rhetorical question, in case you weren’t aware, because you apparently do not even though I explained this exact thing to you the last time you tried this argument.
The right to life is a negative right, which means no one can take your life or do something to you which will cause your immediate death. In other words, it means you cannot be acted against. It merely requires one to leave you alone. It is not a positive right, or a guarantee that someone has to do something to keep you alive or extend your life. In other words, it does not mean you have to be acted for. That’s why organ donations are not mandatory, nor is it mandatory to give blood nor to do anything else which will prolong, or even save, the life of another while it is illegal to do something to someone to cause their immediate deaths. Unfortunately, I surmise this will go totally over your head as it had in the past when I explained this EXACT same thing to you. It’s amazing just how often I find myself responding to the same things.
Bryan accusing me of lacking facts (again!)? Interesting. I vaguely remember us going over this very thing once (more like multiple) times before, and every time you end up being proven wrong.
Now how many times must we rehash the same thing Bryan?
1.) Looking at only the U.S., age is positive in its association with abortion approval, meaning that older persons are more approving of abortion than younger persons. Not only this, but younger persons are more likely to say that abortion should always be illegal than are older persons. You don’t have to be a genius to deduce what will eventually happen in regards to abortion given such a trend. Or perhaps you do, since no matter how many times I explain this to you (or source those claims) you ignore it and start on something about, usually, Santorum (glad to see you picked a different boogeyman today!). But, as the saying goes, facts are stubborn things. It doesn’t matter how many times you ignore them, it doesn’t make them any less true.
Any social movement requires newer generations to buy into it, or else it’ll go the way of the dinosaur once all the “old blood” die off. when you fail to bring in “new blood”, a movement ages. An aging movement is not a good sign as it means that you’re not convincing enough people to buy into what you’re trying to sell (in other words, your arguments aren’t persuasive). And that brings me to point number two.
2.) Pro-lifers are better at framing the debate than are pro-choicers and focus on more culturally relative issues (sexuality and the sanctity of human life) than do pro-choicers (that legal abortion is an entitlement of the right to privacy, that the state should not be coopted by religious views and that abortion is necessary for gender equality). It’s funny to me that you would mention something about a “Pro-Life Handbook 101”, since I could find at least one example of some pro-choicer using one of the aforementioned arguments in not only this thread, but every thread on abortion. Isn’t it odd how that works out?
Anyway, I would be willing to bet that the trend is the same north of the U.S. border as well as overseas, as social trends tend to move in the same direction within similar demographics across culturally similar countries, thanks in large part to the internet. Indeed, you can see a few similar abortion related trends between countries already, such as the percentage of younger doctors willing to perform an abortion as when compared with their older peers in the U.S. and the U.K.
You: “So you’re saying that the unborn should be given more rights than his/her mother?”
Me: “No, they should have equal rights.”
You: “Why do you want to give the unborn more rights than its mother?”
Me: “I don’t.”
You: “So you’re saying that the unborn should be given more rights than his/her mother?”
Me: “No, they should have equal rights.”
You: “Why do you want to give the unborn more rights than its mother?”
Me: "I don’t.
“You: “So you’re saying that the unborn should be given more rights than his/her mother?”
Me: “No, they should have equal rights.”
You: “Why do you want to give the unborn more rights than its mother?”
Me: “I don’t.”
You: “So you’re saying that the unborn should be given more rights than his/her mother?”
Me: “No, they should have equal rights.”
You: “Why do you want to give the unborn more rights than its mother?”
Me: “How many times are you going to continue with this straw man?”
You: “It’s not a straw man!”
Me: “Errr, yes, it is, since I’ve consistently said the opposite of what you’re claiming I want.”
You: “Because that’s what you’re claiming!”
Me: “No, it’s not.”
You: “Yes, it is.”
Me: “No, it’s not.”
You: “Yes, it is.”
Me: No, it’s not.”
You: “Yes, it is.”
And so on and so forth.
That’s a big if. Thus far, you’ve proven incapable of doing so.
You should get right on that. Maybe you’ll have more success than you are having now.
There are very few people who give the Violinist argument any credence anymore. It’s been picked apart to death, and not just by pro-lifers.
Most of this is wrong. When you ban abortion (or make it harder to access) people change their sexual practices-- either by using contraceptives more often or otherwise engaging in sex less often.
I didn’t want to have to go tracking down old posts, but oh well. Here is one such post detailing how the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies went down (the birthrate did not change) when abortions were made more difficult for lower-income women to obtain, signifying that women changes their sexual practices when abortion was made harder to obtain.
Here is an abstract to a paper on abortion demand. The pertinent part is quoted:
And, finally, here is a study detailing how legalized abortion altered people’s sexual practices, making them more likely to engage in “risky” sex (due in part to a combination of forgoing contraceptives and switching from the pill to the condom).
An inconvenient truth that many pro-choicers (especially around here) don’t want to acknowledge is that women do use abortion as a form of birth control, and it’s quite prevalent. But as I learned a long time ago, most people prefer rhetoric to reality, ergo why you see people continue to repeat the same things over and over again no matter how wrong or incorrect they might be.
I really don’t know where you saw me saying that most unwanted pregnancies are due to (the lack of) abortion availability, but anyway… Those numbers are misleading. I went over this a few months ago in another thread.
How about “are you outside of a womb”? Or “are you bigger than 6 ounces”? I’d say all humans (by my definition) meet those critieria, all the time.
Because development is something every one goes through, because it has massive and measurable differences in things like awareness, brain activity, sensitivity to pain, etc, because the developing are making use of and putting a large physical strain on someone else’s body (in the cases we’re debating- against their host’s wishes).
You seem to have given up on the little dude in your butt. You may be ok with him in there- but that doesn’t mean that other are… I think most people would agree that they have the right to evict him- based on the right to control their own body (regardless of others inside it). And so do women.
As far as body control rights for the unborn- if a little dude crawls up their butts, I fully support their right to evict them. And if a fetus has a zygote inside it, then it has the right to abort as well. See? The fetus has the same right as the woman in this case- the right to keep their body inviolate if they so choose. I’ll say it again (it’s amazing how much I repeat myself, huh?)- people can get rid of any other organism inside their own bodies that they want. The “host’s” rights ALWAYS trump the “invader/parasite/guest’s” rights.
You have successfully convinced me that zygotes are biologically human. Maybe I would have conceded this before, but I don’t know if I thought about it much. However, I don’t attach full moral worth to something just because it is biologically human- I need more data. Abortion is about more than biology.
I respond to what I want, and since I see a critical flaw in your reasoning, I choose to address that. You’re very casual about making statements like “Since you believe , you’re no better than a Nazi” while shrugging off responses along the lines of “Since you believe a person’s body is not their own and someone can be forced to share a uterus, why can’t someone be forced to share a kidney?”
With you, I rarely have to. You dodge (thought not especially artfully) the entire concept of rights in conflict, i.e. what to do when rights are, well, in conflict. If you want to give rights to a fetus, go ahead. What will you do, though, when there is a conflict between the fetus’s rights and the mother’s? As far as I can tell, you have limited options:
The mother has the right to determine how her uterus is used.
The mother does not have the right to determine how her uterus is used.
The mother starts out with the right to determine how her uterus is used but loses it somewhere along the way, say 22 weeks or six months or whatever into a pregnancy.
You seem to be favouring (2) when the discussion turns to zygotes and such, i.e. the earliest stages of pregnancy (and actually before the uterus becomes seriously involved). That’s fine - it’s a matter of opinion, after all. Some of us like to consider the actual * consequences* of giving rights to fetuses that can override the rights of their mothers. It’s a wacky habit of ours.
Well, this is why I bother. Now I’m going to carefully read your definitions of “negative” and “positive” rights, labels you are just now introducing (or at least I don’t recall you using them before), and see if there are some issues I have to recognize, to incorporate into my views. I even accept the possibility that your explanation of “positive” and “negative” rights will be so compelling that it might lead a radical shift in my views, but in all honesty that’s not likely.
Well, right off the bat, this isn’t true. There are indeed circumstances where a person can quite legally cause your immediate death. They may have to explain themselves afterward to police or a judge, though.
Yeah… are you under the impression pregnancy is a completely passive process, that one is not donating the use of one’s organs and blood to sustain it? There are oddball exceptions but for the most part it’s a fairly involved and obvious imposition, and it goes on for several months. The fetus isn’t “alone” at any stage in its development. The mother doesn’t have the option of “leaving it alone” to carry on the gestation process independently.
You know what pregnancy is, right? You’re at least peripherally aware of its processes, right? I have to wonder after statements like the one you just made.
So if I read this correctly (and I’m sure you can tell me I don’t, since I’m not now agreeing with you), the fetus has a negative right not to be killed, and a positive right to demand continued biological support from its mother. Uh-huh… and what rights if any does she have in these circumstance? I choose not to forget about her.
After consideration… no, I’m not moved. I recognize the existence of legal duty (which I think is equivalent to what you’re calling “positive rights”) in which, for example, a person has a custodial duty to another person and the legal obligation to make sure that person is fed, clothed, housed and protected, with possible criminal charges if this duty is neglected, but I don’t see the value in imprisoning the caregiver. There are perfectly legal and acceptable ways a person can transfer the obligation to someone else (even temporarily). A parent can put a child up for adoption (or arrange a babysitter for temporary relief). A teacher can quit. A prison guard can quit.
A pregnant woman… cannot, at least with current technology. I just don’t see the value in trapping her in this fashion, with the result being a baby she doesn’t want. Society is not sufficiently hard-up for babies that this kind of intrusion is justified.
It’s a matter of opinion, of course.
Oh, I don’t think you’ve proven me wrong on this issue. I’ve made some mistakes along the way, had to revise my arguments accordingly. I think there was a time early on before you got here when I fell into the definition trap - trying to declare a fetus as not a person, as though this somehow constituted evidence - but I got over it.
I dunno. How long do you plan to keep posting on this board?
Well, you’re predicting… what, exactly, that the younger generation will ban or restrict abortion when they take the reigns of power? Sure, I guess it’s possible for them to fumble away rights when they weren’t around to witness the struggle to gain them in the first place, and I expect there to be a natural pendulum swing from right to left and back in the country’s politics. I don’t see how a prediction can prove anything wrong until it actually comes true (or doesn’t), though.
Any social movement? So… we can expect the return of legal segregation? Slavery? Women returning to “barefoot and pregnant” status? Well, I’m sure there will regression in some areas even as there is progress in others, but if anything you’re arguing for the existence of impermanence, so even if this upcoming generation restricts abortion, there’s nothing stopping the generation after that from legalizing it again. If anything, I expect the internet might make the “struggle” process to regain these rights a lost faster than the first time around.
But, again, predictions don’t prove anything until they either come true or don’t.
Well, of course you say your side’s arguments are better framed and focused and such. I could say the same, if I thought the claim meant anything.
Okay, five bucks (in whichever dollar is higher at the time) says there will be no federal ban on abortion in Canada in five years. If you accept, I’ll write one of those delayed e-mails to myself to remind me on January 14, 2017. If you prefer alternate terms like individual provinces moving to ban abortion (I suggest you pick Alberta), I’m prepared to discuss it.
Well, I casually admit the possibility that a younger generation can fumble away what their parents and grandparents fought for. That’s the whole “eternal vigilance” thing. It would be a shame, though. I don’t see the value of the victory you are anticipating. Yay… women with more children they can support… hooray… joy…
Seriously, this is what you want?
And that’s where your thought process stops, is it? You realize that pregnancy is not a static condition, right? A fetus grows as it develops, imposing more and more on its mother. She’s going to be the one suffering the physical effects, and why should she if it’s against her will?
But anyway, I’m okay with them having equal rights. I just figure it’s better if the tie goes to the mother, and my evidence is the lack of negative effects in places where abortion is available.
Oh, I think I’ve succeeded quite nicely at reaching my stated goals, thanks.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll acknowledge it, easily, casually… Abortion is being used as a form of birth control. Of course. I assume this is the (or at least a) goal of all elective abortions - to prevent an eventual birth.
That then means a sperm is human so there fore if you ejaculate you are killing a lot of humans? Many little human lives are lost even if there is a conception, all the one’s who don’t make it to the ova,die…poor little things!
Which makes you fundamentally no better than any other group which took it upon themselves to define some segment of the human population out of rights held by the other segments of that population.
lolwut? Yeah, that’s the only adequate response I could come up with.
Other ways like what? I’m curious as to what you’re going to say, because there is no quality you can think of which all humans exhibit at any given time.
Chickens are oviparious. A fertilized chicken egg isn’t a chicken because chickens develop inside of an egg (the, usually oval, usually white one) instead of an egg (the usually oval, usually white one) developing into a chicken.
So you’re differentiating based on stage of development. How is this any better than differentiating based on race, gender, nationality or any other such characteristic?
And henceforth the problem; you believe you’re right and they were wrong. You cannot objectively explain why you are right and they are wrong, simply because there is no basis on which you can.
I’ve explained this three times now; I’m not sure how else I can explain it.
When you say all humans are entitled to the same basic rights, it means no one can define anyone else out of rights. When you say that some humans are entitled to basic rights, it means that someone gets decide who does and does not get rights. So who gets to decide? You believe you do. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what happens when the power to decide is given to someone else and they decide that you are to be defined out of rights? You would have no basis upon which to say they could not, since only some humans are entitled to basic protections. Sure, you could argue that you’re a person because this and that and yada yada yada, but the other individual would be under no obligation to treat any of your criteria as meaningful.
Sure I can. It’s a crying baby. I like babies. Therefore, I will almost always choose the baby no matter what it’s pitted against-- unless you pit it against (1) more than one baby or (2) a moderate-to-decent-to-attractive 20’ish year old woman or (3) a family member or someone I like. But guess what? That doesn’t speak to whether or not it’s permissible to kill the one I wouldn’t save. It’s a meaningless question.
Contraceptive use increases, the number of unwanted pregnancies goes down but the number of unwanted births goes up.
I don’t. Which-- as you will note throughout all of my posts-- I don’t bother trying to argue who is and isn’t a person. Only the pro-choicers do that, and even then they’re not justifying it beyond “Well, that’s what I think a person is!”.
Human rights begin when the life of a human begins. Quite simple, if I do say so myself.
I’d save the baby. So what? If you had a baby in one hand and a 70 year old in the other, I’d save the baby. If you had a baby in one hand and a ten year old in the other, I’d save the ten year old. If you had a ten year old in one hand and a 20-something year old female in the other, I’d save the 20-something year old female. What, exactly, can you derive about each individual based on those actions? Nothing at all.
Henceforth why you’ve yet to see me start of my argument with “I believe”. What one believes is irrelevant. You can believe whatever you want, but not act in accordance to those beliefs just because they are your beliefs. Would you let Peter Singer, if he wanted, kill a newborn in accordance with his beliefs? What about a Celtic druid? Would you allow one to engage in human sacrifice in accordance with his beliefs?
No, I mean something objective, not subjective.
No, and I will explain why a little further down when I get to Bryan’s post.
I would like to see where I’ve presupposed anything about a blastocyst, or anything about personhood at all. In this very thread, I’ve said that personhood is irrelevant because it cannot be qualified, so I’m curious as to how you came to the above conclusion.
Yes, I’d consider you a human deserving of the full spectrum of human rights.
Why would A and B be wrong? You see, you can provide no objective reason why A and B are wrong while C is not wrong. The same way you are seemingly arguing that A and B are wrong, someone could argue that B and C are wrong or that A and C are wrong. By saying that only some humans are entitled to basic rights, you have no basis upon which to say that A, B or C are any more wrong than the others.
And why isn’t it? Why does it matter if you think or not?
The right in question isn’t to use someone else’s body; the right is to not be killed. If upholding the right to not be killed involves the “use” of someone else’s body, then it is what it is.
As the saying goes, common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. What is common sense to one person isn’t to another and really isn’t much .
[quote]
Yeah you might want to let kids know about how they work and perhaps a discussion of the birds and the bees first.
What does this have to do with the availability of contraceptives?
Whether or not they are human, or persons or whatever else, has nothing to do with whether or not someone should be given welfare simply for having children.
Nope. The refusal to care for or provide for those who would otherwise be killed by the government’s euthanasia program has no bearing on one’s ability to speak out against said program.
The fact is that too many so called pro-lifers are just pro-birthers and onc eborn to heck with them, I think if they were so Pro-life they would be sacrificing themselves to help the once born in any way they canmgiving free child care, medical care, education etc. but most so called pro-lifers are agains’t taxes snd complain of welfare mons. Look to the Conservative agenda. They want to do away with a lot of programs that help the already born,but feel taxing the rich who back their political agenda nore important than helping a woman bear the burden by her self and think a few diapers solve the problems of 18 years after the child is born and is now a member of society.
How many funerals do they pay for to give the few cells a burial, weither it is from an abortion or a mis-carriage?
You know what OMG, thank you for enlightening me. Yes, I do now believe that life starts at conception and yes, some or even a lot of women use abortion as a form of birth control. But you know what, I’m actually alright with that. I am alright with terminating a life that has no brain function so I am alright with terminating a fetus up until it has brain function. I am quite fine with ‘pulling the plug’ on a human that has no brain function so therefore I see no difference as to why we cannot terminate the life of a baby that has no brain function.
You have actually educated me but I stand firm that women should have the right to choose what they would like to do when they find themselves pregnant. No man (or woman) for that matter should have any say over what a woman wants to do with her body and if that means ejecting a life inside it, I don’t have an issue with that.
You brought up the analogy of your mother-in-law overstaying her welcome in your house. Someone else countered with the argument that you have every right to have her ejected from your house, even if that means calling the police to eject her. If they have to taser her and she dies of a heart attack is that murder? You still haven’t answered that question.
What about if I could have killed Hitler in the womb?
Well no, why not? If we knew how all this was going to turn out then we could do something else like help out post WW1 Germany rather than let it slide into stagflation.
You see killing something is generally the last resort. Abortion, although I know women who have had them still seems like a pretty drastic solution. I could not support someone getting it but I would support someone who has had one.
As people may know I am one for looking at the WHY, why do we have so many abortions? If we can address then we have progress.
