Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion

badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 5:08:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If a woman has the choice to abort a baby, shouldn't the man have the choice whether to pay child support or not?
signature
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 5:10:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 5:08:42 PM, badger wrote:
If a woman has the choice to abort a baby, shouldn't the man have the choice whether to pay child support or not?

Ha ha ha, sneaky.
kfc
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:50:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:34:35 AM, LeafRod wrote:
People don't abort babies.

lol, no?

what makes something a baby???

location? or it's inherent characteristics?

Is a "Premie" a baby?

is a "premie" inherently different than a 8 month old fetus?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:51:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is a 9 month old (unbirthed) "fetus" inherently different from one which is birthed?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 12:01:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 5:08:42 PM, badger wrote:
If a woman has the choice to abort a baby, shouldn't the man have the choice whether to pay child support or not?

Absolutely.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 12:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

mmm, but who caused the babe to be in that mortally dependent situation??? if "the mother" is more responsible for it than "the babe" then I'd say she owes him a little something.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 12:14:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:08:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mmm, but who caused the babe to be in that mortally dependent situation??? if "the mother" is more responsible for it than "the babe" then I'd say she owes him a little something.

Morally perhaps but surely the mother has the right to remove the trespasser from her property.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 1:56:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:50:31 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/10/2010 11:34:35 AM, LeafRod wrote:
People don't abort babies.

lol, no?

what makes something a baby???

location? or it's inherent characteristics?

Is a "Premie" a baby?

is a "premie" inherently different than a 8 month old fetus?

The point at which the baby loses it's umbilical chord it's no longer a foetus, scientifically speaking.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 1:58:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

That would be like inviting a guest into your house, then kicking him out in the middle of a freezing, deadly blizzard. Still immoral.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 1:58:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

That would be like inviting a guest into your house, then kicking him out in the middle of a freezing, deadly blizzard. Still immoral.

The women didn't choose for the baby to be there. And the baby survives in eviction. That's wrong with that?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
shaniqualawyers013
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:09:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Life(organism definition) that bears human potential has the right to life.

There are numerous cases where the murder of a pregnant mother counts as 2 murders.

IMO, abortion is murder after the fetal heartbeat is detected.
: At 4/11/2010 12:45:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
: Banker, stop being a creeper!

: At 4/11/2010 1:09:39 PM, banker wrote:
: Insert I have done that before I left high skool

: At 3/30/2010 6:44:38 AM, belle wrote:
: : At 3/29/2010 7:19:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
: : I think I have an irregular heartbeat.
:
: you're going to die.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:10:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:14:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:08:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mmm, but who caused the babe to be in that mortally dependent situation??? if "the mother" is more responsible for it than "the babe" then I'd say she owes him a little something.

Morally perhaps but surely the mother has the right to remove the trespasser from her property.

I'm saying if SHE (out of the two of them) is the one who caused him to be there AND caused him to be dependant on being there.

If both, and the thing's a person, then... I'd say that she should have to let him be there.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
shaniqualawyers013
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:14:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to physically harm the baby and permanently lower his health and immune system for the rest of his life, but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

Great third option bro.
: At 4/11/2010 12:45:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
: Banker, stop being a creeper!

: At 4/11/2010 1:09:39 PM, banker wrote:
: Insert I have done that before I left high skool

: At 3/30/2010 6:44:38 AM, belle wrote:
: : At 3/29/2010 7:19:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
: : I think I have an irregular heartbeat.
:
: you're going to die.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:17:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/10/2010 1:58:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

That would be like inviting a guest into your house, then kicking him out in the middle of a freezing, deadly blizzard. Still immoral.

The women didn't choose for the baby to be there.
No?
In most cases she acted in such a way that sperm (whose very nature is to impregnate) wound up on it's way to makin a baby, and then she certainly had the opportunity to remove the possibility of the babe being there, before the sperm, egg, zygote, fetus, turned into a late term babe.
And the baby survives in eviction.
and suffers no unnecessary ill-effects, Then that's fine.
That's wrong with that?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
shaniqualawyers013
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The women didn't choose for the baby to be there.

Those damn babies just invade spontaneously. This one gurl I knew in highschool just had one magically spawn inside of her. Those dang spawn points!

And the baby survives in eviction. That's wrong with that?

Ignorance, the result of all stupid viewpoints

http://en.wikipedia.org...
: At 4/11/2010 12:45:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
: Banker, stop being a creeper!

: At 4/11/2010 1:09:39 PM, banker wrote:
: Insert I have done that before I left high skool

: At 3/30/2010 6:44:38 AM, belle wrote:
: : At 3/29/2010 7:19:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
: : I think I have an irregular heartbeat.
:
: you're going to die.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:31:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:09:44 PM, shaniqualawyers013 wrote:
Life(organism definition) that bears human potential has the right to life.

There are numerous cases where the murder of a pregnant mother counts as 2 murders.

IMO, abortion is murder after the fetal heartbeat is detected.

If life really were the issue, then drawing the line at the heartbeat is absurd. Logically, to uphold your reasoning, you would have to draw the line at conception.

Natural rights are not natural because they come from DNA. Natural rights come from the act of forming a society, and humans naturally form societies.

Natural rights develop not from an agreement, or a contract, but represent biological necessities to survival of the species. Hence, natural rights are only observed when a society exists, but they are not consciously decided by any single member of that society. The pregnant mother is the societal proxy of the fetus. The fetus itself has no societal connection, it is simply part of the mother and should be considered the mother's property. The reason why murders of pregnant women count double, is that the mother has affirmed the child's status as a member of our society by proxy.

The fact that the fetus is both genetically human and alive is not a moral hurdle if the fetus does not hold natural rights (which it doesn't). I argue that abortion should be seen in the same light as animal treatment. Animals don't have natural rights, but they should be treated humanely. Same with fetuses. It is immoral to simply take an animal and kill it without reason, if a better alternative exists, unless it is burdening a human being.

The fetus is a burden to the mother. If the mother is in a part of her pregnancy where the child may be able to survive after eviction, the government or adoption agencies should be allowed to step in as societal proxy for the child provided that it is not undue burden to the mother. Any time before that, the mother should be able to excise it without regard to the survival of the fetus.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:37:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

accept that would be considered child abuse, neglect and endangerment. You can't just take a baby out of the womb and say "fend for yourself" anymore then you can take a 3 month old and leave it out in the woods and say "fend for yourself."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:40:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:37:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

accept that would be considered child abuse, neglect and endangerment. You can't just take a baby out of the womb and say "fend for yourself" anymore then you can take a 3 month old and leave it out in the woods and say "fend for yourself."

I support the eviction notion except for this point. See my last response the page before. I propose that fetuses be treated the same way animals are in animal shelters. If it can live, try your best to find it a home. If it can't, let it die.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:40:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/10/2010 1:58:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

That would be like inviting a guest into your house, then kicking him out in the middle of a freezing, deadly blizzard. Still immoral.

The women didn't choose for the baby to be there. And the baby survives in eviction. That's wrong with that?

She willingly choose the actions that lead to that consequnce. An individual is responsible for their choices in life, now if she was raped or her health was in great danger, that is a different story, but that applies to very few abortions (percentage wise).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:44:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:31:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/10/2010 2:09:44 PM, shaniqualawyers013 wrote:
Life(organism definition) that bears human potential has the right to life.

There are numerous cases where the murder of a pregnant mother counts as 2 murders.

IMO, abortion is murder after the fetal heartbeat is detected.

If life really were the issue, then drawing the line at the heartbeat is absurd. Logically, to uphold your reasoning, you would have to draw the line at conception.

Natural rights are not natural because they come from DNA. Natural rights come from the act of forming a society, and humans naturally form societies.

Natural rights develop not from an agreement, or a contract, but represent biological necessities to survival of the species. Hence, natural rights are only observed when a society exists, but they are not consciously decided by any single member of that society. The pregnant mother is the societal proxy of the fetus. The fetus itself has no societal connection, it is simply part of the mother and should be considered the mother's property. The reason why murders of pregnant women count double, is that the mother has affirmed the child's status as a member of our society by proxy.

The fact that the fetus is both genetically human and alive is not a moral hurdle if the fetus does not hold natural rights (which it doesn't). I argue that abortion should be seen in the same light as animal treatment. Animals don't have natural rights, but they should be treated humanely. Same with fetuses. It is immoral to simply take an animal and kill it without reason, if a better alternative exists, unless it is burdening a human being.

The fetus is a burden to the mother. If the mother is in a part of her pregnancy where the child may be able to survive after eviction, the government or adoption agencies should be allowed to step in as societal proxy for the child provided that it is not undue burden to the mother. Any time before that, the mother should be able to excise it without regard to the survival of the fetus.

Why should anyone step in to help a birthed, un-reciprocating baby.

It's b/c human rights don't get deigned only to those socially engaged, or reciprocating, they get deigned to people whether or not they've ever reciprocated or socially engaged.

Birthed 8 month olds are treated as people, why not unbirthed.

AND Dependance has nothing to do with the kind of system a thing is.
ALSO just because an orphan is completely dependent on you, doesn't mean it has no rights. So dependance in itself is not a good argument for saying a given thing's not deserving of rights.

NOW if you were to say the mother's rights come first, as Reasoning would (property and all that) that's comprehensible, though I already criticized his argument on the grounds that SHE is more responsible than the fetus/babe for it's being in, and depending on, her womb.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:45:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:40:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/10/2010 2:37:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/10/2010 12:00:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm contemplating a third abortion option. Eviction; the right to remove the baby but not to kill it. And this would obviously be for late-term. For pre-late-term I would be pro-choice.

accept that would be considered child abuse, neglect and endangerment. You can't just take a baby out of the womb and say "fend for yourself" anymore then you can take a 3 month old and leave it out in the woods and say "fend for yourself."

I support the eviction notion except for this point. See my last response the page before. I propose that fetuses be treated the same way animals are in animal shelters. If it can live, try your best to find it a home. If it can't, let it die.

Except that animal shelters do not cause the animal to be in a physical situation that put them at near death and the animal shelter does everything it financially can to keep the pet alive.

And if they get an animal on the brink of death, the owner (who they rarely ever find) is liable for potential animal abuse crimes (depending on why the animal died and if it was caused by neglect and how easily it could have been prevented under basic care).

Maybe someday, we'll have the medical technology to be able to safely remove a fetus from one person and implant it into another. I would be all over getting that up and running.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:46:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:40:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
She willingly choose the actions that lead to that consequnce. An individual is responsible for their choices in life, now if she was raped or her health was in great danger, that is a different story, but that applies to very few abortions (percentage wise).

Bad argument. Their intent was not on the pregnancy, but on the pleasure of the act. We don't refuse treatment of emergency room patients if they made a mistake operating a power tool, or if they mistakenly took the wrong pills, or if they tripped and fell down the stairs, or got hit by a car.

Unwanted pregnancy is not a crime, and going through with it is not a punishment.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
shaniqualawyers013
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:46:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:31:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If life really were the issue, then drawing the line at the heartbeat is absurd. Logically, to uphold your reasoning, you would have to draw the line at conception.

So you would consider an animal who heart has stopped beating alive?

Natural rights are not natural because they come from DNA. Natural rights come from the act of forming a society, and humans naturally form societies.

Irrelevant.

The pregnant mother is the societal proxy of the fetus. The fetus itself has no societal connection

Really? So no one else could possibly have any societal connection with a baby besides a mother? Lol so let me get this straight. There's a hermit living alone with no family members, no one knows he's there. Essentially he has no societal connection. Whose property is he? If I go up to the man and introduce myself then do all the communicating between him and society do I then own the man?

Seriously LRN2 logic. This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard of.

it is simply part of the mother and should be considered the mother's property.

The reason why murders of pregnant women count double, is that the mother has affirmed the child's status as a member of our society by proxy.

Lol wtf. So the mother determines humanity? try again bro


The fact that the fetus is both genetically human and alive is not a moral hurdle if the fetus does not hold natural rights (which it doesn't).

Saying "it doesn't" isn't an argument to the fact that it's alive and has clear potential to be a rational human being.

I argue that abortion should be seen in the same light as animal treatment. Animals don't have natural rights, but they should be treated humanely.

Animals do not have the potential to become rational humans.

The fetus is a burden to the mother. If the mother is in a part of her pregnancy where the child may be able to survive after eviction, the government or adoption agencies should be allowed to step in as societal proxy for the child provided that it is not undue burden to the mother.

So the government should be allowed to "evict" aka tear away a childs immunity and give it a whole lifetime of severe risk to diseases and other critical health problems, merely because the mother can't wait 2 months? Give me a break, this argument is completely ridiculous to anyone that has the ability to reason.
: At 4/11/2010 12:45:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
: Banker, stop being a creeper!

: At 4/11/2010 1:09:39 PM, banker wrote:
: Insert I have done that before I left high skool

: At 3/30/2010 6:44:38 AM, belle wrote:
: : At 3/29/2010 7:19:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
: : I think I have an irregular heartbeat.
:
: you're going to die.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:49:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:46:51 PM, shaniqualawyers013 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 2:31:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If life really were the issue, then drawing the line at the heartbeat is absurd. Logically, to uphold your reasoning, you would have to draw the line at conception.

So you would consider an animal who heart has stopped beating alive?

I would.. so long as their brain was functioning.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:49:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:31:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/10/2010 2:09:44 PM, shaniqualawyers013 wrote:
Life(organism definition) that bears human potential has the right to life.

There are numerous cases where the murder of a pregnant mother counts as 2 murders.

IMO, abortion is murder after the fetal heartbeat is detected.

If life really were the issue, then drawing the line at the heartbeat is absurd. Logically, to uphold your reasoning, you would have to draw the line at conception.

Natural rights are not natural because they come from DNA. Natural rights come from the act of forming a society, and humans naturally form societies.

Natural rights develop not from an agreement, or a contract, but represent biological necessities to survival of the species. Hence, natural rights are only observed when a society exists, but they are not consciously decided by any single member of that society. The pregnant mother is the societal proxy of the fetus. The fetus itself has no societal connection, it is simply part of the mother and should be considered the mother's property. The reason why murders of pregnant women count double, is that the mother has affirmed the child's status as a member of our society by proxy.

The fact that the fetus is both genetically human and alive is not a moral hurdle if the fetus does not hold natural rights (which it doesn't). I argue that abortion should be seen in the same light as animal treatment. Animals don't have natural rights, but they should be treated humanely. Same with fetuses. It is immoral to simply take an animal and kill it without reason, if a better alternative exists, unless it is burdening a human being.

The fetus is a burden to the mother. If the mother is in a part of her pregnancy where the child may be able to survive after eviction, the government or adoption agencies should be allowed to step in as societal proxy for the child provided that it is not undue burden to the mother. Any time before that, the mother should be able to excise it without regard to the survival of the fetus.

So if a person stops participating in society (they stop paying their taxes, their kids are home schooled, they don't borrow sugar from the neighbors) does that mean that they lose the right to life?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:51:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:44:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Why should anyone step in to help a birthed, un-reciprocating baby.

I didn't say that they should. If on the off-chance, they wanted to, that would be the time they would be allowed to do it.

It's b/c human rights don't get deigned only to those socially engaged, or reciprocating, they get deigned to people whether or not they've ever reciprocated or socially engaged.

What basis do you have for this?

Birthed 8 month olds are treated as people, why not unbirthed.

Because the mother has made the choice as social proxy to extend her natural rights to the child. This is exhibited by the action of continuing the pregnancy, giving birth, and raising the child for 8 months.

AND Dependance has nothing to do with the kind of system a thing is.
ALSO just because an orphan is completely dependent on you, doesn't mean it has no rights. So dependance in itself is not a good argument for saying a given thing's not deserving of rights.

I never said that dependence had anything to do with rights. In order to have rights observed, you have to exist within a society. For the fetus, the society is composed of it, and the mother. If the mother chooses not to form a society with the fetus, then Jungle law prevails.

NOW if you were to say the mother's rights come first, as Reasoning would (property and all that) that's comprehensible, though I already criticized his argument on the grounds that SHE is more responsible than the fetus/babe for it's being in, and depending on, her womb.

No need. You haven't provided a sufficient argument to show that the fetus has natural rights.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.