Total Posts:158|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the Rights of the Unborn

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 11:15:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
(CJB) ו "Do not murder.
(GNB) "Do not commit murder.
(HOT) לא תרצח׃
(JPS) Thou shalt not murder.
(KJV) Thou shalt not kill.
(LXX) _9;P16; _6;_9;_3;`7;^9;a3;`3;^9;_3;`2;. --
(The Scriptures 1998+) "You do not murder.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

I suppose the logic is the fetus is human, and all humans (in America) have certain rights, namely the right to life. It could be argued that not all "rights" are given to all humans (retards cannot enter into contracts, marry, or vote), but life is one they all get. Ergo, an unborn fetus is a human that has certain rights.

I agree with this, only past the point of viability. Before this, the fetus' existence is wholly dependant on another, ergo, the "others'" rights are being infringed.
My work here is, finally, done.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.

I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Seriously? You wouldn't kill a mushroom if you found it growing on you?
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:56:26 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Seriously? You wouldn't kill a mushroom if you found it growing on you?

The potential is what counts - comparing a fetus to a fungi is just absurd. If you want a comparison, how about this - in the year 2100, a guy suffered a brain cancer and had to remove majority of his brain. He is now incompetent. However, due to the technological advance the doctors could replace his brain without any resulting trauma, but he has to live on a life support for the next 10 months. Is it ethical to kill this guy just because he can't communicate, feel, or make any contribution to the society for the next 10 months?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 2:06:27 PM, Delucha wrote:
The potential is what counts - comparing a fetus to a fungi is just absurd. If you want a comparison, how about this - in the year 2100, a guy suffered a brain cancer and had to remove majority of his brain. He is now incompetent. However, due to the technological advance the doctors could replace his brain without any resulting trauma, but he has to live on a life support for the next 10 months. Is it ethical to kill this guy just because he can't communicate, feel, or make any contribution to the society for the next 10 months?

Is he going to be wholly dependent on people for over a decade after that, putting great physical strain and risk on the life of another, having been non-existent before his brain injury? Has no-one ever met him before? Was there no sentience prior to the accident and will continue to not be for some time after?

I don't give a flying proverbial about the body. It is the mind that is being preserved in your example. So no, it isn't only potential that counts.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.

I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

On a legal scale, abortion ought to be considered justifiable homicide, up to the point of viability.

If saying the baby's brain isn't as complex yet helps you sleep at night on a personal level, that's well and good. But as a matter of law, it is irrelevant, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

To each other, yes. I fail to see your point. For killing a rapist in the act, for instance, there's a clear and present reason to kill them. It's not that their life is inherently worth less, it's that they are putting others at risk and must be neutralized to preserve others. Preferably that is done without killing them, but it may not be possible.

At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Not on whether or not you can talk to me--whether or not you can think. I'm interesting in whether or not something is sapient or sentient. The only way I know of to have consciousness is to have a brain. If something doesn't have a brain, it is almost certainly not conscious (and if it is, then plants might be conscious, in which case I as a vegetarian am in trouble).
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:19:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If someone kills someone and does not repent, well, oh my, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they receive their reward in Judgement...no, no, no...
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:41:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is a point at which the fetus becomes complex enough to warrant the thought that it can survive until the age at which it develops reason. It is at this point that it gains the right to life and the right to be free from abuse. These are the only rights humans have until they develop the capability to reason. However, it can not place an obligation on the mother, demanding her resources. If the fetus can be removed and survive (without almost complete doubt), killing it would be immoral if there are others willing to care for it. If there is not, killing the fetus would be fine as it would die anyway (as it cannot yet make the decicion of how it dies, so all deaths would be equally {un}desirable to it).
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:19:59 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
If someone kills someone and does not repent, well, oh my, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they receive their reward in Judgement...no, no, no...

There won't be any Judgment.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.

Even in that scenario it wouldn't have the right to the mother's body. The mother can expel it as she wishes.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!

[OTHER DUMB COMMENT]!!!!

lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:44:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.

Even in that scenario it wouldn't have the right to the mother's body. The mother can expel it as she wishes.

Before 22 weeks, the mother can legally terminate the pregnancy. After 22 weeks, labor can be induced at will and the birthed child becomes at that point a ward of the state. But yes... that is correct.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:47:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!


You would know
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:47:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!


You would know

You are such a troll... lol
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Even if an Abrahamic god exists, I don't really care about the "Judgment". I don't feel a need to make myself even more miserable so that I can earn an eternity of sitting around and being miserable/watching other people suffer. The Thomistic schadenfreude doesn't really appeal to me.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:53:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

sup
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:22:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:15:47 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
(CJB) ו "Do not murder.
(GNB) "Do not commit murder.
(HOT) לא תרצח׃
(JPS) Thou shalt not murder.
(KJV) Thou shalt not kill.
(LXX) _9;P16; _6;_9;_3;`7;^9;a3;`3;^9;_3;`2;. --
(The Scriptures 1998+) "You do not murder.

And what makes it murder?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:24:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 6:35:58 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

To each other, yes. I fail to see your point. For killing a rapist in the act, for instance, there's a clear and present reason to kill them. It's not that their life is inherently worth less, it's that they are putting others at risk and must be neutralized to preserve others. Preferably that is done without killing them, but it may not be possible.

My point is, abortion is murder, and using the metric of brain complexity is illogical, as a matter of law. Legally speaking, there is a thing called "legal murder", and abortion is one of those things.

So, whether you personally, will kill someone because they lack sufficient brain activity or they are presently harming you is your choice. Legally, it is irrelevent, as the abortion is legal until the child is viable.
My work here is, finally, done.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 11:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...

I'm not seeing your point. Your article agrees with me that the mother and fetus are two separate entities. Thus the mother has every right to control her body; and that includes what has access to it. In this case, the fetus.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:15:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...

And where does this say that the fetus/embryo is entitled to free room and board with free meals?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian