Abortion and human rights

Author: Benjamin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 355
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.

    Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)

    Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.

    Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    The same selectively moral system that supports armed conflict as a means to an end.

    Not to mention the morally biased system that is currently wholly reliant upon living matter as a source of nutrition.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Benjamin
    No one can Ben.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 2,136
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    Sure. Check out my debate on abortion, the second one, also the first one (but that one's not as good in my opinion.)
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Why not cite your source? What. we're supposed to go hunt for it? if it's worth argument, it's worth citing. Give us a link.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Benjamin
    Unfortunately, at least legally [as opposed to morally, and I do support your position] 1USC §8 stipulates that a "human" is not "human" until fully "born alive." I disagree with the current legal definition because, by DNA, that entity is human by genetics from the point of conception when its DNA is established. It will never be anything else but human at birth, so it should be considered human at conception, not just at birth. Further, since the zygote/embryo/fetus, plus all amniotic, placental, and umbilical tissue shares DNA, and not with the mother, none of the tissue is "part of" the mother's body, regardless of privacy rights of the 4A and 14A declaring the woman's right to her own body. The placenta and amniotic sac, and everything in it is much like a ping pong ball held in a fist. The fist fully contains the ball, but open the fist, what happens? If it were not so, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out but for the distinction that her tongue truly is part of her body.

    None of that is moral truth, but it is scientific truth.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 2,136
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @fauxlaw
    It's literally like two clicks, but if you want to be semantic and ignorant.... nah I still don't feel like giving it to you, mostly out of spite. I'll pm it to Benjamin though.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @ethang5
    I did Mr E.......Short term memory loss....things are looking bleak old boy.

    So where's Benny?
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @zedvictor4

    The same selectively moral system that supports armed conflict as a means to an end.

    Not to mention the morally biased system that is currently wholly reliant upon living matter as a source of nutrition.
    Well, you need to explain how that system works.

    You are bacically saying: abortion is moral - deal with it

    I asked you to explain why human rights exist but still abortion is morally acceptable
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    Human rights exist, when it suits....

    And morality is a variable human concept.

    And my two examples are one and the same system, and are self explanatory.....A selective, biased and variably moral system.

    Namely, Human Society.




  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @zedvictor4
    Human rights exist, when it suits....

    And morality is a variable human concept.
    Hitler would definately agree
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    For some people  Muslim Jihadists are fellow human beings....Others think that it's right and good to bomb the fuck out of them.

    Some people think that an embryo is an inconsequential blob of goo....Others think differently.

    Selective and variable morality.......Deal with it.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    And Hitler was as Hitler did.....

    And I cannot disagree with you.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @zedvictor4
    Selective and variable morality.......Deal with it.
    So basicly you are saying: human rights do not matter - you can kill the jews and you can take an abortion as long as you see it fit.

    This is the worst system of morality ever expressed - it is the same as no morality.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @fauxlaw
     It will never be anything else but human at birth
    Brilliant argument.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Sum1hugme @Theweakeredge
    As nobody has been able to support such a morality - we can assume it does not exist.

    Therefore, I proceed with my argument:

    1. All humans are created equal, and they are endowned by their creator certain inalienable rights, among them the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness
    2. So all humans are equally valuable regardless of sexual orientantion, age, body, personality, ethnicity, religion, language, etc.
    3. Since all humans are equally valueable - everyone should be treated equally - this is called human rights.
    4. A right is the same as the removal of a freedom: you have a right to life so you have no freedom to murder.
    5. Humans have a right to die a natural death - therefore humans have no right to kill each other, including through abortion

    If a moral system does not accept every being with human DNA to have human rights, then that moral system undermines human rights. This is what Hitler did, he limited human value to only be applicable to humans with certain biological traits (such as not being a jew). I see no difference between a jew and an unborn baby with regards to their humanity.

  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 504
    3
    3
    8
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Benjamin
    Not sure why You tagged me, I don't think I
     support abortion 
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 504
    3
    3
    8
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Benjamin
    Although I do disagree that every human is equally valuable. I think humans have an innate dignity but a person's actions can devoid them of value.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 2,136
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    All of those were assertions, claims, I'd like you to demonstrate them; here's my foundation of morality, or at least one version of it.

    P1: Humans value their own well-being
    P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
    Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being

    Furthermore this system is dependent on human personhood, if an organism does not have personhood, then it does morally consider the same, without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality. Even more, this is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong then the forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy. 

  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    REBUTTALS:

    P1: Humans value their own well-being
    Correct.
    1. Can you prove that a baby cannot have well being?
    2. A baby right before and right after birth are basically the same. Is post-birth abortion acceptable? What about child murder?
    3. Well being is an ill-defined term. Well-being 

    P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
    1. Not necessarily. Hitler did not "ought" to respect other peoples well being.
    2. Animals can also have well-being, but we still do not think that hunting is immoral. We would never put an animal as more valuable than actual humans?
    3. What does "respect" mean in this case? Its a substitute for moral duty, not an explanation for it.
    4. This allows for people to be immoral if they do not desire their well being to be respected.

    Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
    This is exactly what you said in P1. - your logic is circular.



    CRITIQUE:

     this system is dependent on human personhood
    It is based on a feeling animals can have but many humans do not have. A rat can have the well-being a human baby cannot have (according to pro-choice arguments).


    without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality
    This is exactly what Hitler thought, he called the Jews insects and rats, and by doing that he removed their personhood - then he killed them in the absence of human rights.



    forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy
    I have bodily autonomy, I could kill people. Would you force me to stop and violate my bodily anatomy?


     is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong
    Yes. Killing a human being, even if that human being is not as developed as me, is morally wrong.



    CONCLUSION:

    without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality
    Exactly - this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible.

    Under this theory, a society can choose which humans should deserve human rights and who should not - by choosing who is a "person" and whom to call "animal/fetus/etc"

    Conclusion: this theory does not support human rights. Therefore this theory fails to meet my criteria.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Sorry for this critique. The theory just has an innate flaw: dividing between "humans who have a clear personality" and "humans without human rights". 
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 2,136
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    I will answer each "critque" later, it doesn't understand basic logic, and you are quite wrong in your points, but I'll answer it whenever I have more time.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 329
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    You failed to explain why your theory supports universal human rights.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 2,136
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    And I said I would correct your understanding later, the entire point of that was to say, "I am in class, I don't feel like and don't have the time to address this rn, so wait till later."
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    You've completely avoided the issues that I set out.....Which is typical of a selective moralist.

    All you have offered is emotive soundbites....... In an attempt to drown out all the other cries of anguish that you casually choose to overlook....

    How do you like my emotive soundbite?

    So why are you perfectly moral Ben?