Total posts: 827
Posted in:
3RU7AL said:
Great point.
You mean that humans have different value based on their traits. You have admitted that you consider human rights immoral (as their implications you call immoral)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You’re drawing a line (fusion) and saying that crossing that line turns one into a human.
The egg cells have literally existed for years - and the sperm cells die naturally all the time. When they fuse, it's only a matter of months before a human is born.
You cannot compare ANY change, nowhere, to conception.
So when does a cell become a human? You have not provided any time when a human can objectively be confirmed as being so.
Insemination is a qualitative change. Sex is a qualitative change. A beating heart is a qualitative change. A working nervous system is a qualitative change. Independent viability is a qualitative change
I disagree. Are you telling me that a fetus is some % human? Doesn't it then deserve some % of human rights? Like, maybe only the first - right to life?
I will like to present my argument again:
- A human has human rights
- Every human has unique DNA
- Therefore, any cell or group of cells with distinct DNA are, OBJECTIVELY, a human.
So unless human rights are to be "measured" based on each humans traits, abortion is just as bad as killing a grown-up.
Human rights were not founded upon naturalism but rather theism. That's why this question is so prevalent. It's hard to transfer ideas between contradictory worldviews,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Einstein's theory of relativity would say that since you move at the same speed you move equally fast through time. Therefore, any "change" in time would be way to minimal to even notice with the most precise of measurements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That concept only applies when you have agreed to some terms - like driving a car or taking an important job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, miscarriage is not intentional and thus cannot be classified as immoral.
You miss my point. We do not call all accidental deaths immoral!
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, think about this,
Your example is completely different. Planned Parenthood is an organization that profits from the killing of humans, as has been clearly proven.
Making the organization illegal would not be hard. Maybe turning it into a medical center for HEALTH would be an idea? Regardless, the organization undermines human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VALUE EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET WITH EQUAL FEROCITY.
It's possible to avoid murdering ANYONE - especially for society at large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
More specifically, bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
Yes. Nobody will prevent her from killing the baby. But the doctor will not be permitted to perform an abortion, because of the ethical problems I have explained.
The only exception being to save the mother or both from a deadly birth.
How can you even justify stating such a delusion:
The key "problem" here is ENFORCEMENT.
Tell me, why do you think that we need to enforce this rule? We just need to prohibit abortion - women cannot perform them themselves (except after birth).
Prohibiting abortion clinics will not infringe "bodily sovereignty", denying someone an abortion is not raping them.
Why would anyone be entitled to murdering their own child? Again, if the baby infringes her sovereignty it must get a fair trial before execution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
SUMMARY:
What is not my argument:
Human DNA is innately valuable. No, it merely identifies a cell as being human. This means that DNA only tells us WHO are humans. Killing all cells with the same DNA is murder.
"Potential" for becoming a human gives one value. No. But the potential for becoming an adult gives you the same value as an adult. Killing a child is equal to killing an adult.
Value is inherent in the traits. No - that would be discrimination and a violation of human rights. The only trait that matters is the fact that I am a human.
My real argument is as follows.
Why do humans have human rights?
Human rights have some set of justifications - what or why does not matter. It can be God or whatever - but it objectively exists
-- Therefore, killing a human is objectively wrong, and Adults are beyond doubt humans.
Who qualifies as being a human?
Adults are humans. Adults want their lives to be protected throughout their entire lives
-- Therefore, "nothing" that will eventually (without an unnatural death) become an adult can justly be killed intentionally (more lives at stake being the exception)
All humans have distinct DNA, it identifies individuals. The killing of a single cell is not immoral - but the killing of all cells with the same full set of human DNA is murder.
-- A human is all the cells with the same human DNA, so long as it is complete. (a single zygote alone is a human being - it will eventually become an adult)
CONCLUSION:
1. If adults have human rights then all humans have human rights.
2. Every (non-arbitrary) way to identify a human supports the theory that a zygote and a fetus is a human.
Since adults have human rights - killing a fetus is wrong.
Later I will rebut your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Thank you for your response - a very intelligent one I might add.
Clearance about setup
I also find it odd that you keep referring to a zygote and a fetus as “becom[ing] a human” when your argument appears to be that they ARE a human, and thus must be afforded the same rights.
Sorry that I was a bit unclear. I meant that a fetus IS a human BECOMING an adult - it is not simply BECOMING a human.
I’m not really sure what it is about an adult that confers basic human rights, especially as they’re given to children as well
Adults have human rights because they agree not to kill each other - even though they could. I know this seems ridiculous but basically, that is what it boils down to. People value the fact that they are not killed. People also value the fact that they were not killed in the past. And since adults do not want to be killed as children they also agree not to kill children. The logic should extend down all the way to the point where a human becomes a human.
I just generally have trouble with the arbitrary selection of characteristics as a basis for affording an entity rights.
I agree.
We both agree that children are valuable regardless of whether or not you like them - because they will become adults in the future. That is also why we consider a baby valuable because it will become a child. We would consider a child more valuable than a sperm - that's for sure. But we can apply that same theory of "becoming" to a fetus and find that since both children and a fetus actively becomes an adult - both carry the same value. So regardless of "when" a cell becomes a human - abortion is already immoral. The question is: when is it not immoral anymore to kill the "seeds" for an adult - when does the seed actually become a human.
particularly ones present post-fusion of gametes, oversimplifies what makes one a human being.
I completely agree. Any differentiation of post-fusion is arbitrary and has no real weight.
It’s interesting that you include the word “potential” in this context
Sorry if I was unclear, let me elaborate:
- Only adults matter in the first place (because adults made the human rights) - only adults are entitled to human rights
- Children (in any stage of development) has the potential of becoming adults
- Therefore, children (and all other humans) have human rights
I am not claiming that a fetus "has the potential to become a human", I claim that it IS a human. But all humans have the potential to become adults - the threshold for rights.
What makes any human valuable is the potential to become an adult. Therefore if killing a two-year-old is immoral then that same thing applies to a 1-year old or younger.
You get the gist. Only humans have value - therefore, a potential human has no value. But a child is not a "potential" human - it IS a human. We can trace this back and claim that a fetus also has value because it is just a younger human. And since all humans have equal value, a fetus also cannot be killed morally.
The real question is not whether or not abortion is immoral - but where it stops. Why is killing a sperm cell not immoral?
However, you ask me "why" chose the moment of conception as the exact moment when a human starts to exist as a human being. The decision is not arbitrary, here is the logical reasoning behind it:
- All humans have equal value - therefore we must choose a single event that makes a human a human (or dismiss human rights as subjective)
- Conception is the single QUALITATIVE change that happens. (pregnancy starts de facto with conception)
- Therefore, conception is the de facto moment where a human gets human rights (if human rights apply equally to all humans)
I also want to point out that the difference between a gamete and a zygote is qualitative, not quantitive. How can we say this?
I would like to quote myself:
- DNA is not worth anything - a human is.
- If we look at all cells randomly only the DNA identifies which human each cell belongs to
So therefore, DNA in itself does not grant you human rights - your own DNA only grants you the status of being a human.
If human rights are a thing, all humans have an innate value.
Conclusion: DNA does not grant a fetus human rights - human rights do. DNA only shows us WHO are humans. Therefore, what has human DNA has rights if humans have value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, your standard affirms my resolution.
If you kill another person, your are only causing him pain for a short period of time. However, killing way worse than torturing people for a short period of time.
That fact is only true if we measure the FUTURE well being as well. Therefore, if killing is worse than inflicting immediate pain then future well-being matters
So if killing is worse than merely beating someone, then a fetus also has value - by nature of necessarily carrying future well-being, a trait only shared by other humans.
Again, I accept your preemptive rebuttal and your syllogism. I just point out that it ultimately undermines abortion - just like human rights do.
I will sleep now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you for reading my text.
Could you please read it again, it already answered your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also wrong, that is the fallacy of possibility, furthermore fetus lack anything else to consider it worth moral weight.
I have proven beyond doubt (when I say I I mean mostly fauxlaw of course) that a fetus is a human being. Claiming otherwise would be to reject science.
Would you allow me to time travel and kill your fetus? Would you now tell me that you think that would be morally acceptable? No of course not - I would kill you indirectly.
Therefore, unless you accept the killing of you today (as an attempt to make up for the lack of time machines) - you should not accept the killing of other fetuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
Explaining the context
After countless questions like this from theweakeredge:
I have yet to hear your demonstration that gives fetus which are aborted moral weight.
I argued that a fetus was a human using this argument:
- My life has value today
- Yesterday I were just as valuable
- We can apply that statement to yesterday and find that 3 weeks ago I were equally valuable
- Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
Since I am as valuable yesterday, today and tomorrow - we can conclude that human life is equally valuable regardless of its age.
Whiteflame has repplied:
this argument has always been infinitely regressive ... then we should view those stages that precede even the zygote in the same light
Excellent question!
Finally, a good QUESTION regarding my stance. I hope to provide a sufficient answer to at least establish firmly my position.
Setup
Let us say I have an enemy and I want to kill him. But I have my own enemies that want to kill me. In the end, everyone will die. Therefore we sign a contract which states that "no human being shall be killed" - we have now a basic morality. This is one reason for the rights of life - but many reasons exist such as religion, philosophy, and so forth. The important thing is not "why" we have human rights but that we have them.
Conclusion: humans have human rights - no human can be killed and the action called morally just. (the state is ignored for now).
My position
What makes something a human? Having human DNA? But as you said the DNA is not innately valuable, cells die all the time without moral concerns. DNA is just an identification, it tells us which human every cell works for, per se. We know that a human is an organism built of a single DNA. This tells us two things:
- DNA is not worth anything - a human is.
- If we look at all cells randomly only the DNA identifies which human each cell belongs to
Again, we have not defined what a human is - we just know that each human has a unique DNA. Obviously, this already has proved that abortion is to kill a human - but if we call a period "murder" then murder will seem less immoral, the period will not seem immoral. So the simple reduction to "what has human DNA" is insufficient. What identifies an actual human amongst the many "empty" entities like sperm? I would like to make the argument that a human is [a] many cells together (personhood) or [b] a single cell (or a few of them) actively reproducing and building towards [a].
My position is this: A human is: cell(s) that is, or is actively becoming, an adult - the basis for human rights. A zygote and a fetus are both humans while a sperm cell is not.
To me, this makes a lot of sense. I will proceed to back this claim up with arguments.
A human in the making
This situation is exactly how we determine a child to be a human. A child is not an adult, but it will become in the future - no doubt exists regarding this unavoidable process. So if we can deem a child equally valuable to an adult despite their differences we can also deem a fetus to be equally valuable to a child - because it is actively becoming just that, a child. A sperm cell on the other hand is not becoming an adult - it will die as a single cell, a full life circle of a sperm cell. We have no reason to protect it, it's death will not affect the future human population.
Well being
I will allow myself to use Theweakeredges defense of morality:
P1: Humans value their own well-beingP2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirsCon: Therefore you ought to value well-being
He says the value of a person is their well-being.
Imagine a person - he is sleeping - not conscious and killing him would not inflict any real pain onto him, and not remove any pleasure he feels. Is it morally justifiable to kill him because it will not make him feel anything? No - most would say. According to the basic morality we constructed in the setup I have an obligation to respect his FUTURE well-being. I would not want to be killed while sleeping, therefore I should not kill anyone - not even those not able to tell me that they want to live. Similarly, since I would not wish to have been killed while being a fetus in the past, I will not kill people who are fetuses. I hope this addressed especially Theweakeredges moral objections to giving a fetus human rights even though it technically has not yet reached the biological threshold of complexity for "well-being" to make any sense. Few, if anyone, would want to travel back in time and kill their fetuses. Therefore one ought to respects fetuses' life because you respect human life. This is entirely logical.
I conclude my argument: a fetus is similar to an unconscious person - both have no well-being but have the potential for future well-being.
Biology
Why is the formation of a unique genetic code what makes a human being? Why is the number of chromosomes sufficient? Why does the formation of a single cell, rather than being split between different cell types, make one human?
Simply speaking, this question was incredibly honest from whiteflame. Thank you.
Answer:
- A sperm cell and an egg cell cannot become a human on their own - this combination is simply a "potential" human being
- A zygote or a fetus WILL become a human on its own - it is an individual by biological standards and it represents a future life with future well being
- Therefore, the point of conception is when a human becomes real rather than potential
I know what is coming. You will now ask why a sperm cell and a fetus - both possibly a future human being, are different in value. This is not simple, but hear me out.
There are four main ideas that differentiate between them:
- Not creating a human (having sex) is not the same as ending the life of a human (abortion)
- A fetus is already becoming an adult, while the sperm simply has potential for doing so (very low chances of course)
- Sperm will die naturally, while a fetus must be killed artificially and intentionally (any natural death is not immoral - not even spontaneous abortion.)
- Sperm and egg cells are not unique - there are thousands of the exact same combinations that could occur to create a fetus with the same DNA
Therefore, there is no reason to reject the idea of a fetus because sperm dies al the time. Oh, and lastly, I quote fauxlaw (the fact-spitter):
Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized. While currently not a scientific reality, the social reality will be required to change when medical/anatomical science achieves the definition of a person per 1 USC §8, which defines a "person" as "born alive regardless of stage of development," and that development is no further along than initial, one-celled conception; the zygote. When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights. Given that potential, only the current status of viability prevents the law from recognizing its definition of "person" to that extreme. The point is, the law need not change; only our social perception of its broader scope. Since that is [will be] the case, your [social] perception of the zygote being part of the woman's body must also change, even while accepting that the female gamete, although unique in its structure from every other cell in the female [or male] body. As representing merely half the complete DNA molecule, the gamete may, even legally, alter its perception as part of the woman's body because it has no continuing purpose or function within her body other than to become something entirely different than every other cell in her body. And considering that, uniquely, the count of ova, as opposed to sperm, is set at conception of every female, thus not duplicating themselves as does every other cell in her body, does that alter the status of "ownership" by the female as functional cells for and on behalf of her body?
So yeah, even if you do not take my word, take HIS word. In short - a fetus is a human while a sperm and an egg simply have the potential of becoming a human.
Conclusion:
If a child is equally valuable to an adult, then a fetus is equally valuable to a child.
If you cannot kill a sleeping person you cannot kill a "sleeping" fetus - both will have future lives which you have no right to terminate prematurely.
I hope this was interesting.
Feel free to present counterarguments. But I am tired of small, emotional critiques from some of you.
I especially hope you, Theweakeredge and whiteflame will rebut - I wrote this for you.
Created:
Posted in:
You are making a category error.
No, I'm not.
All I am claiming is that human value and rights are not "magically" granted at birth or any given stage.
The bill goes on to say that anyone (except the mother) who "intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive" can be prosecuted for "intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/28/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/
This was a DENIAL of the accusations against the bill - not the real accusations.
How can a mother kill the newborn baby and not be legally prosecuted? Even if the bill was not passed this is clearly not a category error - this is a fallacy of discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let me explain why a fetus is just as valuable as me.
- My life has value today
- Yesterday I were just as valuable
- We can apply that statement to yesterday and find that 3 weeks ago I were equally valuable
- Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
Since I am as valuable yesterday, today and tomorrow - we can conclude that human life is equally valuable regardless of its age.
Therefore, since a fetus is a human that is just young and has little development - it must have the same value as me.
So killing a fetus is like killing me. Claiming otherwise would also imply that children have less value than adults and that smarter (arbitrary word) people are more valuable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course not. Nobody ever suggested "legalize all crimes".Don't you think it's possible to have effective law enforcement without violating human rights?
You yourself said that it was a well-stated argument that prohibiting abortion would infringe human rights, and later you admitted that police infringe them routinely.
I think that prohibiting abortion, from a human rights standpoint, is much more moral than any other law - with the same status as any other law protecting human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sorry, I was in a hurry and wrote the wrong statement.
I meant that I and fauxlaw have dismantled every argument that suggests "abortion does not undermine human rights"
Obviously, there are countless arguments impossible to reject - like "I don't care" and "I do not believe that".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong - the god that the bible claims to exist does not exist
Rather - the bible is conflicted about the nature of its God. That would make perfect sense given how pragmatic and non-intellectual the book and the characters are.
It's characteristics are contradicting
Come on - in the Bible God is depicted as a burning flame, it's obvious that no word can describe him coherently, concisely, and consistently. We just use different models for his different sides. We do the same in physics: is light a particle or a wave? Those two words are inherently contradictory - but both are true, or close to true with regards to our understanding.
So yes - he might be contradictory described but that does not rule out his existence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Police routinely infringe human rights.
Very well.
So we should legalize all crimes?
It is that or it would be morally just to make abortions illegal.
3RU7AL, you have not read the entire argument - but I (and fauxlaw) have thoroughly dismantled every argument supporting abortion.
The opponents has no argument left but that "logic is also subjective"
My argument still stands: abortion undermines human rights - unless all syllogisms are subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't that statement obviously cut both ways?
No. Human rights states that all humans have a right to life. If the law is conflicted then the human rights should decide - after all what else could be considered human rights if not rights that applied to humans regardless of how cruel the regime was. Hitler broke human rights - but the law supported him. The "law is on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?
Human rights are the opposite of freedoms. We have the freedom to murder - but we value our own survival more than we value the freedom to kill. That's the right to life.
By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime? No.
Infringing human rights means to use your freedom regardless of the rights of others. Killing another person infringes human rights.
However, preventing people from infringing human rights does not infringe human rights - and if it did that would just be to reject all laws instantly as "infringements".
Laws make sure human rights are not infringed. Therefore, if humans have a right to life then abortions can be illegal without infringing human rights as you claim.
Well stated
Interesting comment. I agree - the statement was well stated, however, it was not correct.
You seem to have overlooked bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
I wrote nothing of that - it is a quote from the UN official page regarding human rights - I provided a link. Bodily sovereignty - the right not to forced to do anything with your body by another human.
If you consider "being in the belly" as infringing human rights I would consider we stop giving them the death penalty and instead let them go through a fair trial first. LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the god's actions in the bible do not align with the supposed characteristics of said god
The Bible uses human terms to describe their creator. No matter how hard they try that would always be the case. Also, remember that everything that happens is attributed to God - even the regular laws of physics. The correct stance to take would be that 1) We cannot understand God or 2) God has hidden his true motivations
Anti-theism is not the correct response. That would suppose that you consider the implications of his existence negative - including eternal life for humans.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What do you mean by "corrupts"? Corruption is when something Good gains power and let his own interests go before the interests of those he is supposed to serve.
God was never created - he has no one he is supposed to serve and he, therefore, cannot be corrupted.
I assume you mean: "becomes evil", but the word you use confused me.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a common critique against religions like Islam - the determinism is seen as "Allah" is unjust. This obviously would be the case if that is the correct interpretation of Islam.
But most certainly - any world view would include determinism if we define is as: "the idea that the future could be 100% predicted with proper knowledge of the past".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Strict determinism is perfectly compatible with "atheist" "moral beliefs".
Yes. But not compatible with a justful God. If God judges your actions but he is responsible for them - that is hypocrisy from God's side.
Free will is a necessity for responsibility. I cannot just force you to steal my car and afterwards punish you for doing that. I think that is T.W.E's complaint.
Created:
Posted in:
In order not to admit defeat you have descended to the point where you do not even regard a syllogism as objective.
This is obviously false: a syllogism always renders the same result with the same data. The only difference between human conclusions are which premises they use. I have succesfully shown that the premises which support human rights also undermine abortion as being against human rights.
But if you believe that logic is subjective go on with your fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion.
LIE. I use human rights to prove that abortion is immoral. If you do not agree with human rights, only then can you justify abortion.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. How does being pro-life create problems not related to the topic of abortion? Unless you think that "abortion" is why slavery is illegal then your statement makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Greetings. This is my strong topic and I wish to have a constructive discussion. I am not out to disagree, but rather find where we agree and build from there. I see that your "anti" is built on valid moral objections. I actually agree with you in that god should not control the universe. I will use the word "god" to mean "any single god" - as gods is illogical (another debate).
As far as I understand, this is your logic:
- Evil exists is in humans
- God controls the world
- God is the cause of evil in humans
So you reject God because you believe that moral responsibility falls on humans rather than God. Correct? I will assume so.
This is sound logical reasoning. However, the conclusion doesn't add up when you consider the alternatives. First of all, we can instantly rule out the possibility of another supernatural thing than god, because a non-personal force would be indistinguishable from a natural law of physics. Any angel or spirit would just be to add to the complexity to the question, without carrying real value for most people. The only option left is naturalism - which is obviously your position of choice. Let us define naturalism:
The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted [lexico.com/naturalism]
I will now rephrase your position from what I claimed earlier:
- Only if god does not control the universe can moral responsibility fall on the individual
- Moral responsibility falls on the individual - this is our wish anyways
- Therefore, we wish that god does not exist
Again, this is sound logic. I agree, except, the conclusion is no the only possible conclusion. Naturalism is the idea that all things in the universe are controlled by forces within the universe - am I wrong? Since you believe in morality and naturalism your view is that morality is a product of naturalism. So your view is rather than naturalism, not atheism, is a prerequisite for moral responcibility falling on humans. Again, I do not object. But here comes my position:
- naturalistic forces can create moral responsibility - a god cannot
- god can create a world that is naturalistic in nature
- god can create moral responsibility indirectly
In other words: since Deism is indistinguishable from atheism in its practical conclusions the existence of a god would NOT undermine your moral beliefs.
We can further conclude that since intellectual theism is basically deism, theism does not undermine your moral beliefs.
The only type of theism that would actually undermine your moral beliefs would be theistic determinism: the idea that god controls all human action.
I am eager to hear your thoughts. Again, let us forget religion and instead focus on the direct implications of each idea. After all "theology" is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the ideas the religions brought to the table. I wish we could take an agnostic stance and build from there. I am writing too much, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your logical conclusion is what you deem to be logical.
Incorrect.
Logic goes like this:
Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: B is C
Conclusion: A is C
This is objective. Whoever you are, if you have the same information you would come to the same conclusions if you just know this formula.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Again, you’re using your own version of human rights, not the official.
I used the official one:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
I do not use "God" and "human rights" interchangeably. Atheists have believed in human rights while theists have refused to believe in them. As I said, my moral system has God as one of many reasons - God is not the moral principle. Reducing God to be interchangeable with "human rights" would be ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@fauxlaw
Reece, your accusations are groundless and almost ridiculous. Your position is internally contradictory as I have proved.
Regardless, your accusation is pure stupidity:
So you have nothing to go by other than “because God”?
I am against abortion not because I believe in God but because I believe in human rights. I clearly stated that ANY reason would suffice.
God is simply ONE reason to believe in human rights - but since you are in this debate you have the same belief in human rights.
Not believing in God does not mean that one must be pro-choice, that assertion is false, dishonest, ridiculous and misleading.
But being pro-choice clearly invalidates one from also supporting human rights - assuming intellectual honesty is a thing you value.
Therefore, one can either support human rights or be pro-choice. Doing both simultaneously is contradictory and intellectually dishonest. This point I have clearly proven.
The only reason for being against abortion is if you believe in human rights - religion or such has no weight whatsoever besides influencing your acceptance/denial of them.
I hate to break your bubble, but your entire world view is probably incoherent unless you reject either abortion or human rights.
Since there is virtually no one that has moral objections to human rights, and virtually nobody can defend abortion logically consistently -- it is clear which of them is garbage.
In conclusion: Reject abortion, reject human rights or admit intellectual dishonesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I have intellectual reasons to believe in the existence of God and the existence of a soul. That does not mean I have to believe anything written in the Bible to be "Infallible".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Your final conclusion is God?
Yes - God. So why do you quote the Bible? I am an intellectual theist, not a religious person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why do you consider it inherently immoral?
Because I think all humans are equally valueable.
Why are all humans equally valuable? It does not matter. Personally, I think God, but any reason will be sufficient.
But to think that all humans are equally valuable, EXCEPT for some groups - it is illogical.
One must think either of these:
- All humans are worthless. This view undermines human rights but supports abortion.
- All humans are equally valuable - this view supports human rights but also undermines abortion.
- Humans are not equally valuable, it depends on the traits of each human. This view undermines human rights but supports abortion.
Therefore, if one supports human rights one must necessarily be pro-life. People are inconsistency if they are pro-choice and think human rights are valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
the foundation of official human rights laws is personhood.
No - it's being human. We do not discriminate against people with a weaker personality.
Since all humans are 100% humans human rights grants everyone rights.
Listen to your own argument. You argue that "personhood" is what gives humans value - this clearly undermines human rights. Why? Because it's your humanity, not your development stage or biology that grants you human rights. Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans, which the human rights is clearly against.
What does "personhood" even mean? Is a fetus the day before birth not a person but a baby just after birth is? No of course not, the difference is non-existent.
Personhood is not a binary like "being a human", therefore humans are not equally valuable if personhood gives them value - this applies to adults too.
Therefore, that moral system would discriminate between all humans, not only between fetuses and already born.
It's not my own conclusion - it's the only logical conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By your own twisted definition of them.
Fine.
Here is the official description:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
Tell me, exactly when does a fetus become "human"? The answer: when it starts to exist.
Therefore, abortion is a discrimination based on age, body and situation.
Created:
Posted in:
IN CONCLUSION:
- My statement was correct - abortion undermines human rights
- Holocaust, oppression, terrorism, and state brutality also undermine human rights
- Therefore, the west cannot judge other states for breaking human rights when they also do
SOCIETY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE HUMAN RIGHTS - NOT EVEN IN THE WEST.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In such societies morality and immorality are also variously applied to suit the same needs and demands.
Good point. This is the only reason why abortion is legal.
As I said - abortion undermines human rights. But society does not care - this we agree on.
Sorry if I misread your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry, mean that I want to prove that abortion is an unethical act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Moral or immoral is what ever one considers it to be....Assuming a moral code for others is arrogant.
So human rights are arrogant? Is the world arrogant?
Ethics are objective. Ethics are the principles on which we base our actions. Morality is how we actually live. Ethics are the tools we use to evaluate the morality of society and individuals. What I want to prove in this forum is that "abortion" is an immoral act: it does not abide by the principles of ethics. The ethics that were the basis for human rights contradict the ethics that allow abortions. Human rights are built upon the assumption that all humans are equally valuable regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The ethics that allow abortions assumes that humans itself are not valuable - just their abilities, like well-being. Universal human rights would deem a person with Alzheimer's or a "fetus" equally valuable to other humans - while the underlying ethics of abortion would say that since they have not the same capacity for well being.
In conclusion: Abortion is not immoral, but unethical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@zedvictor4
I wonder how many pious anti-abortionists have nightmares worrying about the starving kids that don't life in Dreamland, Down Town America.
Good point. Hypocrisy exists, but this does not affect our debate.
Is it moral for the "rich part of the world" not to freely feed all the starving kids......Or isn't this just as immoral as abortion.
Since "not giving to charity" is not an action it cannot be immoral.
It's a human right not to owe anyone anything without your own consent - this is called freedom. Capitalism has made everyone richer - even the poor countries.
We cannot make anyone entitled to others labour - therefore "right to be fed" is not a human right.
Of course, individuals might have religious or philosophical moralities that expect them to give to the poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion.Well stated.
I would like to remind you that the rich part of the world has literally no deaths by starvation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
I must specify what I mean by "free will".
DEFINITION:
Free will: B - the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]
Discretion: The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/discretion]
In other words, free will means that your actions are not controlled by someone else. A free person can act solely based on his own will.
EXPLANATION:
Free will means to act based on one's own will. Imagine for a second you create a robot - which will say "hi" every time it hears people say "oh look a robot". This robot can do nothing but react to reality - it will automatically do whatever you want it to do, given that you know the commands. This robot has free will.
Take a person out of the universe and put him in a cell for a thousand years without any outer force working upon him. When you put that person back into the exact situation he once was in, he will be completely different and act differently. Why? Because he has free will. Free will means to act differently based on their own will.
The difference is that between a planet up close and a planet far away. If you look at the earth from afar and know the laws of physics, the earth has a clear pattern, it cannot move unlike you predicted. But humans live here and say we created a big giant engine that pushed the earth away - this would have been impossible to predict from afar- The same difference applies to humans, you cannot predict a mans by looking at the world, you must know the interior of the person.
IMPLICATION
Among other things, determinism is incorrect.
Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.[lexico.com/definition/determinism]
Why? Because the will is a valid cause for human action. If a murderer kills someone, you cannot say "Oh, he just started killing people because person a did action b" - that is not how it works. Causality only implies determinism if the will does not exist - which it does. If the will is the brain, a mind, a soul - it does not really matter as long at it exists.
DEFENSE:
What is outside of your body and disobeys the laws of physics which can affect your choice and movement.
I think you misunderstand. Free will means that something INSIDE your body or mind can cause you to act as opposed to something from the outside.
This creates an illusion of acausality (like with quantum atoms) but in reality, this is just free will.
In order to disprove of free will, one must prove that by knowing a person's history BUT NOT his actual state, one can predict his future.
This is an invalid argument. Determinism does not mean "the idea that the will is controlled by the laws of physics" - that is called causality.
CONCLUSION:
Free will by definition exists - both in God/the ultimate reality and possibly in reality as a whole.
The debate is how big a part free will play in peoples lives, and I would argue a lot. You could place two different people in the exact same situation and they will act differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Congratulations, you’ve defined your way into success.
I knew it would be a challenge - I created it in that way. And yes, the people I have discussed with accepted my definitions.
I argue, for example, that being human is not a sufficient condition for rights. Rather, I argue that you have to be capable of conscious experience
In other words - UNIVERSAL human rights should not exist. We should instead set up a set of standards to evaluate the value of individuals.
This position is reasonable - but it undermines human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
Congratulations, you’ve defined your way into success.
I knew it would be a challenge - I created it in that way. And yes, the people I have discussed with accepted my definitions.
I argue, for example, that being human is not a sufficient condition for rights. Rather, I argue that you have to be capable of conscious experience
In other words - UNIVERSAL human rights should not exist. We should instead set up a set of standards to evaluate the value of individuals.
This position is reasonable - but it undermines human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
Isn't it immoral to spend time and resources and focus that could be used to save lives on activities that do not save lives?
As I have said before - morality tells us what we cannot do - not what we must do.
Do you think it's immoral to kill animals?
Do you think that abortion is immoral? Killing animals is not wrong unless killing ANY human is immoral.
Also, "morality" is exclusively a human term. Find me a philosophy that prohibits the killing of animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you're defining your morality ("murder") by legal standards, doesn't that mean it is impossible for a law to be immoral?
I do not define my morality on the law. Human rights imply equality in front of the law. I just used the legal definition in order to discuss with those that DO base their morality on the law. I just want to show that if human rights are to be taken seriously, then abortion is immoral.
Ok, does this mean that you split your time and resources equally among all humans?
Good question. No.
Humans are equally valuable, so any moral law should apply equally to everyone. That is, if I think killing my mom would be immoral I also think that killing a stranger would be immoral. The time and resources I have are not controlled by morality but rather by my interests. My interests control everything that Is not controlled by morality.
Freedom and rights are opposites: The right to life means you have no freedom to kill others - while the freedom of speech means you have no right not to hear opinions -etc.
Created: