Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are positives and negatives for restricting abortion. Yes, I do find that an unborn child's life is more important than whatever financial impacts may occur. The woman, 99.5% of the time, chose to enter into risky behavior that created this life, and now I would prefer restricting her ability to kill it.
In that case we just fundamentally disagree. I don't agree with punishing women for following their biological urges and making mistakes, and I don't think these "lifes" are human enough to justify the punishments
I don't know how you can call a moral framework that abuses women as valid. Not all moral frameworks are equal. Not all ideas are equal. I feel like you are just saying it is perfectly fine in their 'context' to be consistent. However, based on the outcomes of a moral framework, you can get a pretty decent idea of what is wrong vs right. Western societies are much more peaceful, less corrupt, etc. They share a similar base framework. Now, contrast that with the Middle East. There is tons of rape, wars, etc. So, if you think that woman-abusing, rape, and wars are just as good as democracies with much less corruption, protections on private property, not throwing gays off of rooftops, then I'm not sure what else there is to say to you. You would have to think the Nazi's framework of killing and jailing any non-Aryan is just as valid as the one in New Zealand today, and I don't think you actually believe that.
When I say a particular moral framework is valid, I don't mean to say that I approve or disapprove of it or think it's good or bad. Just that it is an accurate distillation of the moral values of a given society. So if you were to compare validity of moral frameworks and both moral frameworks are accurate distillations of their respective societies, then of course they are equal.
Now, if you are asking me whether a particular moral framework is more "right", I don't think there is an objectively correct answer to this because morality is inherently subjective.
Finally, if you are asking me whether a particular moral framework is better, of course I will have my opinions to that based on what I value in society. For example, peacefulness and less corruption as you brought up. However this isn't the same for everyone because as again, morality is subjective.
Homosapien = human being. Where does your distinction come from? Why are you distinguishing the two?
Because on observation, there are characteristics that make human beings human beings that are set apart from the pure biology component of describing people as homo sapiens. To that end, it is necessary to distinguish what these differences are from the pure homo sapiens component and this is personhood.
Imagine a scenario like the matrix, where people are farmed for life energy. Except in my scenario the people are brain dead from conception. It is my contention that these people are obviously members of the homo sapiens species from a biological viewpoint. However, they cannot be considered to be human beings because they simply do not have any such characteristics that we would ascribe to human beings in the sense of you or I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So is it fair to say you are against abortions after around 22 weeks, since that is when a fetus can be "viable (can survive outside the womb)" and therefore gains personhood?
So to be absolutely clear, I am not in favour of banning abortions at any stage of the pregnancy. But, from viability onwards, there are moral considerations.
Then what is the fetus? if it is not a human, what is it? You keep dodging the question.
You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien."
You say it is a philosophical concept, but the problem with this in the abortion argument is that anyone can subjectively determine when a person has moral value. Anyone can subjectively assign moral value to the different stages of life and different conditions people may have, but this ultimately leads to chaos when there is no concrete concept to determine moral value.You are using a philosophical, subjective definition of "human" and conflating it with a concrete definition.
No, the correct answer is to aggregate a consensus on personhood and apply it.
The incorrect answer is to give-up and use a point that is wrong simply because it's both the easiest and the most palatable point you can come up with. What a weak ass argument.
Thus, the answer to this is use concrete evidence and science. Scientifically, human life starts at conception. You are either a human organism or not. There is no in between.
Again, not scientific at all. Why does human life start at conception from a purely scientific perspective?
Which is what?
I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
No. The distinction is important for the concept of personhood. I have not contended that personhood disappears with viability or that fetuses never gain viability. The former should be obvious, the later I explicitly said the opposite.Now you are cherry picking different aspects of viability when in reality they all have the same result.
Um no, you have been logically inconsistent. You said you are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, but then said you were against abortions right before birth.
I said 3rd trimester abortions should not be banned but there are considerable moral considerations, not that I am in favour of 3rd trimester abortions. Do you understand this distinction?
If a women does not want her baby, she can set it up for adoption so it does not significantly impact her life. This is no excuse to murder it. This notion also devalues motherhood, which is pretty disingenuous.
Great, but you've sidestepped my contention that carrying a child through to birth still significantly impacts her life. You can still set up an infant for adoption, but this does not erase the significant impact on her life from carrying the child through til birth
That's because you have used like 5 different argument and you switch to other ones when a rebuttal does not fit your argument. You literally said viability is the marker for personhood, so yes viability is the argument you are using. You literally gave it as the definition of personhood.
I could not possibly be more clear. Personhood is the argument which I am using. Viability is the marker for personhood, but viability is not the argument I am using. I don't care that viability comes and goes with whatever weird definition of viability you are using. I only care about the initial fetal viability of the fetus to determine personhood, and then it becomes irrelevant.
This is anti-science. You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien." Humans are literally the only homosapien that isn't extinct. If it is not human, then what is it? It is purely scientifical that the fetus is human.
All human beings are homo sapiens. Not all homo sapiens are human beings. This stems from personhood which is a philosophical concept, which is why it's so crucially important for you to understand and engage with a concept instead of glossing over it, returning, asking the same questions again and again and then act mortified when you think it's my fault you lack intellectual integrity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
How do newborn infants gain personhood when they can not survive on their own? If viability is the marker, an infant has never gained viability.
You're using a broad scope of the definition of viability that isn't really used for infants and elderly. When you're talking about fetuses, it's generally about fetal viability
When is the point where you can't abort a baby?
This has already been answered, both implicitly and explicitly. I think you're just circling the drain at this point.
And why can a women kill that innocent baby just because it is convenient to them?
It's not convenience. This has been said many, many times but babies can and do significantly impact a mother's life. You minimizing those impacts as mere convenience is incredibly dishonest and manipulative
Viability is no argument for when a women can kill hr baby.
That's great. Because if you understood my previous responses, you'd know that viability is not the argument which I am using.
That is a living human being, and why does that have not just less moral value, but so little if any moral value that a women can murder it?
Because it's not a living human being. This has been repeated so many times. In fact, it is the cornerstone of my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You're overly focused on the viability bit. The most significant part is personhood, which is initially marked by viability but not predicated upon viability to maintain the status of personhood. Or in otherwords, personhood does not come and go depending on the status of viability of the person.
In the hypotheticals you gave, the infants and the elderly might in your definition be considered unviable now, however they maintain personhood because they passed the stage of fetal viability. Since personhood is ultimately the decider in moral worth, their current status of unviability in whatever definition you give it is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Before, you said you are not in support of aborting a baby right before birth. But then you state "That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief." is what gives the baby moral value. Before birth, the baby is attached to the women. So logically following, you are ok with babies being aborted up until birth.
Oh I see what you're trying to say now. I've bolded the bit you've seemingly misunderstood to come to this conclusion. It's not about the existence of an "attachment" of the fetus to the mother. It's about the requirement of there being an attachment of the fetus to the mother. That said it's a very odd interpretation of my words
Yes, so viability is the issue lol. You just restated your position. Viability gives a human moral value, correct?
My position hasn't really changed. Viability is the marker for personhood. Personhood is what gives moral value. Hence your previous answers don't make sense to me because they are discussing infants and elderly people which have already received personhood and hence moral value.
How so? Why doesn't she give birth to save the babies life, and set it up for adoption if she truly can not take care of it?
That is certainly one option, and one I hope is advised and considered. But ultimately it is no one's call to make except the mothers.
And again, infants are not viable life. They can not survive on their own. Neither can elderly people on assisted living. Are you ok with killing them as well as infants?
So to reiterate above, viability is not the determination as to whether it is morally ok to kill something. Hence to answer your question, no, at the very least not in your given parameters. Because both infants and elderly people are human beings and because there is seemly no push factors involved at the level of a woman's health.
And to be clear, I am talking about aborted babies. Here is a picture without the blood(less graphic) of an aborted baby. Literally what they do an in abortion, this is not feelings, just straight facts, is they take a tool and grasp the babies limbs, one by one, and pull them off. The baby can feel pain. They crush the skull and the brains of the baby are sucked out, and then they remove all the skull pieces. Let me ask you, as compassionately as possible, truly, in your heart, are you ok with that? Does a women have a right to kill that baby?
Why do you have an avatar that implies you favor facts over feelings and then attempt to manipulate me emotionally? How pathetic and hypocritical can you get? Apart from that in answer to your question, my opinion still hasn't changed. It is a mother's right to do what she wants with her fetus though I would hope that she makes such decisions fully informed and given plenty of options. If she isn't, the state has failed both her and her unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Uhh... this is just my opinion but rapidly reading off a script in a monotone voice while staring off to the side of the cameras probably isn't the most effective technique for engaging your viewers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Logically following, then you do support killing the child right before it's born. You are being logically inconsistent.
I don't understand your reasoning here
If viability is the issue, infants and elderly people are not viable because they can not survive on their own. Why does it matter if its connected to the women? It is its own life, not the women's. Whether infants live a little bit longer is irrelevant. When left to their own means, the fetus and infant and elderly all die.
Viability isn't the issue. Personhood is the issue, with viability being a marker for personhood.
Why did you ask me the previous questions if you were going to ignore the responses and give me a canned answer that makes no sense in the context of my responses?
The issue with the fetus being attached to the woman, is that the fetus is literally attached to the woman. This entails all sorts of consequences for the woman.
And to be clear, you are ok with a women choosing this?
Of course not. A woman should have safe options to deal with her late term pregnancy instead of a 3rd rate hack and the fetuses should've been sent to a premature ward but unfortunately this is the sad result of desperation and lack of access
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
My statement wasn't confusing in the slightest. He read it and extrapolated what he thought suited him. That is dishonesty. Or stupidity. Or both. Once is ignorance. Twice after warning him is willful
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
There was no change. There is no reason for abortions if there was no threat to women. We are able to justify them because they have less moral value by virtue of being unviable and not a human being. Both are necessary components to the morality of abortions.
1. Because from my point of view, that is the point where a fetus gains some sort of an individuality. That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief.
2. Then I have no problem in the slightest with the baby. It does however depend on what you think I meant by threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I have no patience for willful and unrepentant dishonesty. And given that was the third example in his communications towards me that I remember despite me calling out such behaviour previously, either it's malice or stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
What part of "moral considerations become ever higher" did you not understand? Or did you miss that part in your haste to cherry pick me.
We aren't "killing" them because they aren't viable, we are "killing" them because they aren't viable and are a threat to the women carrying them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The correct response to confusion is to ask clarifying questions, not make shit up and strawman me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, since some women are against abortion(consider themselves Pro-Life), in fact a majority of them according to this link SirAnonymous provided, then without a doubt, we should be more stringent in our regulations. But, you still hold this opinion that they shouldn't be like that because you think it is bad for women. And to the doctors, their literal business is abortion. :P
Absolutely. I believe majority should rule. And let's be clear here, restrictive abortions are without a doubt bad for women. It's just you value something more than the negative impacts on the woman. Finally the business of doctors is administering abortions, not whether they should be performed from a moral perspective.
It kind of does invalidate their framework. If you are committing serious civil rights abuses, it doesn't matter if you think you are correct. You are wrong for doing that.
It's only a civil rights in the context of your subjective moral framework. There is no objective moral framework from which you could call such behaviour civil rights abuse.
Personhood is a subjective concept that I am ignoring because it is subjective and not based on any sort of fact. Biology is based on facts, and you are using the "personhood" argument out of sheer convenience to ignore the fact that you are advocating for killing unborn children.
I am using the personhood argument because it is a philosophical answer to a philosophical question. Biology is not sufficient to determine questions such as when is a homo sapien a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I have never said it was ok to off a fetus 2 minutes before it is born, nor have I ever said that fetuses 15 seconds before in the mother do not have the dignity of life. In fact, I have explicitly said there are moral considerations after fetal viability. Again, is this imaginary rubbish malice or stupidity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I don't believe in infanticide, just as I don't believe in murder. That said, there are instances where infanticide is acceptable just as there are instances where murder is acceptable. For example, one acceptable example to me would be euthenasia in an example where the baby both is terminal and will be in tremendous pain for the entire duration that it will be alive. Now obviously there are still massive moral considerations, however I firmly believe that the parents who need to make such calls should not be condemned and instead be pitied.
Now if your question to me is should parents be able to kill their babies if they no longer want their babies, then my answer is obviously not. And I would hope that were obvious from my previous response when I mentioned narrowing conditions and higher moral considerations.
Finally, in the example of a non-viable baby and they can't survive on their on, without the balancing consideration of agonizing pain I would say no, because there is the matter of dignity of life which should apply to all human beings
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Not one word of this is true. I can't tell if you're maliciously misrepresenting me or too stupid to understand what I've written as it seems rather clear.You said you don't know when personhood starts and it can't be defined. How then can you claim aborting unborn babies is ok because they don't have "personhood," but you yourself don't even know what personhood is?
I said that there is no hard and fast rule as to when personhood starts. Meaning that if you ask anyone, they might give a different opinion. Each opinion is equally valid if it is justified in someway with respect to what personhood is. I can't know when personhood starts, I can only give my opinion as to when personhood starts.
I've already given a description of what personhood is. In fact I've given it twice when you prompted me twice for what personhood is. Again, maliciousness or plain stupidity?
When do you draw the line?
My personal threshold is viability. That is to say, abortions before this threshold should not be considered a moral quandary
Answer these questions- Is it ok to abort a 1st trimester baby?-Is it ok to abort a 2nd trimester baby?-is it ok to abort a 3rd trimester baby?-is it ok to kill a born baby?
Yes to all of these. There are invariably going to be conditions where doing all of these is ok. Of course, such conditions become ever narrower and the moral considerations become ever higher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I've already answered these questions. You won't get different responses if you keep asking. It is up to you to engage with my answers if you don't understand or disagree, not move on and then cycle back to the same questions as before which is what you seem to be doingThat does not answer the question. What are the characteristics of personhood? At what point does one gain personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
<br>Also....You are forgetting that a sizable amount of women are against abortion as well. So should the elected politician completely ignore and refuse to represent those women? And yes, you don't need to be a slave to be involved in slavery. You also don't have to be a woman or aborted child to be involved in abortion. There are entire businesses, doctors, etc that stand to profit from it.
I would say that all women have a participating voice in whatever sort of reproductive rights because such rights inherent effect them.
I would say that businesses, doctors, etc are involved in the profit of abortion, not of abortion itself.
If you want to stray away from hypothetical situations, would you say that Sharia Law is a valid framework? One in which they abuse women and kill homosexuals?
Absolutely. Your personal interpretation of a moral framework does not change its validity as a moral framework. Just like their interpretation of western treatment of gays and women does not change invalidate western moral frameworks.
But personhood means absolutely nothing! It is not based in any sort of science whatsoever. It is some arbitrary, fabricated concept that can be used to justify any human-rights abuse.
Personhood is a fairly well established concept that you seem to be arbitrarily ignoring just because it's inconvenient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Only representing women". You said it would be the business of a politician to end slavery. That politician wouldn't be only representing slaves. Furthermore, the slaves wouldn't have been able to vote for him, so he wouldn't be representing them at all. So, no, abortion would be that politician's business regardless of who they are representing.
A politician represents the interests of who he is representing. If he does not represent the people who have any business in abortion, he himself has no business in abortion. One is not required to be a slave to be involved in slavery.
You are saying that we cannot call a child-beating culture wrong within their framework or whatever. That means you believe no moral systems are invalid. If it isn't an invalid framework, it is therefore a valid one.
For the purposes of your hypotheticals I assumed such societies to exist in order to apply your moral framework. If you're asking me personally whether a moral framework based around child beating is valid or not, of course I'm going to say it's invalid if it has no society in which it is attached to.
How is the "living person" more alive than a zygote? By every biological measure, they are both equally human and both alive. One is just at a less-risky form of development.
As per personhood, they are not equally human
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So your argument seems to be a baby must obtain personhood to become morally valid. What is personhood?
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?No one decides on personhood. Personhood is the all encompassing label of what a person is. For example, the relationships formed with others is a part of personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
All human beings are homo sapiens. Not all homo sapiens are human beings. I think that's the nuance you are missing"the species to which all modern human beings belong" that would be the human species my guy
What are the characteristics of human beings?
Personhood
The point here is that even if you don't consider it a human being, if left in the natural course of things, it will grow and develop into a fully formed human. This has much more value than a women's convenience.
In that case I disagree. What a future person might be does not trump what is a person is now and will be in the future. The fact remains a non-person does not have the moral value of a person.
When is a living human considered alive?The slippery slope here is we are assigning different moral values for different stages of life. The bottom line is- it's either living or it's not. An unborn baby has inherent value. People have inherent value. If we assign moral values to different people, then we get caught up in things like babies who are 3 months old, disabled people in wheelchairs, and elderly people in nursing homes who we could say don't have as much moral value as an adult. Using this notion, this means nobody has inherent value, and thus the moral values of humans are compared to one another, and ultimately used as an argument for why we can murder people because they have less moral value than someone else.
There is no slippery slope. It's not that we are assigning different moral values to different people/stages of life. It's that different people inherently have different moral values, however you just wish to willfully ignore that fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Actually my whole post is centered around the concept that a zygote is not a human being.Ok, so your whole post is centered around your opinion that a zygote is not a human life. You conceded a zygote is a life. So the only part left is the "human." Human describes the species of which the unborn baby is. It is of the human species. Therefore it is a human life. If it is not "human," then what species is it?
A zygote is a member of the homo sapiens species. "Human" is a word that relates to characteristics of human beings. A zygote does not have the characteristics of human beings and is therefore not of human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, so now public opinion doesn't matter? I'm confused, you said that I shouldn't pass my laws because they were unpopular. Now, you can't pass a law even if it is popular? So, you are now going with the principle of the bill rather than public opinion, which brings us right back to where we started. Let's not waste time with diversions. That is like the people who say "what about rape", even though they support abortion for any reason.
Public opinion does not matter in the context of my personal opinion which is what you asked of me. If you were to ask me should third trimester abortions be banned based upon majority support, I would've said yes.
So, if I am a politician, then slavery becomes my business. So, if I am a male politician, abortion laws also become my business, yes?
Yes. If you're representing only woman.
I don't understand how you think that child-beating is a valid moral framework, but we can have that discussion another time. Let's stay on point.
I don't think it's a valid moral framework. You're the one that brought it up as a hypothetical to challenge the consistency of my beliefs
That fetus did absolutely nothing wrong. It didn't have any say in being born. It is human as much as anyone else(all the DNA and genetic information). It is 100% alive and growing. The only differences are age/stage of development and location. Those don't justify a killing.
It is not as human as anyone else. Any living person alive is more human than any zygote. It is for that reason that the answer to save 100 embryos or the single child is invariably the child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Ok, when does personhood start?
As with human life, there's no hard and fast rule as to when personhood is conferred. However clearly a zygote has no characteristics of personhood and as such, a zygote is not a human being.
..which is an early form of life. Life is defined scientifically, it is not an opinion. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization." Life- "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms." A new human organism is made at conception. Again, this is scientifically proven. You are simply uneducated if you don't know when life starts, and should not be making abortion arguments.
We can agree that a homo sapiens zygote is life. We can agree that human development begins after conception. Nothing you've said has shown that a homo sapiens zygote is equivalent to human life. If you are unable to understand this concept, you are free to drop out at anytime because clearly this goes way over your head.
Let me ask this- What makes an unborn baby have less value than a born baby that you can murder it? You have yet to answer this. This is frankly all I care about.
Murdering babies is morally wrong. Aborting zygotes is not morally wrong. It is not morally wrong because they have less moral value than the mother does. This is because a zygote is not a human being while the mother definitively is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?
No one decides on personhood. Personhood is the all encompassing label of what a person is. For example, the relationships formed with others is a part of personhood.
All you said is life is philosophical and not scientific. How is this evidence?
I posted a link explaining the same.
How is you constantly reiterating that life starts at conception proof that life starts at conception from a scientific viewpoint? And no, further iterating that what is created at conception has unique DNA is not evidence.
If you reject that life starts at conception, then tell me, what is that unique 'thing' that has its own DNA at conception? When does life start?
That would be a homo sapiens zygote. I make no argument as to when life starts. However I reject your assertion that life must necessarily start from conception
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You completely shifted the argument to legality. Legality does not matter to me. Morality does. The government does not decide what is moral and what is not. This whole argument is based around morality.
No, you shifted the argument to legality when you argued that fetuses and children have the same rights.
You have yet to answer why an unborn baby has less moral significance than a born one. What is the difference? If you are not able to answer a question as simple as this, then you have a very weak argument.
It's not been conferred person-hood. Hence it is not a human being or a human life. The logical conclusion being that we value human beings more than non human beings.
This is not even about a political opinion. It is simply a fact that life starts at conception. A unique life, with unique DNA, separate from anyone else in the entire world. At conception, a human organism is created. If you are not able to accept the science of this, then you are simply wrong and I will stop this conversation.
You are wrong. I brought evidence that you are wrong. If you are going to ignore evidence and then blather on about how you are right without providing your own evidence, you are the close-minded one and it is for that reason that this thread should end. All you're doing is misappropriating the word "science" as a bludgeon to quell any sort of counter argument, but your own argument lacks any sort of substance or basis in science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Following my logic, black people did indeed not have the same rights as white people when they were slaves. This is absolutely correct. I'm not sure what you're confused about here. If you wish to talk about rights, fetuses do not have the same rights as babies. Whether it is moral or not is entirely irrelevantJust because something is legal does not make it moral. Slavery was legal, was it moral? The 2 are disconnected. I guess black people do not have the same rights as white people since slavery was legal, following your logic.
Umm, no, human life starts at conception. A fact is not philosophical.
That's because it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Science cannot answer when human life starts, only give you facts to guide you towards an opinion. The question solely belongs to the domain of philosophy.
Here's some light reading
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
It's rather foolish you would lie to yourself. It is highly contested for debate whether an unborn baby has the same rights as a born baby. You acting like it is an incontestable fact is foolish.
It is an incontestable fact. Abortion of a fetus does not carry the same penalties as murder of a baby. QED they do not have the same rights.
Human life scientifically starts at conception. That is just factually incorrect.
The start of human life is a philosophical question not a scientific question. You are factually incorrect
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You have yet to prove why. You have given no evidence. Saying that it is true without any proof is typically not how you construct an argument. I gave rebuttals, you did not respond.
That's rather the point of something that is self-evidently true. Imagine if I were to state that 1 + 1 = 2 and you were to badger me for proof that 1 + 1 = 2.
Human life is more valuable than if a women's life is hard. You don't get to murder another human being. You have no right to impose your will onto another human being and kill them. That is murder.
Oh in that case a fetus is not a human being or a human life. Such terms are conferred upon those who have received person-hood. Zygotes have not received person-hood.
If your position is you can murder a baby if life may be hard for the women, then we have nothing more to discuss. I just think that is very sick and despicable, and morally wrong.
Not at all. There are no babies involved in an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, and the majority of people oppose third-trimester abortions. Do you support banning that? Even considering all of your 'women's autonomy' arguments?
Nope. To me, if you've carried the baby already for 28 weeks, that's a strong indicator that you wanted the baby but there are desperately strong reasons why you cannot continue the pregnancy any further. Ignoring those strong reasons against her wishes is likely to be incredibly damaging to the mother moreso than the typical reasons given for early stage abortions
So then what is your point on making the distinction between what is and isn't my business? Since it would be good for me to make a law against slavery, despite it not being my business, why should it matter whose business it is?
If you are "creating" a law against slavery, you are directly involved because you are assumingly some sort of politician and doing so would earn the goodwill of those freed.
No moral correctness? So child-beating psychos are equally right in what they do as Mother Theresa? Got it. They both think they are right, after all...
Absolutely. If there is a society in which beating children is morally correct, then the child beating psycho is right to beat children in that society in the context of his own moral framework.
So now you shift the right to determine personhood to the mother. So, whether or not the child is wanted gives them value? How is that a valid social framework? Something as frivilous and subjective as that determining who can be killed.
I don't think it's frivolous or subjective in the slightest. The mother makes the fetus, carries the fetus and births the fetus. If it should be anyone's right, it should be hers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I understand. However if it makes you feel any better, based on your incredibly misinformed and illogical accusation that I used slanted terminology, I suspect neither of us would've been persuading each other anyway.I won't bother replying to the rest of what you said because it would be a waste of time. If you think genocide is okay if the majority says so, then we have no common ground. As such, it would be impossible for either of us to persuade the other, so it would be a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
1) You have yet to prove why it is less valuable and ignored all my rebuttals, and
I'm not sure it has a proof because it is so obviously self-evidently true. You're free to negate it via arguments though
2) The majority of cases it is not critically life altering. Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill a human life.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
So if the majority decided to commit genocide against the minority, that would be fine? If not, then why is it ok for the majority to dictate morality regarding abortion but not genocide?
Of course it would be fine. That is what a democracy is. It's their society. They get to do with it as they please.
So if a criminal breaks into my neighbor's house, shoots him so he is lying helpless on the floor, and rapes his wife in front of him, that isn't any of my business because it doesn't involve me, so I should just let it happen? If people going around killing each other, we shouldn't outlaw murder because we're not involved?
In such a scenario, you would be implicitly involved
If society decides that all Jews need to die, then. . . what?
If a particular society has decided that, then that's what it has decided. I'm not sure what you're not understanding.
Why does the mother get to decide personhood for unborn children, but not for born children?
I didn't say that
How is the state deciding that abortions should be legal up to X point in the pregnancy equivalent to the mother deciding?
I mean a mangled aborted mess doesn't really count as a person so....
The Germans wanted the Jews to die to control undesirable populations. The state facilitated their wishes.
Did they? I had no idea.
Does the state determine personhood when it bans the murder of born humans? If so, why is that only okay when the human is already born?
You'd have to define when personhood is conferred first
Either they have life, or they are dead, or they were never alive to begin with, meaning they're not made of cells. The cells are functioning, so they are alive. It really is that simple. If you disagree, then I would be extremely curious to hear how cells that aren't alive can multiply in numbers.
You misunderstand. As Boat put it, it is the difference between living in the sense of alive, and living in the sense of a meaningful life
It is also people's natural instinct to save their own child rather than 100 strangers. Does that mean the strangers are less valuable?
Yes. But not objectively so.
That's only true if the woman's life is in danger. In that case, when there is a choice between killing one to save the other or letting both die, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who would choose to let both die. This is a strawman.
Not at all. The implications of carrying a fetus is not limited to dangering the woman's life
Don't think I haven't noticed you've used "fetus" again. Either prove that a child is a fetus or you can stop with the manipulative nonsense.Why is it okay when you use language slanted to your side and not when Our_Boat uses language that slants to his side?
That doesn't make sense. If you want to parrot something, make sure it makes sense first to avoid looking like an idiot.
I use language that is the correct terminology. A child is incorrect, misleading and emotionally charged.
Now, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not accusing you of being like Nazis. However, the logic that morality is determined by society inevitably leads to the inability to condemn any crime, no matter how horrific, so long as it is condoned by society.
How interesting. Please expand.
Also, the idea that it isn't any of my business if I'm a man is complete nonsense. If unborn babies are people, then abortion is murder and must be stopped; if not, it isn't. The question that matters is whether or not the unborn are people, not what my genitals are.
Perhaps you should start from the top. Unborn babies are not people. Your turn
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
the point is that the embryo is a life, and one's life has much more value than a women's choice to kill it out of convenience.
Why does a less valuable organism deserve life at the cost of a critically life alterating, damaging and painful event for a more valuable organism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Being named is not an argument for morality. Many parents do name their children in the early stages, however that takes time and thought in most cases, and this is honestly irrelevant to morality. We don't hold funerals for zygotes because they never had a life in the first place. When one is aborted, it is usually private and their would be nothing to hold a funeral for. Again this is extremely weak evidence, it is not actually evidence for why unborn babies are less than adults. The fundamental difference is the stage of life and time.
Zygotes never having a life in the first place is the exact reason why they have less moral value to adults.
Then it is awfully disgusting to give less moral value to babies than adults when you admit you don't have any evidence for it.And btw, I'm not telling the women what to do with her body. I'm arguing for the child's body, the child's life. It is separate from the women's. Just because I am not a women does not mean I can't make moral judgements as to whether you can murder a child.
Not at all. I do not give or take moral value. It is what it is on instinct. You yourself have that instinct because you immediately decided that the zygote did not have a life, despite your claim that life begins from conception. The common question to save the child or the 5000 embryos is a perfect example of this.
The two in inseparable. If you are arguing to save the fetus, you are simultaneously damning the woman carry the fetus.
And don't think I haven't noticed you've used "child" again. Either prove that a fetus is a child or you can stop with the manipulative bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But this concept of lesser moral value is meaningless. You are asserting this solely based on popular opinion. I'm sure a majority of Muslims have certain opinions on women that you would find repugnant. The majority of them think that is the right perception, but that certainly doesn't make it true.
That certainly is a reason why there isn't really a right or wrong answer to abortion. However in terms of deciding actual policy, majority should rule in a democracy.
I don't see how it isn't my business. If some moral injustice is occurring, you can't argue that it isn't my business to correct it. It was the business of Abraham Lincoln that slavery was occurring. For a more modern example, would you say that white people cannot protest an instance of police brutality against a minority? Is their opinion meaningless because it isn't their business? Or is it the business of every decent citizen to fight injustice?
Yes I can. It's quite simple. If it involves you, it is your business. If it doesn't involve you, it is not your business. You can certainly insert yourself into a cause in support, but it still wouldn't be any of your business
Society doesn't dictate whether something is correct or not. They dictate what they perceive as correct. That means they can be wrong. I don't understand where this distinction is coming from. Are you saying that the difference between disrespect and correctness is whether or not it is legal?
There is no objective correctness, so whatever society decides is correct is not is correct. You can watch from the sidelines and scream at them that they are filthy savages, but ultimately it's irrelevant to their framework of correctness.
No. Respectfulness and correctness are mutually exclusive terms. In terms of your previous post, you would not be incorrect to admonish them as society sees it, but you would be disrespectful in regards to their framework of correctness. It has nothing to do with legality. A 60 year old banging a 18 year old is perfectly legal. Your friends, family and co-workers are likely to disapprove of it however.
And the state gets to determine personhood? That worked out so well in Nazi Germany....
No. The mother decides on personhood. The state facilitates her wishes.
On the otherhand, restrictive abortions would be the state determining personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Even if the attitude has been that fetuses don't have the same moral value as children or adults, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given that same respect.
That's exactly the consequences of having lesser moral value. They are not and should not be given the same level of respect.
Ok, but I would argue that slavery and infanticide are both my business. Just because I am not directly affected doesn't mean it isn't my business. Body parts have nothing to do with my ability to add valid input.
Your ability to add valid input to a topic does not dictate whether or not it is any of your business. If you call a random fat girl fat, you have expressed valid input. It is not, however, your business to call her fat.
Ok, if I said that people shouldn't be able to urinate in public, I am dictating what they can and cannot do. Same story about murdering people. Is there anything wrong about me telling these people they cannot do these things? I doubt you would say that I am disrespecting the murderer or the publicly indecent person, would you?
You've mixed up two concepts here, respectfulness and correctness.
If you tell someone what to do, this is disrespectful because you are projecting your own system of correctness upon their behaviour regardless of their wishes. And this applies to both public urination and murdering.
Regardless of whether or not it is respectful or not, society dictates whether something is correct or not. In this case, calling someone out for public urination or murdering is probably correct.
Telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body is profoundly disrespectful.
But why aren't they equal organisms? You keep saying they aren't and mentioning current public attitudes. What is your rationale behind them not being equal?
I would say that person-hood is the deciding factor
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well of course, you don't treat a child like an adult. However, adults, children, and fetus are all humans. Humans have rights. You don't kill a kid because it is a kid, nor do you with an adult because they are an adult. So, why is it okay for a fetus?
The answer as it ever has been is that fetuses do not have the same moral value as children or adults.
I can't have an opinion on women's issues because I am not a woman? Can I not have an opinion on slavery because I was never a slave? Or, can I say that both abortion and slavery are bad?
You can have and express an opinion on anything you like. However this does not mean it is any of your business. The choice of whether to shove babies out of your vagina should not be your business, because you don't actually have one.
Well, I was showing how the only consistent position with respecting life is to not allow abortion. It is the main arguments I know of, just explaining why they aren't consistent and can be dangerous philosophies.
Your position with respecting life also simultaneously disrespects existing life. Exactly what do you think is respectful about dictating what women can and cannot do?
I think that the right to life trumps all other rights. No other right really matters if you are dead. Wouldn't you agree?
Between equal organisms sure. Fetuses are not equal organisms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This position is based on what the fetus currently has. Not it will have. We apply this to every facet in life. We do not treat children as adults simply because they will be adults one day. They are children, hence we treat them as children.
Either human life matters absolutely or the state has full power in determining what lives matter or which don't. I find the latter to be quite troublesome, as you can imagine.
It's troubling to me that the state should dictate a woman's quality of life. The most reasonable solution is for the state to butt out of the matters of women entirely because it's not their business. Or yours for that matter.
Viability is different based on wealth of parents and quality of local hospitals. Also, until you're a teenager, you couldn't survive on your own, so you could also be considered "non viable".Brain waves is completely different from brain dead individuals, as brain dead individuals have no life ahead of them, but the fetus/child has their entire life ahead of them.Heartbeat... pacemakers...Again, only consistent stance is: is it human? If so, then it has value.
This wasn't in contention. The question is how much value and how does it stack up to a womans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm saying the loser of the consideration between moral values constitutes of the ending of a life without question. It's only problematic for you because you're assigning value to the fetus which should not be assigned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Why not?Life is life. The examples you described are not evidence for morality.
You have yet to explain the WHY. Why is a baby at an early stage of development have less moral value than an adult?
I have no idea why. I suspect the answer is long, tedious and complicated. I suggest you do some googling if you wish to know the answer. However it is sufficient for me to know that it is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You can sidestep the question, but it will always go back to the question of value. If the value of a fetus is comparatively less than that of the mothers, then it's irrelevant that you think it's unfair for fetus. The wellbeing of the mother will always come first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's because it's not a question of whether or not a fetus has value. I don't think I've heard of a position on abortion where abortion is somehow ok because fetuses have zero value. Of course that doesn't mean someone doesn't have that opinion somewhere.
My impression in general is that it's more of a question of whether a fetus has more value than the bodily autonomy of a woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
From conception, we are a child. Whether it is at an early stage of development does not matter. Humans have different stages of growing. We do not change from human to non human o vice versa.It is a child. Even linguistically, fetus in Latin means "small child."
You strenuously repeating something without evidence does not make it convincing. The internet is right there. Go google up the definition if it pleases you. I don't know why you brought up non-humans to humans vs different developmental stages, so I think you may be confused about something.
Expand on what you mean by this please. What makes the unborn baby less of that than anyone else?
Sure. So when I compare organisms in terms of "value", I'm referring to their moral value. Some comparisons are fairly obvious. An ant has less moral value than a human. A harder one might be whether or not a dolphin has more moral value than a dog.
In terms of a zygote and an adult for example, it is obviously true we in general apply less moral value to zygotes than to adults and this is obviously in several ways. We don't name zygotes and we don't hold funerals for them when they farted out of vaginas by mistake.
Since it is obviously true that zygotes and adults don't have the same moral values, it is dishonest of you to compare a right of life and a right of health as if they do have the same moral values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is not my position and I haven't argued for a position on abortion in this thread as of yet. My position is simply that Boat is using misleading, inaccurate and/or simplified terminology to make his arguments for him instead of making arguments based around hard logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill the child.A women's right to health does not overcome another's right to life.
You keep doing it. How do you expect someone to hold an honest conversation with you when you keep dishonestly using sneaky emotive terminology instead of actual hard logic?
Neither a zygote or a fetus or any form before birth are children.
The word "another" implies a comparison of lifeforms of equal value, however this is simply not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience.
I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
New Zealand. To me it's more likely the case that people picking "less useful" majors isn't as big of a problem as you make it out to be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
No. But at the same time it hasn't really been a problem
Created: