Abortion Debate

[snex]

So is a newborn not a human? How about a one year-old? How about an elderly person with dementia? Are they all no longer human?

i dont recall any legal obligation to keep any of those people alive if it would require YOUR resources to do so. if an elderly person with dementia were banging on people's doors for food and shelter lest he starve to death, would you want a legal requirement to let him in and feed him?

even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human, the person who owns the actual resources under question is also human, and therefore has the right to withhold those resources if they so desire.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

i dont recall any legal obligation to keep any of those people alive if it would require YOUR resources to do so. if an elderly person with dementia were banging on people's doors for food and shelter lest he starve to death, would you want a legal requirement to let him in and feed him?

even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human, the person who owns the actual resources under question is also human, and therefore has the right to withhold those resources if they so desire.

That is a pretty lame argument. Also, have you ever heard of the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX or MEDICARE? So, yes we are paying to keep those people alive.

 

[snex]

That is a pretty lame argument. Also, have you ever heard of the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX or MEDICARE? So, yes we are paying to keep those people alive.

im pretty sure that has nothing to do with whether or not you are required to give them food and shelter if they come banging on your door.

 

[Jam Stunna]

i dont recall any legal obligation to keep any of those people alive if it would require YOUR resources to do so. if an elderly person with dementia were banging on people's doors for food and shelter lest he starve to death, would you want a legal requirement to let him in and feed him?

even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human, the person who owns the actual resources under question is also human, and therefore has the right to withhold those resources if they so desire.

That's not what you said. This is what you said:

maybe you think fetuses shouldnt be held responsible for that, but then if they have no responsibilities, why should we consider them humans? part of being human is being responsible for your own actions.

Answer the question: is a one-year old or an elderly person with dementia human?

 

[snex]

you forgot this part where i said:

"even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human, the person who owns the actual resources under question is also human, and therefore has the right to withhold those resources if they so desire."

so your question is irrelevant. it *doesnt matter* if they are human or not.

 

[Jam Stunna]

you forgot this part where i said:

"even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human, the person who owns the actual resources under question is also human, and therefore has the right to withhold those resources if they so desire."

so your question is irrelevant. it *doesnt matter* if they are human or not.

You said that after you made the original post. This was the progression of the posts:

Post number 79, where you said "part of being human is being responsible for your own actions."

Post number 80, where I said "So is a newborn not a human?"

Post number 81, where you said, "even if all of the above + fetuses ARE human,..."

Answer the question. Or, it's more likely that you don't have an answer, because that's an absurd standard for defining humanity.

 

[snex]

or is it more likely that you cant handle the fact that your question is irrelevant so you are just going to attempt to derail the thread rather than deal with it?

 

[Kur]

Well, I had a huge wall of text responding to many of the posts in this thread (about 3 hours worth of typing) but then my house lost power and I lost the whole thing. Rather than retype everything I am just going to make a general reply.


A fertilized egg is a human being. It is the first stage of human development. It is a stage, no different than the fetus stage, baby stage, child stage, adult stage, old age stage, etc.

As a living human being it has one right that all humans have and trumps all other rights. The right to live. The only time this right can be denied is to save the life of the mother. If the pregnancy is seriously endangering the life of the mother, of course it should then be her choice to either abort or try to save the baby. I would not harbor any ill will to a woman who aborted to save her own life. But abortion as a form of birth control, or because you are scared of trying to raise a child is murder. And like any other form of murder, should be illegal.

And no, a hair cut is not mass murder because a cut hair can not replicate and grow into a human being. Much less a human being with its own unique genetic code. Hair and skin and whatever other kinds of cells are human cells, but they are NOT a human. This is just a strawman argument.

Yes, DNA makes us human. if we could change your DNA, even by 1.2%, you would not be human anymore, you might be a chimpanzee. If you do a genetic test on a fertilized egg, you would find it to have human DNA. This DNA is unique to that person and is NOT a part of the mother.

This is science. If you want to know what species a cell came from, you do a DNA test. Humanity is a species.

Saying that a fertilized egg isn't human until it can think or feel is not science. It is speculation and opinion at best. If it wasn't human before, then what species was it?

And what is it about thoughts and feeling? Nearly every animal on the planet has those, it is not unique to humans.

And when I asked if a grown person who is not self aware, or has no physical sensations, is human, the answer I got was "Of course, they are already born"

So being born is the line now? Now before we are born we aren't human? So the partial birth abortion procedure is ok now even though you called it "The cruelest thing possible" or whatever you said.

And no partial birth abortions are not some half ***** late term abortion. They are done by professionals, in real clinics, and what I described is exactly what is supposed to happen. They are clean and professional. And yes they do belong in this debate because they are abortions.

I say a humanity starts when the mother and fathers DNA halves combine to form a separate, unique, DNA code. This is backed by science in the form of genetic testing.

You say humanity is somehow 'inferred' on a clump of cells as soon as those cells form the parts needed to feel stuff. This is based on opinion and arguably, your want for abortions to be legal. It seems you are trying to fit the evidence to your conclusions.

My arguments are not about potential. A fertilized egg IS a human being, NOT a potential human being. It is a potential child, or adult, or president, or ******, or what have you. But whatever its potential, it already IS a human.

And yes, there most certainly are laws against not feeding your children. Child endangerment laws. Just because they are YOUR resources does not mean you don't have to share them with your child. You are required by law to feed, house, and clothe your child. If a child becomes sick or dies because of your neglect, you can and probably will be arrested for murder1. If you can't care for your child properly, give it up for adoption or leave it at a police station or church. There are 'safe drop zones' recognized as places to leave a baby, no questions asked.

I would also like to point out that making abortion legal because "Women will just go to back ally clinics, do it themselves, blah blah blah," is complete lunacy. Why don't we make murder legal since people will do it anyway? Even with abortion being legal women still go to those ramshackle clinics, or drink noxious chemicals to try and abort.

And I am beginning to notice that NOBODY wants to answer my question about conjoined twins and that all of the pro-choice people are avoiding some of the other points I've made.

If you can't find an answer to the conjoined twins argument, then maybe you aren't as certain as you thought?

 

[snex]

As a living human being it has one right that all humans have and trumps all other rights. The right to live.

what makes you assume that there is any "right to live?" rights are granted by societies, and societies are made up of participating members. fetuses cannot participate in making a society, so if a society deems that fetuses have no rights, then they have no rights. since you claim to be an atheist, you cannot appeal to some higher standard that grants us rights. ideally, the rights granted by a society should benefit as many members as possible, participating or otherwise. however, when the comfort of the participating members conflicts with the comfort of the non-participating members, the participating members must take precedence. if you think otherwise, present an argument as to why.

Yes, DNA makes us human. if we could change your DNA, even by 1.2%, you would not be human anymore, you might be a chimpanzee. If you do a genetic test on a fertilized egg, you would find it to have human DNA. This DNA is unique to that person and is NOT a part of the mother.

this is just silly. since you accept evolution and common descent, you are forced to admit that there is no such thing as "human DNA." there is simply no way to catalog a set of genomes and declare that anything outside of that set is not human. no matter how you draw that set, some member of it will necessarily be able to breed with some member outside of it.

I would also like to point out that making abortion legal because "Women will just go to back ally clinics, do it themselves, blah blah blah," is complete lunacy. Why don't we make murder legal since people will do it anyway? Even with abortion being legal women still go to those ramshackle clinics, or drink noxious chemicals to try and abort.

i dont think you can dispute the fact that society at large benefits from legal abortions. the statistics are pretty clear. you just seem to think that the right of a fetus to live should outweigh the rights of participating members of society to do what will make that society a more comfortable place for themselves. since rights are granted by societies, not deities, im not sure why you think this.

And I am beginning to notice that NOBODY wants to answer my question about conjoined twins and that all of the pro-choice people are avoiding some of the other points I've made.

even if one twin completely depends on the other, both are participating members of society. it also really makes no sense to declare that the set of shared organs belongs to one or the other. it belongs to both of them. if one twin had a fully functioning brain and the other twin were a writhing lump of flesh, i doubt anybody would object to excising it.

 

[Eor]

That sounds a lot like a Catholic standpoint, are you also against pre-marital sex? Because that seems like a good way to increase births.

Condoms aren't just for preventing conception, are you willing to allow the transmission of STDs over the unwanted conception of a child?

STDs are a risk people take when they have sex

 

[Peeze]

Hmm... I've also been really on the fence with this issue. I want to see if anyone can respond to this claim...

Essentially it's just that "a woman should have control over what happens in her body", with a bit of an explanatory analogy.

A woman certainly has control over what happens in her home (that she owns). She has the right to allow anyone into her house, and the right to kick anyone out. If a stranger came into her house one day, and she did not want the person there, she could rightly force the person to leave.

But what if the intruder for some reason needed to stay in the woman's house to live. Suppose it was very cold outside and the person was very old. Well, that doesn't matter. People can't just go barging into places, insisting that they need to stay there to live, and expect to force the woman to allow them to stay.

The woman still has ultimate control over what happens inside her home, and certainly what happens inside herself. Even if you do consider the developing child (at any developmental stage) to he "human", how can you justify forcing the woman to keep the unwanted person inside herself?

Yeah your not taking into consideration that the woman had sex, which means she opened her house up to strangers. It wasn't a closed house that the stranger just barged into(unless its ****). She put up a "roomate needed ad in the newspaper", by opening her legs to sex Now because the roommate is inconvenient, she has the right to evict him/her, without more reason than "inconvenience"?

 

[GhostAnime]

yes she does. why shouldn't she? it's her house still.

the reason's still irrelevant.

 

[RDK]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that procreation should be a given privelege, and not a right. This may sound a little communist to some, but in light of an insanely overpopulated earth, increasing poverty, an out-of-control birth rate and little to no practiced birth control, I think that there should be some sort of system, scientific or otherwise, that disables females from reproducing until a certain point, or until one is granted to do so.

It's the wanton indifference to society and to potential generations that is the real problem. Those who should practice birth control shouldn't, and it's come to the point where the annual birth rate far exceeds the annual death rate. The earth is getting crowded.

Because of this, children are born into poverty. Young teens are left to care for younger siblings in third world contries where they're lucky if they eat one meal a day. Children born out of wedlock are referred to as "little accidents". Potential children (fetuses) are aborted by the millions (whether or not you consider this wrong is obviously a matter of opinion).

Instead of people ignoring the possible harm they can bring by having rampant sex and producing a child, I think it should be a privelege--not a right; if only to reduce the sickeningly high birth rate today. I think taking China's system of only allowing each family 2 children is going a little far, but there needs to be an end to this problem, which would essentially (although not ultimately) end the abortion debate as well.

Edit: As for Alt's house analogy, I'd venture to side with Delorted on this one and say that it's the woman's responsibility to keep her "house" safe from strangers in the first place (or at least make sure that if a stranger "enters", a child won't be the product).

However, in cases of ****, I think abortion is excusable. However, my idea above would most likely eliminate the whole debate. I just wanted your guys' opinions on it and to get some feedback.

 

[marthanoob]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that procreation should be a given privelege, and not a right. This may sound a little communist to some, but in light of an insanely overpopulated earth, increasing poverty, an out-of-control birth rate and little to no practiced birth control, I think that there should be some sort of system, scientific or otherwise, that disables females from reproducing until a certain point, or until one is granted to do so.

It's the wanton indifference to society and to potential generations that is the real problem. Those who should practice birth control shouldn't, and it's come to the point where the annual birth rate far exceeds the annual death rate. The earth is getting crowded.

Because of this, children are born into poverty. Young teens are left to care for younger siblings in third world contries where they're lucky if they eat one meal a day. Children born out of wedlock are referred to as "little accidents". Potential children (fetuses) are aborted by the millions (whether or not you consider this wrong is obviously a matter of opinion).

Instead of people ignoring the possible harm they can bring by having rampant sex and producing a child, I think it should be a privelege--not a right; if only to reduce the sickeningly high birth rate today. I think taking China's system of only allowing each family 2 children is going a little far, but there needs to be an end to this problem, which would essentially (although not ultimately) end the abortion debate as well.

The United States would never accept such a restrictive law unless it slapped them in the face.

As you said, overpopulation is a limiting factor which humanity is already facing. To make it a priviledge to bear children, it would be the safer, and more risk-free option.
I think the best option would be to allow it to run its course. Chaos would be rampant, true, but it would balance out eventually as Malthus' work shows.

 

[Kur]

what makes you assume that there is any "right to live?" rights are granted by societies, and societies are made up of participating members. fetuses cannot participate in making a society, so if a society deems that fetuses have no rights, then they have no rights. since you claim to be an atheist, you cannot appeal to some higher standard that grants us rights. ideally, the rights granted by a society should benefit as many members as possible, participating or otherwise. however, when the comfort of the participating members conflicts with the comfort of the non-participating members, the participating members must take precedence. if you think otherwise, present an argument as to why.

Yes, rights are granted by societies. Who cares? It is still the most important right that any human has. And who said I was appealing to a 'higher standard that grants us rights'? I simply said that all humans have the right to live.

So only participating members of society get to have rights now? How does a person in a coma, or an infant, or some guy living completely off the land in the wilderness, participate in society?

The thing about rights is that EVERYBODY has them. You don't get to take somebodies rights away just so you can justify violating those rights.

So either ALL humans have the right to live, or none of them do.

this is just silly. since you accept evolution and common descent, you are forced to admit that there is no such thing as "human DNA." there is simply no way to catalog a set of genomes and declare that anything outside of that set is not human. no matter how you draw that set, some member of it will necessarily be able to breed with some member outside of it.

I am forced to admit there is no human DNA? Since when? And yes, there certainly is a way to catalog a set of human genomes and declare anything outside of it is not human, and they can do that because ALL humans are 99.999% genetic matches to each other. There is no other species that can breed with humans.

And even if there was another species that could breed with humans, so what? Tigers and lions can breed yet any geneticist could tell their DNA apart.

A fertilized human egg, has its very own unique HUMAN DNA. It is genetically, a separate human than its mother.

i dont think you can dispute the fact that society at large benefits from legal abortions. the statistics are pretty clear. you just seem to think that the right of a fetus to live should outweigh the rights of participating members of society to do what will make that society a more comfortable place for themselves. since rights are granted by societies, not deities, im not sure why you think this.

Yes, I can dispute that 'fact'. Abortion is legal murder. What could be worse for a society than legal murder? And when you say things like "you just seem to think that the right of a fetus to live should outweigh the rights of participating members of society to do what will make that society a more comfortable place for themselves" you are basically saying that you think rights should be granted by age. That if it makes an older person 'more comfortable' they should be able to legally kill a younger person.

And I don't understand why you are bringing deities into this, I certainly have not. I never once made a statement concerning the origins of 'rights' I only said that there is a right, above all others, that every living human being has. Whether that right is granted by societies, gods, aliens, or carebears, makes no difference.

Since society has granted the right to live to 'every human being' and I have demonstrated through genetic evidence that fetuses ARE living human beings, one can only conclude that fetuses have the right to live.

even if one twin completely depends on the other, both are participating members of society. it also really makes no sense to declare that the set of shared organs belongs to one or the other. it belongs to both of them. if one twin had a fully functioning brain and the other twin were a writhing lump of flesh, i doubt anybody would object to excising it.

Again, rights are not granted by your ability to participate in society. They are intrinsic to simply being human.

And yes, you can declare that certain organs belong to one twin or the other. It is done all the time.

And you know I am not talking about a brainless lump of flesh.

I will give a specific example then.

A set of conjoined twins, joined at the forehead. One is normal size, shape and physical conditioning. The other is stunted, roughly 1/2 the size of its twin, can not walk, and must be carried by the other twin, or pushed around on a cart. Both are perfectly healthy, both physically and mentally.

The smaller twin relies completely on the other twin to survive.

The stunted twins brain partially intrudes into the larger twins skull, making separation 100% lethal for the smaller twin, but almost risk free for the other.

Should the larger twin, without the consent of the smaller twin, be able to have the smaller twin 'removed' from him/her on the grounds that it would make his/her life much easier, or more comfortable?

Or what if the twins were joined at the back and one clearly did not have a heart capable of supplying enough blood to support its own body? The one twin relies completely on the other twins heart to survive.

Or a set of twins joined chest to chest, where one twin has no lungs in its own body. It can't talk or breath but is very much alive and knows sign language.

In any of these cases, should one twin have the right to have the other removed from its body to better their own life? In all cases the other twin relies on them completely for survival.

...but in light of an insanely overpopulated earth...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Yes, rights are granted by societies. Who cares? It is still the most important right that any human has. And who said I was appealing to a 'higher standard that grants us rights'? I simply said that all humans have the right to live.

Right, and that's the problem. You're content to just simply accept that "all humans have the right to live" without asking WHY that is a legitimate standard. Rights are granted by societies because it is in their perceived best interest to do so, which implies that participation in society is the defining standard by which rights are granted.

So only participating members of society get to have rights now? How does a person in a coma, or an infant, or some guy living completely off the land in the wilderness, participate in society?

This is more a question of what constitutes "participation in society," which is a somewhat open question. None of this affects the actual argument of whether the "human" or "participation in society" standards should apply.

I am forced to admit there is no human DNA? Since when? And yes, there certainly is a way to catalog a set of human genomes and declare anything outside of it is not human, and they can do that because ALL humans are 99.999% genetic matches to each other. There is no other species that can breed with humans.

And even if there was another species that could breed with humans, so what? Tigers and lions can breed yet any geneticist could tell their DNA apart.

So you wouldn't grant them rights, even if they could participate in society? If you WOULD, then you're forced to admit that "being human" is NOT the standard. If you WOULDN'T, then your standard is no less arbitrary than someone who would only grant rights to white people. The whole point is that "being human" (like being "white" or "black") is a rather poor and arbitrary (and theoretically not really even well-defined) standard. Participation in society is an actually practical standard. It only SEEMS that "being human" is a legitimate standard compared to "being white" because it coincides much more closely to the standard of participating in society.

Yes, I can dispute that 'fact'. Abortion is legal murder. What could be worse for a society than legal murder? And when you say things like "you just seem to think that the right of a fetus to live should outweigh the rights of participating members of society to do what will make that society a more comfortable place for themselves" you are basically saying that you think rights should be granted by age. That if it makes an older person 'more comfortable' they should be able to legally kill a younger person.

What? You're just SAYING "it's murder." It can only BE murder if rights are violated. So you've haven't actually said anything. You've just plainly DECLARED it is a rights violation when the whole point of this discussion is to ascertain whether "the right to life of a zygote" is a legitimate right or not.

Again, rights are not granted by your ability to participate in society. They are intrinsic to simply being human.

If you accept that rights do not come from some natural source, and are constructs invented by society for PRACTICAL purposes, you necessarily accept that they are granted strictly for PRACTICAL reasons. There is nothing ostensibly special about "being human," whereas participation in society is very plainly a practical standard.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I don’t understand why this is a question. When two people have unprotected sex they know there is a chance to conceive a child, if you know this, and have sex anyways, then get pregnant you’ve already given up your rights to abortion, no one should have the ability to kill someone for no reason, other then their own ignorance.

The only exception to this would be if a woman was ***** and then got pregnant, and then it comes down to which opinion and life is worth more, the mother or the unborn child?

Btw I fail to see why “participation in society” has anything to do with the value of life, this just seems hateful and bias. What ever happened to the simple rights of being alive?

 

[Eor]

I don’t understand why this is a question. When two people have unprotected sex they know there is a chance to conceive a child, if you know this, and have sex anyways, then get pregnant you’ve already given up your rights to abortion, no one should have the ability to kill someone for no reason, other then their own ignorance.

The only exception to this would be if a woman was ***** and then got pregnant, and then it comes down to which opinion and life is worth more, the mother or the unborn child?

Btw I fail to see why “participation in society” has anything to do with the value of life, this just seems hateful and bias. What ever happened to the simple rights of being alive?

Everyone seems to think that it's some fact that fertilization is immediately life. I more just watch abortion debates then post, but honestly, I don't think it is life yet. Yes, abortion would stop life from being created, like a condom or the pill, or any form of birth control. Until I see an argument I agree with that make me think that abortion is actually murder, then I'll become pro-life, but until then I don't think it's any more immoral then a condom or pulling out.

 

[Deleted member]

Until I see an argument I agree with that make me think that abortion is actually murder, then I'll become pro-life, but until then I don't think it's any more immoral then a condom or pulling out.

Do a google image search for "abortion", yeah have fun with that

 

[GhostAnime]

Do a google image search for "abortion", yeah have fun with that

i'm at lost on what this is supposed to prove.

 

[Deleted member]

Did you turn safe search off?

 

[Kur]

Right, and that's the problem. You're content to just simply accept that "all humans have the right to live" without asking WHY that is a legitimate standard. Rights are granted by societies because it is in their perceived best interest to do so, which implies that participation in society is the defining standard by which rights are granted.

I am content saying it because it is true. The fact that it is true is enough. If all humans do not have the right to live, why don't you kill the next person who annoys you? And knowing that societies grant rights in no way implies that you have to be a 'participating' member of society to get rights.

This is more a question of what constitutes "participation in society," which is a somewhat open question. None of this affects the actual argument of whether the "human" or "participation in society" standards should apply.

Well yes it does. If only participating members of society get rights, then 'Wilderness Jack' living completely off the land in the middle of the woods doesn't have any rights? If you can't even define what 'participation in society' is, then how can you claim that one person or another does not get rights?

The fact is that society has granted the right to live to everybody basically means it does not matter if they participate in society or not.

So you wouldn't grant them rights, even if they could participate in society? If you WOULD, then you're forced to admit that "being human" is NOT the standard. If you WOULDN'T, then your standard is no less arbitrary than someone who would only grant rights to white people. The whole point is that "being human" (like being "white" or "black") is a rather poor and arbitrary (and theoretically not really even well-defined) standard. Participation in society is an actually practical standard. It only SEEMS that "being human" is a legitimate standard compared to "being white" because it coincides much more closely to the standard of participating in society.

Grant who rights? Some mythological quasi-human species? This is a purely hypothetical question which has no bearing on the issue. Boiled down, you are asking me if we should grant rights to other species if they are 'really, really closely related to us'.

The reason this does not matter is because a fertilized egg is not just 'closely related to us' it IS a human being. Homo sapiens sapiens. And as such it gets the same rights as any other human.

And 'being human' is neither a poor nor arbitrary standard. It certainly is a well defined standard. Geneticists can correctly identify what species a sample of skin, blood, hair, or basically any tissue, came from. Humans are a separate species from other species. It is easily and irrefutably determined.

And participation in society is not a practical standard as you have pointed out yourself, it is highly open to interpretation what even constitutes participation.

What? You're just SAYING "it's murder." It can only BE murder if rights are violated. So you've haven't actually said anything. You've just plainly DECLARED it is a rights violation when the whole point of this discussion is to ascertain whether "the right to life of a zygote" is a legitimate right or not.

Yes, as a person that believes abortion is wrong, I see it as legal murder. I have shown that a fertilized human egg is genetically a living human being and ending that beings life is no different than intentionally killing any other person. So, if I am right, abortion IS legal murder. I have spent this whole thread explaining my position. I have used purely scientific evidence, and shown that a fertilized egg is simply the first stage in the life of a human being. The pro-choice people have come in and shown nothing concrete, only guesses at what they think a human life is. Not only that, but you are now denying that humans have the right to live in order to defend your positions.

If you accept that rights do not come from some natural source, and are constructs invented by society for PRACTICAL purposes, you necessarily accept that they are granted strictly for PRACTICAL reasons. There is nothing ostensibly special about "being human," whereas participation in society is very plainly a practical standard.

Again with this. Some dogs participate in society much more than certain people. Do those dogs have more rights? Or do dogs in general have the same rights as human because they participate in society? What about other service animals?

Rights are not granted for purely practical purposes. It would be much more practical to simply kill anybody who didn't completely agree with you and squash any and all resistance whenever it shows up. Of course practicality does play a role, but it is not the only determining factor.

And yes, there is something special about being human, to other humans anyway. You would not value a random animals life over a human life because you are human. Humans have respect for human life. It is not that we are any better than any other species, or deserve more, we simply identify with each other.

Everyone seems to think that it's some fact that fertilization is immediately life. I more just watch abortion debates then post, but honestly, I don't think it is life yet. Yes, abortion would stop life from being created, like a condom or the pill, or any form of birth control. Until I see an argument I agree with that make me think that abortion is actually murder, then I'll become pro-life, but until then I don't think it's any more immoral then a condom or pulling out.

How is fertilization not life? When else would a life begin? Consciousness is not required for life. Physical or mental feeling is not required for life. A fertilized egg has a complete set of its own DNA, it is a separate human from either of its parents. It is alive. It is human.

There is no scientific evidence to show that life begins at 12 weeks, 5 months, or anywhere other than fertilization.

A condom, or other birth control (pulling out is no where near effective enough to be 'birth control') never allows the sperm to contact the egg, therefor never creating a life.

Abortion on the other hand kills a human life. It isn't about preventing a life, it ends a life.





A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a human life. After that it is an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior.

The first stage of humanity is still human. It isn't anything other than a living human.

 

[arrowhead]

if you define life as anything as advanced as a cell, then life doesn't have a very strong meaning. until the life form has the mental capacity to feel emotion, i have no sympathy for it. why should i? he wouldn't even have sympathy for himself.

 

[snex]

Yes, rights are granted by societies. Who cares? It is still the most important right that any human has. And who said I was appealing to a 'higher standard that grants us rights'? I simply said that all humans have the right to live.

but all humans do not have the right to live. many states have the death penalty. all states allow for pulling the plug on vegetative states. all states allow abortion. so where are you getting the idea that all humans have the right to live? if you agree that rights are granted by societies, then claiming that humans have a right to something that society says they dont have is just a falsehood.

So only participating members of society get to have rights now? How does a person in a coma, or an infant, or some guy living completely off the land in the wilderness, participate in society?

i didnt say only participating members get to have rights. i said participating members *decide* on what rights exist and who gets them. i also said that *ideally* non-participating members would get the same rights that participating members get. but what happens when there is a conflict? the participating members must take precedence in such cases.

The thing about rights is that EVERYBODY has them. You don't get to take somebodies rights away just so you can justify violating those rights.

well sure we do. societies grant rights, remember?

I am forced to admit there is no human DNA? Since when? And yes, there certainly is a way to catalog a set of human genomes and declare anything outside of it is not human, and they can do that because ALL humans are 99.999% genetic matches to each other. There is no other species that can breed with humans.

that there is no other species that can breed with humans is pure coincidence. if australopithicenes didnt go extinct, you would have exactly that. you absolutely *cannot* make a catalog of all human genomes for the reason i already stated. any catalog you make will necessarily exclude organisms that can breed with ones that are in the set.

And even if there was another species that could breed with humans, so what? Tigers and lions can breed yet any geneticist could tell their DNA apart.

geneticists can look for markers that, so far, have been unique to one or the other. and the same is true for humans. but that is not to say that humans who lack those markers cannot exist. how would you deal with such a person? would they not deserve rights simply because they lack some specific genetic marker that has been declared "uniquely human?"

A fertilized human egg, has its very own unique HUMAN DNA. It is genetically, a separate human than its mother.

if it has its own *unique* DNA then how can you say its human? how can you define "human DNA" in a way that includes all humans but excludes all non-humans?

Yes, I can dispute that 'fact'. Abortion is legal murder. What could be worse for a society than legal murder? And when you say things like "you just seem to think that the right of a fetus to live should outweigh the rights of participating members of society to do what will make that society a more comfortable place for themselves" you are basically saying that you think rights should be granted by age. That if it makes an older person 'more comfortable' they should be able to legally kill a younger person.

there is no such thing as "legal murder." dont try to play emotional games here. abortion is "legal killing." and there are plenty things that can be worse for society than the legal killing of certain individuals. we allow the killing of certain criminals to deter crimes like theirs. we allow the killing of unborn fetuses to negate the problem of unwanted children who are likely to grow up to be criminals.

my assertion has nothing to do with age, it has to do with participation. i already explained this.

And I don't understand why you are bringing deities into this, I certainly have not. I never once made a statement concerning the origins of 'rights' I only said that there is a right, above all others, that every living human being has. Whether that right is granted by societies, gods, aliens, or carebears, makes no difference.

it absolutely does make a difference. the society in which you live says abortion is ok. on what grounds can you dispute this if you agree that societies grant rights? you have no grounds whatsoever. you are acting like a dictator who calls for a democratic election but then calls the election invalid if the people vote for anybody but him.

Since society has granted the right to live to 'every human being' and I have demonstrated through genetic evidence that fetuses ARE living human beings, one can only conclude that fetuses have the right to live.

society has not granted that right, nor have you demonstrated that fetuses are "human beings."

Again, rights are not granted by your ability to participate in society. They are intrinsic to simply being human.

who says?

And yes, you can declare that certain organs belong to one twin or the other. It is done all the time.

um, no it isnt.

A set of conjoined twins, joined at the forehead. One is normal size, shape and physical conditioning. The other is stunted, roughly 1/2 the size of its twin, can not walk, and must be carried by the other twin, or pushed around on a cart. Both are perfectly healthy, both physically and mentally.

The smaller twin relies completely on the other twin to survive.

The stunted twins brain partially intrudes into the larger twins skull, making separation 100% lethal for the smaller twin, but almost risk free for the other.

Should the larger twin, without the consent of the smaller twin, be able to have the smaller twin 'removed' from him/her on the grounds that it would make his/her life much easier, or more comfortable?

neither twin can be said to "own" the shared brain. they both share it.

Or what if the twins were joined at the back and one clearly did not have a heart capable of supplying enough blood to support its own body? The one twin relies completely on the other twins heart to survive.

Or a set of twins joined chest to chest, where one twin has no lungs in its own body. It can't talk or breath but is very much alive and knows sign language.

in both cases, both twins share the organs in question. neither one can be said to own them at the exclusion of the other.

In any of these cases, should one twin have the right to have the other removed from its body to better their own life? In all cases the other twin relies on them completely for survival.

in both cases, BOTH twins need the organs to survive. i dont think you have thought this through too well.

 

[blazedaces]

Every single cell has enough DNA to clone/create a human being (and so do haploid cells, look up how cloning was first done on animals). Therefore, by your definition Kur, we are all killing human beings every time a cell is destroyed (taking a shower, cutting your nails, masturbating, etc.).

Congratulations everyone, abortion, along with half your daily activities is "legal murder" according to Kur. I'm so glad we reached a concrete conclusion on this issue.

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

Well I have to say I am not seeing what grants humans the right to live if one is to say that all humans have the right to live. To simply state that we as humans have the right to live is a statement with no evidence.

And by the way, the reason I dont kill people who annoy me is for several reasons. Chief among them is that I will probably be put in prison for murder and thats not something that I want to happen. I also dont want to kill another person because I dont think it does anything for me in the long run, I mean to save my own life sure, but there are no rights to live involved in my conclusions here. The reason I dont kill people isnt because I feel they have a right to live. We evolved into a creature that relies on others of its species in order to survive and increase our chances to reproduce, to kill a member of our own society would likely hurt our own chance to survive and reproduce. This is something you can observe in almost any social animal. Wolves wont kill a member of their pack, but they will kill a member of another pack, or they might accept them into their own pack. People are similar, rarely do we kill members of our own society, but we can wage war against another country and MURDER people of another society.

So if not from society, where do we as humans obtain this right to live? How can this right to live even be upheld if we dont have a society to do it?

I feel that a right cannot exist without an entity willing to uphold it.

Furthermore I fail to understand how possessing a specific set of DNA imparts on an organism ANY rights at all. Just because I am made of different chemicals than an orangutan or an amoeba I somehow have more of a right to live? What gives a single molecule the ability to impart rights on an organism?

 

[snex]

I am content saying it because it is true. The fact that it is true is enough. If all humans do not have the right to live, why don't you kill the next person who annoys you? And knowing that societies grant rights in no way implies that you have to be a 'participating' member of society to get rights.

your question is a non-sequitur. the fact that not all humans have the right to live says nothing at all about whether or not the next person that annoys you has a right to live.

Well yes it does. If only participating members of society get rights, then 'Wilderness Jack' living completely off the land in the middle of the woods doesn't have any rights? If you can't even define what 'participation in society' is, then how can you claim that one person or another does not get rights?

nobody ever said that only participating members get rights. you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said. i said that participating members define rights and decide who gets them.

The fact is that society has granted the right to live to everybody basically means it does not matter if they participate in society or not.

society has not granted this right.

Grant who rights? Some mythological quasi-human species? This is a purely hypothetical question which has no bearing on the issue. Boiled down, you are asking me if we should grant rights to other species if they are 'really, really closely related to us'.

the question very much does bear on the issue. human evolution has not stopped. new mutations spring up all the time.

The reason this does not matter is because a fertilized egg is not just 'closely related to us' it IS a human being. Homo sapiens sapiens. And as such it gets the same rights as any other human.

how do you define "human DNA?" any set of DNA you make necessarily excludes organisms that can breed with members of the set.

And 'being human' is neither a poor nor arbitrary standard. It certainly is a well defined standard. Geneticists can correctly identify what species a sample of skin, blood, hair, or basically any tissue, came from. Humans are a separate species from other species. It is easily and irrefutably determined.

the only reason geneticists can do this is because of extinctions. if every species that ever lived still existed then there would be no genetic way to tell one from the other.

Yes, as a person that believes abortion is wrong, I see it as legal murder. I have shown that a fertilized human egg is genetically a living human being and ending that beings life is no different than intentionally killing any other person. So, if I am right, abortion IS legal murder. I have spent this whole thread explaining my position. I have used purely scientific evidence, and shown that a fertilized egg is simply the first stage in the life of a human being. The pro-choice people have come in and shown nothing concrete, only guesses at what they think a human life is. Not only that, but you are now denying that humans have the right to live in order to defend your positions.

your opinion that something is wrong is entirely irrelevant. "murder" is a legal term and it is rigorously defined. using any other unspecified definition is willful distortion.

Again with this. Some dogs participate in society much more than certain people. Do those dogs have more rights? Or do dogs in general have the same rights as human because they participate in society? What about other service animals?

in fact, dogs DO have more rights than certain people! some states execute people found guilty of certain crimes, whereas those same states will jail a person for abusing a dog.

Rights are not granted for purely practical purposes. It would be much more practical to simply kill anybody who didn't completely agree with you and squash any and all resistance whenever it shows up. Of course practicality does play a role, but it is not the only determining factor.

killing anybody who doesnt completely agree with you is hardly practical. it would require resources that no individual human even has, or can have. and it would necessarily force you to sacrifice the useful things that other people do for you - like building your computer. very unpractical if you ask me.

And yes, there is something special about being human, to other humans anyway. You would not value a random animals life over a human life because you are human. Humans have respect for human life. It is not that we are any better than any other species, or deserve more, we simply identify with each other.

the same can be said about white people. you would not value a random black person's life over a white person's life because you are white. white people have respect for white life. its not that we are better than blacks, or deserve more than them, we simply identify with each other as whites.

How is fertilization not life? When else would a life begin? Consciousness is not required for life. Physical or mental feeling is not required for life. A fertilized egg has a complete set of its own DNA, it is a separate human from either of its parents. It is alive. It is human.

you are guilty of equivocation here. nobody disputes the fact that it is life. we dispute the fact that it is a person.

There is no scientific evidence to show that life begins at 12 weeks, 5 months, or anywhere other than fertilization.

the definition of "person" has nothing to do with science. science can inform when certain criteria are met, but the decision to pick a set of those criteria is not amenable to science. it is the opinion of society at large.

A condom, or other birth control (pulling out is no where near effective enough to be 'birth control') never allows the sperm to contact the egg, therefor never creating a life.

Abortion on the other hand kills a human life. It isn't about preventing a life, it ends a life.

sperm and eggs ARE life. they are living things.

The first stage of humanity is still human. It isn't anything other than a living human.

says who? not society. and society grants rights, remember?

 

[blazedaces]

Kur, I don't believe you have once put a source showing we have the so-called "right to live". I know ethical theories that claim thus, but you have yet to support any of your beliefs with them.

Stop just claiming things to be true. They aren't true because you said so.

-blazed

 

[snex]

Kur, I don't believe you have once put a source showing we have the so-called "right to live". I know ethical theories that claim thus, but you have yet to support any of your beliefs with them.

Stop just claiming things to be true. They aren't true because you said so.

-blazed

the US constitution never spells out any such right. the only document that does is the declaration of independence, but that is not considered a legal document. laws are not derived from it. besides that, it states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

since kur accepts that rights do NOT derive from a creator, he cannot use the rest of the document to try to claim that said rights exist anyway.

the constitution itself says this: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

in other words, the reasons that rights exist are given. they exist to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

given that abortion demonstrably lowers crime rates, id say that it "promotes the general welfare."

 

[RDK]

Everyone seems to think that it's some fact that fertilization is immediately life. I more just watch abortion debates then post, but honestly, I don't think it is life yet. Yes, abortion would stop life from being created, like a condom or the pill, or any form of birth control. Until I see an argument I agree with that make me think that abortion is actually murder, then I'll become pro-life, but until then I don't think it's any more immoral then a condom or pulling out.

if you define life as anything as advanced as a cell, then life doesn't have a very strong meaning. until the life form has the mental capacity to feel emotion, i have no sympathy for it. why should i? he wouldn't even have sympathy for himself.

I would tend to agree with this more than anything else that's been said. You would think a being would need to be at least sentient first before you call it murder. People don't call you a murderer when you cut your lawn or you step on a bug.

 

[Eor]

Do a google image search for "abortion", yeah have fun with that

So I guess if I stab a marzipan baby I'm killing a human, right? Really, if you meant that as an argument then that's the stupidest thing I've heard you say.

How is fertilization not life? When else would a life begin? Consciousness is not required for life. Physical or mental feeling is not required for life. A fertilized egg has a complete set of its own DNA, it is a separate human from either of its parents. It is alive. It is human.

There is no scientific evidence to show that life begins at 12 weeks, 5 months, or anywhere other than fertilization.

A condom, or other birth control (pulling out is no where near effective enough to be 'birth control') never allows the sperm to contact the egg, therefor never creating a life.

Abortion on the other hand kills a human life. It isn't about preventing a life, it ends a life.

A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a human life. After that it is an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior.

The first stage of humanity is still human. It isn't anything other than a living human.

Claims claims claims claims claims claims claims. Show evidence that isn't "because it is". Wheres the actual science links?

 

[RDK]

How is fertilization not life? When else would a life begin? Consciousness is not required for life. Physical or mental feeling is not required for life. A fertilized egg has a complete set of its own DNA, it is a separate human from either of its parents. It is alive. It is human.

There is no scientific evidence to show that life begins at 12 weeks, 5 months, or anywhere other than fertilization.

A condom, or other birth control (pulling out is no where near effective enough to be 'birth control') never allows the sperm to contact the egg, therefor never creating a life.

Abortion on the other hand kills a human life. It isn't about preventing a life, it ends a life.


A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a human life. After that it is an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior.

The first stage of humanity is still human. It isn't anything other than a living human.

I also wanted to point out that your definition of "human" is also ridiculous. Human life does not imply that it's sacred. Every cell in my body is alive, and it's also human. Does that mean that by scratching an itch on my arm means I'm committing murder?

The cells involved in procreation are merely life; not sentient or conscious life. Conception is just a point in the continued process of life. It's not until the baby actually becomes sentient that the problem arises whether or not it has a right to live.

 

[Deleted member]

So I guess if I stab a marzipan baby I'm killing a human, right? Really, if you meant that as an argument then that's the stupidest thing I've heard you say.

I don't really understand what you're saying

 

[blazedaces]

Delorted, let me make this really clear without insulting you: appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. The way images make us feel is not a valid argument.

-blazed

 

[Eor]

I don't really understand what you're saying

That's a marzipan baby, some creepy person got a bunch of marzipan and created little children. I assumed what you meant by your post was that "it looks like a baby so it's a baby".

 

[snex]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/marzipan.asp

idiots.

 

[Kur]

Does that mean that by scratching an itch on my arm means I'm committing murder?

No, it just means that you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying. I have refuted this lame argument at least 5 times in this thread.

The cells involved in procreation are merely life; not sentient or conscious life. Conception is just a point in the continued process of life. It's not until the baby actually becomes sentient that the problem arises whether or not it has a right to live.

Exactly. It is life. Life does not require sentience or conscious. Where is YOUR evidence that consciousness is required for something to be alive?

Continuing process of life? Ok, george carlin is not a reliable source. Yes fine, life began 2.8 billion years ago, but YOUR life began when your parents genetic codes combined into yours. Your life had a beginning and it will have an end. You have the RIGHT to that life.

You guys say I am just making claims, but I haven't seen any evidence at all for what you are blithering on about.

At the very least, I have a genetic point at which a human being is formed. You have a guestimation on when consciousness might form and that maybe that might be when life starts?



And I can not believe you are asking me for proof of the human right to life. Fine, there is no right to life. We all are just here on the whim of everybody else. Murder is perfectly legal because it does not violate anybody elses rights. That is why murder is illegal you know that? Because it VIOLATES your right to live if somebody kills you. Stealing is illegal because it violates your right to own property. If there is no right to live, then why is murder illegal?

This is the most inane line of BS I have ever heard from anybody.

Whatever. This has become so absolutely ridiculous I can't stand it. There is such a sickening liberal, pro-choice, bias in here. Not one of you is willing to seriously discuss the issue, instead you say the stupidest things like "What evidence do you have for the human right to life?" or "you can't classify something as human anyway.."

The very fact that you are asking me for evidence of universal rights, and common knowledge facts, just shows that none of you know what the hell you are talking about. You took a stance on abortion based on your chosen social groups and didn't even think about it before you did so.

I can't take the stupidity in here any more. I tried to play nice and use logic and reason, and all I got in return was your GUESS or OPINION at what constitutes human life.

I swear if this was a debate class you would all have failed a long time ago.



the only reason geneticists can do this is because of extinctions. if every species that ever lived still existed then there would be no genetic way to tell one from the other. - snex

Winner of the stupidest thing I've ever heard award.


You ever play smash bros and try to pull off some super advanced trick on your opponent, only they don't fall for it because they are too noob? That is what this whole debate has been like for me. You are just too naive to get it.

 

[Deleted member]

That's a marzipan baby, some creepy person got a bunch of marzipan and created little children. I assumed what you meant by your post was that "it looks like a baby so it's a baby".

Yeah that's not what I'm saying. When you look at the pictures of abortions, you realize that there is more to it than being just a surgical procedure. There are inherent ethical issues when you see the result of what has happened. Suddenly, it makes it a whole lot more gruesome, and most importantly, real. I don't really understand why this isn't a proper argument.

Here's an example:

Can you recall back in history class when you first learned of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When you first saw the pictures of the victims? The a-bomb isn't just a piece of warfare. There is more to it than that. When you look at the victims and you see the horribly scarred Japanese with melted eye-sockets, you realize there's just something simply wrong about it. The amount of casualties wasn't the reason the world put a soft-ban on nuclear warfare. It was the ghastly moral implications behind the result.

I'm not saying that the a-bomb is directly comparable to abortion; I'm simply saying that sometimes you need to take a step back and really "see" what you're doing to make the right decision.


Edit: And what the hell is this BS about humans not having the right to life? Get that crap outta here pls.

 

[arrowhead]

kur, your points are all completely arbitrary. you create your own definition of human life and claim it is sacred no matter what. you don't think of practicality and you don't understand the posts aimed at you. it's more like when you try to pull off some super advanced trick on your opponent, only they don't fall for it because it's actually a horrible trick.

del, those images work because those are sentient beings you see suffering, not a large bundle of cells. and i'm not entirely convinced the images on google are completely real, although it doesn't really matter because i'm sure none of us are supporting abortion a month before the child is due to be born.

 

[derek.haines]

Legalized abortion has been proven not to raise or lower the number of abortions performed, it simply allows those seeking one to obtain it in a clinical setting by a licensed medical practitioner, rather than in a back alley by a guy with a coat hanger. People who want them will get them no matter what, and it's in their best interest to be able to obtain one legally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/12/study-even-when-illegal_n_68222.html

Please return to whatever you were discussing.