Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
So is conception. Hell, the entire concept of a "right" is highly questionable.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!
- Thread starter KrazyGlue
- Start date
The question of rights is not the question at hand. Humans have given themselves rights to life, which other humans must not violate. The abortion question is when this status is achieved.
And no it's not arbitrary. Let's make a distinction between being a human and having personhood. Being a human is simply being the organism. Having personhood is exhibiting capacities beyond those of animals (eg. rational thinking).
Apart from the fact that you assume personhood is necessary for the right to life, defining when personhood is achieved is arbitrary. It's not arbitrary when it becomes a unified organism that will develop personhood.
And no it's not arbitrary. Let's make a distinction between being a human and having personhood. Being a human is simply being the organism. Having personhood is exhibiting capacities beyond those of animals (eg. rational thinking).
Apart from the fact that you assume personhood is necessary for the right to life, defining when personhood is achieved is arbitrary. It's not arbitrary when it becomes a unified organism that will develop personhood.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Uh ... a fertilized egg by no means "will develop personhood". All kinds of things can happen to prevent that. By the same token I can say that sperm or egg "will develop personhood" provided that certain things happen.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
"Must"? Between wars, murders, and self-defense, I'd say that that must is right out the window, eh? Nobody is giving us rights. We take them for ourselves; survival of the fittest, if you will. Society can grant them to us, but let's be honest-at this point, we're not talking about rights. We're talking about privileges.
True. And? The entire system of humans granting themselves rights is arbitrary in and of itself! Both the rights granted and when they are given (i.e. we give them to humans; we could alternatively give them only to humans above a certain age). Added bonus point: humans not yet capable of self-awareness or rational thought (zygotes, fetuses, and babies) would not see the need or warrant for such rights.
First of all, this is an important point. There is simply no guarantee that a zygote will reach the status of "person", regardless of how low you set that barrier (as long as it's beyond "be as advanced as a zygote"). Miscarriages, abortions, infanticide, death of the mother, genetic defects, etc. It will reach that status given certain circumstances... and guess what: so will individual sperm cells. So not only are you killing millions of people every time you masturbate, your girlfriend is also killing a person every time she menstruates and a few million every time you have sex with her, even if pregnancy follows.
...
...Hmm, now I'm starting to understand why you'd be celibate.
I no longer commit any of those "murders" you speak of.
BPC- The rights versus privellages issue is not part of the abortion debate. The abortion debate assumes we have a right to life- it has no merit if we assume we don't, because then we could just kill who we want. Similarily, if we decide criminals should be imprisoned, the equivalent of the abortion debate would be deciding what makes someone a criminal. The question of whether criminals should be imprisoned or not is a related, yet different issue.
The "well it may not necessarily develop personhood point" is totally pointless because a born baby may never reach that stage either.
Similarily, we could just arbitrarily define adulthood is what earns an organism the right to life, and kill everyone before adulthood, on the grounds that they may not definitely reach adulthood.
Personhood isn't merely self-awareness. Animals have that, yet we don't attribute to them the right to life. So by the personhood argument,we should be able to kill born babies too. Personhood is exhibiting capacities beyond those of animals, which takes years in humans.
BPC- The rights versus privellages issue is not part of the abortion debate. The abortion debate assumes we have a right to life- it has no merit if we assume we don't, because then we could just kill who we want. Similarily, if we decide criminals should be imprisoned, the equivalent of the abortion debate would be deciding what makes someone a criminal. The question of whether criminals should be imprisoned or not is a related, yet different issue.
The "well it may not necessarily develop personhood point" is totally pointless because a born baby may never reach that stage either.
Similarily, we could just arbitrarily define adulthood is what earns an organism the right to life, and kill everyone before adulthood, on the grounds that they may not definitely reach adulthood.
Personhood isn't merely self-awareness. Animals have that, yet we don't attribute to them the right to life. So by the personhood argument,we should be able to kill born babies too. Personhood is exhibiting capacities beyond those of animals, which takes years in humans.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
<--- The face most girls who have only seen your bod and heard that about you will make. Also, might wanna check your prostate; not releasing after a while is bad for ya. ...I'm sorry, I just can't resist the urge to laugh. Celibacy in this day and age is a joke. It's a cultural holdout of the ridiculously conservative and those who value their absolutist morals above their physical and mental health. It's oh so fitting that you belong to that crowd. Someone get this man a darwin award or something.
Eh... not quite. It implies that babies/fetuses/zygotes have a right to life, and has no merit if we assume they don't. But that's not a clear-cut issue right now! I'm in fact arguing that not everyone deserves human privileges (yeah, that's the accurate term).
...One that, once resolved, has the potential to make further debate meaningless.
Ahem. What have I been saying over the last few pages?
Motive, beyond simply wanting to? I'll give you a little tip here-normally, people don't kill their kids. It was like this before we had laws officially banning it, and even then, only the deranged would go and murder their children. Sure, you can randomly state the extreme example ("If we follow darwinism it'll lead to mass murder and extinction" "if we allow birth control we'll die out because nobody will have babies any more" etc.), but without a reason to do so, it's pointless. All this allows for is infanticide in the situations where the person has not only made amends with their personal morality/faith/biological leash that would stop them from killing babies, but also has a damn good reason to do so, as it's really not an easy decision to make.
Actually, it's a rarity among animals. And I would certainly grant those animals who do present self-awareness such rights.
Again, I've been saying this for pages.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I think you should be able to sell your children to couples that want to adopt. That should be a pretty big incentive to not kill your children.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
...Case in point! Technically possible, but why bother 90% of the time? The other 10% of the time (****, incest, danger to the mother, just doesn't want to give birth), you're not killing a baby, you're going to be having an abortion. 
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
I'm assuming you're joking...? There's all sorts of complications that would arise from this.
Just because your cutoff isn't arbitrary doesn't make it the best cutoff. For example, the drinking age in America is 21, an arbitrary number. We could say "well, everyone who has been born can drink because that's not an arbitrary cutoff", but that wouldn't make it a good cutoff.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Such as? And why would they be bad?
AFAIK there are a lot of couples that want to adopt and not enough children ... offering money is a good solution for this. I could be wrong on this though.
AFAIK there are a lot of couples that want to adopt and not enough children ... offering money is a good solution for this. I could be wrong on this though.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Well, there would be lots of corruption in this system. For instance, couples reproducing just to sell the kids and get money. There would also eventually be problems with genetic elitism if a society implemented this system for long enough. Kids with athletic, good looking, successful, etc. genes become thought of as "more valuable" than children with less good genes. Not to mention that there's just a very bad stigma attached with buying and selling human beings...
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I don't see how those are negative things.
People who reproduce strictly for money will reproduce only until all the parents that want to adopt do adopt. There won't be much of a market after that. I don't see what's bad about that.
Eugenics might come into play, but I doubt it will be a big factor ... and it's not like suddenly all people are going to stop raising their own children, so there won't be a eugenics stigma attached. The vast, vast majority of babies born will still be raised by biological parents.
Also you are not literally buying/selling the children, you are buying/selling the right to raise them.
People who reproduce strictly for money will reproduce only until all the parents that want to adopt do adopt. There won't be much of a market after that. I don't see what's bad about that.
Eugenics might come into play, but I doubt it will be a big factor ... and it's not like suddenly all people are going to stop raising their own children, so there won't be a eugenics stigma attached. The vast, vast majority of babies born will still be raised by biological parents.
Also you are not literally buying/selling the children, you are buying/selling the right to raise them.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
The genetic elitism would come into play if there were too many babies and not enough buyers (high supply, low demand); babies not genetically superior enough to be bought become unwanted. Or parents compete to make their kids the least expensive to buy in order to get a deal. On the flipside, if there is low supply and high demand, people start cranking out kids for monetary profit. Then further problems arise when people make a kid in order to sell them, not intending to keep them, but end up being unable to sell them. Either way, problems arise. Doesn't it just seem strange to have this sort of exchange in the first place?
What's the difference?
ballin4life
Smash Hero
If there is high supply and low demand then people will have fewer babies for profit. The market will adjust.
If there is low supply and high demand, a FEW people will have children for profit. I don't see what the problem with this is. They make some money, and the adopters are happy to be able to adopt at all.
By the way, there already is "genetic elitism" (IIRC) and people "cranking for monetary profit" with sperm donation, but no one seems to complain much about that.
You don't own the child as a slave for life? That's basically all I was getting at. Buying and selling humans usually has a connotation of slavery, but that's not at all what's going on here.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
It's just unethical. Having babies for profit is a disgusting practice and shouldn't be able to happen at all.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here; do you have a source or something showing what you're talking about?
But the point is we'd be putting a monetary value on a human being. Like "this baby is worth X amount of dollars".
That's not the point. The point is that making your cutoff non-arbitrary doesn't make it right.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Stem cell research could really use a few fetuses, and I see absolutely no problem in women supplying those fetuses, provided they want to. Why is it so unethical?
Indeed; currently, that value is $0 AFAIK.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Stem cell research isn't unethical; when did I ever say that? Stem cells are often just taken from embryos. We're talking about humans that have been born here (unless I'm misunderstanding something).
I know you're just being cynical here, but humans are not worth $0, nor are they worth any amount of money. That's why they can't be bought or sold.
Yeah, like a masterball.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Because you say it is?
Let's go over the situation:
Biological parents: happy
Adopting parents: happy
Baby: happy to exist
What's the problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donationWikipedia said:
Insurance agencies do this all the time ... and they are actually putting a monetary value on things like keeping you alive. Selling adoption rights to a child is not putting a value on the child's life, it is putting a value on the right to raise the child (since, you know, once the child is old enough she can go do whatever she wants)
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
See, I'm not so sure that they'd be happy about not living with their biological family in all cases. I don't know why you assume they would.
That's different; that's a man enabling a woman to start a family that she normally couldn't, which is a far cry from trading a born human being to another family in exchange for money.
If you're talking about life insurance, that an entirely different thing; that's when one person wishes to support a loved one by ensuring that that person will receive money when the insurance holder dies. Which causes all sorts of complications as well (particularly murders for the money), but that's another can of worms.
I still don't understand what the difference is between "selling them" and "selling the rights to them". I'm not even talking about slavery, I'm talking about the fact that you are saying this baby (or the right to own this baby) is worth this much.
But "right to life" is not. In objective biological reality, life is not sacred--and never was.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I fail to see what the relevant difference is between sperm donation and adoption. Both of them are enabling people to have children - children that "biologically" aren't theirs.
I also don't see why there is something wrong with putting a value on the right to raise a child ... anyway my ONLY purpose for that distinction was to prevent it from sounding like slavery. Once again, we DO put a value on sperm donations ...
I also don't see why there is something wrong with putting a value on the right to raise a child ... anyway my ONLY purpose for that distinction was to prevent it from sounding like slavery. Once again, we DO put a value on sperm donations ...
Again, the question of whether there should be a right to life is a different debate. The abortion debate concerns the prescription of the right. Assuming we have good reason to prescribe such a right, it is logical to prescribe it when the life begins, which is non-arbitrary.
You can make a thread about the right to life if you're so keen on discussing it.
We've already been down that road many times, Dre.
This is no non-arbitrary point during development in the uterus when something becomes more "alive" than it was before. Any point is arbitrary and cannot be objectively or scientifically verified because sentient life and consciousness occurs on a gradient.
Life began 4 billion years ago. Everything alive now is a continuation of that origin. There is no specific point during development in the uterus (for any mammal or other living thing) when it becomes "alive." Our consciousness as we know it is the product of processes that occur at lower levels of organization. Our paradigms have failed to conceptualize this, probably because the mind is an emergent property that cannot contain itself within itself.
That's all nice and fancy, but the reality is when concerning the specific being of a human, it becomes a human at conception, when it becomes a single, unified organism.
So even if you say life began 4 billion years ago, and all it is energy just changing states, doesn't change the fact that certain states of engery, such as human beings, are considered more valuable than others.
So even if you say life began 4 billion years ago, and all it is energy just changing states, doesn't change the fact that certain states of engery, such as human beings, are considered more valuable than others.
I thought the issue here was about when "life" begins, not when something is "human."
"Considered more valuable" indicates subjective reasoning. The implication being that human beings are not valuable in objective reality; they are valuable if and when we decide that they are valuable.
My point is that you guys are bringing up points not valid to the abortion debate.
Whether anything is entitled to a right to life is not what's at question here, the abortion thread assumes the right to life should be prescribed to humans.
All this stuff about nature not having rights to life is meta-ethics, or perhaps ontology, not applied ethics, which is what abortion falls under.
Whether anything is entitled to a right to life is not what's at question here, the abortion thread assumes the right to life should be prescribed to humans.
All this stuff about nature not having rights to life is meta-ethics, or perhaps ontology, not applied ethics, which is what abortion falls under.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
"Not Valid"? Excuse me, but it's the only valid argument in the abortion debate! If you make both the assumption that a zygote is a living thing that either is or will become human, and that all human entities regardless of age, degree of self-comprehension, what have you have the right to life, then there is simply no debate.
You made a comment implying that life beginning at conception is "objective biological reality." My counter-point is that this is a false claim. That notion is, instead, an example of subjective reality. That, in itself, does not make it "wrong" or "right." I am just making the point that it is not "objective." The end.
We've already debated this topic, and in this instance I am making no further arguments whether for or against abortion.
No, it is an observation from the study of biology, evolution, and animal behavior. If you want to keep this topic free from that aspect, then don't mention biology, and keep it to strictly to ethics.
No, the only assumptions I made were that we're precribing the right to life to humans, and that conception is when it becomes a unified organism, the only type of organism that can develop into a mature human being. The latter assumption is a biological fact. The former assumption is necessary for an abortion debate. Prescribing the right when it becomes a unified organism was not a mere assumption, I justified it by saying it is the only non-arbitrary method of prescribing the right.
El Nino- How is it not an objective reality? It is the first point that whatever develops into a mature human is a unified, living organism. It's not down to the individual when it first becomes a unified living organism.
Applied ethics will always entail biology and medicine. Saying stuff like "there are no rights in nature" is meta-ethical. Yes it is concluded from observations in the natural sciences, but the philosophy that this equates to no one having the right to life in any circumstance is meta-ethical, because you are saying morality is non-existent. This principle does not apply exclusively to abortion, or other applied ethics practices, it encompasses all of morality.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
It is not clear at all that a fertilized egg will develop into a mature human.
Several things have to happen along the way. Obvious ones are no miscarriage and no abortion (lol obviously). Less obvious examples - the mother has to survive for several months before the baby can be born, and even the baby needs people to take care of it for years before it develops into a mature human.
Similarly, an unfertilized egg needs all of those things to happen, plus one more (fertilization). An unfertilized egg can certainly develop into a human, providing that the right things happen. It's still arbitrary to say that fertilization is THE step that makes it something that can develop into a human.
Several things have to happen along the way. Obvious ones are no miscarriage and no abortion (lol obviously). Less obvious examples - the mother has to survive for several months before the baby can be born, and even the baby needs people to take care of it for years before it develops into a mature human.
Similarly, an unfertilized egg needs all of those things to happen, plus one more (fertilization). An unfertilized egg can certainly develop into a human, providing that the right things happen. It's still arbitrary to say that fertilization is THE step that makes it something that can develop into a human.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Dingdingding! We have a winner. Also, fertilize that egg with the wrong thing and you just might get a result that isn't human. Have there ever been tests of crossbreeding humans with chimps or other genetically similar animals?
SuperBowser
Smash Lord
Pretty sure that is illegal. lol.
While it may be objective under the English language to define a fertilized egg as "human" I do not think this infers any further rules for how we should treat an egg. It's simply a definition game.
Imagine another culture that decides something is only human at 3 months from conception or when the first heart beat occurs. These may be rigorous definitions but, alone, they do not necessitate a need for provision of rights.
While it may be objective under the English language to define a fertilized egg as "human" I do not think this infers any further rules for how we should treat an egg. It's simply a definition game.
Imagine another culture that decides something is only human at 3 months from conception or when the first heart beat occurs. These may be rigorous definitions but, alone, they do not necessitate a need for provision of rights.
Like the replies above have said, in particular Superbowser's, the definition of what is "human" or "a human being" is subjective in nature. Biologically, having 46 chromosomes is what makes something human. However, I have never had my chromosomes counted (and most people here probably haven't either). Long before we knew what was going on inside our cells, we made the choice to call something human based solely on what we saw. Because we could not see the developing zygote, we would not have considered it human. But with changes in technology, we were able to figure out what was going on at the microscopic level. At that point, the definition of human changed.
In part because of those changes, I can't call it an objective reality. The definition of human is subjective.
No, I am saying that morality exists because people decide that it exists.
As an observation, it is a non-philosophy. It cannot be used to support or counter any point except when an appeal is made to "a higher power" as justification for holding a set of values above all others, or when a set of values is considered "objectively" better than another.
That is still a philosophy.
Saying there are various ideas of morality is an observation. Saying that morality only exists in peoples decisions is a philosophy, in fact it's called legal positivism. It has the meta ethical proposition that there is no objective morality.
Ballin4death- I know things may prevent the fetus from developing into a mature human, but those are mishaps.
And I'm not using a subjective definition of human. Conception is the point where it becomes the organism that will potentially develop into a mature human.
Saying there are various ideas of morality is an observation. Saying that morality only exists in peoples decisions is a philosophy, in fact it's called legal positivism. It has the meta ethical proposition that there is no objective morality.
Ballin4death- I know things may prevent the fetus from developing into a mature human, but those are mishaps.
And I'm not using a subjective definition of human. Conception is the point where it becomes the organism that will potentially develop into a mature human.
In the time before the emergence of human society (or humans in general) how do you conceptualize the existence of morality?
If you couldn't see what was going on inside the human body during reproduction, how would you define a human being?
ballin4life
Smash Hero
How do you define mishap? Why can't I say that it is a mishap for a given sperm to not make it to an egg?
So you don't think being blind is a malfunction.
The fetus is clearly structured to move towards maturity.
Seriously if you're going to deny that, then you'd have to deny things like humans being sexual creatures, and if you're going to do that I'm not going to bother debating with you.
The fetus is clearly structured to move towards maturity.
Seriously if you're going to deny that, then you'd have to deny things like humans being sexual creatures, and if you're going to do that I'm not going to bother debating with you.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Sperm are clearly structured to move towards eggs.
Alternatively, if the fetus were "clearly structured" to move towards maturity, then maybe it wouldn't need the mother to stay healthy, people to feed it, etc. It obviously needs a lot of help to actually reach maturity.
What do you mean by sexual creatures? I mean, humans do have sex to procreate (duh), but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
Alternatively, if the fetus were "clearly structured" to move towards maturity, then maybe it wouldn't need the mother to stay healthy, people to feed it, etc. It obviously needs a lot of help to actually reach maturity.
What do you mean by sexual creatures? I mean, humans do have sex to procreate (duh), but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.