Abortion Controversy

[Axeldeath]

Oh, I'm sure BTGbullseye was just kdding. By that standard, my man Bjossi was inciting mass suicide...

 

This is a very controversial topic. Heated arguments will ensue.

 

On a more serious note, if you want my opinion... well, I don't deal in absolutes. Absolutes breed Extremism, Extremism usually end up with a bunch of dead people.

 

I once saw a very graphic video of a sonogram of an abortion. The unborn ferus screamed as it was being ripped apart... I just can't forget those images.

 

I think EnviMea's original post is as good as it gets.

 

Yeah... um .... QuietGrave doesn't care whether or not your kidding.

[Michael Archer]

I agree, but Michael Archer should go first...

 

Hey.

 

Take that back.

 

This is the internet; keep it classy.

 

On a more serious note, if you want my opinion... well, I don't deal in absolutes. Absolutes breed Extremism, Extremism usually end up with a bunch of dead people.

 

J.C....you know that's a text-book example of the Golden Mean Fallacy?

 

Just sayin'...

[Axeldeath]

BTW Babies that have already been born do not have the ability to reason. Also they still rely on their parent.

I believe that's where your arguement falls short

[Michael Archer]

Axeldeath: You brought this up in the other thread. It's a good point, so I'll post the response for posterity:

 

By humans that have no capacity to reason, I assume you mean humans like children (their capacity to reason is limited), babies, and retarded humans. Keep in mind, babies and children and retarded humans do not have the same rights as adults, for this very reason.

 

We still give babies and children basic rights, because infancy and childhood are very important steps in developing a fully rational being i.e. you can't have a rational being without it first being a baby. Retarded humans have rights, because they are part of a species that is rational and under normal circumstances, they are rational. An animal will never be rational at any stage of its life under normal development.

 

Also, with the progression of medicine (which is being done through animal testing: that horrible procedure that is saving many lives that the "animal rights" people think is immoral) these retarded humans may become rational beings someday. I believe there are some drugs for learning disabilities already e.g. Ritalin.

[Axeldeath]

But being a fetus is a very important stage of human life as well, you can't have a rational being that has never been a fetus can you? Therefore that arguement for abortion is null.

BTW I think that you think your posting in the animal rights section.

[Michael Archer]

But being a fetus is a very important stage of human life as well, you can't have a rational being that has never been a fetus can you? Therefore that arguement for abortion is null.

 

True...but it's not null.

 

A baby exercising its right to life is not infringing on anyone else's right to life; a fetus doesn't have a right to life because to assume it had a right to life, you would have assume that it would have the right to live as a parasite. There is no right to enslave.

 

BTW I think that you think your posting in the animal rights section.

 

They're surprisingly similar topics.

[Axeldeath]

But a baby does live off it's mother like a " parasite " if you like to use words like that

[Michael Archer]

But a baby does live off it's mother like a " parasite " if you like to use words like that

 

"Parasite" implies that it takes everything for its own benefit and gives nothing in return; a fetus that is unwanted fits this definition.

 

A mother takes care of her baby, because she's want to; the baby gives nothing back, but the mother has decided to use her life to nurture an infant; because this is from her own volition, she keeps her right to life and the baby is not a parasite, since it's wanted.

 

If she didn't want to, she could get an abortion, or not claim guardianship when it's born i.e. put it up for adoption.

 

Axeldeath, you bring up some good points. I appreciate it.

[Axeldeath]

But then if a mother decides she doesn't want her baby it does become a parasite, therefore you say it has no rights and should be killed right?

[Geneaux486]

Yes it does. If you claim your right to food and education, you're claiming a right to monetary value. Because they're valuable, someone must pay for it. Because you say it's a "right", and the government's job is to protect rights, this mean that the government can seize money from people against their will to pay for it.

 

You're using an agent of force to obtain money from someone who does not want to give you money. How is that not slavery?

 

First off, you're basically describing taxes.

 

Secondly, claiming one's right to resources needed to survive is not slavery. In fact, it supports my earlier point about rights infringing on other rights.

 

You 're right: reason is not a perquisite for rights, rights are the prerequisite for reason i.e. reason can not exist without rights.

 

The woman has the right to life and property, the fetus does not. There is no such thing as a right to live as a parasite, although you seem to think there is since you said we have a "right" to education and food, so that does explain your stance on abortion.

 

There is a right to live for something that is alive and developing into a full grown human being. This is where we disagree.

 

Say it's a brutal winter and the person is an invalid. If you kick them out of your house, they would surely die. Despite this, they still stay only in your house by your permission which I say again, is not a right.

 

And from a moral standpoint that person has the right to stay alive. You are not legally obligated to take the person in, but from a moral standpoint, it would be wrong to condemn a person to death in that way when you are capable of sustaining them.

 

Rights extend to any being that has the capacity to reason; as I said before, reason cannot exist without rights. So, if we met an alien race who had the capacity of reason, they too would have rights.

 

Rights extend to a being that can reason, to be sure, but that is not where they stop. I believe that rights exist relative to the capacity of any given living thing, as I've said.

 

Rights are not relevant to life per se. Skin cells are life, but they have no rights. Are you saying that we should ascribe rights to a skin cell?

 

A skin cell will not develope into a human being on its own. That is where this comparison fails.

 

 

Semantics. A fetus is akin to an acorn in the sense that they're both potential, but not actual human beings/oak trees. Acorns are not dead until they're planted; they are very much alive before they are planted. Would you still call a group of acorns a forest?

 

 

It is absolutely not a matter of semantics. A fetus is not a potential life. It is a developing life. It already exists, it's already developing, it's already growing. It is not akin to an acorn that has not been planted. If you want to compare a stage of life to the acorn, it would be the sperm and the egg. Those two elements make up a potential life. At the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg it is not longer a potential life, but an existing, developing one.

 

We do not have the right to decide to kill the fetus, but whoever is housing it does.

 

 

And I disagree.

 

A developing human being =/= an actual human being i.e. killing an actual human being would involve initiating force, and is murder; killing a developing human being is not initiating force, since there is no right to exist as a parasite.

 

 

A developing human being is absolutely an actual human being. At no point does it transform from one thing to another, it is a slow growth process. The developing life has the right to survive, regardless of what stage of developement it is in.

 

If we claim our right to life, we don't violate any one else's rights. You cannot argue the right to life of a fetus without arguing its right to exist as a parasite against someone's will.

 

 

The fetus having to exist as parasite is an unfortunate necesity in the continuing existence of our species. Basic biological aspects of all human beings come with suffering that cannot be avoided.

 

If they think that a fetus' life can and should come at the expense of a real human's life, then they do not support life at all stages. Just because you say they do, doesn't mean they do.

 

The same applies to you. However, as you are trying to claim they have an alterior motive to the one they claim to have, burden of proof is on you. As I said, it is a difficult argument to make. Can try, of course, but success is limited.

 

How is that the same argument? Killing a human being involves initiating force and violating rights, killing a fetus does not since its right to life means right to live as a parasite.

 

And the parasitic stage is not something it can conciously avoid. It's a stage we all had to go through. As I said, this unavoidable stage in developement does not invalidate the developing human being's life.

 

Of course there are risks to abortion; that's why a pregnant woman must use the power of her reason to decide what is the best course of action for her own well-being: birth or abortion.

 

And I argue that though a pregnant woman has the right to many different methods of easing and assisting her during a pregancy, the option to end the life itself is not one of them, as it infringes on the developing person's right to life. The "parasitic" type of relationship does not end after birth. We continue to be a drain on the parents' time and resources. Even into adulthood, we still consume the world's limited resources. We are always a drain on something, and often we can't even give something back without consuming something else. Seeing as how there is no discernable difference between us when we were in the fetal stage and those who are in that stage now, and the fact that no matter what stage of life we are in, we are a drain on something, it does not hold that this invalidates the right of one life relative to all the others.

[J.C.]

 

On a more serious note, if you want my opinion... well, I don't deal in absolutes. Absolutes breed Extremism, Extremism usually end up with a bunch of dead people.

J.C....you know that's a text-book example of the Golden Mean Fallacy?

Just sayin'...

 

Perhaps As you said, this is a far from perfect world

 

Dealing in complete absolutes, however, is also a text-book example of another fallacy. Name it for rep points

[Michael Archer]

First off, you're basically describing taxes.

 

Yes...yes I am. Good observation!

 

In a perfect government, government property would be owned by public corporations (a corporation that traded on the stock market). The government will decide what happens to the property and how it's used, but the actual physical ownership of the property would belong to the corporations. Remember: in capitalism, all property is privately owned, even streets and government buildings! Do you have a better idea of who would own the property? The government can't own it, since the government is just representative of the people: "government owns x"="people owns x". "Public ownership" is an absolutely meaningless phrase perpetuated by the Marxists. If no one decides to make corporations or invest in corporations that hold government property, then we have no government. We need a government to exist peacefully as a society, so you should want to invest in the corporation; it is in your own self-interest.

 

If you cannot even conceive a world where this is possible, then the current statist governments has gotten so good at spreading the lie that taxes (i.e. legalized robbery) is the only way to fund a government.

 

Although, this part should probably moved to the Capitalism vs. Statism thread, but you mentioned this here, so I'll respond here.

 

In fact, the abortion thread, the animal "rights" thread (I refuse to not put quotations around "rights" when applying them to irrational animals) should be locked and all related conversations should be moved to the Capitalism vs. Statism thread; really, that's what all issues boil down to.

 

Secondly, claiming one's right to resources needed to survive is not slavery.

 

It would be slavery if the "resources" in question were produced, owned, and rightfully earned by another person. You would be exploiting their work for your own purposes while giving nothing in return, all against their will. How is that not slavery?

 

There is a right to live for something that is alive and developing into a full grown human being. This is where we disagree.

 

Ok, fine. Then let's start on universal agreement.

 

You said earlier that you do not believe that some humans have the right to own others. You also said that human beings have the right to life. I could not agree more.

 

You cannot argue that a fetus has the right to life, without also arguing that the fetus has a right to live in a woman against her will (if it was aborted it would die and lose its life). You cannot argue one without the other; it's impossible by definition. Do we still agree?

 

A parasite is something that takes resources from its host against the host's will, and gives nothing in return. The parasite feels entitled, if you will. If you said to the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, "I'm entitled to the fruits of your labor, despite the fact that you created this company from nothing, despite the fact that I did nothing to help this corporation, so I'm going to use the government to make you give some of your rightfully earned money to me so I can get a benefit I did not earn or deserve!", that is parasitism.

 

So really, it all comes down to this: Do you believe that you are entitled to the work of another person? i.e. Do you believe that if you took no part in the creation of something, you're still deserving of a share? Or do you believe that you own the sweat of your brow? (Appropriate Bioshock reference)

 

If you said "no" to the first two questions and "yes" to the third, logic dictates you must think that abortion is an inalienable right. If you believe that you are entitled to the sweat of your brow, that means you think no one is entitled to live as a parasite.

 

"No one" includes a fetus.

 

Now, if you do believe that you are entitled to something that you did not produce, create, or earn, you should come to the capitalism vs. statism thread and make a convincing case for statism. I don't really want to talk about that in this thread; I'll get confused too easily.

 

And from a moral standpoint that person has the right to stay alive. You are not legally obligated to take the person in, but from a moral standpoint, it would be wrong to condemn a person to death in that way when you are capable of sustaining them.

 

Remember: rights are secured by a government. "The right to life" does not mean the government must force other people to feed and clothe you; it means that you have the right to work to sustain your own life and no one may stop you from doing that. The right to freedom of speech does not mean that the government must force people to listen to you and give you a means to address the nation; it means that no one can stop you from talking. That's it.

 

In even a semi-free society you are not legally obliged to take in the invalid because the invalid's right to life, does not mean they have the right to live as a parasite. They reside in your house only by your permission that may be revoked at any time.

 

Rights extend to a being that can reason, to be sure, but that is not where they stop. I believe that rights exist relative to the capacity of any given living thing, as I've said.

 

You've said, but you've never said why. Maybe that's why we're at an impasse.

 

A skin cell will not develope into a human being on its own. That is where this comparison fails.

 

If you take it out of context, yeah. It was a response to the claim "life get's rights, period". Skin cells are life, but do not have rights. So rights are not a condition for life per se.

 

It is absolutely not a matter of semantics. A fetus is not a potential life. It is a developing life.

 

I never said that a fetus was not potential life. What I did say is that it's a potential human being. "Being" means a physical separate entity. A fetus is part of a woman, just like her kidneys and liver. Eventually, the fetus will not be part of her body, it will be a human being.

 

If it is moral to commit suicide and sell your kidneys for money, then it is moral to get an abortion. What do these three things have in common? They're all modifications of your own body: something that you own and is legally, morally, and ethically, your property. None of these actions violate the rights of anyone around you.

 

A developing human being is absolutely an actual human being. At no point does it transform from one thing to another

 

"Being" implies a physical separate entity. It does transform from a physically dependent parasite to an independent entity: it's called birth.

 

The developing life has the right to survive, regardless of what stage of developement it is in.

 

If you believe in the non-existent right to live as a parasite, yeah. I don't though.

 

The fetus having to exist as parasite is an unfortunate necesity in the continuing existence of our species. Basic biological aspects of all human beings come with suffering that cannot be avoided.

 

True.

 

And because of this certain biological aspect and the circumstances, it is moral for a woman to get an abortion while the fetus is living as a parasite.

 

Did I say anything to the contrary?

 

Wait...maybe I'm missing something; are you saying that it's immoral to abort a fetus because it's detrimental to the species?

 

If yes, then you have no understanding of individual rights.

 

The same applies to you. However, as you are trying to claim they have an alterior motive to the one they claim to have, burden of proof is on you

 

Also true; the burden of proof is on me.

 

I don't think it's ulterior at all; I think they're pretty "in your face" about it. When you oppose the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property, then you hate mankind since mankind's condition of existence are those things.

 

They oppose the right to property: A woman's body is her property; they think she doesn't own it and other people/fetuses get to dictate the terms of it.

 

They oppose the pursuit of happiness: A woman's reason is telling her that she would be much happier for her own well-being than getting an abortion; this is pursuing happiness and rational self-interest. The anti-abortionists are saying it's not up to her to decide what's in her own self-interest and how she pursues her own happiness, despite the fact the fetus is living as a parasite.

 

They oppose the right to liberty: this is very similar to the right to property; they don't believe you're free to decide how you use your own resources.

 

And worst of all, they oppose the right to life: The right to life is the stem from where all these other rights come i.e. you can't oppose all of the above without also opposing the right to life.

 

And the parasitic stage is not something it can conciously avoid. It's a stage we all had to go through. As I said, this unavoidable stage in developement does not invalidate the developing human being's life.

 

Not true. The parasite stage is totally avoidable.

 

It's not a parasite if it's there by permission, since the woman is voluntarily giving the fetus all of her resources; the woman views it as beneficial to her own happiness and well-being if she keeps it. Once it's not wanted, it becomes a parasite. Do you have the right to live as a parasite?

 

The "parasitic" type of relationship does not end after birth.

 

Physically, it does. Socially, no; this is why you're not obligated to claim guardianship (do you think that you have the right to give it up for adoption?). There are many couples who can't conceive and are looking for adoption. There are so many in fact that they're fed up with the wait time from the adoption centers since there are so many people looking to claim guardianship, that they go to China where hassle of adoption is not as bad.

 

Even into adulthood, we still consume the world's limited resources.

 

Yeah, by working and earning those resources, not forcibly taking them from other people. We can produce enough food to feed everyone, don't worry. As long as people are hungry, business want to make money so they grow as much food as they can. You can thank capitalism for that.

 

We are always a drain on something, and often we can't even give something back without consuming something else.

 

"Drain" means to take without giving back. You get a job, work to get money to buy food. You earned the food and are entitled to it since you paid money. You're entitled to that money because you did work for a company. The company benefits, and you benefit. That is not a drain.

 

Seeing as how there is no discernable difference between us when we were in the fetal stage and those who are in that stage now

 

We're separate entities and are not physically dependent on anyone else.

[Geneaux486]

It would be slavery if the "resources" in question were produced, owned, and rightfully earned by another person. You would be exploiting their work for your own purposes while giving nothing in return, all against their will. How is that not slavery?

 

A valid point that does not take into account the raw materials that can sustain life. Fruit, vegetation, animals provide nourishment, for instance. My point is that one human being has just as much right to that sustanance as anyone else. Conciously taking goods, services, and resources from another against their will is a crime, and giving them freely is charity. None of it constitutes slavery.

 

You said earlier that you do not believe that some humans have the right to own others. You also said that human beings have the right to life. I could not agree more.

 

You cannot argue that a fetus has the right to life, without also arguing that the fetus has a right to live in a woman against her will (if it was aborted it would die and lose its life). You cannot argue one without the other; it's impossible by definition. Do we still agree?

 

Yes, and as I said, from my perspective, the argument is for the fetus' right to survive. There is only one manner in which it can do so, there is only one way any of us have done so. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological necesities and unavoidable. The fetus cannot change that, nor can anyone else without terminating the fetus' life. My reasoning is that the life line is drawn at conception. Not before, and not after.

 

Remember: rights are secured by a government. "The right to life" does not mean the government must force other people to feed and clothe you; it means that you have the right to work to sustain your own life and no one may stop you from doing that. The right to freedom of speech does not mean that the government must force people to listen to you and give you a means to address the nation; it means that no one can stop you from talking. That's it.

 

I agree with this for the most part. Rights are secured by a government, or in more unfortunate cases, ignored by a government, but they exist independently. A government that honestly claims to value human life, as I said, will take human life at all stages into account. It will not necesarilly force others to feed and clothe them, I believe this would be counter productive. It can, however, create programs that focus on aiding those who cannot feed and clothe themselves as well as offer tax benefits to those who choose to do so themselves.

 

You've said, but you've never said why. Maybe that's why we're at an impasse.

 

I have said why, though it was very indirect. Here I am refering to rights from a purely moral standpoint. The universe does not revolve around any single one of us, so theoretically none of us deserves more or less than anyone else. As individuals we know what we find desirable, and what we find painful. In a way, it boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most of us would wish to be spared undue pain. It follows that we should also spare undue pain to any living creature that can feel and discern pain, as there is no discernable difference between our basic sense of pain, and the basic sense of pain of anything else that can feel and register it. This is what I base my argument that rights extend to the capacity of any given living thing upon.

 

It was a response to the claim "life get's rights, period". Skin cells are life, but do not have rights. So rights are not a condition for life per se.

 

 

Life gets rights according to it's capacity was my argument. Skin cells do not have the capacity to become individual human beings, therefore they do not get the rights of human beings.

 

A fetus is part of a woman, just like her kidneys and liver. Eventually, the fetus will not be part of her body, it will be a human being.

 

 

But that's just it, it isn't like her kidneys or liver. Neither of those things are growing and developing into fully functioning human beings. A fetus is. This is why I disagree with the regard for a fetus as simply a thing.

 

"Being" implies a physical separate entity. It does transform from a physically dependent parasite to an independent entity: it's called birth.

 

 

"Being" implies existence, nothing more. Birth is not a transformation, it is a change of location. The fetus does not immediately transform into a baby at birth. I'm sure you're well aware of this, of course, but I bother pointing it out to show why I do not see it or any other stage of developement as a "transformation". I suppose by the logic that the fetus has no right to live as a parasite, that abortion should be a viable option at any stage of pregnancy as well, yes?

 

And because of this certain biological aspect and the circumstances, it is moral for a woman to get an abortion while the fetus is living as a parasite.

 

Did I say anything to the contrary?

 

Wait...maybe I'm missing something; are you saying that it's immoral to abort a fetus because it's detrimental to the species?

 

 

I am saying it is not moral to abort a fetus because of the circumstances under which it must survive, as those circumstances are unavoidable.

 

I don't think it's ulterior at all; I think they're pretty "in your face" about it. When you oppose the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property, then you hate mankind since mankind's condition of existence are those things.

 

But this is based on a perception of their actions that is not factual, nor is it objective. You go further into detail here, about why you claim they opposte the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but again, this is a reinterpretation of their motives that is not likely to be provable. Your perspective and view of what a fetus is and what it deserves has no bearing on their motives and their agenda. Their perspective will obviously differ from yours. Granted, I cannot argue that either perspective is correct any more than I could honestly say I think my perspective is correct. This is, however, irrelevant when discussing their motives. Their motives are for them to decide.

 

It's not a parasite if it's there by permission

 

It's there and it already exists, regardless of whether or not it was wanted. In my opinion, the time to prevent an unwanted "parasite" when discussing a fetus is before it exists, not after. Again, the case of rape is a somewhat different (and horrible) matter.

 

Physically, it does. Socially, no;

 

It doesn't end physically either. Regardless of who claims guardianship, a baby is still going to need someone to physically devote their time and energy to caring for it. Do you think it follows that if a guardian cannot be found, the baby's right to live is forfeit?

 

We can produce enough food to feed everyone, don't worry. As long as people are hungry, business want to make money so they grow as much food as they can. You can thank capitalism for that.

 

 

Relying on corporations to feed the world is a very scary thought. I believe the responsibility falls on organized governments who collect our tax money anyway. Guess that's off topic here though, so I'll leave it at that.

 

"Drain" means to take without giving back. You get a job, work to get money to buy food. You earned the food and are entitled to it since you paid money. You're entitled to that money because you did work for a company. The company benefits, and you benefit. That is not a drain.

 

The drain is more visible when focusing on the raw materials and on a grander scale. To create one thing, we have to use something else. Our resources are finite and will eventually run out. That is a drain. My point is that being a "drain" is not really a bad thing, simply something that we cannot avoid.

 

We're separate entities and are not physically dependent on anyone else.

 

I did not say otherwise. I said that we were physically dependent when we were fetuses, all of us, and we were born. Many have been born in a time before abortion was legal, or even before it was practiced. What makes us so special that we deserve to live while those that come after us may not?

[Michael Archer]

A valid point that does not take into account the raw materials that can sustain life.

 

Sure it does. It takes time and effort to grow raw materials and you are not entitled to those materials.

 

...the argument is for the fetus' right to survive. There is only one manner in which it can do so, there is only one way any of us have done so. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological necesities and unavoidable.

 

So we do agree that you cannot argue for the fetus' right to life without also arguing with its right to live as a parasite. So you are in fact saying that there is a "right" to live as a parasite i.e. the "right" to the fruits of another labor despite having no claim to them.

 

This is statism in its basic form; it's the theory that a government is not a body to secure rights through retaliatory force, but rather that the government is a group of thugs who initiate force at whim and in whatever measure they see fit. It goes hand in hand with the reasoning that you may take from whoever you want against their will. This is pure evil.

 

It can, however, create programs that focus on aiding those who cannot feed and clothe themselves as well as offer tax benefits to those who choose to do so themselves.

 

Well actually, it's not the government's place to be...*slaps self*. NO! END SENTENCE! BEGIN A NEW!

 

*ahem*

 

I think I mentioned something about that in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread. If not, it'll be brought up eventually.

 

A government that honestly claims to value human life, as I said, will take human life at all stages into account.

 

I'm sorry, I cannot get beyond the absurdity of this statement.

 

An abstract thought is a stage to human life e.g. a couple discussing when to have a kid; does that thought get rights? After conception, there is a point where the fetus' is less complex than a tadpole; does that clump of organic tissue get the benefit of all the rights of fully thinking rational adult?

 

Or, are you saying that the government should assign the protection of rights accordingly to how complex it is? If this is the case, then this is just involve arbitrary designation. The "complexity" of a cell can not be objectively determine e.g. you can not objectively say that during the second week, it has no rights but then after the third week it gets a few basic rights; this is all subjective. The government is supposed to use force objectively; the government should not arbitrarily determine the point where a fetus becomes a human being. Using force subjectivity=statism.

 

But maybe you were in favor of that?

 

As individuals we know what we find desirable, and what we find painful. In a way, it boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most of us would wish to be spared undue pain.

 

I couldn't help but notice that you used the word "most" meaning majority. Does this mean the majority gets to "decide" what rights are? Is the individual subject to the majority? No, the individual is protected from the majority through individual rights; there is no such thing as collective rights e.g. hypothetically, if everyone in the country voted that we execute a certain someone for the reason that we simply did not like it, it would be legally and morally void. Most first world governments have constitutions for this very reason; to stop the will of the majority infringing the right of the individual. Do you think this would never happen?

 

Remember Socrates?

 

But anyway: Do unto others? Sure. I know that if I was pregnant and my reason would tell me death (being irrational=death since reason=survival) would come if I didn't abort, I would want others to fight for my right to get an abortion.

 

This brings up a good scenario in my mind: let's say you were pregnant and you did not want it and reason told you that death would follow if you kept it; I don't believe you would condemn yourself to death despite what other people (the anti-abortionists) said.

 

Life gets rights according to it's capacity was my argument. Skin cells do not have the capacity to become individual human beings, therefore they do not get the rights of human beings.

 

As we approach the future, the capacity for everything become infinite; kind of like how as a function approaches an asymptote, it approaches positive or negative infinity.

 

E.g.: I saw something about sperm cells being made from stem cells. That means that stem cells have the capacity to be sperm cells, that has the capacity to the fertilize an egg...ad nauseum.

 

My point is, is that capacity can be infinite. We can't deal with everything that might be or what isn't; it's literally impossible. We have to deal with what is, right now

 

But this is based on a perception of their actions that is not factual, nor is it objective.

 

Are you saying I'm wrong? You never actually said; "no, they don't oppose the right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty!"

 

What are their motives then? To make a society full of biological slaves?

 

But that's just it, it isn't like her kidneys or liver. Neither of those things are growing and developing into fully functioning human beings.

 

One could argue that kidneys and liver are necessary for the life of a person, so removing these are synonymous to abortion. i.e. removing=death.

 

Birth is not a transformation, it is a change of location.

 

It is a transformation. Upon birth, the fetus, which was once completely dependent on the mother and a part of her in a sense, becomes physically separated, becomes a baby and lives and breathes on its own and it no longer is in a physical parasitic relation; all its actions from this point until death are completley social and are protected by individual rights (although, slightly different than an adult).

 

The fetus does not immediately transform into a baby at birth.

 

A fetus is when it's growing in a uterus. A baby is when it's born. Both your statement and my response are semantics.

 

I am saying it is not moral to abort a fetus because of the circumstances under which it must survive, as those circumstances are unavoidable.

 

Just because something is unavoidable, does not negate rights.

 

E.g. A psychopath could claim that it was unavoidable for him to murder another person.

 

Again, the case of rape is a somewhat different (and horrible) matter.

 

Are you saying that you do have the right to get an abortion if you were raped?

 

If so, I don't know what you're thinking. You've told me that the fetus has a right to life and it's not its fault that it has to live as a parasite and be such a burden. It would also follow that since it has the right to life, it wasn't up to the fetus that it's a byproduct of rape so all your anti-abortion statements should still apply.

 

Also, who's to decide whether one reason is acceptable and one is not? Who gets that power and how do they decide? This is also subjectivity at its worst.

 

Do you think it follows that if a guardian cannot be found, the baby's right to live is forfeit?

 

"Right to live" does not mean someone has to feed it; it just means no one has the right to murder it.

 

The alternative is scarier: the government initiates force on its own citizens and forces them to take care of a baby to which it has no relation and feed it out if their own pocket.

 

Fortunately, this never happens. There are plenty of couples looking to adopt and there is no shortage of charitable orphanages.

 

To create one thing, we have to use something else. Our resources are finite and will eventually run out.

 

The thing you created doesn't disappear; it's the result of using something.

 

We live in a closed system; things are renewable.

 

I suppose by the logic that the fetus has no right to live as a parasite, that abortion should be a viable option at any stage of pregnancy as well, yes?

 

Well, yes. Viable in a sense that it should be allowed to be done? Yes. Viable in the sense that should it be done? Probably not, there are a lot of health risks and really late in the pregnancy, it would be more dangerous to abort it then deliver it normally.

 

Isn't a c-section kind of like an abortion? You're terminating a pregnancy before you let biological fact take place i.e. birth, but because the doctor is recommending c-section, the natural path (the one you're advocating) is the baby coming in breach birth, or something that will leave it in danger. Or it could mean death for the mother)

 

Abortion is fundamentally identical to birth: the fetus becomes physically separated from the mother. It just so "happens" that if it becomes separated before a certain time, unfortunately, the baby usually dies.

 

Fetuses sometimes survive abortions, especially if it's really late in the pregnancy. In that case, the moment of abortion, it would get all the rights of a human baby.

 

Relying on corporations to feed the world is a very scary thought. I believe the responsibility falls on organized governments who collect our tax money anyway.

 

Tell that to the ten million soviet peasants who's government corporations couldn't feed them. Oh wait, that's right, you can't. They starved to death.

 

This is off topic. I should shut up.

[Geneaux486]

Sure it does. It takes time and effort to grow raw materials and you are not entitled to those materials.

 

And what do you need to grow stuff? Other stuff. Want to grow crops? Use seeds. Want seeds? Get them from other plants. Who deserves access to the intial plants? Who deserves a fair shot at the naturally occuring raw materials that are not grown or engineered by others? Everyone.

 

This is statism in its basic form; it's the theory that a government is not a body to secure rights through retaliatory force, but rather that the government is a group of thugs who initiate force at whim and in whatever measure they see fit. It goes hand in hand with the reasoning that you may take from whoever you want against their will. This is pure evil.

 

An argument that is only valid if one adopts your perception of rights, which I believe is twisted and incomplete.

 

I'm sorry, I cannot get beyond the absurdity of this statement.

 

So you saw fit to respond with a rebuttal just as absurd?

 

An abstract thought is a stage to human life e.g. a couple discussing when to have a kid; does that thought get rights? After conception, there is a point where the fetus' is less complex than a tadpole; does that clump of organic tissue get the benefit of all the rights of fully thinking rational adult?

 

An abstract thought is not a stage of a human life, it is an abstract thought. If you really can't see why I would differentiate an abstract thought from a tangible, growing organism, you and I aren't likely to reach an understanding any time soon. Does the fetus get the rights of a fully thinking rational adult? You know my stance on rights, so you probably already know that my answer is a "no" with a "but". It is living, and it has the capacity to continue to develope into a fully functioning person. Ergo, it follows that it's basic right to survive and grow should be protected by a government that claims to value human life. You can keep twisting it to make it sound illogical or evil, but that's just going to create further back and forth with me responding "that's not true and here's why".

 

I couldn't help but notice that you used the word "most" meaning majority.

 

You noticed it and read way too deeply into it. By "most" I meant "except for the people who are into that sort of thing". Nothing more. The rest of my initial description more than covers the rest of my stance.

 

This brings up a good scenario in my mind: let's say you were pregnant and you did not want it and reason told you that death would follow if you kept it; I don't believe you would condemn yourself to death despite what other people (the anti-abortionists) said.

 

This is a scenario I haven't really touched on, and there's a reason for that: I really don't know where I stand on it when the mother's life is truly in danger. If she was definetely going to die as a result of the pregnancy, and an abortion were the only possible way to save her. It's a terrible situation and an ugly choice. One that I think the mother would have to make herself, with as much support and guidance from others as she wants. I don't pretend the choice of whether or not to get an abortion is a simple one for the majority of women, and I believe it isn't. I also believe it is on us to do more for the woman than simply wag our fingers and say "You shouldn't do that" when said woman finds herself in such a position. I have no patience for that sort of behavior.

 

My point is, is that capacity can be infinite. We can't deal with everything that might be or what isn't; it's literally impossible. We have to deal with what is, right now

 

Agreed. And skin cells still don't become people. And developing fetuses still do. That is what is, right now.

 

Are you saying I'm wrong? You never actually said; "no, they don't oppose the right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty!"

 

What are their motives then? To make a society full of biological slaves?

 

And your alternative is still not objective or factual. What you've suggesed could be a possible outcome, but it does not follow that this is their motive. You think their intent is malevolent when I think it isn't. Am I saying you're wrong? No, I have no idea whether or not in their heart of hearts they secretly do want to destroy society. Neither do you.

 

One could argue that kidneys and liver are necessary for the life of a person, so removing these are synonymous to abortion. i.e. removing=death.

 

 

To say that they're necesarry for life is not an argument, it is a fact. I don't understand why this is relevant. Neither is a developing person. They are components.

 

A fetus is when it's growing in a uterus. A baby is when it's born. Both your statement and my response are semantics.

 

And that still leaves the question as to where to draw the line in regards to when it is acceptable to get an abortion. By your logic the mother could say on the day of birth "On second thought, I'd rather avoid the pain. Go ahead and abort it."

 

E.g. A psychopath could claim that it was unavoidable for him to murder another person.

 

 

We do not have to murder a person at some point in our lives to continue our existence. This is where that analogy fails.

 

Are you saying that you do have the right to get an abortion if you were raped?

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying rape is a unique case in which the fetus itself exists as the result of a violation of the woman's rights. This does not mean I would support an abortion in such a circumstance, merely acknowleging that it is a horrible situation for everyone.

 

"Right to live" does not mean someone has to feed it; it just means no one has the right to murder it.

 

The alternative is scarier: the government initiates force on its own citizens and forces them to take care of a baby to which it has no relation and feed it out if their own pocket.

 

Fortunately, this never happens. There are plenty of couples looking to adopt and there is no shortage of charitable orphanages.

 

So your answer to my question is basically that it's right to live is not forfeit, and the government which values human life will undertake the task of providing care. In our adult years the same is done via welfare.

 

The thing you created doesn't disappear; it's the result of using something.

 

We live in a closed system; things are renewable.

 

Not everything is renewable. Fossil fuels certainly aren't. Furthermore, we do not all renew and reuse our resources.

 

Viable in a sense that it should be allowed to be done? Yes. Viable in the sense that should it be done? Probably not, there are a lot of health risks and really late in the pregnancy, it would be more dangerous to abort it then deliver it normally.

 

Isn't a c-section kind of like an abortion? You're terminating a pregnancy before you let biological fact take place i.e. birth, but because the doctor is recommending c-section, the natural path (the one you're advocating) is the baby coming in breach birth, or something that will leave it in danger. Or it could mean death for the mother)

 

Abortion is fundamentally identical to birth: the fetus becomes physically separated from the mother. It just so "happens" that if it becomes separated before a certain time, unfortunately, the baby usually dies.

 

Fetuses sometimes survive abortions, especially if it's really late in the pregnancy. In that case, the moment of abortion, it would get all the rights of a human baby.

 

 

A C-section differs drastically from an abortion in predicted outcome, intent, and statistical outcome. One is expected to result in the survival of the mother and child, the other regards the survival of the child as happenstance. Furthermore, going by your logic, wouldn't the fetus' newly aquired rights upon separation from the mother make the entire process morally wrong? As for the abortion survivors, well, I would bring up infanticide, but you seem to be opposed to that. There are plenty of people who believe that the abortion survivor should be left to die, I'm glad to see you are not one of them.

 

Tell that to the ten million soviet peasants who's government corporations couldn't feed them. Oh wait, that's right, you can't. They starved to death.

 

And I don't believe the solution is to put the responsibility in the hands of those who only seek to make money for themselves. As corrupt as businessmen can get, I think it would be a disaster.

 

This is off topic. I should shut up.

 

 

 

Heh, just as much my fault as it is yours.

[xxxxxxxxx]

Hm, maybe we could all commit suicide and then write about our experiences here afterwards.

I agree, but Michael Archer should go first...

 

You know once QuietGrave see's this post your gonna get another warning

As long as it doesn't start a flame war, I could give a crap. The monster posts are enough to deal with.

[Alyxx Thorne]

My brain is hurting from reading so much...

 

I'm sorry to say but Michael Archer's posts are discouraging me from spending time in the Civilization Problems forum lately.

[Bjossi]

Are you sure it is Archer's fault specifically? I've been going here rarely lately because the discussions have started going in circles, and I'm not all that good at debating the subjects this forum covers. I just give my initial opinion and maybe a few replies, then let those who (feel they) got the knowledge and steam duke it out verbally.

[xxxxxxxxx]

Are you sure it is Archer's fault specifically? I've been going here rarely lately because the discussions have started going in circles, and I'm not all that good at debating the subjects that this forum houses. I just give my initial opinion and maybe a few replies, then let those who (feel they) got the knowledge and steam duke it out verbally.

I don't even see why they're arguing. It's not like they're discussing on how to fix their own perceived issues. They're just steaming to steam.

[Geneaux486]

I don't even see why they're arguing. It's not like they're discussing on how to fix their own perceived issues. They're just steaming to steam.

 

Subject is something I have an opinion on, so I post in the relevant thread for as long as I feel I can contribute to the discussion about it. That's all.