Abortion Controversy

[Doom Shepherd]

Wait, so, the "right to life" is different from "moral rights"?

 

Left to their own devices, a fertilized egg (a "baby"?) will, the majority of the time, never even implant and are evacuated soon afterwards. Does that mean that this is a death in the family?

 

How about if the woman takes the "morning after" pill and doesn't allow it to implant? Is she a murderer?

 

Also, contraception. The sperm can't reach the egg. Without that kind of interference, one of those sperm will fertilize the egg and create a "baby"....so contraception is now murder. As are nocturnal emissions and periods.

 

This is the logic I see here. Or the lack of it.

 

Nature doesn't recognize moral rights. Humans do. This is why it's not "murder" if a tiger eats you, but it is if I do.

 

Also, just out of curiosity, are you the same danielsangeo who posts on Punditkitchen?

[danielsangeo]

It is.

 

I'll wait for a response to the rest of my post prior to responding further.

[Geneaux486]

Wait, so, the "right to life" is different from "moral rights"?

 

The right to life is a moral right, and in most cases it’s also a legal and ethical one.

 

Left to their own devices, a fertilized egg (a "baby"?) will, the majority of the time, never even implant and are evacuated soon afterwards. Does that mean that this is a death in the family?

 

If it’s already begun the development process towards birth, then yes, it is a living thing that died. If it didn’t implant and was evacuated, then it failed due to natural causes. The risk of dying from natural causes, obviously, does not go away when we are born.

 

How about if the woman takes the "morning after" pill and doesn't allow it to implant? Is she a murderer?

 

Not by law. And if it didn’t implant, it didn’t start its development process.

 

Also, contraception. The sperm can't reach the egg. Without that kind of interference, one of those sperm will fertilize the egg and create a "baby"....so contraception is now murder. As are nocturnal emissions and periods.

 

The sperm and the egg are a potential person, not a developing person. Contraception is not the same as killing a developing fetus.

 

This is the logic I see here.

 

Then look harder.

[danielsangeo]

A "developing human" is not a human.

 

Let's take this tack:

 

If I have all the pieces to a car, I can't drive it down the road; it is a potential car. If I start assembling the pieces, it's a developing car, but it's still not a car. At some point in the assembly, the preponderance of the pieces becomes a rudimentary car that I could possibly drive down the road, but with trouble. As I put more and more pieces together, the rudimentary car becomes more car-like until all the pieces are together and I have a car.

 

I feel the same with a "developing human". Sperm and egg are the pieces (you can't have a car without the parts and you can't have a baby without the sperm and egg). At fertilization, you have a "unique life" that is beginning to develop. It is several more days that this "developing human" floats down the tube to the uterus until implantation.

 

If the "developing human" doesn't implant, it is evacuated and....dies. The morning-after pill kills the developing human. This is not premeditated murder? Not legally, but morally? And if the "developing human" doesn't implant through no fault of the woman? Is that a death in the family? How would she even know? Just evacuated onto a pad or something and then thrown in the trash or down the toilet. Does that sound okay?

 

To me, just as there's a point in the assembly of a car (I don't like the analogy because it's extremely crude but I think it works), you will have a working car. There's a point in pregnancy that you have a viable fetus. However, until birth, you don't have a baby.

 

It's why a woman that is five months pregnant and two other children does not say "I have three children" but "I have two children and one on the way". A pregnant woman cannot ride by herself in an HOV lane. A baby born at 12:00:01AM on January 1, 2011 cannot claim the baby as a dependent on her 2010 taxes. Babies are not conferred these rights until birth.

 

This idea of "without interference, the embryo will become a baby so, therefore, is a baby" is the same as saying, "without interference, a baby will become an adult, therefore, a baby is an adult" or "without interference, a sperm will join with an egg and will become a baby, so therefore, sperm and eggs are half babies". There is a lot that has to happen before birth before the sperm/egg, embryo or fetus becomes a baby...just as there is a lot that has to happen before a baby becomes an adult.

[Doom Shepherd]

A "developing human" is not a human.

 

That's what I keep saying, but they still won't let me kill college students.

[Geneaux486]

A "developing human" is not a human.

 

Humans are always developing. The mind actually doesn’t finish maturing until mid to late twenties, believe it or not. Yes, a developing human is a human, even as early as the womb. To say otherwise is to ignore basic biology.

 

If I have all the pieces to a car, I can't drive it down the road; it is a potential car. If I start assembling the pieces, it's a developing car, but it's still not a car. At some point in the assembly, the preponderance of the pieces becomes a rudimentary car that I could possibly drive down the road, but with trouble. As I put more and more pieces together, the rudimentary car becomes more car-like until all the pieces are together and I have a car.

 

Another unsound comparison. You assemble a car piece by piece, you do not assemble a small car on a molecular level and watch it grow into a larger car.

 

 

I feel the same with a "developing human". Sperm and egg are the pieces (you can't have a car without the parts and you can't have a baby without the sperm and egg).

 

Here we agree, the sperm and egg are pieces, and parts of a potential person.

 

At fertilization, you have a "unique life" that is beginning to develop. It is several more days that this "developing human" floats down the tube to the uterus until implantation.

 

If the zygote does not implant in the uterus then it is not a developing human. It cannot grow until it reaches that point. Until then it is akin to a seed that has not been planted. When it does implant, it becomes comparable to a planted seed that has begun to grow.

 

And if the "developing human" doesn't implant through no fault of the woman? Is that a death in the family? How would she even know? Just evacuated onto a pad or something and then thrown in the trash or down the toilet. Does that sound okay?

 

If it did not implant, then it did not begin development.

 

 

There's a point in pregnancy that you have a viable fetus. However, until birth, you don't have a baby.

 

“Fetus”, “baby”, and “human” are just words we call these various stages. What we do or do not call them does not change the fact that it is the same species of organism in every stage. It is a thing that is the same as us, that has begun its development, that will continue to develop. This fact is unavoidable.

 

It's why a woman that is five months pregnant and two other children does not say "I have three children" but "I have two children and one on the way".

 

Notice that very few women would say “I have two children and a fetus”. I don’t think your point here supports your stance.

 

 

This idea of "without interference, the embryo will become a baby so, therefore, is a baby" is the same as saying, "without interference, a baby will become an adult, therefore, a baby is an adult"

 

They’re all different natural stages of a developing human life.

 

or "without interference, a sperm will join with an egg and will become a baby, so therefore, sperm and eggs are half babies".

 

This is not an extension of my arguments.

 

There is a lot that has to happen before birth before the sperm/egg, embryo or fetus becomes a baby...just as there is a lot that has to happen before a baby becomes an adult.

 

Correct. This does not prove that a human at the embryonic stage of development has no right to survive. I’ve not argued that a baby should get the same rights as an adult, or anything else along that line. I’ve said from the start that I believe rights vary according to the capacity of the entity they’re being applied to, further affected by stages of development. A baby does not have the right to vote, a young child cannot drive a car, etc. I argue that a human being’s basic right to life is not forfeit at any stage of its development.

[danielsangeo]

It is developing even if it doesn't implant. To say otherwise is to ignore basic biology.

 

"I have two children and one on the way" not "Three children". "I have two children and a fetus" doesn't have to support my stance. Fetuses are "children on the way". I am a member of Primates but I don't often refer to myself as a "great Ape" (hominid). That doesn't mean that I'm not.

 

An embryo/fetus are humans-to-be. They aren't human beings. Two cells aren't human beings, yet it is a "developing human" just as a ten year old is developing into a twenty year old. To use conception as your arbitrary line for the creation of a human being, that means that hundreds of millions of families have had deaths in the family and not even know it. Because implantation only serves to feed the developing human from the woman's body.

 

If you've ever heard of "test tube babies" (in vitro fertilization), you'd know that an unfertilized egg is removed from the woman, and letting sperm enter the egg in a solution outside the body. Then the egg begins to develop into a human OUTSIDE the human. The "developing human" is then transferred to the woman so it can gain nutrients. Before it's transplanted back into the woman's body, it is a "human being" according do your logic. IVF sometimes results in many "developing humans" where their development is halted via freezing (cryopreservation).

 

If a fetus dies before birth, it isn't reported as a "death of a child". It is reported as a "stillbirth".

 

To use your logic, there are going to be many more "deaths of babies" than ever reported for abortion. Just research how many "developing humans" die before birth. The number is staggering.

 

tl;dr: As soon as it's fertilized and the ovum begins to divide, it is a developing human. The "developing human" will subdivide many times before implantation. To suggest otherwise is to profess ignorance of basic reproductive biology.

[Geneaux486]

It is developing even if it doesn't implant. To say otherwise is to ignore basic biology.

 

It can’t develop into an embryo if it does not implant, bottom line. It does begin to develop into a unique organism, this is true, but it can only go so far without implantation. To clarify, I’m merely distinguishing the difference between abortion and contraception, not saying I support forms of contraception that kill the zygote while opposing abortion. It is also important to note that there are methods of contraception that do not kill a zygote. I honestly have not decided where I stand on contraception in general, though you've brought up some excellent points regarding the zygote, so I have made some progress on that front.

 

An embryo/fetus are humans-to-be. They aren't human beings.

 

Semantics. They are part of the earliest development of our species. Call it what you want, that is what they are.

 

To use conception as your arbitrary line for the creation of a human being, that means that hundreds of millions of families have had deaths in the family and not even know it.

 

It isn’t arbitrary when discussing the morality of abortion.

 

If you've ever heard of "test tube babies" (in vitro fertilization), you'd know that an unfertilized egg is removed from the woman, and letting sperm enter the egg in a solution outside the body. Then the egg begins to develop into a human OUTSIDE the human. The "developing human" is then transferred to the woman so it can gain nutrients. Before it's transplanted back into the woman's body, it is a "human being" according do your logic. IVF sometimes results in many "developing humans" where their development is halted via freezing (cryopreservation).

 

I’ll save my views on that particular process for another debate. I will point out that you say it is a “human being” according to my logic. Logic in general shows us that it is part of the development process for a human being. It cannot develop into any other species, and the development process is fairly linear. The question is when a human being is assigned the basic right to live, or conversely, at what point do we not have a moral right to interfere with the development process. I say unless there is a discernable difference between one zygote/fetus/embryo and us when we were in those stages of development, we do not have the right to end them.

 

If a fetus dies before birth, it isn't reported as a "death of a child". It is reported as a "stillbirth".

 

Again, semantics. What it is called or reported is irrelevant. A life that is developing into a full-grown human being has died. The risk of death also does not diminish after we are born.

 

To use your logic, there are going to be many more "deaths of babies" than ever reported for abortion. Just research how many "developing humans" die before birth. The number is staggering.

 

Miscarriages are considered tragedies by many families.

[JournaL]

Abortion is only used in the means of extreme circumstances (such as mother's poor health, etc).

 

It should not be used haphazardly like doctors with antibiotics and etc.

 

Once a famous doctor, now a collegiate speaker said, "The mother's life supersedes the life of her unborn child."

 

So pro-choice is the way to go, and only under certain circumstances. There are pills, condoms, mace, and handguns for the other things.

[Michael Archer]

Rights already do violate other rights.

 

Geneaux...I'm afraid that I'm unable to continue this rather pleasant discussion. I can't follow your illogical contradictions when you say that you have the right to initiate force and that force and mind can co-exist peacefully. I can not even begin to comprehend how it's possible for you to think that the potential and the actual are metaphysically synonymous; you're trying to convince people that a potential baby (a fetus) is metaphysically identical to real baby and therefore have the same rights. This is a complete contradiction of reality. If you view reality in this skewed way, you've lost all credibility with me. I can't respond to your statements if they're not coherent with reality.

 

Before I talk to the other people I just want to say one more thing: after talking to you, it's clear that you do not respect rights as observed by many great thinkers of our time (e.g. John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand); their view of rights is the basis of the establishment of current western society. I just want to be perfectly clear: it doesn't matter how you justify it; if you think that a woman has no right to her body, you cannot be a defender of individual rights and are therefore an enemy of capitalism. If you're not a capitalist, you're a statist; there's no in between. Capitalism is the only system that is not statism (as it's the only system that bans the initiation of force) and you're sure as hell not a capitalist.

 

Good day, sir.

 

Anyway, my point was that even if you believe they already had them, (making them natural and inalienable, correct?) I do not. I believe all rights (including the accepted platitudes like "moral rights") are manmade and thus meaningless. (which makes arguing about it somewhat unexciting.)

Though I'm speaking totally in philosophical terms. In everyday life I certainly obey the laws of societies accepted morality, though I believe it to be meaningless in the big picture.

 

Geneaux, compared to this guy, you're a hard-core objectivist. At least you try to pretend that reality is objective.

 

Actually Geneaux, I take that back: the only difference between you and eedobaba is that eedobaba is more honest about it. I'm not going to continue my discussion with you for the same reason I'm not going to talk to eedobaba. You kept telling me you weren't a subjectivist and I believed you for a while until you said that a fetus and a baby are metaphysically identical.

 

I've never seen a subjectivist as extreme as eedobaba. Reasoning with subjectivists is pointless, as subjectivists are the most irrational of the irrational. To everything you say, they'll just respond with "that's just your view!".

 

*sigh*

 

Look what happened to jews in Europe in the 1940's. The Nazis certainly didn't believe they had a "right" to live, and so they died.

 

And...there's the Nazi comparison. That took a while!

 

Eedobaba, not only are you a subjectivist and therefore highly irrational, you just invoked Godwin's Law.

 

You're out of this conversation.

 

It should not be used haphazardly like doctors with antibiotics and etc.

 

True, it probably shouldn't.

 

But that's not your or my choice to make. It's not even her husband's choice.

[ProHypster]

A Human is only a human in this world technically after he is registered in the birth certificate.

 

Before the baby is born the woman shall do what she wants with herself.

 

If she does "kill" (quotations for those who think the baby is not alive inside of her)

her baby, the woman will most likely live in pain anyway.

 

All my hate towards that action aside, all my hate towards the fact that abortion is one of the reasons Ukraine is a mere 1.3 birth per year country, I will persist to freedom, but personally I will probably not be friends with the person.

 

Personally I also believe in other liberal stuff, like drugs for anyone, if a child will take drugs I will blame bad parenting not the laws. Basically freedom for all is what I believe, as long as You don't harm anyone else with your actions.

 

We have 70 years of life, let the people enjoy them.

[Michael Archer]

A Human is only a human in this world technically after he is registered in the birth certificate.

 

Not really. It takes a while to make a birth certificate. I'm sure for a few minutes after a baby's born, they have no certificate.

 

Semantics, really, but whatever.

 

If she does "kill" (quotations for those who think the baby is not alive inside of her)

her baby, the woman will most likely live in pain anyway.

 

I know, but people like Geneaux are ok with the woman in pain as long as the precious embryo isn't harmed; this view is only possible if you view people as an means to an end i.e. you see a woman as an end to making a baby instead of seeing her as an individual.

 

All my hate towards that action aside, all my hate towards the fact that abortion is one of the reasons Ukraine is a mere 1.3 birth per year country, I will persist to freedom, but personally I will probably not be friends with the person.

 

This is actually the most reasonable and fair course of action I've ever seen on this forum i.e. "I hate you for what you're doing, but I'll fight to the death for your right to do it." For example, I hate the attitude at the rallies that the Green Party and the environmentalist have in downtown Toronto; it's anti-industry and anti-capitalism, but I believe they should have the right to do it.

 

In summary, I have no problem with someone hating someone else for any reason, but as soon as they try to use the government to initiate force on the people I hate, then we have a problem.

[Geneaux486]

Geneaux...I'm afraid that I'm unable to continue this rather pleasant discussion.

 

Fair enough. We disagree, and I respect that. As long as you don’t do something lame like continue to address me directly and indirectly in the rest of your-

 

I can't follow your illogical...

Geneaux, compared to this guy,…

Actually Geneaux, I take that back:…

I know, but people like Geneaux...

 

Oh for crying out loud! You start off your post saying you can’t continue our discussion then spend the majority of the rest of said post and some of the following post talking about me. Dude, that wouldn’t even be a good copout. Either respond to what I’m saying or don’t, cut this bullshit in between. Drop the pretense of “You’re not worth arguing with” because I don’t buy it and neither should anyone else. If you really believe what you’re saying here you either have an inhuman inability to grasp that there are people out there who disagree with you and are sane, which is ridiculously arrogant, or you’re just trying to get some kind of last word in.

 

I can not even begin to comprehend how it's possible for you to think that the potential and the actual are metaphysically synonymous; you're trying to convince people that a potential baby (a fetus) is metaphysically identical to real baby and therefore have the same rights. This is a complete contradiction of reality. If you view reality in this skewed way, you've lost all credibility with me. I can't respond to your statements if they're not coherent with reality.

 

None of that has any basis in what I’ve said. I’ve gone several posts explaining my views as distinctly different from that.

 

Before I talk to the other people I just want to say one more thing: after talking to you, it's clear that you do not respect rights as observed by many great thinkers of our time (e.g. John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand); their view of rights is the basis of the establishment of current western society. I just want to be perfectly clear: it doesn't matter how you justify it; if you think that a woman has no right to her body, you cannot be a defender of individual rights and are therefore an enemy of capitalism. If you're not a capitalist, you're a statist; there's no in between. Capitalism is the only system that is not statism (as it's the only system that bans the initiation of force) and you're sure as hell not a capitalist.

 

Good day, sir.

 

Again, literally nothing in this post is correct. Your view of rights is skewed, incomplete, and insufficient to the real world. The same pretty much applies to your view of my views.

 

Basically, cut the shit. If you don’t want to continue debating with me, that’s fine, I don’t really care, but it'd be a good idea to keep it out of the thread, because I’m damn sure going to continue to post here.

[Michael Archer]

Again, literally nothing in this post is correct.

 

Really?

 

Read a bit what those people wrote; they did think what I'm telling you here.

 

Read the Deceleration of Independence sometime: the document that marked the beginning of the first free nation in the world; a document written by one of the greatest minds of all time. You know, the guy who said "We hold these truths to be self-evident". If this isn't the basis of western society, what is?

 

You have the right to liberty and property; both of these things are taken away by outlawing abortion.

 

Please name one system besides capitalism that bans the initiation of force between all human relationships. Also, name a system that is not capitalism but at the same time, not statist.

 

See, now I'm confused, because first I said that "you're not a capitalist" and then you say "literally nothing in that post was correct". So you are a capitalist...but you think abortion should be illegal....these are diametrically opposed ideas. At least I'm consistent. Why don't you cut the shit and do the same?

 

Sorry, miss. I just assumed you were a guy, because of the guy in your display picture that kind of looks like Solid Snake.

 

Drop the pretense of “You’re not worth arguing with” because I don’t buy it and neither should anyone else.

 

Anyone who "doesn't deal with absolutes" and continually makes arbitrary, contradictory statements and assumptions is not worth arguing with; Miss 'Rights Can Violate Rights' Geneaux.

 

I don't understand this: You're saying that a fetus has the right to life for pretty much the same reasons a baby has the right to life. I said that the potential is not the actual and to think it is, is a complete abrogation of reality.

 

You can keep on trying to convince me that a fetus is metaphysically identical to a baby, but that would be like trying to convince me that black is white i.e. insane and incongruous with reality.

 

Your view of rights is skewed, incomplete, and insufficient to the real world.

 

My view is based on the view as man as a rational being. This is congruent with the real world.

 

Your view is based on man as a being to be used to sacrifice to others. This is the view that is insufficient with the real world and how man survives.

 

But indulge me; how is my view insufficient?

 

Your turn, Miss Geneaux.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

that would be like trying to convince me that black is white

Black is white at a significantly lower intensity.

 

If you're talking about skin tone I have an argument for that as well... You probly don't want to see it though.

 

 

My view is based on the view as man as a rational being. This is congruent with the real world.

What is your definition of "rational", and what does that have to do with rights? (also, what percentage of the world's population fit into that "rational" definition?)

[Michael Archer]

Black is white at a significantly lower intensity.

 

You misunderstood me. My point was that it's useless to try to convince someone reality is different than what it actually is.

 

Black is not white per se, so it would be insane and irrational to convince someone that it is for the same reason it would be insane to convince someone 2+2=5.

 

What is your definition of "rational", and what does that have to do with rights? (also, what percentage of the world's population fit into that "rational" definition?)

 

Reason is the process of how man observes reality, gains knowledge and then produces based on that knowledge. The entire human cognitive process (e.g. input, interpretation, logic, action) is reason; this process doesn't work on its own, man has to choose for it to work. That's why humans have free will, but animals don't.

 

Rights are moral principles in a social context. At this point, you should read something by John Locke or Ayn Rand, but if you don't want to, I'll just paraphrase: Rights are conditions of existence necessary for man to survive properly. Think of a prehistoric human in the wilderness. He has nothing except what nature granted him at birth i.e. reason. Some animals are quick, some can fly to catch their food; man is rational. If man is going to live, he must use his mind, so it is right to use his mind. In a social context, man must be able to obtain knowledge and act on that (right to liberty) and he must sustain himself since he's a physical being so he needs material (right to property). Man survives by reason, so reason is right. In a society full of humans, reason is sanctioned.

 

 

What percentage of the world? Is this really relevant?

[Geneaux486]

Really?

 

Yes, really. You continue to misunderstand what I say, second guess me, and use strawman arguments.

 

Read a bit what those people wrote; they did think what I'm telling you here.

 

No, they didn't. Some thoughts may have overlapped, statistically likely, but no, I do not believe our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution with egoist ideals in mind.

 

but you think abortion should be illegal....these are diametrically opposed ideas.

 

No, they're not.

 

Sorry, miss. I just assumed you were a guy.

 

That was actually kind of clever.

 

Anyone who "doesn't deal with absolutes" and continually makes arbitrary, contradictory statements and assumptions is not worth arguing with; Miss 'Rights Can Violate Rights' Geneaux.

 

And yet you continue to respond. Again, cut the shit. Either respond or don't, this "I'm done bothering with you but here are a few parting shots" bit is not doing you any good. No, my statements are not contradictory, nor are they all arbitrary, nor are they assumptions. To believe that rights can't violate other rights is to be detached from reality. We cannot all get what we want, what we are entitled to, without someone else losing something. That's not a matter of perspective, that's just the way the physical world is. Your view of rights is incorrect.

 

You're saying that a fetus has the right to life for pretty much the same reasons a baby has the right to life. I said that the potential is not the actual

 

And as I've said, a fetus is not a potential life, it is an existing, developing organism that is on the path to becoming a full adult. I argue that we do not have the right to initiate force on that life when there is no distinct difference between it and us when we were in that stage. We do not have the right to end that life, period.

 

You can keep on trying to convince me that a fetus is metaphysically identical to a baby

 

I ain't trying to convince you of anything. I know a person who's dug their heels in when I see one. I respond because like you, I have the right to express my viewpoint here.

 

My view is based on the view as man as a rational being. This is congruent with the real world.

 

Your view that rights in any capacity only extend to rational human beings, and that life is defined by owning property and the like, is skewed, incomplete, and insufficient to the real world. Not to mention it ignores the actual definitions of those terms. Again, all stuff I've covered in detail already.

 

Your view is based on man as a being to be used to sacrifice to others. This is the view that is insufficient with the real world and how man survives.

 

Your view that abortion should always be acceptable and your support of embryonic stem cell research make this a very hypocritical statement (of course if one accepts your view that rights only apply to rational human beings then it isn't. I see this view as baseless, as you already know). Not to mention your constant attempts to justify corporations underpaying child laborers in third world countries in substandard working conditions. Cases of treating people as means to an end don't often get clearer than that. I'll keep my personal thoughts about ethical egoism to myself for the time being, but this whole "altruism is bad" viewpoint makes no sense to me.

[Lord Sinister]

I'm not going to blunder in to this debate just yet, but I felt compelled to just rally against this one statement:

 

Black is white at a significantly lower intensity.

 

This is cobblers. Colours are colours. If you have a 'less intense' white as you put it, it becomes grey, which whilst closer to black, is NOT black. Nor is it white. Colours are as they are defined. White and black are polar opposites. They are not identical in any way.

 

I just wanted to clear that up. This isn't even a Religious thing, it's just plain old common sense.

[Koockaburra101]

Went pro-choice on this one.

Unless it has consciousness and can survive outside the womans body it isn't a human being. If we're talking about the more legal aspects of it there's also a pragmatic argument about keeping it legal so people aren't tempted to do it illegally under less than ideal circumstances, which tends to be much worse for everyone involved.

[Geneaux486]

Unless it has consciousness and can survive outside the womans body it isn't a human being.

 

Species doesn't change when it comes out of the womb, it's the same being no matter what stage of developement it's in. Newborns can't survive independently, either, nor are their minds much further along in developement.