#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Does the fetus have rights?
Yes.
Side Score: 97
|
No.
Side Score: 97
|
|
2
points
Legally speaking, no. Ethically speaking, yes. I think we all need to take a step back and look at it this way; think about if your parents aborted you. It sounds fine and dandy to abort a baby, it avoids struggle and confrontation. However, that baby is a human, regardless if it is in the mother or not. It is alive and thriving from the moment of conception. It is growing and will potentially be born as a full size baby human. That "fetus" is a human, and we all believe in human rights; so why not for babies? If a mother gets an abortion the day before the child is due, it is considered a fetus, but if that baby has come out of the womb it is a baby? How can a day make that much difference? Months? I can understand abortion and its benefits to the parent, but if that child speak it would say "I don't want to die." The conclusion is that from the moment of conception, that "Fetus" is a human, and they should have rights. They should have the right to be protected, to be taken care of, and to be given a chance to live. One thing I have always known, from my time as a child to my adulthood, is that in this world there is not single factor that can make someone's rights more important than mine; no matter the age, gender, sexual preference, race, or beliefs. We are humans, despite any of those factors, and our rights are important and should be given to the baby since it is a live human. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
think about if your parents aborted you. If my parents aborted me I would not care, as I would not exist. However, that baby is a human Please define a human. It is alive and thriving Mmm... like a tumour. and will potentially be born as a full size baby human. Potentially. Sperm also has the potential to become a full size baby human, but it still does not have any rights. If a mother gets an abortion the day before the child is due, it is considered a fetus, but if that baby has come out of the womb it is a baby? I would not even consider a newborn baby a person yet... please refer to my post on the other side of this debate. but if that child speak it would say "I don't want to die." That's just it, it can't. That "child" isn't even aware of it's own existence yet. The conclusion is that from the moment of conception, that "Fetus" is a human, and they should have rights. So far you have just given BS answers as to why a fetus should be considered a person. Seriously, give me a good definition of what is a person and then see if a fetus applies to the definition. Side: No.
The question being asked is really, at what point in the growth of a human baby, does it become a person with human rights. There is much debate about when this actually occurs. ALL of the spectrum of opinion on this question is founded on some arbitrary definition. At conception, when the baby can feel pain, when the baby could survive outside the womb. In truth NO ONE knows when during gestation the magic transformation occurs. Logical conclusion must follow that (If we don't want to kill a human who possesses rights) and (If NO ONE truly knows when a baby becomes a human) then ALL arguments are potentially false. The only certain way then to avoid killing a human during gestation is to NOT kill and unborn human baby. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
I like the way you phrase the first part, but I think one part is a bit too generalized: If we don't want to kill a human who possesses rights I think we do allow killing people with rights - through the death penalty, in self-defense, etc. If someone is in your house without your consent, you can shoot them. Might the same principles apply to abortion? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
In my opinion? Yes, depending on the stage of development. There are no rights prior to the development of a functional nervous system; before this the fetus is unable to perceive anything whatsoever; 'violating' any 'rights' that a 1st trimester fetus might be said to have is akin to flashing a blind person. Early to midway through the second trimester, the nervous system develops sufficiently for nerves to begin firing, allowing for the most rudimentary forms of perception to take place; while nothing we could call thought is possible at this stage, it is theoretically possible for the fetus to experience such things as pain and fear (at a very basic level) at this stage. It's really only at this stage that any meaningful discussion regarding right can begin to take place; from this stage onward, I personally see them has having rights on par with animals. As far as full human rights? My stance here is pretty controversial; I wouldn't consider a baby to have the same rights as an adult or anywhere even remotely close until at the very least personality and self awareness develop; these typically arise during the second year of life, hence the reason for the controversy- my 'system' wouldn't differentiate between a 3rd trimester fetus and a one month old baby in terms of their rights, which I would assign at the 'animal' level. I don't believe it is acceptable to kill an animal because it is an inconvenience, but when the animal represents a threat to somebody's life it becomes acceptable to do so. How does this translate into the abortion dialogue? From fertilization through the end of the first trimester, acceptable under any circumstances. From second trimester through birth, acceptable when there is a serious threat to the mothers life that can best be removed via abortion. This model might also appear to support early infanticide, but remember the qualifiers; I'm not aware of many situations where a baby under the age of 2 can represent a threat to someones life. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
Life begins at fertilization, biologically speaking. It's true that the gametes themselves are alive, but they're part of the parents tissues; at fertilization a biologically alive, distinct life form exists. I simply don't believe that 'life' alone implies rights, as I've detailed. Side: Yes.
2
points
1
point
1
point
I believe a fetus should have rights, but they should not outweigh the health of the mother's rights. Also, the father should have rights...but they should not outweigh the mother's rights. I think the fetus should be protected to some degree and the father should be protected to some degree. I am not sure what the "degree" should be. Side: Yes.
1
point
Thank you for answering. I oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway because abortion is really violent. The baby has his or her body torn to pieces in the surgical abortion. This dispute is done with respect, so please do not get mad. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yes. They are babies that haven't been born yet. What if your parents aborted you instead of loving, nurturing, and caring for you. The baby feels pain at 8 weeks. What kind of sick, demented people are abortionists that vacuum arms and legs off the human body, or inject a saline solution into the mother, and the baby comes out burnt and black? This is barbaric and nothing short of the work of the devil. Side: Yes.
If everyone thinks that they have freedom, freedom is not free. There are consequences for all behavior. The consequences of abortion are 1/7th of our population dead, and many people going to Hell for killing individuals that feel, have heartbeats, and move. People that can kill have no conscience-- the same as a murderer. Side: Yes.
1
point
Yes because that's how we all were before we even become what we would call "babies". If all fetuses were killed because we found them worthless and not really of any worth, we all wouldn't exist. So if we are over here fighting for our rights as human individuals, I think it should be the same way for fetuses because that's what we all started as. Side: Yes.
1
point
0
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
So why call it a fetus? Your opinion is also subjective because that human baby is going to be the reason for destruction of more nature(FACT), which is wrong. Plus I wish my mom had an abortion if I could have chose that I would have but I was a FETUS and did not have any awareness of my situation. Side: No.
0
points
1
point
|
3
points
The legal definition of a person is a human being. It does not say it must be human, as in the adjective. It must be a human being. Saying that a fetus is a human being is like saying that a price of hair about to be cloned is a human being. They are both human, both of them are from a human, produced by a human, made of human cells and DNA. The only difference is a fetus has blood. A fetus is not a human. It is human, but in the early stages, it is not a human being. Would you call a piece of flesh cut from someone's body-- no brain, maybe some rudimentary muscles pumping blood, no active nervous system-- a human being? No. A fetus is not a human being, unless the definition were changed to include "anything that will become a human", in which case sperm and eggs would be humans. Hopefully you all now see the gaping logical holes in anti choice arguments. Side: No.
1
point
Well like I said in the beginning, if you want an actual answer to this question, then the answer can be googled, and the answer is no it does not have rights. That's like asking is the sky blue. I'll repeat since I don't think you quite got it, this questions seems like you're asking should the sky be blue hence you want to debater something, and want to see other view points on this idea, as opposed to a solid undebateable answer. Overall, it does not matter what you feel, if the question is "does the fetus have rights" the answer is no, simple and clean. Side: Yes.
1
point
I believe that the fetus has rights. It is troubling when one person dehumanizes another person. The fetus is a human being, and I believe that abortion kills that human being. Most abortions take place 56 or more days after fertilization when the baby has a heartbeat and brainwaves. Side: Yes.
Then I take you back to the first statement I made, because you said should, this debate needs to be retitled, should instead of does. I also asked the question for that very reason, and you disputed me andtold me no, but then went on to prove how this is in fact a should debate, instead of a does question, by using should answers. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not unwilling...unable, since as I've explained (i believe) four times before, this is not a debate, this is a question. The question to which of course the answer is an irrefutable no. As for the question you asked me specifically, that I did in fact take note of, that was not directly related to the question in the title, and was thus a red herring, and worthy of being disregarded. You don't want to play the logic game with me, you've proven countless times that your logic is faulty, if that even. Side: Yes.
1
point
The fetus doesn't grow? I'm quite positive that the fetus is constantly creating cells so that it develops to fit its genetic code. The fetus doesn't sap nutrients from the mother? I could have sworn that the fetus is connected to the mother by a cord so whatever nutriets she puts in her blood the baby will absorb. Almost every process in the universe qualifies as naturally occuring. That argument is weak. Saying the fetus does none of that because the processes occur naturally seem quite contradictory. If the fetus does absolutely nothing then no natural processes can occur. If the fetus does something then natural processes do occur. It's a natural process for the fetus to grow, sap nutriets, and discard of waste. If you are attempting to relate this to consciousness then sure, but then you still have to admit that the fetus is still doing something. You might as well say chicken embryos do nothing, yet that statement is false since that would mean that chickens couldn't be born. Chicken embryos grow and develops. The cells multiply and are given certain jobs and the chick will continue to develop based off of its genetic code. In conclusion, a fetus is in fact doing something and its processes occur naturally, but it's illogical to say that a fetus isn't doing any of the things I listed simply because its processes occur naturally. Side: No.
4
points
By that logic, a dead body does things too- It decays, it bloats, and it smells terrible. Sometimes nit-picks are reasonable and make a big difference in a persons point, but this is not such a case. Arguing that it's technically doing something does not refute the actual argument regarding rights, unless you're asserting dead bodies should have rights as well. It is also quite evident from context that he is referring to a certain level of agency in the actions noted. This nit-pick therefore changes nothing doesn't constitute as a dispute to his point for this reason alone. Side: Yes.
1
point
Then you completely misunderstood the basis of my argument. I wasn't discussing rights in any sense and my argument never glossed over rights. This argument was simply to demonstrate that the fetus does something. My argument stands valid if he said a dead human body does nothing. I'm not sure if you fully understood what I was putting out. Noting self agency is within the scope of my argument, however it is not what the target is. Side: No.
1
point
Ah, so you were just completely off-topic then. Fair enough, carry on. The fact remains that your being technically correct in this case is completely irrelevant to the overall debate, you'll have to forgive me for having mistakenly given you the benefit of the doubt. Side: Yes.
Completely off topic? No. If you wish to categorize my argument, which was addressing my previous rebuttal that the fetus does something, as "off topic" be my guest. I have already presented my case. I did sway from the oroginal topic. I will admit that primarily because I didn't agree with a portion of a post. Side: No.
1
point
Yes, completely off-topic. The debate here is 'Does the fetus have rights?' The post you responded to asserted that the fetus doesn't have rights because 'it doesn't do anything.' You pointed out that it does 'do something' as a dispute to this argument; this is more than just saying he is wrong, this amounts to disputing his position on whether or not fetus' have rights because they do in fact do something, according to you. Your dispute doesn't hold water on those grounds though, because we certainly aren't granting rights to dead bodies and compost heaps, which both also do things. Your argument constitutes a nit-pick of the posters statement, but does not constitute a dispute to his position at all, and is completely off-topic. Side: Yes.
You pointed out that it does 'do something' as a dispute to this argument; this is more than just saying he is wrong, this amounts to disputing his position on whether or not fetus' have rights because they do in fact do something, according to you. No, and it seems you are trying to force a category upon my stance. I merely disagreed with a portion of the argument he presented since he said the fetus does nothing. All I needed to prove was that the fetus does something. Completely off topic would be me talking about how trains work or how crane operates. I was talking about fetuses. This whole debate is about fetus. i took no stance on the rights of the fetus because that's not what I disagreed with and had no intention to even participate in that portion of the debate. Your argument constitutes a nit-pick of the posters statement, but does not constitute a dispute to his position at all, and is completely off-topic. Key word "Nit-pick". I have already stated this and yet you still seem to fail at realizing the purpose of my response. Then you have the audacity to even claim that my response is "completely" off topic. It's not within the scope of right, but most certain on topic of fetuses. I didn't assert anything about rights nor do i wish to do so since I don't want to participate in this debate. i merely disagreed with a portion of an argument and apparently that's a crime. Either that or you have debate OCD. I'm done posting on this debate. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If you mean a person with a non-functional mental disability(I mean IQ of 0) it would not hurt to kill them because they were mentally lost in the first place. At no point in there life will they ever even recognize that they have rights. What would a non-functional retarded person contribute to the world? Name one that has(were talking IQ = 0.) The fetus strictly relies on its mother for survival (exclude the final stage.) It is incomplete without the source. And the way you use "kill" is as if the fetus is aware of its own life(early stages.) Its brain is not even developed to think at those stages. Side: No.
1
point
If you means a person with a non-functional mental disability (I mean an IQ of 0), it would not hurt to kill them. How very Hitleresque of you. Hitler went after the disabled before he killed the Jews. Mentally disabled people have the same right to live as normal people. It is awefully ableist to say that disabled people should be killed. One does not have to be abled to have rights. Side: Yes.
4
points
Point of fact: He is not referring to 'disabled' people. IQ 0 is not a disability, it is literally a lack of activity and potential whatsoever. IQ 0 is not severely mentally handicapped; it is being a vegetable, or brain dead. We already pull the plug on cases like these. If you're going to go Godwin's Law, at least make it applicable- your usage here isn't merely twisting his words, it's discarding them and substituting your own. Side: No.
1
point
Godwin's Law is not a fallacy. It is not a fallacy to point out the cultural paralells of abortion to Nazi Germany. Just as Hitler did not think that the Jews were human, proaborts do not think that unborn children are human. I am not twisting his words, but pointing out what I believe to be the implications of his statements. Side: Yes.
4
points
I never said it was a fallacy- I merely pointed out that it was a completely inappropriate comparison. The Nazis put mentally retarded individuals to death. This is considered heinous by modern standards. 'IQ-0' and 'no mental function' do not describe the mentally retarded. They describe the brain-dead. They describe the vegetables. Pulling the plug on these is not considered a crime by modern standards, but is in fact rather commonplace. You're not twisting his words at all, that much is true- you're ignoring his words and substituting your own. He writes 'IQ 0' (brain dead) and you substitute 'IQ 50' (mentally handicapped). He writes 'no mental function' and you substitute 'reduced mental function.' Your comparison to the practices of Nazi Germany is entirely unfounded in this case. There is really no reasonable way I'm aware of to interpret his statements so as to make the comparison valid; he's pretty much spelled out exactly what he's referring to. I'm not sure why you're not getting it. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
Oh, we're in agreement there. I also think it's wrong to kill babies. I also think it's wrong to kill fetuses once they're past 12 weeks gestation or so, excepting cases where the mothers life is in jeopardy, it's her best bet, and better options are off the table. I'm pretty sure you're in agreement with me there, and that we'd both prefer the fetus' life be saved if possible. I think it's really just those first 12 weeks where we disagree. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
12 weeks marks the earliest observed point where a fetus has had sufficient development of the central and peripheral nervous systems to have the theoretical capacity to experience any kind of sensation whatsoever- although no actual response to stimulus has been recorded quite this early yet, I'm aware that the cases we've observed are a very small sample, and prefer to err on the side of caution so to speak; theoretical capacity is a better cutoff in my mind than demonstrated capacity. I touched on it in another debate, but while a 2nd trimester fetus certainly doesn't have any of the qualities that make up a person, it still has something akin to the basic low-level brain function that very simple animals have at this stage- I consider it to have the same rights as an animal at this point, and as such am opposed to killing it for convenience. Life and death is another matter entirely, and a scenario where I don't balk at putting animals down either. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
8 weeks typically marks when the neurons in the brain first start forming connections to one another. It requires a bit more than that for the different brain cells to start communicating with one another, and more nervous infrastructure still before any kind of feeling can take place. It's usually around 15-18 weeks before the brain and peripheral nervous system develop enough to receive and respond to stimuli, but like I said, side of caution; structures have been observed to be mostly formed as early as 12 weeks, with reflexes that 'bypass the brain' beginning to occur, so I cuts off at 12 weeks. It's also convenient with the whole trimesters thing. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
Biology and anatomy lessons taken from basic levels in high school through high levels in college, tempered by countless hours of reading medical journals and the like, communication with colleagues working in medical fields, personal observation and many questions asked during my wife's pregnancy, and personal behavioral observations of numerous children from infancy to young childhood, my own son included. Side: Yes.
1
point
If studies suggests that fetal pain does not occur until close to 30 weeks, how does that influence your opinion? Side: No.
1
point
I would point out that studies cannot possibly determine whether the fetus is experiencing something that can be directly compared to what we experience as pain, we can only gauge that based on responses, which are limited by the level of development of the brain. I would also point out that other studies establish the ability for a fetus to react to a painful stimulus in a manner different from a nonpainful one as early as 15 weeks, which would appear to be in contradiction to the article you linked, and further that the structures that allow such can form as early as 12 weeks. The article in question does not refer to a specific experiment, but is based off of various other articles published regarding fetal pain at various stages. I strongly suspect cherry picking of some kind to be involved here- and at the very least, even if I don't question the raw data from various studies, I can certainly question the conclusions drawn. Side: No.
1
point
studies cannot possibly determine whether the fetus is experiencing something that can be directly compared to what we experience as pain Then why not draw the line at day 1? the ability for a fetus to react to a painful stimulus in a manner different from a nonpainful one as early as 15 weeks post the reference, I'll check it out. that the structures that allow such can form as early as 12 weeks Do you have evidence that the thalamocortical fibers referred to develop earlier than the 23 weeks that they suggest, or evidence that the structures aren't required for pain recognition? I strongly suspect cherry picking of some kind to be involved here Couldn't it be vice-versa - that the other study involves cherry-picking? I can certainly question the conclusions drawn. Sure - your opinion could be anything, but is less persuasive to me than evidence. Side: No.
1
point
Then why not draw the line at day 1? Because even if we can't determine if a response to a stimulus is directly comparable to our concept of pain, we can certainly assume that an absence of development in the peripheral and central nervous systems means that pain cannot be experienced, the infrastructure required to indicate such being absent. post the reference, I'll check it out. I'll have to go digging a bit to find it, I linked several different studies in a prior debate- I'll edit this when I have them for you. At work at the moment so it may be later this evening. Do you have evidence that the thalamocortical fibers referred to develop earlier than the 23 weeks that they suggest, or evidence that the structures aren't required for pain recognition? I'm not asserting that fetus' experience pain in the same manner that developed adults do. I'm asserting that they experience pain the same manner that other animals are observed to. Animals that don't have these fibers or the structures surrounding them in the first place, such as most reptiles, are still recognized as able to feel pain. The burden of proof would be on the one claiming that such structures are required to experience anything that would be called pain, and it has not been met. I base mine on the earliest point that the perception of pain is theoretically possible; better, in my opinion, to attribute rights to something that may not yet 'deserve' them than to deny rights to something that should. Couldn't it be vice-versa - that the other study involves cherry-picking? An actual study doesn't generally involve cherry-picked result, and when it does so it doesn't pass peer review. Your link was not to a study- it was to a conclusion drawn from multiple selected studies. Sure - your opinion could be anything, but is less persuasive to me than evidence. But your linked article does not, in fact, provide evidence, now, does it? Side: Yes.
1
point
At work at the moment so it may be later this evening. Take your time, I am actually headed out of town for a couple days - niece is having a baby, apropos, eh? (Mmm, hopefully not now that I think about it.) Rather not try to keep typing everything on the phone - depends on how long we are waiting I suppose. Will keep an eye out for studies and read if there's time.
An actual study doesn't generally involve cherry-picked result, and when it does so it doesn't pass peer review A single study is suceptible to bias as is a study of studies. Your link was not to a study A study of studies is still a study. Are you able to see the methodology etc - if not, I might be able to paste portions for you to evaluate, or the list of citations, etc. But your linked article does not, in fact, provide evidence, now, does it? Um, yes? How is a study published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association done by 4 MDs and a PhD with nearly 100 citations not evidence? Side: No.
1
point
1
point
I believe that it is morally wrong to abort beyond 12 weeks (end of the first trimester) except insofar as it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This is my personal moral stance on the issue. As far as the laws I would support, the breakdown would be as follows: -Prior to 12 weeks gestation, abortion can be had at any time for any reason, and we do not grant any rights to the fetus. -From 12 weeks gestation on, the fetus is granted the same level of rights that animals are. We do not kill it because it is an inconvenience, but when it is a direct threat to the mothers life we deal with it by whatever means necessary; preferably an emergency c-section or induced labor, but abortion where that fails. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
Not sure why you disputed here but... Not exactly. Remember, I said 'when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.' I'm not talking about 'increased danger' statistically- I'm talking about individual cases where a specific mothers life is at risk, to be assessed individually. If the mother's life can be saved just as reliably by an emergency c-section or induced labor, those should be utilized instead (at least if the fetus has gestated long enough to be viable). An abortion procedure itself is not without risk for the mother, and cases where aborting is the only option would tend to be exceptions to the rule. So technically speaking, this model would allow for even late term abortion, but only when it is deemed the only way to save the life of the mother. There would be strict limitations, however, on the circumstances under which abortions from the second trimester on would be allowed. First trimester abortions would see no such limitations. Side: Yes.
1
point
the danger can be readily alleviated by an emergency c-section or induced labor Induced labor after 12 weeks but before viability would be an abortion, correct? An abortion procedure itself is not without risk for the mother But generally less danger than the pregnancy. ref I'm not talking about 'increased danger' statistically I was referring more to the same rights as animals - if an animal poses a danger, then I would assume you would believe it should be legal to put it down (or at least give it away, which before viability is not really an option during pregnancy.) Side: No.
1
point
Induced labor after 12 weeks but before viability would be an abortion, correct? Yes, it would; and the lack of viability would be a factor in rendering abortion the only option to save the mothers life in some cases; this is consistent with what I've already said. But generally less danger than the pregnancy Again- I'm not concerned with danger in the form of statistical risk. I'm concerned with specific danger due to complications or other abnormal factors that put the life of the mother at risk. I was referring more to the same rights as animals - if an animal poses a danger, then I would assume you would believe it should be legal to put it down (or at least give it away, which before viability is not really an option during pregnancy.) Immediate specific danger, not statistical potential danger. I wouldn't have a dog put down because it was a 'threatening breed' like a put bull, I wouldn't have a dog put down because it had a history of biting when its tail was pulled. I would have a dog put down if it was in the habit of attacking with little or no provocation. Sure, pregnancy carries some level of risk with it, but that's not what is being examined here. Side: Yes.
1
point
the only option to save the mothers life What if it isn't to save the mother's life, but to save her ovaries or protect her from other organ damage, or to protect her financially, or... complications or other abnormal factors might be a bit convoluded, but I think this is a good place to mention rape. Does allowing only for "abnormal factors" rely on some level of consent to sex carrying with it the consent to the normal risks associated with pregnancy? Immediate specific danger, not statistical potential danger. All danger is in the form of statistical potential danger. I wouldn't have a dog put down because it was a 'threatening breed' like a put bull, I wouldn't have a dog put down because it had a history of biting when its tail was pulled. I would have a dog put down if it was in the habit of attacking with little or no provocation. This would mean that no abortion could be preventative - you must wait until the fetus creates an actual injury or death to take action. Sure, pregnancy carries some level of risk with it, but that's not what is being examined here. Why not? Side: No.
2
points
What if it isn't to save the mother's life, but to save her ovaries or protect her from other organ damage, or to protect her financially, or... Then it should be dealt with prior to the 12 week mark, before animal rights apply to it. might be a bit convoluded, but I think this is a good place to mention rape. Does allowing only for "abnormal factors" rely on some level of consent to sex carrying with it the consent to the normal risks associated with pregnancy? Again; 12 week mark. Past that, life threatening. That's where I stand on the matter. All danger is in the form of statistical potential danger. No, statistical potential danger is not danger at all. Danger is an actual looming threat, specific to you. If 1 out of 10 campers are attacked by bears, statistically they are all in danger- but in actuality, only 1 of each 10 is in immediate danger. My point is simply the risk of 'being pregnant' is insufficient. Or, if you will- deaths due to pregnancy in the developed world represent only a tiny fraction of all pregnancies; it isn't statistically dangerous enough to warrant such a drastic measure, except wherein specific circumstances significantly amplify the risk. This would mean that no abortion could be preventative - you must wait until the fetus creates an actual injury or death to take action. Not exactly. A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently. A dogs threat is behavioral; behaviors typically do not form in a vacuum and occur in patterns. Unexpected behavior from dogs, while having numerous documented cases, is still an extreme rarity amongst the species; most are very much creatures of habit. A fetus' threat is circumstantial, and in many cases the threat is not indicated until complications are already arising. Sometimes they are caught ahead of time, and it is quite obvious that a life threatening situation will inevitably result. That said, when an expectant mothers life is threatened by the pregnancy, it is because the fetus is already causing some form of injury, directly or otherwise- so no problems there. Why not? Because we are currently discussing my views on the matter, not an assessment of how things actually are, and (as I touched on earlier in this post) I consider the low incidence of maternal death in the developed world sufficient evidence to declare that the risk entailed by pregnancy is not in and of itself to warrant abortion once the fetus attains animal rights. As stated, they are entirely free to abort during the first trimester for whatever reason. Side: Yes.
1
point
Re: organ damage: If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways? Re: potential danger: You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur. A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently. Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics. Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc. Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks. With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view? Side: No.
1
point
Re: organ damage: If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways? I probably would. Again- a dog attack is an entirely different circumstance than a fetus, and habitual behavior is different from incidental circumstances. A dog with a habit of attacking can be expected to continue attacking for the rest of its life. A fetus that has caused some kind of injury can, at most, be expected to continue causing injury to the mother for about 9 months. Re: potential danger: You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur. No, not really at all. Statistics look at overall outcomes, but every single death counted in statistics has causes- they just aren't necessarily known. Really, saying pregnancy itself is a risk to a womans life is incorrect; complications that can arise from pregnancy can be a risk to a womans life, but are not always present. I maintain my current stance. Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics. I've already touched on the fact that statistics look at outcomes irrespective of causes, generally speaking. They're necessary for multiple things. But they give an incorrect assessment overall. A certain portion of the population die due to bleeding out per year; bleeding out does not occur in a vacuum, however; it is not a random chance that it just occurs spontaneously- there is a chain of events that leads to such an injury. Do you really not understand the difference between a 'general risk' and an 'immediate threat'? Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc. Yes, it comes with inconveniences. I'm fine with having an abortion for the sake of convenience, during the first 12 weeks. After that point, as far as I'm concerned, it has sufficient rights that it's survival trumps the mothers personal convenience. Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks. With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view? An acceptable reason for late term abortion? I don't think so. Some people give animals away under such circumstances, and that's fine. Others just kill them off, sometimes tossing them out of moving vehicles or drowning them (chillingly common with unwanted kittens!). I despise those who simply kill the unwanted kittens rather than spaying/neutering their animals in the first place or finding good homes for them. It would be hypocritical of me to treat abortions for convenience any differently, provided they occur after the 12 week mark. If they can't afford the child, but have no actual complications, they have two options in my book: Abort before 12 weeks, or carry to term and put up for adoption. Side: Yes.
1
point
Re: dog attack vs fetus The issue I am exploring is - if there is near certainty of damage which will likely be less than life threatening, can one get rid of an animal? If so, by applying the animal standard you suggest, wouldn't abortion be allowed to protect not just the life of the mother? The method of calculating the probability isn't relevant as long as they could be said to approximate each other. If you can get rid of a dog for being dangerous, but not life threatening, wouldn't the same logic apply to the fetus? Re: statistics Statistics can be very general or very specific, but danger/risk is assessed about a future (unknowable) event and always relies on probability. I think it boils down to a semantic argument which isn't likely to bear much weight, so, rather than get too far off track, I will just say that you should think on this for a bit. If you think we should flush it out further, I will. Do you really not understand the difference between a 'general risk' and an 'immediate threat'? They are both perceived points along a continuum of probability. An acceptable reason for late term abortion? Does late term abortion now mean anything over 12 weeks? Or, is there some point between 12 weeks and birth where rights get elevated? Side: No.
1
point
The issue I am exploring is - if there is near certainty of damage which will likely be less than life threatening, can one get rid of an animal? If so, by applying the animal standard you suggest, wouldn't abortion be allowed to protect not just the life of the mother? The method of calculating the probability isn't relevant as long as they could be said to approximate each other. If you can get rid of a dog for being dangerous, but not life threatening, wouldn't the same logic apply to the fetus? Are you not reading my posts? It's an entirely different scenario. The threat that a dog represents to a person is an aggressive attack. Dogs are creatures of habit. A dog that is in the habit of attacking without provocation can be expected to continue attacking again and again. Complications from a fetus do not represent habitual behaviors, or any intent whatsoever. If a non-life threatening complication arises during a pregnancy, that does not generally imply that further complications will arise from the same pregnancy. It's not the same situation, at all. If a fetus was capable of habitually engaging in intentional, unprovoked, aggressive behavior, it would be. A one-time complication from a fetus is more comparable to getting an injury from tripping over a dog than it is to a dog attack, and I wouldn't put a dog down because I tripped over it. They are both perceived points along a continuum of probability. So you say. But they are not the same. Remember: the maternal death rate that that statistical danger comes from does not mean that x% of pregnant women will simply die randomly with no explanation. Pregnancy does not lead to death in the absence of complications; the level of risk assigned to pregnancy is the statistical likelihood of developing a complication that will lead to death. I'm going to compare pregnancy complications to bear attacks here. (Arbitrary numbers) Roughly 1 in 100 campers experience a bear attack camping in this park. There is a perceived, general risk, for all of the campers. There is an immediate threat to roughly 1% of them. The remaining 99% are never in any real danger due to bears not attacking them. I have no problem with someone shooting a bear that is attacking them (although bears do have a tendency to shrug off most bullets, thats another topic entirely), just as I have no problem with someone having an abortion when they are experiencing a life-threatening complication. I have a problem with shooting a bear on sight because it MIGHT attack you, just as I have a problem with someone having an abortion because they MIGHT develop a complication. Does late term abortion now mean anything over 12 weeks? Or, is there some point between 12 weeks and birth where rights get elevated? In my system, yes, as 12 weeks gestation would be the only delimiting point during pregnancy. No further increase in rights for the duration of pregnancy or even immediately afterwards. I would assign human rights to the child when said child is able to demonstrate self awareness and consciousness, which generally occurs between 18 and 24 months. Side: Yes.
1
point
I will try to simplify even further. Dog: high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death - can you get rid of? Pregnancy: same exact question. ? How to determine "high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death" (habituality, complication, etc.) can be addressed separately, but given the same danger, is the same action allowed? Side: Yes.
1
point
Dog: high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death - can you get rid of? Yes, because a dog causes damage by the form of an intentional attack which is a habitual behavior, and remains a threat for as long as it lives; a single attack is an indicator of future attacks. Pregnancy: same exact question. ? It depends. Pregnancy causes damage due to incidental complications, and only remains a threat for the duration of the pregnancy and delivery. How to determine "high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death" (habituality, complication, etc.) can be addressed separately, but given the same danger, is the same action allowed? I would say that given the same danger, the same action is allowed- but 'the same danger' means more than the same overall probabilities- it means the same form of danger, the same threat of recurring danger, the same amount of intent, and the same scope. Even if a pregnancy could be demonstrated to be equal in terms of risk to a given dog, the danger represented by the dog is intentional, and has a significant threat of recurrence, and has a much larger scope; the fetus can really only injure the mother, and that only for the duration of the pregnancy. A dog can endanger many others for a significantly longer time. Equal rights means equal treatment under the same or equivalent circumstances. You have yet to establish a comparison that is remotely equivalent in terms of circumstances. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
I find your inability to answer the question quite telling. Are you asserting that there is no case that can be made for getting rid of a dog where there is less danger than a case where you seem to be saying that one cannot terminate a pregnancy? A dog that bites fingers and breaks the skin etc, but does not have the ability to rip fingers fully off - can a person reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of? vs. After being pregnant more than 12 weeks, a woman finds out about a complication of her pregnancy that will very likely result in loss of her ovaries - can she reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of? The fact that there is a similarity between two situations does not mean they should be dealt with the same when they are entirely different in other ways. If there is never enough similarity for comparison, then it is possible that claiming fetal rights should equate to animal rights is not an apt analogy. Side: Yes.
1
point
I find your inability to answer the question quite telling. I have answered the question. Several times now. The answer is no. You're attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with my position; however, this is not the case- rather, it is the same standard being applied to two different scenarios. Your argument is equivalent to offering the pay difference between a female waitress and a male engineer as evidence of a pay gap between the genders. A dog that bites fingers and breaks the skin etc, but does not have the ability to rip fingers fully off - can a person reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of? A dog that is able to break the skin but not rip the finger off of an adult is perfectly capable of fatally injuring a small child. As such, said dog is exhibiting habitual behaviour that can certainly be fatal. If you're referring to a dog that is unable to do more than barely break the skin on a baby, that doesn't meet the qualifier of 'severe damage' that you used for this example. After being pregnant more than 12 weeks, a woman finds out about a complication of her pregnancy that will very likely result in loss of her ovaries - can she reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of? A shitty situation, certainly, but I suppose it's always a shitty situation when we're talking about this kind of rights. It's very tough, but ultimately my vote would be a no here, although I'm certain others might disagree or even consider me a horrible person for that. But ultimately, I believe that an animals right to life trumps a humans right to an organ that isn't necessary for survival. I'm sure I'll catch flak, but I'm sticking to that- the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but the non-fatal injury of the mother does not out weigh that life. If there is never enough similarity for comparison, then it is possible that claiming fetal rights should equate to animal rights is not an apt analogy. Pardon my french, but bullshit. If that were the case, talking about animal rights at all would be a non starter, given that many animals could not possibly be involved in equivalents to every situation where rights might come into question. Is there a comparable situation to the dog attacks you noted for every other animal you can think of? A goldfish, maybe? What could a goldfish do that would be comparable to a dog attack, where the same ruling on rights applies? If animal rights can apply to both a goldfish and a dog, then they can certainly also apply to a fetus. Side: No.
1
point
A shitty situation, certainly, but I suppose it's always a shitty situation when we're talking about this kind of rights. It's very tough, but ultimately my vote would be a no here, although I'm certain others might disagree or even consider me a horrible person for that. But ultimately, I believe that an animals right to life trumps a humans right to an organ that isn't necessary for survival. I'm sure I'll catch flak, but I'm sticking to that- the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but the non-fatal injury of the mother does not out weigh that life. I am prolife, but I disagree. I feel that abortion should be allowed for the life of the mother or if the baby will die anyway, but otherwise no. Side: Yes.
2
points
You know, you really should read the post you're replying to- and quoting- before you respond to it. I just said, specifically, that I feel that the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but a non-fatal injury does not. I was stating that I do not feel it is ok to abort because of a significant risk of non-fatal damage to the ovaries. You say you disagree, and then proceed to state a position that is almost identical to my own. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
A dog that is able to break the skin but not rip the finger off of an adult is perfectly capable of fatally injuring a small child. A small dog with the ability to break skin on an adult is not necessarily able to kill children. If the dog were only able to break skin on babies and small children and not fatally wound them, would one then not be able to morally get rid of the dog in your view? Should there be a law against getting rid of the dog for the same? If you're referring to a dog that is unable to do more than barely break the skin on a baby, that doesn't meet the qualifier of 'severe damage' that you used for this example. Right, a dog that does not pose the same risk of 'severe damage' as a child - and yet the dog so far is able to be got rid of and the baby not. I'm sure I'll catch flak Not from me, I am just trying to flush out your opinion (and perhaps "attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with [your] position".) talking about animal rights at all would be a non starter Whether legally or morally, animal rights are certainly not a settled matter. Is there a comparable situation to the dog attacks you noted for every other animal you can think of? Maybe not every animal for every situation, but certainly some animals in some situations. Take the case where an owner has not only a goldfish, but also a cat and the cat, being intrigued by the fish, jumps on things and poses a danger to itself or others - can an owner morally and/or legally get rid of the goldfish rather than the cat? Side: Yes.
1
point
A small dog with the ability to break skin on an adult is not necessarily able to kill children. If the dog were only able to break skin on babies and small children and not fatally wound them, would one then not be able to morally get rid of the dog in your view? Should there be a law against getting rid of the dog for the same? With those qualifiers on the situation, sure. I would be opposed to putting the dog down under those circumstances. I should note that such a dog represents a tiny minority of the dog population, though- the overwhelming majority of dogs are strong enough to potentially kill a small child. Right, a dog that does not pose the same risk of 'severe damage' as a child - and yet the dog so far is able to be got rid of and the baby not. So far nothing- when I noted that it was based on the potential for future danger, it should have been understood that cases where the danger is negligible don't qualify for the response in question. Such a dog should not be a candidate for euthenasia, in my opinion. Not from me, I am just trying to flush out your opinion (and perhaps "attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with [your] position".) Fair enough. Whether legally or morally, animal rights are certainly not a settled matter. This is very true- but there is certainly some law and some majority consensus on the moral side re: animal rights. Maybe not every animal for every situation, but certainly some animals in some situations. Take the case where an owner has not only a goldfish, but also a cat and the cat, being intrigued by the fish, jumps on things and poses a danger to itself or others - can an owner morally and/or legally get rid of the goldfish rather than the cat? That is a very interesting question- although I would again question the necessity of removal of either, as simply keeping them apart from one another would suffice. Exploring the question isn't really relevant to the topic at hand and is certainly far off-topic for the debate- it would be an interesting subject for discussion in an animal rights debate- if I see it in one of those I'd love to explore it, just not here. Thank you, at least, for your concession that not all situations need have equivalents to still fall under animal rights. Side: Yes.
1
point
I would be opposed to putting the dog down Should there be a law against the same? the overwhelming majority of dogs I assume the morality of the situation would have little, if anything, to do with how often it occurs, no? although I would again question the necessity of removal of either, as simply keeping them apart from one another would suffice. as we discussed before, options are available with animals that aren't available with pregnancy. It might be useful at some point to excogitate upon how any of the above scenarios would differ if getting rid of the animal was the only option. certainly far off-topic for the debate perhaps not as far afield as it might seem at first glance. It involves even less chance of human harm and yet it is still "a very interesting question" at the very least. I think we have largely flushed out your thoughts on the matter and people can decide to what extent they agree. I thank you for your time. I do think it possible and worthwhile to devise a scenario where the danger can be more comparative - the solution might be using wild animals rather than pets to mitigate the risk to other humans. For instance, a person walking in the wild stumbles upon an animal that can brutally maim but is unlikely to kill them, perhaps a badger or something - would a person be (morally/legally) justified in killing the animal? Side: No.
1
point
Should there be a law against the same? That's a question for the voters to answer. I'll tentatively say that I'd support such a law, but it would need to be a very lengthy, detailed bill, given how many permutations of the situation there are. I assume the morality of the situation would have little, if anything, to do with how often it occurs, no? It depends on what we're talking about. An event that occurs once per year would occur many times in the life of a dog, but one or fewer times over the course of the pregnancy. I wasn't referring to the frequency of occurence- I was referring to the proportion of a demographic. A more general rule will sometimes have exceptions for outliers- and recall that my metric was attacks representing a significant threat. as we discussed before, options are available with animals that aren't available with pregnancy. It might be useful at some point to excogitate upon how any of the above scenarios would differ if getting rid of the animal was the only option. I'm not opposed to exploring that angle; but if you wish to limit the response options to what are available for fetus, I must request that the hypothetical scenarios we explore be limited to those that are actually comparable to the type of threat a fetus could pose. perhaps not as far afield as it might seem at first glance. It involves even less chance of human harm and yet it is still "a very interesting question" at the very least. It's an interesting question because we're dealing with the rights of one animal vs the rights of another, which in theory should generally be held to be equal. If they were, though, and the only option was getting rid of one, the cat would appear to be the offender. I said it's off-topic and not applicable because it's being compared to a situation where human rights are in opposition to animal rights, which I believe we both agree are different. I think we have largely flushed out your thoughts on the matter and people can decide to what extent they agree. I thank you for your time. You're welcome of course. I do think it possible and worthwhile to devise a scenario where the danger can be more comparative - the solution might be using wild animals rather than pets to mitigate the risk to other humans. For instance, a person walking in the wild stumbles upon an animal that can brutally maim but is unlikely to kill them, perhaps a badger or something - would a person be (morally/legally) justified in killing the animal? I actually already touched on a more severe version of this with my bear attack example previously. I would oppose a person shooting a bear that they encountered simply because it represented a threat, but would support them shooting the bear should it charge or make aggressive action towards them. As such, I would say they would not be justified in killing the animal- if the animal was actually attacking, it would be another story. I know that a badger is capable of inflicting wounds that can kill a healthy adult male relatively quickly, and can easily inflict wounds that are potentially fatal if medical attention isn't received in short order. It should also be noted that animal attacks from smaller animals represent their own different risk category; mammals that are too small to cause severe injury or death are unlikely to attack without extreme provocation (and usually being cornered) unless they are carrying rabies or a similar condition. Wild animals don't typically get vaccinated against rabies. I think we need to remove intent from the equation. What if, instead of an animal attack, we're talking about a person who suddenly develops a mild allergy to a pet. Not a life-threatening one, just an uncomfortable one. I would consider it immoral to put the pet down under such circumstances, even if a proper home cannot be found for it in short order; would you consider a mild allergic reaction to be sufficient reason to put a pet down? A more severe allergy would be handled differently, as the pet needs to be removed immediately; if a new home cannot be found in short order, euthanasia would be a reasonable last resort. It should be noted that I would attempt to find a new owner, a no-kill shelter, or a kill shelter that would take the pet (in that order) before I opted for euthanasia. Side: No.
1
point
I'll tentatively say that I'd support such a law, but it would need to be a very lengthy, detailed bill, given how many permutations of the situation there are. If that is the case for even a dog that can't kill children, then at least the same would apply to abortion law, correct? type of threat a fetus could pose a fetus can pose the full range of damage - from nearly every pregnancy affecting a woman mentally, physically, emotionally, hormonally, etc. to complications which prevent women from having future children, having permanent organ damage, pregnancy induced diabetes which can turn into type 2, etc all the way up to and including death. the rights of one animal vs the rights of another and the rights of the pets' owner, right? which in theory should generally be held to be equal. depending - the owner could certainly value more the animal with the most brain, or longevity, or the better companion, etc. bear attack example right, but with a higher degree of mortality which pushed it over the threshold. if there was a right animal which has a high degree of likelihood of maiming, but low degree of mortality, and was attacking - could a person shoot that animal in your view? allergy Sure, let's work with that. Say a person has a severe allergy, but combine this with limiting the options to keeping or putting down. Would you think it could justifiably be put down? Side: Yes.
1
point
If that is the case for even a dog that can't kill children, then at least the same would apply to abortion law, correct? Yes, which is what I've been saying from the get go- although not the same complexity as dealing with a dog because (as noted) the fetus cannot engage in habitual behavior, nor can it endanger anyone but the mother, making it much easier to call in most cases. a fetus can pose the full range of damage - from nearly every pregnancy affecting a woman mentally, physically, emotionally, hormonally, etc. to complications which prevent women from having future children, having permanent organ damage, pregnancy induced diabetes which can turn into type 2, etc all the way up to and including death. I didn't say 'type of damage.' I said 'type of threat.' There is more to it than that, as I've already explored. and the rights of the pets' owner, right? Your situation that has us picking which animal to get rid of has already answered the question re: the pet owners rights. depending - the owner could certainly value more the animal with the most brain, or longevity, or the better companion, etc. I'm not suggesting they wouldn't; a call has to be made here one way or the other, and either decision is entirely legal- I'm just noting that from a 'rights' perspective, they're in theory equal. right, but with a higher degree of mortality which pushed it over the threshold. if there was a right animal which has a high degree of likelihood of maiming, but low degree of mortality, and was attacking - could a person shoot that animal in your view? As I've already stated, yes. A wild animal attack always represents mortal danger. Animals that aren't capable of causing fatal damage to humans typically don't attack except when significantly provoked, or when carrying a disease like rabies. If the animal is a mammal, simply getting checked out for rabies will involve putting the animal down anyway, regardless of whether or not you actually have it. I would apply the same logic to an uncollared stray dog for that matter, given that one can't safely assume an uncollared stray is vaccinated. Sure, let's work with that. Say a person has a severe allergy, but combine this with limiting the options to keeping or putting down. Would you think it could justifiably be put down? It would depend on the severity of the allergy. If by 'severe' you mean 'life threatening' then sure. If you simply mean 'severe discomfort' then no. Side: No.
1
point
not the same complexity At the end of the day I assume there would probably be more complexity. Instead of habits, you would have to address all of the complications. And multiples (twins, triplets, etc) certainly would have to take into account those besides the mother. Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? What about just to give it a much better chance? There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there, etc? RE: cat v goldfish & "either decision is entirely legal" isn't the danger posed far less than the life of the owner, yet getting rid of either is (and should be??) entirely legal? I'm just noting that from a 'rights' perspective, they're in theory equal. It depends on whose "theory" you are using. The same theory that assigns humans more "rights" than "animals" could likely be used in this case too. Re: wild animals: It looks like your using a lot more effort to avoid the scenario than to address it. Take the rabies case, it is not fatal in the US if treated. So, if a wild animal off the beaten path appears to have rabies and is beginning to attack, but is not likely to kill you, can you shoot it? RE: allergy Thanks for answering. It does provide an opening to ask a question I have been meaning to get your opinion on: "life threatening" - approximately what degree of certainty of death do you feel is required to consider something "life threatening", >0% chance, >50% chance, > 80% chance, absolute certainty...? Side: No.
1
point
At the end of the day I assume there would probably be more complexity. Instead of habits, you would have to address all of the complications. And multiples (twins, triplets, etc) certainly would have to take into account those besides the mother. Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? What about just to give it a much better chance? There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there, etc? Of course there will be some complexity; just less than in the previous example. Every issue you've noted here has an equivalent that could be explored with other animals. So, I stand by my prior statement, that the level of complexity involved is lesser when dealing with fetuses than it is when dealing with animals. isn't the danger posed far less than the life of the owner, yet getting rid of either is (and should be??) entirely legal? The scenario you presented was the owner choosing which one to get rid of, and it would be entirely legal to get rid of either; I answered under that premise. I don't believe it would be moral to put either down in that situation, but the scenario didn't have that angle open. My answer regarding the legality was a factual response regarding the current state of affairs, not what I would prefer; I believe I've communicated my preference quite thoroughly at this point. It depends on whose "theory" you are using. The same theory that assigns humans more "rights" than "animals" could likely be used in this case too. I'm not looking at anyone's specific theory here. I'm looking at the term 'animal rights' here, which is referring to all non-human animals. Perhaps some differentiation is merited, but that is again outside of the scope of this debate. The second half of your statement seems to be going the 'but humans ARE animals' route, unless I'm misreading you. This is incorrect; the term 'animal' specifically refers to non-humans, even if we can be biologically classified into the same groups as numerous animals. It is similar to the terms 'natural' vs' artificial' referring to produced by natural processes vs created by man. Some argue that 'nature' includes man, and therefore 'artificial' doesn't exist. They're wrong; just because they don't agree with where the line is drawn, the terms are used specifically because of where others have drawn that line. It looks like your using a lot more effort to avoid the scenario than to address it. Take the rabies case, it is not fatal in the US if treated. So, if a wild animal off the beaten path appears to have rabies and is beginning to attack, but is not likely to kill you, can you shoot it? I HAVE addressed it, you just seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that situations are complex. I refuse to accept oversimplification. It doesn't matter that rabies isn't fatal with treatment; part of the process of identifying rabies quickly enough for treatment to be effective is killing the offending animal and dissecting its brain. If there is a chance that the animal is carrying rabies, and it attacks you, it's dead anyway. Side: Yes.
1
point
The scenario you presented was the owner choosing which one to get rid of You certainly could still have said that neither was moral. I believe I've communicated my preference quite thoroughly at this point. Except what you think should be legal in such a case. My answer regarding the legality was a factual response regarding the current state of affairs, not what I would prefer That is what I thought, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. As an aside, I am not really interested in asking what the current law is, I can easily find that myself - my main concern is what people think the law should be and only tangentially what they think is moral. I'm not looking at anyone's specific theory here. Are you claiming an objective morality? outside of the scope of this debate your assertion that fetal rights should be analogous to animal rights is what brings them within the scope. the term 'animal' specifically refers to non-humans Humans are definitively animals. There are usages of the word animals which are intended to refer to non-humans and I read your statement to mean that, but it is certainly based on a given perspective. If humans have preference because of additional brain function, can a cat be preferred over a goldfish for the same reason? If there is a chance that the animal is carrying rabies, and it attacks you, it's dead anyway. Unless it gets away - then you wouldn't perform the test. Or, maybe a person would consider it more moral to undergo the pain and treatment for rabies than to kill the animal to test it to see if they can forego that (less-than-lethal) cost. Also, do you care to address the other questions that arose: Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? What about just to give it a much better chance? There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there? What statistical probability is required to be considered life-threatening? Side: No.
1
point
You certainly could still have said that neither was moral. You're right- I probably should have clarified that. Except what you think should be legal in such a case. I believe that it is implied that I favor legislation that matches my stance on the issue. That is what I thought, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. As an aside, I am not really interested in asking what the current law is, I can easily find that myself - my main concern is what people think the law should be and only tangentially what they think is moral. Fair enough, so basically I gave you what you were looking for in a roundabout way for both of us. Are you claiming an objective morality? Not objective, more an aggregate of the subjective rather than a specific individual one your assertion that fetal rights should be analogous to animal rights is what brings them within the scope. No, it really doesn't. I assert that they should have rights equivalent to animals- I am not interested in pursuing an exhaustive discussion regarding the relative rights of various animals here. Humans are definitively animals. There are usages of the word animals which are intended to refer to non-humans and I read your statement to mean that, but it is certainly based on a given perspective. If humans have preference because of additional brain function, can a cat be preferred over a goldfish for the same reason? I contest the fact that brain function, specifically, is the reason we assign ourselves more rights. We assign ourselves more rights because we're the species that is in the position of power to do so. Our brain function may be what gave us that position, but that doesn't necessarily make it the basis for assigning rights. If we were not the dominant species, and faced predation from a superpredator of some kind that we couldn't effectively combat, any discussion regarding the rights of that superpredator would be immaterial, as would any consideration of a human right to 'not be eaten.' Unless it gets away - then you wouldn't perform the test. Or, maybe a person would consider it more moral to undergo the pain and treatment for rabies than to kill the animal to test it to see if they can forego that (less-than-lethal) cost. Perhaps, but this would rarely be applicable to animals that aren't fully capable of killing an adult human without the aid of a disease. Remember that we're talking about an unprovoked attack (I already stated that I don't believe it is right to kill an animal for attacking when provoked excepting immediate self defense), which just plain doesn't happen in animals that are too small to cause serious injury to humans; they'll typically only attack if cornered or their young are threatened. The rate of unprovoked small mammal attacks by non-rabid individuals is infinismal. Also, do you care to address the other questions that arose: I took those as hypotheticals to illustrate the complexities rather than direct questions, as these aren't questioning the animal rights status of the fetuses; if a fetus is considered to have human rights, we're comparing human to human. If animal, animal to animal. If none, none to none. The overall balance is the same either way, is it not? I was under the impression that this thread was specifically regarding animal rights vs human rights in the context of assigning animal rights to a fetus. I don't mind attempting to address them, I just see them as being off-topic. Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? Sure, if the alternative is both dying, and emergency c-section/induced labor is not an option (due to other complications, insufficient gestation for viability, etc). What about just to give it a much better chance? Recall that aborting one of a pair of twins completely removes one possible outcome- the outcome where both fetuses survive. As such, I would support this only if the remaining fetus' new chance of survival was notably greater than the combination of the chances for either to survive, plus double the chance of both surviving. A 20% outlook for each individual would boil down to a 4% chance of both surviving, a 32% chance of at least one surviving, and a 64% chance of both dieing. Aborting one would need to raise the outlook for the remaining fetus to 36% to have the same chance of any children surviving, and removes the possibility of both; as such I would need a much better prognosis than 36% for the remaining fetus- bare minimum, 40%. I should state that I HATE using actual percentages here. If we are to legislate based on percent chances, then we also have to regulate the methodology used to generate those chances. Medical regulations in the US are already a nightmare, and thats another argument entirely. I prefer using more specific circumstances (as I've touched on before) of actual threats, rather than a percent chance of something that may not occur at all, just because of that. There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there? I addressed this long ago. The mothers life trumps the life of the fetus, but non-fatal injury to the mother does not. If we're going to get it down to percentages, I reiterate that I hate using percentages here for the reasons I just noted. That said, If forced to offer percentages, I would use the same methodology as I did above- with the 'value' of the fetus' life being considered half that of the mothers. What statistical probability is required to be considered life-threatening? I am not interested in the statistical probability of something being life-threatening. I am concerned with actual complications that threaten the mothers life. The beginning of a complication that can potentially threaten ones life is not sufficient reason for an abortion. The complication actually threatening ones life and necessitating medical intervention is one. Case in point: The overall chance of dying from a gunshot wound, assuming one is in a developed country and medical attention is received in a timely fashion, is about 5%. The people who actually die, though, don't die due to winning the 5% lottery; a bullets trajectory is not random, but is determined by physics; they die because a vital organ or artery was struck, causing them to die despite medical efforts, or more quickly than they could be applied. I'm not interested in the 5% statistic for gunshots. I'm interested in the actual state of the patient; a patient that has been shot through his or her hand has an infinismal chance of dying from it. If the shot passes through the heart or aorta, they are almost certain to die. Severity; not statitistics. Side: Yes.
1
point
I believe that it is implied that I favor legislation that matches my stance on the issue. I think there are generally other factors in supporting legislation than just whether I would do something myself. I may not smoke, but may not favor legislation banning smoking outright, etc. Factors such as cost of executing the law, whether a law can be written in a sufficient way to deal with all the relevant factors clearly enough to sufficiently mitigate litigiousness, unintended consequences (e.g. laws requiring hospital admitting privileges may be justifiable on their face, but can end up closing clinics and increasing overall mortality), and the laws effectiveness (abortion laws may not actually reduce the number of abortions, but instead make them less safe), etc. the relative rights of various animals if different animals have different rights, then assigning the fetus "animal rights" becomes a bit less meaningful - is there a specific animal we should be using that provides the closest approximation? I contest the fact that brain function, specifically, is the reason we assign ourselves more rights. I gave it as one example of a difference used to justify rights, not as the only reason used. In your might-makes-right example, favoring the cat could still be justified. right 'not be eaten' If animals don't have a right not to be eaten, do fetuses? unprovoked attack does inadvertently stumbling into one in the desert/woods = provocation? this would rarely be applicable Rarity is here again being used to avoid the issue. It is either moral in your view or it isn't. Rarity might impact the way legislation is written but even then outliers should at least be considered. If someone in the forest stumbles upon a fox that appears to be acting weird and is progressing towards them, could they morally kill it? Should there be a law against killing it? If someone is bitten by an animal outside of town and they think it has rabies (and is able to capture it), can they morally/legally have it tested since it would kill the animal for a less than lethal act? I took those as hypotheticals to illustrate the complexities rather than direct questions And they were offered as such, I was just curious as to what your response would be. animal to animal Right, I figure this might be more akin to the cat/goldfish thing. E.g. one pet poses a threat to the other, etc. specifically regarding animal rights vs human rights It is regarding the rights of the fetus, I assume that is whether it is vis-a-vis the mother or another fetus. The mothers life trumps the life of the fetus, but non-fatal injury to the mother does not. I was aiming more for the case where both have severe issues - e.g. severe deformation of the fetus combined with near certain likelihood of permanent organ damage for the mother if she continues the pregnancy. I should state that I HATE using actual percentages here I agree that this is a major factor in constructing relevant legislation, but I would caution that words like "actual threats", "severe", "life-threatening", etc are also vague. Shouldn't the law include "the methodology used to generate those chances" as well? I am concerned with actual complications that threaten the mothers life. If an actual pregnant woman is told by her doctor (after 12 weeks) that she has a complication with her pregnancy and has only a 50/50 chance of surviving if she were to attempt to have the child - should that qualify legally as life-threatening? Side: No.
1
point
I think there are generally other factors in supporting legislation than just whether I would do something myself. I may not smoke, but may not favor legislation banning smoking outright, etc. But we aren't talking about something I would do myself. We're talking about my moral and political stance on an issue, which has very strong implications regarding what legislation might be supported. Factors such as cost of executing the law, whether a law can be written in a sufficient way to deal with all the relevant factors clearly enough to sufficiently mitigate litigiousness, unintended consequences (e.g. laws requiring hospital admitting privileges may be justifiable on their face, but can end up closing clinics and increasing overall mortality), and the laws effectiveness (abortion laws may not actually reduce the number of abortions, but instead make them less safe), etc. I am aware, which is why I've taken the stance that I would support legislation under these conditions. A lot of my misgivings have to do with interpretation of the law, hence why I have not thus far attempted to present suggested wording for a bill to this effect. if different animals have different rights, then assigning the fetus "animal rights" becomes a bit less meaningful - is there a specific animal we should be using that provides the closest approximation? Different animals don't have different rights. When I referred to 'relative rights of various animals' that is referring more to circumstances like your goldfish situation. As I noted, I wouldn't favor getting rid of either animal, but were that option off the table, my call would be to get rid of the cat. I don't believe further exploring this angle is beneficial to this discussion, hence my attempt at dismissal. I gave it as one example of a difference used to justify rights, not as the only reason used. In your might-makes-right example, favoring the cat could still be justified. I disagree, because it's not a might-makes-right scenario across the board. It's might-makes-right in a sense, as humans have the ability to control other animals to the extent of having the ability to define our rights and elevate ours above theirs; no animal appears to have the capacity to understand such a concept as rights, even the most intelligent non-humans we know, and none can really challenge humans. From our position of power, we assign ourselves 'human rights' and assign 'lower' animals 'animal rights.' I don't believe assigning a cat more rights than a fish is at all reasonable, personally. If animals don't have a right not to be eaten, do fetuses? In the face of a predator capable of such, I don't believe so. There are certainly no laws against animals eating fetuses. here are laws against humans eating human flesh, wish fetuses would fall under, so it wouldn't be acceptable for humans to eat fetuses should they be so inclined. We ourselves are known to eat some fetal animals (like balut). does inadvertently stumbling into one in the desert/woods = provocation? I believe you're misreading me here and conflating my position somewhat. I believe that it is acceptable to kill an attacking animal even if it was an accidentally provoked attack, out of self defense. I do not believe that it is acceptable to seek out an animal that attacked under provocation and put it down after the fact. I believe it is acceptable to do so with an animal that has formed a habit for attacking without provocation. I just thought it important to clarify here, as it really seems like you're getting my stance on self-defense mixed up with my stance on preventive euthanasia. Rarity is here again being used to avoid the issue. It is either moral in your view or it isn't. Rarity might impact the way legislation is written but even then outliers should at least be considered. It's not being used to avoid the issue; you don't get to shoehorn my moral view into 'it's always good or it's always bad.' I am completely allowed to be conditional here. It can only be perceived as a dodge if you're looking for a law on the matter, and from the legal perspective, I would legislate on the common issue rather than the rare issue, unless appropriate limitations can be devised to allow for the rare one. If someone in the forest stumbles upon a fox that appears to be acting weird and is progressing towards them, could they morally kill it? Should there be a law against killing it? I'd toss a couple stones at it first. If it didn't run off from that, I'd say go for it. Foxes are pretty skittish, although they CAN get used to humans. A tossed stone will scare off even the biggest fox though, unless it's rabid. No law in this case. If someone is bitten by an animal outside of town and they think it has rabies (and is able to capture it), can they morally/legally have it tested since it would kill the animal for a less than lethal act? Legally, sure. Morally, I would need more info as to why they believe it to have rabies to make the call. Right, I figure this might be more akin to the cat/goldfish thing. E.g. one pet poses a threat to the other, etc. Fair enough; I believe I responded to this already at any rate. It is regarding the rights of the fetus, I assume that is whether it is vis-a-vis the mother or another fetus. I can understand it appearing to be that way to you, but remember the overall debate is concerning what rights, if any, fetuses have. Regardless of what rights they do or do not have, fetus' have equal rights, so 'rights' wouldn't be a factor in answering your fetus vs fetus questions, only the situation. Mother vs. fetus is far more relevant. I was aiming more for the case where both have severe issues - e.g. severe deformation of the fetus combined with near certain likelihood of permanent organ damage for the mother if she continues the pregnancy In the generally unlikely event that such circumstances become apparent after 12 weeks (most complications become evident well before then, though certainly not all), I would probably support abortion under these circumstances, though I believe the nature of the deformation, which organ was to be damaged permanently, and the extent of the damage should be considered. I mean, if the severe deformation in question was dwarfism, and the mother was going to suffer a permanent 50% reduction in the function of one of her kidneys, I'd oppose abortion. I expect, though, that I'd support abortion in most cases under this category. I agree that this is a major factor in constructing relevant legislation, but I would caution that words like "actual threats", "severe", "life-threatening", etc are also vague. Shouldn't the law include "the methodology used to generate those chances" as well? See way above; I am not attempting to draft legislation here, just communicate ideas. I also believe that legislating the methodology involved is a mistake, as it ultimately amounts to voters and politicians telling doctors how to do their job. They already do this generally speaking, but dictating guidelines like this? I don't like the idea of every doctor having to use the exact same methodology- it would seem to remove a lot of quality from the equation, and devalue the possibility of getting a second opinion. I believe medicine to be over-regulated as it is... If an actual pregnant woman is told by her doctor (after 12 weeks) that she has a complication with her pregnancy and has only a 50/50 chance of surviving if she were to attempt to have the child - should that qualify legally as life-threatening? Not enough information to answer the question. I need to know the following: 1) When you say 50/50 chance of surviving if she were to attempt to have the child, I'm assuming that means natural delivery carried to term, correct? 1) What are her chances of survival if the fetus is aborted immediately? 2) What are her chances of survival if the fetus is carried to term but delivered via c-section? 3) How far along is the mother when the complication is discovered? 4) What are her chances of survival if the fetus is carried to 24-weeks gestation (viability) and delivered via c-section? Side: Yes.
1
point
I would support legislation under these conditions. Is it your belief that legislation which sufficiently addresses these conditions is possible? my call would be to get rid of the cat. but do you believe it should be legal for a person to get rid of either one? [t]here are laws against humans eating human flesh, wish fetuses would fall under, so it wouldn't be acceptable again this is current law - not your position on whether it should be law, or whether it is moral. self defense does self-defense include not just where you think you will likely die, but also where you think you will be (severely?) injured? No law in this case. & Legally, sure. Sweet - we have some answers!! Ok - so, less than lethal threat, very unlikely to endanger others and we are legally allowed to kill it. If a mother takes some steps (vitamins, exercise, etc.) that would equate to the rock throwing - how is aborting the less-than-lethal child now different? I would need more info as to why they believe it to have rabies to make the call. Seemingly excessive saliva, absence of skittishness in a normally passive animal, etc. fetus' have equal rights equal rights is not dispositive of fetus v fetus rights. I'd support abortion in most cases under this category Do you think legal language is possible which addresses all of your concerns? legislating the methodology involved is a mistake, as it ultimately amounts to voters and politicians telling doctors how to do their job If voters and politicians don't specify, then it will be left up to the courts to interpret how the law applies rather than the doctor. 50/50 chance of surviving 50/50 chance of live birth at any stage after viability through vaginal or c-section. Chance of dying during the abortion, let's say 1 (more than the average of 0.6) in 100,000. Complication found during the routine mid-term ultrasound done between 18 and 20 weeks - let's say 19 weeks. PS: Thanks for your continued time. PPS: I keep hitting Dispute rather than Clarify only because Clarify doesn't let you control which side your argument is tagged with. Side: Yes.
1
point
Is it your belief that legislation which sufficiently addresses these conditions is possible? Certainly. If it can be conceptualized, it can be put into words. We may need new words that map to the concepts in question better than existing ones to pull it off, but it can cetainly be put to paper. but do you believe it should be legal for a person to get rid of either one? Of course. I don't believe that a person should be compelled to keep a pet. I would compel the person to make a good-faith effort to find a new home for the pet first, a no-kill shelter next, and finally a shelter that practices euthanasia, all without success, before I would approve of direct euthanasia though. again this is current law - not your position on whether it should be law, or whether it is moral. Your reading comprehension could use some work; I stated my moral position on the matter, that there was no right not to be eaten. Noting the current law was a qualifier, noting that I was not suggesting that it was ok for people to eat fetuses. I wouldn't generally support cannibalism outside of a starvation situation, but thats another topic entirely. does self-defense include not just where you think you will likely die, but also where you think you will be (severely?) injured? Yes, with the caveat that the force used is proportional to the threat. We have this sentiment in the 'self defense' defense when dealing with other humans. It is only valid as a defense against assault/battery/murder/etc charges when it is proportional. Shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you is ok. Shooting a person who is shaking his or her fist at you is not. The goal of self defense is to deter the threat- whether lethal force is warranted is entirely dependant on the circumstances, and there is no clean cut answer without a VERY specific situation. Even the same location and the same animal could be very different in terms of circumstances. I wouldn't press criminal charges against someone for killing an animal in self defense even if that was a disproportionate response, but I would still consider it an immoral act. Sweet - we have some answers!! Ok - so, less than lethal threat, very unlikely to endanger others and we are legally allowed to kill it. If a mother takes some steps (vitamins, exercise, etc.) that would equate to the rock throwing - how is aborting the less-than-lethal child now different? Well, for one, because the fetus is not representing an intentional threat, and cannot retreat. The stone throwing is to deter threatening behavior- and you haven't established 'less than lethal' here because the attack is deterred in this situation before such things as whether it is rabid can be determined. How many times do I have to keep repeating that a different response is warranted for intentional aggressive behavior than is warranted for inadvertent circumstances? This does not mean different rights apply, again, it means the same rights apply to different situations. Seemingly excessive saliva, absence of skittishness in a normally passive animal, etc. I will hesitatingly say that in most mammal species this would represent a strong correlation with rabies, and as such would not hold the person culpable for making that call, even if it turned out to be wrong. equal rights is not dispositive of fetus v fetus rights. But the question still isn't relevant to the question of whether fetuses have rights or not. Regardless of the level of rights they have, being equals would mean the same decision. It is off topic to explore, though in another debate it could be interesting to explore different scenarios. Do you think legal language is possible which addresses all of your concerns? Possible? Certainly. If voters and politicians don't specify, then it will be left up to the courts to interpret how the law applies rather than the doctor. I'm fine with voters/politicians/courts setting general guidelines, but not specific methodologies. Doctors should be free to utilize their own methodology, within the bounds of those general guidelines- when a case comes to legal question, it should be a simple matter to determine whether the methodology used falls within the loose guidelines. Having specific breakpoints at various percentages would necessitate specific methodologies for determining those percentages, which helps nobody. 50/50 chance of live birth at any stage after viability through vaginal or c-section. Chance of dying during the abortion, let's say 1 (more than the average of 0.6) in 100,000. Complication found during the routine mid-term ultrasound done between 18 and 20 weeks - let's say 19 weeks. In this case, I would support the abortion. I will note, however, that I find it highly unlikely. In most cases, abortion represents a risk generalyl comparable to c-section, with c-section being slightly more risky. A complication like that would have to progress a LOT in 5 weeks for this example prognosis to be at all accurate. PS: Thanks for your continued time. Of course. PPS: I keep hitting Dispute rather than Clarify only because Clarify doesn't let you control which side your argument is tagged with. Fair enough- I should point out that clarify arguments don't cast an actual vote though, even if they incidentally have a 'side' line. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
2
points
You misunderstood. People are disputing because the baby CAN grow into somebody that is significant. Keyword is CAN, it dose not mean it will, and that is why you might come across someone opposed to abortion say "give life a chance" or something along those lines. Side: Yes.
1
point
4
points
1
point
You are being narrow-minded there. What if it means incapable of doing something because of his/her own capabilities can't be met. the statement was broad, it didn't indicate what kind of inability to do anything. what if the person cant do anything since he's paralyzed (im talking bout the physical aspect), dont you know that even a paralyzed person still has a chance to walk or move that part of his/her body, because our brain is plastic. that means that our brain can be trained to become or do things which we thought are impossible. that's the power of our brain. Side: Yes.
1
point
You are being narrow-minded there. What if it means incapable of doing something because of his/her own capabilities can't be met. the statement was broad, it didn't indicate what kind of inability to do anything. what if the person cant do anything since he's paralyzed (im talking bout the physical aspect), dont you know that even a paralyzed person still has a chance to walk or move that part of his/her body, because our brain is plastic. that means that our brain can be trained to become or do things which we thought are impossible. that's the power of our brain. You misunderstand what is meant by 'anything.' A person who is paralyzed may be unable to move the paralyzed portions of his or her body (some things), but they are still capable of thought, receiving input from undamaged senses, and whatnot (other things). 'Anything' refers, in this case, to any action whatsoever involving any kind of personal agency on the part of the person/fetus. That would also include 'training the brain' to do something different; this would be 'something' and is not a possibility with the criteria 'can't do anything.' A developing fetus is not comparable to a paralyzed individual. Your special pleading isn't really applicable here, given the context of the debate and the associated implications, but I can't really fault you entirely; the wording was not 100% clear and does rely on context for a good part of its meaning, and not everyone picks up on that. Side: No.
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
Also along with your conclusion being a false dilemma, you should have named the debate topic "Should the fetus have rights" or "do you think fetuses have rights" because this is not a deductive argument, it inductive. Inductive means the conclusion is not 100% true. Your question requires deductive answer. Unless of course this is a test question, then yes a fetus has legal rights to an extent(if you intentionally hurt a pregnant woman and kill the baby then you will be charged with some type of murder.) But I am sure you did not mean it that way. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
Then don't. But that is not your call for anyone else. It is subjective, and I can personally say that I wish I was not born into this meaningless spectrum we call humanity in which contains only a destined path for the facilitation of destruction in a beautiful world(unless humans move to another planet and start a path of destruction there also.) Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I feel as thought you have your text saved and you just paste responses. Can you prove with science that life begins at birth? I have stated that life begins at puberty when males obtain sperm cells. No religion allowed, just pure science. I can almost bet that you are religious and not a scientist. Right? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
2
points
For males: sperm cell. Why?; because in order for a fetus to develop then it would need a sperm cell. That would entail, from your implied notion of "because something has life it has rights", that sperm cells have rights(the point I was making earlier when I asked "so do sperm cells have rights?" because there would be no fetus if it weren't for the sperm.) Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
No. If something prevents implantation, it is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient. Contraception means preventing fertilization which is the implied meaning of conception. I have no problem with contraception, and feel that contraception is a right. I just have a problem with most abortions. Side: Yes.
1
point
If something prevents implantation, it is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient. A note of clarification - some things are both, e.g. the copper IUD generally functions to prevent fertilization, but can also lessen the chance of implantation. If 99% of the time a device works as contraception, but has a side effect of sometimes preventing implantation should people not use it? Should it be banned? What if eliminating these forms of birth control would actually increase the number of unwanted/untenable pregnancies and increase abortions? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
Again, it is more complex than that. As I mentioned the IUD and others mostly work by preventing fertilization, but a very small percentage of the time can also prevent implantation. If something works as contraception 99% of the time, but as an abortifacient 1% of; the time, should women not use it? Should companies deny health-care coverage for it? Should it be banned? What if banning these forms of contraception actually increases the number of unintended pregnancies and increases abortions by more than the number of abortions that would have been caused through preventing implantation? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
Not exactly sure how simple to make this so that you can understand it: If a hammer is 99% of the time used as a tool, but is sometimes used as a murder weapon - does that make all hammers always murder weapons or to a certain degree both a tool and a murder weapon? Should all hammers be banned? Side: Yes.
1
point
Thank you. If something only causes abortion 1% of the time, I still support its use. Unlike my fellow prolifers, I support the use of the copper iud because the copper acts as a spermicide. I realize that it can cause the death of the baby if placed after conception, but I am fine with it if it is placed before conception. How did I do this time? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are very smart and I respect you. Thanks! You want to continue? Sure. Here are questions for you to answer so that I can more fully understand your opinion: Do you think mercy killing should ever be legal - e.g. a terminally ill cancer patient with chronic pain? Do you believe that if someone is trying to maim you that you could justifiably claim self-defense in shooting them? What laws do you think the government should impose on women and their doctors? Side: Yes.
1
point
I do think that consensual mercy killing should be legal because no one should be forced to suffer. I plan on making a will that says this. I also believe that it is okay to kill in self defense. The only reason I did not kill my first rapist is because I knew the system was bad and I would get life in prison or the death penalty. I think that the government should promote sex education, contraception, and adoption as abortion alternatives. I am not sure what penalty there should be for women who get abortions. Side: Yes.
2
points
Again, there is much I agree with there. no one should be forced to suffer Without trying to be too graphic, thousands of pregnancies a year have some form of cephalic disorder. If a mother learns that her child does not have most of its brain and will either be still born or die within hours of birth - if the child is experiencing pain can you understand a mother making the tough decision to prevent its suffering? (Also, keep in mind that less than 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, there are only 4 doctors in the country that perform 3rd trimester abortions; these pregnancies are often wanted.) I also believe that it is okay to kill in self defense. If continuing a pregnancy would likely result in a woman losing her ovaries or other organs, should she be able to terminate the pregnancy in self-defense? I am not sure what penalty there should be for women who get abortions. Take your time deciding. Semantically, would you agree that if someone believes the decision can legally be made by the woman that they are in a sense "pro-choice" since they want the choice to be legal, even if they prefer the mother to choose not to have an abortion. (Looking at some of your past responses, you seem to often point out false dichotomies - I thought you would definitely see the false dichotomy of pro-life and pro-choice... Maybe you can invent a new position: pro-choice-of-life or similar) Side: Yes.
1
point
If the baby is going to die anyway, they need to get it out of there to save the life of the mother. For me personally, I would only have an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, but I do not want to be mean about it. I love my prochoice friends too much for that. I support abortion for the life of the mother. If the baby can survive, I oppose the abortion. I will try to think about the issue of illegal abortion. Because it is such a personal issue, I would not impose the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty actually, and it would be antilife of me to even suggest it. I prefer to be consistant in my prolife values. Thank you for debating me and let me know if I have not addressed you on anything. Side: Yes.
1
point
let me know if I have not addressed you on anything. There are still a few questions that remain, but let me first thank you for starting to give longer/fuller answers. I will try breaking the questions out so you can deal with them individually and at whatever pace works best for you - definitely feel free to take whatever time you need. I will try to think about the issue of illegal abortion. For me this is the most important answer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is public policy/laws that affects others. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Obviously, I was implying a sequential statement that each sperm cell is a potential life, and if you take away a sperm cell then you just took away the possibility of a fetus, by doing so the notion that 'fetus has the right to live' is true then it would only be so if you do not take away the sperm cell. Therefore, the sperm cell basically must have rights in order to have this debate. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
As I pointed out before, an ectopic pregnancy is not the only pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. Also, if you think someone is likely to maim you, but not necessarily kill you, can you justifiably shoot them in self-defense? Side: No.
1
point
If the mother's life is in danger, they can deliver the baby and let the mother bond with it before it dies. An ectopic pregnancy is the only time that killing the baby is really needed to save the life of the mother. One does not need to rip the arms and legs off of innocent babies to save the life of the mother. Side: Yes.
1
point
If the mother's life is in danger, they can deliver the baby and let the mother bond with it before it dies. I think you may have mis-read or mis-wrote - if the mother dies, how can she bond with the baby? An ectopic pregnancy is the only time that killing the baby is really needed to save the life of the mother. I have mentioned several types of pregnancy which are life-threatening to the mother; you have, as yet, disputed none of them. You also did not address the question of self-defense in the case of maiming. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
They can just deliver the baby if the mother has a problem. I think you may be a bit confused - the process of delivering the baby is what generally threatens the life of the mother. Shouldn't the goal be preserving the most possible life? Rather than force the mother to die trying, would it be better to save her life so that she can try to have children in the future? Abortion kills children no matter how you swing it. I imagine several children born or unborn were killed during World War 2 - does that mean we should not have fought it? Side: No.
1
point
You need to start putting "I believe" in front some of your statements. Justification is purely subjective(opinionated) so you would say "I believe of I feel as though abortion is really only justified in that situation." Because, for example, some have traditions where an aborted baby might be a sacrifice for the gods therefore it is justified to abort that baby. For you to say it is not ehh.... well that is your opinion. Subjectivity. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
One does not need to be able to procreate to be a human with rights The fetus is not a human. It is in transition. In the last stages maybe. But not simply when one becomes pregnant. Which is why people agree to abortion in early stages. Life begins at conception when the person has its own dna. Stop with this "person" "human" terminology. Pregnancy is a fetuses transition into a complete human. Which is why the fetus will die if remove it too early. Because it does not have essential qualities necessary for survival. You are so inclined on believing that the collision of a cell and egg automatically makes a human baby. No. It facilitates the probable becoming of a human baby. Open your mind because it is being suppressed by emotion. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
If the fetus is not human, what species is it?
..... okay. Stop with this right to kill babies terminology. On that note you emotional intellectually-incompetent incorrigible female. Have a nice life. P.S I love babies, and I have a soft spot for pregnant women and strong sense of protection when I am around one. But unlike some(you) when I debate or give insight I do not think with emotion, I look at it for what it is. I am a realist. And women like you are the reason why a lot of people feel 'iffy' about a female president. Too emotional. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I did not classify females as a whole. I said you emotional etc. You are just another sexist priviliged male that wants to control women. I bow to no one but God. No. I love women. Actually I have trouble with some women because I am too non-controlling. Sexist I do not value one sex over another. But I do know that women are more emotion/hormonal with a lot of things unlike men. Because of estrogen. I bow to no one but God. Check yourself in a psychiatric facility so you can room with Barbra who says that Rudolf will come and bust you both out. Side: Yes.
1
point
If you love women, you will not bring up someone's biological sex. You are just attacking to avoid having to debate facts like most sexist males out there. There is nothing wrong with being theist or female. If you do not stop being rude, I will donate in your name to my favorite prolife charity. Side: Yes.
1
point
Incoherent and irrelevant. Maybe I did not elaborate. I love women. Just not your incorrigible type. I have debated facts. But your conclusion cannot be fact. This argument is inductive. Which means that the conclusion is subjective. You remain consistently blind from your emotions on abortion. You will not look at both sides just yours. You do not even attempt understand anything someone in opposition to your ideology. But not everyone is open-minded. P.S If you think imaginary friends are acceptable at your age, then there is something wrong. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
My opinion: No. In order for a fetus to have rights, it must be a person. I define a person as something that is self aware and exhibits theory of mind. From Wikipedia: Self Awareness: Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals. Researchers have demonstrated that the awareness of ourselves begins to emerge at around one year of age and becomes much more developed by around 18 months of age. Theory of Mind: Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own. Side: No.
1
point
no, if you are to give a lump of cells rights similar to a living thing, (even more rights than the mother) then you imply it to be alive, with no heartbeat, no pulse, no EKG, no brain waves, nothing that would classify ordinary living things to be living. so, no the fetus should not have any rights to live, if it isn't even alive. Side: No.
The legal definition of a person is a human being. It does not say it must be human, as in the adjective. It must be a human being. Saying that a fetus is a human being is like saying that a price of hair about to be cloned is a human being. They are both human, both of them are from a human, produced by a human, made of human cells and DNA. The only difference is a fetus has blood. A fetus is not a human. It is human, but in the early stages, it is not a human being. Would you call a piece of flesh cut from someone's body-- no brain, maybe some rudimentary muscles pumping blood, no active nervous system-- a human being? No. A fetus is not a human being, unless the definition were changed to include "anything that will become a human", in which case sperm and eggs would be humans. Hopefully you all now see the gaping logical holes in anti choice arguments. Side: No.
|