CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Moral and legal duties of the mother.
A child is born with a very serious but life sustaining illness. It is comatosed, unable to breath unsupported and has no awareness of his body or what's going on around it. They weren't able to sustain their own life and needed help from a machine at home. This machine was very difficult to use and it required a lot of effort from the mother. Psychological reports suggest the mother would suffer emotionally from this ordeal and the emotional suffering and the pain from this ordeal may affect her for the rest of her life. For the sake of this argument, only the mother is capable of giving this care. However, the doctors said that if the mother continued to make this effort, in 9 months time, there is a 99% chance that the child will fully recover from the illness was and live a long a happy life.
There's two questions here:
1) If the mother refused to provide treatment for this child, would she be commiting an immoral act? (I would answer yes)
2) If you decide she is commiting a immoral act, should the law make it illegal? (I would answer no)
Of course this debate links to the rights of a fetus, but I hope to avoid the debate of whether a fetus is a child or not so for this reason please stick to the child in the scenario.
This side has four replies and I'm not sure what it is saying "Yes and No, No and No" to, but I think I need to clear some things up:
1. You mention this could relate to "abortion" or rights of a foetus. It could not. This child's brain is developed. It has the necessary functioning parts for self-awareness. This is a different situation. This is the "vegetable" situation anti-abortion proponents consistently mistakenly analogize.
2. You would have brought up a much more interesting moral dilemma had the situation been one in which the child could not survive. The attempt to create a situation which could be compared to an abortion is quite transparent. You might as well have just made another abortion debate if that was the intent.
But establishing that this in fact is a completely different situation than an abortion, the answer is simple.
The mother has a moral obligation to try to keep the child alive until they are healed.
The mother should also have a legal obligation to do such.
Cue confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled...
To clarify the first answer is to (1) and the second to (2).
"Cue confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled..."
I don't know why I should reply to you really as you've already decided that there's nothing you're willing to debate.
"You mention this could relate to "abortion" or rights of a foetus. It could not. This child's brain is developed. It has the necessary functioning parts for self-awareness. "
This child doesn't have self awareness. Its brain has never yet functioned in a way to allow for self awareness. But it will develop self awareness in 9 months. You kind of have to accept that the illness means the child has the same capacities as a fetus in order for this debate to be more interesting and different from the usual is it a child / isn't it a child type debate.
"The attempt to create a situation which could be compared to an abortion is quite transparent"
Well yes I outright stated it was a comparable situation.
"The mother has a moral obligation to try to keep the child alive until they are healed.
The mother should also have a legal obligation to do such."
I don't think you have established that it is a different situation from the duty of care for the fetus. The child in my scenario was supposed to be identical to a fetus in all its characteristics except the fact it was born. I wish you had respected that. I think my intent was clear.
I think I'll wait for someone else to come along who is a bit more receptive to debating this points before I reply fully. No offence intended. I just don't think you'd be interested.
I don't know why I should reply to you really as you've already decided that there's nothing you're willing to debate.
Ah, as I feared. You were just trying to start another abortion debate. Well, as I said, the parts of the developed brain mean these situation are not the same, so yeah, no point arguing that point.
This child doesn't have self awareness. Its brain has never yet functioned in a way to allow for self awareness. But it will develop self awareness in 9 months. You kind of have to accept that the illness means the child has the same capacities as a fetus in order for this debate to be more interesting and different from the usual is it a child / isn't it a child type debate.
This is scientifically impossible. Once the parts of the brain which provide this are developed, it exists. You are making up an impossible scenario then incorrectly comparing it to a scenario which is nothing alike.
I don't think you have established that it is a different situation from the duty of care for the fetus.
Yawn
I have. Clearly. Three times now. The brain.
The child in my scenario was supposed to be identical to a fetus in all its characteristics except the fact it was born. I wish you had respected that. I think my intent was clear.
Your intent is clear. It is also incorrect.
You might as well say "imagine this piece of moss is a unicorn and flying monkeys were eaten by the dingo... now imagine those flying monkeys were a baby!!! Isn't that sad!!!! Now believe my theological argument!!!!
At the point the brain is developed enough for self-awareness is the only logical measure of "human rights."
I think I'll wait for someone else to come along who is a bit more receptive to debating this points before I reply fully. No offence intended. I just don't think you'd be interested.
You mean wait for someone to fall for your attempted trick?
They will not now that I've posted this, thankfully.
On another note:
Are really so invested in forcing your misguided theology onto others that you don't see that it would be so much more interesting to debate the care of a born child, with a functioning brain, but with no chance of survival?
I mean there are currently like 50 abortion debates and the same five of you post the same 5 arguments and upvote eachother 5 times each while downvoting the 15 people arguing with you.
"Are really so invested in forcing your misguided theology onto others that you don't see that it would be so much more interesting to debate the care of a born child, with a functioning brain, but with no chance of survival?"
Your topic might be interesting. Why don't you go make that debate?
Its very arrogant of you to think that you know what my theology is and that it is misguided. Religious belief doesn't interest me; I find it dull. As for my opinion being misguided. You've assumed that but I don't think you'll ever know what guides it.
Its very arrogant of you to think that you know what my theology is and that it is misguided.
Being against abortion prior to self-awareness if one has knowledge of the randomness of conception and genetics, then must necessarily only be based on superstition. The only superstitions people take seriously are theological ones.
Therefore your position clearly shows you have a theological position. It does not matter which theology or if theology bores you personally.
"Being against abortion prior to self-awareness if one has knowledge of the randomness of conception and genetics"
Nope. A fetus does not suddenly think "I'm a baby now" a milsecond after the law makes it illegal to abort. Sorry. I know that would be confident for you. Whatever your point of view, there are grey areas here. Clearly you're not interested in exploring them with me.
" Therefore your position clearly shows you have a theological position."
Nope not religious therefore cannot have theological views. Again sorry to disappoint, I know it makes it easy for you to think of me as an religious nut.
The assumptions you make mean that you only have to think about your answer for about 30 seconds. I know you probably do this subconciously but you could get a lot more out of debates if you considered things for a bit longer.
Nope. A fetus does not suddenly think "I'm a baby now" a milsecond after the law makes it illegal to abort. Sorry. I know that would be confident for you. Whatever your point of view, there are grey areas here. Clearly you're not interested in exploring them with me.
The grey area is several weeks before the point the sections of the brain which will eventually be self-aware begin to develop. So no, the time where abortion is legal there is clearly no consciousness.
Dude, my point is that thing is not self-aware, and your article confirms what I already knew. Did you not read the article you sent? The thing being aborted is not self aware, not even close to self-aware, according to the very article you linked.
Nope not religious therefore cannot have theological views. Again sorry to disappoint, I know it makes it easy for you to think of me as an religious nut.
You believe that some thing with no conscious, no feeling, which does not know the difference one way or another and will not be capable of knowing the difference to any degree for months and months, has the same rights as one who is conscious, even more rights than one who is conscious in many instances.
Nothing logical can lead to this belief. The only reasons to have this ideal are 1. You are dealing with incorrect information. You say you know that thing is not conscious so it cannot be 1. So it is 2. You believe there is something magical about that thing with no conscious. Magic can be "meant to be" it can be "there is a god who wants that kid born" it can be "there is some greater good this child is meant to fulfill" whatever that magic is, it is quite theological.
The assumptions you make mean that you only have to think about your answer for about 30 seconds. I know you probably do this subconsciously but you could get a lot more out of debates if you considered things for a bit longer.
Well in my defense I'm way above average intelligence so I'm used to only having to think about things for about 30 seconds,
here let me give it a few minutes...
Nope. I'm still positive that abortion harms nothing, there is no pre-destiny for the potential child, that nature kills more babies than abortion, and so I, you, and no one else has a right to tell a woman she cannot have this procedure.
"Dude, my point is that thing is not self-aware, and your article confirms what I already knew. Did you not read the article you sent? The thing being aborted is not self aware, not even close to self-aware, according to the very article you linked. "
My point is whether the fetus is self-aware or not is not a deciding factor seeing as it is not self aware until many months after birth. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out tbh.
"Well in my defense I'm way above average intelligence so I'm used to only having to think about things for about 30 seconds"
Confirms what I thought. You genuinely believe you only have to think about something for 30 seconds. I used to be like that when I were about 13/14. I outgrew it. You'll learn as you grow up that raw intelligence means very little in terms of understanding. Especially if you assume you know it all before you start to learn.
"Nope. I'm still positive that abortion harms nothing, there is no pre-destiny for the potential child, that nature kills more babies than abortion, and so I, you, and no one else has a right to tell a woman she cannot have this procedure."
Wonderful sentiment. Of course this applies to many babies. Nothing you've said differentiates a pre-mature baby from a fetus. Certainly not 'self-awareness'.
"Nothing logical can lead to this belief. The only reasons to have this ideal are 1. You are dealing with incorrect information. You say you know that thing is not conscious so it cannot be 1. So it is 2. You believe there is something magical about that thing with no conscious. Magic can be "meant to be" it can be "there is a god who wants that kid born" it can be "there is some greater good this child is meant to fulfill" whatever that magic is, it is quite theological.""
Yeah im either one or two. You're right. You have the whole world figured out in your 30 second analysis.
If you like you can highlight my arguments with asterisks, it makes it much clearer. There are directions under Show Help just below the Submit, Preview, and Check Spelling boxes.
My point is whether the fetus is self-aware or not is not a deciding factor seeing as it is not self aware until many months after birth. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out tbh.
That is the level of self-awareness that is visible to us. Those parts which are needed for self awareness begin developing in late pregnancy. The point where most abortions are legal is well before this time, "to be safe" if you will. Which the vast majority of pro-choice proponents are fine with, me for one. The point was in answer to your original comment about a "grey area" of when this begins, and my point was that we error way, way, way on the side of caution in this regard. That we error on the side of caution about a particular aspect of abortion in no way diminishes the importance of that aspect. I'd argue it highlights that is the most important factor. Consciousness and self-awareness are the central issues here.
Confirms what I thought. You genuinely believe you only have to think about something for 30 seconds. I used to be like that when I were about 13/14. I outgrew it. You'll learn as you grow up that raw intelligence means very little in terms of understanding. Especially if you assume you know it all before you start to learn.
That was tongue and cheek. I've been thinking about abortion for over a decade now. In fact I was once pro-life, believe it or not. You've not brought up a point I've not disputed at least a dozen times already through the years.
Wonderful sentiment. Of course this applies to many babies. Nothing you've said differentiates a pre-mature baby from a fetus. Certainly not 'self-awareness'.
There is a huge difference between a pre-mature baby that a mother can keep alive outside of the womb and a fetus which cannot survive outside of the womb, central is the brain here, again. And when a child is born within the time frame that abortion is legal it is only kept alive via modern science. And in these cases the mother does have the right to "unplug" it if it has been determined survival is not likely, which is every single time. In fact sometimes it's not even the mother's choice, sometimes insurance and her bank decide it for her. It is rare one born this young will survive at all, even with all the modern science in the world. Let's be clear that you are talking about a near-miracle here.
This was not your argument though. The only situation in which a born baby would need life support but have a 90% chance of being just dandy afterwards is late term problems, far past the point abortion is already illegal in most cases and during the time those parts of the conscious brain are developing, that "grey area" you were talking about.
Which is why I said you were setting up an impossible scenario originally.
Yeah im either one or two. You're right. You have the whole world figured out in your 30 second analysis.
Yes, you either 1. are working with incorrect information, or 2. believe there is something magic about the point of conception.
I don't have the world figured out, but logically these are the only possibilities.
You are free to show otherwise but have not so far.
For personal reasons I really want to believe you. You can see that a baby is self aware at, more at less, 15 months old. you say the brain develops some of what it needs to be self-aware later on, around the point abortion becomes illegal, but clearly development is a continuum. It may be the case that the brain isn´t developed enough to attain self-awareness much prior to 15 months. It is very difficult to imagine being able to intensively teach a very young baby to be self aware for example. What exactly is the point when you believe the baby is too well developed to be aborted? It seems like a continuum so how do you set the point in your moral system?
You say the law is erring on the side of caution by only allowing abortion at so many weeks gestation. Do you believe then that if a baby is found to never have had self-awareness or consciousness then it would always be right to end it´s life, despite the potential for life in the future? The law is being very pragmatic in setting that the limit is however many weeks - but I´m now questioning you about morals rather than what the law should be in order to be just in all eventualities.
I understand your point about viability. I´m side stepping it because this cannot be the only reason to allow abortion - the fact that it isn´t going to live without the support if its mother. I agree though that if there were some other reason for why it is moral to abort a fetus then the viability argument would compound that. I hope I can be convinced.
Which is why I said you were setting up an impossible scenario originally.
Despite me side stepping the issue... I just wanted to clarify: I said 90% chance of survival because this is what the chance of a fetus surviving to full-term is if the mother doesn´t abort. So in my scenario the baby would have been supported by the machine by the mother, and in reality the fetus would have been support in utero by the mother.
...What exactly is the point when you believe the baby is too well developed to be aborted? It seems like a continuum so how do you set the point in your moral system?
That's a good question. The short answer is I trust that doctors have been very careful in their judgement of when this point is, and as mentioned, there simply is no physiological way for this awareness to exist. I see no reason why this would not be the case, there is nothing to be gained from inaccuracy here and a lot to be lost.
For the second part, and to be clear, my personal morality I do not believe to be a legitimate measure of whether another should or should not have an abortion. I am not them. But my personal morality does dictate that I support their freedom to come to their own conclusion so long as nothing is truly hurt. If it were possible for me to be pregnant, I personally would have the child unless I'd been raped, there were serious health issues, or if the child was going to be severely mentally retarded because I believe that to be a tortuous existence, but that last is another debate entirely.
My reasons are not moral ones though. I do not believe an abortion is morally wrong but I do understand how it could feel that way, the same way one feels for a person who has passed when it reality they are feeling for themselves, since that person no longer exists. If that makes sense.
You say the law is erring on the side of caution by only allowing abortion at so many weeks gestation. Do you believe then that if a baby is found to never have had self-awareness or consciousness then it would always be right to end it´s life, despite the potential for life in the future?
I would not call it right to end its life. I also would not call it wrong. If there is truly nothing in it with consciousness there is nothing truly lost. That something will develop awareness is "cool" for lack of a better term. It really is. But until that is developed everything we feel for that thing is projection. Potential is an excellent personal argument for any individual to have, but it should remain personal because in essence it is just our imagination, and if that potential is never realized, while for some it can certainly feel like something is lost, nothing is. It is like when a fictional character in a novel you love dies, to be crass but accurate.
I don't believe it should be mine or the laws place to dictate what decision another comes to in this case. If there is a question of whether somewhere in it there is a spark of awareness developing, then at that point I think it has a right to a chance at life, except in extreme cases of sickness, pain, and retardation, then of course it is a mercy to end it.
You want the law to say that a foetus is a person. The law does not say that but you really really really want it to so you just keep saying it over and over like Dorothy trying to go back to Kansas.
I don't care what the law is beyond the fact I'm happy religious nuts like yourself are not able to take society back to the dark ages, beyond that my argument has nothing to do with the current law.
Here's my premise.
A thing which is not capable of feeling, conscious, self-awareness does not qualify for protection reserved for things with feeling, conscious, self-awareness. Since this particular thing that has no conscious is a part of a woman's body, it is her choice, not yours and not mine, what to do with it.
Argue with that or go away. I'm not going to accept that a foetus is a person just because you keep saying it over and over.
"You want the law to say that a foetus is a person. The law does not say that but you really really really want it to so you just keep saying it over and over like Dorothy trying to go back to Kansas. "
I would like for you or someone like you to explain to me how charging someone with murder for killing a child in the womb is not a legal recognition of the fact that the child killed is a person.
"I don't care what the law is beyond the fact I'm happy religious nuts like yourself are not able to take society back to the dark ages, beyond that my argument has nothing to do with the current law."
Ummmm.
Not everyone who opposes abortion are religious.
P.S. I'm not interested in debating your premise when we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb - a crime of murder.
I would like for you or someone like you to explain to me how charging someone with murder for killing a child in the womb is not a legal recognition of the fact that the child killed is a person.
So now you are back to arguing that abortion is illegal. This is irrelevant to anything I've said. If abortion were illegal, my argument would be the same. Get over the legal/illegal thing. This is not the argument.
Ummmm.
Not everyone who opposes abortion are religious.
P.S. I'm not interested in debating your premise when we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb - a crime of murder.
Good. Go away then. I see every other site you've been trolling got bored of your simple childish arguments and bi-polar inability to stay on topic as well.
1. We have legal definitions which say it is a child.
2. We also have laws which make it a crime of murder to kill one illegally.
3. Those laws for now make an exception to allow abortions - but we are going to fix that.
Now, will you try one more time to respect the fact that the law already agrees they are children in the womb?
"(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "
I said like 5 times my point is not what is or is not law. I've answered every point you set forth here several times now.
You keep saying "I never said it was illegal" then you list legalities, then you say "I never said it was illegal" then you list legalities.
Legality is not the premise from which I'm arguing. Knock it off troll. Go back to one of those sites that kicked you off, just change your name or something.
David, does the legal definition I quoted from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act support my claim that an abortion kills a child or not?
You don't need to answer for me to know that it does. I just want to see if you can be open and honest (even) with yourself.
Does it support your denials?
I don't think so.
"(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "
David, does the legal definition I quoted from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act support my claim that an abortion kills a child or not?
No, it does not. A child is a child, a foetus is a foetus.
You don't need to answer for me to know that it does. I just want to see if you can be open and honest (even) with yourself.
I do need to answer because pro-life individuals, especially ideologues like yourself, are harmful to society and would, unchecked, cause a lot of harm. So as boring and ridiculous as your arguments are I will reply.
Does it support your denials?
I don't think so.
"(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "
These are the semantics of a language. There is no logic or argument here. I don't call it an "unborn child" I call it a foetus. It does not change my or your argument. Call it a tree for all I care.
If you saw an article that called a dog a cat would you start arguing that dogs were in fact cats?
"David, does the legal definition I quoted from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act support my claim that an abortion kills a child or not?"
No, it does not. A child is a child, a foetus is a foetus.
Wow.
You really are a certifiable idiot - Aren't you.
Here's the definition again: "(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "
That law makes it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb... and you still deny that supports our claim that an abortion kills a child.
"At the point the brain is developed enough for self-awareness is the only logical measure of "human rights." "
I'm a law student. Never heard of that measure for who is deserving of human rights. Someone with a less developed brain e.g. a retard or a child (when compared to an adult), or pre-mature baby still enjoys the same human rights as anyone else.
The argument isn't "less developed brain." You are trying to compare it again to a mentally retarded person. I've dispelled this argument so I can only assume you keep going back to it because you know you've no argument based in reality.
The argument is self-awareness. Prior to this point abortion is legal. Past this point it is already illegal except in extreme circumstances.
"The argument isn't "less developed brain." You are trying to compare it again to a mentally retarded person. "
Okay compare it to a pre-mature baby then. Whatever makes you able to actually engage in proper debate.
"The argument is self-awareness. Prior to this point abortion is legal. Past this point it is already illegal except in extreme circumstances."
Is it really so black and white for you? That a baby is self-aware after that date but not before? I just don't get it. There is a infinitely small space of time between when a child can be aborted and when the can't. Even people that are pro-abortion see this usually and want to debate it.
1. No one on earth is seriously "pro-abortion" as in "Abortion is awesome!"
2. Why do you have like 3 strings of separate replies under one debate with me? Consolidate this junk.
3. Asterisks.
4. No, it's not black and white for me or for anyone. Which is why the point at which abortion is still legal is way, way, way before the point those parts of the brain which will eventually develop consciousness exist.
Answer all of this in the longer string of replies just before this one. I cover all of this there as well.
It's hilarious that you can't see your own actions objectively enough to know that you are a proponent for abortion on demand and how that act alone makes you "pro-abortion."
I've been reading these argument so yours on the waterfall, and they are the exact same ones you've been giving me.
You fail to see how one who is would legalize abortion is not only pro-abortion.
You yourself even said that if the fetus was damaging to the life of the woman that you'd be for killing it. Does that mean that you are not pro-life?
I believe the term pro-life is wrong.
It should be anti-abortion, because that is what you truly are. If you're pro-life you oppose eating anything because everything you ate was alive at some point. You oppose condoms, and contraception because they lead to preventing a life. You oppose homosexuality since they will not be bringing a life into this world on their owns. You oppose single people, for the same reason you oppose homsexuality. I'm sorry the list could go on all day. You see how these technicalities confuse things? If all those technicalities I said are true, pro-choice people are pro-abortion. I'll admit it if you'll admit it.
"I've been reading these argument so yours on the waterfall, and they are the exact same ones you've been giving me."
???
" You fail to see how one who is would legalize abortion is not only pro-abortion. "
Again ???
Are you texting while driving?
"You yourself even said that if the fetus was damaging to the life of the woman that you'd be for killing it. Does that mean that you are not pro-life? "
That's not correct. I never said that I would be for it. I only said that it can be justified if doctors say it's necessary to save the woman's life and I also said that I would like to see doctors be legally required to at least try to save them both.
My apologies again, I couldn't piece together what I was supposed to do with that link. You are anti-abortion because abortion is the only thing about your position you are against. Pro-choice people are not pro-abortion because that is not the only thing they are fighting for. They are fighting for the woman's right to choose.
Yes, and who gave that definition? I sure as hell didn't. It's not a generally accepted term, it's the opinion of the people who wrote that dictionary, or source.
Often times words are revised in the dictionary when the meanings either change or are later discovered to be different.
That's not correct. I never said that I would be for it. I only said that it can be justified if doctors say it's necessary to save the woman's life and I also said that I would like to see doctors be legally required to at least try to save them both.
You expect others to accept that this position is pro-life, yet you refuse to see that supporting the right to choose is pro-choice. You are either being a hypocrite on purpose, or you have suffered some head injury.
I'm pro-choice. I am for the right for the woman to have a choice up to the time it is currently legal to choose. That is pro-choice.
If you are not able to decipher this simple difference then I'm sure you are not capable of figuring out the logical premise of my argument. Seriously, I can tell from you name this is important to you, but let others argue. You are horrible at it. Maybe start collecting stamps or something.
Chuz-Life... are you a proponent formakingabortion "illegal?"
Yes or no?
Anti:Abortion
adjective
Againstthe availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy.
You are dumb Chuz-Life. This is not a conclusion I've come to lightly, but you really weren't cut out for this.
This is not the first, second, or even third time you've allowed the semantics of a language to take precedence over the fundamental underlying argument being made and I see now it is not a tactic to cleverly distract, but you are genuinely confused by language.
If these simple things confuse you, you simply do not have the brain power to logically debate much of anything. You will continue to parrot arguments you like whilst not seeing the replies before you.
I'm saying this as a mercy, to you and to everyone subjected to your arguments. I get a lot of crap for treating the select few who qualify for this treatment, this way, but I feel it must be done. Where logic fails.
Please, go back to one of the other sites you once trolled and forget this one exists.
Chuz-Life, for one to have a choice, that choice must be legal. It is necessarily true. That does not make one "pro-abortion" it makes one "pro-choice."
"Well, as I said, the parts of the developed brain mean these situation are not the same"
Well this child is born without a fully developed brain for the sake of this scenario. If you don't want to debate based on this fact then get lost. Theres no point in joining a debate and saying how the debate isn't how you would like it to be.
This baby has the development of a severely premature baby. Of about 10 weeks gestration in terms of brain function. The difference is it can survive outside the womb. A medical wonder if you will.
"You are making up an impossible scenario then incorrectly comparing it to a scenario which is nothing alike."
Now I've made it clear to you what the scenario is perhaps you will reconsider this statement.
Well this child is born without a fully developed brain for the sake of this scenario. If you don't want to debate based on this fact then get lost. Theres no point in joining a debate and saying how the debate isn't how you would like it to be.
I will not get lost. It is a false comparison and so your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples to oranges to justify forcing a theological view on others.
This baby has the development of a severely premature baby. Of about 10 weeks gestration in terms of brain function. The difference is it can survive outside the womb. A medical wonder if you will.
These situations exist and I answered the question. You were too wounded over me ruining your little ruse to notice. Reread it.
"At the point the brain is developed enough for self-awareness is the only logical measure of "human rights."
Why is that?
Because you say so?
I consider it to be insultingly illogical to put the burden on the child and their developing brain - that they have to breech your arbitrarily decided 'point of humanity' before you will concede to the fact that they have a right to a life they have already been living for a significant amount of time before that point.
The legal definition for a 'natural person' is broad enough to include 'human beings' in any stage of life, growth or development. That includes children in the womb and that is why Planned Parenthood will not challenge laws like the Unborn Victims of Violence act and others which make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a child in the womb.
You can bold "murder" and "child" all you want, abortion is still not murdering a child. And the Unborn Victims of Violence act will be overturned because it is barbaric, evil, and stupid, whether planned parenthood is the one who does it or not is inconsequential.
And do you have any idea how many thousands of living women planned parenthood saves every year?
Why do those who spend so much effort trying to save their imagination so hate groups that save actual living people?
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that we already have people in prison for murdering children in the womb. Some of them were for illegal self induced abortions.
No matter how heart felt your denials are, they can not change the reality of the situation above.
It's hilarious (and disturbing) that you see the Unborn Victims of Violence act as barbaric, evil and stupid.... but abortion on demand as anything less.
You'll have to provide some supporting evidence for people in prison for having a legal abortion, I don't believe that to be true.
Regardless, it does not change the argument. The point at which abortion is legal, that thing has no feeling or self-awareness, and so nothing is being harmed.
It's hilarious (and disturbing) that you see the Unborn Victims of Violence act as barbaric, evil and stupid.... but abortion on demand as anything less.
Of course it is. Outlawing abortion does not lower the number of abortions, it forces women to seek out abortions in unsanitary conditions where they are more likely to die during the procedure and it incriminates women who are seeking a procedure that hurts no one.
It is a theological witch hunt based on superstition which leads only to more death and more misery in the world without saving a single person.
"You'll have to provide some supporting evidence for people in prison for having a legal abortion, I don't believe that to be true."
Show me where I said anyone was in jail for having a legal abortion.
* "Outlawing abortion does not lower the number of abortions, it forces women to seek out abortions in unsanitary conditions where they are more likely to die during the procedure and it incriminates women who are seeking a procedure that hurts no one.
It is a theological witch hunt based on superstition which leads only to more death and more misery in the world without saving a single person. It is barbaric, stupid, and evil."
Do children have a right to the equal protections of our laws, David?
Show me where I said anyone was in jail for having a legal abortion.
Your point was that abortion was illegal. It is not. I don't know why you were making that point, but that is the point you were trying to make so I was showing that you were incorrect.
Do children have a right to the equal protections of our laws, David?Do children have a right to the equal protections of our laws, David?
Children do. Foeuses do not.
And you didn't answer my comment about more women dying, you just keep going back to "it's a child it's a child it's a child"
It's not a child. It is legal to have an abortion. Come up with an actual argument or go away.
Are really so invested in forcing your misguided theology onto others that you don't see that it would be so much more interesting to debate the care of a born child, with a functioning brain, but with no chance of survival?
I mean there are currently like 50 abortion debates and the same five of you post the same 5 arguments and upvote eachother 5 times each while downvoting the 15 people arguing with you.
Strange, I was thinking about the same thing from the other side. I guess there are bad apples all over the place huh.
You mention this could relate to "abortion" or rights of a foetus. It could not. This child's brain is developed. It has the necessary functioning parts for self-awareness. This is a different situation. This is the "vegetable" situation anti-abortion proponents consistently mistakenly analogize.
The brain isn't working so it is as good as non-existent one. Just like if you had a car that wasn't working it would have been good as not having a car at all (or better because the billing you would get to fix it would be way high) because you would have to still find an alternative to get to work.
You would have brought up a much more interesting moral dilemma had the situation been one in which the child could not survive. The attempt to create a situation which could be compared to an abortion is quite transparent. You might as well have just made another abortion debate if that was the intent.
How is that more interesting than this? It is a direct correlation between a living baby who is as brain dead and unaware-like a foetus. Which deserves to live and which deserves to die?
But establishing that this in fact is a completely different situation than an abortion, the answer is simple.
The only difference is that the born child is heavier, more tangible and therefore we can sympathize for it more. But everything else is the same, right down to the brain that isn't working (which is as good as you not having one in the first place).
The mother has a moral obligation to try to keep the child alive until they are healed.
The mother should also have a legal obligation to do such.
I think your compartmentalizing in order to keep your morality in check.
Cue confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled...
No false comparison was made. You are the one trying to put the two arguments in different 'dimensions' in order to win.
The brain isn't working so it is as good as non-existent one. Just like if you had a car that wasn't working it would have been good as not having a car at all (or better because the billing you would get to fix it would be way high) because you would have to still find an alternative to get to work.
No, another incorrect comparison. The correct comparison is a car that was never built to begin with. The correct comparison is scraps of metal in a warehouse somewhere that have yet to be even shipped to their various plants for assembly.
How is that more interesting than this? It is a direct correlation between a living baby who is as brain dead and unaware-like a fetus. Which deserves to live and which deserves to die?
It is more interesting because it deals with an actual person and not someone's imagination. This scenario is more like the car that has broken down. And again, I answered that moral dilemma. Why is it so hard to read my arguments for those who disagree with me? You are the second to completely skip that part of my argument.
The only difference is that the born child is heavier, more tangible and therefore we can sympathize for it more. But everything else is the same, right down to the brain that isn't working (which is as good as you not having one in the first place).
If that were the original argument then my argument would have been there is no moral obligation to keep that child alive. I would have also pointed out the impossibility of that scenario. A baby born in what would be for all intents and purposes, a fetus outside of the womb, cannot survive with full brain function. It is a different debate than what was laid out.
That was not the argument though. This argument was making the false comparison between a non-existent human, and one who was self-aware and who would be cured. It was comparing an imaginary friend to a human who happened to be in a coma. It is not the same thing.
I think your compartmentalizing in order to keep your morality in check.
No. What I'm doing is not comparing a born child to the theological ideal of a fetus. You want a born child with brain damage who can be healed to be the same as an unborn child who has not yet developed the parts of the brain that are self-aware because that is in line with your beliefs. Your belief is incorrect. They are not the same and the reasons for my opinion on the morality of this issue are crystal clear and the obvious ones once that cloud of superstitious theological rubbish are removed.
No false comparison was made. You are the one trying to put the two arguments in different 'dimensions' in order to
Yes, the original argument is a false comparison and since that false comparison there have been several others, mostly repeating the "brain dead" vs. unborn argument in different wording sprinkled with car comparisons etc. All false comparisons.
So yeah, "cue the confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled" was exactly correct. It's like I'm Nostradamus.
1) If the mother refused to provide treatment for this child, would she be commiting an immoral act?
Although morality is up to each individual my personal views on this I yes. If she could provide the care with out a detriment to her life, but she refused to, then she is, by my moral stance, and immoral person.
2) If you decide she is commiting a immoral act, should the law make it illegal?
If the child can survive without the treatment that would only hinder the mother then she is within her legal rights.
Thank you. But in my scenario the child would die if the mother stops supporting the child using the machine (I guess in a real-life scenario this would be a hospital supporting the life of a pre-mature baby). In both cases keeping the child alive requires hardship on the mothers part. I'm struggling to understand why its different.
As I said previously, due to personal experience, I'd really like to believe that aborting a fetus isn't immoral and/or child neglect. So if you can perserve and try and persuade me then I'd appreciate it.
You mean viability. If the mother chose to give the child up she would not be held responsible. If she chose to keep it, she would.
In the scenario she chose to keep it, in an instance with viability she would have chose to give it up.
I believe child neglect to be different than abortion because abortion is to end a potential life, that is inside of you and feeding off of you. I mean you literally can't do nothing for a fetus. It feeds involunatillary off the mother.
A child alive is a creature that can't do anything on it's own, has no involuntary functions, and the difference between it and a fetus is that the mother chose to have it, no she's choosing to neglect it.
I will answer the scenario and then answer as if I were talking about a fetus. (If this makes you stop reading: take note that in the end I don't feel the mother should be legally bound not the abort the fetus).
Morally:
For the mother to refuse to help the child is immoral. There is a moral duty of the mother to the child. If the mother continues to care for the child he/she will develop into a fully functioning human being.
Same goes for a fetus. Despite the mothers ability to choose whether she aborts the fetus or not, she is acting immorally be terminating something that has a potential to be a fully functioning human being.
Legally:
In the scenario the mother has a legal duty of care towards the child. The law establishes that there is a duty upon a mother to care her child. She chooses to do this by deciding to continue her maternal rights (in reality she could terminate this and declare herself no longer the guardian of the child). If she maintained guardianship she would be commiting child neglect if she let the child die.
In the case of a fetus, this is different. The mother does not assume a duty of care for the fetus. She may not have chosen for the fetus to be there. There is nothing that should legally oblige her to assume that duty. Citizens should not be forced to assume a duty of care. For example, if my neighbour house is burning down - I have no legal duty to pour water on it. It is a question of whether a good samaritian law should exist. In England and, I believe, the USA it doesn't - and I support this view.
"In the case of a fetus, this is different. The mother does not assume a duty of care for the fetus. She may not have chosen for the fetus to be there. There is nothing that should legally oblige her to assume that duty. "
As a law student, you should have studied (or will be studying soon) the legal concepts of implied consent and assumption of risk.
Both can be applied to an act of consensual sex resulting in pregnancy and the legal obligations involved.
I think the terms implied consent and assumption of risk are used out of context really. But yes I see your point. My argument was flawed - I didn't think it through. There are many ways to establish a duty of care in this case. I agree.
However, it is at the moment, the courts have not recognised a duty of care between mother and fetus. At the moment the courts have refused to identify a duty of care: http://www.joelabulaw.com/mothers-duty-of-care-to-fetus (about American law).
Is it a 'duty of care' issue or is it the 5th and 14th Amendment rights of the child and their Constitutional right to their life and to the equal protections of our laws which will win the day?
"You said that sex is consent to pregnancy. You are wrong. People have the right to use contraception to prevent conception."
WTF?
Those are two completely different things.
You might as well say, "Those who gorge themselves on Ice Cream do not consent to gaining weight because they have the right to exercise and burn it off if they want to"
Furthermore, if consensual sex is not a consent to pregnancy... please explain what it is that obligates a biological father to 18 years of child support for even an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
His role in creating the child was OVER at conception and he's still liable for child support even if he wore a condom and she was on the pill.
You are wrong. Women have the right to choose. Even if I do have sex, that does not mean that I am consenting to pregnancy. It is my body, my right, and my choice. You do not have the right to take away my choices from me. Contraception is a right. I have the right to use contraception and abortion.
It is my body, my right, and my choice. If you force me to be pregnant against my will, you are no better than a rapist. Why should I be traumatized to suit your antichoice mentality, and yes, pregnancy can be very traumatic!
