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.
what if you raped that girl do you honestly think shes going to keep the baby i mean she don't have to have an abortion she also has a choice by giving it up for adoption
She does have the option to adoption! Why should any person pay for the crimes of his or her father?
On a side note, I'm guessing this is why abortion advocates tend to also be socialists... because they believe in the idea of making someone else pay for other people who are in the wrong (i.e. not working for their pay). Hmmm.... interesting thought.
Some people enjoy having sex. What right do you have to dictate that sex should only be performed with the goal of having a child?
So if a condom fails, the couple must be burdened with a child they never intended to have, this is what you are saying. If people want to get abortions, let them. They aren't affecting you. Nor is it murder on a mass scale.
I may agree with you that abortion in cases of rape are acceptable, but no matter what abortions are always tragic. Calling an unborn child a parasite it cruel and unnecessary, not matter the circumstances.
The potential to become a human does not equal being a human. Therefore, abortion is not always murder.
If the unborn being is able to demonstrate at least one quality of person hood, then it should be considered a person or human. If it cannot, then it should not receive any rights.
Qualities of person hood:
Consciousness
Reasoning
Self Motivated Activity
Capacity to communicate by whatever means
Presence of self concepts
Meet at least one of these, and you're a person or human.
If it isn't a human then what is it? A giraffe? Law of Biogenesis advocates it being a human also. It is always murder. If you want to put limitations on what a human is then you are putting your feet in Hitler's shoes. Do you advocate the Holocaust? This is all I'm hearing from abortion advocates... that they think people have the right to kill people because thy don't believe it to be a human. Welcome to selfless America.
How have I forced anyone to not get an abortion? I'm merely informing someone that abortion is murder.
And if you want to say that forcing someone to not murder is being like Hitler then murder would acceptable. Do you enjoy murder? Should it be illegal? My right to punch you ends where your face begins. If we do not have laws that protect the individual rights of people, such as life, liberty, and property, then we will erupt into anarchy. Should America have let Hitler continue with genocide because he wanted to do something? The allies went against the will of Hitler.
So no, I am not being like Hitler. I am being like allied powers who are trying to stop people from committing horrid and despicable acts against their fellow man under the disguise of freedom.
1) How so? Should women have whatever liberty they want? Should they have the right to murder? What about theft? Do they have the right to punch me? A woman's rights are not infringed upon while being pregnant. Another human being's life is infringed upon when you have an abortion. Like I said, the point of the law is to protect the people. They do not have the right to infringe upon other people's rights.
2) Women never had a right to an abortion. No one has a right to infringe upon another person's rights. You're right to punch me ends where my face begins.
Why do you say that? If you can give me logical and moral reasoning as to why one should support abortion then I will change my views... but no one has...
Oh, we have plenty of resources for more people. That is not an excuse. And even if you want to say that, then lets limit sex! Not murdering people.... Or we could even kill criminals to lower the population! And no, killing a criminal is not murder...
No, we actually dont have enough resources for more people, were running out of room, land, fresh water, food, ya.... we dont have enough for 2 billion more
so consider this then, ill put you in a paradox, if god is all mighty and all powerful if we legalized abortion then wouldnt it be part of hi plan? us simple humans cant alter the plan, were just humans
Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Romans 8:28, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Everything happens for a reason, this can be seen in these verse along with the Book of Job. However, does that mean God is in the wrong because He predestines everything to happen? No, because Romans 9:19-24 says that some were prepared as vessels of destruction, who were made to do evil as to show the wrath of God towards the unrighteous. So in a sense, yes, abortion being legal is God's plan along with any other sin such as murder or theft or perjury.... God allows this, while bearing much patience (Psalm 103:8; 1 Timothy 1:12-17), as to show His great love for His elect and His wrath towards His non-elect. Everything works to glorify His Almighty Godhead. However, in another sense, it is not His will because He has clearly told us not to do it... even though He knows we will not just like every other sin He tells us not to do. He does not delight in sin nor in the destruction of the unrighteous, but they are all for the good of His people and for the displaying of His glory (Ezekiel 33:11).
lol, anyways, im no for abortion but what i am for is personal freedom and choice, the fetus will never know it died, and the said fetus is only 1 out of millions that couldve made it, and plus, you can just make another baby when you are ready and able and willing to raise a child
no, i am against the ends justifying the means, i believe the means justify the ends, and if we have to use the means of abortion to keep the ends at a decent population, then its ok, but like i said, abortion is a choice, and it shouldnt be forced, but it should be legal to do
you can justify abortion: why the hell would you want to bring a kid into this shit hole anyways?
But murder is acceptable so we can live peacefully... right... cant beat that logic...
If the person is a huge detriment to society and is killing other people, then yes, it is acceptable.
Thats the same thing as asking the soon to be parents determining and assuming their child will want to live in an era that is on the verge of collapse
I would say it is a clump of cells with human DNA, until sufficiently developed enough to be considered a human.
If you want to put limitations on what a human is then you are putting your feet in Hitler's shoes.
If you want to define the potential to be a human as equivalent to a human, then why don't we give sperm and egg cells rights? Now you've become Hitler, advocating for the mass murder/genocide of sperm and egg cells.
This silliness must end where it started. The potential to become a human does not equal being a human. Therefore, the fetus must meet a quality of person hood in order to receive rights.
Do you advocate the Holocaust?
No.
This is all I'm hearing from abortion advocates...
You must not be listening then.
they think people have the right to kill people because thy don't believe it to be a human
Is taking a shower and killing a bunch of cells the equivalent of killing people? I'm not advocating for the "murder" of unborn children more than 24 weeks into pregnancy.
If it's more than 24 weeks into pregnancy, abortion should be illegal. If it's less than 24 weeks into pregnancy, go get an abortion if you'd like. Why do you disagree with this?
I would say it is a clump of cells with human DNA, until sufficiently developed enough to be considered a human.
So if I say that my baby is a clump of cells, which it is, could I kill it because I do not want it? Merely subjective.
If you want to define the potential to be a human as equivalent to a human, then why don't we give sperm and egg cells rights? Now you've become Hitler, advocating for the mass murder/genocide of sperm and egg cells.
I have not. Sperm and eggs have a distinct DNA that is that of the parents. At conception, the egg and sperm have combined to form new DNA. At that point, it is a new living being.
Is taking a shower and killing a bunch of cells the equivalent of killing people? I'm not advocating for the "murder" of unborn children more than 24 weeks into pregnancy.
Yet again, where does it begin? Where there is new life? Or wherever we choose it to be? You do know that many people in India do not consider female new born babies as humans, correct? They just throw them in the trash because they don't want a female child and justify it many times by saying that it was a non human. This is just like Hitler. Genocides and discrimination usually begins with people claiming not to be humans.... like the Jews at the Holocaust and like African-Americans during slavery.
Life begins at conception. It is a distinctive set of DNA. It is living. It is human. Killing anything after conception is killing a new life. That is selfish.
So if I say that my baby is a clump of cells, which it is, could I kill it because I do not want it? Merely subjective.
No, you could not. Because you completely misunderstood what I said. When I said a clump of cells, I literally meant a clump of cells as in perhaps a few thousand or so. My current opinion is that if a fetus is more than 24 weeks then it should be illegal to get an abortion. If it is before the 24 weeks mark, then it should be legal. Now, my opinion can change, but it would require a logically sound argument.
I have not. Sperm and eggs have a distinct DNA that is that of the parents. At conception, the egg and sperm have combined to form new DNA. At that point, it is a new living being.
New living zygote would be a better term. It is not a human entitled to rights. It meets no qualities of person hood.
Say for example that a girl has sex, and gets pregnant. She gets the "morning after" pill. You seem to think that this pill, which kills the zygote, or the equivalent to literally maybe 50 cells at most, is the equivalent of murder. Do you realize how silly that sounds?
"If you take the morning after pill and kill those 0-50 cells, that is the equivalent of murdering a fully fledged human being"
They just throw them in the trash because they don't want a female child and justify it many times by saying that it was a non human
I fail to see how this can compare. I am not simply "decreeing" that they are all non human therefore it is not murder. The basis for the argument relies pretty much on whether the fetus has any qualities that a normal fully fledged human has. It doesn't have to have all of them, just ONE. The reason for this is because if an organism cannot think, have memories, feel happiness, pain, or any emotions, if it lacks self awareness, and if it lacks knowledge of its existence, how is this thing a human entitled to rights?
Life begins at conception.
So we should lock people up in prison for pre-meditated murder if that girl goes and takes that morning after pill and kills those 10 cells. I'm sure those 10 cells had lives, went to work, had memories, could feel happiness and pain, and were aware of their existence, all without a brain or nervous system inside her womb.
Every response of yours was pretty much saying that it is unfair for the abortion of a zygote to be considered as murder. Let me tell you this: it is unfair for that zygote to be aborted, period. I don't care if it some teen girl who did, I don't care if it some mom who took the morning after pill, it is still murder and anyone who commits murder should be penalized. Someone has taken into their own hands the fate of another human being. If you want to say that it is not a person, go ahead, but you are doing exactly what Hitler did by picking and choosing which humans were persons or not. However, you would still be missing two fundamental points: it is still a human and it is selfish to think it is not worthy enough to merit life. All I hear from you is that it is okay to kill an innocent human being... because the mother wanted to. You remember debating about being good or not before God? This would not go under something that is good. Thats one strike and you are out.
Let me tell you this: it is unfair for that zygote to be aborted, period.
Period? I hit backspace on that whole sentence and rewrote it for you: Let me tell you this: it is unfair to consider the abortion of a zygote murder for it lacks all qualities of person hood
it is still murder and anyone who commits murder should be penalized.
It is the murder of a few cells, not a fully fledged human being.
Someone has taken into their own hands the fate of another human being.
It is not a human being, it lacks all qualities of person hood.
If you want to say that it is not a person, go ahead, but you are doing exactly what Hitler did by picking and choosing which humans were persons or not
No I am not. Hitler picked fully grown humans and said "they're not humans". What I am doing is saying that a fetus that is less than 24 weeks pregnant is not a human being for it lacks all qualities of person hood. It has no ability to think, feel, have memories, have self awareness, or any knowledge of its existence. It doesn't know the difference between existence and non existence.
At least know and understand your opponents argument before knocking it down as a straw man argument.
However, you would still be missing two fundamental points: it is still a human and it is selfish to think it is not worthy enough to merit life.
If it is older than 24 weeks, it likely meets at least one quality of person hood making it a person. If it's less than 24 weeks it's not.
Selfishness need not apply here.
All I hear from you is that it is okay to kill an innocent human being... because the mother wanted to.
Quote me. I did not say that.
You remember debating about being good or not before God? This would not go under something that is good. Thats one strike and you are out.
That's right, it wouldn't be something good nor would it be something bad. It would be neutral!
And...your point? If you object to the "murder" of a few cells, then why don't you object to taking showers or scraping your elbow when you fall off your bike? Both situations kill thousands of cells.
Meet at least one of these, and you're a person or human"
And I guess you sat down and made up all the rules for being a human being yourself. Well guess what, there are many people out their stuck in comas and they are placed on life support. they dont display any human qualities that you speak of but for some reason doctors choose to keep them alive. you nor I can determine when a person is alive or dead. Well guess what, scientists say that babies learn many things in the womb like speech and their mother's voice(languagehttp://www.viewzone.com/babytalk.html). You can check the website in brackets.
I hope you read this and dont skim through it.
"Babies show that they can be shocked by big, unexpected sounds, although they tend to adapt to constant sounds in the environment. Studies show that music enters the womb with little distortion: A few indicate that babies prefer quiet, harmonious music. Loud music may produce strong kicks of protest. An earthquake sound in Italy left a group of unborn babies in a hyperactive state for several hours. Lullabies are always appropriate."
Well look at that they have the capacity to commounicate by whatever means, one of the criteriors to be human
And I guess you sat down and made up all the rules for being a human being yourself.
No, I did not come up with these. I did not mean to imply I was the creator of these qualities.
Well guess what, there are many people out their stuck in comas and they are placed on life support. they dont display any human qualities that you speak of but for some reason doctors choose to keep them alive.
Even if there was an absence of any of the qualities of person hood, the person was formerly alive and had a life and felt a whole range of pain, happiness, and all other emotions. Where as the zygote or fetus can feel none of that, for a brain is required for memories, emotions, and conscious thought.
As for the unborn child being able to learn speech and their mothers voice, what you missed was the part about where the unborn child is only able to do these things in the last trimester which begins at week 28. I think the latest you can legally get an abortion is week 24 in the US, but I may be wrong on that. Double check me if you'd like.
Well look at that they have the capacity to commounicate by whatever means, one of the criteriors to be human
You would be correct, I am not advocating for sufficiently developed and conscious unborn children to be aborted. All you've done is reassured what I stated in the first place.
In any case, it isn't until the 24th week at the earliest that the cerebral cortex in the brain begins to wire itself to begin to be able to translate thoughts into nervous system commands.
Somewhere around that 25-30 weeks mark is where it begins to meet a quality of person hood. Isn't this what our current abortion laws state?
exactly so she cant have sex with some one get pregnant and decides to have an abortion its her fault she didn't use a condom and the guy is an idiot for not putting one on
Wait, what? Your statements seem to contradict what you said earlier.
If she wants to have sex, and is careless enough to not use a condom or birth control, you're saying she should continue the pregnancy against her will?
I'm saying that even if she were careless and got pregnant, so long as it is early in the pregnancy and the being has not met any qualities of person hood, then she should be allowed to get an abortion if she so chooses.
The fault with your premises lies with the second one. The exact moment after conception does not create a human. It creates a zygote with human DNA. I will say it again, the potential to become a human does not mean you are a person.
Yes, this whole "potential to become a human" theory of yours, that is what this is clarifying.
Hydrogen and oxygen have the potential to become water, however, on their own they are not, but when they join they are water. Same would apply for sperm and the egg.
I am not arguing that a fetus is a person (although I do believe it is but I wouldn't argue that at the moment) I am simply stating that biologically a fetus, from the moment of contraception is biologically a human.
I am not arguing that a fetus is a person (although I do believe it is but I wouldn't argue that at the moment) I am simply stating that biologically a fetus, from the moment of contraception is biologically a human.
I would say it is a human in the sense that is has human DNA. But as for whether it qualifies as a person, I would say it depends on the stage of development. My original argument was that if the fetus is younger than 24 weeks, get an abortion if you'd like. If it is older than 24 weeks, abortions should not be allowed. This is what current abortion laws in the U.S. state anyways.
Some people think that if a girl takes the morning after pill, and kills those 10-15 cells that are the zygote, that she has committed the equivalent of killing a fully grown human, because by this definition there is no difference between a freshly fertilized zygote composed of 5-10 cells and a 50 year old man. By this logic, she should be sentenced to prison for pre-meditated murder.
I would say it is a human in the sense that is has human DNA. But as for whether it qualifies as a person, I would say it depends on the stage of development. My original argument was that if the fetus is younger than 24 weeks, get an abortion if you'd like. If it is older than 24 weeks, abortions should not be allowed. This is what current abortion laws in the U.S. state anyways.
May I ask, did you choose 24 weeks just because thats what the US law is? Just because some politician signs something into law does not mean it is true or fair, and from what I have seen so far, you have no proof that the fetus is not alive besides the whole "its young and only has a little bit of DNA" which doesn't prove anything at all. When the sperm and egg meet it creates life, just because its small or young does not mean it is not alive, there are many living things that are much smaller than fetuses, just because the US law says its not alive doesn't mean that it has any truth to it.
Some people think that if a girl takes the morning after pill, and kills those 10-15 cells that are the zygote, that she has committed the equivalent of killing a fully grown human, because by this definition there is no difference between a freshly fertilized zygote composed of 5-10 cells and a 50 year old man. By this logic, she should be sentenced to prison for Prue-meditated murder.
That's not what the day after pill does, it kills the sperm before it reaches the egg.
May I ask, did you choose 24 weeks just because thats what the US law is?
No, I came to that conclusion independent of US law. I got to that conclusion through the qualities of person hood.
from what I have seen so far, you have no proof that the fetus is not alive besides the whole "its young and only has a little bit of DNA" which doesn't prove anything at all
I didn't say it wasn't alive. It most certainly is alive, but that doesn't make it a person.
When the sperm and egg meet it creates life, just because its small or young does not mean it is not alive, there are many living things that are much smaller than fetuses, just because the US law says its not alive doesn't mean that it has any truth to it.
I did not say it was not alive. I said it was not a person if it is less than 24 weeks into pregnancy. The US law had nothing to do with my conclusion.
That's not what the day after pill does, it kills the sperm before it reaches the egg.
The morning after pill can work in 1 of 3 ways:
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
No, I came to that conclusion independent of US law. I got to that conclusion through the qualities of person hood.
Qualities of person hood, I've never been one for neo-intellectual things such as a bunch of people deciding weather someone is a person or not, but regardless, human life is not property. If the fetus is not their property, they may not kill it.
I did not say it was not alive. I said it was not a person if it is less than 24 weeks into pregnancy. The US law had nothing to do with my conclusion.
Alright then, whats so damn special about 24 weeks? Seriously, after a few weeks it develops a brain, so I'd like to hear your argument for why it doesn't meet any of these qualities of person hood.
The morning after pill can work in 1 of 3 ways:
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
The third one would kill the zygote.
I know the way they work, however, it usually just kills the sperm.
Qualities of person hood, I've never been one for neo-intellectual things such as a bunch of people deciding weather someone is a person or not,
The definition for what makes someone a person is necessary. Otherwise people will go to jail for killing a zygote since it would supposedly be the equivalent of killing a fully grown human like you or me. Clearly this position makes no sense at all.
If the fetus is not their property, they may not kill it.
This is not an issue about property, that is irrelevant to the issue here. It is about whether the fetus is a person or not.
Alright then, whats so damn special about 24 weeks? Seriously, after a few weeks it develops a brain, so I'd like to hear your argument for why it doesn't meet any of these qualities of person hood.
The possession of a brain does not automatically entitle you to rights. The brain isn't even completely wired within itself and the nervous system until at the earliest 24 weeks. Consciousness, memories, emotions, self awareness, knowledge of its existence, none of that is possible until the brain is successfully "wired" which occurs sometime after 24 weeks.
The definition for what makes someone a person is necessary. Otherwise people will go to jail for killing a zygote since it would supposedly be the equivalent of killing a fully grown human like you or me. Clearly this position makes no sense at all.
Well, it would made more sense, if you considered all living humans to be people. There have been many cases where cultures and governments say that something that is clearly alive is not alive.
The age of a human makes no difference in murder, and from what I know, whenever a younger human (such as a kid or baby) is killed, everyone makes a much bigger deal about it.
This is not an issue about property, that is irrelevant to the issue here. It is about whether the fetus is a person or not.
Just because someone like you says "its not a person" doesn't give them the right to kill it.
The possession of a brain does not automatically entitle you to rights. The brain isn't even completely wired within itself and the nervous system until at the earliest 24 weeks. Consciousness, memories, emotions, self awareness, knowledge of its existence, none of that is possible until the brain is successfully "wired" which occurs sometime after 24 weeks.
From a more human perspective you should be given rights from the beginning of your life. If your so stubborn about the qualities of person hood that you can't wait a few weeks for them to be developed so you kill an innocent human, well, you got bigger problems.
Well, it would made more sense, if you considered all living humans to be people. There have been many cases where cultures and governments say that something that is clearly alive is not alive.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not alive. Biologically speaking, it is alive. But that does not make it a fully fledged human entitled to rights.
The age of a human makes no difference in murder, and from what I know, whenever a younger human (such as a kid or baby) is killed, everyone makes a much bigger deal about it.
It's not even a human though. It's a bunch of cells with human DNA up until about 24ish weeks. The reason why we make a big deal about babies and kids being killed is because they display quite a few qualities of person hood! They are actual people! A fetus less than 24 weeks into pregnancy displays none of those qualities.
Just because someone like you says "its not a person" doesn't give them the right to kill it.
The same argument could be extended to skin cells or any other cells. Cells are alive, and we kill them by the thousands every day. The point is it has no consciousness, no self awareness, no ability to feel anything, no memories, no emotions, it has no knowledge of its existence.
From a more human perspective you should be given rights from the beginning of your life. If your so stubborn about the qualities of person hood that you can't wait a few weeks for them to be developed so you kill an innocent human, well, you got bigger problems.
Why do you define the beginning of my life as when the egg became fertilized? Week 5 is when the brain only begins to start forming. By week 12 the baby is about 2 and a half inches long. Equal to or less than the length of your thumb.
Why is it okay to hunt game while its forbidden to abort a 2 and a half inch fetus? The pain and fear felt by a deer while its being hunted and shot is astronomical compared to the non existent pain and non existent fear that the fetus doesn't even experience for it lacks the nervous system and brain to even feel anything.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not alive. Biologically speaking, it is alive. But that does not make it a fully fledged human entitled to rights.
I am not implying that you said it is not alive, however, most governments act and treat it as if it were not alive. Its a human, it serves human rights.
It's not even a human though. It's a bunch of cells with human DNA up until about 24sh weeks. The reason why we make a big deal about babies and kids being killed is because they display quite a few qualities of person hood! They are actual people! A fetus less than 24 weeks into pregnancy displays none of those qualities.
You love your qualities don't you. Try to think about this issue without the concept of person hood (an idea that some humans are superior to others) it is a human, it deserves human rights. Regardless of people not being bale to sympathize with life in its earliest stage, it still has a right to life.
The same argument could be extended to skin cells or any other cells. Cells are alive, and we kill them by the thousands every day. The point is it has no consciousness, no self awareness, no ability to feel anything, no memories, no emotions, it has no knowledge of its existence.
No the same argument can not be made. Skin cells, muscle cells, brain cells, blood cells ect. are all part of the same living organism. If you kill/damage some of these cells (example being someone cut you with a knife) thats called assault.
Why do you define the beginning of my life as when the egg became fertilized? Week 5 is when the brain only begins to start forming. By week 12 the baby is about 2 and a half inches long. Equal to or less than the length of your thumb.
Size and time don't matter. Its alive, its human, regardless of neo-intellectual ideas, its a living human that has done no actions to be judged on and deserves full hamn rights.
Why is it okay to hunt game while its forbidden to abort a 2 and a half inch fetus? The pain and fear felt by a deer while its being hunted and shot is astronomical compared to the non existent pain and non existent fear that the fetus doesn't even experience for it lacks the nervous system and brain to even feel anything.
Never said it was ok to hunt game, however, this is a human rights issue, obviously a deer is not a human. A nervous system, brain or sense of existance mean nothing, its a living human, end of story.
I am not implying that you said it is not alive, however, most governments act and treat it as if it were not alive. Its a human, it serves human rights.
Does it really matter though if it lacks all qualities of person hood anyways? It has no awareness, no knowledge of its existence, no emotions, no feelings, no consciousness, no memories, no ability to feel pain, etc.
You love your qualities don't you. Try to think about this issue without the concept of person hood (an idea that some humans are superior to others) it is a human, it deserves human rights.
This is the basis of my argument, so why would I forfeit my argument? This argument serves the purpose of demonstrating that abortion is not the equivalent of "murdering a human". I also think the woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body. I don't think the government should have the authority to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. This does not mean I believe we should allow free reign to abortion and allow them up until the week the baby is due.
Regardless of people not being bale to sympathize with life in its earliest stage, it still has a right to life.
I think you're letting your emotions strongly influence you. Try looking at it objectively. Does it display any qualities that a normal born human being does? If not, how is it a human being entitled to rights?
No the same argument can not be made.
You are objecting to a zygote or X number of cells being "killed" as if its comparable to killing a fully grown human. The only different between a zygote and a skin cell is that the zygote will be a human entitled to rights in roughly 6 months. But the thing is, if it is aborted, nothing is lost because it was never aware of its existence in the first place. No pain would be felt, for it lacks the nervous system and sufficiently developed brain to perceive such signals.
Size and time don't matter. Its alive, its human, regardless of neo-intellectual ideas, its a living human that has done no actions to be judged on and deserves full hamn rights.
Size and time do matter for they are indicators for how developed the fetus is. As you can tell by my explanation, the brain is not developed enough to perceive much of anything, let alone pain, happiness, memories, consciousness, self awareness, knowledge of its existence, etc.
Neo intellectual? You can't even refute them.
It does not deserve rights for it is not a human being. It is not a human being because it does not meet any qualities of person hood that all people demonstrate.
A nervous system, brain or sense of existance mean nothing
A nervous system, and a brain and sense of existence are all that you are. Take away all three and what are you? Non existent.
Does it really matter though if it lacks all qualities of person hood anyways? It has no awareness, no knowledge of its existence, no emotions, no feelings, no consciousness, no memories, no ability to feel pain, etc.
None of these are qualities are necessary qualities for life or to be human, however, most of them are qualities of "person hood"
Its human life, so yes, it does matter.
This is the basis of my argument, so why would I forfeit my argument? This argument serves the purpose of demonstrating that abortion is not the equivalent of "murdering a human".
No, it does not demonstrate that an abortion is not equivalent to the murder of a human. A fetus is a human, the only argument you can make is "its not a person" which again, thought history has been made so that some humans can be more superior than others.
I also think the woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body.
Separate human organism, it snot her body, this is basic biology.
I don't think the government should have the authority to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. This does not mean I believe we should allow free reign to abortion and allow them up until the week the baby is due.
To give her the choice to kill the fetus is the choice to kill another human. Killing another human outside of self defense should never be legal, let along a human that did nothing besides come into existence.
I think you're letting your emotions strongly influence you. Try looking at it objectively. Does it display any qualities that a normal born human being does? If not, how is it a human being entitled to rights?
I think your letting a list of qualities (made up by humans) have a strong influence over you. What part of "its a human" don't you understand? Human = deserves human rights. Your using a made up list and the normality bias to essentially say that its not old enough for you to consider it to have any meaning at all.
You are objecting to a zygote or X number of cells being "killed" as if its comparable to killing a fully grown human. The only different between a zygote and a skin cell is that the zygote will be a human entitled to rights in roughly 6 months. But the thing is, if it is aborted, nothing is lost because it was never aware of its existence in the first place. No pain would be felt, for it lacks the nervous system and sufficiently developed brain to perceive such signals.
You don't have to be aware of being murdered to be murdered. You can kill something that doesn't have a brain.
Size and time do matter for they are indicators for how developed the fetus is. As you can tell by my explanation, the brain is not developed enough to perceive much of anything, let alone pain, happiness, memories, consciousness, self awareness, knowledge of its existence, etc.
Size and time do not matter, development does not matter, and if you would like to think that since it has not developed these meaningless traits yet that it is not a person you must also agree with this: A pre-pueberty child will be able to reproduce, but at the moment it can't, so by definition the child is not alive and as you you would Say "the potential to become a human does not make it a human" so according to this, any child that has not been pueberized enough to reproduce is not alive.
Neo intellectual? You can't even refute them.
You can't even make an argument without bringing up a list of made up qualities.
Calling a human a person si nothing more than a title, you can call them whatever you want, person, human, Fred, Murry purple, whatever. This neo-intellectual idea (title) of person hood is meaningless and the entire point of the concept is to make some humans seem superior to others.
It does not deserve rights for it is not a human being. It is not a human being because it does not meet any qualities of person hood that all people demonstrate.
All humans deserves human rights.
Saying all people have qualities of personhood is (like most of your points) meaningless. You act like a neo-intellectual idea is somehow law written in stone, when really, its nothing more than a made up concept.
A nervous system, and a brain and sense of existence are all that you are. Take away all three and what are you? Non existent.
The nervous system and brain are essential to long term life (sense of existence is not) however, even if there is no nervous system present, the fetus is still alive and is still a human.
None of these are qualities are necessary qualities for life or to be human, however, most of them are qualities of "person hood"
So if a human were born without a brain, does it deserve rights? Essentially, you are saying it does.
A fetus is a human, the only argument you can make is "its not a person" which again, thought history has been made so that some humans can be more superior than others.
I can refute this by repeating what I wrote above. Is a brainless human a human worthy of rights?
The brain is not "wired" into the babies nervous system or even within the brain itself until 24 weeks at the earliest.
This has nothing to do with humans being superior to other humans.
Separate human organism, it snot her body, this is basic biology.
She does not have to support the existence of something that is not even a person. It does not have any rights unless it is a person.
To give her the choice to kill the fetus is the choice to kill another human. Killing another human outside of self defense should never be legal, let along a human that did nothing besides come into existence.
It's not sufficiently developed to be considered a fully grown human, therefore not equivalent.
I think your letting a list of qualities (made up by humans) have a strong influence over you. What part of "its a human" don't you understand? Human = deserves human rights.
I let objective thought processes take precedence over subjective emotional ones. I think a person deserves rights. A fetus less than 24 weeks into the pregnancy is not sufficiently developed to be a considered a human being. It is only a human fetus with no qualities of person hood.
Your using a made up list and the normality bias to essentially say that its not old enough for you to consider it to have any meaning at all.
Normalcy bias? Does this even make sense in the context of this conversation?
You don't have to be aware of being murdered to be murdered. You can kill something that doesn't have a brain.
Of course you can kill something that doesn't have a brain. I unintentionally kill thousands of cells every time I take a shower, as does every one else who takes showers. You do not have to be aware of being murdered to be murdered. But the thing is a fetus less than 24 weeks into pregnancy is not a human being entitled to rights.
that since it has not developed these meaningless traits yet that it is not a person
So pain, happiness, memories, consciousness, self awareness, and knowledge of your own existence, those are all meaningless traits...?
you must also agree with this: A pre-pueberty child will be able to reproduce, but at the moment it can't, so by definition the child is not alive and as you you would Say "the potential to become a human does not make it a human" so according to this, any child that has not been pueberized enough to reproduce is not alive.
Um, no. I do not agree with that. Wtf does pueberized even mean? Are you talking about puberty? The qualities of person hood say nothing about a humans puberty as a qualifying factor. Your argument is entirely invalid at this point.
You can't even make an argument without bringing up a list of made up qualities.
That's because this is the argument. You're essentially telling me to not use an argument, because you cannot refute it.
the entire point of the concept is to make some humans seem superior to others.
No, the point is to define what exactly a human is. You're going off on a tangent by imagining conspiracies by my argument.
All humans deserves human rights.
Your definition of a human is ridiculous though. Essentially, if you kill a zygote, you deserve to go to prison for killing a human.
Saying all people have qualities of personhood is (like most of your points) meaningless.
No, it's the truth.
You act like a neo-intellectual idea is somehow law written in stone, when really, its nothing more than a made up concept.
And your arbitrary definition of a human is not?
The nervous system and brain are essential to long term life (sense of existence is not) however, even if there is no nervous system present, the fetus is still alive and is still a human.
So if a human were born without a brain, does it deserve rights? Essentially, you are saying it does.
If a HUMAN were born without a brain, it deserves HUMAN rights, that is what I am saying.
I can refute this by repeating what I wrote above. Is a brainless human a human worthy of rights?
The brain is not "wired" into the babies nervous system or even within the brain itself until 24 weeks at the earliest.
This has nothing to do with humans being superior to other humans.
Actually, it does. Your essentially calling the less developed human to be inferior and un-deserving of human rights.
She does not have to support the existence of something that is not even a person. It does not have any rights unless it is a person.
Under American law, saying "it has no rights" is not a valid argument for why it should have no rights.
It's not sufficiently developed to be considered a fully grown human, therefore not equivalent.
The brain doesn't stop growing until mid-20's so some case could be made that anyone under 20 is under developed and should not receive sufficient rights.
I let objective thought processes take precedence over subjective emotional ones. I think a person deserves rights. A fetus less than 24 weeks into the pregnancy is not sufficiently developed to be a considered a human being. It is only a human fetus with no qualities of person hood.
It is a human, thus a human being. This has nothing to do with the made up concept of person hood, its a human being.
Made up list? Qualities of Person hood
Normalcy bias? Does this even make sense in the context of this conversation?
Yes made its made, just because a group of people got together and made something up does not make it official or hold any value what so ever.
And yes, the normality bias. This human isn't developed as most people I know? Not human! This human doesn't meet my normal requirements? Not human!
That is to some extent a normality bias.
Of course you can kill something that doesn't have a brain. I unintentionally kill thousands of cells every time I take a shower, as does every one else who takes showers. You do not have to be aware of being murdered to be murdered. But the thing is a fetus less than 24 weeks into pregnancy is not a human being entitled to rights.
First off, its a human being and the only thing keeping it from having rights is people like you who are gullible enough to believe that the "qualities of person hood" actually mean anything.
So pain, happiness, memories, consciousness, self awareness, and knowledge of your own existence, those are all meaningless traits...?
Don't dance around the question, however, they are meaningless if your discussing weather something is alive or not.
Um, no. I do not agree with that. Wtf does pueberized even mean? Are you talking about puberty? The qualities of person hood say nothing about a humans puberty as a qualifying factor. Your argument is entirely invalid at this point.
Not the qualities of person hood, the qualities of life! If you look at the way you interpret the qualities of life the way you interpret the qualities of person hood you would view all children who have no hit puberty to not be alive.
That's because this is the argument. You're essentially telling me to not use an argument, because you cannot refute it.
I can't refute it because the qualities of person hood are made up and in some sense delusional. Its saying that some humans dereve rights and other don't based on their age/development. Its like someone yelling "purple! garnet! tender!" and then saying "you can't even refute it!"
No, the point is to define what exactly a human is. You're going off on a tangent by imagining conspiracies by my argument.
Its not a conspiracy, the entire idea of person hood is a concept that says some humans deserve more right than others. I know you neo-intellectuals care little for history, but I suggest you take a look back and see how the idea of person hood started out.
Your definition of a human is ridiculous though. Essentially, if you kill a zygote, you deserve to go to prison for killing a human.
That zygote is a human, your made up qualities of person hood can't say that it is not a human, its a biological fact that it is a living human.
No, it's the truth.
If they changed the definition of blue to "the color blue and green" technically saying green is blue would be true... however, anyone with a pre-school diploma could understand that its false.
And your arbitrary definition of a human is not?
Your view: A group of intellectuals shall write down laws a to who deserves rights and who doesn't.
My view: If something is biologically a human, it deserves human rights.
If a HUMAN were born without a brain, it deserves HUMAN rights, that is what I am saying.
I rest my case.
Actually, it does. Your essentially calling the less developed human to be inferior and un-deserving of human rights.
A human without a brain is just a sack of flesh. It does not deserve rights.
Under American law, saying "it has no rights" is not a valid argument for why it should have no rights.
If the fetus is less than 24 weeks into pregnancy it does not qualify for a person and therefore does not qualify for human rights. Have you looked up what the law says in regards to the latest you can get a pregnancy?
The brain doesn't stop growing until mid-20's so some case could be made that anyone under 20 is under developed and should not receive sufficient rights.
No case could be made that people under 20 are not eligible for human rights. By that age, many people display virtually all the qualities of person hood, when only one is necessary. Argument invalid.
It is a human, thus a human being. This has nothing to do with the made up concept of person hood, its a human being.
No, a human being is something that meets the qualities of person hood. A human being is not simply "anything equal to or more developed than a human zygote". Why is my concept made up, but yours is not made up?
Yes made its made, just because a group of people got together and made something up does not make it official or hold any value what so ever.
Why are the qualities of person hood simply made up and meaningless, but your argument is not made up and holds value? It appears we have a double standard here.
And yes, the normality bias. This human isn't developed as most people I know? Not human! This human doesn't meet my normal requirements? Not human!
Do you even know wtf the normalcy bias is? I'll give you an example of it: It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects.
Normalcy bias does not equal "normal requirements". Normalcy bias is the underestimation of a potential disaster and its potential consequences. Please get your definitions correct. A quick google search of "normality bias" refers me to "Normalcy bias". Here is another definition: The vast majority of people suffer from what behavioral scientists call such normality bias – the assumption, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that things will continue as they have been recently.
First off, its a human being and the only thing keeping it from having rights is people like you who are gullible enough to believe that the "qualities of person hood" actually mean anything.
No it's not. It isn't even entitled to rights in the first place. Stop thinking with your emotions and try to look at it objectively. Why does your definition of a human being mean something while mine is simply made up nonsense?
Don't dance around the question, however, they are meaningless if your discussing weather something is alive or not.
No they are not meaningless. They are essential qualities of any human being. It is what makes us who we are. Our memories, consciousness, self awareness, emotions, etc. This is not dancing around the question, this is just you making idiotic statements.
If you look at the way you interpret the qualities of life the way you interpret the qualities of person hood you would view all children who have no hit puberty to not be alive.
No, because the qualities of person hood do not have anything to do with a child hitting puberty. Therefore, you're putting words into my argument that I didn't say. What a pathetic attempt of a straw man. You took my position, distorted it so much that it wasn't even my position at all, then you presented it as my own. I have said nothing about a child reaching puberty.
I can't refute it because the qualities of person hood are made up and in some sense delusional.
So my definition is made up and delusional, but yours is not? Your logic is inconsistent at this point. Why is yours superior to mine? I've already displayed the errors with your definition. First, it deprives the woman the right to choose what to do with her body. And second, this makes the abortion of any fetus less than 24 weeks pregnant the equivalent of murder, possibly pre-meditated, and that the person should go to prison.
Its saying that some humans dereve rights and other don't based on their age/development. Its like someone yelling "purple! garnet! tender!" and then saying "you can't even refute it!"
Straw man. That is not my position.
Its not a conspiracy, the entire idea of person hood is a concept that says some humans deserve more right than others.
No, the fetus is not a human being in the first place.
I know you neo-intellectuals care little for history, but I suggest you take a look back and see how the idea of person hood started out.
And what makes you immune to this "neo intellectual" moniker, whereas I qualify as one? You are the one supporting arbitrary definitions for being a human being. And then you follow it up by saying that the murder of a few fetus cells is the equivalent of murdering a fully grown human.
That zygote is a human, your made up qualities of person hood can't say that it is not a human, its a biological fact that it is a living human.
It is a human fetus. Not a human being. It is not entitled to rights.
If they changed the definition of blue to "the color blue and green" technically saying green is blue would be true... however, anyone with a pre-school diploma could understand that its false.
No, my point had nothing to do with that.
Your view: A group of intellectuals shall write down laws a to who deserves rights and who doesn't.
Correction: neo intellectual. Get it right.
Straw man once again. This is not about who deserves rights and who does not. It is about figuring out what a human being is. The criteria I have proposed you have not been able to refute, all you suggest is "let's not use them". That isn't a refutation of my argument, it is more like an admittance of defeat.
A human without a brain is just a sack of flesh. It does not deserve rights.
A human without a brain is a human, thus, deserves human rights.
If the fetus is less than 24 weeks into pregnancy it does not qualify for a person and therefore does not qualify for human rights. Have you looked up what the law says in regards to the latest you can get a pregnancy?
The fetus is human and serves human rights, and even if person hood had any meaning and meant something to human rights, being so stubborn as to say "nope, we can't wait a few months, kill it" its rather sinister.
No case could be made that people under 20 are not eligible for human rights. By that age, many people display virtually all the qualities of person hood, when only one is necessary. Argument invalid.
Your argument was that the brain was not developed yet, technically until you are in your mid-20's the brain is not fully developed either. Response invalid.
No, a human being is something that meets the qualities of person hood. A human being is not simply "anything equal to or more developed than a human zygote". Why is my concept made up, but yours is not made up?
My concept is that all humans are humans (fact) and that if there are human rights they should apply to all humans (opinion)
Your concept is that some humans are superior to others because they have a title (invalid) and that only rights should apply to them (opinion)
No it's not. It isn't even entitled to rights in the first place. Stop thinking with your emotions and try to look at it objectively. Why does your definition of a human being mean something while mine is simply made up nonsense?
I'm not thinking with your emotions, refusing to go by a concept made by neo-intellectuals does not make me overly emotional. Try thinking with your mind instead of a list.
No they are not meaningless. They are essential qualities of any human being. It is what makes us who we are. Our memories, consciousness, self awareness, emotions, etc. This is not dancing around the question, this is just you making idiotic statements.
They are meaningless when dealing with the question of if its alive or not, but you seem to not be able to read that part.
No, because the qualities of person hood do not have anything to do with a child hitting puberty.
I'm talking about the qualities of life, not person hood. If you (being the way you are) interpreted the qualities of life the same way you interpret the qualities of person hood, any kid who has not gone through puberty is not alive.
So my definition is made up and delusional, but yours is not? Your logic is inconsistent at this point. Why is yours superior to mine? I've already displayed the errors with your definition. First, it deprives the woman the right to choose what to do with her body.
Its not her body, the fetus is a separate living organism. Again, this is biology 101.
And second, this makes the abortion of any fetus less than 24 weeks pregnant the equivalent of murder, possibly pre-meditated, and that the person should go to prison.
Definition of murder: Killing of another human.
Regardless of your little list of who is a person and who is not, by definition, killing a fetus is murder.
No, the fetus is not a human being in the first place.
According to the idea of person hood, however, if you looked at it from another more human perspective it deserves human rights.
And what makes you immune to this "neo intellectual" moniker, whereas I qualify as one? You are the one supporting arbitrary definitions for being a human being. And then you follow it up by saying that the murder of a few fetus cells is the equivalent of murdering a fully grown human.
Because your idea is that some humans are better than other humans, your definition of a human being is just as arbitrary. Killing a human is killing a human is killing a human is killing a human.
It is a human fetus. Not a human being. It is not entitled to rights.
Its not entitle to rights under your neo-intellectual idea of person hood. Anyone who looked at it in ann intelligent and humane way would say that all humans deserves rights unless they have done something to have them taken away.
Correction: neo intellectual. Get it right.
Straw man once again. This is not about who deserves rights and who does not. It is about figuring out what a human being is. The criteria I have proposed you have not been able to refute, all you suggest is "let's not use them". That isn't a refutation of my argument, it is more like an admittance of defeat.
You assume anything that goes against the idea that you want me to refute is somehow meaningless.
But here, refute my view without saying that your idea somehow cancels out mine.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 3 states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
You would think that the term ''everyone'' means exactly that - every human being. If we disregard the unborn, who also qualify as the living members of the Homo Sapien species, then clearly we can no longer use them term ''everybody''.
Rather the article should state - Everyone, with the exception of the unborn, has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
It's simple, humans either have the right to life or not - by the very virtue of being human. Once we start to barter and haggle about who has what rights, when and why - we'll be no different from the facists, who decided jews would have no rights or the racists who decided the blacks had no rights or the chauvinists who decided that women were less than man etc etc.
You assume that the unborn are considered persons. The concept of personhood is so widely debated and misunderstood, especially when it comes to the unborn. How do we determine when one is a person? Well, how did you know you were a person? You had a consciousness, you formed concepts and thoughts, you could decide. How do you know you were ever really a person before your first memory, testimonials from your parents? is what one perceives as conscious and living ANY VALID if the thing in question cannot confirm such a statement?
Let's define the crux of your argument first, shall we?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 3 states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Everyone
::every + one
Okay, we know what every is, but what about one?
One is most simply a contained idea, concept, or object; but because we are talking of homo-sapiens as you are to be so specific, it's human.
When is a human one? Well, is a severed arm one human? After all, it is, when severed, one severed arm, no? And it's genetic makeup is identical to that of any other part of a formerly whole person. But even yet it isn't what we'd call a whole person. Why?
Conversely, the person whom lost this arm, are they one person? We by the prior logic would say no, but most tend to understand that losing a part of ones self doesn't make them any less a one. But again why?
I'll tell you why. What makes us human is not contained in a limb or toe. It is a collection of neurons and synapses that we know as the human brain. Our self awareness is the cause for religion, philosophy, mysticism, and much of scientific study. We understand what a human is because we are aware what it means to be conscious, and as such everyone cannot be forfeited in extremities. Furthermore can it not be prescribed that an unborn fetus is a whole human (i.e. "everyone") until A) it is conscious, and B) it is aware of it's own consciousness.
When is a human one? Well, is a severed arm one human? After all, it is, when severed, one severed arm, no? And it's genetic makeup is identical to that of any other part of a formerly whole person. But even yet it isn't what we'd call a whole person. Why?
We don't call the arm a human, because it doesn't constitute the whole of the human organism in question, it is merely a part of him like pieces of hair, skin etc.
Conversely, the person whom lost this arm, are they one person? We by the prior logic would say no, but most tend to understand that losing a part of ones self doesn't make them any less a one. But again why?
Once again, the arm has been severed from the whole, not the other way around. The severed arm does not have the capacity for moral agency or for any other characteristics of life for that matter.
I'll tell you why. What makes us human is not contained in a limb or toe. It is a collection of neurons and synapses that we know as the human brain. Our self awareness is the cause for religion, philosophy, mysticism, and much of scientific study. We understand what a human is because we are aware what it means to be conscious, and as such everyone cannot be forfeited in extremities. Furthermore can it not be prescribed that an unborn fetus is a whole human (i.e. "everyone") until A) it is conscious, and B) it is aware of it's own consciousness.
The problem with using the criteria you've proposed is that it comically excludes sleeping people from the right to life. A sleeping person is not conscious in the manner you describe consciousness, nor is a sleeping person aware of its own consciousness for the duration of the sleep. Therefore, during the duration of sleep, the human has foregone the right to life, liberty and security of person.
We can get some other very absurd conclusions as well from this statement, if taken to its logical conclusion.
I'll give you a hypothetical scenario where a fetus is subjected to drugs and surgery for the sole purpose of preventing any consciousness from ever forming. While it will have all other characteristics of developing life, mostly physiological growth - it will never become a human in your sense, as in it will never develop a consciousness - it is essentially a vegetable. Such a being does not have a right to life, liberty and security of person by your definition.
We must therefore conclude that the production of these vegetable humans is not immoral since their production uses beings that cannot be considered to have a right to life for they lack consciousness. Secondly, we should have no qualms over the usage of these vegetable humans whether that would be organ donorship, for sexual pleasures, killing and mutilation for fun etc. Creating vegetable children for the demand of pedophiles would essentially be okay.
The problem with using the criteria you've proposed is that it comically excludes sleeping people from the right to life.
- Not exactly, a sleeping person is not unconscious. Poke the fuck out of one and they'll get pissed I tell ya. A sleeping person is in a sensory suspension while the mind compounds and stores information and the body gets rest; the brain is very active while asleep. One is still conscious, just not completely.
I'll give you a hypothetical scenario where a fetus is subjected to drugs and surgery for the sole purpose of preventing any consciousness from ever forming. While it will have all other characteristics of developing life, mostly physiological growth - it will never become a human in your sense, as in it will never develop a consciousness - it is essentially a vegetable. Such a being does not have a right to life, liberty and security of person by your definition.
-A vegetative human cannot validate it's own consciousness, therefore it can't be considered conscious. Being unconscious, it has no manner of functioning or providing thought and so on, and as such is really just a shell of a human.
We must therefore conclude that the production of these vegetable humans is not immoral since their production uses beings that cannot be considered to have a right to life for they lack consciousness.
-Now no where have I said I agree that they have a right to live or otherwise, and I frankly don't see how anyone can claim they have a right to live. Assuming we have a right is assuming there's a reason, and there just isn't. All of life is simply a coincidence. Our belief in our own right to live is entirely survivalistic. It is not a morality question. Furthermore those we associate with, family friends and so on, we also will them to live, as a self-preservation method. Your argument is suspending my argument and substituting one point into your own to show me how wrong it applies in your scenario.
Secondly, we should have no qualms over the usage of these vegetable humans whether that would be organ donorship, for sexual pleasures, killing and mutilation for fun etc. Creating vegetable children for the demand of pedophiles would essentially be okay.
-No it wouldn't. It's still an unconscious sac of human, and fucking it is no different morally than fucking a conscious one, because its not the vegetable child that is the issue, it's the person willing to fuck one. If you're willing to fuck essentially dead kids, you've already committed the lust for children, and last I checked there's no community super okay with that. Not to forget, a mother sick enough to give birth to a pleasure baby would be just as fucked up. They are human, but not whole. While it may not have a right to vote, it's still internally sickening to use it for pleasure, because it resembles, for all intents and purposes, a child. A person with a suspension of morality for such a child has the same suspension for a conscious one.
- Not exactly, a sleeping person is not unconscious. Poke the fuck out of one and they'll get pissed I tell ya. A sleeping person is in a sensory suspension while the mind compounds and stores information and the body gets rest; the brain is very active while asleep. One is still conscious, just not completely.
If you poke a sleeping person, he will become conscious, sure, but in no way is a sleeping person conscious in the way your personhood criteria requires him to be.
You may argue that a sleeping person can regain their consciousness by helping them (waking them up) or just waiting for them to wake up - but keep in mind, we can wait out fetal consciousness as well as help it.
-A vegetative human cannot validate it's own consciousness, therefore it can't be considered conscious. Being unconscious, it has no manner of functioning or providing thought and so on, and as such is really just a shell of a human.
Agree.
-Now no where have I said I agree that they have a right to live or otherwise, and I frankly don't see how anyone can claim they have a right to live. Assuming we have a right is assuming there's a reason, and there just isn't. All of life is simply a coincidence. Our belief in our own right to live is entirely survivalistic. It is not a morality question. Furthermore those we associate with, family friends and so on, we also will them to live, as a self-preservation method. Your argument is suspending my argument and substituting one point into your own to show me how wrong it applies in your scenario.
Yet our conduct and behavior does make it seem like it is a morality question.
We make it into a morality question because ultimately it has more value than from a survivalistic viewpoint. How we approach the abortion issue will have a clear effect on how we see the value of human life and human dignity. Abortion to me cheapens the value of human life and creates this idea that human life is disposable and exists only to be swept away if it threatens the mother's lifestyle.
Giving up liberty for the sake of others is always a delicate topic.
-No it wouldn't. It's still an unconscious sac of human, and fucking it is no different morally than fucking a conscious one, because its not the vegetable child that is the issue, it's the person willing to fuck one. If you're willing to fuck essentially dead kids, you've already committed the lust for children, and last I checked there's no community super okay with that. Not to forget, a mother sick enough to give birth to a pleasure baby would be just as fucked up. They are human, but not whole. While it may not have a right to vote, it's still internally sickening to use it for pleasure, because it resembles, for all intents and purposes, a child. A person with a suspension of morality for such a child has the same suspension for a conscious one.
Who cares what this vegetable human resembles. As you said it yourself, it does not have a right to life nor can it have any other rights.
We live in a liberal society and we ought to be tolerant to other people and what they do - especially if it doesn't harm anyone. A pedophile with vegetable children harms nobody. Vegetable children have no right not to be harmed.
Clearly you should be able to see that it is irrational to apply the same standards of ethics to unconscious vegetable humans that you would apply to conscious ones.
So it's not about whether the fetus is a human - it's about whether it is a person.
And may I ask what those personhood qualifications are then? Personhood is an incredibly vague term on its own - what is your criteria by which you define personhood?
Is a cluster of cells with human DNA a human? I think it's just a cluster of cells with human DNA.
Am I not a cluster of cells as well? The difference between myself and fetal life is that I'm just a more complex and larger cluster of human cells. If I lose a few of these cells (pieces of skin, hair or an arm) - the damage will not be significant enough to affect the greater whole of my organism.
Fetal life, by comparison, is a less complex and smaller cluster of cells. However small and few the cells might be, these cells constitute the whole of the human they make up. Killing these cells via abortion causes significant harm to the whole of the organism - enough to terminate its life.
Calling a fetus a cluster of cells is merely a euphemism to distract us from the reality of the situation. And if I grant that a fetus is just a cluster of human cells - why can't we apply the same definition to fully grown humans?
Qualities of person hood (I did not come up with them):
Consciousness
Reasoning
Self Motivated Activity
Capacity to communicate by whatever means
Presence of self concepts
Yes, these are the classical definitions. However, a few questions can now be raised:
While fetal life does not fit these criteria, neither do newly born babies or even a few weeks old babies for that matter - unless you want to argue for the magic of the vaginal canal that when passing through it, the baby immediately gains these characteristics.
We also have to discount the mentally ill and the insane from personhood. This also goes for people in a vegetable state i.e in a coma.
Hell, if I'm asleep I have none of the characteristics necessary for personhood - during the duration of my sleep, do I cease being a person?
Add all of these together and you suddenly have a lot of people who cannot be considered persons and therefore, cannot have a right to life.
Am I not a cluster of cells as well? The difference between myself and fetal life is that I'm just a more complex and larger cluster of human cells. If I lose a few of these cells (pieces of skin, hair or an arm) - the damage will not be significant enough to affect the greater whole of my organism.
I believe you missed what I was saying. The difference between yourself and fetal life is more than what you stated. The ability to have emotions, to think, to feel, to have memories, self awareness, consciousness, etc. It's not just that we are more "complex and larger" than the fetus. The fetus isn't aware of its existence and has no way to feel pain, have memories, think, it has no self awareness and no knowledge of its existence.
When I said it was a cluster of cells, I was speaking of how underdeveloped it was and that it lacked the ability to think, feel, have memories, self awareness, and knowledge of its existence. It lacks all of those. You and I do not. We are humans. A fetus at early stages of development is not. What I have said from the beginning is that abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy should be illegal, and abortions before the 24 week mark should be legal. This whole qualities of person hood argument agrees with it.
While fetal life does not fit these criteria, neither do newly born babies or even a few weeks old babies for that matter - unless you want to argue for the magic of the vaginal canal that when passing through it, the baby immediately gains these characteristics.
New born babies do fit some/most of these criteria. The rule is to only meet one of them though. Let's break them down:
Self motivated activity - baby cries when it is upset to get mother to respond to babies distress signals.
Capacity to communicate - as referenced above, crying.
Consciousness - significant electrical activity in the brain, as well as subconscious decision making such as crying for food or while in distress.
That's three. Reasoning, I'm not too sure about. Presence of self concepts comes about several months later I believe.
You've made a mockery of the qualities of person hood, based on your lack of understanding them. These qualities were not thought up in 30 seconds, people much smarter than you or I came up with them. If you want to knock them down, you're going to have to try a lot harder.
I believe you missed what I was saying. The difference between yourself and fetal life is more than what you stated. The ability to have emotions, to think, to feel, to have memories, self awareness, consciousness, etc. It's not just that we are more "complex and larger" than the fetus. The fetus isn't aware of its existence and has no way to feel pain, have memories, think, it has no self awareness and no knowledge of its existence.
Leaving aside the issue of why one human should have the authority to tell another human whether they're human or not, lets examine the complexity question.
The characteristics you described are the products of a more developed and complex brain, are they not? And if a person is drugged, his conscious state becomes inactive. A drugged person is not aware of his existence, has no emotions, is not capable of thinking and making decisions, no capacity of feeling pain - should we therefore conclude that the drugged person is no longer a person and therefore has no right to life?
The drugged person may gain one of these characteristics for personhood after an extended period of time but why wait? If it is acceptable to not wait for a fetus to gain one of these characteristics, why wait for the drugged person?
When I said it was a cluster of cells, I was speaking of how underdeveloped it was and that it lacked the ability to think, feel, have memories, self awareness, and knowledge of its existence. It lacks all of those. You and I do not. We are humans. A fetus at early stages of development is not. What I have said from the beginning is that abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy should be illegal, and abortions before the 24 week mark should be legal. This whole qualities of person hood argument agrees with it.
A human is a biological member of the Homo Sapien species. You frequent the terms human and person as if they are the same thing. You first claimed that I have a ill-conceived notion of what a human is but then you switched gears and claimed that it is actually personhood that we need to take into account.
While a fetus may not have the above characteristics of personhood - so what? It is still human and as such, I'd say it has intrinsic value solely by being human - especially given the fact that the fetus will develop into a fully conscious moral agent of society if only given the chance.
The problem with personhood is also the fact that these criterions have been conceived with the sole purpose of excluding certain demographics from certain rights. It is exclusive by nature and has always been ideologically driven whether it be from religious,gender, racial, sex-orientation or in this case, the level of developement.
New born babies do fit some/most of these criteria. The rule is to only meet one of them though. Let's break them down:
Self motivated activity - baby cries when it is upset to get mother to respond to babies distress signals.
Capacity to communicate - as referenced above, crying.
Consciousness - significant electrical activity in the brain, as well as subconscious decision making such as crying for food or while in distress.
That's three. Reasoning, I'm not too sure about. Presence of self concepts comes about several months later I believe.
You've made a mockery of the qualities of person hood, based on your lack of understanding them. These qualities were not thought up in 30 seconds, people much smarter than you or I came up with them. If you want to knock them down, you're going to have to try a lot harder.
Lets look at these characteristics critically for a second.
You named three, yet two of them are mundane and presuppose consciousness. You can't have self-motivated activity and the capacity to communicate without presupposing consciousness because these actions neccesitate a conscious agent.
An unconscious agent cannot communicate nor execute self-motivated acts because both of these things require conscious intent.
So ultimately, out of the three points you named - only one is relevant, because it is the prime requirement of the other two.
And if one does not have consciousness, therefore one cannot be a person then. This means sleeping people, drugged people, comatose people, fetal life etc - none of them can be considered persons for they do not have consciousness.
I have not made any mockery. From practice I have seen that the term personhood for pro-choicers means whatever they particularly need it to mean in any given situation. Sometimes they throw in the term ''sentience'', sometimes the capacity to abstract thought (i.e the concept of self, questions about existence etc). While you have not done so, it is almost impossible to take the personhood argument seriously because everyone has their own requirements and criterions for what personhood entails. My criteria only requires one to be a living member of the human race to aquire human rights - by their very definition.
I'd also like to know from what authority does one man or a group of people tell others whether they're human beings or not?
The drugged person may gain one of these characteristics for personhood after an extended period of time but why wait? If it is acceptable to not wait for a fetus to gain one of these characteristics, why wait for the drugged person?
Because the drugged person is a person. If you put them into an MRI there is going to be electrical activity in the brain. We can check their vitals and know they are alive. We can check if they were drugged and know that the drugs effects would be temporary. The difference between a fetus and a fully grown human is that the fetus was never formerly a person. The human was a person, and is just under the influence of drugs temporarily. Your comparison does not apply here for there are way too many differences. The human was formerly a person, the fetus never was.
You first claimed that I have a ill-conceived notion of what a human is but then you switched gears and claimed that it is actually personhood that we need to take into account.
Didn't you claim that a freshly fertilized egg was already a human? So if someone aborts this freshly fertilized egg, they should be sent to prison for the equivalent of murdering a fully grown human...? This is why your notion of a human is ill informed.
I said before that I think it is a cluster of cells with human DNA. I do not consider it a human being. Just a cluster of cells with human DNA since it is in the fetal stages of development.
While a fetus may not have the above characteristics of personhood - so what? It is still human and as such, I'd say it has intrinsic value solely by being human - especially given the fact that the fetus will develop into a fully conscious moral agent of society if only given the chance.
Why don't we extend rights to sperm and egg cells since they have the potential to become human as well?
The potential to become a human does not mean that it is a human being entitled to rights. The potential means nothing. It does not matter.
Say for example somebody murdered Michelle Obama when she was 15. She said she wanted to have 2 kids when she got older. Do we prosecute the murderer for 3 murders? Or do we prosecute the murderer based on how many egg cells she had? All those eggs have the potential to become a human being. This is how idiotic the whole "potential to become a human being" argument is. You and everyone else apply it so narrowly, but you give no justification for why it stops at a fertilized egg.
The problem with personhood is also the fact that these criterions have been conceived with the sole purpose of excluding certain demographics from certain rights.
We need something better than the arbitrary definition "once fertilized, its a human". The woman should be able to choose whether she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. Neither you nor the government should be able to force her to continue the pregnancy.
This has nothing to do with depriving a "demographic" of certain rights. It has to do with a womans ability to choose, as well as demonstrating that it is not the equivalent of murdering a human being.
And if one does not have consciousness, therefore one cannot be a person then. This means sleeping people, drugged people, comatose people, fetal life etc - none of them can be considered persons for they do not have consciousness.
Sleeping people, drugged people, people in a coma, they were all formerly people with lives and consciousness. We know that sleeping people awake, and that drugged people overcome the effects after a period of time. Coma patients are slightly different, for we do not know if they will ever wake up from their coma. Since they were formerly alive, with friends and family and memories etc, we keep them alive for quite some time because we want to make sure we're not "putting down" a human who actually had a life with memories and so on. The fetus does not have that so it is an invalid comparison.
My criteria only requires one to be a living member of the human race to aquire human rights - by their very definition.
This is far too simplistic and it makes it a crime worthy of being sent to prison for aborting a fetus only a few weeks into pregnancy.
I'd also like to know from what authority does one man or a group of people tell others whether they're human beings or not?
This question could asked right back at you. You're saying that every fertilized egg is a human being, therefore you are possessing the same "authority" as I am by telling people what is or is not a human being. I am saying a fertilized egg does not make someone a human being, that it takes more than that.
Because the drugged person is a person. If you put them into an MRI there is going to be electrical activity in the brain. We can check their vitals and know they are alive. We can check if they were drugged and know that the drugs effects would be temporary. The difference between a fetus and a fully grown human is that the fetus was never formerly a person. The human was a person, and is just under the influence of drugs temporarily. Your comparison does not apply here for there are way too many differences. The human was formerly a person, the fetus never was.
So what is ultimately necessary then? Because you keep shifting the goalposts - is it the classical personhood criterias, consciousness or merely electrical activity in the brain? If it's the latter, then brainwaves and impulses have been detected already by 6 weeks, far before your 24 week line. I'm no neurologist, but how do you even distinguish between the electrical impulses that regulate somatic functions (such as breathing, heart beats) and that of a conscious mind.
And about personhood, if personhood is a requisite for rights - then you either have these rights or not (i.e you either are a person or not.)
Here's the thing - personhood is an inherent characteristic that needs to be defined in the present. Implying that someone remains a person simply because he used to be a person - that's pretty much the equalent of saying that someone is a person because he will become a person in the future (the classical potentiality argument, which I find lacking).
I'll give you an analogy - Lets say that two weeks ago my hair was brown. Today I dyed it to be white. Can I now say that my hair is still brown simply because it used to be brown? No, I can't - it's because we are not defined by the past, we are defined by the present - the state we exist in now, in the moment.
So yeah, following the hair analogy, just because a drugged person used to be a person - that doesn't mean that he will remain to be a person in the future. Just like my hair used to be brown but is now white - it is outright absurd to say that my hair is brown, when in fact it is white now.
Personhood needs to be defined in the present - not in the past and not in the future.
Didn't you claim that a freshly fertilized egg was already a human? So if someone aborts this freshly fertilized egg, they should be sent to prison for the equivalent of murdering a fully grown human...? This is why your notion of a human is ill informed.
I said before that I think it is a cluster of cells with human DNA. I do not consider it a human being. Just a cluster of cells with human DNA since it is in the fetal stages of development.
It's not my claim, modern embryology states that every unique member of the human race begins their lifecycle as a fertilized egg - a purely biological definition. I reject all notions of personhood being a requisite for entry into humanity and for inalienable rights.
Here are some citations:
-----------------------------------
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
------------------------------------
Why don't we extend rights to sperm and egg cells since they have the potential to become human as well?
Because aborting a embryo/fetus involves the direct violation of his/her right to life - for abortion to violate someone, a victim of the violation must first, as a neccessity, exist.
Since a fertilized egg requires the fusion of an egg and a sperm - many questions are now raised:
If you wish to equate a fertilized egg with that of a sperm - by killing the sperm, where is the human that was harmed? Was he the sperm, or is he the egg? Or does he exist in two places at once (in the egg and the sperm)? Or did the unexisting human get 50% killed, which is absurd in and of itself.
Aborting the fetus entails the intentional termination of an otherwise healthy member of the Homo Sapien species at his/her earliest stage of development. Killing an egg doesn't harm any human beings because no human beings have been created yet that can be harmed.
The beginning of human life is grounded in modern embryology, so violating the said human's life only comes into question after that human has come into existence - after conception. Violating a human presupposes a human who is violated - like the cogito ergo sum by Decarte - I think, therefore I am - for me to think, there must first exist a ''me'' who does the thinking.
This is nothing more than a fallacy of division - the opposite of the fallacy of composition. You're claiming that the part of the whole has the same characteristics as the whole.
The potential to become a human does not mean that it is a human being entitled to rights. The potential means nothing. It does not matter.
It's an irrelevant point. In my case the fetus is already a human - modern embryology agrees with me. Empirical science agrees with this biological claim.
As said before, I reject any personhood criteria because it is impossible not to draw absurd conclusions from them. They're arbitrary, cannot be accurately measured and only exist to dehumanize members of the human race for our convenience.
Say for example somebody murdered Michelle Obama when she was 15. She said she wanted to have 2 kids when she got older. Do we prosecute the murderer for 3 murders? Or do we prosecute the murderer based on how many egg cells she had? All those eggs have the potential to become a human being. This is how idiotic the whole "potential to become a human being" argument is. You and everyone else apply it so narrowly, but you give no justification for why it stops at a fertilized egg.
Well, I don't acknowledge the potentiality argument because in my case they are already human beings - by the sheer virtue of being living members of the homo sapien race.
Referring to the eggs as human is the fallacy of division as I criticized above. In any case, this analogy is moot as it attacks an argument I never made.
We need something better than the arbitrary definition "once fertilized, its a human". The woman should be able to choose whether she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. Neither you nor the government should be able to force her to continue the pregnancy.
This has nothing to do with depriving a "demographic" of certain rights. It has to do with a womans ability to choose, as well as demonstrating that it is not the equivalent of murdering a human being.
It's not arbitrary, it's the standard biological definition that is given to us by embryologists. And why should the mother be given the power over the life and death of another innocent human? How is this fair and just?
It is, in fact, about taking away rights from a certain demographic - namely the unborn - for the convenince of the mother. The mother's satisfaction, lifestyle and convenience trump the right to life of the fetus. They believe they are more valuable and more entitled than other members of the human race - the unborn.
This is, for example, how racists erected personhood requirements for the sole reason of supressing the blacks. Slaveowners enjoyed a very convenient life and keeping the blacks from being non-persons was very beneficial to them. If you look at the general rethoric of the time, then you'd see it's identical to the general rethoric of pro-choicers:
- Black people are not persons, therefore they have no rights.-
- I oppose slavery but I feel I shouldn't impose my views on others. -
- If I give up my slaves, I can no longer follow the lifestyle I lead now nor can I pursue my career ambitions because I would have so many new responsibilities.-
Personhood has always been used for the sole purpose of excluding certain members of the human race from the status of being human. It has no other function - it only serves as a hoop that everyone needs to jump through and those that can't do it - well, sucks to be them. Women, blacks, jews, the demented, unborn, homosexuals etc - all of them, at one point in time, have been considered non-persons i.e humans who have no rights. Sadly, the unborn still haven't been liberated from these chains.
Sleeping people, drugged people, people in a coma, they were all formerly people with lives and consciousness. We know that sleeping people awake, and that drugged people overcome the effects after a period of time. Coma patients are slightly different, for we do not know if they will ever wake up from their coma. Since they were formerly alive, with friends and family and memories etc, we keep them alive for quite some time because we want to make sure we're not "putting down" a human who actually had a life with memories and so on. The fetus does not have that so it is an invalid comparison.
As I stated above - Personhood is an inherent quality that must be defined by something in the present, not the past. You can’t say someone is a person because they used to be a person anymore than you can say something that isn’t a person yet is a person because it will be one.
I'll give you another analogy - John lived in Italy in the past. (Now he lives in the United States.) He can reflect on how he lived in Italy in the past and how it affected him as a person. However, he can’t say that because he lived in Italy in the past, he still lives there. It may have affected him, however it does not define him. Similarly, you can say, a comatose patient was conscious in the past, and that past may be why he is comatose, (jumping off bridges, or heading soccer balls, or whatever,) so it is affecting him now. But you can’t say a comatose patient is conscious (and by extension a person, as consciousness is a prerequisite for personhood) just because he was conscious in the past.
This is far too simplistic and it makes it a crime worthy of being sent to prison for aborting a fetus only a few weeks into pregnancy.
Well, sure. If you take the life of an innocent human being - what should you get then, flowers and chocolate?
This question could asked right back at you. You're saying that every fertilized egg is a human being, therefore you are possessing the same "authority" as I am by telling people what is or is not a human being. I am saying a fertilized egg does not make someone a human being, that it takes more than that.
I am not asserting anything and I regret if I worded myself like that. My claim is not a baseless assertion - it stems from empirical observation - embryology.
My position is purely biological. A sperm is merely a composite part of the whole human. So is the egg. The fertilized egg is the whole human at its very first stages of development.
The embryo is the natural state of the human body in its given stage of development. It will develop into a toddler, who will develop into an infant, who will develop into an adult etc etc until the life of that organism ends in death. A sperm will never complete such a cycle, neither will an unfertilized egg - only the organism that results after the fusion of the two completes such a cycle.
lml no im not saying that im saying if you don want to have an abortion be careful who you have sex with and if yo do plan a family make sure your 100% sure that's who you want to spend your life with
Do you think a sixteen year old is going to have any doubt that whom they are with is whom they want to spend they're life with? Kids are highly infatuous and live in perpetually immature and silly relationships all the time. And if two kids feel so mutually, what will stop them from having sex? I'd prefer condoms and birth control over abortion any day, but let's face it, shit happens. Some people can't handle children, some shouldn't, and some wouldn't.
Also If a child is born but not particularly wanted there are tens of thousands of people willing to adopt it or foster it or care for the child. Abortion is definately murder
Definition
The unlawful killing of one human by another,
Each individual has a soul which exists prior to birth as previously mention by some wise folk above. People now allow state controlled murder because it suits them to think of unborn babies as "not human". Given a few years and the same people will advocate killing old demented grandpas and Grandmas because they arent acting like humans.
Then what , invalids , blind people, deaf people, oh and Jews of course, and then, Inland Revenue Inspectors, Artists, Comedians, Village Idiots oh and I forgot Village Idiots.
Then of course there is people with low IQ's which will get rid of most of you lot on here. Ah and also Asians , Black People, White People. and of course Poor People and Jews, Geminis, and Sagitarians,Heavy Metal Bands and Rap Singers. need I say more!!!!!!!!!
each individual has a soul which exists prior to birth
Proof?
will advocate killing old demented grandpas and Grandmas because they aren't acting like humans.
But they will still have at least one characteristic of life unlike a fetus.
Then what , invalids , blind people, deaf people, oh and Jews of course, and then, Inland Revenue Inspectors, Artists, Comedians, Village Idiots oh and I forgot Village Idiots.
Then of course there is people with low IQ's which will get rid of most of you lot on here. Ah and also Asians , Black People, White People. and of course Poor People and Jews, Geminis, and Sagitarians,Heavy Metal Bands and Rap Singers. need I say more!!!!!!!!!
Right after the decision had been made to execute the baby, I just picture God getting down on his knees so to speak, at eye level with the baby, right within earshot where only the baby can hear and whispering........."I'll see you soon. I made you special, and I love you very much. If only she knew that too"
I believe that that we can not simply look at the practice of abortion as a whole and say it is either justifiable or unacceptable. It varies with the situation. In cases of rape, incest, threat to the health of the mother, fatal defect in the child's health, etc. abortion is justifiable.
However in cases where both the mother and child have no medical complication that are life threatening, that the sex that led to the conception was consensual, or if the pregnancy has already progressed on a significant amount of time that an abortion should be considered unlawful.
This is a list of famously, Great important people who were adopted and significantly contributed in influencing and changing the world. How devastated would the world be if these individuals would have never lived. Thank God their birth mothers did the right thing.
Now tell me how many were given up at birth, and how many who where born before 1973. also, i noticed there are musical artists and actor? actresses, if your going to make a list of people who did important things in there life, dont put celeberties who dont do anything.
Jesus was Mary's baby and most probably joseph's too
Bill Clintons father died when he was around two, I belive. His mother remarried.
I'd have to checkk the rest.
btw couldn't help notice you mention Socialism is a disparraging manner earlier on. Nothing wrong with that view but you don't want to throw that around here. You might be associated with a vermantly antisocialist politician from the 30s.
I'm sorry Lindslip but this is conjecture based on faith and It's such a popular story from history for so many other religions that it is either a common phenomena at the time or a fabrication introduced to promote religious agendas.
examples.
Perseus, the god Buddha, Huitzilopochtli, Attis, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Mercury, and Romulus.
But the child inside her is biologically speaking a parasite. We don't see it that way, but by definition it is. Granted its one she (sometimes) chose. But don't people also choose other things that give them parasites?
Of course we should think about health and about consequences. It's necessary to think about every detail. Because abortion is big risk in life. In my view we shouldn't do abortion. we should give the life to our children. Because of children is the value of life
I am against since it would be unfair for innocent beings to not be given a chance to live. If one`s mother is selfish then that would be unfair for you since she pleasured herself and now she does not want to face the consequences. Therefore it is morally incorrect.
For the side of the raped woman, it is still wrong to abort the child since the man was the one responsible for impregnating the woman. Adoption would be better since the child would still have a chance to live. All life is sacred.
On a medical aspect it is still wrong since it can cause the woman to be barren and have a malfunction in her endocrine and urinary system or maybe even death. Therefore it is a risky procedure.
Abortion is not just a thing that you do to kill someone,which you call, an innocent being. There is such a thing as self induced abortion and accidental abortion. When you trip of a stairs and you didnt mean to do that and your child died... It is still called abortion. You can ask doctors about that. It's not that a woman doesn't want to face the consequences.. What if you let the child live, and yet, you don't have any food to give them? It still lessens the pain of the mother and the child.. against hunger. Would you let the child starve to death and die painfully, than just killing it when you know that you cannot support it. Yes, that may be morally incorrect, but, is it morally correct to let a person live until adolescence and let it die painfully because of hunger?
Next, adoption. Is it morally right to just give the child to other people because you cannot support it? Yes, maybe a raped woman would be different as to a pleasure seeking girl. Why take the consequence when you didnt even want that to happen in the first place?
Yes, maybe on a medical aspect it is still wrong, but wouldn't you abort if you know that your wife has a heart condition or have an unhealthy self and they could die when they give birth? Besides, it can cause a woman to be barren. Can. But not always. Giving birth is also a risky procedure, especially if you know that you are not healthy. Same as giving birth and abortion. It's either you die or the child dies, Many people are selfish, in fact, most people are. They'd still choose themselves that the baby. Wouldn't they?
Actually, abortion has a higher percentage of deaths than child delivery failures.
As for the accidental abortions, certainly these acts a re negligible.
Lastly, being born poor is treated as a challenge this era wherein the poor, once get inspired, establish their own business empires. Its not your fault if you are born poor, you can still do something about it. Personally I would rather experience pain and sorrow with considerate happiness than to have never experienced it at all.
Yes, I know that abortion has a high percentage of death than child delivery failures. In a research we had, we found out that people who commit abortion, even self induced and accidental ones have a high risk of having a heart attack. It also depends on how many times he woman underwent these types of abortion.
As for accidental abortions, certainly these acts are re negligible?
Oh come on. If you get hit by a car, and certainly the stop light is red, and you were walking the street. Isnt it the irresponsible drivers fault, and is that act clearly negligible for the woman? Of course your carrying a baby, you cant just run out of panic.
Yes, being a poor is a challenge. Once they get inspired they can establish their own business empires. If you just find out on research, many places in our country have no support from government whatsoever. They dont even have clinics wherein they could be treated when they are sick, if their place has, they obviously dont have enough money to compensate for the treatments and antibiotics. Yes, maybe it is a challenge, but not all people would take the risk of getting this challenge. Say, let the baby live, and yet they die anyway. Would you let that baby die of hunger because of some selfish reasons?
Personally, you would rather experience pain with considerate happiness than to have never experienced it all.
That, is your personal opinion. It doesnt change the fact that people are getting poor and would rather choose themselves that letting a kid die because of starvation. People are selfish, thats how the world is.
What makes you so sure that women would be the same after abortion? They would have problems in urinating and probably creating another offspring. It also encourages divorce and the lack of responsibility of couples since they know that there is an easy way out. It is not the child`s fault if his parents are irresponsible, so he should not suffer for it.
Did I say that women will be the same after abortion?Of course not. There would be problems with trauma and health risks would be abundant.
Yeah, it was not the child's fault.So why let yourself grow up with irresponsible parents. Look, some of the children even get influenced by factors and people around them. When the child grows up, he will get angry with his parents because they didn't take care of him. It could lead to crimes.
What I'm saying here is that, it's not only the mother's fault if they underwent abortion in the first place. If it was accidental, well, thats definitely not her fault.If the mother has health problems in the first place, and the only thing to do is abort. Would you even not give that to her, if both of the mother's and child's life is at stake.
The choice of whether a pregnant woman should give up the life of her child is totally and completely up to the mother. It is understood how people can be absolutely horrified by the face that an unborn child can be killed but murder is one way to put it. If someone is raped and cannot financially support a new child then it is not fair on them. Those victims were not given a choice to have a life put in their hands and, sometimes they are unable to handle such situations. This mostly happens to teenagers who are raped and end up pregnant. They have to give up their time, sometimes their precious education and study time to look after the baby, or if they really want to give birth to a baby and put it into an orphanage, people can find this sad. It is not really great to grow up not knowing who your parents are or knowing that you were abandoned at a young age and they choose to just relieve the life or these sufferings before it is alive, before it has feeling.
1. I don't have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body.
Biologically the fetus is a separate living organism, the argument is whether it is a person or not.
2. I support abortion as a contraceptive, we need as few humans in this world as possible right now.
A contraceptive would be something that prevents pregnancy, such as a condom, birth control pills or day after pills (which kill the sperm before it reaches the egg) abortion is something that ends pregnancy which would ultimately result in killing the fetus.
The argument is not whether the fetus is a separate living organism or not, but consent. The concept of women having the right of consent is still very brand new in our society (and history itself). It has only been a very few years that the right of consent existed within marriage; until that time, men could rape their wives with impunity.
The fetus, as a potential separate being, has no right to trounce the woman's right to consent. You might argue it is right for her to consent, that it would be selfish for her not to consent or any other argument that you wish to express your opinion that she SHOULD consent, but it is the right of the woman to make that decision.
Any religious argument against abortion has to be rendered constitutionally invalid, because it denies the right to consent to the woman. When we are talking legalities of abortion, two issues stand out:
Who is to give consent for the woman's body to be used as a host for another?
To be considered a citizen in this country you must be natural born or go through the process of becoming a citizen. Since the fetus has done neither, it is not a citizen.
You might be personally abhorrent of abortion, but on a legal level, it must be kept available. And that is what all the arguments are about. A woman can always believe that it would be wrong for her to have an abortion but it should be left to her to decide.
I go along with that lets start with you since your argument falls down
1) The state tells everyone what they can and cant do - are you so stupid - You cannot Speed, You cannot smoke in a Pub, You can not drink when driving, and you cannot murder people
2) Sounds like you must be a supporter of Hitler he had that idea to, I was gonna see lets legalise killing preople like you but then since your are an alien and not human cant be!!! unfortunately
And who ever said it's right for the State to dictate us? Authority is not always correct.
Also, it's kind of hard to respect an opinion when 1) the spelling, grammar, and wordage are atrocious, and 2) it is completely absurd. They are an alien because they think humans cause trouble? They do! We are the cause for almost ALL of the worlds problems.
The world is overpopulated and I would have to agree with the person you are disputing; the world could use less humans. I think the planet would be much better off without our entire species altogether.
Abortion is a last resort for those who have made a mistake. They have realized that they cannot care for the child either because they are not mature enough or they just don't want a child. Why should they not have the choice to choose the way they live their life? That is a basic right for all living things.
In a way you are claiming that you are an ignorant eugenist, you believe that humans are exceeding the resources, and thus you support the killing of innocent babies.
I am only a eugenist as far as I think people should think twice about having children. Humans are indeed exceeding the limits of finite resources, and lower quantity of life means better quality of life. If you define a lump of flesh dependent on an external respiratory and circulatory source as being an innocent baby, then yes, I am in favour of killing innocent babies. But fortunately, I am capable of critical thinking and thus realise that said lump of flesh is no more a person than a woman's uterus itself is a person.
Then who are you to decide whether a person lives or dies, if you say a baby is nothing more than a lump of flesh, and should be eliminated then you are only hurting society, because that baby could be the next Einstein or someone that could positively impact society. We have become a heartless generation, we value not the life of a child, but sacrifice our own moral dignity to gain our own selfish needs. All humans were created with an intended purpose and created in the image of almighty God.
I personally think that abortion should be a personal choice. For example if a woman got rapped and got pregnant, would it then be wrong of her to not want the "child"? I know she could put the "baby" to adoption, but do you think that she wants to carry that "child" for 9 months? It cost a lot of money being pregnant, not everyone can afford it. It is not your choice to chose if someone can abort, it should never be you that should choose what another person should do. Abortion may be killing, but to be honest if a person can't afford or is having an unwanted "baby" they shouldn't be forced to have that "child"
Ok so lets say its a matter for personal choice lets wait till the baby can exercise that choice in fairness all beings being created equal - self evident right! then lets see how many abortions there are Nil Nil Nil
Although the organism needs the mother to survive, technically, babies and children need their mother to survive long after birth (especially with humans)
You were saying that a mother is needed to raise the child after birth, and he refuted that by saying it doesn't have to be a mother or even female. It could be a man.
Therefore the woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. The fetus is dependent upon her for life.
Although the organism needs the mother to survive, technically, babies and children need their mother to survive long after birth (especially with humans)
That was my exact quote, although I did not intend for it mean that only women can take care of kids, I thought he might get the point.
The choice of whether a pregnant woman should give up the life of her child is totally and completely up to the mother. It is understood how people can be absolutely horrified by the face that an unborn child can be killed but murder is one way to put it. If someone is raped and cannot financially support a new child then it is not fair on them. Those victims were not given a choice to have a life put in their hands and, sometimes they are unable to handle such situations. This mostly happens to teenagers who are raped and end up pregnant. They have to give up their time, sometimes their precious education and study time to look after the baby, or if they really want to give birth to a baby and put it into an orphanage, people can find this sad. It is not really great to grow up not knowing who your parents are or knowing that you were abandoned at a young age and they choose to just relieve the life or these sufferings before it is alive, before it has feeling.
I'm not "with" abortion. Frankly I really can't get too personal; being a man I lack the uterus to facilitate a baby. But I support one's right to choose what they want to do.
I believe the woman should have a choice over whether she should or should not have an abortion.
Some people in the opposition equate abortion to murder, but the potential to become a human does not automatically entitle one to human rights. Why don't sperm or eggs have human rights then?
Also, some people in the opposition are saying "well, if you have sex and get pregnant then that is your fault. you have to live with the consequences". If an accident occurs such as a condom failing or birth control not working you're basically telling people that its their fault and that they shouldn't have had sex to begin with.
This basically makes sex something only to be done when wanting a child, and in no other circumstances should sex be performed for fear of becoming pregnant.
Now I am getting the picture Markm is an Atheist Murderer, Accident Accident - ah so if a unborn baby is an accident we can murder it is that right MM. Everything has risk mate but I fail to see how a man can live in fear of beconing pregant
So...I'm an atheist murderer? Meaning...I murder people who are atheists? This ties in well with your argument.
ah so if a unborn baby is an accident we can murder it is that right MM
First, it is not murder. Second, if the unborn being is past the 24 weeks pregnancy period then it should be illegal. If it is before the 24 weeks pregnancy mark, then abortion should be legal.
Everything has risk mate but I fail to see how a man can live in fear of beconing pregant
I'm not your mate. I'm Atheist Murderer.
And wtf are you talking about with men becoming pregnant? I didn't say anything about that...
I am for it in the traditional sense of it being a woman who aborts her child. But I also think that this right should be extended to the father as well. Give fathers an option of legally aborting the child. They give up all ties, responsibilities,rights, etc to the child forever and he doesn't have to invest resources into him/her/it. Now that being said I don't want this to become the new No fault divorce debacle, if a father is going to do this he needs a solid reason. Like he used a condom and it broke and she wants the kid, or a woman stole his sperm from a used condom and got knocked up, if he can somehow prove she wanted a baby with him only for financial security, etc.
Hey man - which assyum did you escape from - now you want fathers to join in with legalised murder. Try to imagine what an aborted child feels, like the pain, the trauma just coz you cant see it doesnt mean it isnt alive. it is a live it has a little heart lungs eyes face etc and a soul and brain.
Hold it in your hands and apologise. If you left nature run its course 99% sure it would turn out to be a better human being than you. Barbaric uncivilised Neanderthaals
I could come up with a quite alot of reasons why i would be against abortions but only a few as to why i am with one having a abortion. But those few reasons are much more stronger than the other side in my opinion.
by the time it is ok to abort a child, it is not yet a human. Infact the cell doesnt quite know what it is yet. Also, with abortion there are many more benifets then if you are forced to have a child. people always say atleast have the baby then put it up for adoption, that is more harmful then hulpful. i say that because in orphanages whenever a child isnt adopted they then see them selfs as unwanted, or not good enough, which will ruin them phycologicaly. even if they are adopted, they still think they werent wanted, this is because their parents didnt want them. But i digress, the benifets of having a child aborted helps aid stem-cell research. this could help people walk again, recive organ transplants, recive skin graphs, ect. So, if your loved ones needed a heart youd rather wait for the perfect match after waiting for years to reach the top of the list, or would you rather not wait to get to the top of the list, and still recive a heart that fits perfectly?
A Woman has no more right than the life within her , it is her duty to become a mother, and quit moaning, babies are lovely , and there are plenty of people who would adopt or Foster
A Woman has no more right than the life within her
I think current legistration would dispute that.
it is her duty to become a mother
I belive many women who have or have not been unfortunate enough to go through an abortion would dispute that.
Yes babies are lovely, so are kttens and I've had a male version of each living in my house for the last 20 years and to be honest I didn't really see the cuteness any more in either of them. But the cat has been much easier, far more apreciative and never, grew into a human teenager,complained that his friends care givers allow them to roam the streets, try to drive my car, asked could his girlfriend stay, moan at my mother/brother about his low quality of care, throw a tantrum in the supermarket, argue with me over care giver responsibilities, try smoking, get drunk, nappies, school, sick days, sad days, expect to be driven, after school clubs, holidays, broken my stuff, move through my house like a localised hurrican Katrina etc etc.
Having fostered a teenager, who had 9 diffrent homes before living with us for 4 years, I would not recommend anyone go through the foster system.
Easy to foster out babies, not so easy for children and teenagers which is where most of the hardwork is at and needed. Most fostered babies are returned/replaced according to our social services liason woman and fostering out teenagers is near impossible.
Plenty of perople who would adopt, pleanty more children around the world that need to be adopted.
We should all have equal rights wouldnt you agree - a woman doesnt own the child within her the child has its own soul and destiny - so Women behaving in a manner which indicates they think they are So So So important , they are only taking care of the child whilst it grows.
I think to be honest it all went wrong when Women got the vote, It is by and large Women who have brought in all the stupid legislation, if it works dont fix it I say
I'm not going to take a 'personhood' argument here - it's been argued well by people other than me, and I would add little that hasn't been said. Instead, I'm going to argue from a humanistic point of view.
The women that have abortions are not preventing these fetuses from coming into loving, happy families. They are saving them from being born into poverty and pain. They are saving them from a mother that cannot care for them. They are saving them from a broken family.
The vast majority (in excess of 90%) of abortions are sought for personal reasons:
- 21% feel that they do not have the financial resources to bring up a child.
- 21% feel that they are not ready for the responsibility of raising a child.
- 16% feel that their life would be changed too much. She might have a plan for her future (education, developing a career, etc.) that does not allow for having a child at the present time. She might be looking after an elderly parent and does not have sufficient time or energy to commit to a baby.
- 12% feel that her relationship with her partner is in difficulty.
- 11% feel that they are too young, and not sufficiently mature to become a mother.
- In 8% of the cases, her children are grown and she does not want to start another family, or she has all the children that she wants.
Some of these reasons may be influenced by:
- Pressure from the father or from her parents to have an abortion.
- She feels that she lacks the emotional and physical strength to go through another pregnancy and raise the child.
- She believes that raising an additional child would short-change her existing children.
- She is a student and/or without a partner; she feels that raising a child would be too difficult and disruptive at her time in life.
- She doesn't want other people to know that she became pregnant.
- A child would interfere with her career or education.
- She may fear physical abuse from a parent if they learn of her pregnancy.
- She may fear being tossed out onto the street by a parent if they learn of her pregnancy.
- In the case of a multiple pregnancy, the woman may be faced with giving birth to more newborns than she feels she can deal with.
Then, thousands of abortions happen because of medical reasons. If people believe that an abortion is immoral, where both the mother and fetus will certainly die, then I inherently disagree with them.
About 6% of all abortions are sought because either the woman or fetus has medical reasons:
- The fetus might have been hurt by exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals, medications that might be dangerous to the fetus, alcohol, drugs, etc. They may cause the fetus to be genetically damaged.
- Some girls become pregnant at a very young age, when pregnancy can be dangerous.
- The fetus has a genetic defect or other health problem. Almost all of the couples who find that the fetus suffers from Down's Syndrome, or a similar defect, elect to have an abortion.
- The woman may develop eclampsia. This involves a sudden increase in blood pressure, and onset of seizures. The results can be fatal to both the woman and fetus. This used to be called toxemia of pregnancy.
- In the case of a multiple pregnancy -- quintuplets, sextuplets, etc. -- some or all of the fetuses will end up with various long-term health problems; some may not survive at all. Physicians will sometimes recommend a selective reduction process where one or more fetuses are killed in order that the remaining fetuses would be born normal.
Finally, abortion due to rape and sexual abuse. We can all agree that people should be responsible for their own actions, to varying degrees. However, should a women be punished because she has a womb & someone abused her? Again, if you believe this, then I inherently disagree with you.
About 1% of all abortions are sought because of abusive sexual act:
- About ten to fifteen thousand abortions (approximately 1%) annually are sought because the conception occurred after rape or during an incestuous relationship, and the woman does not want to bear a child who was conceived in violence.
I agree with you about abortion in cases of medical concern for the mother or in cases of "abusive sexual acts"
However i disagree with a number of points you stated about protecting the child from a broken family.
1)If a potential mother is getting an abortion due to fear of physical abuse or being tossed out on the street, the issue is not with the mother but with her parents and should be reported to the authorities
2)if the mother does not feel that she can not raise the child herself, adoption should be the answer.
1: A mother is a parent. The police should be involved, but this is often not the best way to solve the issue (domestic violence is a very difficult topic). And also, why not do both: get the police involved, but for the mothers sake, and allow an abortion, if the mother things its necessary?
2: And force the mother to bear the child? It's a huge thing to ask of a person, it can lose them friends, relationships, jobs, education, as well as massive amounts of money if they life in a country without universal healthcare.
However, a mother's choice is a mother's choice. Whether you agree with it or not, your view doesn't mean shit. I don't care how religion shaped your belief, but I see abortion as a gift: a blessing.
However, a mother's choice is a mother's choice. Whether you agree with it or not, your view doesn't mean shit. I don't care how religion shaped your belief, but I see abortion as a gift: a blessing.
I am for abortion. I believe that in certain circumstances it is acceptable; if the child is the result of a rape, the quality of life should be assessed not the quantity (say for instance the child will be born with a severe life-threatening illness), and if the mother's own life is in danger. Abortion is and should remain a completely personal choice.
Read the book Freakonomics, there, the author Steven Levitt brings up what is known today as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis.
Summary: Children who are not wanted are likely to be raised in adverse situations. Due to this, they are most likely not going to be able to get a good education, and are going to fall into crime.
This was proven in the massive drop in crime rates in the 1990s, right after Roe v. Wade in 1973.
In the long run, abortion will save lives. This has been proven. It may seem cold, but the rights of the many must come before the survival of the few, even if those few are fetuses.
It is the choice of the mother whether or not to have the baby. Aborting a baby is the same as killing a cow and killing a cow is accepted so I don't know why aborting a baby should not be. For at that age a parrot is more intelligent as well as more aware than the fetus. So if killing a parrot is justified than aborting (killing) a fetus should be as well.
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.