Abortion

[Sam48]

Human beings have a right to life in part because they are able to grasp reality, their own existence, and the concept of rights.

Why should those who cannot yet (Or never did) grasp reality/their own existence be exempt from the right to life? All intelligent forms of life naturally want to strive and live regardless of whether they know they are living to begin with.

 

[Exorcet]

Why should those who cannot yet (Or never did) grasp reality/their own existence be exempt from the right to life? All intelligent forms of life naturally want to strive and live regardless of whether they know they are living to begin with.

Rights don't work if they are one way, it's why animals don't abide by human laws/rights. You can't charge a lion with murder because it doesn't know what it is, but at the same time you couldn't keep people from killing lions to protect themselves from the lions just because lions don't understand murder. By not understanding murder (or property, etc), the lion can't have the same rights as people.

I myself agree that young children and unborn children don't understand rights/morals, but I do think that they should have rights just because they possess the ability to discover rights/morals. Basically, once you have 46(+/-) human chromosomes you're in.

 

[Danoff]

I myself agree that young children and unborn children don't understand rights/morals, but I do think that they should have rights just because they possess the ability to discover rights/morals.

They don't. Physically, medically, a fetus does not have the ability to discover rights/morals.

 

[Sam48]

They don't. Physically, medically, a fetus does not have the ability to discover rights/morals.

Yes, but a fetus does not stay as is. Eventually, it will understand rights (Obviously after birth and what not).

But regarding your stance on this, how would one define when the child understands they are conscience? Generally speaking, a child realizes who they are before much in the way of language takes place (Let alone their ability to portray to their parents that they understand who they are). Therefore, determining when a child has the right to life would be near impossible. Add to that the fact that some children maintain blindness after they are born. Since it takes much longer (If at all) for them to realize they are a conscience being, do they not receive the right to life? Can their parents simply then decide one day that their child's blindness just isn't worth it and have him/her "aborted"?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but a fetus does not stay as is.

Doesn't matter. The fact that you may one day become a vegetable (or die) does not absolve you of your rights today.

But regarding your stance on this, how would one define when the child understands they are conscience? Generally speaking, a child realizes who they are before much in the way of language takes place (Let alone their ability to portray to their parents that they understand who they are). Therefore, determining when a child has the right to life would be near impossible. Add to that the fact that some children maintain blindness after they are born. Since it takes much longer (If at all) for them to realize they are a conscience being, do they not receive the right to life? Can their parents simply then decide one day that their child's blindness just isn't worth it and have him/her "aborted"?

We draw the line at birth because it's a convenient place to draw the line. Conservative for making sure that the child is younger than necessary for rights (though keep in mind you get your last bit of rights at age 21), but not so conservative that we start infringing the rights of the mother (who we know meets the criteria).

 

[Sam48]

Doesn't matter. The fact that you may one day become a vegetable (or die) does not absolve you of your rights today.

I don't see why it should. Humans, unlike any other form of life on earth, have the ability to eventually understand their rights. Therefore, despite the fact that they may not be completely born yet, they have the rare ability to eventually understand their rights. You are denying someone's rights simply because they cannot comprehend them yet.

We draw the line at birth because it's a convenient place to draw the line. Conservative for making sure that the child is younger than necessary for rights (though keep in mind you get your last bit of rights at age 21), but not so conservative that we start infringing the rights of the mother (who we know meets the criteria).

So hold on, you find birth a "convenient" place to draw the line, yet you state this:

Killing a 4-month old child is likely the human-rights equivalent of killing a puppy dog. It's reprehensible, but it's not murder. reasoned standpoint, the line could be drawn after birth.

This then rebounds to my first point.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see why it should. Humans, unlike any other form of life on earth, have the ability to eventually understand their rights. Therefore, despite the fact that they may not be completely born yet, they have the rare ability to eventually understand their rights. You are denying someone's rights simply because they cannot comprehend them yet.

You have to comprehend them to have them.

So hold on, you find birth a "convenient" place to draw the line, yet you state this:

You don't see how that follows? It's convenient, not morally required.

 

[Strittan]

Is it me, or is this thread heading off-topic? I thought it was about abortion, not about killing 4 month old children.

 

[Sam48]

You have to comprehend them to have them.

Maybe I simply don't remember, but where is this stated?

You don't see how that follows? It's convenient, not morally required.

I suppose I phrased that poorly. Upon re-checking your original post you did state that drawing the line after birth could be "fuzzy". I didn't realize we agreed there. However, why it is not morally required I will have to wait for you to respond to the first quote.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe I simply don't remember, but where is this stated?

Why do human beings have rights?

 

[Sam48]

Why do human beings have rights?

To protect an individual.

 

[Danoff]

To protect an individual.

What about protecting individual cockroaches?

 

[TankAss95]

For religious reasons, I can't say I'm in favour of abortion in any way. Saying this though, I'm not a woman, or a parent for that matter, so I have no idea what people may be going through so I have a strong feeling that I ought to keep my mouth shut.

I really don't know the answer to this complex issue, but I think the utmost respect and support should be given to those involved who are going through hard times (for example the parents of an early unborn baby being severely unformed or other issues that would leave the child with a difficult life).

 

[Joel]

I don't have a moral issue with abortion, but in my opinion the issue only becomes an issue when people want it to be illegal. I understand the religious objection to it (I was raised Catholic), and personally I don't know how I'd feel if someone I got pregnant had an abortion. At this stage in my life (17 with no degree or way to pay for a child) I'd probably be more open to it. 10 years from now when I hopefully have stable employment, I think I'd want to keep the pregnancy.

Ultimately it's up to the woman to decide, it's her body, and I'm not going to pretend that I understand what it feels like. Logically I don't have a moral issue but I can see where someone would.

 

[Sam48]

What about protecting individual cockroaches?

A cockroach will never be able to comprehend rights regardless of what stage of development it is in.

A fetus, on the other hand, will at some point (Although not in the form of a fetus).

 

[Danoff]

A cockroach will never be able to comprehend rights regardless of how developed it may become in its lifetime.

So what you're saying is that it's our ability to comprehend rights that makes the difference. Now differentiate a roach from similarly sized 11 week old fetus. Neither can comprehend rights. What's the moral difference between killing each. Either might be dead tomorrow.

 

[Slash]

Personally I beleive it's your choice what to do. You want an abortion? Get one. If you don't, then you better be able to support the child. I also view it as murder somewhat, so I kind of contradict myself.

 

[Sam48]

So what you're saying is that it's our ability to comprehend rights that makes the difference.

Correct. (e.i. in a given amount of time)

Now differentiate a roach from similarly sized 11 week old fetus. Neither can comprehend rights. What's the moral difference between killing each. Either might be dead tomorrow.

One never develops the ability to comprehend rights, the other does.

 

[TankAss95]

So what you're saying is that it's our ability to comprehend rights that makes the difference. Now differentiate a roach from similarly sized 11 week old fetus. Neither can comprehend rights. What's the moral difference between killing each. Either might be dead tomorrow.

Comparing an 11 year old fetus to a cockroach? My goodness. 👎

 

[Exorcet]

Comparing an 11 year old fetus to a cockroach? My goodness. 👎

I don't agree with him, but it's a logical comparison.

I think the fact that the fetus has the potential to understand rights does matter. Yes, it can't understand as a fetus, but assuming it doesn't die, it should eventually be able to understand and follow rights/laws. I don't really see it as being any less human than an adult, it is just at a different stage of development.

 

[Sam48]

I think the fact that the fetus has the potential to understand rights does matter. Yes, it can't understand as a fetus, but assuming it doesn't die, it should eventually be able to understand and follow rights/laws. I don't really see it as being any less human than an adult, it is just at a different stage of development.

My point precisely, well put.

 

[Danoff]

One never develops the ability to comprehend rights, the other does.

Not necessarily. Embryos/Fetuses die all the time.

I think the fact that the fetus has the potential to understand rights does matter. Yes, it can't understand as a fetus, but assuming it doesn't die, it should eventually be able to understand and follow rights/laws. I don't really see it as being any less human than an adult, it is just at a different stage of development.

6 year olds are also at a different stage of development and we don't give them the right to vote or drink or drive or marry or choose what to eat or choose what to wear. The fact that they will eventually become an adult does not suddenly compel us to give them the right to pose nude in front of a camera.

What you might eventually become has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that you will die no more absolves you of your rights today than does the fact that a sperm and egg will become an adult in 19 years confers them a right to life today.

 

[arora]

I find your reasoning odd Danoff, not to say you have not thought it out, also not to shout "cruel" , just odd.

Of course I am against abortion(just for those who may not know) but reasoning point of existence, that is a handful. What I think more then anything is how sound is the lady, and if it happens to be not, how sound is her family, never once does it occur to me "what does the law say" never, that's just me.

In a perfect world we would take proper care of all children, in reality we don't even take proper care of ourselves.

 

[Exorcet]

6 year olds are also at a different stage of development and we don't give them the right to vote or drink or drive or marry or choose what to eat or choose what to wear. The fact that they will eventually become an adult does not suddenly compel us to give them the right to pose nude in front of a camera.

Yes, but I don't see this as contradictory. Do you think that a six year old has the right to live despite not being able to drive/vote/etc?

To me, humanity should grant a certain level of protection. Being human doesn't mean that you gain full rights (like those mentioned above) though, we couldn't function properly if society worked like that. The trouble is determining where humanity starts. You have decided that it starts at birth, which is perfectly reasonable. I just happen to see some value to people before birth, which is why abortion worries me.

What you might eventually become has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that you will die no more absolves you of your rights today than does the fact that a sperm and egg will become an adult in 19 years confers them a right to life today.

It's not so much that one could become some arbitrary thing, but that one might become a full fledged person, if you think the difference there is legitimate. I don't care that a caterpillar will become a butterfly, it will never be human. I agree that death doesn't matter in determining the rights of the living because death doesn't change the fact that those current alive right now are people.

I don't see a lot of difference between an "aborted" 1 day old and an aborted -1 day old, or aborted -250 day old, or a 30 year old who is killed without pain or knowledge of his/her death (at least from the victim's point of view, differences may exist in the reaction of non victims). Perhaps what I'm trying to do is push back the defining moment when one becomes human so much that it can't possibly be placed too late in the life cycle. That doesn't come without a cost though, because if the moment is placed too early and the fetus isn't a person, I'm trampling on the parents' rights.

 

[Sam48]

Not necessarily. Embryos/Fetuses die all the time.

Of natural/biological causes that are out of most people's control. By your reasoning then, if it is okay to abort a fetus before it's born because "Embryos/Fetuses die all the time", then it should also be okay to "abort" an adult because they "die" even more frequently.

6 year olds are also at a different stage of development and we don't give them the right to vote or drink or drive or marry or choose what to eat or choose what to wear. The fact that they will eventually become an adult does not suddenly compel us to give them the right to pose nude in front of a camera.

There's a massive difference between the right to do all of those, and the right to life. Without the right to life in place, all the rights you mentioned above are irrelevant.

 

[TankAss95]

@Sam48: 👍

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but I don't see this as contradictory. Do you think that a six year old has the right to live despite not being able to drive/vote/etc?

Of course. That follows perfectly from everything I've said.

To me, humanity should grant a certain level of protection. Being human doesn't mean that you gain full rights (like those mentioned above) though, we couldn't function properly if society worked like that. The trouble is determining where humanity starts. You have decided that it starts at birth, which is perfectly reasonable. I just happen to see some value to people before birth, which is why abortion worries me.

Whether they have value doesn't confer the right to life. My car has value, it has no rights. The milk in my refrigerator has value, it doesn't have rights.

It's not so much that one could become some arbitrary thing, but that one might become a full fledged person, if you think the difference there is legitimate.

I've given you an extremely solid set of reasons why that doesn't matter.

I don't see a lot of difference between an "aborted" 1 day old and an aborted -1 day old, or aborted -250 day old, or a 30 year old who is killed without pain or knowledge of his/her death (at least from the victim's point of view, differences may exist in the reaction of non victims). Perhaps what I'm trying to do is push back the defining moment when one becomes human so much that it can't possibly be placed too late in the life cycle. That doesn't come without a cost though, because if the moment is placed too early and the fetus isn't a person, I'm trampling on the parents' rights.

I don't see much of a difference between a 1 day old and a -1 day old either other than circumstance. One is physically independent of its mother and the other is not. That creates convenience.

Of natural/biological causes that are out of most people's control. By your reasoning then, if it is okay to abort a fetus before it's born because "Embryos/Fetuses die all the time", then it should also be okay to "abort" an adult because they "die" even more frequently.

You're clearly not following my reasoning. I'm saying you have to interpret rights based on the being as it is currently. Not as it will be in the future. Because you don't know what it will be in the future. Hopefully now you see that the conclusion you've drawn is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Future state has nothing to do with rights today.

There's a massive difference between the right to do all of those, and the right to life. Without the right to life in place, all the rights you mentioned above are irrelevant.

Yup. And I agree. None of that refutes anything I've said.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Does an unconcious person have the right to life? I mean there's no guarantee he or she will ever wake up. Unconcious people die all the time.

 

[Sam48]

You're clearly not following my reasoning. I'm saying you have to interpret rights based on the being as it is currently. Not as it will be in the future. Because you don't know what it will be in the future. Hopefully now you see that the conclusion you've drawn is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Future state has nothing to do with rights today.

Obviously, this is where we differ, so I'll put my view out once more.

Humans are unlike any form of life on earth in the sense that we are by far the most intelligent. We gain this higher intelligence through life experience/living. Now, every individual gets one shot at life. One chance to rise to our level of intelligence. To abort a child then, would be the boss denying the applicant before even bothering to review his/her application. I understand you believe rights are based on the being as is, but, in regards to something as rare and valuable as life that's as intelligent as this, I believe we should at least have a chance.

 

[Danoff]

Obviously, this is where we differ, so I'll put my view out once more.

Humans are unlike any form of life on earth in the sense that we are by far the most intelligent. We gain this higher intelligence through life experience/living. Now, every individual gets one shot at life. One chance to rise to our level of intelligence. To abort a child then, would be the boss denying the applicant before even bothering to review his/her application. I understand you believe rights are based on the being as is, but, in regards to something as rare and valuable as life that's as intelligent as this, I believe we should at least have a chance.

6 year olds are also at a different stage of development and we don't give them the right to vote or drink or drive or marry or choose what to eat or choose what to wear. The fact that they will eventually become an adult does not suddenly compel us to give them the right to pose nude in front of a camera.

What you might eventually become has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that you will die no more absolves you of your rights today than does the fact that a sperm and egg will become an adult in 19 years confers them a right to life today.

There's no way around this. You can't offer rights based on what someone might achieve in the future. Otherwise masturbation is murder.