Abortion

[Sam48]

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

Not rights, just a right. That is, the right to life. So in that case, what they "might achieve" is birth.

 

[Danoff]

Not rights, just a right. That is, the right to life. So in that case, what they "might achieve" is birth.

You can't single it out from the rest. The same reasoning I've given for the other rights apply to the right to life.

 

[dhandeh]

So, abortion is denying the right of life. How about refusing to have sex, isn't that also denying the right of life?

 

[Exorcet]

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.

A better way to put is, I see them as human even before birth.

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.

I can follow this. Would you say that the point of conception is also convenient?

I also suppose that this is why I don't feel that the inability of a fetus to understand rights automatically knocks it away from having human status. A 1 day old is not any different in that respect, so rights doesn't seem to be the only issue. And while a 1 day is independent to the point where it can be separated from the mother physically, it's not really as independent as later stages of development. What is different from setting birth as the convenient marker that separates human and not as opposed to the 5th birthday?

By the way I'm not trying to trip you up or force a contradiction in your argument, but I have a feeling that you've spent more time thinking about this than me so perhaps being walked through everything would help me out.

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

I know this was directed at someone else, but a sperm or egg is not genetically human, so I wouldn't call it a stage of development.

 

[arora]

I meant to ask this question a while ago but keep forgetting to, dannof, at what points do you consider killing a child murder?

 

[Sam48]

You can't single it out from the rest. The same reasoning I've given for the other rights apply to the right to life.

The minimum requirement necessary in order to execute any right requires the right to life in the first place. Life is not something they "might achieve in the future". It's something they posses from the start.

 

[Danoff]

I can follow this. Would you say that the point of conception is also convenient?

Nope.

First of all, the embryo's existence isn't even known at conception... by anyone. Second of all, the embryo is (typically) inside of an adult with a full set of human rights. So the rights of the embryo are put in direct conflict with the rights of the adult. Not convenient.

I personally have had quite a few embryos cryogenically frozen. Not sure how you feel about that when it comes to the rights of these clumps of a few cells. In my experience (which is not normal) embryos almost never become children. Most of them (again in my experience) simply stop developing after about a week. Why are we giving them rights?

Nothing about conception is convenient. It's damned near impossible to detect (unless performed by an embyrologist), they're almost always inseparable from the mother without some rights violations on the part of the mother - and so any rights the embryo has are in conflict with that of the mothers. Messy messy.

I also suppose that this is why I don't feel that the inability of a fetus to understand rights automatically knocks it away from having human status. A 1 day old is not any different in that respect, so rights doesn't seem to be the only issue. And while a 1 day is independent to the point where it can be separated from the mother physically, it's not really as independent as later stages of development. What is different from setting birth as the convenient marker that separates human and not as opposed to the 5th birthday?

The 5th birthday is not nearly as conservative from the point of view of making sure we're protecting everyone who should be protected. That's really it. This is about casting a wide net to make sure we protect everyone who aught to be. At 1 day old, we know it's too early. So we catch 100% of everyone who needs rights by extending them to newborns.

I know this was directed at someone else, but a sperm or egg is not genetically human, so I wouldn't call it a stage of development.

Everything is a stage of development.

I meant to ask this question a while ago but keep forgetting to, dannof, at what points do you consider killing a child murder?

I assume you mean morally rather than legally.

At whatever point in human development the child becomes self-aware and can theoretically understand the concept of the right to life (I dunno 1 year? 2 years?). The quote I used earlier is decent:

an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her

I don't know when this occurs, and so I advocate for rights to be extended much earlier than that point - at birth.

The minimum requirement necessary in order to execute any right requires the right to life in the first place. Life is not something they "might achieve in the future". It's something they posses from the start.

Actually the most basic right is a freedom from force. The right to life is a derivation from that. Life is something that an ant possesses from the start.

 

[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.

Could someone answer this please?

 

[arora]

Fair enough danoff.

It seems to me an unconscious person becomes the property of their family here, so some have a living will and such. It is a topic all of my family has discussed and expressed wishes should they find themselves there, it's not all written but I bet we can honor for the most part.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Fair enough danoff.

It seems to me an unconscious person becomes the property of their family here, so some have a living will and such. It is a topic all of my family has discussed and expressed wishes should they find themselves there, it's not all written but I bet we can honor for the most part.

Say a family-less person then, for the argument's sake. You find him/her lying unconcious on the street. Do you have the right to shoot the person in the head then? The person has no family or people who care for him/her and cannot understand the concept of right to life as he/she is unconcious and may die on the spot or perhaps never wake up.

 

[arora]

I'd assume this person would be kept alive and well in a state institution here, not sure if the 'plug' would ever be pulled. A sad proposition all the same.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I'd assume this person would be kept alive and well in a state institution here, not sure if the 'plug' would ever be pulled. A sad proposition all the same.

Undoubtedly. But the question remains. Would it be right for anyone to end the person's life?

 

[Jubby]

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.

Now, I understand this. However, with all of the knowledge and testing of modern medical science, if the fetus is determined to be completely incapacitated (pardon the term-brain dead), and will never be able to understand or develop mentally, is that okay?

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.?

An unconscious person usually has appointed people to confirm their rights and the only time a doctor will allow the termination will be if they do not have medical evidence that will allow a productive recovery of any type. So the doctor and the responsible person(s) have to confer. This idea is a different topic.

 

[Encyclopedia]

An unconscious person usually has appointed people to confirm their rights and the only time a doctor will allow the termination will be if they do not have medical evidence that will allow a productive recovery of any type. So the doctor and the responsible person(s) have to confer. This idea is a different topic.

What about my second example?

Say a family-less person then, for the argument's sake. You find him/her lying unconcious on the street. Do you have the right to shoot the person in the head then? The person has no family or people who care for him/her and cannot understand the concept of right to life as he/she is unconcious and may die on the spot or perhaps never wake up.

 

[Sam48]

Actually the most basic right is a freedom from force. The right to life is a derivation from that. Life is something that an ant possesses from the start.

We don't abort a child because we know it will die, we abort it because we know it's alive/will live. An abortion is murder before it's legally murder.

(Although in rare cases some do abort if it is certain the child will die before birth, but in general, it's simply an unwanted pregnancy)

 

[dylansan]

The thing about the unconscious person is that while they may not comprehend your rights, they are also physically incapable of violating them as well.

Now, if the person was unconscious but was somehow also going around killing people, yes, you would have the right to kill them. This is also why it's okay to kill zombies.

 

[Encyclopedia]

The thing about the unconscious person is that while they may not comprehend your rights, they are also physically incapable of violating them as well.

Now, if the person was unconscious but was somehow also going around killing people, yes, you would have the right to kill them. This is also why it's okay to kill zombies.

But a fetus is unable to kill others as well. Well I'm sure there is forms of complications that can arise during pregnancy that could kill the mother, but generaly unable.

My question was originaly intended for Danoff.

 

[Exorcet]

Now, I understand this. However, with all of the knowledge and testing of modern medical science, if the fetus is determined to be completely incapacitated (pardon the term-brain dead), and will never be able to understand or develop mentally, is that okay?

As in would abortion be OK if it was determined that the fetus could never develop? I think so. It's the same as an adult that suffers from the same condition. In either case, the individual is basically dead.

 

[PeterJB]

A difficult topic this. I'd say I'm a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. If the foetus isn't developing properly, if it's causing potentially fatal harm to the mother, or if it's a product of rape, then I think abortion is justified. But I condemn anyone who has a perfectly healthy child growing inside them but decides to abort it simply because they don't want it.

 

[TheCracker]

A difficult topic this. I'd say I'm a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. If the foetus isn't developing properly, if it's causing potentially fatal harm to the mother, or if it's a product of rape, then I think abortion is justified. But I condemn anyone who has a perfectly healthy child growing inside them but decides to abort it simply because they don't want it.

Does an unwanted child always have the opportunity to develop into a well rounded adult? - The 10's of thousands of kids dwelling in orphanages around the world say otherwise. Why not abort a child who's likely childhood will probably consist of starvation, suffering and abuse?

 

[PeterJB]

Does an unwanted child always have the opportunity to develop into a well rounded adult? - The 10's of thousands of kids dwelling in orphanages around the world say otherwise. Why not abort a child who's likely childhood will probably consist of starvation, suffering and abuse?

Because then you're not even giving it a chance. If it's unwanted by it's parents that doesn't guarantee it a life spent in an orphanage. If the parents had any sense they'd put it up for adoption instead of just abandoning it straight away.

 

[TheCracker]

Because then you're not even giving it a chance. If it's unwanted by it's parents that doesn't guarantee it a life spent in an orphanage. If the parents had any sense they'd put it up for adoption instead of just abandoning it straight away.

Perhaps in the developed western world. In other parts of the world those children will likely have zero chance of a 'normal' life.

You could maybe call it cruel to abort a child just because they are unwanted, but is it any less cruel to ordain that child to a life spent in gulag conditions?

 

[Jubby]

What about my second example?

Okay, I missed that... sorry...

Say a family-less person then, for the argument's sake. You find him/her lying unconcious on the street. Do you have the right to shoot the person in the head then? The person has no family or people who care for him/her and cannot understand the concept of right to life as he/she is unconcious and may die on the spot or perhaps never wake up.

I would direct that to the objectivity of a medical professional. They will either become a type of guardian ad litem or appoint someone as such. Therefore the morality and ethics of a difficult decision like this is covered, and is different than abortion. Ultimately, abortions are a 1 person decision; the mother. I know you need to find a willing doctor, but anyone can go to a length to make that happen. It's usually a team of medical professionals with checks and balances that make the ultimate determination in your example.

As in would abortion be OK if it was determined that the fetus could never develop? I think so. It's the same as an adult that suffers from the same condition. In either case, the individual is basically dead.

So, would it be fair to say that if a 20 year old has the mentality of an infant, it's okay to abort them post birth(essentially euthanasia)? If not, why not, and what is the difference?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Okay, I missed that... sorry...

I would direct that to the objectivity of a medical professional. They will either become a type of guardian ad litem or appoint someone as such. Therefore the morality and ethics of a difficult decision like this is covered, and is different than abortion. Ultimately, abortions are a 1 person decision; the mother. I know you need to find a willing doctor, but anyone can go to a length to make that happen. It's usually a team of medical professionals with checks and balances that make the ultimate determination in your example.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Danoff]

Undoubtedly. But the question remains. Would it be right for anyone to end the person's life?

No.

Similarly, it is a rights violation to pick the pockets of a dead guy. Similarly it is a rights violation for you to kill someone while you sleep (though perhaps not an intentional one).

I just typed up a long discussion of human rights, and I think it's hijacking this thread. So rather than post that, I'll answer this in as succinctly a way I know how.

You own your body (and all other possessions). Nobody has the right to shoot holes in your body (or any other possessions), even after you die. You have the right (while you're alive and have rights) to dictate who takes possession of your belongings after you die. Once you die, those people take possession of your belongings, and still can't have holes shot in them by random people even though you're dead.

If you're sleeping and someone tries to stab you, they're violating your property rights (more than that, but this is the short version). If you're dead and someone tries to stab you, they're violating the rights of whoever you gave your belongings to (including your body).

That's the conceptually easy explanation. The rest is for another thread.

We don't abort a child because we know it will die, we abort it because we know it's alive/will live. An abortion is murder before it's legally murder.

It doesn't matter why we abort fetuses/embryos (I think "child" is a stretch. Otherwise I've personally had dozens of my "children" die). We can abort them because we know they will die, or because we expect them to live. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the nature of the thing we are terminating at the time of termination. Someone who does not yet exist has no rights to infringe.

A difficult topic this. I'd say I'm a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. If the foetus isn't developing properly, if it's causing potentially fatal harm to the mother, or if it's a product of rape, then I think abortion is justified. But I condemn anyone who has a perfectly healthy child growing inside them but decides to abort it simply because they don't want it.

This is generally the most pragmatic approach. It's also the least principled approach. You're willing to commit the "murder" of an innocent "child" in some circumstances but not others? There is no principle behind that. Either it is a child with rights or it is not. I see scenario where it makes sense to curtail the mother's right to her own body in favor of an entity that we decide should also have rights, only to decide that the entity doesn't have rights if we feel like it.

 

[Encyclopedia]

No.

Similarly, it is a rights violation to pick the pockets of a dead guy. Similarly it is a rights violation for you to kill someone while you sleep (though perhaps not an intentional one).

I just typed up a long discussion of human rights, and I think it's hijacking this thread. So rather than post that, I'll answer this in as succinctly a way I know how.

You own your body (and all other possessions). Nobody has the right to shoot holes in your body (or any other possessions), even after you die. You have the right (while you're alive and have rights) to dictate who takes possession of your belongings after you die. Once you die, those people take possession of your belongings, and still can't have holes shot in them by random people even though you're dead.

If you're sleeping and someone tries to stab you, they're violating your property rights (more than that, but this is the short version). If you're dead and someone tries to stab you, they're violating the rights of whoever you gave your belongings to (including your body).

That's the conceptually easy explanation. The rest is for another thread.

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one thing though, in my example the person did not have any people to pass on his/her possessions.

You could PM me instead of replying here if you want.

 

[Sam48]

It doesn't matter why we abort fetuses/embryos (I think "child" is a stretch. Otherwise I've personally had dozens of my "children" die). We can abort them because we know they will die, or because we expect them to live. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the nature of the thing we are terminating at the time of termination. Someone who does not yet exist has no rights to infringe.

Then it's simply a difference of opinions. I simply believe that one should not have the right to blow another's one shot at life.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one thing though, in my example the person did not have any people to pass on his/her possessions.

You could PM me instead of replying here if you want.

No next of kin, no will, the state would own the possessions after a period of attempting to identify next of kin.

Then it's simply a difference of opinions. I simply believe that one should not have the right to blow another's one shot at life.

Tell it to the cow/pig/chicken/etc. that you ate today.

 

[Sam48]

Tell it to the cow/pig/chicken/etc. that you ate today.

We all earn the right to life at some point (Something I believe one should be granted before birth, and comprehension, in my opinion), but animals will never be able to comprehend rights (at least not in the near future).

 

[Exorcet]

So, would it be fair to say that if a 20 year old has the mentality of an infant, it's okay to abort them post birth(essentially euthanasia)? If not, why not, and what is the difference?

Brain death isn't the same as having limited mental capability. If you meant before than a fetus would only develop infant level intelligence, then I don't think it would be OK to abort. Same goes for the 20 year old.

If the 20 year old was brain dead, then euthanasia would be OK.