Abortion

[Swift]

I really don't like this I hear so many people talk about being opposed to abortion because they see it as murder, unless it is a rape. It sounds too much like punishing the child for the sins of the father.

I don't like it either. However, forcing someone to have a child from sex they didn't agree to to me is punishing the mother for being a victim of a crime. This is not the same as when the sex is consensual.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't like it either. However, forcing someone to have a child from sex they didn't agree to to me is punishing the mother for being a victim of a crime. This is not the same as when the sex is consensual.

It was an issue I made a decision on. Either side makes me feel uncomfortable, but due to the reasoning I gave above I have stood by my choice.

As heartless as it sounds I figure you can recover from the emotional trauma, but not from death.

 

[Danoff]

As heartless as it sounds I figure you can recover from the emotional trauma, but not from death.

Who's death are we talking about here?

 

[Swift]

It was an issue I made a decision on. Either side makes me feel uncomfortable, but due to the reasoning I gave above I have stood by my choice.

As heartless as it sounds I figure you can recover from the emotional trauma, but not from death.

I see where you're coming from. But I simply can't justify someone's continual(possible) suffering after a crime has been inflicted upon them.

 

[Danoff]

It was an issue I made a decision on. Either side makes me feel uncomfortable, but due to the reasoning I gave above I have stood by my choice.

As heartless as it sounds I figure you can recover from the emotional trauma, but not from death.

This is a special kind of torture and it just eats me up to see someone advocate this kind of awful awful punishment on someone who has already been seriously victimized.

To force someone to bear the child of their rapist, to bring the genetic code of a rapist, mixed with your own, into the world and have some responsibility to that child, that constant reminder of the evil that was inflicted upon you is heartbreaking. It's gut wrenching to think about.

...like the word needs more people, especially the children of rapists. The gestating human being growing inside the victim doesn't have to become a baby. It can be stopped. The harm done to the mother and the procreation of an evil person can be prevented... to force someone not to prevent this is cruel, heartless, and twisted.

Honestly just thinking about this gets me emotional and pissed off.

 

[FoolKiller]

I see where you're coming from. But I simply can't justify someone's continual(possible) suffering after a crime has been inflicted upon them.

My wife and I split on this issue as well. She feels the same way you do but I can't justify what I see as killing an innocent child to prevent someone's emotional trauma, no matter how great. It is a case of pick what you think is the worse of two evils.

I see no problem with offering every rape victim that reports it within 72 hours the morning after pill. After that time it is no longer effective.

Honestly just thinking about this gets me emotional and pissed off.

I get that way too. But with my view on abortion it causes me to see two bad decisions. If I could flip a switch and not see abortion as killing a human then I would easily choose the abortion, but I don't have that switch.

 

[Danoff]

I get that way too. But with my view on abortion it causes me to see two bad decisions. If I could flip a switch and not see abortion as killing a human then I would easily choose the abortion, but I don't have that switch.

Have you seriously thought about what makes humans different from animals? Why we have rights and they don't. I wrote a little essay on it in Famine's beastiality thread. Once you define a human being and what makes human being's special, you might start to see fetuses a little differently.

 

[FoolKiller]

Have you seriously thought about what makes humans different from animals? Why we have rights and they don't. I wrote a little essay on it in Famine's beastiality thread. Once you define a human being and what makes human being's special, you might start to see fetuses a little differently.

Yes, I did read it. I thought it was well-written. However, my mind still distinguishes a fetus from an animal. However you define human and animal, in my mind, the human fetus is a developing human, not an animal.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, I did read it. I thought it was well-written. However, my mind still distinguishes a fetus from an animal. However you define human and animal, in my mind, the human fetus is a developing human, not an animal.

Just to be clear human beings are classified as animals.... but I think what you mean by this is that a "developing human" is nothing less than human to you.

But let's consider why we have rights... because of our higher brain functions. That's what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Now you have to ask yourself if fetuses should have rights based on that? They don't have any brain capacity beyond that of a dog at that stage, so why would we give them rights and not dogs? Sure evetually they'll have higher brain functions, but until then, why does it make sense to give them rights?

Now, if you think we have rights because we have a soul and other animals do not - then you also think fetuses have rights because you probably think they have souls. But we can't base law on religion in a country that separates church and state and maintains equal treatment for people of all religions can we?

Now, I will counter your legal point with my own. Why is it that if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and the fetus isn't able to be saved it is TWO (1-2) counts of manslaughter? This is even if the woman was unaware that she was pregnant and the issue of whether she wanted the child or not is unknown. Heck, she can be on her way to an abortion clinic and it is stilol manslaughter.

So, why is it that it is not a living human but you still face the legal penalities of murder if you kill it unless you are a doctor?

This is partially answered by what I wrote above. Fetuses don't have rights, but mothers have rights to their fetus. What kind of penalty we place on killing someone's fetus doesn't matter much in my mind. It's important to her, it could mean everything to her - her entire purpose in life - to bring that child to bear and raise it. By killing that fetus you may have done her more harm than killing her. She may very well value it's future well above her own. It makes perfect sense to me to have high penalties for killing someone else's fetus.

 

[FoolKiller]

But let's consider why we have rights... because of our higher brain functions. That's what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Now you have to ask yourself if fetuses should have rights based on that? They don't have any brain capacity beyond that of a dog at that stage, so why would we give them rights and not dogs? Sure evetually they'll have higher brain functions, but until then, why does it make sense to give them rights?

A while back I read somewhere that cats and dogs have the approximate mental capacity of a two-three year old. I don't know if that is valid or not. Assuming it is, would that mean that anyone younger than a toddler has no rights? At what point do you differentiate between human and beast if a postnatal human has yet to develop brain function higher than an animal. What if that human has a mental disability that limits them to never develop beyond the mental capacity of a newborn baby? It can react to stimulus and have minor motor functions, but cannot grasp the concept of self-realization. Does that person have rights?

Now, if you think we have rights because we have a soul and other animals do not - then you also think fetuses have rights because you probably think they have souls. But we can't base law on religion in a country that separates church and state and maintains equal treatment for people of all religions can we?

When have I ever brought religion as backing into a non-religion debate? I am arguing rights of a fetus as a form of human, nothing more. I would only use this argument on someone who is religious but still sees nothing wrong with abortion.

What kind of penalty we place on killing someone's fetus doesn't matter much in my mind. It's important to her, it could mean everything to her - her entire purpose in life - to bring that child to bear and raise it. By killing that fetus you may have done her more harm than killing her. She may very well value it's future well above her own. It makes perfect sense to me to have high penalties for killing someone else's fetus.

But then the law is defining it as killing in one instance and abortion in another. If it isn't a living human being then don't treat it as such. At most it should be destruction of property or assault.

Since of course a pregnant woman, trying to feed what is, essentially, a parasitical organism while also retaining enough energy to keep herself alive, obviously doesn't need any more food than a normal woman? And is the first batch of nappies/formula/baby clothing/etc. magically teleported to her as soon as it pops out?

You do NEED to purchase food and supplies for the foetus before it is born.

You make it sound as if you buy into the "eating for two people" myth. Women who gain much more weight than the baby actually weighs are just hurting themselves. If enough extra food to gain 5-10 lbs max is worthy of financial support then she must really be struggling. Americans love baby showers and I have seen pregnant women get nearly everything she needs.

I am of the opinion that no kind of government support should happen, but if you are going to give it then why not to a pregnant mother? As you say, she has to buy baby stuff before it arrives. If the baby is born a day after welfare checks go out then she could go without support for a month. We should make sure she has enough to buy all the baby stuff and maybe even cover medical needs.

It isn't, in the UK.

Well in Kentucky, at least, that is how it works. I am sorry for debating according to what I know locally. Of course, if it were Kentucky only I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Danoff]

A while back I read somewhere that cats and dogs have the approximate mental capacity of a two-three year old. I don't know if that is valid or not. Assuming it is, would that mean that anyone younger than a toddler has no rights? At what point do you differentiate between human and beast if a postnatal human has yet to develop brain function higher than an animal. What if that human has a mental disability that limits them to never develop beyond the mental capacity of a newborn baby? It can react to stimulus and have minor motor functions, but cannot grasp the concept of self-realization. Does that person have rights?

Well there is no issue with extending devloping humans rights once it doesn't conflict with the rights of the mother. I agree with you that newborns still don't have sufficient brain functions to warrant rights - it is legally convenient to give them an indentity and rights at birth.

Don't try to extend this discussion beyond birth. Once a baby is born it's a peice of cake to give it the rights everyone else has - whether or not they deserve them. Think of it this way, we give undeserving humans rights at birth because we're playing it safe by drawing the line really really early.

A child belongs to its parents in some respect - so it makes sense to extend the rights of the parents to the rights of the child. I can argue this from a few thousand angles. The mental disability issue can be solved similarly - they're extended rights THROUGH their guardians - who make all the decisions about their well being.

Seriously, I don't see how taking this beyond birth helps defeat my argument.

When have I ever brought religion as backing into a non-religion debate? I am arguing rights of a fetus as a form of human, nothing more. I would only use this argument on someone who is religious but still sees nothing wrong with abortion.

That comment wasn't aimed at you.

But then the law is defining it as killing in one instance and abortion in another. If it isn't a living human being then don't treat it as such. At most it should be destruction of property or assault.

It's killing an attempt at creating an offspring. What kind of penalty does that deserve? Surely you don't consider destroying someone's potential offspring similar to smacking them or breaking their stuff...

 

[FoolKiller]

Don't try to extend this discussion beyond birth. Once a baby is born it's a peice of cake to give it the rights everyone else has - whether or not they deserve them. Think of it this way, we give undeserving humans rights at birth because we're playing it safe by drawing the line really really early.

Why are we drawing the line there? Because we can see it and it suddenly hits home that it is human?

Seriously, I don't see how taking this beyond birth helps defeat my argument.

Because, to me, it is poking holes in the animal vs human righst comparison you were using. If that definition is used then we must require language skills or some sort of self-realization test be passed first.

That comment wasn't aimed at you.

Oh, OK.

It's killing an attempt at creating an offspring. What kind of penalty does that deserve? Surely you don't consider destroying someone's potential offspring similar to smacking them or breaking their stuff...

I think it does deserve a manslaughter-murder charge. I was saying that it was the same and that I think the law should treat any killing of a fetus the same. For me that is just a stage in human development and so it should be either manslaughter (unintentional) or murder (intentional or willful negligence-murder 2).

 

[Danoff]

Why are we drawing the line there? Because we can see it and it suddenly hits home that it is human?

No, because it doesn't conflict with anyone else's rights to protect the non-developed human at that point.

Because, to me, it is poking holes in the animal vs human righst comparison you were using. If that definition is used then we must require language skills or some sort of self-realization test be passed first.

Certainly not. As I said, it no longer conflicts with the parent's rights over their own bodies at that point.

Let me clarify my argument a bit - because I think you're missing something.

Human beings don't deserve rights until they reach 1-2 years old. We extend them rights at birth though for a whole host of reasons:

1) It's convenient to recognize them legally at that point
2) It's difficult to figure out when they become self-aware
3) It no longer conflicts with the rights of the mother over her body to protect the now-legally recognized child.
4) The child can be cared for by a host of relatives or others who would take on the respondibility without infringing the rights of the parents, should they choose to absolve themselves of the responsibility.

I'd bet I can go on.

The distinction here is that I'm making an argument for why the child does not need to be protected before birth. I can make an argument for why the child does not need to be protected after birth also, but there simply isn't much reason not to protect it. Prior to birth - there's a big big big reason not to protect it.

I think it does deserve a manslaughter-murder charge. I was saying that it was the same and that I think the law should treat any killing of a fetus the same. For me that is just a stage in human development and so it should be either manslaughter (unintentional) or murder (intentional or willful negligence-murder 2).

Sperm and Eggs are stages in human development too then. Are those to be protected?

You missed my point - which was that one can view the fetus as not having rights or being a person, and still consider it appropriate to apply the punishment for murder if someone kills it without the mother's permission.

 

[FoolKiller]

The distinction here is that I'm making an argument for why the child does not need to be protected before birth. I can make an argument for why the child does not need to be protected after birth also, but there simply isn't much reason not to protect it. Prior to birth - there's a big big big reason not to protect it.

And this is where we differ. You see it as a case of infringing the mother's rights to her body to protect something which you don't consider to qualify for righst yet. I, on the otherhand, see it as protecting a form of human that cannot defend itself in anyway whatsoever.

Would you defend a murderer that killed someone who infringed on their freedom of speech, right to own a gun, blew smoke in their face, or exercised eminent domain? Killing someone because your rights are being infringed upon doesn't work anywhere else. I think the government's definition of a fetus is incorrect in this case, but you do not. To me it is killing a human, to you it is not. These different points of view are why we will go in circles for days with this argument.

Sperm and Eggs are stages in human development too then. Are those to be protected?

If I were to be that technical, yes, but they are parts of the mother and father and don't even contain a full count of chromosomes. Plus, if we were to try that then it would be a few million counts of murder even if conception were achieved. It's not even feasible to consider.

You missed my point - which was that one can view the fetus as not having rights or being a person, and still consider it appropriate to apply the punishment for murder if someone kills it without the mother's permission.

No, I caught your point. I just disagree with it because I have a different point of view. One can view a lot of things but it doesn't meanyou will agree. As I said before, we have different points of view and could go on and on.


All this is why I like to avoid abortion debates, because when you approach it from a legal standpoint it practically becomes a case of symantics and who's rights are to be protected, assuming your definition even gives them rights.

 

[Danoff]

And this is where we differ. You see it as a case of infringing the mother's rights to her body to protect something which you don't consider to qualify for righst yet. I, on the otherhand, see it as protecting a form of human that cannot defend itself in anyway whatsoever.

Ok, why do you think humans have rights?

 

[Danoff]

Killing someone because your rights are being infringed upon doesn't work anywhere else.

This misunderstands the discussion quite severely. Nobody is killing anyone because their rights are being infringed. In fact, nobody's rights are being infringed until abortion becomes illegal (unless you give the fetus rights).

 

[Keef]

I don;t think a fetus should be granted rights. Maybe the point where it gains rights should be when the mother's labor starts; the point when the fetus is going to be born, even if it is dead already. You can't do much about it at that point. And I'm not a big fan of aborting/killing something helpless, especially if I can see and hear it while it's dieing. I would make the cut-off point of abortion at when labor starts, also. I see and understand danoff's point, when the umbliical cord is severed (when did you make that anyway, I accidentaly flipped to the first page in the midst of reading this one). But if the fetus is still in the womb and hasen't started crawling its way out, I don't really think of it as alive yet. It sounds mean, but its kind of like that saying--"out of sight, out of mind".
I also think that retarded fetuses should have these same rules, even if they are supremely messed up. I've always wondered, if we did abort all mentally and physically retarded fetuses, how long it would take until those mutations didn't occur anymore. Maybe we could rid the system of a few flaws. Maybe not, I don't know

 

[STLbarcelona5]

By law (in the US). At the moment a baby takes its first breath, he/she is then a citizen and has all the protections of the constitution. Before that, they don't have any rights.

 

[Keef]

What if they are born not breathing on their own? If they are hooked up to a respirator are they still fair game for abortion? They don't have any rights if their lungs need a jump-start? What is its first breath: inhaling or exhaling? Or both? Is it only a breath if the whole cycle has been performed? You can be fully alive but not breath--look, I'm holding my breath! Fetuses lungs work inside the womb, you know; they actually "breath" the ambiotic fluid. They don't extract oxygen from it, but their lungs do inhale and exhale it. Or is it their first breath of air? I notice you said "baby" and not "fetus", so I guess I answered my own question, because it isn't a baby until it is fully born. Or is it while it's on its way out, still in the birth canal? Is it a fetus until the unbilical cord is cut?
How many questions was that? I know I'm being extra nitpicky and there were probably a few pointless questions in there, but it'd be cool if someone would answer them so we had more to argue about.

 

[crimson_menace]

Let's kill everyone over 60 while were at it.

Ha! That's funny.

It was probably a serious comment, but I don't care.

Delete the weak and useless. It's the logical choice. What would the machines do?

/sarcasm

Seriously tho, to each their own. It's the woman's body, let her do with it what she wants. It's nobody's place to say anything different.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. You can't not be both. Everyone is for living, and everyone is for choosing. Those terms are contradictory to this subject.

All randomly thrown together for your viewing pleasure.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok, why do you think humans have rights?

Wow. That's a big question. I will give the shortest answer I can. Just remember, any holes you can pick at it are because I do not have the time or motivation to give a proper ten page answer.

Basically it comes down to a combination of philosophy and sociology.

Human beings have rights because human beings say so. What rights are given by law are determined by your society's morals and ethics. What rights a person believes should be given are determined by their own philosophy.

One could say that human rights are just there, but one would have to ask where they came from and that discussion cannot be had without mentioning religion and dome form of creator. Since you are a self-proclaimed Atheist I am assuming that I do not have to broach that area of the subject.

In the United States we have a very broad range of rights that were laid out by our founding fathers, who believed them to be unalienbale and endowed by a creator. They separated church and state but held on to those rights in that they were granted by the Constitution. Whether there was a creator or not did not matter in the United States because the Constitution granted them to you and that could not be argued.

Bringing it home: This brings me to this:

This misunderstands the discussion quite severely. Nobody is killing anyone because their rights are being infringed. In fact, nobody's rights are being infringed until abortion becomes illegal (unless you give the fetus rights).

I highlighted the important part. Our argument comes down to; does a fetus have legally defined rights as a human? The Constitution does not specifically mention abortion, but neither does it specifically mention a fetus. You feel that the discussion is covered in that the mother has rights to her own body. I feel that the fetus should be given the rights of the Constitution - this would make abortion murder.

It appears that our difference comes down to personal philosophy/point of view. So, just as you feel the Constitution is ignored or misinterpreted in many property rights issues (most of which I agree with you) I feel the same way on the abortion issue.

But if the fetus is still in the womb and hasen't started crawling its way out, I don't really think of it as alive yet. It sounds mean, but its kind of like that saying--"out of sight, out of mind".

I wonder how many people have based their opinions on thsi without realizing it. It could explain why some peopel are overly offended when someone asks them to view images of an abortion or an aborted fetus but have no problems going home and watching a surgery on TLC. It's either that or they are too close-minded to try and listen to an oppsoing point of view. (For the record, I do not agree with protesters with billboard-sized signs with graphic images of aborted fetuses. I think they have gone overboard and are trying to shock people into changing their opinions.)

I also think that retarded fetuses should have these same rules, even if they are supremely messed up. I've always wondered, if we did abort all mentally and physically retarded fetuses, how long it would take until those mutations didn't occur anymore. Maybe we could rid the system of a few flaws. Maybe not, I don't know

As long as there are outside influences you will have these mutations. What caused these problems in the first place? The same set of parents can have two children and one have problems while the other be completely healthy. You are acting as if it is a matter of genetics, but a million processes happen duriong development that can cause this. What you are asking about is bordering on genocide.

What if they are born not breathing on their own? If they are hooked up to a respirator are they still fair game for abortion? They don't have any rights if their lungs need a jump-start? What is its first breath: inhaling or exhaling? Or both? Is it only a breath if the whole cycle has been performed? You can be fully alive but not breath--look, I'm holding my breath!

It would be called euthenasia, which many peopel also have no problem with.

Fetuses lungs work inside the womb, you know; they actually "breath" the ambiotic fluid. They don't extract oxygen from it, but their lungs do inhale and exhale it.

Are you talking about gill slits? Human fetuses have gill slits early on in the developmental process.

...because it isn't a baby until it is fully born. Or is it while it's on its way out, still in the birth canal? Is it a fetus until the unbilical cord is cut?

Some people do think late-term/partial-birth abortions are fine.

By law (in the US). At the moment a baby takes its first breath, he/she is then a citizen and has all the protections of the constitution. Before that, they don't have any rights.

Right. I think the point is that I disagree with the law. Why do people think that by quoting the law that ends the debate? I know the law, but that doesn't mean I agree. Why do you think politicians spend all that time arguing? Hell, if we said this is the law, deal with it, no debate, abortion would still be illegal as well as a lot of other things (slavery for one).

Seriously tho, to each their own. It's the woman's body, let her do with it what she wants. It's nobody's place to say anything different.

What about the fetus' body? It is unable to make a decision or even have a voice in a decision. And it isn't a part of the mother's body (different genetic code), but we act like it is and treat it as if she is just having a tumor removed.

 

[Danoff]

It appears that our difference comes down to personal philosophy/point of view. So, just as you feel the Constitution is ignored or misinterpreted in many property rights issues (most of which I agree with you) I feel the same way on the abortion issue.

I assure you that I'm aware that this issue stems from a difference in philosophy - that doesn't stop me from wanting to discuss philosophical differences. If people refused to discuss philosphical differences - no personal growth would be possible. This is exactly the kind of subject I enjoy discussing - a tough one. I don't care as much about subjects that don't go as deep as this one. It reminds me a bit of the religion subject in that so much of the discussion revolves around how people feel about the issue. I try to take a completely objective approach to the subject so that my views can be validated on a non-subjective level. That's why you'll never catch me saying that I think such and such because it "feels" right.

I highlighted the important part. Our argument comes down to; does a fetus have legally defined rights as a human? The Constitution does not specifically mention abortion, but neither does it specifically mention a fetus. You feel that the discussion is covered in that the mother has rights to her own body. I feel that the fetus should be given the rights of the Constitution - this would make abortion murder.

You highlighted the least important part - and before I lose you let me assure you that has nothing to do with opinion. Whether or not you give fetuses rights the premise remains true - nobody is having an abortion because their rights have been violated. That invalidates your comparison to other situations where one might kill because their rights have been violated.

Stay with me here, 'cause I'm going to drag this one out for a second:

You said:

Would you defend a murderer that killed someone who infringed on their freedom of speech, right to own a gun, blew smoke in their face, or exercised eminent domain? Killing someone because your rights are being infringed upon doesn't work anywhere else.

The parallel to this would be that the baby somehow violated the rights of the mother and that she killed it for revenge of that. Neither of the two parts of that situation applys here. The baby does not violate the rights of the mother - and she does not abort for revenge of the rights that were not violated.

So your examples are completely off base. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. Do you see now how the highlighted portion made no difference?

Human beings have rights because human beings say so.

Then we shouldn't have rights at all. That's not a fundamental moral reason for rights to exist. If they merely exist because we claimed they did, then they cease to exist as soon as we claim they don't - which isn't the case.

What rights are given by law are determined by your society's morals and ethics.

Then they cease to exist in a society who's morals and ethics do not support them. In that case it is impossible for social injustice to occur. Because the social system under Saddam in Iraq was just as valid as the one in the US. That society's morals and ethics permitted Saddam complete control - so the genocide he wrought on his people was just and fair?? Nonsense. There is such a thing as objective justice.

What rights a person believes should be given are determined by their own philosophy.

So there is no such thing as rights. If everyone's philosphy is equal, no one's is valid because they'll contradict. Which means I shouldn't feel any remorse for going on a murderous killing spree. Again, nonsense - there is such a thing as objective justice.

One could say that human rights are just there, but one would have to ask where they came from and that discussion cannot be had without mentioning religion and dome form of creator. Since you are a self-proclaimed Atheist I am assuming that I do not have to broach that area of the subject.

No, one would not have to rely on religion to explain the origin of rights. One can simply rely on objective logic to explain the origins of rights. Again, if this were true it would invalidate the existance of rights - in which case abortion should be legal for those who's "personal philosphy" allowed it, same thing with murder and theft.

In the United States we have a very broad range of rights that were laid out by our founding fathers, who believed them to be unalienbale and endowed by a creator.

Why did they think that? And how did they come to the conclusion that their concept of those rights was NOT subjective?

 

[FoolKiller]

You highlighted the least important part - and before I lose you let me assure you that has nothing to do with opinion. Whether or not you give fetuses rights the premise remains true - nobody is having an abortion because their rights have been violated. That invalidates your comparison to other situations where one might kill because their rights have been violated...

...The parallel to this would be that the baby somehow violated the rights of the mother and that she killed it for revenge of that. Neither of the two parts of that situation applys here. The baby does not violate the rights of the mother - and she does not abort for revenge of the rights that were not violated.

So your examples are completely off base. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. Do you see now how the highlighted portion made no difference?

Good point. My examples were bad.

I actually cannot think of an example where someone's right to exist/live (which I think a fetus should have) infringes on another's right to do what they want with their body.

Then we shouldn't have rights at all. That's not a fundamental moral reason for rights to exist. If they merely exist because we claimed they did, then they cease to exist as soon as we claim they don't - which isn't the case.

Then why do rights exist? Where did they come from? How was it determined what actually was a right or not? You and I both defend property rights. Others disagree with us. Who says who is right? Where is that determined?

Then they cease to exist in a society who's morals and ethics do not support them. In that case it is impossible for social injustice to occur. Because the social system under Saddam in Iraq was just as valid as the one in the US. That society's morals and ethics permitted Saddam complete control - so the genocide he wrought on his people was just and fair?? Nonsense. There is such a thing as objective justice.

Wow. That's a big question. I will give the shortest answer I can. Just remember, any holes you can pick at it are because I do not have the time or motivation to give a proper ten page answer.

Sorry I didn't take the time to go into international communities and whatnot. As civilization and technology grows so does the international community. Now we are at a point where the people with the biggest guns and/or largest economies are enforcing what they believe to be rights. If the soviets had won the cold war or the Nazis had won WWII human rights would be defined differently.

If the international community didn't find Saddam's actions wrong then, yes, what he did would be fine from a legal standpoint. Fortunately we live in a different world than that.

So there is no such thing as rights. If everyone's philosphy is equal, no one's is valid because they'll contradict. Which means I shouldn't feel any remorse for going on a murderous killing spree. Again, nonsense - there is such a thing as objective justice.

But everyone's opinions aren't equal. If they were then everything in society would crumble. Only a select few find murderous killing sprees to be okay. They are an outcast in society. Since 99.999999% of society agrees on that point it isn't questioned. However on issues such as abortion and other less appalling ideas they don't agree, which is why laws change over time and courts to determine that they still fit within the Constitutional definition. Things change, people change, and societies change. Due to that people's rights change too.

If the SD law is upheld then state's rights have changed. And in those states that choose to ban abortion then fetal rights have changed in that they now have rights.

No, one would not have to rely on religion to explain the origin of rights. One can simply rely on objective logic to explain the origins of rights.

Please, explain these origins. You make it sound as if I should be able to just say, "There they are. Those are rights."

Again, if this were true it would invalidate the existance of rights - in which case abortion should be legal for those who's "personal philosphy" allowed it, same thing with murder and theft.

I believe I covered this above.

Why did they think that? And how did they come to the conclusion that their concept of those rights was NOT subjective?

Maybe I should let their own words answer that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

They found them to be self-evident. It was obvious to them that this is how it should be; that all men should have those three basic rights and nothing or no one should be able to take them away. They later spelled out a list of specifics in the Constitution that they believed were necessary to meet these three basic rights.

Of course, bringing this back home to abortion, if you believe, as I do, that a fetus is classified as a living human then it has been denied all three of those basic rights in an abortion. By removing the right to life you manage to remove all chance of any liberty or pursuit of happiness.

 

[Danoff]

So basically what you're saying is that rights are determined democratically. That the majority decides what's right and wrong for everyone - including the dissenting minority?

That's sad. Very sad. To imagine if there were no real right and wrong, no real justice, no real inalienable rights - just a mob deciding what is moral at each turn.

That's the very definition of an "alienable" right - one that can be voted away. It depresses me that you think the concept of morality and justice is malleable. It depresses me because I have a lot of respect for you and that's just such a weak position. To think that if a majority of Americans suddenly decided that all jewish people should be exterminated - you'd suddenly shift you thinking on the subject to think that it must be ok... That Jewish people could be justly alienated from their rights by a vote.

Of course, bringing this back home to abortion, if you believe, as I do, that a fetus is classified as a living human then it has been denied all three of those basic rights in an abortion. By removing the right to life you manage to remove all chance of any liberty or pursuit of happiness.

I'm well aware of the pro-life position. I'm attempting to get you to probe something more basic - like the criteria for giving living beings rights. So far, your criteria is "most people agree" - which is really really weak and opens the door for all kinds of injustice to be done to the minority by the majority. I think if you consider the concept of rights more, you'll find that it isn't a subjective concept. I'll explain a little more in the "rights" thread a bit later.

If you can be persuaded that rights are not subject to the whims of the mob, and you can be convinced to give a good reason for why human beings must have rights - then we might be able to get somewhere in the abortion debate. So perhaps we can table this until we've resolved the rights issue (hopefully in the "rights" thread).

 

[FoolKiller]

So basically what you're saying is that rights are determined democratically. That the majority decides what's right and wrong for everyone - including the dissenting minority?

That's sad. Very sad. To imagine if there were no real right and wrong, no real justice, no real inalienable rights - just a mob deciding what is moral at each turn.

That's the very definition of an "alienable" right - one that can be voted away. It depresses me that you think the concept of morality and justice is malleable. It depresses me because I have a lot of respect for you and that's just such a weak position. To think that if a majority of Americans suddenly decided that all jewish people should be exterminated - you'd suddenly shift you thinking on the subject to think that it must be ok... That Jewish people could be justly alienated from their rights by a vote.

I'm responding here because it would appear odd to jump in with this in the rights thread. Further discussion will be there though.

After a few drinks last night I logged back on and read this. Somehow that made me think better. Could be a lack of sleep issue.

Anyway, it occured to me almost immediately the problem in our communication here. I have been rambling on describing nothing more than legal rights, which are different than inalienable rights by their nature in that, as you described, they are chosen by mob mentality or even just a select few in power.

You do know that I would not shift my thinking because the majority says that is how it should be. If that were the case I would be one of those "The law says this, end of story" kind of people. Instead I disagree with the law and that is why we are even having this discussion. If I went along with a mob mentality I would have no place in the opinions forum.

I don't know why I got off in the wrong direction from what you were asking except that I honestly cannot say why we have inalienable rights other than we just do. Every fiber of my body tells me that those things are what is right and moral and the way things should be. Outside of that, I don't know.

If this were a religious debate I could say endowed by the/a creator, just as our founding fathers did, and be done with it. Either the founding fathers were right and they were endowed by a creator or there is no creator and even they could not explain their nature and blamed it, like anything not understood, on God.

Without that though I have to rely on my moral fiber and say it is because humans as an advanced species have self-realization, complex communication, and the ability to feel guilt. That guilt (along with other aspects of humanity) is the natural trigger that evolution has granted us to be able to live together in a peaceful manner and form large societies. We have developed this natural reaction to the things we have labelled moral and immoral and thus inalienable rights are there through nature. We have naturally developed a sense of inalienable rights because without them it would, as you pointed out, be anarchy.

If you can be persuaded that rights are not subject to the whims of the mob, and you can be convinced to give a good reason for why human beings must have rights - then we might be able to get somewhere in the abortion debate.

I am persuaded of that, I was just wandering down the wrong direction. The only reason I can give for why human beings must have rights is that without them our species would kill itself out.

So perhaps we can table this until we've resolved the rights issue (hopefully in the "rights" thread).

I'm stepping in that direction.

 

[Danoff]

I'm responding here because it would appear odd to jump in with this in the rights thread. Further discussion will be there though.

After a few drinks last night I logged back on and read this. Somehow that made me think better. Could be a lack of sleep issue.

Anyway, it occured to me almost immediately the problem in our communication here. I have been rambling on describing nothing more than legal rights, which are different than inalienable rights by their nature in that, as you described, they are chosen by mob mentality or even just a select few in power.

You do know that I would not shift my thinking because the majority says that is how it should be. If that were the case I would be one of those "The law says this, end of story" kind of people. Instead I disagree with the law and that is why we are even having this discussion. If I went along with a mob mentality I would have no place in the opinions forum.

I don't know why I got off in the wrong direction from what you were asking except that I honestly cannot say why we have inalienable rights other than we just do. Every fiber of my body tells me that those things are what is right and moral and the way things should be. Outside of that, I don't know.

If this were a religious debate I could say endowed by the/a creator, just as our founding fathers did, and be done with it. Either the founding fathers were right and they were endowed by a creator or there is no creator and even they could not explain their nature and blamed it, like anything not understood, on God.

Without that though I have to rely on my moral fiber and say it is because humans as an advanced species have self-realization, complex communication, and the ability to feel guilt. That guilt (along with other aspects of humanity) is the natural trigger that evolution has granted us to be able to live together in a peaceful manner and form large societies. We have developed this natural reaction to the things we have labelled moral and immoral and thus inalienable rights are there through nature. We have naturally developed a sense of inalienable rights because without them it would, as you pointed out, be anarchy.

Ah. Good. I'm glad to see that we're on the same page. I'll take my response to this to the "rights" thread.

I am persuaded of that, I was just wandering down the wrong direction. The only reason I can give for why human beings must have rights is that without them our species would kill itself out.

Ok, in order to apply inalienable rights to abortion, we still have to iron out one thing - who gets rights and who doesn't and why. You're still not seeing any objective reason for rights to exist, which I disagree with. But your position now is better than simply saying that they're democratically decided (I was about to point out that it has been democratically decided that abortion is ok and so you should agree with it - but you beat me to the punch there).

Without understanding why human beings have rights, it's almost impossible to explain why animals do not have rights. Somehow you have to differentiate between people and animals in that matter. That is the key to my position on abortion. If you come back and tell me that animals have rights and so do fetuses then I'll have to tell you that if you truly believe that then you're faced with a situation of conflicting rights in the case of abortion and I can see you go either way. If you tell me that animals don't have rights though, and can give a solid reason why - then maybe we can look at applying that to fetuses.

 

[Danoff]

Without understanding why human beings have rights, it's almost impossible to explain why animals do not have rights. Somehow you have to differentiate between people and animals in that matter. That is the key to my position on abortion. If you come back and tell me that animals have rights and so do fetuses then I'll have to tell you that if you truly believe that then you're faced with a situation of conflicting rights in the case of abortion and I can see you go either way. If you tell me that animals don't have rights though, and can give a solid reason why - then maybe we can look at applying that to fetuses.

Ok Foolkiller, I think in the "rights" thread I have convinced you that fetuses don't have rights. That being said, can we agree that abortion (regardless of how disgusting we find it) should be legal?

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't forget this one.

Ok Foolkiller, I think in the "rights" thread I have convinced you that fetuses don't have rights. That being said, can we agree that abortion (regardless of how disgusting we find it) should be legal?

Legal? No.

The definition of Homicide is: The killing of one person by another.
The definition of Murder is: The unlawful killing of one person by another, especially with premeditated malice.

There is truly only one difference between the two words. You will notice that there is no mention of rights. Also, in the Human Rights thread you said that you can't argue that a fetus is a developing human. I hate the idea of killing any human. There are exceptions when the act becomes justified. for me those exceptions are extreme cases such as self defense and certain war efforts.

As you can see it is a matter of law, that has nothing to do with rights, that defines the difference between just homicide and murder. Because I see the fetus as a human and find killing humans wrong I see killing the fetus as wrong, especially since it is most commonly a situation where the mother wants that fetus out for some reason, or premeditated malice. She and the doctor are aware that they are killing the fetus. They would have done the sonogram and possibly even heard a heartbeat by that point. They are not disillusioned as to the life that exists in the fetus.

To me all of that spells out murder by definition, it only lacks the one word to change it to murder, unlawful.

Now, for those who will ask about if the mother's life is at risk I can accept that as a justifiable reason. When you consider that either one will die or possibly both then the decision seems simple.

 

[Danoff]

Foolkiller,

Seriously? That's what you're going with? Because the reason murder is illegal is because we have a right to life. Without a right to life, murder should be legal. Rights are the foundation upon which law is made. That whole discussion we had was to lay the framework for the discussion of what should be legal.

Let me give you an example. It is legal to hunt animals because animals do not have a right to life. It is illegal to hunt humans because humans do have a right to life. It is illegal to hunt dogs because in almost all cases dogs belong to someone else - and it's illegal to shoot up someone's property (because we have a right to our property).

If fetuses have no rights (which you agreed with earlier), then they become the property of the mother - which means she and only she gets to decide whether it becomes a human being with rights that is protected by law.

 

[FoolKiller]

Foolkiller,

Seriously? That's what you're going with?

OK, I will fess up. At this point I am arguing for the sake of argument. My wife claims I would argue with a brick wall. I was going with the best I could come up with. When you don't have much of an argument left you grasp at straws. I was trying to pull you off the rights issue with symantecs. A cheap ploy at best.

From a purely legal stance there is no reason to make abortion illegal. This is, as I have said before, why I am never actively trying to change this law. This is a country where my religious views cannot interfere with the laws. A clear legal argument cannot be made (at least not by me) to justify making abortion illegal.

I can argue further about abortion, but I would begin to encroach on the seperation of church and state. I will never willingly do that. The things that hold me back from forcing my views on others are the same things that make this country great.