20 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardFine, then you don't think that being alive is sufficient for having a right to life. You think that being conscious is a necessary condition. Hence, you are contradicting your previous assertion that we ought to "give a fetus the right to live once it lives".
the diffrence is that viruses and al of that do not have a consiousness and never will have it and humans do.
Now, since fetuses aren't conscious in the first trimester, your revised view about the necessity of consciousness to rights possession commits you to denying that fetuses in the first trimester have a right to life. So, your view entails that early abortions don't violate a fetuses right to life.
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by darvlayIt's either a miracle or a lie. darvlay and I agree on something. 😲
How are these things similar? A man cannot be compared to an unborn fetus and taking a nap is not like being in the womb. It's the choice of the woman whether or not to have the child. Some women who get pregnant are not fit, capable nor ready to have children and raise them in a healthy environment. Who are we to tell them that they absolutely must have the baby?
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrno like i already sayd a virus will never have conciousness a fetus will have it....
Fine, then you don't think that being alive is sufficient for having a right to life. You think that being conscious is a necessary condition. Hence, you are contradicting your previous assertion that we ought to [b]"give a fetus the right to live once it lives".
Now, since fetuses aren't conscious in the first trimester, your revised view about t ...[text shortened]... ght to life. So, your view entails that early abortions don't violate a fetuses right to life.[/b]
20 Oct 04
it's horribly frustrating to listen to you two discuss abortion in this fashion.
The need for abortion goes beyond whether or not a fetus can "think" or is "living". It is there because women have the right to decide whether or not they want to have a child. It is beyond the concept of murder. It is a matter of compassion and empathy and freedom of choice - not science.
Much respect to you two gentlemen but I had to say it...
20 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardSo, you have retracted your previous claim that consciousness is necessary for having rights. Now you are claiming that the mere potential to develop consciousness, together with being alive, is sufficient for having rights.
no like i already sayd a virus will never have conciousness a fetus will have it....
Now, why should we grant the rights of conscious entities to entities that are merely potentially conscious? An individual egg is potentially conscious, if fertilized and allowed to grow in a healthy environment. Similarly for a sperm. So, if you think that potential consciousness is sufficient for having rights, then you are committed to the claim that individual eggs and sperms have rights.
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by darvlayIf the fetus has rights, then those rights need to be taken into account. Just as I don't have a right to make decisions that violate your rights, if the fetus has rights, then women don't have the right to violate the fetus' rights. What is at issue is whether the fetus actually has rights, and, if so, when they have them (e.g., first trimester, second trimester, etc.).
it's horribly frustrating to listen to you two discuss abortion in this fashion.
The need for abortion goes beyond whether or not a fetus can "think" or is "living". It is there because women have the right to decide whether or not they want to have a child. It is beyond the concept of murder. It is a matter of compassion and empathy and freedom of choice - not science.
Much respect to you two gentlemen but I had to say it...
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrforgive me if i don't understand, but you don't agree with me? you think abortion is a matter of woman's rights superceding the rights of a fetus, if it has any at all?
If the fetus has rights, then those rights need to be taken into account. Just as I don't have a right to make decisions that violate your rights, if the fetus has rights, then women don't have the right to violate the fetus' rights. What is at issue is whether the fetus actually has rights, and, if so, when they have them (e.g., first trimester, second trimester, etc.).
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by darvlayI don't think fetuses have rights until they develop certain psychological capacites (consciousness, rudimetary rationality, and rudimentary self-awareness). These capacities don't develop until the third trimester. So, I think abortion through the second trimester is always permissible. In the thrid trimester, I think abortion is permissible if there is good reason to believe the mother's life is at stake.
forgive me if i don't understand, but you don't agree with me? you think abortion is a matter of woman's rights superceding the rights of a fetus, if it has any at all?
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarri see. well i think your buddy high-tailed it. must've been something you said...
I don't think fetuses have rights until they develop certain psychological capacites (consciousness, rudimetary rationality, and rudimentary self-awareness). These capacities don't develop until the third trimester. So, I think abortion through the second trimester is always permissible. In the thrid trimester, I think abortion is permissible if there is good reason to believe the mother's life is at stake.
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarr
Fine, then you don't think that being alive is sufficient for having a right to life. You think that being conscious is a necessary condition. Hence, you are contradicting your previous assertion that we ought to [b]"give a fetus the right to live once it lives".
Now, since fetuses aren't conscious in the first trimester, your revised view about t ...[text shortened]... ght to life. So, your view entails that early abortions don't violate a fetuses right to life.[/b]
The same old formal reasoning tricks ...... 😛
20 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrNo, he is not ..... 😉
So, you have retracted your previous claim that consciousness is necessary for having rights. Now you are claiming that the mere potential to develop consciousness, together with being alive, is sufficient for having rights.
Now, why sh ...[text shortened]... ed to the claim that individual eggs and sperms have rights.
You're "leading the witness(opponent)"