Go back
abortion

abortion

Spirituality

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]1. One we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to life.


Why? This is the essential question. Why does a zygote (say) one day of age, which has
no more capacity to experience the world than a paramecium, have any rights whatsoever?

If you say, 'because it ement and cannot be used to demonstrate the variety of positions which rest
upon it.

Nemesio[/b]
Why?

Because if it is a human being (a member of the Genus Homo sapien) it merits the same rights that other more mature humans (members of the Genus Homo sapien) have.

Since you so happily ripped my personhood arguments apart from the infanticide thread, could you please substantiate why your "personhood criteria" are less arbitrary than mine... which let me add was the sole reason for that thread.

And another aspect that keeps getting dodged by the anti-life crowd: Why the third trimester? Why this wonderful unsubstantiated line-in-the-sand? What biological aspect of the fetus was not present 2 and 99/100ths of a trimester, and then is suddenly present on the stroke of the third trimester?

capacity to experience the world

Why should this be a criteria to merit recognition as a human being?

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
These aren't arguments; it's just the screeching of "IT'S A BABY!" in different forms. As mentioned, historically a fetus was never considered a human being in any society. If it was, abortion would have been punished as murder. It never has been in any place that I am aware. Thus, to all of a sudden arbitrarily give a fetus the status a human being ...[text shortened]... of a free society. Down the road you are travelling is the tyranny of a Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Do you agree that a pre-3rd trimester fetus is a human being?

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
160589
Clock
21 Nov 05
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]1. One we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to life.


Why? This is the essential question. Why does a zygote (say) one day of age, which has
no more capacity to experience the world than a paramecium, have any rights whatsoever?

If you say, 'because it ement and cannot be used to demonstrate the variety of positions which rest
upon it.

Nemesio[/b]
It is a human life, if you wait 10 years it could be either a 9 year old
boy or girl. You kill a frog, had you waited 10 years during that whole
time it would have remained a frog through out its lifetime. You
playing with words that assign value to human life at any of the
various stages, is simply, you assigning value to a human life.

Did you wonder why someone here got upset when I asked how
old the child would have been had they not had their life ended
in an abortion? We live in a universe, things are what they are,
and you can call them what you will, naming them and putting your
values on them will not change what they are.
Kelly

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Why should this be a criteria to merit recognition as a human being?

The criterion was hastily phrased but, in short, if something doesn't have a point of view
(like a zygote) then things cannot get worse from its standpoint (because it lacks a standpoint).
Things can't get worse for a tree or a rock because they don't have points of view.

Nemesio
Question: Why does being a human being intrinsically merit having rights?

Answer:

Originally posted by Halitose
Because if it is a human being (a member of the Genus Homo sapien) it merits the same rights that other more mature humans (members of the Genus Homo sapien) have.

Translation: if a human being is a then it merits having a rights that human beings have.

In short:

Question: Why does being A merit having rights?

Answer: If it is A then it ought to have the rights that A has.

In other words: You didn't answer the question.

Since you so happily ripped my personhood arguments apart from the infanticide thread, could you please substantiate why your "personhood criteria" are less arbitrary than mine... which let me add was the sole reason for that thread.

Bbarr has given what I feel is the most reasonable criteria: the capacity to suffer, the capacity
for rationale, and the capacity for self-awareness. He has provided definitions and explanations
of these arguments repeatedly.

And another aspect that keeps getting dodged by the anti-life crowd: Why the third trimester? Why this wonderful unsubstantiated line-in-the-sand? What biological aspect of the fetus was not present 2 and 99/100ths of a trimester, and then is suddenly present on the stroke of the third trimester?

You're right. It is a line in the sand and totally arbitrary. It's not a 'date' that makes the
difference, it's whether the aforementioned capacities are present. They become present after
somewhere between 24-28 weeks, with the average development being about 26. They never
exist before 24 weeks, and they never don't exist after 28 (unless something is seriously wrong
with the fetus in question).

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
160589
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Question: Why does being a human being intrinsically merit having rights?

Answer:

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Because if it is a human being (a member of the Genus Homo sapien) it merits the same rights that other more mature humans (members of the Genus Homo sapien) have.


Translation: if a human being is a then it merits having a ...[text shortened]... y never don't exist after 28 (unless something is seriously wrong
with the fetus in question).[/b]
You can rationalize all your variables, you value this, it becomes
valuable, you don't it isn't. It is all arbitrary, you say you value
one thing, another something else, but in the end a life is cut
short.
Kelly

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
Do you agree that a pre-3rd trimester fetus is a human being?
No.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
No.
You do not have to agree. It IS a human being because science tells us it is a human being. No serious debater in the abortion debate denies anymore the fact that the unborn child is indeed a human being.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You do not have to agree. It IS a human being because science tells us it is a human being. No serious debater in the abortion debate denies anymore the fact that the unborn child is indeed a human being.
Science tells us no such thing as you are aware.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Science tells us no such thing as you are aware.
You are not aware of the developments in the abortion debate.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
21 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are not aware of the developments in the abortion debate.
We've covered this ground before. Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced against pregnant woman not eating right or not exercising regularly or not getting proper prenatal tests done or a myriad of other acts or omissions that could conceivably harm the fetus human being. Isn't that the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
160589
Clock
22 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
We've covered this ground before. Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced against pregnant woman n ...[text shortened]... s human being. Isn't that the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?
There are laws that say that a woman cannot endanger their children
after they are born, you see these as causing women to suffer too?
There are a myriad of laws protecting the lives and well being of
children, are these wrong because women are forced to care for their
young? If all your complaint is, is that women will be forced to care for
those lives within them as they do for those lives outside of them,
what is it you are complaning about, they are being forced to care
about the well being of those other lives, so what is the issue?

I'm not clear as to when you think a child is worth caring about, is
there ever a time within the woman that the life within her matters?
Is it only when the child is outside of the woman do they matter?
Kelly

h

Cosmos

Joined
21 Jan 04
Moves
11184
Clock
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are laws that say that a woman cannot endanger their children
after they are born, you see these as causing women to suffer too?
There are a myriad of laws protecting the lives and well being of
children, are these wrong because women are forced to care for their
young? If all your complaint is, is that women will be forced to care for
those live ...[text shortened]... fe within her matters?
Is it only when the child is outside of the woman do they matter?
Kelly
Yet again, question begging nonsense from the parrot.

"Is it only when the child is outside of the woman do they matter?"

When inside, the 'child' is a foetus (or fetus for you dumb Yanks).
Once born, it becomes a child.

h

Cosmos

Joined
21 Jan 04
Moves
11184
Clock
22 Nov 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
We've covered this ground before. Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced against pregnant woman n ...[text shortened]... s human being. Isn't that the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?
Totally correct.

As I pointed out:

If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.

Is this what the laughably misnomered "pro-lifers" want?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
22 Nov 05
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are laws that say that a woman cannot endanger their children
after they are born, you see these as causing women to suffer too?
There are a myriad of laws protecting the lives and well being of
children, are these wrong because women are forced to care for their
young? If all your complaint is, is that women will be forced to care for
those live ...[text shortened]... fe within her matters?
Is it only when the child is outside of the woman do they matter?
Kelly
So that's one vote for criminal sanctions against pregnant women who don't eat right or exercise enough or go to the doctors enough, etc. etc. etc. Any other of the anti-abortionists want to weigh in in support of such laws? After all, the pregnant woman is nothing more than a handy dandy carrying case for the fetus-human and her rights are completely subordinate to its. Why? Cuz KellyJay and the rest say so, of course.

And "IT'S A BABY!" (God says so even though he actually don't in their fairy tale book).

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by howardgee
Totally correct.

As I pointed out:

If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.

Is this what the laughably misnomered "pro-lifers" want?
Howardgee: If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.

This would, of course, logically follow: since every miscarriage would be the death of a human being, the circumstances would have to be carefully investigated to ascertain whether the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) did anything or failed to do something she should have which might have contributed to the death of the fetus-human. If it was found that she did, she would be liable for negligent homicide, manslaughter or perhaps depraved indifference murder. Homicide detectives would be very busy under the brand new "a fetus is a human being" regime.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.