abortion

Originally posted by Halitose
I'll need to look into the potentiality debate then... I, however contend that consciousness is not the prerequisite for personhood.

I think that too , as I have read dj and bf101 and they are both persons.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, you think that an object that completely lacks even the capacity for consciousness, and hence cannot, even in principle, suffer, nevertheless can have rights?

Well, I think there is a fine line between capacity and potential, and it is this potential IMO that should not be denied its right to life.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I think that too , as I have read dj and bf101 and they are both persons.

ROTFL

Originally posted by bbarr
So, you think that an object that completely lacks even the capacity for consciousness, and hence cannot, even in principle, suffer, nevertheless can have rights?

The right to life... especially given the potential to gain or regain its cognitive capacity.

Originally posted by Halitose
Well, I think there is a fine line between capacity and potential, and it is this potential IMO that should not be denied its right to life.

What is the 'right to life'?

I think we have a right to protection from being killed but we don't have a right to life

Originally posted by Halitose
By the same reasoning, having been a child warrants discussion on abortion.

I may have to concede that point

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
What is the 'right to life'?

I think we have a right to protection from being killed but we don't have a right to life

I think that is one of the fundamental differences between the theist and atheist: the basic right to - and sanctity of life.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I may have to concede that point

😉

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
What is the 'right to life'?

I think we have a right to protection from being killed but we don't have a right to life

Where do you draw the line?

When is a person alive and when is a person dead?

Originally posted by Halitose
I think that is one of the fundamental differences between the theist and atheist: the basic right to - and sanctity of life.

How can I enforce my 'right to life'? No matter how you measure the value of life none of us get out alive in the long run.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
How can I enforce my 'right to life'? No matter how you measure the value of life none of us get out alive in the long run.

How can I enforce my 'right to life'?

Ultimately, you can’t enforce your rights, they are given to you, by government or God; however, you will fight for it, when faced with death (suicide bombers excluded).

No matter how you measure the value of life none of us get out alive in the long run.

True, but why would this belittle the value of life, to the contrary its fragility makes it that much more precious. Nothing is sacred that cannot be desecrated.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]How can I enforce my 'right to life'?

Ultimately, you can’t enforce your rights, they are given to you, by government or God; however, you will fight for it, when faced with death (suicide bombers excluded).

No matter how you measure the value of life none of us get out alive in the long run.

True, but why would this belittle the va ...[text shortened]... ary its fragility makes it that much more precious. Nothing is sacred that cannot be desecrated.[/b]

I suspect we agree in a round about way.

Any right which is undeliverable or u8nenforcable is not a right, whether that right is a construct of humans or if it is a 'god given' right.

Nothing I have said belittles the value of life. I can think of nothing with higher value.

Originally posted by telerion
Well, at least we can be very certain that matter exists so LotC still has one up on you.

Well at least there are some people that argue that man is not simply matter...

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I suspect we agree in a round about way.

Any right which is undeliverable or u8nenforcable is not a right, whether that right is a construct of humans or if it is a 'god given' right.

Nothing I have said belittles the value of life. I can think of nothing with higher value.

Nothing I have said belittles the value of life. I can think of nothing with higher value.

My bad. I read too deeply into your post...

Any right which is undeliverable or u8nenforcable is not a right, whether that right is a construct of humans or if it is a 'god given' right.

I think the right to life is enforcable; doesn't a murderer get punished when he violates another's right? When applying this to abortion, I fail to see the difference.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I believe abortion is very often ethical. I come to this conclusion from a hedonistic utilitirian perspective. Suffering will not be increased overall if abortion occurs in many or most situations.

Do you apply your hedonistic ethic across the board, or limit it to abortion? Will overall suffering not be decreased if one were to mercifully exterminate the malnutritioned children in Ethiopia who are hours away from certain death? Surely, then any killing which does not increase suffering would be justified.

What about Post Abortion Syndrome and abortion-related depression? Are these not forms of suffering? What about a second or third trimester abortion where the fetus experiences excruciating agony while being torn to pieces or consumed by saline in the womb?