20 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambita sperm is not a potential human being, it is simply genetic material.
A sperm is a potential human being. That is not sufficient for it to have the right to life.
A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain. A 3-month old fetus has neither (to the best of our knowledge). I generally support the right to have an abortion until these things emerge in the fetus. That is roughly around the ...[text shortened]... nly be allowed under certain circumstances [like rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life].
"A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain"
so does a pig, yet we enjoy bacon without guilt. rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain is not enough. we don't murder newly borns because we see the potential human beings they can turn out to be. the same things goes for fetuses.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritduring the stage prior to birth, all the fetus's rights belong to the host organism
there can be no reasonable argument when it comes to abortions. the most logical solution is to come up with a set of rules that have no ambiguity.
rule 1. human life begins at conception.
rule 2. human rights begins at birth.
during the stage prior to birth, all the fetus's rights belong to the host organism.
then theoretically, a woman may decide in her 5th month of pregnancy she doesn't want the child, have an operation to remove it, and be out clubbing . or in the 6th. or 7th.
i do not agree the fetus's rights belong to the host organism. that is the case for parasites infesting a host. are you claiming a fetus, a human being in development has the same status as a tape worm?
and again, why do human rights begin at birth? the parents must feed, clothe, clean, nurture the newborn or it will die. a newborn is just as much a parasite to its parents as a fetus is.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpirita baby is every bit a parasite as a fetus. it cannot survive without a host. just because the host holds it separate from his/her body doesn't mean the baby is an independent organism.
yes, after it's born. prior to that, it is a parasite in a host body and the host body has all the rights, both of itself and the child's.
[quote]
a right denied by the mother because she doesn't want to get fat, to give up 9 months of her life so a human being has a chance at life. a right denied by the mother because she was stupid enough to get p ...[text shortened]... baby is out of the host organism, it is no longer a parasite and inherits its own rights.
"many people are stupid. "
and they should deal with the consequences. conceiving a child should be a binding contract that must be taken to term.
"once the baby is out of the host organism, it is no longer a parasite and inherits its own rights."
says who? it is an arbitrary line based on an event in the child life. well developing a brain can also be an event that gives the child some rights. developing limbs.
i say that a child has rights from the point it develops his 4th cell. you say it has rights only after he passes through a vagina.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd what do you think a potential human starts with, if not the genetic material? You're trying to deny the obvious.
a sperm is not a potential human being, it is simply genetic material.
"A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain"
so does a pig, yet we enjoy bacon without guilt. rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain is not enough. we don't murder newly borns because we see the potential human beings they can turn out to be. the same things goes for fetuses.
The pig is lower on the food chain. Sorry, no right to life for them.
A newborn is not a potential human being - they are a human being/person. We don't kill them because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human person, not because of what they may become in the future. This protection does not apply to early fetuses.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanziif it is carried to term, the likely chances are that the parent wants to keep the child. after it is born, it inherits its own human rights and society has a burden of responsibility if the parent is unwilling or unable to care for it.
a baby is every bit a parasite as a fetus. it cannot survive without a host. just because the host holds it separate from his/her body doesn't mean the baby is an independent organism.
"many people are stupid. "
and they should deal with the consequences. conceiving a child should be a binding contract that must be taken to term.
you cannot deny stupid people their rights. if you do so, half of the american population would have no rights.
"once the baby is out of the host organism, it is no longer a parasite and inherits its own rights."
says who? it is an arbitrary line based on an event in the child life. well developing a brain can also be an event that gives the child some rights. developing limbs.
it's the most logical time to give a human being rights and leaves no guess work on determining exactly when it is okay to abort.
i say that a child has rights from the point it develops his 4th cell. you say it has rights only after he passes through a vagina.
why 4 cells? why not 2? or 1? are you going to count the cells of every aborted fetus to make sure they comply? and who are you to deny the rights of the host?
your argument makes no sense. the best time to give rights to a human being are after its birth.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanzimore than a tape worm. the rights belong to the host. in this case, if the host wants to keep the child and someone causes harm to the child while it is still in the womb, the host has legal options on behalf of the child.
during the stage prior to birth, all the fetus's rights belong to the host organism
then theoretically, a woman may decide in her 5th month of pregnancy she doesn't want the child, have an operation to remove it, and be out clubbing . or in the 6th. or 7th.
i do not agree the fetus's rights belong to the host organism. that is the case for parasi ...[text shortened]... he newborn or it will die. a newborn is just as much a parasite to its parents as a fetus is.
human rights begin at birth because at that time, society can intervene and take responsibility for the child.
if you want to collect aborted fetuses and put them on life support, you're welcome to make a case with your congressman.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes, all pro-abortion people mention independence as defining of a human being.
yes, all pro-abortion people mention independence as defining of a human being. the problem is, a newborn child would die if nobody would care for it just as surely as a fetus would. a two year old would meet the same fate. so again, why is a newborn more deserving to live? if you have only the "part of the woman body" that also applies to babies in the ...[text shortened]... ld be prosecuted just as harshly as parents who neglect and/or abuse their children.
Not pro-abortion. Pro-choice. There is a difference.
the problem is, a newborn child would die if nobody would care for it just as surely as a fetus would. a two year old would meet the same fate. so again, why is a newborn more deserving to live?
It's not about someone deserving to live. The newborn is not a part of the woman.
if you have only the "part of the woman body" that also applies to babies in the 5th, 6th, 7th and so on month of pregnancy. yet nobody would allow a woman to simply remove her baby in the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy.
It does.. but what I'm saying is that there is a good window where the fetus has not developed and that the woman has had a chance to choose to end her pregnancy. As far as I'm concerned it is a balance.
I don't find it reasonable to take away a woman's right to choose to carry the child to term completely.
like what?
Like the fact that a senile old man is not a part of a human being. That is a major difference.
yes, in my opinion, pregnant women who drink should be prosecuted just as harshly as parents who neglect and/or abuse their children.
So are you saying a woman who drinks an acceptable amount that might raise the risk of miscarriage should be investigated if they have a miscarriage? How about if they have a cigarette here or there?
Where do you draw the line?
21 Aug 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzia sperm is not a potential human being, it is simply genetic material.
a sperm is not a potential human being, it is simply genetic material.
"A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain"
so does a pig, yet we enjoy bacon without guilt. rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain is not enough. we don't murder newly borns because we see the potential human beings they can turn out to be. the same things goes for fetuses.
Could you please explain in more detail your criterion for potentiality as it relates to human beinghood? Judging just from what you have said in this thread, both of the following implications flow from your criterion of potentiality, correct?
(1) The fetus is a potential human being.
(2) It is not the case that the mereological sum of a sperm cell and unfertilized ovum is a potential human being, even though the zygote is a potential human being.
Both of those sound strange to me. The fetus at issue here is not a potential human being; the fetus is a human being. And, prima facie for consistency, if something like the zygote at conception (or what results from it after a couple rounds of mitosis, if you are not simply joking about your 4-cell stipulation) is a potential human being, then the mereological sum described above is as well. So this all just seems bizarre to me.
Further, I am totally confused on another issue. Suppose for a second you were right in claiming that the fetus is a potential human being. How does that help your position? Did you miss the memo that potential Xs do not have the same standing as Xs? For instance, potential persons do not have rights. Persons -- not potential persons -- are what have rights.
By the way, the discussion also seems confused to me because you appear to use 'human being' as proxy for 'person'. This will probably lead to notional confusion, since it is relatively common to take human beinghood simply to have to do with the descriptive question of whether or not something is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens; whereas, on the other hand, moral personhood deals with the question of rights. Obviously, we will be talking past each other, since I will readily agree with you that the human fetus at early gestational age is a human being (oh wait, your position denies that it is a human being, since your position holds that it is merely a potential human being 🙄 ), but I will still readily disagree with you that it has rights.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitit is not a human being, it will not grow into a human being under any circumstances.
And what do you think a potential human starts with, if not the genetic material? You're trying to deny the obvious.
The pig is lower on the food chain. Sorry, no right to life for them.
A newborn is not a potential human being - they are a human being/person. We don't kill them because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent huma ...[text shortened]... ecause of what they may become in the future. This protection does not apply to early fetuses.
i am not claiming my kidney is a human being or the hair i "murder" each time i shave.
"The pig is lower on the food chain. Sorry, no right to life for them."
so is the child. we care and nurture for it because we choose to. a newborn is not a mighty hunter and cannot provide its own food.
"A newborn is not a potential human being - they are a human being/person"
so you define a human being as someone belonging to the human species? so what is a child before birth? a tumor?
"This protection does not apply to early fetuses."
you keep claiming stuff but you don't really argue. why don't they apply to fetuses? because they haven't developed little arms and legs? eyes? brains? what organ does a human need to be classified as a human?
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think it is essential for a well established society. if one believes human life is precious, one might assign research funds for curing cancer instead of "Big explodey bomb MK XXV". one might care for their young, their old, instead of making shoes out of their hides or making them fight in gladiatorial pits for the amusement of the rich.
No, I think the question is: what makes a human life precious? I don't think you should get away with assuming it.
also, the potential each human has makes it worth it to preserve it as long as possible. we have people that have great accomplishments in the last years of their lives, even if until then they were a parasite to society. if the government would have chosen to have an abortion, those accomplishments would have been lost.
i believe that in most circumstances, a woman could bear to sacrifice 9 months of her life to bring the pregnancy to term and just give the child for adoption. even life in a oliver twist kind of orphanage would be preferable to death.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloi was merely bringing myself closer to his position. he sets an arbitrary line that once you cross it you are a human being and before that you are a tumor, a parasite. i was admitting for a moment that the fetus is a potential human being and was set in proving that a newborn isn't much human either.
[b]a sperm is not a potential human being, it is simply genetic material.
Could you please explain in more detail your criterion for potentiality as it relates to human beinghood? Judging just from what you have said in this thread, both of the following implications flow from your criterion of potentiality, correct?
(1) The fetus is a potentia ...[text shortened]... a potential human being 🙄 ), but I will still readily disagree with you that it has rights.[/b]
i do believe that once the zygot starts cell multiplication, that is a human being, and losing it is a tragedy.
i also believe that accepting for that zygot to come into existance, the woman should enter a binding contract to carry it to term, even if the conception was done by accident. (except under the special circumstances).
"he human fetus at early gestational age is a human being ([...]), but I will still readily disagree with you that it has rights."
are we denying the right to live, the most basic right, to another human being? didn't we already do that to slaves?
why should a fetus living in a woman's womb have any less rights than a newborn living in a crib in another woman's house? if the latter case, the woman gets sent to jail if she lets the child die and it is proven it is the mother's fault. why not the former? it seems that arguing with you is even simpler since you don't even question the humanity status. so all that remains really is a matter of location, womb vs crib.
21 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe newborn is not a part of the woman.
[b]yes, all pro-abortion people mention independence as defining of a human being.
Not pro-abortion. Pro-choice. There is a difference.
the problem is, a newborn child would die if nobody would care for it just as surely as a fetus would. a two year old would meet the same fate. so again, why is a newborn more deserving to live?
riage? How about if they have a cigarette here or there?
Where do you draw the line?[/b]
you mentioned that before. a child in its 7th month of gestation is a part of a woman as well. would you allow the woman to simply have it remove as well? how about the 5th month?
"It does.. but what I'm saying is that there is a good window where the fetus has not developed and that the woman has had a chance to choose to end her pregnancy. As far as I'm concerned it is a balance. "
but based on what? with just this argument your stance is arbitrary. "this second you may live but just a second before i could have killed you on a whim"
"I don't find it reasonable to take away a woman's right to choose to carry the child to term completely. "
it is not a right, it is a responsibility. just as caring for your newborn child and not letting it die is.
"So are you saying a woman who drinks an acceptable amount that might raise the risk of miscarriage should be investigated if they have a miscarriage? How about if they have a cigarette here or there? "
no amount of alcohol is acceptable, no cigarette is acceptable. also, i would charge her with neglect if she enters an establishment for smokers.
"Where do you draw the line?"
well i already mentioned i am not fond of your arbitrary line. so i am drawing mine as near to "do anything to endanger the child and be prosecuted for neglect" as i can.
21 Aug 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziSimilar but different rules would be just as effective. eg humans over the age of 5 are precious.
i think it is essential for a well established society. if one believes human life is precious, one might assign research funds for curing cancer instead of "Big explodey bomb MK XXV". one might care for their young, their old, instead of making shoes out of their hides or making them fight in gladiatorial pits for the amusement of the rich.
In fact, many societies have traditionally given very little value to children before their first birthday because doing so causes so much emotional harm when they die.
also, the potential each human has makes it worth it to preserve it as long as possible. we have people that have great accomplishments in the last years of their lives, even if until then they were a parasite to society. if the government would have chosen to have an abortion, those accomplishments would have been lost.
That is a deeply flawed argument. It leads to the inevitable conclusion that we should have as many babies as possible (and maybe even resort to cloning) as otherwise the potential is lost. It also falsely assumes that all the good people do for society outweighs the bad (or costs). In reality, many societies would benefit greatly from a lower population growth and if abortion was used to achieve this, the benefit would still remain.