Originally posted by no1marauderExcept any eviction that involves killing the tenant is generally considered murder, a crime.
A tiresome dodge. That something is contained within her body is sufficient. You are free to evict people from your property, one should not the principle be applicable to the far more intimate confines of one's own body? You've provided no rational reason to differentiate the case of a ZEF from that of a germ or tapeworm.
The effect of a ZEF on a wom ...[text shortened]... her people adopt a belief based almost exclusively on religious principles is decidedly unclear.
As to a rational reason, your argument makes no sense scientifically. Biologically, a zygote is an entirely different organism compared to a germ or tapeworm. No scientist would ever equate the two, they function differently and are entirely different in every single way. On a scientific basis alone, your comparison doesn't just lack sense, it is empirically false.
As to maternal mortality rates, according to the WHO, 99% of all maternal deaths are in developing countries (source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/). And even so, total deaths for women in childbirth in 2015 was 303,000, or .0004% of the entire population on the earth, or .008% of all women. You'll have a very hard time justifying this number as a "fairly high percentage."
Reproduction is a voluntary task. Women know the risks of reproduction, and yet are willing to take that risk anyways for the reward of having a family. The bottom line is, when you choose to bring a human life into this world, your life is equal to theirs. That means that the zygote is entitled to the same protections you are. That also means that you don't get to kill it off on a whim. Just because the potential for death after or during child birth exists doesn't mean that anyone has their rights removed. Death is a daily risk for all humans. No one would argue that your rights are forfeit when you become a passenger in anothers' car simply because you might distract them and result in their death.
And who ever said anything about religious principles? I never mentioned them, that's for sure.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've argued my position. The issue here is that my reasons are not sufficient according to you.
I can't "prove" that's it's "objectively correct" (whatever that means) to seek to minimize harm, but it is a position I'm willing to argue. You don't have to agree. All am I asking is that your argue your own position.
The good thing about my position, is that under my position, you are guaranteed your rights and your life for all time. I can't arbitrarily decide that you forfeit your rights, and you can't arbitrarily decide I forfeit mine. Your position, however, is subjective by its very nature, and leaves enormous room for changes in criteria. You claim the power to decide whether or not the Right to Life extends to people based on a set of criteria you have decided upon. I claim no such power.
Originally posted by blaze8492No - "do not kill zygotes because you shouldn't kill zygotes" is not arguing your position.
I've argued my position. The issue here is that my reasons are not sufficient according to you.
The good thing about my position, is that under my position, you are guaranteed your rights and your life for all time. I can't arbitrarily decide that you forfeit your rights, and you can't arbitrarily decide I forfeit mine. Your position, however, is sub ...[text shortened]... Life extends to people based on a set of criteria you have decided upon. I claim no such power.
The bad thing about your position is that you have arbitrarily decided that people who don't want to have children or feel like they are not capable of rearing them should be forced to do so. Given that zygotes have no interests that can be protected, this violation of other people's right to make their own decision or moral judgement requires justification.
In any case your position is disingenuous because we all agree that killing people can be necessary sometimes. For example, stopping a terrorist attempting to kill others by lethal force if necessary would be considered sensible by most. So in fact you would most likely disagree with the position that you can't "arbitrarily" decide when killing others would be justified.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
No - "do not kill zygotes because you shouldn't kill zygotes" is not arguing your position.
The bad thing about your position is that you have arbitrarily decided that people who don't want to have children or feel like they are not capable of rearing them should be forced to do so. Given that zygotes have no interests that can be protected, this vio ...[text shortened]... ee with the position that you can't "arbitrarily" decide when killing others would be justified.
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. Social utility gained from sexual reproduction is fleeting and subjective. We could easily agree as a society that sexual reproduction is not required for social utility. We choose to endorse it as having social utility. The actions themselves, however, have obvious and widely known repercussions, even with birth control methods. You engage in sexual activity, you know the consequences, and you must be willing to accept them. No one is guaranteed a "Right to Convenience" or a "Right to freedom from Consequences," and that includes biological consequences from sexual reproduction.
I don't agree that killing people can be necessary sometimes. Stopping a terrorist non-lethally is what I would endorse. There's a reason that, even when you kill in self-defense, you are arrested and investigated, and Justifiable Homicide must be proven in court.
EDIT: There's also such a thing as a "Duty to Retreat," which is enforced in several US states.
Originally posted by blaze8492The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. So ...[text shortened]...
EDIT: There's also such a thing as a "Duty to Retreat," which is enforced in several US states.
That's the same argument.
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. Social utility gained from sexual reproduction is fleeting and subjective. We could easily agree as a society that sexual reproduction is not required for social utility. We choose to endorse it as having social utility. The actions themselves, however, have obvious and widely known repercussions, even with birth control methods. You engage in sexual activity, you know the consequences, and you must be willing to accept them. No one is guaranteed a "Right to Convenience" or a "Right to freedom from Consequences," and that includes biological consequences from sexual reproduction.
Perhaps people should be careful when crossing the road. Let's just let people lie there and die from now on because spite rules all. Drug overdose? Sorry - no medical care for you. Smoker with lung cancer? Tough luck. Obese and a heart attack or stroke? Personal responsibility. See how that works?
I don't agree that killing people can be necessary sometimes. Stopping a terrorist non-lethally is what I would endorse. There's a reason that, even when you kill in self-defense, you are arrested and investigated, and Justifiable Homicide must be proven in court.
If you don't agree that killing people can be necessary sometimes, then you don't agree that justifiable homicide should ever be provable in court.
Originally posted by blaze8492Maybe you should try actually reading what I wrote. The fact that modern medicine has greatly reduced the chance of death in childbirth is irrelevant to the question of reproductive rights unless you think that what a right is can be altered by technology. Reproduction would no longer be "voluntary" if you got your wish, so talking about it as a voluntary choice is ironic.
Except any eviction that involves killing the tenant is generally considered murder, a crime.
As to a rational reason, your argument makes no sense scientifically. Biologically, a zygote is an entirely different organism compared to a germ or tapeworm. No scientist would ever equate the two, they function differently and are entirely different in ev ...[text shortened]... And who ever said anything about religious principles? I never mentioned them, that's for sure.
The differences between a zygote and a germ and tapeworm are insignificant for the purposes of this discussion. They all are living things contained inside someone's body who doesn't want them there. Unless you are willing to argue that the State can legitimately pass laws criminalizing the killing a germ or tapeworm, you can hardly consistently argue that it has any legitimate power to dictate to a woman what she may do to a zygote. Scientifically (a word you seem to like to use without actually invoking any type of scientific principles), a zygote is no more worthy of consideration than a germ and much less worthy of consideration than a tapeworm.
You have a high sense of confusion as regarding Natural Rights. Natural Rights in humans flow from our nature (hence the "Natural" part) as sentient beings with a certain group of common characteristics. Zygotes are not sentient, hence they cannot possess the Natural Rights of a sentient being. Your footstamping about them being "human" is besides the point; it is true they are composed of a human cell, but human cells don't have rights - humans do. The same argument applies to later stages of development short of viability.
The clinching, of course, is that your position deliberately and persistently ignores the basic right of human bodily self-sovereignity in the woman. You've given no reason why this right should be essentially negated the moment a zygote is formed in her womb. You've given no reason why the State has a legitimate power to legislate what she may do with what is in it.
Forcing a person to risk death because, heh everybody dies, is a ridiculous argument. I'm not surprised you made it though.
Originally posted by blaze8492Sex has the consequence that a woman might get pregnant.
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. So ...[text shortened]...
EDIT: There's also such a thing as a "Duty to Retreat," which is enforced in several US states.
It does not have the consequence that she must reproduce if she doesn't want to.
Only if the State gets involved with the threat of force against her for choosing to abort is her choice constrained by anything other then her own judgment. In the Natural State, she was completely and utterly free to self-abort if she so desired.
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou mean the same judge that had his Son murdered?
All you who support and defend abortion or killing babies will one day face the Judge.
You can compromise and argue all day long about consciousness, when is it a person, etc., but deep or maybe not so deep inside you know it is wrong and you will be held accountable.
Originally posted by blaze8492If the mother starves herself to death... is the foetus / zig-thing gonna live?
Empirically false. Do your unfertilized eggs randomly spit out babies for you? Do your skin cells grow into full fledged humans at random on your arm?
The zygote is scientifically a completely separate organism from the mother. You cannot prove, with science, that it is equivalent to any other cell in your body.
Why is that? Because it's part of the woman. Directly connected by a tube. Hell yes it is (and it's not in my phone book, so it's fate bothers me not anyways).
It's the only way to look at it rationally.
You obviously don't like the idea of a woman having so much control over her actions.
1 edit
Originally posted by blaze8492Well nobody would dispute that argument is logically valid. What we dispute is the premises.
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
I would say that 'Human rights' do not apply to Zygotes. The 'human' in 'Human rights' does not include Zygotes in its definition.
As for being 'guaranteed', human rights are not guaranteed by any virtue but by those with the power to maintain them. It is the definition of 'Human' in the various legal systems that matters and not any biological definition.
What you really need to do is explain why human rights exist in the first place. Without that, your 'argument' is, as KazetNagorra says, nothing more than making an unsupported assertion.