21 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhy?
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]
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?
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you agree that a pre-3rd trimester fetus is a human being?
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.
21 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt is a human life, if you wait 10 years it could be either a 9 year old
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]
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
21 Nov 05
Why should this be a criteria to merit recognition as a human being?Question: Why does being a human being intrinsically merit having rights?
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
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).
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioYou can rationalize all your variables, you value this, it becomes
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]
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
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe'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?
You are not aware of the developments in the abortion debate.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are laws that say that a woman cannot endanger their children
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?
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
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYet again, question begging nonsense from the parrot.
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
"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.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderTotally correct.
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?
As I pointed out:
If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.
Is this what the laughably misnomered "pro-lifers" want?
22 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo 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.
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
And "IT'S A BABY!" (God says so even though he actually don't in their fairy tale book).
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeHowardgee: If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.
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?
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.