Abortion

Originally posted by Lucius
Strawman. I said no such thing. I merely mentioned that I find it distressing that animals are often marginalized.

HA! Not a strawman. I was clarifying if that was your stance or not, not making the absolute statement that that was your argument.

At any rate, you said that a fetus shouldn't be protected because it can't feel pain or make social interactions, right?

That seems to suggest that the requirements for something to have the right to life are those two things. The ability to feel pain or pleasure, and the ability to make social interactions.

But animals can do both those things. So, following your logic, that means that animals deserve the right to life, and that killing a farm animal is actually murder. Agree or disagree?

Originally posted by Lucius
Were they born that way or did they acquire it through a disease? In any case I'm not sure about this. It would be like a computer with no input of any kind. The latter case they would have memories, and in the former they would have none whatsoever. In the latter case wouldn't it be possible for the person to at least communicate their wishes? They may not be able to hear themselves, but the people around them should at least be able to understand “kill me” or “don't kill me.” The latter person is capable of making a decision on the matter, the infant born without any senses isn't. In fact, I'm not even sure an infant born without senses would be able to develop as a person at all. I could be wrong, but I believe a great amount of infant development is through external stimulation.

Let's say, hypothetically, the person was born that way? And they can't send the message of "kill me" or "don't kill me", but, hypothetically speaking, they don't want to die. Is it still alright to kill them against their will?

Originally posted by Lucius
If it is an fetus, I would argue it should be aborted before it is born unless some kind of solution to such a disease is known (and don't try and tell me that such a traumatic disability wouldn't be noticed in the womb unless the woman lived in remote rural area with no access to modern medicine at all.)

I'm guessing you argue that way because you believe the fetus is not a person. I'm still trying to figure out what you consider a "person".

Originally posted by Lucius
If it is a person with memories and a life, then it should be up to them. I personally think I would want to die, but perhaps some people might like living with out any external input.

Exactly. They might want to still live. So is it right for us to kill them without their consent?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I'm saying there is a line when people gain legal rights.

Some rights change depending on age. The right to life is not one of them.

Originally posted by inimalist
I see no reason why conception is a good place to draw this line in fetal development. To say the very least, it is a couple of months before one could even say the developing child is an entity seperate from the mother's body, and in many ways, would fall under her rights rather than those it has unto itself.

Who knows when the fetus becomes it's own entity? Doesn't the fetus have it's own unique DNA at conception?

In the end, figuring out WHEN the fetus becomes something that should be protected is another discussion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not really. It basically boils down to this...

One side: Abortion is murder!

The other side: Women should be able to do it willy-nilly.

That's about the extent of it. Even the multi-paragraph posts are basically just making one of those two points.

Uh, that endearing "willy-nilly" part is what the argument is about.
I've never met any woman whose description of abortion would even imply the term "willy-nilly". But then again, I don't know every woman on earth - maybe there are some who have abortions just for the heck of it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
figuring out WHEN the fetus becomes something that should be protected is another discussion.

actually, thats the only question...

if it doesn't have rights, there is no argument against abortion, if they do have rights, abortions are illegal.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Some rights change depending on age. The right to life is not one of them.

well, yes, but everyone can make baseless and blanket statements like this with no substantiation

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, thats the only question...

if it doesn't have rights, there is no argument against abortion, if they do have rights, abortions are illegal.

Well, yes. But the argument should be decided if the fetus, at any stage, should have rights before we figure out at what stage they get them.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but everyone can make baseless and blanket statements like this with no substantiation

What do you mean? You think the right to life does not apply to those who are too young?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, yes. But the argument should be decided if the fetus, at any stage, should have rights before we figure out at what stage they get them.

The fetus does have rights at specific stages now, depending which state you're in, it's illegal to have an abortion as little as 12 weeks to as long as 24. Rights being activated at those given times of age.

Originally posted by TacDavey
At any rate, you said that a fetus shouldn't be protected because it can't feel pain or make social interactions, right?

That seems to suggest that the requirements for something to have the right to life are those two things. The ability to feel pain or pleasure, and the ability to make social interactions.

But animals can do both those things. So, following your logic, that means that animals deserve the right to life, and that killing a farm animal is actually murder. Agree or disagree?

Well, I am a vegetarian for other reasons besides disliking meat. However, there are a number of people on the planet that rely on animals for substance so I'm not going to condemn it. At that point, this is where I differentiate between members of my own species and the "lower" animals.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let's say, hypothetically, the person was born that way? And they can't send the message of "kill me" or "don't kill me", but, hypothetically speaking, they don't want to die. Is it still alright to kill them against their will?

How do we know they don't want to die if they can't communicate it? You seem to be presenting more and more outlandish scenarios. If this person cannot communicate that he doesn't want to die, then I certainly can't know that. At that point someone needs to invent telepathy for your incredibly unlikely scenario to work.

In any case since this person would likely be insane due to sapience without context, I would argue the route of euthanasia.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm guessing you argue that way because you believe the fetus is not a person. I'm still trying to figure out what you consider a "person".

I don't believe a fetus should have legal rights. I also believe certain kinds of extremely dangerous criminals shouldn't have legal rights.

It is rather independent of my criteria for personhood.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Exactly. They might want to still live. So is it right for us to kill them without their consent?

I just said that if they communicated their desire to live than it would be wrong to kill them...

Originally posted by Robtard
Were you smart enough to factor in that a fetus might form a sentience? Say if given time, just as if a comatose were given time.

A person in coma has already done this. They are in coma probably because of an accident. A fetus has no past at all and thus it is no loss if it is destroyed. A person in coma quite literally has "something to live for." (relative to the fetus) I would also say it depends on the chances of the person in coma waking up. I can't really see any good reason to keep a person alive if they are never going to wake up.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, yes. But the argument should be decided if the fetus, at any stage, should have rights before we figure out at what stage they get them.

well, no, that is a strawman. the only way this would be relevant were is someone was arguing that a fetus never deserves rights

the question is, as it has been for decades, when, not if

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? You think the right to life does not apply to those who are too young?

i mean you have given zero reason for why conception would be a good place to start applying rights, save blanket statements with no elaboration

What gives humans the right to life?

It cannot be an intrinsic biological right, because we have no compunction towards killing other animals.
It cannot be moral/spiritual quality, as humans commit immoral acts constantly.
It cannot be a soul, for none can prove that they exists.
My only conclusion can be that it is the MENTAL state of humans that gives them this right... and a fetus has this?

Originally posted by King Kandy
My only conclusion can be that it is the MENTAL state of humans that gives them this right... and a fetus has this?

I have two issues with this, though I agree entirely with everything else you have said.

the first is that it is literally impossible to infer mental state through the types of indirect observation that would be possible on a fetus. We can overcome this with indirect measure and inference, but I think when dealing with legal rights and such, those types of things aren't reliable enough.

The other is that there are many people who are mentally handicapped the the point where they might also qualify as being "not of a legal-rights-deserving mental state". Do we remove their rights? [again, this is pretty easy to get around by distinguishing between humans before and after birth, just saying, it isn't a clear cut rule imho]

Originally posted by inimalist
I have two issues with this, though I agree entirely with everything else you have said.

the first is that it is literally impossible to infer mental state through the types of indirect observation that would be possible on a fetus. We can overcome this with indirect measure and inference, but I think when dealing with legal rights and such, those types of things aren't reliable enough.

The other is that there are many people who are mentally handicapped the the point where they might also qualify as being "not of a legal-rights-deserving mental state". Do we remove their rights? [again, this is pretty easy to get around by distinguishing between humans before and after birth, just saying, it isn't a clear cut rule imho]

Well, I think if you want to give human rights to the brain damaged, I think it's only fair that we give them to other advanced animals as well... since they obviously exceed them in capabilities I think doing otherwise would be ridiculous.

I wouldn't call animal protection "legal rights" for the simple reason that rights also come with a judicial system. Other than that, I agree, we should take care of animals, especially those we know live in social conditions and are highly cognitive

What is it about the judicial system that you think creates a problem?

well, like, even though they don't have the same type of legal liability for their actions, the mentally handicapped are still subject to the laws of the land.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, like, even though they don't have the same type of legal liability for their actions, the mentally handicapped are still subject to the laws of the land.

neither do I, I think we are just arguing why we would use different terms rather than anything substantitive

Originally posted by Robtard
The fetus does have rights at specific stages now, depending which state you're in, it's illegal to have an abortion as little as 12 weeks to as long as 24. Rights being activated at those given times of age.

Oh, really? Never mind then. 😮

Originally posted by Lucius
Well, I am a vegetarian for other reasons besides disliking meat. However, there are a number of people on the planet that rely on animals for substance so I'm not going to condemn it. At that point, this is where I differentiate between members of my own species and the "lower" animals.

What makes these animals "lower"? You think it's alright to kill them because they aren't part of your species? A fetus is a part of your species, you know.

Originally posted by Lucius
How do we know they don't want to die if they can't communicate it? You seem to be presenting more and more outlandish scenarios. If this person cannot communicate that he doesn't want to die, then I certainly can't know that. At that point someone needs to invent telepathy for your incredibly unlikely scenario to work.

That isn't the point. Surely you aren't saying that the fact that we don't know what they want means we are allowed to kill them.

Originally posted by Lucius
In any case since this person would likely be insane due to sapience without context, I would argue the route of euthanasia.

Irrelevant.

Originally posted by Lucius
I don't believe a fetus should have legal rights. I also believe certain kinds of extremely dangerous criminals shouldn't have legal rights.

It is rather independent of my criteria for personhood.

No it isn't. A person is someone who has rights. If you don't think dangerous criminals should have rights, you are really saying you don't think they should be treated as a person. And, of course, you would need a reason for that as well. But that is another topic. We are talking about the fetus, not criminals. Why shouldn't the fetus be considered a person? In other words, why doesn't the fetus get rights?

Originally posted by Lucius
I just said that if they communicated their desire to live than it would be wrong to kill them...

But it's alright if they can't communicate the desire? Weather they have it or not?

Originally posted by inimalist
well, no, that is a strawman. the only way this would be relevant were is someone was arguing that a fetus never deserves rights

the question is, as it has been for decades, when, not if

My mistake.

Originally posted by inimalist
i mean you have given zero reason for why conception would be a good place to start applying rights, save blanket statements with no elaboration

I'm trying to figure out what the cryteria are for something getting those rights. Only when we know that, can we decide what get's rights and what doesn't. So let me ask you, what do you consider the requirements for someone to be a person (to have rights like you and me), and why does this not apply to a fetus's early stage? And for that matter, when do you think the fetus should get rights?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What gives humans the right to life?

It cannot be an intrinsic biological right, because we have no compunction towards killing other animals.
It cannot be moral/spiritual quality, as humans commit immoral acts constantly.
It cannot be a soul, for none can prove that they exists.
My only conclusion can be that it is the MENTAL state of humans that gives them this right... and a fetus has this?

Mental? Are the mentally handicapped not people? What do you mean by mental state?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm trying to figure out what the cryteria are for something getting those rights. Only when we know that, can we decide what get's rights and what doesn't. So let me ask you, what do you consider the requirements for someone to be a person (to have rights like you and me), and why does this not apply to a fetus's early stage? And for that matter, when do you think the fetus should get rights?

well, it seems there are already a series of laws on the books that deal with this, and they seem to say 3-4 months is a good limit

I can't say I've put too much thought into it. I'm not a woman and wouldn't want to tell them what to do with their own bodies.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Mental? Are the mentally handicapped not people? What do you mean by mental state?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's what i'm asking you. What (provably) gives humans rights animals do not have?

Our ability to contemplate and grant the concept of rights to humans and animals, of course.

You have to have the power to "give" rights in order to give rights. If you don't, then you can't.

The question seems almost tautological in its resolution. "We can give them rights because we can give them rights." 😠