Originally posted by dadudemon
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." 😠
Originally posted by inimalist
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 could ask why, but you didn't make the laws, so there's really no point in debating it with you. I would be interested in knowing what the fetus has at 3-4 months in that makes it worthy of rights, though.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's what i'm asking you. What (provably) gives humans rights animals do not have?
Ah-ha. That's the question. I've been trying to figure it out myself, but no one on here has given me an answer yet.
What makes someone a "person"? Something worthy of rights, and why doesn't a fetus fit into this category?
It's a hard question to answer, because any physical trait you can assign "person-hood" to can be lost, or someone can be born without.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I could ask why, but you didn't make the laws, so there's really no point in debating it with you. I would be interested in knowing what the fetus has at 3-4 months in that makes it worthy of rights, though.
well, its not just about the fetus' rights, but also about the mother's
as with most things, I don't think we could ever draw a line and say "this is where, 100%, no argument"
Obviously things like sensation, response to stimulation, etc, at some greater than just reflexive level would be good signs, but getting down to it, all fetuses will develop at their own rates anyhow, so even if we could draw this line, it would be different on a case by case basis.
3-4 months is probably a safe region that balances the sort of normal fetal development against the rights of the mother over her body. if such ambiguity bothers you, you probably will never be satisfied with a pro-choice argument
Originally posted by dadudemon
The answer probably is found in the question, "What makes humans not deserving of the ability to grant rights (of any degree) to animals other than themselves?"And I did not word that very well, either. 🙁
Originally posted by TacDavey
Ah-ha. That's the question. I've been trying to figure it out myself, but no one on here has given me an answer yet.What makes someone a "person"? Something worthy of rights, and why doesn't a fetus fit into this category?
It's a hard question to answer, because any physical trait you can assign "person-hood" to can be lost, or someone can be born without.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, its not just about the fetus' rights, but also about the mother'sas with most things, I don't think we could ever draw a line and say "this is where, 100%, no argument"
Obviously things like sensation, response to stimulation, etc, at some greater than just reflexive level would be good signs, but getting down to it, all fetuses will develop at their own rates anyhow, so even if we could draw this line, it would be different on a case by case basis.
3-4 months is probably a safe region that balances the sort of normal fetal development against the rights of the mother over her body. if such ambiguity bothers you, you probably will never be satisfied with a pro-choice argument
That's true. I never will be satisfied with a pro-choice argument. Because like you said, we don't really know for sure. When the possibility is killing a child, I don't think the risk should be taken period.
The comfort of the mother does not out-way the life of a child. Ever.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's why until someone can actually justify that to me, i'm siding with the one with full personhood (the mother)...
That's a backwards way of thinking. It's not:
"I'm going to allow the killing of this organism unless you can prove to me that it isn't a person."
It's:
"I'm not going to allow the killing of this organism unless you can prove to me it isn't a person."
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's a backwards way of thinking. It's not:"I'm going to allow the killing of this organism unless you can prove to me that it isn't a person."
It's:
"I'm not going to allow the killing of this organism unless you can prove to me it isn't a person."
I would be fine with that idea, but only if you're going to be consistent on it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's true. I never will be satisfied with a pro-choice argument. Because like you said, we don't really know for sure. When the possibility is killing a child, I don't think the risk should be taken period.The comfort of the mother does not out-way the life of a child. Ever.
well, yes, there you go
I would point out that you have given no reason to believe a fetus at 3-4 months is a "child" in any form, but fine, that is your perogative
I assume you wont be having an abortion
Originally posted by King Kandy
But I don't think they are not deserving... in fact I think we SHOULD be doing that.
But that would include giving an animal the right to die at 2 years old rather than 4 or 1. Or the right to be chained up in a barn with AC rather than free in a 40 acre field. What defines a "right" can be nebulous in degress of "this is good to have."
Originally posted by inimalist
lolprove a mosquito isnt a person
I present to the court nucleotide sequencing.
Do I win the prize?
Edit - I see what you're saying. By person, you mean a "functionally equal being from a moral approach" rather than person = Homo sapiens sapiens
Originally posted by King Kandy
So do you think that we should ban killing of animals? Since they often actually surpass fetuses in the "human" quality of cognition?I would be fine with that idea, but only if you're going to be consistent on it.
No, I think we should determine exactly what it is that makes us things that deserve rights. And unless we can do that, and prove that the fetus doesn't fit into that category, we shouldn't allow the killing of it.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, there you goI would point out that you have given no reason to believe a fetus at 3-4 months is a "child" in any form, but fine, that is your perogative
I assume you wont be having an abortion
My point was not that the fetus at 3-4 months is absolutely a child, but rather that we don't know if it is or isn't, and shouldn't take the risk.
Originally posted by inimalist
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 limitI 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.
Thanks, I was starting to think all men were oblivious to the fact that IT'S NOT THEIR CHOICE.
4 months is actually not the latest you can have an abortion. In both Chicago and California you can still have an abortion at 24 weeks (6 months)
Originally posted by TacDavey
No one said it was.
It's the insinuation. And maybe I wasn't talking about KMC, just the way politicians and men that I talk to on the subject in general act. Sure, if you're the baby's daddy you should have a say. But if you're not the one carrying the baby. If you're not the one that's going to be having to deal with the stress and heartache, then you don't get a say.
Originally posted by Utsukushii
It's the insinuation. And maybe I wasn't talking about KMC, just the way politicians and men that I talk to on the subject in general act. Sure, if you're the baby's daddy you should have a say. But if you're not the one carrying the baby. If you're not the one that's going to be having to deal with the stress and heartache, then you don't get a say.
That doesn't follow. You don't have to experiance a situation to be able to tell if an action is right or wrong.
Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was not that the fetus at 3-4 months is absolutely a child, but rather that we don't know if it is or isn't, and shouldn't take the risk.
so then there, that is your own feeling
don't get an abortion
however, in light of any evidence that a 3-4 month old is a person, you have no right to restrict others from making the same choice about the matter you did
Originally posted by inimalist
so then there, that is your own feelingdon't get an abortion
however, in light of any evidence that a 3-4 month old is a person, you have no right to restrict others from making the same choice about the matter you did
I disagree. I don't think the decision of possibly killing children should be left up to anyone.
Unless it can be proven that the fetus is not a person who deserves rights, we shouldn't allow the killing of it. Plain and simple.
Originally posted by Utsukushii
✅ agreed. You don't want an abortion, don't get one. Some women need one, and it should be their choice.
Need is too strong a word. There are very few cases in which the option for abortion could be described as a "need".
And like I said, I see it as a morally unjust act. I wouldn't say,
"I consider murder wrong. But hey, it's the murderers choice. I don't like it, so I guess I won't be murdering anyone."
It's the responsibility of any human being to stand up against things they see that are wrong, and do what they can to set it right. I think abortion is wrong. So I'm going to speak out against it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Unless it can be proven that the fetus is not a person who deserves rights, we shouldn't allow the killing of it. Plain and simple.
if you don't see the onus of proving personhood is on you, we have hit the end of any meaningful conversation
just to point out, one of the biggest problems facing animal psychology today is the question of personhood. You, literally, cannot prove a mosquito isn't a person.