Difficult abortion thought experiments

[abc123xyz]

That's not really an answer. Tell us then, do you categorize a dead human as a person?



I won't say that no abortion has ever been performed with the express intent to kill an unwanted "baby," but you are going to have an extremely difficult time trying to convince us that the reason for abortion is to kill a potential human, rather than end an unwanted pregnancy.



This happens to me often in life. Tell me something I don't know.



Not really. There is a plethora of differences between a "fetus" and an "adult human." You have only named one difference, that of having personhood status. I could fill an entire book with the differences between a fetus and an adult human.



And I still disagree and contend that the majority of abortions are performed to end a pregnancy. Do you know what is involved with nine months of pregnancy? Ever thought about it much? After all, if the pregnancy was a breeze, I would venture that most women would opt to have their baby then put him or her up for adoption. But we know this isn't the case, and I posit that it's because of the burden of the pregnancy itself.

Name that "plethora" of differences. They are just a blob of cells that can't take care of themselves and neither are rational and conscious (in the case of a PVS patient, for example.).

I am not going to answer the rest. It's nonsense because you fail to realize the true justification for abortion, namely, one is a person, and one isn't. I will say this, however. There's no difference between having to wait 9 months with a baby which is a burden, the pregnancy itself, and comparing that to having to take care of a PVS patient for 9 months of 9 years, as the ACT OF TAKING CARE OF THE HUMAN ITSELF is a burden. Burden itself is also very subjective. Some women love the act of being pregnant. Others don't. Some people love taking care of the sick. Others don't. That's why some abort, and some don't. For some it's a burden, for others it isn't. You're not going to be able to objectively prove that one is more a burden than the other. It's subjective.

I also don't owe you any answer whatsoever with regards to the issue of dead humans. It has very little to do with justification for abortion. It depends whether one says humans who are alive are of value or even those who aren't alive are of value. I haven't made up my mind about that. Now stop bothering me with this petty issue.

 

[selfinflikted]

And you're saying the mother's "right to her body" trumps the fetus' right to LIFE? What's more important? LIFE or right to body? So... rights of one person above another. HA. NICE. So then I'll just say my right to be happy (rights are man-made things anyway, we make them up as we go) trumps your right to life. Same argument with the mother.

That's exactly what he and I, and probably others (I haven't read the whole thread, certainly not that wall of text of an OP), are saying.

Let's try a different tack, shall we?

If there was a patient who desperately needed a kidney transplant to live and you were the only match on the entire planet, could you be made to give up your rights to your own bodily integrity and be forced to donate an organ? No, of course not. Same with a pregnant mother: She should not be made to give up the rights to her own body so that another human (whether considered a person or not) can live.

 

[selfinflikted]

Name that "plethora" of differences.

Don't be silly. That would take pages, and you know that.

I am not going to answer the rest. It's nonsense because you fail to realize the true justification for abortion, namely, one is a person, and one isn't.

Of course you won't answer the rest, because you know I'm right.

I also don't owe you any answer whatsoever with regards to the issue of dead humans.

You certainly don't, but your reluctance to answer only shows how weak your position really is.

It has very little to do with justification for abortion. It depends whether one says humans who are alive are of value or even those who aren't alive are of value. I haven't made up my mind about that. Now stop bothering me with this petty issue.

It's not a "petty" issue, and is in fact, central to your own argument. Amateur.

 

[abc123xyz]

Don't be silly. That would take pages, and you know that.



Of course you won't answer the rest, because you know I'm right.



You certainly don't, but your reluctance to answer only shows how weak your position really is.



It's not a "petty" issue, and is in fact, central to your own argument. Amateur.

This entire post just says I'm wrong and calls me an amateur without rebutting anything I've said. Who's the true amateur?

I've ANSWERED EVERYTHING. WHAT HAVE YOU ANSWERED?

It's not central to my argument. As my argument centers around euthanasia and abortion. You can't kill the dead a second time, now, can you?

Fool.

You can't abort or euthanize the dead, now can you? That's my argument. That's what we're discussing. Persons, and such. I haven't given it any thought, but that doesn't mean I can't answer it if I chose to do so. I'm just not in the mood for going so far off topic. This is about how personhood rights affects the living.

So far none of you have shown that an unconscious adult (coma, PVS, etc.) is any different from an unborn baby in terms of personhood rights. Specifically, the personhood most abortionists like to claim (rationality, etc.). If pain were the only thing, then all animals would also be granted the same right. Most aren't willing to do that just because of "pain" (I have a feeling that reducing value to pain and pleasure amounts to nothing more than hedonism, in which case you might as well try Nozick's experience machine). Not only that, some humans don't feel pain due to a certain disease (I forgot the name). So if they are unconscious, with only the POTENTIAL to come back out of a coma, and also feel no pain, then clearly they are in an even worse predicament than certain fetuses who are close to the moment of birth.

I'll go ahead and say I only give rights for the living, as it is the living that matter. We don't give rights to a rock. At the point of death, the body is no longer living, it's decaying, it's really just a bunch of matter that will decompose, continuing the whole circle of life thing, as it's a rather popular term these days. Still, I'd still give some provisions to make sure the body isn't desecrated. Are you happy now? LIVING HUMANS have rights. The dead had their turn, now they must make room for the living. If you can't see a difference between life and death, then I am really intrigued as to how your moral and philosophical system would work. Might as well give rights to sand, or a rock, or a gas, or water.

 

[abc123xyz]

That's exactly what he and I, and probably others (I haven't read the whole thread, certainly not that wall of text of an OP), are saying.

Let's try a different tack, shall we?

If there was a patient who desperately needed a kidney transplant to live and you were the only match on the entire planet, could you be made to give up your rights to your own bodily integrity and be forced to donate an organ? No, of course not. Same with a pregnant mother: She should not be made to give up the rights to her own body so that another human (whether considered a person or not) can live.

You can't compare something as natural as pregnancy, to something as artificial as an organ transplant. It's in the nature of life for the parents to owe their children their care. Anyone who denies that might as well deny all morals. Besides, assuming the pregnancy wasn't brought upon by rape, it's the mother's OWN FAULT she got pregnant. People have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I love how you abortionists have to divorce the most natural relationship between a mother and her child just to get us to accept abortion. What's next, not follow our conscience? All we have is human nature.

You make it seem like moral obligations HAVE to be voluntary. Well, if the mother doesn't take care of the child, then certainly no one else is obliged to. That's like saying there's nothing wrong with a father who deserts his wife and kids. Sure it's legal, but legality has very little to do with morality in this world.

Some arguments against your violinist argument: http://www.azrtl.org/factsheets/Defending%20-%20violinist_factsheet.pdf

Every time someone drives to work to get food for their kids, because of the obligation to feed them, they are risking their body to a car accident, getting mugged outside, etc. We're always risking our minds, our bodies, our happiness, our welfare, etc., to protect those we love. Every single time. It doesn't make that much of a difference if the risk is inside of you or outside of you, you're still using your body for the benefit of another, risking it.

Basically, all your argument centers on is extreme selfishness. If even the bond between a mother and a child is broken, then certainly I feel like I have no obligation to save you (a complete stranger) if I saw you about to be mugged in an alley, there's certainly no obligation for me to call the cops. It's a huge burden to me personally to reach into my pocket and dial 911. I'd be wasting money doing that, too. It's subjective. Some mothers LOVE going through the pregnancy thing, others don't. Some wouldn't mind calling the cops for you. Some would. If anything is objective, you'd think a mother's love for her child would be. If that's not objective, then certainly any other kind of "burden" as well as "obligation" seem arbitrary at best.

The whole argument about "right to own body", is also arbitrary, as you make it seem like we have an obligation to give the mother that right and allow her to kill her child. Well, again, if the most natural and normal relationship between a mother and a child is severed as being nothing more than a filthy intruder who wants to use the mother's body, then who is the mother to claim that society has an obligation to allow the mother to do as she pleases with her body? One could just as easily tie her down. Where do you draw the line? How many obvious moral obligations can you deny before the line in the sand is drawn? If a mother's obligation to care for her child isn't important (THE VERY ACT WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE TO CONTINUE FOR US, AS A SPECIES), then WHAT IS?

 

[Glas Ridire]

Thank you.

Since life begins at fertilization and the separation resulting in twins occurs after this, this must mean that one of the twins did not arise from fertilization and is therefore not human.

Seems like an obvious logic fail. The fertilization obviously gave rise to both individuals, otherwise the "non-human" twin wouldn't be able to be linked to its father through DNA.

2) Cloned individuals - This should be self explanatory. Since any adult individual who is cloned from non-gametic cells would bypass fertilization, they are not a human and do not have rights by virtue of belonging to our species. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.

Why? I am not sure if you are trying to bump the Beginning of Life forward or back. Please clarify. Seems to me that a person is a person and should have human rights regardless of how they were conjured.

3) Individuals with two parents of the same sex - By this I mean individuals made from the DNA of two men or two woman. This has already been done in mice and could potentially be done in humans. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.

Not a different question than question 2, really. Making the DNA donors same sex doesn't alter the fundamental truth that any person resulting would be a person.

4) Individual developing from a non-fertilized egg - I know it sounds crazy, but it is at least theoretically possible, though highly improbable. Some contend that there is at least one documented case of such an occurrence. So again, without fertilization such an individual can not be human and is not entitled to any rights.

Why is it human rights are being related to how a person is concieved? If it is a human, it has human rights. . . . if we are debating how to define a human, there must be a better measure. We know we can tell a human from a non-human through DNA, monkeys, no matter how close to humans .. . can be identified appropriately through blood samples. If it has human DNA, it is a human.

5) Genetically altered individuals - This is the bonus situation since it doesn't involve fertilization (depending on how it is done, it could involve gene addition post-fertilization). This is commonly done in animals and could potentially be done in humans. But how do you deal with an individual who does not have the genomic sequence common to Homo sapiens? If they are not Homo sapiens, they are not human, they are not persons, and they are not entitled to rights. This raises the same issue as above. But it raises an even bigger issue.

The most compelling of the questions. I suppose it speaks to how we treat other species. Humans have been enslaving horses for a VERY long time. I would not want to give horses . . . human rights (not sure how they'd spend minimum wage). Were a species created which was close enough to humans created . .. the debate would have to be had based on the actual results. BladeRunner's "replicants" are different from Dr. Moreau's creations and Terminator/Cylons.

 

[abc123xyz]

Thank you.

[/b]
Seems like an obvious logic fail. The fertilization obviously gave rise to both individuals, otherwise the "non-human" twin wouldn't be able to be linked to its father through DNA.

Why? I am not sure if you are trying to bump the Beginning of Life forward or back. Please clarify. Seems to me that a person is a person and should have human rights regardless of how they were conjured.

Not a different question than question 2, really. Making the DNA donors same sex doesn't alter the fundamental truth that any person resulting would be a person.

Why is it human rights are being related to how a person is concieved? If it is a human, it has human rights. . . . if we are debating how to define a human, there must be a better measure. We know we can tell a human from a non-human through DNA, monkeys, no matter how close to humans .. . can be identified appropriately through blood samples. If it has human DNA, it is a human.

The most compelling of the questions. I suppose it speaks to how we treat other species. Humans have been enslaving horses for a VERY long time. I would not want to give horses . . . human rights (not sure how they'd spend minimum wage). Were a species created which was close enough to humans created . .. the debate would have to be had based on the actual results. BladeRunner's "replicants" are different from Dr. Moreau's creations and Terminator/Cylons.

Thank you so much for your help. Seriously, I'm very grateful.

Blessings.

Edit:

One more thing. How would you answer the last paragraph in the original post?

"Is there a fundamental change in the parts before and after fertilization? Not really, unless you count discarding the sperm tail. All the parts were there before and are there after. Adding them together didn't make any new parts. You can add an Airstream to your Ford truck, but it doesn't make it a Winnebago. Can the fertilized egg do anything the sperm and egg can't? It can divide and has all the genetic code necessary for developing an individual. But the sperm and egg themselves have undergone cell division previously and also have all the genetic code necessary to develop a human, if only in haploid form. Does fertilization occur in some privileged place in the reproductive system? No, it occurs in the same place that sperm and egg meet, so it is difficult to argue that the few hundred microns a sperm moves is of significance. Is the support system any different before and after fertilization? No, in both there is little support save for providing a pathway to the uterus. So by these criteria, one could argue that fertilization is not so different from the moments preceding fertilization. And if that is the case then we can (and some would say must) push back the beginning of life, of human life with value, to some earlier time point. There is support for this assertion. After all, if my parents had used contraception, they would have prevented me from being born. If this statement is true, which of course it is, then my unique human life and the value associated with it did not begin with fertilization but extends to some earlier time point. This, logically, would be the most conservative approach."

 

[selfinflikted]

This entire post just says I'm wrong and calls me an amateur without rebutting anything I've said. Who's the true amateur?

There was nothing in the post to which I responded to rebut. You must've missed that.

I've ANSWERED EVERYTHING. WHAT HAVE YOU ANSWERED?

You didn't answer a very important question that Skaloop asked. It's ok, though. I completely understand why you won't answer. It would defeat your argument that human equals person, which clearly is not the case.

It's not central to my argument. As my argument centers around euthanasia and abortion. You can't kill the dead a second time, now, can you?

Your argument seems to be grounded in human = person. This is a false premise, as Skaloop has tried to point out by forcing you to think about a seemingly very simple question. We understand why you don't answer it.

Fool.

Thanks

You can't abort or euthanize the dead, now can you? That's my argument.

Yes, and it's a big ole fat strawman.

I haven't given it any thought, but that doesn't mean I can't answer it if I chose to do so. I'm just not in the mood for going so far off topic. This is about how personhood rights affects the living.

I don't see how you can consider that off-topic, but I do understand your reluctance to answer.

 

[abc123xyz]

There was nothing in the post to which I responded to rebut. You must've missed that.



You didn't answer a very important question that Skaloop asked. It's ok, though. I completely understand why you won't answer. It would defeat your argument that human equals person, which clearly is not the case.



Your argument seems to be grounded in human = person. This is a false premise, as Skaloop has tried to point out by forcing you to think about a seemingly very simple question. We understand why you don't answer it.



Thanks



Yes, and it's a big ole fat strawman.



I don't see how you can consider that off-topic, but I do understand your reluctance to answer.

I answered it. You saying I didn't answer it doesn't change the fact that I did.

LIVING HUMANS MATTER. Just like there was no human ALIVE before conception, so too there is no human ALIVE after death. The human body after death is just that, a body. You can't say it's truly a human in the proper sense of the word, perhaps this goes into metaphysics or something of the sort, but there's clearly a difference. It's a lifeless body. MORALITY APPLIES TO LIFE, NOT NON-LIFE (you don't give moral status to a rock, do you?). Therefore, living humans matter.

But even so, we could go the other way and say dead humans are persons and have the right to not have their body desecrated. Rights vary according to age. You can't let a baby drive a car. But you can still defend it from harm. You can't defend a dead human from death, but you can still respect the body and not stomp on its grave.

It's not as powerful of an argument as you think. If this is your ace up your sleeve, you've got big problems.

No straw man. It's a fact that I was focusing on how abortion and euthanasia affects the living.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can't compare something as natural as pregnancy, to something as artificial as an organ transplant.

It is absolutely a fair comparison.

It's in the nature of life for the parents to owe their children their care.

Try telling that to all those children in orphanages.

Anyone who denies that might as well deny all morals.

Complete non sequitur.

Besides, assuming the pregnancy wasn't brought upon by rape, it's the mother's OWN FAULT she got pregnant.

Not necessarily. While birth control pills and other birth control measures are highly effective, they can and do fail.

People have to live with the consequences of their actions.

It's disgusting you think of children as a "consequence."

I love how you abortionists...

I think I get it now.

...have to divorce the most natural relationship between a mother and her child just to get us to accept abortion.

I don't think anyone is asking for your acceptance, honestly. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Simple as that.

The whole argument about "right to own body", is also arbitrary,

How is having a "right to [one's] own body" an arbitrary argument???

as you make it seem like we have an obligation to give the mother that right and allow her to kill her child.

No one has the right to kill their own child. Fetus, maybe, but not child. Conflating "fetus" and "child" is just emotional rhetoric, but you will find soon enough that won't work in your favor too well around here.

Well, again, if the most natural and normal relationship between a mother and a child is severed as being nothing more than a filthy intruder who wants to use the mother's body,

If a pregnancy is intended, then certainly a fetus wouldn't be seen as a "filthy intruder." However, unintended pregnancies do occur. In those cases, it is not only my opinion that a woman should not be forced to endure a nine month pregnancy, but it is also the opinion of the land in which we live. That is why we lawfully allow women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

then who is the mother to claim that society has an obligation to allow the mother to do as she pleases with her body? One could just as easily tie her down.

One could just as easily tie you down against your will. That'd be ok with you, right?

Where do you draw the line? How many obvious moral obligations can you deny before the line in the sand is drawn? If a mother's obligation to care for her child isn't important (THE VERY ACT WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE TO CONTINUE FOR US, AS A SPECIES), then WHAT IS?

In case you haven't noticed, our species is in no danger of dying out due to abortion.

 

[selfinflikted]

I answered it. You saying I didn't answer it doesn't change the fact that I did.

Yea, you went back and edited your post after the fact.

LIVING HUMANS MATTER. Just like there was no human ALIVE before conception, so too there is no human ALIVE after death. The human body after death is just that, a body. You can't say it's truly a human in the proper sense of the word, perhaps this goes into metaphysics or something of the sort, but there's clearly a difference. It's a lifeless body. MORALITY APPLIES TO LIFE, NOT NON-LIFE (you don't give moral status to a rock, do you?). Therefore, living humans matter.

Sure, living humans matter. But you would be categorically wrong if you think that a dead human body isn't human. A person, once, but no longer. Human, absolutely.

But even so, we could go the other way and say dead humans are persons and have the right to not have their body desecrated. Rights vary according to age. You can't let a baby drive a car. But you can still defend it from harm. You can't defend a dead human from death, but you can still respect the body and not stomp on its grave.

What nonsense. Of course a dead human is not a person. Protections can be granted for the deceased without granting them personhood.

It's not as powerful of an argument as you think. If this is your ace up your sleeve, you've got big problems.

I don't have an "ace up my sleeve." I don't need one. I have logic on my side as well as a solid argument free from emotionalism.

No straw man. It's a fact that I was focusing on how abortion and euthanasia affects the living.

That's not the strawman I was referring to.

 

[abc123xyz]

It is absolutely a fair comparison.



Try telling that to all those children in orphanages.



Complete non sequitur.



Not necessarily. While birth control pills and other birth control measures are highly effective, they can and do fail.



It's disgusting you think of children as a "consequence."



I think I get it now.



I don't think anyone is asking for your acceptance, honestly. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Simple as that.



How is having a "right to [one's] own body" an arbitrary argument???



No one has the right to kill their own child. Fetus, maybe, but not child. Conflating "fetus" and "child" is just emotional rhetoric, but you will find soon enough that won't work in your favor too well around here.



If a pregnancy is intended, then certainly a fetus wouldn't be seen as a "filthy intruder." However, unintended pregnancies do occur. In those cases, it is not only my opinion that a woman should not be forced to endure a nine month pregnancy, but the opinion of the land in which we live. That is why we lawfully allow women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.



One could just as easily tie you down against your will. That'd be ok with you, right?



In case you haven't noticed, our species is in no danger of dying out due to abortion.

"It is absolutely a fair comparison. "

Prove it, don't just say it. One is a totally unnatural relationship, the other is in the nature of life.
"Try telling that to all those children in orphanages."

Irrelevant. People HAVE the instinct, but it's overcome by their selfishness, and in many cases, by the fact that they CAN'T take care of their kids, the parents die, etc. That's like saying that because people steal and kill, it doesn't matter whether it's in our nature to have our conscience tell us it's wrong. YOU JUST REFUTED ALL MORALITY.


"Complete non sequitur."

Not at all. If you deny one aspect of human nature, why not another? prove it's a non sequitur.


"Not necessarily. While birth control pills and other birth control measures are highly effective, they can and do fail."

SHE CONSENTED TO HAVING SEX, WHICH IS THE POSSIBILITY OF CHILDREN.


"It's disgusting you think of children as a "consequence.""
It's disgusting you think of babies as a burden. Besides, how is it not a consequence? It's an objective fact that sex ---> babies.

"I don't think anyone is asking for your acceptance, honestly. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Simple as that."

If you are against murder, don't kill. But let me kill, okay?


"How is having a "right to [one's] own body" an arbitrary argument???"

If a mother's obligation to her child is an arbitrary argument, how could this not be?

"No one has the right to kill their own child. Fetus, maybe, but not child. Conflating "fetus" and "child" is just emotional rhetoric, but you will find soon enough that won't work in your favor too well around here."

That's nonsense and circular reasoning. You state this with the assumption that they are not the same then use that to prove that I am wrong when you didn't prove the initial premise.



"If a pregnancy is intended, then certainly a fetus wouldn't be seen as a "filthy intruder." However, unintended pregnancies do occur. In those cases, it is not only my opinion that a woman should not be forced to endure a nine month pregnancy, but the opinion of the land in which we live. That is why we lawfully allow women to terminate unwanted pregnancies."

Just like Nazi Germay's law allowed for handicapped people to euthanized due to being a burden?

"One could just as easily tie you down against your will. That'd be ok with you, right?"

Missed the point completely. This is comical. IF YOU DENY ONE ASPECT OF HUMAN NATURE AND THE MORALS THAT DERIVE FROM IT, WHY NOT DENY ANOTHER ASPECT, LIKE OUR DESIRE TO BE INDIVIDUALS AND FREE? (which is the justification for a right to your body) That's the argument. Are you a child?



"In case you haven't noticed, our species is in no danger of dying out due to abortion."

Again, missed the point completely. I meant it as an argument to show the OBLIGATION WE HAVE FOR OUR CHILDREN. But again, you pick and choose random interpretations.

 

[abc123xyz]

"Yea, you went back and edited your post after the fact."

And? Actually, I edited that bit BEFORE you answered. You just didn't check. I also kept editing it afterwards. The answer was already there, however.


"Sure, living humans matter. But you would be categorically wrong if you think that a dead human body isn't human. A person, once, but no longer. Human, absolutely."

I didn't mean it in a scientific term. I clearly said this goes into metaphysics and such, what we mean exactly by human. There's a difference between human and a dead human. The dead human is what REMAINS of a human. It's not an actual human. It's merely the matter that made up the human.


"What nonsense. Of course a dead human is not a person. Protections can be granted for the deceased without granting them personhood."

Nonsense simply because you disagree. Nice. Very philosophical of you. Protections means a right, you can't give rights to non-persons.



"I don't have an "ace up my sleeve." I don't need one. I have logic on my side as well as a solid argument free from emotionalism."

All ethics are based on emotions as without emotions we'd have no values. Rationally speaking, you can't justify morality without appealing to how we value certain things. We FEEL death is wrong. There is no mathematical calculation for it. I always find it so funny when "rationalists" come here and tell us the rational basis for morality. Maybe moral rules can be decided upon using reason, yet the initial motivation to preserve life, preserve ourselves, help one another... That's based on emotion.



"That's not the strawman I was referring to."

If that's not the straw man, I can't see what the heck you're talking about. Perhaps there is none and you're bluffing.

Also, stop using those petty smileys. It really makes you look childish.

 

[Glas Ridire]

One more thing. How would you answer the last paragraph in the original post?

I would always err on the side of declaring "something" human, rather than the alternative. I would rather risk being called a silly sentimental fool, than to make a declaration of non-human-ness in error. While under certain circumstances I have no difficulty taking human life (criminal possing threat to myself or my family) I do not ever want to be in the same camp as those who declare "something" non-human to justify mistreating or killing it (Yup, Godwin's in play, Cromwell era British, Nazis, KKK, and pretty much the whole range of genocidal maniacs come to mind when I think of people who declared other people non-human to justify their actions.)

 

[abc123xyz]

http://www.azrtl.org/factsheets/Defending - violinist_factsheet.pdf

Triablogue: The Violinist Argument

Stand to Reason: Unstringing the Violinist

So, if you deny the moral value of the bond between mother and child, then why can't I deny the moral value of a mother's (selfish) desire to live her life in whatever way she wants to, which is used as justifications for abortion? Oh, it works for you, but when I use it, no no no. Very nice. So you also decide which arguments I can use and which you can't. What works for me is not allowed to work for others, eh?


Some links for you.

As for dead human, no, it's not a true human. A true human, IS ALIVE. A dead human is the REMNANTS OF WHAT USED TO BE A HUMAN. There's a difference between remnants of a human and a human. A human being, is ALIVE. This goes into metaphysics and other stuff that's really far out there, it's not as simple as you want to make it look. There's a difference between the matter that made up the human and the human that is alive. Life + human Body = HUMAN. Otherwise, it's just a body of a dead human. A bunch of cells that are there to decompose.

 

[abc123xyz]

I would always err on the side of declaring "something" human, rather than the alternative. I would rather risk being called a silly sentimental fool, than to make a declaration of non-human-ness in error. While under certain circumstances I have no difficulty taking human life (criminal possing threat to myself or my family) I do not ever want to be in the same camp as those who declare "something" non-human to justify mistreating or killing it (Yup, Godwin's in play, Cromwell era British, Nazis, KKK, and pretty much the whole range of genocidal maniacs come to mind when I think of people who declared other people non-human to justify their actions.)

Ok thanks! I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do this. Thank you, blessings!

 

[Skaloop]

The fetus can feel pain in the womb well before birth. So it's not just pain.

Who mentioned pain? That word hadn't even been used in this thread until you used it right there. Pain is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Otherwise, you'd have to disallow us from killing any animals that feel pain.

That would be nice, sure. But again, what does pain have to do with what we're discussing, and how to you make the leap from fetuses feeling pain to disallowing animals to be killed?

It's about being a "rational" human being, according to the most common theory of personhood used to justify abortion.

I have never heard personhood be defined as mere rationality, from anyone on either side of the debate.

I don't want person X to be alive. There are no other options. They have to be killed. They are a burden on me. Say they're my child. Say there is no orphanage, and no one else to take care of them. We've exhausted all other options. I can now kill them. My rights are more important.

A pregnant woman getting an abortion isn't thinking "I don't want the fetus to be alive, so I am going to kill it." They are thinking "I don't want to be pregnant, so I am going to terminate the pregnancy."

And you're saying the mother's "right to her body" trumps the fetus' right to LIFE?

Absolutely. That's pretty much the case for everyone. Your right to your body trumps my right to life if I need your body to survive but you don't want to let me use it.

What's more important? LIFE or right to body?

Neither and both. If the life requires the other's body, then the body can refuse to support that life even if it means death. If the life does not require the other's body, then the body cannot kill the life.

So... rights of one person above another. HA. NICE. So then I'll just say my right to be happy (rights are man-made things anyway, we make them up as we go) trumps your right to life. Same argument with the mother.

Rights trump other rights all the time. It depends on context. Your right to defend your property can trump my right to life. My right to life can trump your right to free speech.

There are not steps missing. Justify how someone in a coma or PVS meets the criteria for personhood.

They are distinct living human individuals.

Don't say they're not in the mother's womb, as that simply is another of saying they're a burden.

They aren't in the mother's womb, so they are not a burden on any specific person.

Also, what the heck do you mean, says who? You don't see a difference with regards to abilities between a coma patient and someone who is fully healthy?

Of course. Doesn't mean that the coma patient doesn't meet the requirements for personhood.

AND IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE EXHAUSTED? THEN WHAT? You just pushed back the issue further, as euthanasia allows for a few other options. This changes NOTHING. They would still be a burden. So, again, there is no difference.

Name a situation where all other options are exhausted, then we'll talk. It is a very very rare circumstance where that would be the case. Pregnancy is one of those circumstances. Give some realistic examples of some other ones, and I can address those on a case-by-case basis.

With a fetus, who must bear the burden? The mother must do it. With a coma patient, who must bear the burden? Nobody has to do it, and pretty much anybody could do it. So there is a big difference. In both cases, nobody can be forced to do it against their will.

But, to paraphrase your own words...

You can't compare something as natural as pregnancy, to something as artificial as keeping someone in a coma alive.

 

[abc123xyz]

Who mentioned pain? That word hadn't even been used in this thread until you used it right there. Pain is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

I tried to come up with different criteria by which to value life. Pain is one of them. I MENTIONED IT. YOU NEED NOT MENTION IT. I mentioned it to show all the possible arguments.

That would be nice, sure. But again, what does pain have to do with what we're discussing, and how to you make the leap from fetuses feeling pain to disallowing animals to be killed?

Because if you say one being has the right to life just because of "pain", then clearly another one does as well. What the heck don't you get?

I have never heard personhood be defined as mere rationality, from anyone on either side of the debate.

I have. Otherwise, what is personhood? There's rationality, there's pain, and feelings and such, such as happiness. What else is there? Those are the main arguments I've heard abortionists use for "personhood", in fact secular ethics in general uses these criteria.

A pregnant woman getting an abortion isn't thinking "I don't want the fetus to be alive, so I am going to kill it." They are thinking "I don't want to be pregnant, so I am going to terminate the pregnancy."

And I don't want to deal with that child because it interferes with my life. I don't want to kill it, I just want it to stop interfering with my life. It's the only option.

Absolutely. That's pretty much the case for everyone. Your right to your body trumps my right to life if I need your body to survive but you don't want to let me use it.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MOTHER AND A CHILD IS BY ITS VERY NATURE NECESSARY TO EXIST FOR LIFE TO CONTINUE. This is the only argument you have. See http://www.azrtl.org/factsheets/Defending%20-%20violinist_factsheet.pdf Triablogue: The Violinist Argument Stand to Reason: Unstringing the Violinist

Neither and both. If the life requires the other's body, then the body can refuse to support that life even if it means death. If the life does not require the other's body, then the body cannot kill the life.

See above

Rights trump other rights all the time. It depends on context. Your right to defend your property can trump my right to life. My right to life can trump your right to free speech.

See above.

They are distinct living human individuals.

So are fetuses in the womb. They are living humans. Silly argument.

They aren't in the mother's womb, so they are not a burden on any specific person.

They are a burden on those who have to take care of them, on society, and if there is no one else to take care of them, then it goes back to the individual. They are a burden on someone.

Of course. Doesn't mean that the coma patient doesn't meet the requirements for personhood.

What's the difference between a fetus and a comatose patient? Both are "burdens". You provided no justification for this statement.

Name a situation where all other options are exhausted, then we'll talk. It is a very very rare circumstance where that would be the case. Pregnancy is one of those circumstances. Give some realistic examples of some other ones, and I can address those on a case-by-case basis.

A tribe, or a band. They have no social support systems. Say the rest of the small band of 50 was wiped out, and only a mother and her children remain. There you go.

Ignore the italicized parts. I got confused and thought you/we were talking about after birth abortion. To answer your question... It need to be a practical possibility. It needs only be a LOGICAL possibility. If pro-choice people can use the violinist argument, so can I use hypothetical situations. Oh, it works for you, but not for me?

With a fetus, who must bear the burden? The mother must do it. With a coma patient, who must bear the burden? Nobody has to do it, and pretty much anybody could do it. So there is a big difference. In both cases, nobody can be forced to do it against their will.

So you admit that it's similar in the end. Nice. There's NO difference. It's about WHO IS A BURDEN, AND WHO ISN'T. You focus so much on the pregnancy. THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR ABORTION. Many times, the mother simply doesn't want a child. Regardless of the pregnancy. Even if it is the pregnancy, that's a side effect she has to go through as she brings a child into the world. But that's too much of a burden. IT'S ABOUT BEING A BURDEN.

You can't compare something as natural as pregnancy, to something as artificial as keeping someone in a coma alive

You misuse the comparison. But it still works out in the anti-abortionist's favor, as this would only mean that abortion is wrong while keeping someone in a coma might not be. I used this argument with the purposes of showing that it's not an intrusion for the mother if she has a child, it's her DUTY. It's NATURE. The comparison was made with the violinist argument that Thomson made. Whereas the coma patient is simply used to show you how both abortion and euthanasia are the same, you kill off someone who is a burden. That IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM SITUATION TO SITUATION. You made a superficial analogy. If anything, you just showed that there's no reason to keep comatose patients alive.

 

[abc123xyz]

See

What makes killing wrong? -- Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller -- Journal of Medical Ethics

This is what personhood basically results in. Since personhood is the standard for abortion... This is the logical consequence of using personhood as a justification for abortion. Life itself isn't of value. Personhood is. So, this is what you get.

 

[selfinflikted]

It would be more helpful and clear if you would use the

tags.

Prove it, don't just say it. One is a totally unnatural relationship, the other is in the nature of life.

That's beside the point. The dialog we are now engaged in is whether one life trumps another. Whether it's pregnancy or life-saving organ transplant is irrelevant. You are dodging the point because you will have to conceed it should you face it.

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. You made a claim, I simply refuted it.

People HAVE the instinct, but it's overcome by their selfishness, and in many cases, by the fact that they CAN'T take care of their kids, the parents die, etc.

There are as many reasons some people give up their children for adoption as there are children up for adoption. The reasons are irrelevant, the fact that they are there was the point. However, it doesn't matter one way or the other as far as this dialog is concerned. It's getting off-topic.

That's like saying that because people steal and kill, it doesn't matter whether it's in our nature to have our conscience tell us it's wrong. YOU JUST REFUTED ALL MORALITY.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

SHE CONSENTED TO HAVING SEX, WHICH IS THE POSSIBILITY OF CHILDREN.

It is nowhere near unreasonable for a person to have sex and expect to not get pregnant. Simply because one consents to sex does not automatically imply consent to pregnancy.

It's disgusting you think of babies as a burden.

Those were your words, not mine. Please quote where I said children are a burden. (that's not to say that they sometimes are not, but I haven't said that until just now).

Besides, how is it not a consequence? It's an objective fact that sex ---> babies.

It is a consequence, but the way in which you used the word implied "punishment." And it is not an objective fact that sex ---> babies. Perhaps you are unaware, but there are many many ways to avoid pregnancy and still enjoy having sex.

If you are against murder, don't kill. But let me kill, okay?

Murder is an explicit legal term to which abortion doesn't fit. Killing isn't always murder. Murder is against the law, while abortion isn't.

If a mother's obligation to her child is an arbitrary argument, how could this not be?

Well, that's where we differ. I do not believe a woman is obligated to carry a fetus to term if she doesn't want to. It's her body, and that trumps the life of a fetus.

That's nonsense and circular reasoning. You state this with the assumption that they are not the same then use that to prove that I am wrong when you didn't prove the initial premise.

Colloquially, "child," "baby," fetus," etc are all interchangeable, especially when heard coming from pro-life advocates because they usually evoke certain emotions. However, technically those terms are not the same. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

Just like Nazi Germay's law allowed for handicapped people to euthanized due to being a burden?

Yes, JUST like that.

Missed the point completely. This is comical. IF YOU DENY ONE ASPECT OF HUMAN NATURE AND THE MORALS THAT DERIVE FROM IT, WHY NOT DENY ANOTHER ASPECT, LIKE OUR DESIRE TO BE INDIVIDUALS AND FREE? (which is the justification for a right to your body) That's the argument. Are you a child?

That depends. With the way you have been using the word, I very well could be. I'm a 32 year old man and if you consider that a child, so be it. You'd only be wrong again.

Further, we deny human nature in all manner of things all the time. I'm not sure why you keep wanting me to deny all human nature simply because I disagree with you on one aspect of it. That's ridiculous.

Again, missed the point completely. I meant it as an argument to show the OBLIGATION WE HAVE FOR OUR CHILDREN. But again, you pick and choose random interpretations.

Perhaps you should be more concise, then. Again, I do not agree that a woman is obligated to endure a pregnancy that she didn't intend for the reasons I and many others here have explained.