Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Allister said:I always try and raise this point with christan friends but they somehow avoid it.
At what point does it's right to life stop?
Does it only have a right to life at the exact moment of conception? or does the sperm and the egg have equal rights to life?
what defines its right to life?
Better.Ninja Turtles said:Perhaps I should have used a more specific term like commensalism
What does this matter? What has the joining of life got to do with life? Why is a child joined to its mother less worthy of life than one not joined? Commensality - or even parasitism - is nothing to do with a creature or person's right to live!Ninja Turtles said:Trying to compare a child that has been born to the unborn really doesn't work. Can you remove the mother from the equation of a child that is born? Yes you can.
This is something that most pro-choicers will 'choose' not to answer.TheMagi said:What does this matter? What has the joining of life got to do with life? Why is a child joined to its mother less worthy of life than one not joined? Commensality - or even parasitism - is nothing to do with a creature or person's right to live!
Of course the nature of the connection matters, how could it not? The way something is connected is very important. Just saying something is connected, thus they are all the same makes no sense and it is trying to pain with a broad brush that doesn't exist. A fetus with mother and conjoined twins are not the same.TheMagi said:What does this matter? What has the joining of life got to do with life? Why is a child joined to its mother less worthy of life than one not joined? Commensality - or even parasitism - is nothing to do with a creature or person's right to live!
Magi
There may be a difference, but you still haven't explained how a fetus's life is any less valuable than that of a conjoined twin because of the matter of the connection.Ninja Turtles said:Of course the nature of the connection matters, how could it not? The way something is connected is very important. Just saying something is connected, thus they are all the same makes no sense and it is trying to pain with a broad brush that doesn't exist. A fetus with mother and conjoined twins are not the same.
I've already explained the difference between a fetus and a conjoined twin, the type of relationship is different.
Amen. Ninja - you say 'how could it not matter' but do not give us any reason why it does.Marek said:There may be a difference, but you still haven't explained how a fetus's life is any less valuable than that of a conjoined twin because of the matter of the connection.
That isn't an answer to the question. We agree it isn't independent. We say that it possesses a right to live.Ninja Turtles said:A fetus is a dependent organism and it's lack of independence is trumped by the independent organism it lives off.
The supporting organism's rights might trump the dependent organism's rights for each individual right, but tell me how a right to convenience trumps a right to life no matter what the circumstances are.Ninja Turtles said:A fetus is a dependent organism and it's lack of independence is trumped by the independent organism it lives off.
It doesn't, because that's a strawman.Marek said:The supporting organism's rights might trump the dependent organism's rights for each individual right, but tell me how a right to convenience trumps a right to life no matter what the circumstances are.
Amen.TheMagi said:Amen. None of us are worthy of it, 'for all have sinned...'. It is a fresh blessing, day by day.
Fortunately, we also have no right to kill, or indeed to permit another to die when it is in our power to save them.
Magi
One might suggest that in the majority of cases of abortion the person having said abortion had possibly invited the possibility of having the child.:æ: said:The fact is that nobody -- not you, not me, not anyone, born or unborn -- has the right to occupy another person's body, to live at the expense of that person's bodily faculties, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood, and to inject that person's body with waste and hormones that upset that person's normal hormonal balance.
The point is that people consider it 'more convenient', not just convenient.:æ: said:And if you think having an abortion is "convenient," then I think you've automatically disqualified your own opinions due to demonstrated ignorance.
Are you kidding me? You're saying that because a being is unintentionally occupying a woman's body(not because of their own choice, but because of the woman's choice), their right to life does not exist. I don't know how you can believe this.:æ: said:It doesn't, because that's a strawman.
The fact is that nobody -- not you, not me, not anyone, born or unborn -- has the right to occupy another person's body, to live at the expense of that person's bodily faculties, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood, and to inject that person's body with waste and hormones that upset that person's normal hormonal balance.
And if you think having an abortion is "convenient," then I think you've automatically disqualified your own opinions due to demonstrated ignorance.
:æ:
No, he's saying that the right to life of the fetus exists, but it is trumped by the right to the host to not have the fetus inside her.Marek said:Are you kidding me? You're saying that because a being is unintentionally occupying a woman's body(not because of their own choice, but because of the woman's choice), their right to life does not exist. I don't know how you can believe this.
In no way does dependence on someone else's body reject the dependent being of a right to life. Please show me how this is possible.
Ok - on what grounds? How, in your system of morality, do you 1) weigh relative rights and 2) account for the fact that most people with a foetus inside them are responisble for the fact?Electric Skeptic said:No, he's saying that the right to life of the fetus exists, but it is trumped by the right to the host to not have the fetus inside her.
And I agree with him.
I believe the single most important right there is is that of a person to determine what happens to their own body. Any consideration any person has that is dependent on my having a particular condition of my body is of less importance than my desire to have that condition imposed on me.TheMagi said:Ok - on what grounds? How, in your system of morality, do you 1) weigh relative rights and 2) account for the fact that most people with a foetus inside them are responisble for the fact?
Why?Electric Skeptic said:I believe the single most important right there is is that of a person to determine what happens to their own body. Any consideration any person has that is dependent on my having a particular condition of my body is of less importance than my desire to have that condition imposed on me.
One might also suggest that, in the majority of cases of traffic fatalities, the person whose life unfortunately expired had invited the possibility of having an accident by getting in his vehicle.TheMagi said:One might suggest that in the majority of cases of abortion the person having said abortion had possibly invited the possibility of having the child.
A person has a right to use the minimum force necessary to defend her body and protect its integrity. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is that.And even if the child has no rights (and I, after all, believe that no-one has rights), what of it? Do we then get the right to destroy it?
No, I'm quite serious.Marek said:Are you kidding me?
Not correct. A woman's choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to get and remain pregnant.You're saying that because a being is unintentionally occupying a woman's body(not because of their own choice, but because of the woman's choice)
That's not what I said.their right to life does not exist.
On the contrary, the courts have sided with me. It is you that must show convincingly that a being lacking personhood can possess a right that orindary persons do not.In no way does dependence on someone else's body reject the dependent being of a right to life. Please show me how this is possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?