Rights of the Un-born

[TheMagi]

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?

Simple: we don't know. And if we don't know whether we are killing someone or not, then we shouldn't risk it.

Magi

 

[TheMagi]

Perhaps I should have used a more specific term like commensalism

Better.

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.

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

 

[Marek]

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!

This is something that most pro-choicers will 'choose' not to answer.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

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

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.

 

[Marek]

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.

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.

 

[TheMagi]

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.

Amen. Ninja - you say 'how could it not matter' but do not give us any reason why it does.

Magi

 

[Ninja Turtles]

A fetus is a dependent organism and it's lack of independence is trumped by the independent organism it lives off.

 

[TheMagi]

A fetus is a dependent organism and it's lack of independence is trumped by the independent organism it lives off.

That isn't an answer to the question. We agree it isn't independent. We say that it possesses a right to live.

Magi

 

[Marek]

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.

 

[:æ:]

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.

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:

 

[kedaman]

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

Amen.

 

[TheMagi]

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.

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.
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?
For that is what is being asserted - not merely that there isno right to life, but that there is a right to kill.

And if you think having an abortion is "convenient," then I think you've automatically disqualified your own opinions due to demonstrated ignorance.

The point is that people consider it 'more convenient', not just convenient.

Magi

 

[Marek]

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:

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.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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.

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.

 

[TheMagi]

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.

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?

Magi

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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?

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]

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.

Why?
Does this mean (at the ridiculous extreme) that you think you may, morally, refuse to save a life on the basis that you might get tired while doing so?
Or at the more sensible extreme - that you would be right (note I do not say 'have the right') not to dash into the street to pick up a child that would otherwise be run over, rather than risk your own body?

And may I point out that having an abortion is hardly a desireable thing for one's own body or mind.

Magi

 

[Chrono Traveler]

My view is this...

The life of the mother, is more important the the life of the un born. Now I disagree with abortion in late stages of pregnancy mind you.

If the unborn is a danger to the mother health, or the child has extreme health defects of its own...I think its justified. It should also be justified in very early stages, if the mother was raped, or got pregnant by accident from consenting sex.

edit: now some might say "but she could put it up for adoption"...well she could, but she might also not want to go through labor =/

and its not like us pro-choisers like the idea of abortion either. Most of us just don't want to take away the woman's right to choose.

 

[:æ:]

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.

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.

Does this mean that all traffic fatalities are the responsibility of the victim?

Not hardly. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy any more than consent to ride in an automobile is tantamount to consent to having a traffic collision. Contraceptives and prophylactics are not perfect, nor is pregnancy even a highly probable outcome of sex absent preventative measures. Waiver of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit, and consent to sex is not that. It is unreasonable to deny a person the right to protect their own body from the burden that pregnancy puts upon it if it is unwanted.

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?

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.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Are you kidding me?

No, I'm quite serious.

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)

Not correct. A woman's choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to get and remain pregnant.

their right to life does not exist.

That's not what I said.

I said that the fetus' right to live while occupying another person's body, forcibly extracting nutrient's from that person's blood, and injecting waste and imbalancing hormones into that person's body does not exist.

It doesn't exist for anybody, born or unborn.

I suggest in the future you read my replies more thoroughly so that you will not continue to ask questions to which I've already supplied the answers.

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.

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.

:æ: