I still stand by the second compromise I proposed.
I would be willing pay extra taxes to cryogenically freeze fetuses. I think everyone else in America should be expected to as well and I certainly believe that religions should be taxed.
This way, the fetus still has the potential to grow into an adult and the mother keeps her rights.
It will certainly be an expensive program, but if it saves lives AND allows people to maintain freedom over their own bodies, then we should spare no expense. Not only that, but if we pour more money into cryogenic research, it will become less expensive over time. By the time we know how to unfreeze them, we should be able to put them into artificial wombs and we should have the population control issue figured out by then.
Suh a program would also give the government and the taxpayers more incentive to promote contraception since its been proven that abstinence-only is completely unrealistic. Perhaps we'd be better off if the doctors allowed young people to get their tubes tied. As of now, most doctors won't perform the operation on people who haven't had children yet because "They will want kids later in life." If they do want kids, they can adopt! It regulates our population, reduces the number of abortions each year, respects individual rights, and children get adopted. We kill multiple birds with one stone!
*edit*
Let me ask a question. If cryogenic freezing could be made cost effective, then would you accept it as a compromise and move on? Can you be content to be 75% happy if it means everyone is 75% happy, or do you absolutely have to be 100% happy while half the population is 0% happy?
Try this: Read this argument... namely 12 and 13, and tell me where you disagree.
@chronoplasm: Read the same thing... especially argument 13.
the problem w/ this argument is that in #12, they give the scientific premise. and then they give the moral and legal pemise. yet the latter two are loosely based on the first. the first says that humanity starts at conception and continues until death. i disagree here, but we'll move on. the moral premise then says that all humans have the right to life. i agree. killing is not only immoral, it is wrong and against the law. but this really has nothing to do w/ abortion unless you believe their scientific premise. and then the legal premise says that the law must protect basic human rights. which is why murder is against the law and (ironic enough) punishable by death. now again... this relies solely on belief in the first scientific premise. i was expecting three different arguments when i read this, but only got three different versions of the same argument.
now to elaborate a bit on my disagreement... i supose i should take the advice of bLatch here and say that what i mean is that even tho this patch of cells may have human dna and be made up of human cells. it's not yet a person. it doesn't yet have all the characteristics that make up a person or that make a person seem 'human.' does that make sense? i know that a blind man cannot see. but he is still a person. my point being that these cells cannot even survive outside of the womb no more than a liver or a kidney can. would you call a liver or a kidney a human? no. the same way these embryos aren't. they may be made up of human dna and they may be human cells, but they are not a human nor are they a person. take this argument for example. look at your hand. it's made up of human dna. it's made up of human cells. is it a human? no. it's a human hand. same thing for this embryo. is it human? no. it's a human embryo. does your hand have human rights? no. you do. does the embryo have human rights? no. the mother does.
Like Zith, I've been neutral on this issue. Now something occurs to me, so I'll throw it out there. Where do I think human rights come from? From the capacity of humans as rational beings. Consequently, as a fetus with no [significantly developed] nervous system has no such capacity, it wouldn't have these rights. Does this make sense?
I think human rights come from imputation by society. They are certainly not inherent... they are merely called inherent in order to make the maintenance thereof seem sacred.
the problem w/ this argument is that in #12, they give the scientific premise. and then they give the moral and legal pemise. yet the latter two are loosely based on the first. the first says that humanity starts at conception and continues until death. i disagree here, but we'll move on. the moral premise then says that all humans have the right to life. i agree. killing is not only immoral, it is wrong and against the law. but this really has nothing to do w/ abortion unless you believe their scientific premise. and then the legal premise says that the law must protect basic human rights. which is why murder is against the law and (ironic enough) punishable by death. now again... this relies solely on belief in the first scientific premise. i was expecting three different arguments when i read this, but only got three different versions of the same argument.
Um... no. The second and third premises have nothing to do with the first. Humans have the right to life, check. The government must protect basic human rights, check. If you disagree with the first one, that's where you disagree, and that invalidates the conclusion.
now to elaborate a bit on my disagreement... i supose i should take the advice of bLatch here and say that what i mean is that even tho this patch of cells may have human dna and be made up of human cells. it's not yet a person. it doesn't yet have all the characteristics that make up a person or that make a person seem 'human.' does that make sense? i know that a blind man cannot see. but he is still a person. my point being that these cells cannot even survive outside of the womb no more than a liver or a kidney can. would you call a liver or a kidney a human? no. the same way these embryos aren't. they may be made up of human dna and they may be human cells, but they are not a human nor are they a person. take this argument for example. look at your hand. it's made up of human dna. it's made up of human cells. is it a human? no. it's a human hand. same thing for this embryo. is it human? no. it's a human embryo. does your hand have human rights? no. you do. does the embryo have human rights? no. the mother does.
calibretto
That's an absolutely rediculous argument. A fetus is an organism, not an organ.
And you didn't address point #13.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I think human rights come from imputation by society. They are certainly not inherent... they are merely called inherent in order to make the maintenance thereof seem sacred.
So fetuses, if humans, don't have an inherent right to life unless society gives it to them? Sorry, don't get offended, lol.
extremestan, I respect your opinions. If cryogenic freezing actually could be made cost effective, what would you think of freezing aborted fetuses until we can figure out how to unfreeze them and finish growing them in artificial wombs? Yes, I know, its hypothetical and maybe a little science-fictiony at the moment, but what would you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I'm not an experienced debater by any means, but it seems to me that the most logical way to approach this situation is to make sure that both sides understand each other's positions and that a common point of contention is understood. Everyone can then proceed from an understanding of that common point of disagreement and misunderstandings, strawmen arguments, etc can be greatly reduced and ideally avoided entirely.
the problem w/ this argument is that in #12, they give the scientific premise. and then they give the moral and legal pemise. yet the latter two are loosely based on the first. the first says that humanity starts at conception and continues until death. i disagree here, but we'll move on. the moral premise then says that all humans have the right to life. i agree. killing is not only immoral, it is wrong and against the law. but this really has nothing to do w/ abortion unless you believe their scientific premise. and then the legal premise says that the law must protect basic human rights. which is why murder is against the law and (ironic enough) punishable by death. now again... this relies solely on belief in the first scientific premise. i was expecting three different arguments when i read this, but only got three different versions of the same argument.
I'd like to clairfy what I understand to be your position from this quote, and then use that as a common point of contention for debate. You agree that humans have a right to life, and that the law should protect basic humn rights, which includes the right to life. Your disagreement is that you don't believe that human life begins at conception. Is that a correct restatement of your position?
I think human rights come from imputation by society. They are certainly not inherent... they are merely called inherent in order to make the maintenance thereof seem sacred.
In response to that well thought-out argument you linked to, I return to the motion that destroying that which is certain, or is significantly probable, to exist in the future is as much a wrong as is destroying that which exists now.
Also, I do not take it for granted that killing another without this other's consent when it is known to all rational beings involved in making the decision that doing so is the best possible choice for all is immoral. Why is this immoral when it is known to have the best outcome?
It would remain for me to show that abortion could be this, but let's take it one step at a time.
Now for the tangent, examining each step. I don't mean to disprove it here, just that as I read it and challenge each idea, as I do with everything, certain questions are raised.
People question the basis for any knowledge without attempting to justify anything. Doing so would fail to justify anything, anyway. From this, and arguments against cogito ergo sum, we don't necessarily know that we are, let alone what we are.
Step five assumes that human rights exist. Such is unknown, and is challenged, or almost challenged, even here by extremestan. I would at least question the great, inherent value of being human.
I notice that step eleven refuses to consider that known nonhuman entities are persons. Also, it dismisses certain arguments on the grounds that their results are disagreeable. It may very well be that we assign our own rights and may reassign them however we choose. That such is repugnant doesn't exclude it from reality. It also fails to contest the idea that it may be that some humans are nonpersons without people needing to declare them so. The philosophical "zombie," a body without a mind, may not be a person. It all raises the question of definitions.
The question "but why, then, do most mothers who abort feel such terrible pangs of conscience, often for a lifetime" has an opposite that is equally important: "But why, then, do some mothers who abort feel no pangs of conscience?" They are of equal value - though I would say that value is rather small.
Finally, skepticism is a path to a conclusion, a "dogmatism." Dismissing it because it is not yet a conclusion holds little.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
In response to that well thought-out argument you linked to, I return to the motion that destroying that which is certain, or is significantly probable, to exist in the future is as much a wrong as is destroying that which exists now.
But you aren't destroying something if it never existed in the first place. Something can't have an end if it didn't first have a beginning. The issue on which peope disagree is where that 'beginning' starts. Do you believe that the life of a child begins before conception?
But you aren't destroying something if it never existed in the first place. Something can't have an end if it didn't first have a beginning. The issue on which peope disagree is where that 'beginning' starts. Do you believe that the life of a child begins before conception?
I would say that the existence of anything begins at the moment it becomes highly probable that the existence of said thing is, was, or will be. This would mean that the fact that the sun rises tomorrow already exists, for example, because it is extremely probable that it will. A better example might be that tomorrow itself exists, but only in the future, because it can't ever be the present.
I'll use the more easily understood example I mentioned earlier. The day before a wedding, the high probability of the husband-wife relationship thus entails its existence. Should someone kill one or the other, in many ways that person just killed the other's spouse, and were I a close friend, I would grieve as if such were the case, despite the fact that they were not yet married. In fact, I think I'd grieve even more than if it were realized, because the loss of the potential marriage would hurt more than if they had had a week or more to enjoy it.
Anyways, in this way I feel an unexpected child could destroy the existence of the planned child, and feel sorrow over how unfortunate this case is, as the lives all involved are made worse by it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I would say that the existence of anything begins at the moment it becomes highly probable that the existence of said thing is, was, or will be. This would mean that the fact that the sun rises tomorrow already exists, for example, because it is extremely probable that it will. A better example might be that tomorrow itself exists, but only in the future, because it can't ever be the present.
I'll use the more easily understood example I mentioned earlier. The day before a wedding, the high probability of the husband-wife relationship thus entails its existence. Should someone kill one or the other, in many ways that person just killed the other's spouse, and were I a close friend, I would grieve as if such were the case, despite the fact that they were not yet married. In fact, I think I'd grieve even more than if it were realized, because the loss of the potential marriage would hurt more than if they had had a week or more to enjoy it.
I don't understand your definitions of 'existence' and 'potential existence' here. Something must exist in order for it to have existence. If there is a high probability that something will exist, then the high probability of it existing exists, but it itself does not yet have an existence. Your first example delves into theoretical science rather than morality because there are an infinite number of tomorrows that can exist. Your second example seems to acknowledge the difference between potential existence and actual existence because you are greiving for them as if they were man and wife, not because they were man and wife.
Anyways, in this way I feel an unexpected child could destroy the existence of the planned child, and feel sorrow over how unfortunate this case is, as the lives all involved are made worse by it.
Again I will point out that the second child never had an existence to end, the possibility of an existence was ended. Nothing was destroyed in this example. Am I just arguing semantics, or do I not understand your position correctly?
The wedding analogy is only good if the other part is that a woman is pregnant and about to have a child. By that you're saying that if the fetus, which is the "child of the future 10 days from now" were killed, you would mourn "even more than if it were realized." You talking about some future potential child that hasn't even gone through conception is not "very likely" to exist... in fact any child you can imagine is very UNLIKELY to exist. The chances that whatever sperm you have in mind combine with whatever egg you have in mind are very low. Even the chances that ANY child will be born on a particular day is extremely low. Your "probability" is saying that you care more about 1 of a billion children that could possibly be born within the next 20 years between a man and a woman than you do about a child that already exists. Not to mention that your assumption presupposes that the possible child that could exist sometime in the future won't be born if you don't abort the actually existing child.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Um... no. The second and third premises have nothing to do with the first. Humans have the right to life, check. The government must protect basic human rights, check. If you disagree with the first one, that's where you disagree, and that invalidates the conclusion.
did you read it? or did you just post the link for us to read? i'll elaborate. in the first premise he says, "all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying." and w/o this the other two arguments, when talking about the subject of abortion, have no weight. why? because if human life doesn't start until the later terms of pregnancy then "all humans have the right to life because all humans are human" doesn't apply to embryo's or the early fetal stages. and the same thing goes for "all humans are human, and if all humans have a right to life, and if the law must protect human rights, then the law must protect the right to life of all humans." If the embryo's and early fetal stages aren't considered human, then they have no rights.
while i do agree w/ the second two premises, i don't see what they have to do w/ abortion because at i don't believe the humanity begins that early.
That's an absolutely rediculous argument. A fetus is an organism, not an organ.
did i come right out and say, 'the fetus is an organ, it's not a human!'? no. i didn't. please, i ask again... remove your words from my mouth, would you? i didn't say that. what i said was this:
Quote from calibretto »
my point being that these cells cannot even survive outside of the womb no more than a liver or a kidney can. would you call a liver or a kidney a human? no. the same way these embryos aren't. they may be made up of human dna and they may be human cells, but they are not a human nor are they a person.
you're saying that a group of human dna and cells = human. i disagree. a liver is a group of human dna and cells. is that a human? no. it's a liver. an embryo is a group of human dna and cells. is that a human? no. it's an embryo. and that's why it doesn't have the "right" to life or the "right" to anything whatsoever.
i didn't really feel the need to address point #13 because it was so ridiculous that i wasn't worth responding to. but since you need it, i'll respond.
first of all 1 and 4 from #13 will never happen. you can't prove that human life and human rights start at conception. it's an opinion. a belief. and in the same fashion, i can't prove that it doesn't start at conception. that's my opinion and my belief. now, the second and third possibilities are pretty much our sides of the argument. in your opinion the fetus is a person, but you don't know that. and in my opinion, it's not, but i don't know that.
so... pretty much that disproves most people's beliefs that abortion is murder. since we don't know for sure that the fetus is a person, at most, it would be manslaughter. and according to this my belief is just irresponsible.
i know what an apple is, and i most certainly know what an abortion is. and, knowing that, i still think abortion is an option for unwanted pregnancy.
while i do agree w/ the second two premises, i don't see what they have to do w/ abortion because at i don't believe the humanity begins that early.
That's exactly what I said. You said that the latter two premises are based on the first, they are not. Then I said that was wrong, and that you disagree with the first premise, and that invalidates the conclusion.
did i come right out and say, 'the fetus is an organ, it's not a human!'? no. i didn't. please, i ask again... remove your words from my mouth, would you? i didn't say that. what i said was this:
You did not say the fetus was an organ, no, but what you DID was compare it directly to multiple organs, saying that since they aren't a human, there's no reason to think that a fetus is a human. This is incorrect because the fetus is nothing like any of those ORGANS because it is an ORGANISM.
i didn't really feel the need to address point #13 because it was so ridiculous that i wasn't worth responding to. but since you need it, i'll respond.
first of all 1 and 4 from #13 will never happen. you can't prove that human life and human rights start at conception. it's an opinion. a belief. and in the same fashion, i can't prove that it doesn't start at conception. that's my opinion and my belief. now, the second and third possibilities are pretty much our sides of the argument. in your opinion the fetus is a person, but you don't know that. and in my opinion, it's not, but i don't know that.
And that proves that you didn't understand the argument at all. I'll repeat it here for you:
Either a fetus is a human or not, and either we know whether it is or not.
If it is a human and you know that, abortion is murder.
If it is a human and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter.
If it is not a human and you don't know that, abortion is criminal negligence.
If it is not a human and you know that, then it is fine.
The argument says that the only way that abortion is not comparable to a criminal act is if it is not a human AND you know it is not human. You don't know whether it is human or not, so if you have an abortion, you're either committing manslaughter or criminal negligence. THAT is what the point is saying, but I'm glad you completely missed it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So fetuses, if humans, don't have an inherent right to life unless society gives it to them? Sorry, don't get offended, lol.
Right. We don't have truly inherent rights except that which society grants us. Rights are called "inherent" when they are socially-granted without contingency other than being a human being. But they aren't truly inherent, because they're granted. A truly inherent right is nonsense.
At the moment, society doesn't grant a person the right to life at the fetal stage. To get around the conflict this creates with the fact that society calls the right to life "inherent," they look for ways to change the definition of "person" and "human" to force a contingency on "rational brain activity," a heartbeat, or something even more arbitrary. They abandon the biological definitions thereof and adopt more poetic definitions. This allows them to maintain the facade of an "inherent right to life for all people" while still being free to kill extremely immature people.
extremestan, I respect your opinions. If cryogenic freezing actually could be made cost effective, what would you think of freezing aborted fetuses until we can figure out how to unfreeze them and finish growing them in artificial wombs? Yes, I know, its hypothetical and maybe a little science-fictiony at the moment, but what would you think?
I don't think it's a good idea, because it's impractical and violent. I think it's impractical, since the fetus will likely never be unfrozen, and so the person is practically killed. I think it's violent because it violates the fetal person's freedom. It's similar to, although of course less severe than, capturing a sleeping adult and drugging him into a coma for a period of time, or freezing that person indefinitely without explicit compliance.
I understand my position fully. The possibility of existence and existence itself are two different things, yes, but I am saying that they are very similar. I think significantly high probability of existence becomes as important as existence when taking a larger view of time. So that the possibility to exist was destroyed is significant.
Hypothetical scenario coming up here. If you are aware that someone will come into existence as a result of such-and-such circumstances, and you purposefully prevented those circumstances, wouldn't that be a form of murder? (I only just now realized that that's the plot of Terminator...)
As long as we have the knowledge of the future existence, the choice is one way or another. As of this moment, I'd have guilt about causing the choice to become mandatory, but because one must be destroyed, I wouldn't feel bad over that necessity, the same as I don't feel remorse over killing that which I must kill to gain sustenance.
As for the marriage analogy, Sutherlands, it's only that. In a miscarriage scenario, it'd be true that I'd mourn the possible existence of that nearly-born person more than just the life that was lost, but in this case, to leave the fetus unaborted would be to leave the possible child destroyed, so it's a lose-lose scenario in that regard.
The possibility of existence for a planned child is, I would think, rather high for most people. For me it would be, anyway, and for my relationship's unexpected pregnancy, it'd carry through to this situation. Naturally, I'd have to go through it all with my significant other, but that'd be my opinion on the matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
At the moment, society doesn't grant a person the right to life at the fetal stage. To get around the conflict this creates with the fact that society calls the right to life "inherent," they look for ways to change the definition of "person" and "human" to force a contingency on "rational brain activity," a heartbeat, or something even more arbitrary. They abandon the biological definitions thereof and adopt more poetic definitions. This allows them to maintain the facade of an "inherent right to life for all people" while still being free to kill extremely immature people.
I don't see why rationality (or self-awareness, or whatever) is so arbitrary. However rights are granted, the aforementioned I cite as their cause/reason.
I won't go asking questions like "what do you mean by 'society'?"
That's exactly what I said. You said that the latter two premises are based on the first, they are not. Then I said that was wrong, and that you disagree with the first premise, and that invalidates the conclusion.
in this argument for or against abortion, they are most definitely based on the first. w/o the first, they other's can't even hold water. the only way the latter two have anything at all to do w/ abortion is if the first one rings true.
You did not say the fetus was an organ, no, but what you DID was compare it directly to multiple organs, saying that since they aren't a human, there's no reason to think that a fetus is a human. This is incorrect because the fetus is nothing like any of those ORGANS because it is an ORGANISM.
ok... so let me get this straight. first you said that the fetus was a human. and that it was a group of cells and human dna and that was human as well. so what i did was take what you said and prove it wrong by comparing it to other groups of cells and human dna that most certainly aren't human. now, since i've said that, the fetus is all of a sudden an organism. well, you know what? i don't have an argument for that except to say that everyday, on multiple occasions, i wash all kinds of living organisms that i like to call germs off of my hands and never feel the least bit guilty about it.
And that proves that you didn't understand the argument at all. I'll repeat it here for you:
Either a fetus is a human or not, and either we know whether it is or not.
If it is a human and you know that, abortion is murder.
If it is a human and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter.
If it is not a human and you don't know that, abortion is criminal negligence.
If it is not a human and you know that, then it is fine.
The argument says that the only way that abortion is not comparable to a criminal act is if it is not a human AND you know it is not human. You don't know whether it is human or not, so if you have an abortion, you're either committing manslaughter or criminal negligence. THAT is what the point is saying, but I'm glad you completely missed it.
ok, i'll give you this one. but... here's what i don't get about this. people go to jail for murder. people go to jail for manslaughter. and sometimes people even go to jail for criminal negligence. but abortion is completely and totally legal. what's that about?
in this argument for or against abortion, they are most definitely based on the first. w/o the first, they other's can't even hold water. the only way the latter two have anything at all to do w/ abortion is if the first one rings true.
No. Just no. The second two premises have nothing to do with the first. The CONCLUSION is what ties them all together. If you don't agree with the first one, that invalidates the CONCLUSION, but the last 2 still "hold water."
ok... so let me get this straight. first you said that the fetus was a human. and that it was a group of cells and human dna and that was human as well. so what i did was take what you said and prove it wrong by comparing it to other groups of cells and human dna that most certainly aren't human. now, since i've said that, the fetus is all of a sudden an organism. well, you know what? i don't have an argument for that except to say that everyday, on multiple occasions, i wash all kinds of living organisms that i like to call germs off of my hands and never feel the least bit guilty about it.
When did I ever say that a fetus wasn't an organism? I don't think I did. In fact, I've always maintained that it was a human, which means that by definition it is an organism. As for the germs argument, I'm glad you don't feel remorse watching bacteria off your hands. However, considering that THEY'RE NOT HUMAN, they really have no bearing on this conversation.
ok, i'll give you this one. but... here's what i don't get about this. people go to jail for murder. people go to jail for manslaughter. and sometimes people even go to jail for criminal negligence. but abortion is completely and totally legal. what's that about?
You tell me. Pretty inconsistent isn't it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I understand my position fully. The possibility of existence and existence itself are two different things, yes, but I am saying that they are very similar. I think significantly high probability of existence becomes as important as existence when taking a larger view of time. So that the possibility to exist was destroyed is significant.
Hypothetical scenario coming up here. If you are aware that someone will come into existence as a result of such-and-such circumstances, and you purposefully prevented those circumstances, wouldn't that be a form of murder? (I only just now realized that that's the plot of Terminator...)
As long as we have the knowledge of the future existence, the choice is one way or another. As of this moment, I'd have guilt about causing the choice to become mandatory, but because one must be destroyed, I wouldn't feel bad over that necessity, the same as I don't feel remorse over killing that which I must kill to gain sustenance.
So then do you consider people that routinely practice safe sex to be committing a form of murder?
No. Just no. The second two premises have nothing to do with the first. The CONCLUSION is what ties them all together. If you don't agree with the first one, that invalidates the CONCLUSION, but the last 2 still "hold water."
ok, seriously... i don't wanna have to tell you this again. WHEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION w/o the first one, the others do not hold water. they mean absolutely nothing WHEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION. in general conversation that has nothing at all to do w/ abortion the others do mean quite a bit. they are absolutely true.
When did I ever say that a fetus wasn't an organism? I don't think I did. In fact, I've always maintained that it was a human, which means that by definition it is an organism. As for the germs argument, I'm glad you don't feel remorse watching bacteria off your hands. However, considering that THEY'RE NOT HUMAN, they really have no bearing on this conversation.
but when i wash my hands, human cells are washed away. down the sink, and billions of people do this several times each day!! it's a good thing those cells are just cells and aren't human, otherwise it might be criminal negligence to just think about washing your hands.
@Atog: How about adoption? Just plain old adoption... Did you forget about that one?
So a woman should go through with a unwanted pregnancy what if she does not have insurance? So she should foot the bill for that to, miss work and go thru a uncomfortable process with no intention of keeping the child. So that other people that have no say in the matter can feel better about what life is. The last time I checked this America where everybody is entitled to there own opinion, but you cannot force your moral beliefs on others. It seems to me that you are looking at abortion as a complete waste. But I seem to remember that some companies are trying to perform research on the left over matter.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
Oh dear... Abortion threads really are the kind of thing that should be on the imaginary signpost at the entrance sign for the Debate forum.
"Welcome to Debatetown
Beware of Abortion threads"
I'll post a summary of my views I've posted in every one of these threads.
Until the brain has sufficiently developed to bear a consciousness the being within a mother, while alive, is not a human being (this is why saying it 'ends a life' is stupid to me, of course it does... But the Constitution doesn't protect all life). It is meat with human genetic code, sure, but no different from the other end of the spectrum I draw this conclusion from. When a person is in a sufficiently deep coma that they are considered "brain dead" (even if their meat is kept alive and healthy on machines) their decision making powers are transferred to others. Their existence as a legal entity changes on the basis of their mental, not raw physical, life.
The last time I checked this America where everybody is entitled to there [sic] own opinion, but you cannot force your moral beliefs on others.
This is probably futile, as people have been trying to tell you this for all nine pages of this thread, but here it is again anyway: We force our moral beliefs on others all the time. It's how society works. It's why the United States is not a violent anarchy. The abortion debate is one over whether or not this is the sort of moral belief that should make it into law - and given that opponents of abortion believe it to be murder, it's not at all obvious that it isn't.
Until the brain has sufficiently developed to bear a consciousness the being within a mother, while alive, is not a human being (this is why saying it 'ends a life' is stupid to me, of course it does... But the Constitution doesn't protect all life). It is meat with human genetic code, sure, but no different from the other end of the spectrum I draw this conclusion from. When a person is in a sufficiently deep coma that they are considered "brain dead" (even if their meat is kept alive and healthy on machines) their decision making powers are transferred to others. Their existence as a legal entity changes on the basis of their mental, not raw physical, life.
Full consciousness is not, however, bestowed upon an infant suddenly at birth. I won't ask if you support infanticide in certain situations, but this argument you give might be seen to imply that you do.
Furthermore, I find you analogy with the brain dead spurious on several counts. First, their decision-making power is not entirely forgotten; in the presence of a living will the wishes of a comatose person are to be respected. A fetus has hardly had an opportunity to create a living will, and something tells me that a sort of retrospective living will practice - in short, going around to people and asking if they would have wished to have been aborted - would have a thunderously unanimous response. Which brings me to my next point: the brain dead are dead. Their life is for all intents and purposes over, whether or not they are kept on life support. Deciding whether to "pull the plug" is generally a matter of weighing the odds that the coma patient will recover; and it's not usually considered right to cut life support if the chances of recovery look good. For a fetus, on the other hand, the chances of "recovery" are great: barring tragedy, it should wake up in a matter of months.
I would be willing pay extra taxes to cryogenically freeze fetuses. I think everyone else in America should be expected to as well and I certainly believe that religions should be taxed.
This way, the fetus still has the potential to grow into an adult and the mother keeps her rights.
It will certainly be an expensive program, but if it saves lives AND allows people to maintain freedom over their own bodies, then we should spare no expense. Not only that, but if we pour more money into cryogenic research, it will become less expensive over time. By the time we know how to unfreeze them, we should be able to put them into artificial wombs and we should have the population control issue figured out by then.
Suh a program would also give the government and the taxpayers more incentive to promote contraception since its been proven that abstinence-only is completely unrealistic. Perhaps we'd be better off if the doctors allowed young people to get their tubes tied. As of now, most doctors won't perform the operation on people who haven't had children yet because "They will want kids later in life." If they do want kids, they can adopt! It regulates our population, reduces the number of abortions each year, respects individual rights, and children get adopted. We kill multiple birds with one stone!
*edit*
Let me ask a question. If cryogenic freezing could be made cost effective, then would you accept it as a compromise and move on? Can you be content to be 75% happy if it means everyone is 75% happy, or do you absolutely have to be 100% happy while half the population is 0% happy?
There is an imposter among us...
the problem w/ this argument is that in #12, they give the scientific premise. and then they give the moral and legal pemise. yet the latter two are loosely based on the first. the first says that humanity starts at conception and continues until death. i disagree here, but we'll move on. the moral premise then says that all humans have the right to life. i agree. killing is not only immoral, it is wrong and against the law. but this really has nothing to do w/ abortion unless you believe their scientific premise. and then the legal premise says that the law must protect basic human rights. which is why murder is against the law and (ironic enough) punishable by death. now again... this relies solely on belief in the first scientific premise. i was expecting three different arguments when i read this, but only got three different versions of the same argument.
now to elaborate a bit on my disagreement... i supose i should take the advice of bLatch here and say that what i mean is that even tho this patch of cells may have human dna and be made up of human cells. it's not yet a person. it doesn't yet have all the characteristics that make up a person or that make a person seem 'human.' does that make sense? i know that a blind man cannot see. but he is still a person. my point being that these cells cannot even survive outside of the womb no more than a liver or a kidney can. would you call a liver or a kidney a human? no. the same way these embryos aren't. they may be made up of human dna and they may be human cells, but they are not a human nor are they a person. take this argument for example. look at your hand. it's made up of human dna. it's made up of human cells. is it a human? no. it's a human hand. same thing for this embryo. is it human? no. it's a human embryo. does your hand have human rights? no. you do. does the embryo have human rights? no. the mother does.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
I think human rights come from imputation by society. They are certainly not inherent... they are merely called inherent in order to make the maintenance thereof seem sacred.
That's an absolutely rediculous argument. A fetus is an organism, not an organ.
And you didn't address point #13.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
So fetuses, if humans, don't have an inherent right to life unless society gives it to them? Sorry, don't get offended, lol.
extremestan, I respect your opinions. If cryogenic freezing actually could be made cost effective, what would you think of freezing aborted fetuses until we can figure out how to unfreeze them and finish growing them in artificial wombs? Yes, I know, its hypothetical and maybe a little science-fictiony at the moment, but what would you think?
There is an imposter among us...
I'd like to clairfy what I understand to be your position from this quote, and then use that as a common point of contention for debate. You agree that humans have a right to life, and that the law should protect basic humn rights, which includes the right to life. Your disagreement is that you don't believe that human life begins at conception. Is that a correct restatement of your position?
And then...?
Also, I do not take it for granted that killing another without this other's consent when it is known to all rational beings involved in making the decision that doing so is the best possible choice for all is immoral. Why is this immoral when it is known to have the best outcome?
It would remain for me to show that abortion could be this, but let's take it one step at a time.
People question the basis for any knowledge without attempting to justify anything. Doing so would fail to justify anything, anyway. From this, and arguments against cogito ergo sum, we don't necessarily know that we are, let alone what we are.
Step five assumes that human rights exist. Such is unknown, and is challenged, or almost challenged, even here by extremestan. I would at least question the great, inherent value of being human.
I notice that step eleven refuses to consider that known nonhuman entities are persons. Also, it dismisses certain arguments on the grounds that their results are disagreeable. It may very well be that we assign our own rights and may reassign them however we choose. That such is repugnant doesn't exclude it from reality. It also fails to contest the idea that it may be that some humans are nonpersons without people needing to declare them so. The philosophical "zombie," a body without a mind, may not be a person. It all raises the question of definitions.
The question "but why, then, do most mothers who abort feel such terrible pangs of conscience, often for a lifetime" has an opposite that is equally important: "But why, then, do some mothers who abort feel no pangs of conscience?" They are of equal value - though I would say that value is rather small.
Finally, skepticism is a path to a conclusion, a "dogmatism." Dismissing it because it is not yet a conclusion holds little.
But you aren't destroying something if it never existed in the first place. Something can't have an end if it didn't first have a beginning. The issue on which peope disagree is where that 'beginning' starts. Do you believe that the life of a child begins before conception?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I'll use the more easily understood example I mentioned earlier. The day before a wedding, the high probability of the husband-wife relationship thus entails its existence. Should someone kill one or the other, in many ways that person just killed the other's spouse, and were I a close friend, I would grieve as if such were the case, despite the fact that they were not yet married. In fact, I think I'd grieve even more than if it were realized, because the loss of the potential marriage would hurt more than if they had had a week or more to enjoy it.
Anyways, in this way I feel an unexpected child could destroy the existence of the planned child, and feel sorrow over how unfortunate this case is, as the lives all involved are made worse by it.
I don't understand your definitions of 'existence' and 'potential existence' here. Something must exist in order for it to have existence. If there is a high probability that something will exist, then the high probability of it existing exists, but it itself does not yet have an existence. Your first example delves into theoretical science rather than morality because there are an infinite number of tomorrows that can exist. Your second example seems to acknowledge the difference between potential existence and actual existence because you are greiving for them as if they were man and wife, not because they were man and wife.
Again I will point out that the second child never had an existence to end, the possibility of an existence was ended. Nothing was destroyed in this example. Am I just arguing semantics, or do I not understand your position correctly?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
did you read it? or did you just post the link for us to read? i'll elaborate. in the first premise he says, "all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying." and w/o this the other two arguments, when talking about the subject of abortion, have no weight. why? because if human life doesn't start until the later terms of pregnancy then "all humans have the right to life because all humans are human" doesn't apply to embryo's or the early fetal stages. and the same thing goes for "all humans are human, and if all humans have a right to life, and if the law must protect human rights, then the law must protect the right to life of all humans." If the embryo's and early fetal stages aren't considered human, then they have no rights.
while i do agree w/ the second two premises, i don't see what they have to do w/ abortion because at i don't believe the humanity begins that early.
did i come right out and say, 'the fetus is an organ, it's not a human!'? no. i didn't. please, i ask again... remove your words from my mouth, would you? i didn't say that. what i said was this:
you're saying that a group of human dna and cells = human. i disagree. a liver is a group of human dna and cells. is that a human? no. it's a liver. an embryo is a group of human dna and cells. is that a human? no. it's an embryo. and that's why it doesn't have the "right" to life or the "right" to anything whatsoever.
i didn't really feel the need to address point #13 because it was so ridiculous that i wasn't worth responding to. but since you need it, i'll respond.
first of all 1 and 4 from #13 will never happen. you can't prove that human life and human rights start at conception. it's an opinion. a belief. and in the same fashion, i can't prove that it doesn't start at conception. that's my opinion and my belief. now, the second and third possibilities are pretty much our sides of the argument. in your opinion the fetus is a person, but you don't know that. and in my opinion, it's not, but i don't know that.
so... pretty much that disproves most people's beliefs that abortion is murder. since we don't know for sure that the fetus is a person, at most, it would be manslaughter. and according to this my belief is just irresponsible.
i know what an apple is, and i most certainly know what an abortion is. and, knowing that, i still think abortion is an option for unwanted pregnancy.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
You don't get anything do you?
That's exactly what I said. You said that the latter two premises are based on the first, they are not. Then I said that was wrong, and that you disagree with the first premise, and that invalidates the conclusion.
You did not say the fetus was an organ, no, but what you DID was compare it directly to multiple organs, saying that since they aren't a human, there's no reason to think that a fetus is a human. This is incorrect because the fetus is nothing like any of those ORGANS because it is an ORGANISM.
And that proves that you didn't understand the argument at all. I'll repeat it here for you:
Either a fetus is a human or not, and either we know whether it is or not.
If it is a human and you know that, abortion is murder.
If it is a human and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter.
If it is not a human and you don't know that, abortion is criminal negligence.
If it is not a human and you know that, then it is fine.
The argument says that the only way that abortion is not comparable to a criminal act is if it is not a human AND you know it is not human. You don't know whether it is human or not, so if you have an abortion, you're either committing manslaughter or criminal negligence. THAT is what the point is saying, but I'm glad you completely missed it.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Right. We don't have truly inherent rights except that which society grants us. Rights are called "inherent" when they are socially-granted without contingency other than being a human being. But they aren't truly inherent, because they're granted. A truly inherent right is nonsense.
At the moment, society doesn't grant a person the right to life at the fetal stage. To get around the conflict this creates with the fact that society calls the right to life "inherent," they look for ways to change the definition of "person" and "human" to force a contingency on "rational brain activity," a heartbeat, or something even more arbitrary. They abandon the biological definitions thereof and adopt more poetic definitions. This allows them to maintain the facade of an "inherent right to life for all people" while still being free to kill extremely immature people.
I don't think it's a good idea, because it's impractical and violent. I think it's impractical, since the fetus will likely never be unfrozen, and so the person is practically killed. I think it's violent because it violates the fetal person's freedom. It's similar to, although of course less severe than, capturing a sleeping adult and drugging him into a coma for a period of time, or freezing that person indefinitely without explicit compliance.
Hypothetical scenario coming up here. If you are aware that someone will come into existence as a result of such-and-such circumstances, and you purposefully prevented those circumstances, wouldn't that be a form of murder? (I only just now realized that that's the plot of Terminator...)
As long as we have the knowledge of the future existence, the choice is one way or another. As of this moment, I'd have guilt about causing the choice to become mandatory, but because one must be destroyed, I wouldn't feel bad over that necessity, the same as I don't feel remorse over killing that which I must kill to gain sustenance.
As for the marriage analogy, Sutherlands, it's only that. In a miscarriage scenario, it'd be true that I'd mourn the possible existence of that nearly-born person more than just the life that was lost, but in this case, to leave the fetus unaborted would be to leave the possible child destroyed, so it's a lose-lose scenario in that regard.
The possibility of existence for a planned child is, I would think, rather high for most people. For me it would be, anyway, and for my relationship's unexpected pregnancy, it'd carry through to this situation. Naturally, I'd have to go through it all with my significant other, but that'd be my opinion on the matter.
I don't see why rationality (or self-awareness, or whatever) is so arbitrary. However rights are granted, the aforementioned I cite as their cause/reason.
I won't go asking questions like "what do you mean by 'society'?"
i feel ya, buddy.
in this argument for or against abortion, they are most definitely based on the first. w/o the first, they other's can't even hold water. the only way the latter two have anything at all to do w/ abortion is if the first one rings true.
ok... so let me get this straight. first you said that the fetus was a human. and that it was a group of cells and human dna and that was human as well. so what i did was take what you said and prove it wrong by comparing it to other groups of cells and human dna that most certainly aren't human. now, since i've said that, the fetus is all of a sudden an organism. well, you know what? i don't have an argument for that except to say that everyday, on multiple occasions, i wash all kinds of living organisms that i like to call germs off of my hands and never feel the least bit guilty about it.
ok, i'll give you this one. but... here's what i don't get about this. people go to jail for murder. people go to jail for manslaughter. and sometimes people even go to jail for criminal negligence. but abortion is completely and totally legal. what's that about?
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
When did I ever say that a fetus wasn't an organism? I don't think I did. In fact, I've always maintained that it was a human, which means that by definition it is an organism. As for the germs argument, I'm glad you don't feel remorse watching bacteria off your hands. However, considering that THEY'RE NOT HUMAN, they really have no bearing on this conversation.
You tell me. Pretty inconsistent isn't it?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
So then do you consider people that routinely practice safe sex to be committing a form of murder?
ok, seriously... i don't wanna have to tell you this again. WHEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION w/o the first one, the others do not hold water. they mean absolutely nothing WHEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION. in general conversation that has nothing at all to do w/ abortion the others do mean quite a bit. they are absolutely true.
but when i wash my hands, human cells are washed away. down the sink, and billions of people do this several times each day!! it's a good thing those cells are just cells and aren't human, otherwise it might be criminal negligence to just think about washing your hands.
my point here is that apparently abortions aren't as bad as you are making them out to be.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
So a woman should go through with a unwanted pregnancy what if she does not have insurance? So she should foot the bill for that to, miss work and go thru a uncomfortable process with no intention of keeping the child. So that other people that have no say in the matter can feel better about what life is. The last time I checked this America where everybody is entitled to there own opinion, but you cannot force your moral beliefs on others. It seems to me that you are looking at abortion as a complete waste. But I seem to remember that some companies are trying to perform research on the left over matter.
"Welcome to Debatetown
Beware of Abortion threads"
I'll post a summary of my views I've posted in every one of these threads.
Until the brain has sufficiently developed to bear a consciousness the being within a mother, while alive, is not a human being (this is why saying it 'ends a life' is stupid to me, of course it does... But the Constitution doesn't protect all life). It is meat with human genetic code, sure, but no different from the other end of the spectrum I draw this conclusion from. When a person is in a sufficiently deep coma that they are considered "brain dead" (even if their meat is kept alive and healthy on machines) their decision making powers are transferred to others. Their existence as a legal entity changes on the basis of their mental, not raw physical, life.
This is probably futile, as people have been trying to tell you this for all nine pages of this thread, but here it is again anyway: We force our moral beliefs on others all the time. It's how society works. It's why the United States is not a violent anarchy. The abortion debate is one over whether or not this is the sort of moral belief that should make it into law - and given that opponents of abortion believe it to be murder, it's not at all obvious that it isn't.
EDIT:
Full consciousness is not, however, bestowed upon an infant suddenly at birth. I won't ask if you support infanticide in certain situations, but this argument you give might be seen to imply that you do.
Furthermore, I find you analogy with the brain dead spurious on several counts. First, their decision-making power is not entirely forgotten; in the presence of a living will the wishes of a comatose person are to be respected. A fetus has hardly had an opportunity to create a living will, and something tells me that a sort of retrospective living will practice - in short, going around to people and asking if they would have wished to have been aborted - would have a thunderously unanimous response. Which brings me to my next point: the brain dead are dead. Their life is for all intents and purposes over, whether or not they are kept on life support. Deciding whether to "pull the plug" is generally a matter of weighing the odds that the coma patient will recover; and it's not usually considered right to cut life support if the chances of recovery look good. For a fetus, on the other hand, the chances of "recovery" are great: barring tragedy, it should wake up in a matter of months.
...Crap, I got sucked into the debate, didn't I?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.