Abortion

[Pako]

The only thing that is important in this conversation is why human beings have rights in the first place.

Why give it the right to live? That's what you should be asking.

Nobody is talking about compromising the human rights of the cognitively self-aware. It's a strawman, leave it.

Why do humans have rights? That is a good question. Rights are given not earned. Rights are defined and enforced by the society we live in. In a civilized society, we have seen the need to protect those who can not protect themselves so we fight for the rights of those that need us to.

Why give the fetus a right to live? A better question might be, why give the mom a license to kill? Under the normal course of pregnancy, the human fetus would fully mature and be born. The natural course is life. It is our duty to protect human life especially when that life cannot protect itself. We are not preserving that life when we take defined measures and action to end that life. I fail to see how so many people have detached themselves from the humanity of preserving life. It's a pretty big straw when you are talking about life or death.

 

[Danoff]

That's what I'm interested in, after being told that human rights are fact (objective).

We have an entire thread dedicated to that topic.

Why do humans have rights? That is a good question. Rights are given not earned.

They are earned, but not through hard work. They are earned by your mental capacity, and they are taken away when you lose that mental capacity or you demonstrate that you never had it.

Rights are defined and enforced by the society we live in.

Not defined (see signature). Rights exist independent of society.

In a civilized society, we have seen the need to protect those who can not protect themselves so we fight for the rights of those that need us to.

We protect human rights not because people cannot protect themselves, but because it is right to protect human rights. The richest man has a right to all of his property, not because he needs that right, but because it is right and just that he have it.

Why give the fetus a right to live? A better question might be, why give the mom a license to kill?

No, that's not a better question and here is why. You don't ask what gives you the right to chop down a tree. You ask why you're NOT allowed the freedom of chopping down the tree. Of all of the living things on the planet earth, very few have any rights at all. Only one species has a right to life. It is the philosophical default that things do not have rights. You must satisfy the criteria for rights before you have them.

Under the normal course of pregnancy, the human fetus would fully mature and be born.

If by "normal" you mean "uninterrupted by man", no. That is not the correct. Take it from someone who has lost his fair share of unborn.

The natural course is life.

Makes no difference to anything. The natural course is for you to get eaten by a bear. You're defying nature by living in your artificial house and having your artificial weapons.

It is our duty to protect human life especially when that life cannot protect itself.

Yes it is. Why? The answer to that is the reason abortion must be legal.

We are not preserving that life when we take defined measures and action to end that life.

Correct. The problem is that you're casting the net too wide. You're including beings that do not have rights with those that do.

I fail to see how so many people have detached themselves from the humanity of preserving life. It's a pretty big straw when you are talking about life or death.

I assume you're a vegetarian then if you're not willing to kill anything that doesn't have rights.

 

[Pako]

The difference is that I see the fetus as human life and you do not. If I were able to view the fetus as just an organic tumor then there wouldn't be an argument and I would have no problem with abortions, but that is not the case for me. Because I view it as human life, I cannot support the genocide of these unborn humans just because it was unplanned, might embarrass somebody, or that it might be an inconvenience.

I am sorry to hear about your difficulties with your pregnancies, but know that you are not the norm but that it is normal.

 

[Danoff]

The difference is that I see the fetus as human life and you do not. If I were able to view the fetus as just an organic tumor then there wouldn't be an argument and I would have no problem with abortions, but that is not the case for me. Because I view it as human life, I cannot support the genocide of these unborn humans just because it was unplanned, might embarrass somebody, or that it might be an inconvenience.

I see it as a human life also. I see Terri Schiavo as a human life. I see a murderer on death row as a human life too. None of them have rights.

I am sorry to hear about your difficulties with your pregnancies, but know that you are not the norm but that it is normal.

I didn't mention it to discuss me, I mentioned it because your assumption that a fetus or even embryo will become an adult is just plain wrong. Lots and lots of embryos don't make it to adult. Even more if you go back to sperm and egg.

 

[Pako]

I see it as a human life also. I see Terri Schiavo as a human life. I see a murderer on death row as a human life too. None of them have rights.

None of them have rights, and why not, because we (society/laws) say so?

I didn't mention it to discuss me, I mentioned it because your assumption that a fetus or even embryo will become an adult is just plain wrong. Lots and lots of embryos don't make it to adult. Even more if you go back to sperm and egg.

Internet fact: 80-90% of fetuses mature to birth. (I read it on the internet so it must be true)

Let's look at Terri for a minute. Terri, after 12 years of being fed with a tube and being in a vegetative state had a very, very, very low chance of ever coming out of her unconscious state. Her husbands plea was reasonable. Her life was never going to amount to anything. Her chances of coming out it were slim to none. Now compare that to a living fetus in the womb of the mother. In the early stages of it's development, there is a 80-90% success rate, and as the fetus continues to mature, those success rates continue to increase. It is almost certain that under proper care, that the fetus will be born into this world to mature into it's adult hood. All the mother has to do is put in her 9 months and she can decide to continue to nurture that baby or to let someone else nurture it.

 

[Swift]

I see it as a human life also. I see Terri Schiavo as a human life. I see a murderer on death row as a human life too. None of them have rights.

Terri Schiavo had rights, but she couldn't exercise them because she was comatose. the inmate on death row had rights but he gave them up when he took them away from someone else.

So the both had rights, they were either given up or unable to exercise them.

 

[Danoff]

None of them have rights, and why not, because we (society/laws) say so?

...again, because they don't satisfy the criteria for rights. It has nothing to do with society or laws.

Internet fact: 80-90% of fetuses mature to birth. (I read it on the internet so it must be true)

...makes my point. But not even all of those become adults.

Let's look at Terri for a minute. Terri, after 12 years of being fed with a tube and being in a vegetative state had a very, very, very low chance of ever coming out of her unconscious state. Her husbands plea was reasonable. Her life was never going to amount to anything. Her chances of coming out it were slim to none. Now compare that to a living fetus in the womb of the mother.

It has nothing to do with her chances of anything. She had no rights because she had no higher order brain functions. She was not self-aware, she was medically incapable of self-awareness. She was not a conscious being. She didn't satisfy the philosophical and logical reason that anyone has rights.

Terri Schiavo had rights, but she couldn't exercise them because she was comatose.

See above.

the inmate on death row had rights but he gave them up when he took them away from someone else. So the both had rights, they were either given up or unable to exercise them.

What they had in the past is about as important as what they could possibly have in the future.... which is to say, it's not important. Eventually we will all develop far enough through our lives to end up dead. That does not mean that we have the same rights now as we will then (none).

Human beings have rights not because they are genetically human. Human beings have rights because we understand our existence, we understand that our actions have consequences in reality as we perceive it. We have rights because we have the ability to grasp the arbitrary nature of force. This is why we have rights and cows do not.

I know what both of you are thinking - you're thinking that you really really really want to explain human rights using religion. But rights don't exist because someone said so.

The reason fetuses do not have right a right to life is the same reason Terri Schiavo didn't, and the same reason the murderer on death row doesn't. Because they have demonstrated (either through actions, or through medical understanding) that they are not capable of understanding the nature of existence and force.

 

[Swift]

The reason fetuses do not have right a right to life is the same reason Terri Schiavo didn't, and the same reason the murderer on death row doesn't. Because they have demonstrated (either through actions, or through medical understanding) that they are not capable of understanding the nature of existence and force.

Here's a link that makes NO sense.
http://freebeacon.com/no-birth-certificate-required/

Basically, you have to register an unborn child as a person. That is ridiculous if the government doesn't think a fetus is a person than why register it?

Also, how can a person lose rights through unconsciousness or ignorance? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pako]

My rights are protect even if I'm asleep. They don't suddenly disappear just because I am unconscious. And again, comparing a vegetable to an unborn human is absurd.

So lets look at the differences.

Vegetable given more time will........continue to be a vegetable.
Fetus given more time will.......become a self aware and mature human adult.

There is also no way to measure self awareness at such an early stage of development but brain activity can be monitored. It is possible that a baby in the womb is aware of itself and it's surroundings even if it can't explain it, but like I said, there is really no way to know.

 

[Danoff]

Here's a link that makes NO sense.
http://freebeacon.com/no-birth-certificate-required/

Basically, you have to register an unborn child as a person. That is ridiculous if the government doesn't think a fetus is a person than why register it?

If that's real it's absurd.

Also, how can a person lose rights through unconsciousness or ignorance? That doesn't make sense to me.

I didn't say either one of those things. Unconscious is not the same thing as "not a conscious being". This:

She had no rights because she had no higher order brain functions. She was not self-aware, she was medically incapable of self-awareness. She was not a conscious being.

Does not mean what you posted. You do not lose rights due to ignorance. You lose rights either by being medically incapable of understanding the rights of others, or demonstrating a lack of willingness or inability to recognize the rights of others.

So either your brain is broken, or you're acting like your brain is broken. Those are the two circumstances where we treat human beings more like the rest of the animal kingdom... because their brain is acting like it.

My rights are protect even if I'm asleep. They don't suddenly disappear just because I am unconscious.

Yes. Covered at some length just a few pages back.

And again, comparing a vegetable to an unborn human is absurd.

Is it? I find it extremely appropriate. A fetus is genetically human but has only basic brain functions - very much like a vegetative human.

So lets look at the differences.

Vegetable given more time will........continue to be a vegetable.
Fetus given more time will.......become a self aware and mature human adult.

I've covered this at length too. I have explained the reasons why none of that matters. What matters is what you are now, not what you might be later.

There is also no way to measure self awareness at such an early stage of development but brain activity can be monitored. It is possible that a baby in the womb is aware of itself and it's surroundings even if it can't explain it, but like I said, there is really no way to know.

Even a one year old would struggle to meet the criteria I list. So no, a fetus can't pull it off. We don't know where they cross the line, but we know it's after birth. That's why putting the line at birth is convenient, it makes absolutely 100% certain that we're not leaving anyone out.

 

[Pako]

Then your criteria is incorrect.

 

[photonrider]

It is not only incorrect, it is Danoff's. But he has a 'right' to it.

 

[Danoff]

Then your criteria is incorrect.

Then what is the correct criteria and why?

 

[photonrider]

Is there any one person qualified enough to lay that down irrevocably, Danoff?
Due to the huge amount of variables involved, it would be utopian to think otherwise.

 

[Danoff]

Is there any one person qualified enough to lay that down irrevocably, Danoff?
Due to the huge amount of variables involved, it would be utopian to think otherwise.

Yes, everyone and anyone has the ability to lay that down. All you need is logic.

 

[Pako]

Then what is the correct criteria and why?

Is this statement correct?

Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life.

Since there can be no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not "persons," until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions can be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy or belief.

As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception.

 

[BobK]

Pako, I don't think that anyone is debating a fetus being classified as "human". The issue is, assuming there are circumstances where it's morally okay to terminate a human life such as self-defense, war, cases like Terri Schiavo, certain criminals, etc, do human fetuses fall within that area. So if you're saying it's not okay to kill a fetus because it's human, then it would not be okay to kill in self-defense etc.

 

[Sam48]

Pako, I don't think that anyone is debating a fetus being classified as "human". The issue is, assuming there are circumstances where it's morally okay to terminate a human life such as self-defense, war, cases like Terri Schiavo, certain criminals, etc, do human fetuses fall within that area. So if you're saying it's not okay to kill a fetus because it's human, then it would not be okay to kill in self-defense etc.

Just because a fetus may fall under that category does not mean it is the equivalent of one mentioned in that category. For example, to kill in self defense would be to protect your own life. To abort a fetus, usually not.

 

[Pako]

@BobK, I would first like to establish where people sit with this. If people view a fetus as parasitic tissue only, then it would give me some insight to where they are coming from. With that said, if we all agree that a fetus is living, that it is human life, that life is worth protecting. I killed a fetus in self defense does raise some interesting visuals. Aliens comes to mind. :-) But there are circumstances where the mother's life is in critical danger as determined by a medical professional that killing a fetus could in fact be done in self defense.

 

[counter345]

No more aware than a dog. They don't become SELF aware until much later - after being born. Until they're older, I'd say probably even a year old, they're not more intelligent or aware than many animals we don't afford rights.

Is this actually true? I've tried searching around but I can't find any articles saying this.

 

[Spoil-t]

I look at it like this. We don't allow abortions the planet will get over populated quicker & the babies will just be born to starve to death. Now we aren't at that point yet but it will happen. Not if but when. We are rapidly approaching our planet's population cap.

Now if America & the FEW other countries that require prescriptions for birth control would get their heads out of their asses & make BC over the counter we won't need to debate abortion as much.

 

[photonrider]

Not even an IUD has a 100% guarantee of effective birth control, but yes, a lot of unwanted pregnancies could be aborted before conception. Which will negate the need for abortions after.

 

[XoravaX]

I look at it like this. We don't allow abortions the planet will get over populated quicker & the babies will just be born to starve to death. Now we aren't at that point yet but it will happen. Not if but when. We are rapidly approaching our planet's population cap.

We have already went past the sustainable population size by over two billion.
As if the children in the West are going to starve to death - the Africans and poorer Asians whose children are living in hunger cannot afford abortion, because as a medical procedure it costs money.

Now if America & the FEW other countries that require prescriptions for birth control would get their heads out of their asses & make BC over the counter we won't need to debate abortion as much.

That would be a good choice for now, but there is a pollution problem with BC pills too. The hormones (oestrogen imitators mainly) aren't caught in the waste-water treatment plants, which causes them being flushed to the lakes and sea. This causes problems with fishes' hormonal balance, and what is even more worrying, it gets to the drinking water because treatment plants don't catch it. Downriver cities and their population is at a worse position in this because they get to drink the hormones from the upriver cities' BC pills in their drinking water. Not to mention all the fish eaten, with a bunch of oestrogen imitators concentrated in it.

---

On the matter of abortion, at least foetuses are able to recognise familiar speech which later helps in learning the language heard. http://kangleelab.com/articles/Paper0001_0001_0028.pdf

I think abortion should be available for rape victims at least, and probably to those whose children can't be expected to live a humane life, be it either because of a deformity or genetic disorder or social reasons (drug addict parents etc.). But as a mean of birth control it shouldn't be used - there are emergency contraceptives in the case the BC mean used failed (yeah, BC pill failure can't be detected early enough, but they are rare and most of them are due to improper use). Most BC abortions are due to a broken/slipped condom, and those all could be avoided.

 

[Famine]

We have already went past the sustainable population size by over two billion.

We make enough food for ten billion. So no, we haven't.

As if the children in the West are going to starve to death - the Africans and poorer Asians whose children are living in hunger cannot afford abortion, because as a medical procedure it costs money.

And more to the point, they're the countries who are increasing the population.

Look it up, folks. It's the definition of first (developed), second (developing) and third (undeveloped) world nations. Undeveloped nations have high and fluctuating birth and death rates and low population density, developing nations have reduced death rates and increased population density, developed nations have low and fluctuating birth and death rates and a high population density.

The USA's stance on birth control is irrelevant to planetary population increase. Look at countries like the Philippines which have a 92m population and increase it by 22 per thou annually...

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I support the right of a woman and her partner to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I do not support abortion as a method of population control. Population control comes from education, available contraception, and equal rights for women. As Famine described, if all nations had the birth rates of developed countries, the world population would be fairly stable.

 

[XoravaX]

We make enough food for ten billion. So no, we haven't.

Food production isn't the main issue, but other resources. At least we can't expect to maintain this level of consumption of non-renewable resources for longer than a few decades.

And more to the point, they're the countries who are increasing the population.

Look it up, folks. It's the definition of first (developed), second (developing) and third (undeveloped) world nations. Undeveloped nations have high and fluctuating birth and death rates and low population density, developing nations have reduced death rates and increased population density, developed nations have low and fluctuating birth and death rates and a high population density.

The USA's stance on birth control is irrelevant to planetary population increase. Look at countries like the Philippines which have a 92m population and increase it by 22 per thou annually...

Indeed, but because the third world population is so poor on average they might not even be able to afford abortion or birth control. Also, in East Asia abortion has led to high imbalance in boys/girls birth ratio, because boys are favoured highly over girls.

I support the right of a woman and her partner to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Is there a country where the man has anything to say on the matter?

 

[Famine]

Food production isn't the main issue, but other resources. At least we can't expect to maintain this level of consumption of non-renewable resources for longer than a few decades.

Like what?

We're producing more food, clean water, clothing, housing, medicines, oil and power than we need to sustain the population of the planet. Those that are limited have reserves for decades to come and as yet untapped sources elsewhere.

The planet itself is not overpopulated. Not by a long way.

Indeed, but because the third world population is so poor on average they might not even be able to afford abortion or birth control.

Or want it.

Birth rates are high in undeveloped nations because death rates are high. If your child has a 75% chance of dying before adulthood, you need to push out eight kids to get two to replace the two of you and keep population stable - compared to 2.1 kids in a developed nation where 95% of kids reach adulthood.

They don't want to use birth control or abort kids because they need eight kids to sustain the population. Also because of the rampant Catholicism that can usually be found in these nations.

This is why developing nations are defined by a falling death rate first. The death rate falls from 25-30/00 to 4-8/00 because of better access to food, clean water and medical care. After the death rate falls, having so many children becomes unnecessary and then it becomes deleterious as the population rapidly inflates and resources are spread thin. Only then does the birth rate fall because folk stop wanting to have so many kids.

You can't address methods to reduce the number of children in a country where many children are needed to offset the death rate, until you address the death rate. Or the population dies.

Also, in East Asia abortion has led to high imbalance in boys/girls birth ratio, because boys are favoured highly over girls.

That's not strictly true.

Foolish notions on population control combined with ingrained societal gender bias have led to that imbalance - limiting people to how many children they have leads to them wanting specific attributes for their children and in nations where one gender is treated almost as a slave class, not wanting their child to be that gender is natural.


Moreover, abortion for reasons of gender-selection is illegal in countries like China that adopt a one-child policy. It still happens, of course, because folk don't want their kid to be the wrong kind and they only get one chance - but it's not the illegal tool of sex-selective abortion that is to blame for the gender imbalance, rather the reasons behind it becoming a consideration in the first place.

 

[XoravaX]

Like what?

We're producing more food, clean water, clothing, housing, medicines, oil and power than we need to sustain the population of the planet. Those that are limited have reserves for decades to come and as yet untapped sources elsewhere.

The planet itself is not overpopulated. Not by a long way.

Farmlands in Africa are already over-cultivated, and too much cattle is kept on dry grasslands which causes erosion and desertification. Phosphorus resources are sufficient for only 50-100 years (they run out in the best case in 345 years, some believe they run out in less than 100 years), and they're really important for agriculture because phosphates are used as fertilisers. Seas are being over-fished which has already caused a drop in fish populations. If everyone used as much water as we do, Africa and other dry areas would have run out of water decades ago. The population might be sustainable in status quo, but not if the third world people gain access to the same standard of living we have and get our consumption habits. Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, Japan and South Korea make up for only a bit over 1 billion inhabitants. Yet our energy consumption is over half of the total energy consumption in the world. Just cease all aid to the third world nations except renewable energy funds and let them survive on their own, for the humankind it's better to not raise their standard of living to what we have.

 

[sumbrownkid]

But let's leave them to the starvation and disease while we play our PS3's huh?

Seems legit.

 

[Carbonox]

But let's leave them to the starvation and disease while we play our PS3's huh?

Seems legit.

Since when have ordinary Western citizens been responsible for those living in the 3rd world?