ABORTION - Right or Wrong - Page 28

quote silverboner

quote Arjy

This is so true. It's a totally untenable situation to say that a cluster of cells is anything worthwhile.

Yet we claim cluster of cells are worth while every day. Reality is different then what you claim.

Semantics. Humans are a cluster of cells, yes, but of a very different structure to a zygote or very very early fetus.

This is all high and mighty silverboner but at the end of the day, practically, you don't have a leg to stand on. We value black people equally to white people because they ARE equal, despite the biological difference of skin pigmentation. This is because skin colour has no impact on any other traits of humanity other than how someone looks on the outside, black people and white people feel the same, have the same abilities, etc etc.

However we don't treat the disabled equally in many arenas. Someone who is blind cannot be treated equally in areas like driving, because they cannot see, so they can't be allowed to drive. We don't discriminate on them because they are somehow not human, it's simply a biological structure thing that means they cannot enjoy certain freedoms because it's better to impede their freedom than to have them driving blind and killing people. Ergo, due to their biology (eyes not working), they are discriminated against for the greater good.

Similarly, with fetuses, they are in a practical position where their existence by definition can conflict with a mothers right to choose her life and what to do with her body. Whether its human or not doesn't even have to come into it. We have to balance a fetuses right to life with a mothers will to choose what happens to her body. Due to biological structure, early fetuses have way less intelligence, sensitivity, desires etc than the human mother, therefore we discriminate against them for the greater good.

This is why the actual biology of the fetus matters.

quote silverboner

And that ladies and gentlemen is the summation of abortion argument. We are more important then them...so we should do what ever the *bleep* we want with them. Never mind that we have no rights to kill others on this basis, nor that we should.

Right, we just have the right to kill others on bases that you deem convenient, since I happen to know that you support the death penalty. Also, considering that abortions are heavily regulated in terms of timeframe and procedure, we aren't doing "whatever the *bleep* we want" to the embryo. But, yes, the mother's rights take precedence.

quote silverboner

Is that progressing human rights? Is sitting around and inflating our own worth over that of another human being, to the point of KILLING THEM, at our will, progressing human rights in any manner that is consistent with any progression that we would be proud of? If we applied this logic to any born human, it would fail miserably, and it has failed miserably over the last 200 years in America with slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and homosexual rights.

The idea that our biology can be used to differentiate between those that have rights, and those that do not, hasn't stood up to any amount of scrutiny in the last two hundred years, and when we actually attempt to progress HUMAN rights, abortion will be outlawed, just as slavery, or oppressing women.

But that's why the argument is so amusing. It's purely semantic. You use the word "human" and peg the fetus onto the same level as you and I as if the progression of human rights applies indiscriminately to organisms which aren't even definitively human beings. Human rights advocates realize, of course, that progressing human rights actually means NOT forcing women to undergo pregnancies which they have no desire or aren't in any circumstance to see to completion. There is no set standard against which to "scrutinize."

quote silverboner

and the state in fact restricts rights to her body even if she is not pregnant(alcohol, tobacco, drugs, tattoos,)

How are there restrictions on tattoos...?

quote silverboner

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the right to drive and the right live?

But isn't there also a difference between having restrictions based on alcohol consumption, and being forced to endure something with your body that you don't want?

quote silverboner

denying blind people driving privileges/rights, isn't a discrimination of biology, its a discrimination on ability.

In terms of ability, a fetus in the earlier stages doesn't have the ability to live outside the womb...

quote Arjy

We have to balance a fetuses right to life with a mothers will to choose what happens to her body. Due to biological structure, early fetuses have way less intelligence, sensitivity, desires etc than the human mother, therefore we discriminate against them for the greater good.

That's my reasoning... say a fetus were considered a human, there's still a conflict. The rights of 2 different humans are conflicting with each other. For the fetus there's the "right to live" and for the woman there's the "right to her body"... you can't grant one their rights without infringing upon the other's... ultimately, someone's rights are going to be violated, so whose do you pick? That of the woman, or that of the fetus?

By saying they are fighting for an individual's rights, a pro-life person is at the same time violating the rights of a different person. They fight for the rights they feel the unborn child should have but completely ignore the rights of the woman - in fact, they're being unfair and unjust to the woman by denying her the ability to make a decision regarding her body.

There's a problem... it's a no-win situation.

What if a woman was having complications with her pregnancy? What if, because of her health, she would die if she carried her pregnancy the whole way? The baby might live if she made it to labor, but even if she made it all the way to labor, she would definitely die in childbirth. (And this happens. There are women who are told that because of health reasons, their chances of surviving childbirth are slim to nothing.) Whose life (or potential life) is of more value here? Would you tell the woman she should die to avoid having an abortion? If you say that, you're not very pro-life material.

In the end we have to choose whose rights are granted at the expense of the others. It's not always a pretty situation but the fact is by telling a woman she can't have an abortion you're doing exactly to her what you're saying shouldn't be done to the fetus in her body.

quote silverboner

Those aren't human rights advocates. You cannot claim to be a human rights advocate, and then advocate the removal of rights from the unborn humans.

Then that would mean there is no such thing as a human rights advocate here at all. If someone is not a human rights advocate because they opt for the rights of the woman at the expense of the fetus... the same applies to anyone who opts for the rights of the fetus at the expense of the woman... anyone who stands only for the rights of the fetus therefore also wouldn't be a human rights advocate by your definition because they are ignoring the rights of the woman... again, it's a no-win... if that were the case, a human rights advocate would only be someone who supports the rights of both the woman and fetus... and in the scenario where a woman wants abortion, it's not possible to fight for both, meaning to be a human rights advocate is out of the question.

Basically if what you argue is true, neither a pro-life nor a pro-choice person is a human rights advocate.

quote silverboner

I reject any and all claims that gestation is a "force" that is any more illegal then the force of law that "forces" children to get an education or the "force" of the government robbing individuals of their money through taxes.

quote silverboner

There is no meaningful "force" in women that get pregnant through consexual sex, and are "forced" to gestate.

I disagree, but so be it.

quote silverboner

Its like saying I have a right to live, so I should be able to kill this other guy (for food, water, organs, blood, bone marrow), so I can live.

What many people would argue, is that that grown man is already living and has thoughts, feelings, a mind, memory, connections, a life... some people would tell you that killing him wouldn't be the same as aborting a fetus and that you're comparing two different things.

quote silverboner

Your right doesn't superceed their right.

I guess that's what remains up for debate.

quote silverboner

I absolutely fail to see how its doing the same thing.

It's the same thing in that someone who is pro-life is against revoking the rights of a fetus yet they completely disregard the rights of the woman. It's not the same in that the woman is being "killed" per se, but as far as I can tell the main argument against abortion is that it deprives a life of its rights and how that is so wrong, but what about the woman herself? Her rights are being ignored. By advocating for the rights of an unborn child you're depriving the woman of her own rights thus defeating the purpose of advocating for one's rights.

However, you said you don't believe any woman/human is entitled to such rights so I suppose my statement is pointless.

quote silverboner

but rather because you are a human being

And I suppose that all comes down to how you define a human being. You and many others see it as starting at conception while others don't, so in the eyes of the latter, a human isn't being killed.

Human being:

quote 1

a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

quote 2

any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

quote 3

A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance

I'm probably going to regret throwing this in, but for added discussion, the legal definition of a human being is that a fetus doesn't become a human until it leaves the mother's body.

Source

Arcturus,

Many people have claimed that newborns are conscious. Never once has anyone presented any evidence for this claim. I will admittedly state I have not searched out in any exhaustive measure "neuroscience journals," but that doesn't mean someone has actually backed up their claims with evidence either.

Please by all means find me one, and prove me wrong. I ask, every time, cause I have yet to find or see any, and would love for you to present one. And even if I don't exhaustively seek out neurosicence journals, that doesn't mean I have never looked for such evidence.

As far as what is human, the biological classification scheme already answers that, and its pretty simple in a nut shell. If your parents are human beings, so are you. I suppose this could be inappropriately applied to genetic defects which do not produce human beings, that are errors in reproduction, but such errors, are known to be errors, as in they are not human beings, and do not posses the nature of human beings.

I don't really claim physiology alone is the basis for biological classification. Its not "function" that is of so importance as it is parent/s.

WhisperintheWind,

Why is it appropriate to claim that women are "forced" to gestate? When we use the word force in conjunction with laws and rights, such as abortion rights or abortion laws, the only "force" that is when someone forces another to do something...right? If I forced myself on a woman, (rape), that is illegal, cause I forced myself onto her, and denied her a choice to say no. When the government "forces" us to pay taxes by "stealing" it from our pay checks such terminology, though accurate it may be oir one might feel, is still legal.

In consexual intercourse, she is not "forced" to do anything, and is a willing partner. That means she also consequently accepts responsibility for direct consequences. There is no meaningful use of the word "force" when applied to consequences of an action that one participates in. For instance, someone that willingly jumps out of a plane with the intent to open a parachute and land safely could be said to be "forced" to die when the chute doesn't open, but aren't they responsible for jumping out of the plane? HOw is claiming that they are "forced" to die meaningful? Its a colorful way to say they died, but in reality, they weren't forced to die, unless someone tampered with their chute.

What about someone that is promiscuous and gets an STD? They routine do not have safe sex, are they "forced" to get an STD? Such colorful phrases doesn't amount to anything meaningful. You can word it that way, but it doesn't present the situation in any manner that allows one to conclude about "wrongness" or that someone was wronged because they were "forced" in that fashion.

While I understand that some people would argue that a fetus and a "grown" man are not the same thing, and I would happen to agree with them, how does that justify treating them differently? A woman is not the same as a man, can we treat them differently? An African is not the same as a white man, can we or should we treat them different? If if have the right to life, because I am a human being, then I cannot use that right to take the life of another. If a woman has a right to her body, it doesn't make any sense that she then can use that right to deny the same right, and the right to life to another human being. If the right to one's own body is important, then shouldn't everyone have that right, and not just the people in power, or the people that vote?


You think prolifers are denying the woman rights, but yet no-one except her has a right to kill another human being because its unwanted. Not only that, but I would argue that abortion isn't depriving her of her rights to her body. Rather denying abortion is denying her rights over that of another body. Illegalizing abortion is denying her the right to kill someone else. Its not a denial over her own body. And that is something I would think people can get behind because few people would be willing to have someone else lord over them with the right to kill them. But we think its OK that women should have that right for someone else? Lets apply the golden rule here, that is what human rights is all about. Giving someone the same rights you declare for yourself, on the virtue of their humanity, just as you have such rights on the virtue of your humanity.

As far as your legal definition, its moot. It varies on the state, and country. In the US, the general rule is that if the unborn is wanted, you can be prosecuted for causing its death. ScoTt Peterson was charged and convicted of double homicide for instance. But Tammy Skinner, was the mom, and shot her own kid, the day she was scheduled to give birth, and it was legal. A woman can procure an abortion and its legal, but if someone forces it on her, they can be held accountable for the death of the unborn. That makes them a person with rights, so long as they are wanted. And I cannot think of anything sicker then a system that grants wanted human beings rights, and disregards the rights of the unwanted, when it comes to something as simple as rights to life.

This thread reminds me of this.

Just keeps going round and round and never gets anywhere, just gets more boring each time.



MOD Edit
I want to ride the zygote... I want to ride the fetus...