Abortion Rights

[PKT_VOL]

No I'm not, but thanks for the assumption.

Ok. What specifically are you uncertain about?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm pretty sure you already know I'm a Christian. My worldview is that humans have objective value. It is on the grounding that human rights can be established. So, let me first qualify that my pro-life position isn't because "the bible says so." Contrary to what you might believe about my position, I don't think human rights exist in the way you are thinking. I think human rights are justified, but only because humans have objective value.

Objective value? How so? How to measure? Are all humans equal?

Do other non-human entities have objective value?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Otherwise, human rights are an arbitrary human construct with no grounding, which means those rights can be given or taken away based on popular opinion, the changing whims of culture, or by whoever has the most guns. Of course, i suspect on some level all of you know this, or you wouldn't be evading the answer.

That would seem to be the case for those went through slavery or those currently sitting in a North Korean concentration camp.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

How about you shut the **** up. I made a clear statement and like you have for years you hear what you want to and ignore what was clearly said. I should have blocked you years ago.

Lol. Triggered.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Since we scientifically know that human life begins at conception,

You keep saying this but fail to establish the concept of personhood and the criteria define the concept.

then the burden of proof is on those who are wanting THE RIGHT to terminate life.

Again, we have yet to determine personhood, let alone any right which might come from such.

Unlike many pro-life advocates i am not inflexible. I do see differences in a formed fetus and a one day old zygote. I acknowledge it's a difficult argument to say a zygote should have the same rights as a fully formed human, but that isn't my argument. If human rights exist then so does human responsibility. Even though i agree they may not possess the same rights (although they may), it is our human rights, as intelligent, autonomous moral agents, that place upon us an ethic to protect and preserve human life even at its earliest stage.

This is nonsensical.

The mother's womb is a wonderful invention (whether you credit it to god or evolution) that is designed to house, protect and incubate life. We all exist because of this very special, and what i would define as sacred, process. Abortion is an absolute destructive evil to deprive life of its intended course and destroy this ethic.

So, i would say, as moral creatures, we have a much greater responsibility to account for our actions. And, a much greater responsibility to defend the defenseless even if we are unsure of when personhood begins. The issue isn't simply who has rights, but what burdens those rights place on those who hold them.

No, personhood and any rights associated with personhood would be absolutely essential to the issue. In fact, it is *the* issue.

 

[Roustabout]

That would seem to be the case for those went through slavery or those currently sitting in a North Korean concentration camp.

So how did we ever correct the error of slavery?

 

[1972 Grad]

So how did we ever correct the error of slavery?

Started paying to get stuff done.

 

[Roustabout]

You keep saying this but fail to establish the concept of personhood and the criteria define the concept.



Again, we have yet to determine personhood, let alone any right which might come from such.



This is nonsensical.



No, personhood and any rights associated with personhood would be absolutely essential to the issue. In fact, it is *the* issue.

Can you ask one question at a time? Geez.
Again, human rights, do they exist? I've stated my case, and your bald assertions don't shift the burden to me. If all you have in response is "nonsensical" then you've only affirmed my regret in engaging you in conversation.

For those reading, I am not arguing the issue of personhood. I'm aware of these arguments on both sides. And regardless of what PKT asserts, it isn't necessary to talk about human rights. We all know what defines a human. There are some clever but nonetheless underhanded debate tactics utilized in these discussions. One is to ask questions and attempt to force your interlocutor to accept (perhaps unknowingly) your assumptions, which of course allows you to easily pull the rug out on their argument.

A basic question is this, when a life is taken, what is actually being taken? Is it rights or personhood? No. So, what is it?

 

[Roustabout]

Started paying to get stuff done.

It's actually a defeating question for him. Otherwise, what grounds would we have to end such injustices. Or, better yet, call it injustice. If humans have no objective value, then ethics are shifting with the sands of time, and there is no magnetic moral north and no ideal to aim for.

 

[rjd970]

It's actually a defeating question for him. Otherwise, what grounds would we have to end such injustices. Or, better yet, call it injustice. If humans have no objective value, then ethics are shifting with the sands of time, and there is no magnetic moral north and no ideal to aim for.

You still haven’t addressed the question. You’ve only dismissed it and stated all humans have objective value.

Is me taking a gun and killing a little girl have the same objective outcome as removing a blastocyst from a woman’s womb?

 

[Roustabout]

You still haven’t addressed the question. You’ve only dismissed it and stated all humans have objective value.

Is me taking a gun and killing a little girl have the same objective outcome as removing a blastocyst from a woman’s womb?

Actually, it's you that haven't answered the question.

I didn't say it's the same. That's the problem with your argument. You assume that for abortion to be wrong that it has to be the same as some other moral atrocity. It doesn't. The sooner you stop making these ridiculous assertions the sooner we can have a real discussion.

What is being taken from the little girl? Please tell me.

 

[rjd970]

Actually, it's you that haven't answered the question.

I didn't say it's the same. That's the problem with your argument. You assume that for abortion to be wrong that it has to be the same as some other moral atrocity. It doesn't. The sooner you stop making these ridiculous assertions the sooner we can have a real discussion.

What is being taken fro the little girl? Please tell me.

The little girl is experiencing pain, fear, ceasing of brain activity, self awareness of being alive, a heartbeat, and a host of other biological functions. I don’t assume the for abortion to be wrong it has to be equivalent to some other moral atrocity. All I want to know is if you think removing a clump of 300 cells from a womb is murder of a person.

Again, where rights come from are separate from personhood. I’m not deflecting the question. This thread is about abortion rights, not where human rights come from.

 

[Roustabout]

The little girl is experiencing pain, fear, ceasing of brain activity, self awareness of being alive, a heartbeat, and a host of other biological functions. I don’t assume the for abortion to be wrong it has to be equivalent to some other moral atrocity. All I want to know is if you think removing a clump of 300 cells from a womb is murder of a person.

Again, where rights come from are separate from personhood. I’m not deflecting the question. This thread is about abortion rights, not where human rights come from.

What is being taken is the girl's future. She is being deprived of her potential reality and existence.

Your argument is an effort to reduce the earliest stage of human life to a clump of cells. However, you are also forgetting that pregnancy is a 9 month process with varying stages of development.

There is no question that the clump of cells is a developing human. Currently the world is populated with several billion case studies that confirm this to be fact. When you commit an abortion you are depriving this new life of it's potential future, just like you are with the little girl. Of course the little girl being killed is worse in our eyes because her potential as a zygote is already actualized. We she who she is, although at one point she was just zygote.

The rights issue isn't my issue. I already laid this out earlier when i stated I see humans as having objective value. So, i have a foundation outside of my opinion on which to build a case for human rights. But, i also stated that i don't see human rights existing in the sense many of you are talking about. The claim by the pro-abortion people is that an unborn human is not a person, and therefore does not have rights and can be destroyed by the mother at her will. Ok, this assumes that persons have rights, and that it's a matter of when those rights are conveyed. But this is a non-starter if they cannot provide a grounding or foundation for ANY human rights. For rights to be obtained means those rights have to exist. And to exist they have to have a source and grounding. This has been attempted to be turned on its head, and the burden of proof shifted. But i've just shown why this isn't my burden.

The problem is that the case i just exampled above really isn't a personhood issue or even a rights issue.

One argument presents it this way. Upon conception, the zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., has a future. A set of experiences, projects, activities and such that are identical to the futures of adult human beings. It is only if the natural course of things is interrupted that this potentiality would be deprived. Just the same as if the little girl is killed. Whether the little girl is killed accidentally or maliciously doesn't change WHAT was taken away (her future). We would all agree that if the girl is killed accidentally it is tragic but not morally wrong. In the same way a mother who loses her pregnancy through miscarriage experiences a real loss. I dare any of you to confront a female who has experienced this. However, if the girl is killed by another human with the intention to end her life, then it is a moral wrong. A human life was deprived of its future reality. From this we can see that abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

If you are claiming abortion is justifiable because the unborn are not persons, or do not have human rights, then you need to ground these terms and present a case for ANY human rights. You haven't. All you keep doing is trying to shift the burden of proof and move the goalposts. You failed.

 

[rjd970]

What is being taken is the girl's future. She is being deprived of her potential reality and existence.

Your argument is an effort to reduce the earliest stage of human life to a clump of cells. However, you are also forgetting that pregnancy is a 9 month process with varying stages of development.

There is no question that the clump of cells is a developing human. Currently the world is populated with several billion case studies that confirm this to be fact. When you commit an abortion you are depriving this new life of it's potential future, just like you are with the little girl. Of course the little girl being killed is worse in our eyes because her potential as a zygote is already actualized. We she who she is, although at one point she was just zygote.

The rights issue isn't my issue. I already laid this out earlier when i stated I see humans as having objective value. So, i have a foundation outside of my opinion on which to build a case for human rights. But, i also stated that i don't see human rights existing in the sense many of you are talking about. The claim by the pro-abortion people is that an unborn human is not a person, and therefore does not have rights and can be destroyed by the mother at her will. Ok, this assumes that persons have rights, and that it's a matter of when those rights are conveyed. But this is a non-starter if they cannot provide a grounding or foundation for ANY human rights. For rights to be obtained means those rights have to exist. And to exist they have to have a source and grounding. This has been attempted to be turned on its head, and the burden of proof shifted. But i've just shown why this isn't my burden.

The problem is that the case i just exampled above really isn't a personhood issue or even a rights issue.

One argument presents it this way. Upon conception, the zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., has a future. A set of experiences, projects, activities and such that are identical to the futures of adult human beings. It is only if the natural course of things is interrupted that this potentiality would be deprived. Just the same as if the little girl is killed. Whether the little girl is killed accidentally or maliciously doesn't change WHAT was taken away (her future). We would all agree that if the girl is killed accidentally it is tragic but not morally wrong. In the same way a mother who loses her pregnancy through miscarriage experiences a real loss. I dare any of you to confront a female who has experienced this. However, if the girl is killed by another human with the intention to end her life, then it is a moral wrong. A human life was deprived of its future reality. From this we can see that abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

If you are claiming abortion is justifiable because the unborn are not persons, or do not have human rights, then you need to ground these terms and present a case for ANY human rights. You haven't. All you keep doing is trying to shift the burden of proof and move the goalposts. You failed.

The argument from potential or future reality fails because any cell in our body is a potential human with today’s technology. It’s not natural like with fertilization, but let’s not forget that more times than we know that same process also ends by natural means. An embryo can form and end by natural and unnatural means, including in vitro, cloning, etc. The potential is the same in every case. I just don’t buy the potential argument.

I’m still rejecting your premise on a discussion of where a persons rights comes from to be had before we discuss if it even is a person to begin with. I’m rejecting this just like you are rejecting answering if there is a third person in the room at the moment of conception. At its base, I think that is where about disagreement is. What is the definition of being a person? If it is simply having genetic matter, then why not say so?

(And if you have answered this then forgive me, I’m on my phone and may have missed it.)

You aren’t answering because you don’t see that as the issue, as you just stated above. I do. And that’s where the disconnect is.

I’m not saying abortion is justifiable, and that has never been my position from the beginning. My position has always been the only thing I know is wrong are the extremes. Fertilization of an egg is not a person, and mid to late term there absolutely is. Obviously I don’t think something like the morning after pill is murder in any way. I suspect you do, but I really don’t know at this point.

 

[Roustabout]

The argument from potential or future reality fails because any cell in our body is a potential human with today’s technology. It’s not natural like with fertilization, but let’s not forget that more times than we know that same process also ends by natural means. An embryo can form and end by natural and unnatural means, including in vitro, cloning, etc. The potential is the same in every case. I just don’t buy the potential argument.

I’m still rejecting your premise on a discussion of where a persons rights comes from to be had before we discuss if it even is a person to begin with. I’m rejecting this just like you are rejecting answering if there is a third person in the room at the moment of conception. At its base, I think that is where about disagreement is. What is the definition of being a person? If it is simply having genetic matter, then why not say so?

(And if you have answered this then forgive me, I’m on my phone and may have missed it.)

You aren’t answering because you don’t see that as the issue, as you just stated above. I do. And that’s where the disconnect is.

I’m not saying abortion is justifiable, and that has never been my position from the beginning. My position has always been the only thing I know is wrong are the extremes. Fertilization of an egg is not a person, and mid to late term there absolutely is. Obviously I don’t think something like the morning after pill is murder in any way. I suspect you do, but I really don’t know at this point.

You just went off the reservation.
Have fun.

You literally just made some of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in these discussions and that includes Waffles insanity.

One, any cell in our body isn't a potential human. And even if it were that wouldn't change the potential argument. Duh.

Next, you literally implied that the natural loss of an unborn child is justification for abortion, which is akin to saying natural death is justification for killing someone. "Hell, people die all the time by natural means."

If the morning after pill wasn't taken what would happen if things proceeded according to design?

A person would be born. The difference is you don't value the potential and future of that person.

Finally,
You disagree on where a persons rights come from (although I don't think you really even grasp my position) yet you've refused to tell me where you think they come from. I'm waiting?

 

[rjd970]

You just went off the reservation.
Have fun.

You literally just made some of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in these discussions and that includes Waffles insanity.

One, any cell in our body isn't a potential human. And even if it were that wouldn't change the potential argument. Duh.

Next, you literally implied that the natural loss of an unborn child is justification for abortion, which is akin to saying natural death is justification for killing someone. "Hell, people die all the time by natural means."

If the morning after pill wasn't taken what would happen if things proceeded according to design?

A person would be born. The difference is you don't value the potential and future of that person.

Finally,
You disagree on where a persons rights come from (although I don't think you really even grasp my position) yet you've refused to tell me where you think they come from. I'm waiting?

First some housecleaning. I think literally everything I just stated flew right past you. Complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said.

At this point in history, is there the potential of any cell in the body that contains DNA to be a human? If you answer no to this question, you are flat wrong in every scientific and biological way. Period. We can make a human in a lab in a variety of ways and we do it all the time with in vitro. You brought up potential. POTENTIAL is absolutely there.

Where do you draw the line at potential? You are drawing at fertilization. Fine. I can arbitrarily draw it at the decision to have or not have sex, or the decision to clone or not clone a human, or utilize in vitro or not. This is why the potential argument is garbage. “Potential” can be started or stopped at a variety of points, by a variety of methods. I don’t know when that potential actualizes to a real person, but I certainly don’t think it is at the moment of conception.

And I didn’t imply anything about natural death as justification for abortion. I simply said that unnatural ends to fertilizations are not the only way they end as part of the potential argument. Nothing is guaranteed. My position has been clear. A blastocyst is not a person, it is a collection of human genetic material that may or may not result in a person. If you think it is a person I’m all ears and would love to hear it. If it is going to be another rabbit hole about where human rights come from, don’t bother or please start another thread.

What would happen if the morning after pill wasn’t taken if all things proceeded by design? OK, what would happen if a couple had decided to have sex instead of abstaining if everything proceeded by design? What would happen if they decided not to use birth control? Is there not POTENTIAL in every one of those cases to create a human?

The only answer to that question each of us can honestly say is “I don’t know”. Hell, “by design” might be a miscarriage.

Maybe this will resonate, what is being destroyed With the morning after pill, a person, or a POTENTIAL person? I doubt I get an answer on that

All that is completely different than aborting a fetus that has the capacity to feel, think, react, move, breathe, etc. and you damn well know that. At that point the arbitrary potential argument is gone and we have a real person we need to protect and worry about.

Which is all why the discussion always ends up to when is it a person? Which has been my question to you from the beginning.

 

[Iam4utalways]

If you were a rabbit farmer, you would know it only takes a rabbit 1 month from conception to birth. How early can you say?, "Here comes some more rabbits."

If we don't need to count potential. Why abort at all? It's just a zygote. Everybody knows that code for, "Congratulations Mom.". Keep it or kill it.

We are all smart enough to know what's coming next when the sperm gets to the egg. It's call a baby.

If we are are just dirt then who cares?

If there is more to it? We all better care.

My advice is to hedge your bets.

They all count as far as I'm concerned. Not the rabbits, but all the babies.

 

[apevol]

Agreed. So the question is where do human rights come from.

I've mentioned that several times and it keeps getting ignored.

It keeps getting ignored, because everyone knows where you're going with it and they aren't enthusiastic about the 15 pages of senseless arguing that will ensue.

 

[Roustabout]

It keeps getting ignored, because everyone knows where you're going with it and they aren't enthusiastic about the 15 pages of senseless arguing that will ensue.

I don't think you're smart enough to realize what you just said.

But, I can guarantee you none of them saw where I was going with my last in depth post.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Roust- you've stated that all humans have rights and that is the source of their rights. That seems every bit as an arbitrary as my view that human rights are born in people's desire to survive and maintain an orderly society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like hear more about this objective view.

 

[Roustabout]

First some housecleaning. I think literally everything I just stated flew right past you. Complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said.

At this point in history, is there the potential of any cell in the body that contains DNA to be a human? If you answer no to this question, you are flat wrong in every scientific and biological way. Period. We can make a human in a lab in a variety of ways and we do it all the time with in vitro. You brought up potential. POTENTIAL is absolutely there.

Where do you draw the line at potential? You are drawing at fertilization. Fine. I can arbitrarily draw it at the decision to have or not have sex, or the decision to clone or not clone a human, or utilize in vitro or not. This is why the potential argument is garbage. “Potential” can be started or stopped at a variety of points, by a variety of methods. I don’t know when that potential actualizes to a real person, but I certainly don’t think it is at the moment of conception.

And I didn’t imply anything about natural death as justification for abortion. I simply said that unnatural ends to fertilizations are not the only way they end as part of the potential argument. Nothing is guaranteed. My position has been clear. A blastocyst is not a person, it is a collection of human genetic material that may or may not result in a person. If you think it is a person I’m all ears and would love to hear it. If it is going to be another rabbit hole about where human rights come from, don’t bother or please start another thread.

What would happen if the morning after pill wasn’t taken if all things proceeded by design? OK, what would happen if a couple had decided to have sex instead of abstaining if everything proceeded by design? What would happen if they decided not to use birth control? Is there not POTENTIAL in every one of those cases to create a human?

The only answer to that question each of us can honestly say is “I don’t know”. Hell, “by design” might be a miscarriage.

Maybe this will resonate, what is being destroyed With the morning after pill, a person, or a POTENTIAL person? I doubt I get an answer on that

All that is completely different than aborting a fetus that has the capacity to feel, think, react, move, breathe, etc. and you damn well know that. At that point the arbitrary potential argument is gone and we have a real person we need to protect and worry about.

Which is all why the discussion always ends up to when is it a person? Which has been my question to you from the beginning.

I think it's you that's missing me.
The DNA argument your making is a conflation. The reality is that regardless of our tech advances the reality of a fertilized egg in the womb is where we get new humans. The ability to combine a sperm and egg in the lab doesn't change that.

You've also categorized the value of life and it's potential by its ability to fit your criteria of feeling pain. In reality, a newly formed zygote has the same future potential as a 9 month old fetus. A zygote holds all the potential of personhood and is in FACT on its course for such. To knowingly intervene to terminate this is to destroy (murder) this reality.

You are also ignoring that there are those that would argue that a 3 month old fetus, a 6 month, 9 month, are also NOT persons. It's telling that you aren't as passionate about debating with them. Heck, there are even those that think a newborn is not a person.

Was being a blastocyst part of your human develooment and current personhood?

 

[Roustabout]

Roust- you've stated that all humans have rights and that is the source of their rights. That seems every bit as an arbitrary as my view that human rights are born in people's desire to survive and maintain an orderly society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like hear more about this objective view.

i'm only speaking to the rights issue because of those who claim they have these rights but the unborn don't. Fine, show me where those rights are grounded and sourced. Your comment exposes the problem and why no one wants to go down that path.

If you've paid close attention then you may have figured out that I'm not really arguing that the unborn have rights the SAME as the born. Hell, on one line I could even say that I don't think human rights exist in the sense you are using the term.

Another way of looking at it.
Why is murder wrong? If you say "human rights" then you are left with the same problem you referenced above. That ethic collapses in arbitrariness. Because you want to survive? Preference?

An objective view simply says that human value is sourced not in its own arbitrary selfish desire to survive, but that human existence is purposed outside of itself.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Your statement that humans have objective value seems arbitrary.

 

[Roustabout]

Your statement that humans have objective value seems arbitrary.

You're hilarious.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You're hilarious.

Explain. You make the statement that the source of human rights is the belief that humans have objective value yet you haven't provided the source of this objective value.