Abortion Rights

[rjd970]

How can you have the conversation without an agreement on the basis of such rights? We've seen the futility in how you're trying to do that. Big offers scripture, you guys mock, rinse, repeat.

Cart/Horse

(You don't want to answer because it defeats your ability to really even have the discussion.)

A non-person does not have the same rights as a person. I think even you would agree with that.

In a thread about abortion, this is a futile discussion if we aren't even talking about a person. If you/he are saying a fertilized egg has these rights, then I need to be convinced that a fertilized egg is a person before I can talk about where its rights came from. If it is not a person, the basis for the rights of a person are immaterial.

This is not cart/horse. You want to talk about the basis of a person's rights. I'm saying a fertilized egg isn't a person. If it is, then lets hear it.

 

[rjd970]

I don't. you have denied that person's personhood based solely on your beliefs and not what they as the individual may have wanted. so in that way you have denied them who they are/were.

if you follow your thinking thru you are essentially saying its ok to harvest organs from people who aren't donors. damn what they want, we need your organs.

I'm simply placing the importance of real world suffering and keeping someone alive over a medically dead body in every way except a machine keeping them alive. The medically dead individual can't feel, think, respond, or suffer in any way. The brain is dead.

As for the second part, the medically dead person with no hope of recovery or resumption of brain activity can't want anything. At some point the machine will be turned off anyway.

You qualified it earlier as no DNR and having the money to keep the machine on. I can't justify turning it off for lack of funds, verses turning it off to save another life (in the absence of other legal mitigations).

 

[LouderVol]

A non-person does not have the same rights as a person. I think even you would agree with that.

In a thread about abortion, this is a futile discussion if we aren't even talking about a person. If you/he are saying a fertilized egg has these rights, then I need to be convinced that a fertilized egg is a person before I can talk about where its rights came from. If it is not a person, the basis for the rights of a person are immaterial.

This is not cart/horse. You want to talk about the basis of a person's rights. I'm saying a fertilized egg isn't a person. If it is, then lets hear it.

this isn't about a fertilized egg. this is about abortion which mean embryo. does that not pass your muster?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Louder, thanks for your input.
I'd love to get your feedback on the argument i briefly summarized earlier in the thread. Over the years, i've taken a hard look at the pro-life and pro-choice positions.

Since i left the organized church about 3 years ago, I've evaluated several doctrines and positions to see if my beliefs hold up and are even necessary for my Christian worldview. What i discovered is that the argument, on both sides, is flawed. I knew something was wrong but i couldn't place my finger on it. I sincerely believe that both sides are sincere and convinced that they are doing the right thing. But, how can two sides be so diametrically opposed to one another? Pro-lifers have resolved that pro-choices are evil. Pro-choicers have resolved that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies and force their religious views on them. Both sides couldn't be more wrong.

The term 'personhood' and human rights kept coming up, but as has been covered, how do we define and support those terms with any objective grounding? As evidenced by the bail out and avoidance by several on this thread, it's clear that those terms cannot be objectively tied down, unless one takes the stance that God has imbued rights to people including the unborn.

Again, i found the arguments on this soft and of course this would result in imposing a religious view as law. For one, I don't think God has imbued us with "rights." I do, as a Christian, believe that God has purposed the human race and due this fact, humans have objective value. From this, we have a foundation to define 'rights.' But, this isn't the same as "rights" existing as some commodity. And, even if the secular world accepted this (and they won't, or should they have to) it still doesn't answer (at least not with any certainty) whether abortion is a violation of those rights. Because, it could still be argued that we don't know when a person becomes a person. Conception? Uterine Implantation? Heart beat? Birth?

So, i knew there had to be something based on the facts of biology and ethics that would resolve this question. I think this argument demonstrates why abortion is prima facie a moral wrong. And one doesn't have to believe in God to accept it.

The argument of potential?

 

[LouderVol]

I'm simply placing the importance of real world suffering and keeping someone alive over a medically dead body in every way except a machine keeping them alive. The medically dead individual can't feel, think, respond, or suffer in any way. The brain is dead.

As for the second part, the medically dead person with no hope of recovery or resumption of brain activity can't want anything. At some point the machine will be turned off anyway.

You qualified it earlier as no DNR and having the money to keep the machine on. I can't justify turning it off for lack of funds, verses turning it off to save another life (in the absence of other legal mitigations).

so if you don't have the means/ability to care for yourself your rights of personhood aren't to be respected? This is where I get extremely uncomfortable with the idea. you (or someone) is determining when a person's rights stop, not the person themselves.

the brain dead person made his choice when he was alive and a "person" in your books. why does that person's choice/rights stop mattering? again are you harvesting organs from unwilling donors?

 

[Orange_Crush]

How is it not arbitrary?

How is the belief in God and scripture arbitrary?

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

More to the point, it makes his beliefs in human rights internally consistent. Have you asked yourself why the atheists in here refused to play with Roust as soon as he expected them to ground their claimed RIGHTS in an abortion RIGHTS debate?

Hint: It's not because Rousts is objectively proven and theirs isn't.

 

[rjd970]

so if you don't have the means/ability to care for yourself your rights of personhood aren't to be respected? This is where I get extremely uncomfortable with the idea. you (or someone) is determining when a person's rights stop, not the person themselves.

the brain dead person made his choice when he was alive and a "person" in your books. why does that person's choice/rights stop mattering? again are you harvesting organs from unwilling donors?

As I said before, if there is not a DNR or other legal mitigations that need to respected, I'm on the same page.

However, at the point of irreversible brain death including the brain stem with no guidance of what to do beforehand, there is not a person anymore. It is a body with a collection of organs laying on a bed that will cease being alive once organ failure happens or the machine is turned off. There is no capacity for this body to feel, think, react, suffer, or feel joy. There simply is no brain. The person is dead and all we are left with is a body.

I don't feel comfortable placing the rights of a that body over the rights of a person that can be saved.

 

[Orange_Crush]

A non-person does not have the same rights as a person. I think even you would agree with that.

In a thread about abortion, this is a futile discussion if we aren't even talking about a person. If you/he are saying a fertilized egg has these rights, then I need to be convinced that a fertilized egg is a person before I can talk about where its rights came from. If it is not a person, the basis for the rights of a person are immaterial.

This is not cart/horse. You want to talk about the basis of a person's rights. I'm saying a fertilized egg isn't a person. If it is, then lets hear it.

I didn't read all of that. Sorry. It's futile to have a discussion on abortion RIGHTS until you establish the basis for the RIGHTS you are defending.

If you go back and do that, I'll read your post. I shouldn't need to interact much, as you could then busy yourself with Roust again.

 

[LouderVol]

As I said before, if there is not a DNR or other legal mitigations that need to respected, I'm on the same page.

However, at the point of irreversible brain death including the brain stem with no guidance of what to do beforehand, there is not a person anymore. It is a body with a collection of organs laying on a bed that will cease being alive once organ failure happens or the machine is turned off. There is no capacity for this body to feel, think, react, suffer, or feel joy. There simply is no brain. The person is dead and all we are left with is a body.

I don't feel comfortable placing the rights of a that body over the rights of a person that can be saved.

A living person has the right to frankenstein himself from other bodies? Ability, certainly. Right?

 

[rjd970]

this isn't about a fertilized egg. this is about abortion which mean embryo. does that not pass your muster?

I'll give you and Roust what you want.

At 8-12 weeks of pregnancy we have something that absolutely has the same rights as a 30 year old man. There is no difference and both need to be protected.

Before that, it isn't a person and doesn't have those same rights.

As I've said before, if you think it is a person before that, I would like to hear it.

 

[QuickSmurf]

Hahahahahahahahaha

What are you insane?

 

[LouderVol]

I'll give you and Roust what you want.

At 8-12 weeks of pregnancy we have something that absolutely has the same rights as a 30 year old man. There is no difference and both need to be protected.

Before that, it isn't a person and doesn't have those same rights.

As I've said before, if you think it is a person before that, I would like to hear it.

I believe it is human once it hits the embryonic state. (roughly a week after conception). but it still doesn't mean you can kill it willy nilly.

 

[rjd970]

I believe it is human once it hits the embryonic state. (roughly a week after conception). but it still doesn't mean you can kill it willy nilly.

I believe it is human before that.

 

[rjd970]

I didn't read all of that. Sorry. It's futile to have a discussion on abortion RIGHTS until you establish the basis for the RIGHTS you are defending.

If you go back and do that, I'll read your post. I shouldn't need to interact much, as you could then busy yourself with Roust again.

If you read this thread from the beginning, it actually has more to do with what rights the man has, legally.

At some point, it has turned into a person's objective rights and how they are imbued upon us.

You can give that basis for the rights if you want. Or Roust can. We've gone on for pages before in other threads on objective morality, rights, etc. I simply don't have the want to do that again. Hell, I'll even just defer to what you think that basis is. I'm not even going to debate it for the purposes of this thread.

No matter the answer though, the end result is going to be it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about a person up to a certain point.

 

[orangeluvr]

Because a law is law that doesn't mean said law right. People have a choice, follow man's law or follow God's. If the latter is chosen there would be no need for such a heinous act. It's a matter of personal conduct and shouldn't be used as a political weapon. :ermm:

 

[Roustabout]

A fertilized egg is human, but I contend it is not a person. I think at a minimum, brain activity is a perquisite for being a person. I don't agree with destroying anything after the first trimester, and anything between weeks 8-12 (the last third of the first trimester) should be off the table.

If you think personhood starts earlier, I'm all ears.

A blastocyst, zygote, etc. is on a course to have a heart beat, brain activity, vision, etc.
You are making a false equivalency. You are talking about a person who had brain activity, suffered some trauma that DEPRIVED the life of it's intended course and future. You are actually making an argument against what you are intending. If you deprive life of what it's future reality that is NOT a good thing. That is exactly what abortion does.

 

[Roustabout]

The argument of potential?

I would say potentiality more so than potential, just because of how the term could be misconstrued.

 

[Roustabout]

A non-person does not have the same rights as a person. I think even you would agree with that.

In a thread about abortion, this is a futile discussion if we aren't even talking about a person. If you/he are saying a fertilized egg has these rights, then I need to be convinced that a fertilized egg is a person before I can talk about where its rights came from. If it is not a person, the basis for the rights of a person are immaterial.

This is not cart/horse. You want to talk about the basis of a person's rights. I'm saying a fertilized egg isn't a person. If it is, then lets hear it.

And you are right back to begging the question. What rights? What is the source and grounding of these rights. When are they imbued?

 

[rjd970]

A blastocyst, zygote, etc. is on a course to have a heart beat, brain activity, vision, etc.
You are making a false equivalency. You are talking about a person who had brain activity, suffered some trauma that DEPRIVED the life of it's intended course and future. You are actually making an argument against what you are intending. If you deprive life of what it's future reality that is NOT a good thing. That is exactly what abortion does.

Does it have any (heart beat, brain activity, etc) at that point?

 

[rjd970]

And you are right back to begging the question. What rights? What is the source and grounding of these rights. When are they imbued?

I'll go with whatever you say. I agree with Roust. I'll even say God is the source and grounding on these rights.

Now tell me what bearing it has on the rights of a week old embryo. The woman has the right to remove it if she wants. The embryo is a non-person and can't have the same rights.

 

[Roustabout]

As I said before, if there is not a DNR or other legal mitigations that need to respected, I'm on the same page.

However, at the point of irreversible brain death including the brain stem with no guidance of what to do beforehand, there is not a person anymore. It is a body with a collection of organs laying on a bed that will cease being alive once organ failure happens or the machine is turned off. There is no capacity for this body to feel, think, react, suffer, or feel joy. There simply is no brain. The person is dead and all we are left with is a body.

I don't feel comfortable placing the rights of a that body over the rights of a person that can be saved.

This is a moral dilemma. I am more than willing to consider these situations where the mother's life is in imminent danger of death if the pregnancy went to delivery. What % of pregnancies does this constitute. Are you suggesting abortion should consider this very small percentage of dilemmas as a sweeping generalization to all viable pregnancies where this isn't an issue?

 

[Roustabout]

Does it have any (heart beat, brain activity, etc) at that point?

No. Already asked and answered.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If you read this thread from the beginning, it actually has more to do with what rights the man has, legally.

At some point, it has turned into a person's objective rights and how they are imbued upon us.

You can give that basis for the rights if you want. Or Roust can. We've gone on for pages before in other threads on objective morality, rights, etc. I simply don't have the want to do that again. Hell, I'll even just defer to what you think that basis is. I'm not even going to debate it for the purposes of this thread.

No matter the answer though, the end result is going to be it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about a person up to a certain point.

I can understand that you don't feel the desire to try to rope that breeze again. I think it fundamental to any conversation on "rights", and I still feel it makes your participation on such "rights" conversations self-defeated before you enter the conversation.

I have little desire for such discussions for the same reason. That's why I am just now entering this thread, and now only because I was asked to join. It does little good for anyone to debate "rights" without agreement on their inherent source.

if you are willing to defer to my basis for human rights, I think even the need to define when one becomes a "person" becomes murky.

I believe that God established human rights. As such, He gave the reasons we're not to murder. Because humans are made in His image, and because when we kill, we take away what we have no right to take away, another person's life.

Roust has argued well what I've believed for quite some time. Abortion is wrong (no matter at what stage it is done) because it is taking away a person's life. It is taking away that person's potential. Even if it wasn't considered a person at the time it was terminated, it was designed to become the image of God, for the glory of God, to make decisions, to effect the world.

One person robbed another person of the right to a life. All potential is robbed.

So, to me, it's not whether the science or philosophy says it was a person at the time it was terminated. It was designed and created by God for purpose, and a person took away what that person had no right to take away. A future and all that that entailed.

So, you're not interested in arguing where you will ground the rights we are debating, and because of where I ground the rights we are debating, I feel no need to define when a life becomes a person.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

No. Already asked and answered.

Then we agree it isn't a person.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I would say potentiality more so than potential, just because of how the term could be misconstrued.

Point taken.