Abortion Rights

[Roustabout]

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.

My position can be held by an ardent atheist. It does not require a belief in God. God or no God, it has NO BEARING on the moral outcome of abortion. I've already laid this out. I've already stated my position is that human rights do not exist as some metaphysical commodity. If you make a positive claim that a woman has the right to remove the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., etc., stage of human development, then you would have to DEFEND that claim. It's not my responsibility to defeat your positive claim that you have yet to support.

The embryo is most certainly a future person. Just as a child is a future adult who will also receive DIFFERENT rights at adulthood. Just as an adult is a future senior who will also receive different rights.

 

[Roustabout]

Then we agree it isn't a person.

I doubt we agree. I covered some of this in my last post. Your argument hinges on this notion of 'personhood.' I've already told you I don't accept your presuppositions and won't be forced into accepting them to answer your question.

 

[rjd970]

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:

Fair enough.

Using your basis as a starting point:

For the bold, I agree 100% with all that. Once we have a person, we are on the same page. (in reality and we have argued, I may not agree with how you get there, but I'm in agreement with the end result morally...ie...murder is wrong, etc).

Everything in blue follows with your basis and is logically correct.

--- Break ---

I agreed with the bold because you are talking about a person.

Everything in blue is your belief, my belief is that we don't have a person until a certain point. Hence, a non-person with person potential is still just a non-person until it is actualized. Rights are a non-issue.

 

[rjd970]

My position can be held by an ardent atheist. It does not require a belief in God. God or no God, it has NO BEARING on the moral outcome of abortion. I've already laid this out. I've already stated my position is that human rights do not exist as some metaphysical commodity. If you make a positive claim that a woman has the right to remove the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., etc., stage of human development, then you would have to DEFEND that claim. It's not my responsibility to defeat your positive claim that you have yet to support.

The embryo is most certainly a future person. Just as a child is a future adult who will also receive DIFFERENT rights at adulthood. Just as an adult is a future senior who will also receive different rights.

Here's my defense:

The woman is a person and has rights. Up to a point the embryo isn't and doesn't have the same rights. The woman can do as she pleases.

 

[rjd970]

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.

Why consider the mother over the pregnancy?

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?

I'm suggesting we already do this. We have defined what is and is not a person and per death criteria and such criteria still allows for life to happening in some flavor. There is obvious value of putting the rights of a person over a non-person that may be "alive".

The abortion debate is different because of several factors. Potential, religion, emotion, etc. But the fundamental principles of what constitutes a person does not change.

 

[rjd970]

I doubt we agree. I covered some of this in my last post. Your argument hinges on this notion of 'personhood.' I've already told you I don't accept your presuppositions and won't be forced into accepting them to answer your question.

Until you want to show me otherwise, I don't see how we disagree. It isn't a person to a point.

 

[Roustabout]

Why consider the mother over the pregnancy?



I'm suggesting we already do this. We have defined what is and is not a person and per death criteria and such criteria still allows for life to happening in some flavor. There is obvious value of putting the rights of a person over a non-person that may be "alive".

The abortion debate is different because of several factors. Potential, religion, emotion, etc. But the fundamental principles of what constitutes a person does not change.

I didn't say you should. I think these are valid discussions.

Personally, I think religion should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Fair enough.

Using your basis as a starting point:

For the bold, I agree 100% with all that. Once we have a person, we are on the same page. (in reality and we have argued, I may not agree with how you get there, but I'm in agreement with the end result morally...ie...murder is wrong, etc).

Everything in blue follows with your basis and is logically correct.

--- Break ---

I agreed with the bold because you are talking about a person.

Everything in blue is your belief, my belief is that we don't have a person until a certain point. Hence, a non-person with person potential is still just a non-person until it is actualized. Rights are a non-issue.

:hi:

 

[ClearwaterVol]

How is the belief in God and scripture arbitrary?



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.

I view it as no less arbitrary than my view that human rights are established through human interaction. In fact, since men wrote the bible I'd argue that the basis for each of our views of human rights is the same.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I view it as no less arbitrary than my view that human rights are established through human interaction. In fact, since men wrote the bible I'd argue that the basis for each of our views of human rights is the same.

Ok. It seems our definitions of arbitrary differ.

 

[Roustabout]

I view it as no less arbitrary than my view that human rights are established through human interaction. In fact, since men wrote the bible I'd argue that the basis for each of our views of human rights is the same.

Your are missing the point. This isn't an argument to prove Christian theism is true. It's about whose view is internally consistent. Objective human value is consistent with Christian theism. This means that there is a fixed point by which to reference our ethics. Evolutionary naturalism (among other views) provides no grounds for objective human value and thus no fixed point.

So, how humans interact in the past could have been different resulting in a completely different ethic and how we view 'rights' today. Just the same, how things go in the future could completely rewrite what we consider 'rights' today.

 

[LouderVol]

I believe it is human before that.

human/personhood/worth protecting, whatever.

 

[LouderVol]

Roust, were you going to quote a specific point you wanted me to weigh in on?

 

[LouderVol]

rjd, you have defined an 9-12 week period as the point of when the life starts mattering. why is it that?

is it brain functionality? Heart beat, major organ development? or all the above? in some of your arguments you have tied a lot of importance to a lifes ability to experience things so it leads me to believe brain functionality is where you are coming from, but I would like to hear it from you.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So how did we ever correct the error of slavery?

Opinions change.

How did an objective system of morals allow slavery?

 

[PKT_VOL]

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.

I think human rights are a (useful) figment of the our minds.

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?

What defines "human" from a biological prospective is uncontroversial.

What defines as "life", in the context of "a life being taken", refers to personhood. That is the central idea of this whole exchange.

When talking about rights, rights are conferred upon a person. At the start of this thread, the discussion was about legal rights and moral responsibilities for the biological mother and father. However, if another has/ought to have legal/moral rights in this situation (the potential child), their personhood MUST be established. Discussing the moral/legal rights conferred upon a person to an entity which has a non-person status is nonsensical.

 

[theFallGuy]

Comedian Sarah Silverman said during a telethon to support abortions that a pro-life conscience law “would make her want to eat an aborted fetus.”

hmmmmmm

 

[Madscientistvol]

Comedian Sarah Silverman said during a telethon to support abortions that a pro-life conscience law “would make her want to eat an aborted fetus.”

hmmmmmm

Sarah Silverman, from everything I can see, is a terrible person. Not too far removed from Lena Dunham's statements of regret that she never had an abortion so that she could help reduce the stigmas against it.

 

[rjd970]

rjd, you have defined an 9-12 week period as the point of when the life starts mattering. why is it that?

is it brain functionality? Heart beat, major organ development? or all the above? in some of your arguments you have tied a lot of importance to a lifes ability to experience things so it leads me to believe brain functionality is where you are coming from, but I would like to hear it from you.

Brain function is an important part, at a minimum. Nothing is being experienced before we have a brain and biologically, ethically, and legally we cannot and do not recognize person status with no brain activity, much less no brain at all.

 

[LouderVol]

Opinions change.

How did an objective system of morals allow slavery?

so in the end you believe our objective system of morals will not allow abortions either, once opinions change?


simple answer. People suck, and some of those people need laws to keep them in check. and yes, those laws can suck too, so we need people to keep a check on them.

it would be so much better if people didn't hurt others, but you have the rjds of the world ready to rip organs out of bodies at the first flicker of a HRM. well I guess the first non flicker on the heart monitor.

 

[LouderVol]

I think human rights are a (useful) figment of the our minds.



What defines "human" from a biological prospective is uncontroversial.

What defines as "life", in the context of "a life being taken", refers to personhood. That is the central idea of this whole exchange.

When talking about rights, rights are conferred upon a person. At the start of this thread, the discussion was about legal rights and moral responsibilities for the biological mother and father. However, if another has/ought to have legal/moral rights in this situation (the potential child), their personhood MUST be established. Discussing the moral/legal rights conferred upon a person to an entity which has a non-person status is nonsensical.

we have established WHEN personhood has been established. you just disagree with the when because the mom may not want the responsibilities of her actions.

 

[PKT_VOL]

so in the end you believe our objective system of morals will not allow abortions either, once opinions change?

Our objective system of morals? What exactly are you referring to?

As to opinions changing, it is quite possible that abortion could be outlawed in the future. I think that is actually quite likely. The amazing development of artificial wombs will be instrumental.

simple answer. People suck, and some of those people need laws to keep them in check. and yes, those laws can suck too, so we need people to keep a check on them.

it would be so much better if people didn't hurt others, but you have the rjds of the world ready to rip organs out of bodies at the first flicker of a HRM. well I guess the first non flicker on the heart monitor.

Laws =/= morality.

 

[PKT_VOL]

we have established WHEN personhood has been established. you just disagree with the when because the mom may not want the responsibilities of her actions.

I guess I missed that. Last I checked it was considered inconsequental to the discussion.

 

[LouderVol]

Brain function is an important part, at a minimum. Nothing is being experienced before we have a brain and biologically, ethically, and legally we cannot and do not recognize person status with no brain activity, much less no brain at all.

the typical, healthy human brain can go 3 minutes without oxygen, before permanent damage happens. but they can be saved and come back. does the lack of brain activity in those 3 minutes mean they lose any rights?

how about people in comas? they have lost the ability to experience anything, and their brain lacks self conscience-ness, or control over the body.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Opinions change.

How did an objective system of morals allow slavery?

I'm not Roust, but could you clarify the question? It kind of sounds similar to claiming that 2+2 does not == 4 because someone doesn't know math.