- This topic has 94 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vicelin said:tarheel91 said: Dee, I haven’t given my own viewpoint anywhere in this.
Err. You:
tarheel91 said: then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).]This is definitely a viewpoint, pretty explicitly. If you think that you’re being completely neutral or playing devil’s advocate, you’re either under a sad delusion or ur doin it wrong.
What the hell Vicelin? You completely misrepresented that quote to make it look like I was saying something I wasn’t. I really don’t appreciate that, and it’s kind of underhanded. Let’s look at the whole post:
“This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).”
I made it clear in the dependent clause that proceeded what you quoted that I was talking about someone who believed the fetus is a living human (and not talking about my personal views). I was trying to explain to the person I was responding to that the whole “WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE” idea assumes that a fetus isn’t a human worthy of rights. Since that depends on where you define human and prehuman, that has to be defined first before a woman’s right to choose can be brought into the discussion.
I’m glad you recognize that defining when a fetus becomes a human being is very difficult, and not black and white, but I hope you don’t honestly think the government not recognizing anyone/thing unborn as a human is significant in this discussion. You pointed out various issues with recognizing them. However, that makes it clear that that recognition is based on convenience, and has nothing to do with what really constitutes a human being.
Finally, I wasn’t using murder in a legal sense. I was using it a more general sense of killing another human individual (without their consent, but I think that doesn’t need to be said). No, killing an infant (I’m referring to anything that’s passed the threshold of humanity, so for you, that’d be anything with a developed nervous system and brain) isn’t murdering in the same sense as some guy running into a school and gunning down dozens of students and faculty, but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being. I know of no circumstances outside of another person trying to kill you that justify killing that person, and I certainly don’t think it’s a necessary evil. It’s an evil that’s not to be tolerated.
Tarheel, the way I see it, you don’t want to give your opinion on this, and you claim that there is no answer to this question, as it depends on whether you believe the fetus has rights or not.
Lock this thread up, since it’s pointless. Isn’t that what you should be doing instead of blatantly knocking down everybody’s argument with the same point that brings the thread nowhere, analyzing each person’s deductive, inductive reasoning or whatever and making them feel stupid. You’re not helping.
Arladerus said: Tarheel, the way I see it, you don’t want to give your opinion on this, and you claim that there is no answer to this question, as it depends on whether you believe the fetus has rights or not.Lock this thread up, since it’s pointless. Isn’t that what you should be doing instead of blatantly knocking down everybody’s argument with the same point that brings the thread nowhere, analyzing each person’s deductive, inductive reasoning or whatever and making them feel stupid. You’re not helping.
In regards to locking it, I don’t see any rule it’s violated. No one’s really gone crazy. It’s still civilized discussion. Vusys didn’t feel there was any need to lock it in its several months of existence, so why should it be locked now?
I don’t think there isn’t an answer; I just think what should be debated is when a fetus becomes a human. That’s what everyone disagrees on, not what should be allowed when something is/isn’t human.
When debating something, the assumptions surrounding the issue must be stated, and everyone must agree upon them. One of the required assumptions when discussing abortion is when a fetus becomes a human. That hasn’t been agreed upon. That’s what has to come first.
You’ve explained that many times as I’ve followed through the development of this thread. The people have many times veered away from the premises in which you argued upon, or suggested to argue upon. Personally, I believe it’s very hard for VuTales, who have no academic or experimental knowledge of this subject, to argue about what you said. We can only ague about personal morals. Of course, the argument based on personal morals will not have results either.
Some abusive guys try to force the woman/girl to bear a child, just so they can “hold onto” that person. o__o
And I think Tar is right; when you boil the whole thing down, basically it’s just an argument of what defines life. Lots of room for interpretation, so people are bound to disagree… Personally, I wouldn’t care, except for the fact that everybody seems to shove their own beliefs down other peoples’ throats, and that’s annoying. ><''
Arladerus said: You’ve explained that many times as I’ve followed through the development of this thread. The people have many times veered away from the premises in which you argued upon, or suggested to argue upon. Personally, I believe it’s very hard for VuTales, who have no academic or experimental knowledge of this subject, to argue about what you said. We can only ague about personal morals. Of course, the argument based on personal morals will not have results either.Despite all of that, no rules have been broken, and I think a discussion about what constitutes a human and what doesn’t would be pretty interesting, so I’m willing to let it go on for a while. If it ventures back once again into the land of pointlessness, I’ll lock it (Vusys can always unlock if he doesn’t want it locked).
Oki. Let me try this again.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).”No matter where we begin the sentence, and no matter how well you try to explain it, I can’t help but read the bolded/underlined and perceive it as an opinion. I keep picking that up no matter how many times I read it and no matter how many angles I read it from, even all these months later after I have come back to the thread with a fresh view. I think that what really makes it that way is the “sorry” at the end. Perhaps the issue isn’t so much my misinterpretation as it is poor choice of wording.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (which would trump right to choose).”This wording is something I would have percieved as objective.
I’m glad you recognize that defining when a fetus becomes a human being is very difficult, and not black and white, but I hope you don’t honestly think the government not recognizing anyone/thing unborn as a human is significant in this discussion. You pointed out various issues with recognizing them. However, that makes it clear that that recognition is based on convenience, and has nothing to do with what really constitutes a human being.Well, I do think that the opinion of the government is pretty significant. Even though sometimes I really don’t like them, it is their job to look at the issues of the country objectively and come to a decision that best fits with our laws, our constitution and rights. I agree with the decision made in Roe Vs. Wade and Justice Blackmun’s statement: “The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies”.
but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being.Well, since my opinion is that a fetus is not a human being until it has developed the nervous system, no, I don’t consider anything before that to be the taking of the life of another human being.
But my opinion aside, making abortion against the law does not solve the root of the problem, at all. There will always be women pregnant who do not want to be pregnant, and there will always be people willing to provide those women with abortions, whether they be back-door or in a safe clinic, if it’s for the right price. If both sides of the abortion debate would focus on the root of the problem (unwanted pregnancy) instead of the solution (abortion), this issue might have been solved by now. Both sides of the abortion debate can agree on one point: less abortions = good. So how to we lower the rate of abortion? There are many answers to that. I posted links to two articles in my previous post that explain some of those answers.
I know of no circumstances outside of another person trying to kill you that justify killing that person, and I certainly don’t think it’s a necessary evil. It’s an evil that’s not to be tolerated.Well, I think that desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons is also an evil that’s not to be tolerated
Vicelin said: Oki. Let me try this again.tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).”No matter where we begin the sentence, and no matter how well you try to explain it, I can’t help but read the bolded/underlined and perceive it as an opinion. I keep picking that up no matter how many times I read it and no matter how many angles I read it from, even all these months later after I have come back to the thread with a fresh view. I think that what really makes it that way is the “sorry” at the end. Perhaps the issue isn’t so much my misinterpretation as it is poor choice of wording.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (which would trump right to choose).”This wording is something I would have percieved as objective.
I’m glad you recognize that defining when a fetus becomes a human being is very difficult, and not black and white, but I hope you don’t honestly think the government not recognizing anyone/thing unborn as a human is significant in this discussion. You pointed out various issues with recognizing them. However, that makes it clear that that recognition is based on convenience, and has nothing to do with what really constitutes a human being.Well, I do think that the opinion of the government is pretty significant. Even though sometimes I really don’t like them, it is their job to look at the issues of the country objectively and come to a decision that best fits with our laws, our constitution and rights. I agree with the decision made in Roe Vs. Wade and Justice Blackmun’s statement: “The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies”.
but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being.Well, since my opinion is that a fetus is not a human being until it has developed the nervous system, no, I don’t consider anything before that to be the taking of the life of another human being.
But my opinion aside, making abortion against the law does not solve the root of the problem, at all. There will always be women pregnant who do not want to be pregnant, and there will always be people willing to provide those women with abortions, whether they be back-door or in a safe clinic, if it’s for the right price. If both sides of the abortion debate would focus on the root of the problem (unwanted pregnancy) instead of the solution (abortion), this issue might have been solved by now. Both sides of the abortion debate can agree on one point: less abortions = good. So how to we lower the rate of abortion? There are many answers to that. I posted links to two articles in my previous post that explain some of those answers.
I know of no circumstances outside of another person trying to kill you that justify killing that person, and I certainly don’t think it’s a necessary evil. It’s an evil that’s not to be tolerated.Well, I think that desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons is also an evil that’s not to be tolerated
How is that an opinion? If something is defined as a human, it has a right to life. That right is far more fundamental than any right to choose. As soon as the fetus becomes a human–at whatever point that happens (i.e. for you, when they develop a nervous system and brain, and for the hypothetical person, as soon as the baby is conceived)–that thing/person’s life becomes its own. The mother no longer has any right to decide what should happen to it. It has a right to live. Period. To reject that is to say that a woman can end her child’s life whenever she want (e.g. 5 years old, 7 years old, etc.). Please don’t try to twist this into me saying something else. I’m only talking about from the point something changes form a fetus to a human on.
In regards to the government, the examples you pointed out were entirely irrelevant to the discussion (HOV lanes, censuses, etc.). The government consistently treats the same people differently depending on the situation (e.g. a 18 year old is an adult in respect to voting, but not in respect to drinking). The way government treats unborn fetuses/children in regards to such things as HOV lanes and censuses does not mean they treat them that way in every respect, and certainly not in this very different situation.
In regards to yet another quote taken out of context, please note that I made it clear in the first half of the sentence that I was talking about something/one that had passed the threshold and was considered human: “No, killing an infant (I’m referring to anything that’s passed the threshold of humanity, so for you, that’d be anything with a developed nervous system and brain) isn’t murdering in the same sense as some guy running into a school and gunning down dozens of students and faculty, but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being.” For you, that would mean taking the life of a fetus after it had developed a nervous system and brain. Do you honestly think that’s not murder?
I don’t think abortion’s legality needs to be discussed. I think everyone here agrees that, before this organic mass becomes human, abortions should be allowed. However, after wards, it should be illegal. For the umpteenth time, what is disagreed upon is where that line is.
Now, which do you think is a greater evil “desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons” or killing a fetus that has developed a nervous system and brain (by your definition, a human being)? To clarify, we’re only talking about a situation where the woman is doing so with a fetus that has developed a nervous system and brain.
I think what you’re saying is pretty interesting, but not really relevant. I was talking about the constitutional right to life everyone in the United States has (not some sacred right). It was first described by John Locke, then in the Declaration of Independence, and finally in the Constitution (specifically, the Bill of Rights). Every person defined as human (for you, from the point they develop a brain and nervous system), has a legal right to life that can not be taken from them without due process of law. Essentially, you’d have to go to court. What, exactly, are you going to convict the baby of doing?
The right to life is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But what about before the embryo develops a nervous system? Is it then alright to have an abortion done at that early stage, because by our assumed definition of a “human being”, that stage of development would not be included?
Chameleon said: But what about before the embryo develops a nervous system? Is it then alright to have an abortion done at that early stage, because by our assumed definition of a “human being”, that stage of development would not be included?That’s Vicelin’s personal definition. All of this is building up to show that everything depends on where you draw the line between organic mass and human. If you accept that everything after the line should be illegal, and everything before it should be legal, then it becomes clear the real issue is where that line should go.
… I thought that we already recognized that “gray area” as the part where people are most conflicted over. But maybe most of this is just going over my head, so I think I will shut up now and just watch how this thread progresses. xD;;
In that sense of “right to life”, as it is defined by the law, then yes, I think that it should apply to unborn children who have developed the nervous system, unless there are circumstances discovered at that point which threaten the life of the mother, or of the fetus and mother simultaneously.
Chameleon said: But what about before the embryo develops a nervous system? Is it then alright to have an abortion done at that early stage, because by our assumed definition of a “human being”, that stage of development would not be included?In my definition, yes, it is fine to abort a fetus prior to a functioning, developed nervous system.
As for that “gray area”, we’ve pretty much agreed that there is no way to -exactly- know when a fetus becomes a human being, so we’ve mostly just been debating based on a hypothetical situation (my definition of when a fetus becomes a “person” becoming the law).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.