At what point is an embryo or fetus a human life? (1 Viewer)

[collected]

To preserve their own life, health, self-determination, and autonomy.

Now...why shouldnt they?

The preservation of life, health, self-determination, and autonomy are not absolute. Rights such as autonomy need to be balanced against the rights of others. For instance, a person's right to autonomy does not permit them to harm another individual without justification. In this case, the fetus is harmed by abortion and the right to autonomy ends. The autonomy to swing one's fist ends at another's nose.

The unborn has none of those things. And why should it be accorded them when they can only be exercised at the sacrifice and expense of the woman's? Why should its needs supersede the woman's?

The absence of moral agency and self-determination doesn't negate the fetus's right to life or justify abortion solely on these grounds. The argument that the unborn does not have moral agency, self-determination, or the capacity for due process, and therefore should not be accorded these rights, overlooks an important consideration: potentiality. Just as we protect the rights of newborns who also lack moral agency and self-determination, similar protections should be given to the unborn based on their potential to develop these attributes.

You ask why the needs of the unborn should supersede those of the woman but it’s not a matter of one set of needs unilaterally superseding the other. Instead it’s about balancing rights of BOTH the mother and the fetus.

Because the woman is actualized and already doing/can do all those things. Already contributing. Already invested in society/society is invested in her. The unborn may not live to be born and may be born severely defective, it potentially may never achieve those things. It is the poorer investment by society and as such, legitimately not the ethical individual to protect. The woman is the better investment and the govt is obligated to protect her and her rights.

I also believe it is immoral to unnecessarily impose pain and suffering on an individual in order to force them to concede their rights and even life to the govt. The unborn suffer nothing. Do you believe it's moral to demand a woman suffer thru pregnancy and childbirth against her will, risking death or health complications? Where is her consent as an individual? Is she a slave of the state?

I value the born but I value all born people more and in no way believe it's moral to allow the unborn's potential to those things you listed to supersede the woman's rights and her actually living and exercising of those things.

You stated that the woman is actualized and contributing to society, whereas the fetus may not live to be born or may be born severely defective. If we adopted this utilitarian view, we should justify valuing the lives of the disabled, elderly, or those temporarily unable to contribute less. A handicap person does not contribute to society but instead is a parasite, does that justify cutting them off or killing them?

The principle of minimizing suffering and protecting individual rights is important but it must be applied consistently across all ethical situations. Imagine a scenario where an individual is causing significant pain and suffering to another person through continuous harassment/emotional distress. While we recognize the suffering of the victim, we do not justify murdering the perpetrator to alleviate that suffering. The response to suffering must be proportional and ethical. In the case of abortion, the suffering of the mother does not automatically justify ending the life of the fetus.

The fetus’s right to life, inherent capacity for moral agency, self-determination, and due process are actualized from the moment of conception and not potential.

 

[choiceone]

No, it's not being responsible to murder a living and developing human life for other than medical reasons. The woman has multiple other choices.

But above you said it was okay to have an abortion in a case of rape. That is not a medical reason.

 

[choiceone]

I believe that he asked for a normative statement and not descriptive facts. Why should a person have an unequivocal right to kill anything inside them?

Because it's inside the body without the permission of the person who has the authority over that body.
Here in NY, if you put part of your body inside a woman's body and it's there without her permission, she has a right to get it out of her and if other means don't work, she has the right to use lethal means if necessary.

Because rights aren't absolute and abortion infringes on the fetus's consent to it's own life, moral agency, individual self-determination, and due process. I have discovered no proper rationale that justifies ending a human's life based on the infringements you've listed. Why would the reasons you've listed justify abortion?

The pre-viable fetus isn't capable of having it's own life, let alone consent to it, nor does a fetus have moral agency, individual self-determination, or the right to due process without demonstrating personhood. A pre-viable fetus is not an independently existing human.

 

[collected]

And it also means it has the potential to destroy the life carrying it. Or harming it permanently, or destroying her rights to consent to her own life, own self-determination, own future, etc.

Why should the unborn get preference? Re: moral and ethical value, I'm providing a bunch...the woman has more value. It is subjective however her value can be quantified...physically, societally, economically, her value to family and friends (emotionally), etc. The unborn has none of that. (Altho it that value from others may develop IF the woman allows it.)

You're making the same flawed arguments and justifications. We would not justify ending the life of a dependent child just because they pose challenges or potential harm to a parent. Someone's own "life", self-determination, own future does not warrant killing people.

The unborn is not getting a preference. It's the principle of the right to life is getting a preference over the reasons you've given.

Those actually make my point. The woman can avoid all those things if she doesnt want a kid. They are awful things...and yes...the unborn can do awful things to her. What's the justification for forcing her to remain pregnant and suffering those things if she doesnt want a kid?

No she can't avoid those things because they happen regardless of whether she has a kid or not. People get wallets stolen all the time, pulling out a gun a shooting the perpetrator is not justified.

The justification is that ending a pregnancy through abortion is wrong because infringing on the right to life is not justified by the reasons you've given.

 

[Lursa]

The preservation of life, health, self-determination, and autonomy are not absolute.

Who said they are? Not me.

Rights such as autonomy need to be balanced against the rights of others. For instance, a person's right to autonomy does not permit them to harm another individual without justification. In this case, the fetus is harmed by abortion and the right to autonomy ends.

The unborn has no rights. And I've provided plenty of justification why the woman's needs and life and rights should not be superseded by protection of the unborn against her will.

The scales totally weigh in her favor...there is more to a right to life than just breathing.

The autonomy to swing one's fist ends at another's nose.

That's one of those "sorry but it's not absolute" rights. And it's also not about autonomy

The absence of moral agency and self-determination doesn't negate the fetus's right to life or justify abortion solely on these grounds. The argument that the unborn does not have moral agency, self-determination, or the capacity for due process, and therefore should not be accorded these rights, overlooks an important consideration: potentiality. Just as we protect the rights of newborns who also lack moral agency and self-determination, similar protections should be given to the unborn based on their potential to develop these attributes.

So what? I never implied any of that...just provided the justifications why none of that for the unborn should supersede the same for women. Actualization and real investment into society and by society beats the potential for that everyday and twice on Sunday.

You make up a lot of stuff but they dont counter what I write...you're just lecturing, not debating.

You ask why the needs of the unborn should supersede those of the woman but it’s not a matter of one set of needs unilaterally superseding the other. Instead it’s about balancing rights of BOTH the mother and the fetus.

It's not unilateral and it's not equal and I've demonstrated many times why the balance shouldnt shift to the unborn. See: above for one example. Your comment is no more than 'na huh.' I've described the way and the why of the justifications for protecting the woman over the unborn.

You stated that the woman is actualized and contributing to society, whereas the fetus may not live to be born or may be born severely defective. If we adopted this utilitarian view, we should justify valuing the lives of the disabled, elderly, or those temporarily unable to contribute less. A handicap person does not contribute to society but instead is a parasite, does that justify cutting them off or killing them?

No, dont move the goal posts. "Less" is not nothing and most of those people mean something to someone. They ARE actualized members of society, even if they are just providing employment and joy or purpose to those caring for them.

The principle of minimizing suffering and protecting individual rights is important but it must be applied consistently across all ethical situations.

Who says? Please cite your statement. It's certainly not applied consistently in our society, legally or practically. See prisons, standards of child neglect and domestic abuse, handling of ADHD kids, etd etc etc all with different thresholds.

Imagine a scenario where an individual is causing significant pain and suffering to another person through continuous harassment/emotional distress. While we recognize the suffering of the victim, we do not justify murdering the perpetrator to alleviate that suffering.

We do indeed justify killing them if we cannot stop them any other way.

 

[Lursa]

The response to suffering must be proportional and ethical. In the case of abortion, the suffering of the mother does not automatically justify ending the life of the fetus.

It's ethical to kill the unborn to protect the woman. She's suffering, it's not. She has a life and loved ones and responsibilities and obligations and is contributing to society. It's not just about her, it's about others too.

A life is more than just breathing. By taking away a woman's right to consent to her own body, protection, future, you dehumanize her, that's what slave owners did to slaves. What's the justification there? The unborn cannot suffer that, it cant know it.

The fetus’s right to life, inherent capacity for moral agency, self-determination, and due process are actualized from the moment of conception and not potential.

There's nothing inherent there. Rights and all the rest are man-made concepts. And the bold is supported by nothing. It's just more "na huh".

 

[Lursa]

You're making the same flawed arguments and justifications. We would not justify ending the life of a dependent child just because they pose challenges or potential harm to a parent. Someone's own "life", self-determination, own future does not warrant killing people.

The child is not inside another person. It can be dealt with without taking away the woman's moral agency and consent. And several rights.

The bold is your opinion only and the unborn is not "people."

The unborn is not getting a preference. It's the principle of the right to life is getting a preference over the reasons you've given.

Who says a right to life for the unborn should take preference over all the things I keep listing for the woman? What authority? Cite it. What is the justification for transferring life, health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc to the unborn at the expense of the woman? Why is the unborn more deserving of the exact same things?

A life, a person as an individual living day to day, who means something to others and gives her own life meaning, is more than just breathing.

When you reduce this issue to just "as long as both survive shoving the unborn out a vagina" it dehumanizes both.

No she can't avoid those things because they happen regardless of whether she has a kid or not. People get wallets stolen all the time, pulling out a gun a shooting the perpetrator is not justified.

Great...thanks again for exposing exactly why she shouldnt have to take such risks if she doesnt have to.

The justification is that ending a pregnancy through abortion is wrong because infringing on the right to life is not justified by the reasons you've given.

That's just another "na huh," you know that, right?

 

[collected]

Because it's inside the body without the permission of the person who has the authority over that body.
Here in NY, if you put part of your body inside a woman's body and it's there without her permission, she has a right to get it out of her and if other means don't work, she has the right to use lethal means if necessary.

...And in Alabama where abortion is restricted, just like in NY, if you put part of your body inside a woman's body and it's there without her permission, she has a right to get it out of her and if other means don't work, she has the right to use lethal means if necessary. The enforcement of abortion restrictions in Alabama, despite similar principles of self-defense in New York, shows that the NY self-defense laws you cited do not inherently justify or invalidate abortion laws.

The pre-viable fetus isn't capable of having it's own life, let alone consent to it, nor does a fetus have moral agency, individual self-determination, or the right to due process without demonstrating personhood. A pre-viable fetus is not an independently existing human.

A pre-viable fetus has personhood because it is a member of the human species, which inherently possesses the capacity for moral agency. The capacity for moral agency is an inherent characteristic of the human species as a whole. When is personhood obtained or what are the criterion?

 

[collected]

The child is not inside another person. It can be dealt with without taking away the woman's moral agency and consent. And several rights.

The bold is your opinion only and the unborn is not "people."

I'm still waiting for you to logically explain why one being inside another person gives an absolute right to kill them.

Who says a right to life for the unborn should take preference over all the things I keep listing for the woman? What authority? Cite it. What is the justification for transferring life, health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, due process, etc to the unborn at the expense of the woman? Why is the unborn more deserving of the exact same things?

A life, a person as an individual living day to day, who means something to others and gives her own life meaning, is more than just breathing.

When you reduce this issue to just "as long as both survive shoving the unborn out a vagina" it dehumanizes both.

I don’t need citations to support the argument that the right to life of the unborn should take precedence. Requiring citations to validate ethical/moral reasoning is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Ethical arguments rest on logical consistency and moral reasoning and not external validation.

The onus is on you justifying an act of commission, not me. Acts of commission carry a moral responsibility to provide a rationale.

That's just another "na huh," you know that, right?

The argument that ending a pregnancy through abortion is wrong because it infringes on the right to life is not just a simplistic denial. It is based on the ethical premise that the right to life is fundamental and that any action infringing upon this right requires significant justification. The reasons you provided are insufficient.

 

[Ganondagan]

"She" and all the other women you are so eager to deny the right to make personal decisions have responsibilities to their children, their parents, their partners and even their grandparents. Only conservatives besot with their misogyny and fetal obsession think that women should be forced to produce a child they cannot support, cannot raise in a safe environment, cannot give the love that all children are entitled to. Why are you so convinced that your God wants you to destroy lives.

When did I say I want to deny women the right to make personal decisionsor be forced to produce a child? I speak on the morality of abortion not the legality of it.

 

[Lursa]

I'm still waiting for you to logically explain why one being inside another person gives an absolute right to kill them.

No such thing as absolute right, we've both agreed to that. I have explained many times why the woman may morally choose to kill her unborn. I've asked you to directly refute those reasons.

I don’t need citations to support the argument that the right to life of the unborn should take precedence. Requiring citations to validate ethical/moral reasoning is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Ethical arguments rest on logical consistency and moral reasoning and not external validation.

Of course you do. Or, present your own articulated refutation to my arguments. I support my moral and legal arguments with reasoning, results, consequences, impacts on unborn, women, and others, etc.

If you cant directly address those things, and you want to "claim" something 'should' or 'shouldnt' take place...then you need citations to do your arguing for you.

The onus is on you justifying an act of commission, not me. Acts of commission carry a moral responsibility to provide a rationale.

I have. Many times. See above if you want to address them directly.

The argument that ending a pregnancy through abortion is wrong because it infringes on the right to life is not just a simplistic denial. It is based on the ethical premise that the right to life is fundamental and that any action infringing upon this right requires significant justification. The reasons you provided are insufficient.

Who says the right to life for the unborn is a) fundamental and b) supersedes the needs, life, health, moral agency, individual consent, self-determination, due process, etc etc etc of women? Those things for a person are all just as 'fundamental.'

Again, when you reduce this issue to "as long as both survive shoving the unborn out of a vagina" it dehumanizes both.

I believe in quality of life, not quantity.

 

[Lursa]

When did I say I want to deny women the right to make personal decisionsor be forced to produce a child? I speak on the morality of abortion not the legality of it.

And if, "if", you want to deny women that right or to be forced to produce a kid...what is your moral argument for doing that? I've provided mine for why I believe that's immoral but go ahead and I'll happily post mine again.

Keep this in mind tho, since I can just quickly cut and paste it, when you reduce this issue to "as long as both survive shoving the unborn out of a vagina" it dehumanizes both.

And dont forget the immorality of minimizing everything in women's lives to do that (gestating/birth). That whole disrespectful 'convenience' thing that really, it just makes her produce a kid that will also live a life consisting of a string of "conveniences."

 

[Ganondagan]

And if, "if", you want to deny women that right or to be forced to produce a kid...what is your moral argument for doing that? I've provided mine for why I believe that's immoral but go ahead and I'll happily post mine again.

Keep this in mind tho, since I can just quickly cut and paste it, when you reduce this issue to "as long as both survive shoving the unborn out of a vagina" it dehumanizes both.

I've never said, nor have I implied, that I want to deny women that right or to be forced to produce a kid. If you think I have, show me where.

 

[Lursa]

I've never said, nor have I implied, that I want to deny women that right or to be forced to produce a kid. If you think I have, show me where.

Please note I wrote "if" twice.

What exactly would you like to debate on this issue?

 

[weaver2]

No, it's not being responsible to murder a living and developing human life for other than medical reasons. The woman has multiple other choices.

But it is OK to destroy a whole family by forcing the birth of a child that destabilizes a family, puts it in deep poverty, harms the child itself, assures that all of the family, including the child your kind of moral midgetss forced to be born, face futures that you would not want for your own family.

But it's all good, you don't suffer and your family doesn't suffer and you get to act moral, parade around posting and posing and calling poor women murderers for trying to protect their already born family from disaster.

And I'm betting that your multiple choices doesn't include access to highly effective contraceptives for poor women.Right? Withhold effective birth control then punish women and their families with an unplanned unwanted child.

 

[Ganondagan]

But it is OK to destroy a whole family by forcing the birth of a child that destabilizes a family, puts it in deep poverty, harms the child itself, assures that all of the family, including the child your kind of moral midgetss forced to be born, face futures that you would not want for your own family.

But it's all good, you don't suffer and your family doesn't suffer and you get to act moral, parade around posting and posing and calling poor women murderers for trying to protect their already born family from disaster.

And I'm betting that your multiple choices doesn't include access to highly effective contraceptives for poor women.Right? Withhold effective birth control then punish women and their families with an unplanned unwanted child.

Would it be OK if she decided to have the child and kill one of her other children instead then?

 

[Ganondagan]

Please note I wrote "if" twice.

What exactly would you like to debate on this issue?

Exactly what the title of this thread asked,

At what point is an embryo or fetus a human life?​

 

[Lursa]

Would it be OK if she decided to have the child and kill one of her other children instead then?

She can place the other kid(s) with child services, foster care.

 

[Lursa]

Exactly what the title of this thread asked,

At what point is an embryo or fetus a human life?​

Very simple, it's basic biology: at fertilization/implantation a genetically unique Homo sapiens (human) life is created.

Now...who says the unborn has a right to life? (Sorry, scientific classification wont help you here..."science" doesnt recognize rights for any species.)

 

[Ganondagan]

Very simple, it's basic biology: at fertilization/implantation a genetically unique Homo sapiens (human) life is created.

Now...who says the unborn has a right to life? (Sorry, scientific classification wont help you here..."science" doesnt recognize rights for any species.)

Your first sentence is on topic, and I agree. Your second sentence is off topic.

 

[weaver2]

When did I say I want to deny women the right to make personal decisionsor be forced to produce a child? I speak on the morality of abortion not the legality of it.

When you call women murderers, when you recognize only the fetus, when you think it is OK to force a child into a family that can't give that child the safety and stability it needs to grow into a responsible adult, when you vote for banning abortions, it is obvious to everyone that you are OK with denying women the right to control their lives and the number of children they give birth to.

You do not speak "on the morality of abortion", whatever that bit of pontificating religious pidgin means. What you post talks about the immorality of women.

 

[Lursa]

Your first sentence is on topic, and I agree. Your second sentence is off topic.

It's a debate, I get to move the debate forward after I respond to you. Are you implying that my question isnt relevant to yours? Please explain.

 

[weaver2]

Would it be OK if she decided to have the child and kill one of her other children instead then?

Ooooo tricky question. You've got us on the morality ropes now.

 

[collected]

Very simple, it's basic biology: at fertilization/implantation a genetically unique Homo sapiens (human) life is created.

Now...who says the unborn has a right to life? (Sorry, scientific classification wont help you here..."science" doesnt recognize rights for any species.)

No, the question is,"who says that the act to end the unborn's life is justified?"

Acts of commission carry a moral responsibility to provide a rationale. The onus is on you to provide rationale, not on others to prove that rationale doesn't exist to justify abortion.

 

[Ganondagan]

When you call women murderers, when you recognize only the fetus, when you think it is OK to force a child into a family that can't give that child the safety and stability it needs to grow into a responsible adult, when you vote for banning abortions, it is obvious to everyone that you are OK with denying women the right to control their lives and the number of children they give birth to.

You do not speak "on the morality of abortion", whatever that bit of pontificating religious pidgin means. What you post talks about the immorality of women.

Show nw where I said that.