Does the right to life exist?

[OKgrannie]

I presented the argument because OKgrannie believed she could justify abortion even granting that the ZEF is a person.

I’m glad you agree that personhood is the only issue. So we can focus only on that issue.

I don't care if the zef is a tiny miniature full-fledged human being, a woman is not obligated to carry it around in her body. No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus.

 

[Bodi]

I don't care if the zef is a tiny miniature full-fledged human being, a woman is not obligated to carry it around in her body. No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus.

I am not sure if you ever answered this, but it seems like you are saying that she could, at 8 months, have an abortion if she wanted to even though the fetus/baby is completely viable.

 

[Alyssa]

Let me be the one to clarify now... abortions can not be prevented. Murders can not be prevented. Making abortions comparable to murder then, is an illogical analogy since neither can be prevented. Saying we can solve murders, but not prevent abortions, THAT is the disconnect. Wouldn't you agree?

The issue then falls to one of solving. We can solve murders sometimes. We would be able to solve abortions sometimes. That is the aspect that is comparable.

So, by saying that we should not make abortion illegal since we can't stop murder... well, that is a weak analogy and a fallacious argument.

I made the comparison because I thought i could communicate the unlikeliness of "catching" women who got abortions, but I think the same applies to prevention. I agree that education and birth control are excellent ideas, but as many women very well know, birth control isn't always effective even when used correctly. No one is obligated to be a living incubator.

Other than birth control and education, how can abortion be prevented?

 

[OKgrannie]

I am not sure if you ever answered this, but it seems like you are saying that she could, at 8 months, have an abortion if she wanted to even though the fetus/baby is completely viable.

I just don't worry about women having late-term abortions because I know they don't CHOOSE to have them. Sometimes they are medically necessary, and I would prefer that doctors and families in crisis situations aren't additionally burdened by stupid legislation. By late-term, I mean 3rd trimester, 26-27 weeks. Neither do I worry a lot about legislation that is passed so long as it includes exceptions for health and life of the woman and severely malformed fetuses because I know that women aren't having abortions for other reasons anyway.

 

[Alyssa]

I just don't worry about women having late-term abortions because I know they don't CHOOSE to have them. Sometimes they are medically necessary, and I would prefer that doctors and families in crisis situations aren't additionally burdened by stupid legislation. By late-term, I mean 3rd trimester, 26-27 weeks. Neither do I worry a lot about legislation that is passed so long as it includes exceptions for health and life of the woman and severely malformed fetuses because I know that women aren't having abortions for other reasons anyway.

Late term abortions are very rare so it doesn't really warrant a discussion when dealing with general policy. It does make for a nice red herring, though.

 

[NGNM85]

Well, its a single cell for a very short time...it developes at an amazing pace...and viability, such as it is, is being achieved earlier and earlier. subjective definitions of human are entirely immaterial.

Not only is it not immeterial, it is the whole of the issue. The whole argument about abortion rests on the issue of personhood. The majority of abortions, over 75%, are performed in the first 10-11 weeks. The only way to characterize an embryo at such an early stage as a human being is to presuppose the existence of a magic essence. Hence, this is, essentially, a religious debate.

It isn't subjective. We are our brains, the rest of this is substrate. Until the brain reaches a certain level of development, it can't be considered to be a person.

 

[Bodi]

Late term abortions are very rare so it doesn't really warrant a discussion when dealing with general policy. It does make for a nice red herring, though.

No it isn't. She opened herself up to this valid line of questioning when she said... "No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus." Well, the fetus/baby is in her uterus until birth. You may not like this fact, but that does not make it a red herring.

 

[Bodi]

I just don't worry about women having late-term abortions because I know they don't CHOOSE to have them. Sometimes they are medically necessary, and I would prefer that doctors and families in crisis situations aren't additionally burdened by stupid legislation. By late-term, I mean 3rd trimester, 26-27 weeks. Neither do I worry a lot about legislation that is passed so long as it includes exceptions for health and life of the woman and severely malformed fetuses because I know that women aren't having abortions for other reasons anyway.

No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus.

Answer the question.

 

[Cephus]

No it isn't. She opened herself up to this valid line of questioning when she said... "No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus." Well, the fetus/baby is in her uterus until birth. You may not like this fact, but that does not make it a red herring.

It is a red herring though. At 8 months, with a viable fetus, you can simply induce labor and be done with it right there. No woman should ever, under any circumstances, be forced to carry an unwanted fetus in her body, any more than you should be forced to hook someone up to one of your kidneys just because they need it. If it's viable, take it out. If it isn't, take it out anyhow.

 

[Bodi]

It is a red herring though. At 8 months, with a viable fetus, you can simply induce labor and be done with it right there. No woman should ever, under any circumstances, be forced to carry an unwanted fetus in her body, any more than you should be forced to hook someone up to one of your kidneys just because they need it. If it's viable, take it out. If it isn't, take it out anyhow.

A red herring is used as a distractive debate technique. I am obviously not distracting or deviating from the debate since she brought this up.

A couple of you should look up what it means: Logical Fallacies» Red Herring

The rest of what you and others have said is just an opinion and in no way addresses the killing of the fetus. Just a lot of justifications that deflect from the real issue.

 

[Alyssa]

No it isn't. She opened herself up to this valid line of questioning when she said... "No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus." Well, the fetus/baby is in her uterus until birth. You may not like this fact, but that does not make it a red herring.

I would interpret that statement to mean that even if a fetus is a person, it's still not entitled to live in the uterus, attached and dependent on the woman's blood stream for survival. No one is obligated to be a living incubator. If women are forced to continue a pregnancy against their will, they do not have sovereign control over their own bodies.

 

[mac]

Not only is it not immeterial, it is the whole of the issue. The whole argument about abortion rests on the issue of personhood. The majority of abortions, over 75%, are performed in the first 10-11 weeks. The only way to characterize an embryo at such an early stage as a human being is to presuppose the existence of a magic essence. Hence, this is, essentially, a religious debate.

It isn't subjective. We are our brains, the rest of this is substrate. Until the brain reaches a certain level of development, it can't be considered to be a person.

It's far from the whole issue. Subjective definitions of humanity simply serve to ease the conscience and those getting the abortion rarely give a crap about it any way. An abortion is killing the human offspring of two humans regardless of how old it is.

 

[OKgrannie]

It's far from the whole issue. Subjective definitions of humanity simply serve to ease the conscience and those getting the abortion rarely give a crap about it any way. An abortion is killing the human offspring of two humans regardless of how old it is.

An abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Killing human offspring after birth is not abortion.

 

[mac]

An abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Killing human offspring after birth is not abortion.

Well, since killing a child after birth is Normally called murder, not abortion, i think it pretty easy to see that wasn't what I meant. I'll be sure to clarify such simple points for you in the future, though.

 

[NGNM85]

It's far from the whole issue. Subjective definitions of humanity simply serve to ease the conscience and those getting the abortion rarely give a crap about it any way. An abortion is killing the human offspring of two humans regardless of how old it is.

This is complete nonsense. As far subjectivity, everything is subjective. Objectivity is, in total honesty a myth. I absolutely believe in a concrete, material universe, but we can't escape our brains, until we can get outside the brain (Which is impossible, as this relies on Cartesian dualism which has proven to be bogus.) With that out of the way, this is in no sense arbitrary. We are brains, you are a brain, the rest is just packaging. All we are, the entity you know as 'I' is comprised entirely out of a couple pounds of gray matter. Brain development is a scientific, measurable, rational criteria as a prerequisite for personhood.

You only have to ease your conscience if you've done something wrong. The wrong you're charging is determinent on the embryo's qualification as a human being, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesn't even come close.

Again, any attempt at a secular argument against abortion is an exercise in futility. This is a religious issue. It's irrational, but that's religion all over. However, none of us should be required to adhere to religious prohibitions, if we do not share those religious convictions.

 

[mac]

This is complete nonsense. As far subjectivity, everything is subjective. Objectivity is, in total honesty a myth. I absolutely believe in a concrete, material universe, but we can't escape our brains, until we can get outside the brain (Which is impossible, as this relies on Cartesian dualism which has proven to be bogus.) With that out of the way, this is in no sense arbitrary. We are brains, you are a brain, the rest is just packaging. All we are, the entity you know as 'I' is comprised entirely out of a couple pounds of gray matter. Brain development is a scientific, measurable, rational criteria as a prerequisite for personhood.

You only have to ease your conscience if you've done something wrong. The wrong you're charging is determinent on the embryo's qualification as a human being, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesn't even come close.

Again, any attempt at a secular argument against abortion is an exercise in futility. This is a religious issue. It's irrational, but that's religion all over. However, none of us should be required to adhere to religious prohibitions, if we do not share those religious convictions.

Its only religious because you are trying to relegate it to that. The worth of human life and rights is weighed by humans. Any reliance on god to do that is a result of lack of confidence.

All human life is of equal value....you can argue that no life has any value and that would be a more honest argument than you are trying to make. People like me recognize that all humans are equal and deserving of protection of law Rather than being under threat of summary execution at the whim of a single human.

 

[NGNM85]

Its only religious because you are trying to relegate it to that. The worth of human life and rights is weighed by humans. Any reliance on god to do that is a result of lack of confidence.

All human life is of equal value....you can argue that no life has any value and that would be a more honest argument than you are trying to make. People like me recognize that all humans are equal and deserving of protection of law Rather than being under threat of summary execution at the whim of a single human.

No, you're being disingenuous. I completely accept that, 100%. However, you are trying to define a blastocyst as a person. Such equivocation is scientifically indefensible unless one presupposes the existence of a magic essence. There is simply no other way to scientifically define it as a human being, or equivalent to a human being. There is absolutely no relevent data to support this conclusion.

Also, I want to point out that while this is a religious belief, it actually doesn't necessitate the belief in any particular denomination, or, even the belief in an omnipotent creator.

 

[majora$$hole]

wrong. after brain death its a dead human. but still human.

but it's not a LIVE human. same with the other end of the spectrum.

 

[majora$$hole]

of course it does. a human is a human.

but it's not a LIVE human. same as the other end of the spectrum.

 

[majora$$hole]

Well, its a single cell for a very short time...it developes at an amazing pace...and viability, such as it is, is being achieved earlier and earlier. subjective definitions of human are entirely immaterial.

it dosen't HAVE to be subjective if you take into account the opposite law.

 

[majora$$hole]

Exactly. It doesn't matter what you call the zef. It doesn't matter WHAT IT IS. It only matters WHERE IT IS. You can lay out your arguments about why it shouldn't be that way, but it doesn't change anything. Women have always had abortions, and until some foolproof 100% effective method of birth control is developed, they will continue to have them. Because it's their bodies, they are in control.

it does matter to the law.

 

[majora$$hole]

I don't care if the zef is a tiny miniature full-fledged human being, a woman is not obligated to carry it around in her body. No one, no person, no anything is entitled to lodging in a woman's uterus.

got to disagree with you on this one granny if it is a living human than killing it is murder and she did invite the lodger in. a zef on the other hand has no brain function so it is not a living human imo and can be aborted legally. before the brain starts she needs to evict the lodger.

 

[majora$$hole]

Not only is it not immeterial, it is the whole of the issue. The whole argument about abortion rests on the issue of personhood. The majority of abortions, over 75%, are performed in the first 10-11 weeks. The only way to characterize an embryo at such an early stage as a human being is to presuppose the existence of a magic essence. Hence, this is, essentially, a religious debate.

It isn't subjective. We are our brains, the rest of this is substrate. Until the brain reaches a certain level of development, it can't be considered to be a person.

here here!!! you are the man ngnm85.

 

[majora$$hole]

It's far from the whole issue. Subjective definitions of humanity simply serve to ease the conscience and those getting the abortion rarely give a crap about it any way. An abortion is killing the human offspring of two humans regardless of how old it is.

wrong "subjective definitions of humanity" serve to simplify the law.

 

[majora$$hole]

This is complete nonsense. As far subjectivity, everything is subjective. Objectivity is, in total honesty a myth. I absolutely believe in a concrete, material universe, but we can't escape our brains, until we can get outside the brain (Which is impossible, as this relies on Cartesian dualism which has proven to be bogus.) With that out of the way, this is in no sense arbitrary. We are brains, you are a brain, the rest is just packaging. All we are, the entity you know as 'I' is comprised entirely out of a couple pounds of gray matter. Brain development is a scientific, measurable, rational criteria as a prerequisite for personhood.

You only have to ease your conscience if you've done something wrong. The wrong you're charging is determinent on the embryo's qualification as a human being, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesn't even come close.

Again, any attempt at a secular argument against abortion is an exercise in futility. This is a religious issue. It's irrational, but that's religion all over. However, none of us should be required to adhere to religious prohibitions, if we do not share those religious convictions.

and keep religious convictions out of the law.