• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?[W:1064]

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?

Well... it's sort of hard for something with no brain to determine much of anything. I've always found it curious how people go on about denying the embryo the choice to live, but never about how it might choose not to live to be born to, for example, an abusive, crack-addicted household in a slum. It isn't as though lots of people who do have the power of self-determination don't decide, ultimately, that they'd rather not live, for a wide variety of reasons.

But anyway... philosophically, no, they have no right to anything whatsoever, not just legally, but in a purely philosophical and ethical framework.

Why is very simple. They are harming the body of another, and there is no way to end that harm immediately except the remove them. As the harmed party, the woman always maintains absolute domain over that decision.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,063
Reaction score
37,701
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?

Does the unborn even have the ability to self-determine?
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?

No because

A) We live in a democracy and the people have rejected efforts to give the unborn rights time and time again

B) There is no legitimate governmental or societal interest served by doing so

C) The unborn are incapable of determining anything themselves
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,319
Reaction score
41,825
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No - does a three year old have the same self-determinatiion rights as their parent?

The key here is the definition of person.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,096
Reaction score
20,549
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?

Youll have to be more specific and tell me how you are defining "right to self determination" without any answer I give you is based of a GUESS of what you mean or my opinion of what self determination so my answer could be wrong.
 

Verthaine

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?

Should we give cows, chickens,plants. and all other living creatures we exploit that same right of "self determination"?
 

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Youll have to be more specific and tell me how you are defining "right to self determination" without any answer I give you is based of a GUESS of what you mean or my opinion of what self determination so my answer could be wrong.

As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.

If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,096
Reaction score
20,549
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.

If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.

SO basically you are just asking when their right to live should be protected and respected? let me know if im wrong

anyway that answer is easy then for me.
Protecting and respecting the right to life of the unborn factually violates the woman's right to life and vice versa. People can deny that fact but its a fact none the less. That being said IMO when its VS the mother it should NEVER be protected BEFORE viability 20/21 weeks. I see no logic or reason to violate the woman's right to life based on somethign not viable yet that very well may terminate itself. That just seems crazy to me, violating rights especially right to life is not to be taken lightly and there's no justification to ever do it VS the mother before viability IMO. I refuse to make the woman a lesser to an unknown. Before viability I 100% favor the mother and view the ZEF as a lesser and support violating its right to life because its an unknown which is not yet viable.

Now, after viability there of course can be some grey area. I have no problem banning abortion after 20/21 weeks based on viability and violating the mother's right to life now. But it isnt black white like before viability. I would still support the mother aborting due to increased risk of health/life, risk of life health of the child and or defects of the child.

Does that answer?
 

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well... it's sort of hard for something with no brain to determine much of anything. I've always found it curious how people go on about denying the embryo the choice to live, but never about how it might choose not to live to be born to, for example, an abusive, crack-addicted household in a slum. It isn't as though lots of people who do have the power of self-determination don't decide, ultimately, that they'd rather not live, for a wide variety of reasons.

But anyway... philosophically, no, they have no right to anything whatsoever, not just legally, but in a purely philosophical and ethical framework.

Why is very simple. They are harming the body of another, and there is no way to end that harm immediately except the remove them. As the harmed party, the woman always maintains absolute domain over that decision.

That's a bit vague. Are you claiming that all pregnancies do permanent harm to women's bodies?
 

Verthaine

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.

If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.

I totally agree,and may I add that if animals had the capacity of self determination,I don't think they would want to be placed in horrible cramped conditions for human mass consumption,placed in zoos to be gawked at,placed in circuses for our entertainment,and subjected to horrifying experiments.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.

If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.

I would contend that if they were able to voice their opinion, or even have one, it would be because they were born.
 

Scrabaholic

certified sane
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
22,875
Reaction score
16,285
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
As almost everyone mentioned before, an unborn potential person is not likely to understand the concept of self-determination. However, just for discussion's sake, I would contend that it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of the unborn - if they were able to voice an opinion - would choose to live rather than to have their lives terminated. The question is whether and when such a choice should ever outweigh the mother's decision.

If that doesn't help, feel free to ask me any follow up questions.

It can have self determination when it is not living inside and attached to someone's body, thereby putting that body at risk for health problems and even death, stretching it all out of proportion and causing it great pain and discomfort, both in gestation and childbirth.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,304
Reaction score
32,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The 'unborn' what exactly?

Unborn trees? Unborn seed pods? Unborn....children? Unborn...person? And when is it considered no longer an 'unborn person'...only AFTER birth? Does it THEN suddenly have capacity' to make choices? Prior to birth, is it still nothing but human biological tissue? If thats the case...we can kill it right up until it is clear of the umbilical cord, right?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,304
Reaction score
32,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It can have self determination when it is not living inside and attached to someone's body, thereby putting that body at risk for health problems and even death, stretching it all out of proportion and causing it great pain and discomfort, both in gestation and childbirth.
Really? Can it have self determination at 1 day old? 1 month? Fascinating!
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Should we give cows, chickens,plants. and all other living creatures we exploit that same right of "self determination"?

Ummm...I don't think most people would equate a human to a cow, chicken or plant.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,096
Reaction score
20,549
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's a bit vague. Are you claiming that all pregnancies do permanent harm to women's bodies?

curious, why the additional qualifier of "permanent" to harm? Do you feel that matters?

secondly just as a general statement EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY is a risk of health and life, some VERY small, some VERY large and everythign in between. Some of the harm is blatantly obvious and predictable, some is unpredictable and never seen until the harm or death happens. But every single one is a factual risk of health and life.
 

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
curious, why the additional qualifier of "permanent" to harm? Do you feel that matters?
Actually, it does.

secondly just as a general statement EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY is a risk of health and life, some VERY small, some VERY large and everythign in between. Some of the harm is blatantly obvious and predictable, some is unpredictable and never seen until the harm or death happens. But every single one is a factual risk of health and life.

That's why the odds have to be weighed in context. No doctor would automatically tell any pregnant woman that she is placing herself in a life-threatening situation because of her pregnancy. They know how to weigh the medical risks (which goes back to the other point in this post).
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
26,120
Reaction score
11,192
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?
WTF?
Of course they have the right and they do exercise it.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,096
Reaction score
20,549
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1.)Actually, it does.
2.)That's why the odds have to be weighed in context. No doctor would automatically tell any pregnant woman that she is placing herself in a life-threatening situation because of her pregnancy.
3.) They know how to weigh the medical risks (which goes back to the other point in this post).

1.) well please explain why you think it matters, in what content?
2.) actually ALL doctors agree its 100% a risk of life, none deny that. They dont automatically say it because they assume people arent stupid and know common sense. Just like typically doctors dont address smoking and drinking that way unless there are ADDITIONAL factors involved. So since its procreation and done all the time they only alert you to known INCREASED risks that they can see.
3.) and yet people die giving birth all the time, so the weigh system isnt really that great of one in a general sense.
 

Verthaine

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ummm...I don't think most people would equate a human to a cow, chicken or plant.

You do understand what a rhetorical question is,do you?
 
Top Bottom