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

[DifferentDrummr]

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.

1.) I think you mean "context," and here it is. Doing something that could cause permanent damage is fundamentally riskier than doing something that is likely to cause only temporary damage.
2.) Doesn't change the fact that the risks still have to be weighted in context, as I originally pointed out.
3.) How current is your data? Deaths in childbirth have dropped substantially in the last couple of centuries. Besides, people in general frequently ignore risks and do things they shouldn't.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I think you mean "context," and here it is. Doing something that could cause permanent damage is fundamentally riskier than doing something that is likely to cause only temporary damage.
2.) Doesn't change the fact that the risks still have to be weighted in context, as I originally pointed out.
3.) How current is your data? Deaths in childbirth have dropped substantially in the last couple of centuries. Besides, people in general frequently ignore risks and do things they shouldn't.

1.) No I ment "content" and yes I understand that but you haven't explained why that matters? Thats my question, why does the temporary part matter? where else do we apply that logic?
2.) actually it does 100% because if the risk of death is present it matters a lot
3.) in "centuries" has it dropped? LMAO yes yet still happens everyday. I think last i looked around 17 per every 100k or like 700 a year in america. ALl meaningless and doesnt change the fact its a risk of life.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

1.) No I ment "content" and yes I understand that but you haven't explained why that matters? Thats my question, why does the temporary part matter? where else do we apply that logic?
2.) actually it does 100% because if the risk of death is present it matters a lot
3.) in "centuries" has it dropped? LMAO yes yet still happens everyday. I think last i looked around 17 per every 100k or like 700 a year in america. ALl meaningless and doesnt change the fact its a risk of life.

1.) Are you asking me why doing something that can cause permanent damage is more risky than doing something that causes only temporary damage? I'm honestly not sure how this would be unclear to you.
2.) Everyone runs the risk of death every day. So what? If that were the only criteria, every pregnancy would have to be aborted.
3.) Doesn't change the fact that it's a risk to life, but gynecologists and other doctors can still predict when a given pregnancy is risky enough that aborting is the only safe option. Some women ignore this recommendation; others probably never hear about it because they lack adequate medical care.

 

[sangha]

Actually, it does.

Actually, it doesn't. In no other legal context need harm be permanent in order to be recognized.

Try to debate without stacking the deck

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).

Actually, no doctor would automatically tell any pregnant woman that she is NOT placing herself in a life-threatening situation because of her pregnancy because they know that any pregnancy can become life threatening at any moment

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Are you asking me why doing something that can cause permanent damage is more risky than doing something that causes only temporary damage? I'm honestly not sure how this would be unclear to you.
2.) Everyone runs the risk of death every day. So what? If that were the only criteria, every pregnancy would have to be aborted.
3.) Doesn't change the fact that it's a risk to life
4.) but gynecologists and other doctors can still predict when a given pregnancy is risky enough that aborting is the only safe option. Some women ignore this recommendation; others probably never hear about it because they lack adequate medical care.

1.) Im not sure how you are confused, i already said in understand the risk im asking why it would matter to the reasoning of justifying violating/protecting a womans/zefs right to life and then i asked where else to we use this logic.
2.)never said that others, please stay on topic and dont use strawmen nor does it mean "every pregnancy would be aborted" LMAO
the actually point is it matters 100% if we are making laws that dictate and regulate the issue and we FORCE that risk. HUGE difference.
3.) correct I agree and thats what I said there is factually a risk to life
4.) no they cant hence the deaths they miss, they can see it SOMETIMES and thats the point.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Actually, it doesn't. In no other legal context need harm be permanent in order to be recognized.

Try to debate without stacking the deck

Didn't I specifically say in the OP that we're not considering legal issues in this thread?

Actually, no doctor would automatically tell any pregnant woman that she is NOT placing herself in a life-threatening situation because of her pregnancy because they know that any pregnancy can become life threatening at any moment

No, but any decent doctor WILL tell a patient their expert opinion about whether it appears "safe" to carry to term, meaning that the odds of death or injury in childbirth are expected to be very slim.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

1.) Im not sure how you are confused, i already said in understand the risk im asking why it would matter to the reasoning of justifying violating/protecting a womans/zefs right to life and then i asked where else to we use this logic.
2.)never said that others, please stay on topic and dont use strawmen nor does it mean "every pregnancy would be aborted" LMAO
the actually point is it matters 100% if we are making laws that dictate and regulate the issue and we FORCE that risk. HUGE difference.
3.) correct I agree and thats what I said there is factually a risk to life
4.) no they cant hence the deaths they miss, they can see it SOMETIMES and thats the point.

I'm not going to indulge LMAO's and blanket denials. Go back to the tone of your first couple of posts if you expect me to respond.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm not going to indulge LMAO's and blanket denials. Go back to the tone of your first couple of posts if you expect me to respond.

Translation: you can't support your claims so you deflect, thats what I thought! Your indulgence and lies wont change that reality nor will your choice to run way.
I accept your concession.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

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

The answer to that is.............no.

Unborn humans don't have the mental capacity yet for any self determination at all. That doesn't come until years after birth.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

No - does a three year old have the same self-determinatiion rights as their parent?.

Nope

The key here is the definition of person.

Yes a very huge portion of the abortion debate is revolved around if unborn humans should be considered persons in the realms of philosophy and ethics. Once that's settle, change or keep the law as it is. If pro choicers are right about unborn humans not being persons, then abortion can stay legal. If pro lifers are correct that unborn humans are persons in the realm of philosophy and ethics, then abortion becomes illegal except in very specific cases which we all know what they are.

 

[iguanaman]

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 is equally safe to assume that a carrot would choose not to be pulled up and eaten so what does that mean? Self determination for carrots?

 

[sangha]

Didn't I specifically say in the OP that we're not considering legal issues in this thread?

Even if you want to limit it to ethical issues, I don't see any ethical way to ignore harm simply because it's not permanent. But if you can make an argument that doesn't make this a special case for ignoring temporary harms, I'm all ears.

No, but any decent doctor WILL tell a patient their expert opinion about whether it appears "safe" to carry to term, meaning that the odds of death or injury in childbirth are expected to be very slim.

I doubt that any doctor would tell a pregnant woman that it is safe for them to carry to term. What they would say is that there is no reason to expect any difficulties, but that's not the same thing as "safe"

Furthermore, I don't understand why you're focusing on the probability of harm. Individuals have a right (both legal and ethical) to make their own decisions as to the risks they will take. And in the case of pregnancy, there is a near 100% chance of some harm being done to the mother.

 

[VanceMack]

Then you agree it can't before birth, right?

Indeed. Thats why the 'self determination' argument used both for and in opposition to the slaughter of the unborn is a rather silly argument. Would you make the same argument about those declared mentally incompetent? What about those on life support?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Indeed. Thats why the 'self determination' argument used both for and in opposition to the slaughter of the unborn is a rather silly argument. Would you make the same argument about those declared mentally incompetent? What about those on life support?

I'm not the one who brought it up. The OP did.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Translation: you can't support your claims so you deflect, thats what I thought! Your indulgence and lies wont change that reality nor will your choice to run way.
I accept your concession.

Translation of translation: you're copping out and declaring victory. Okay. Bye. :2wave:

 

[prometeus]

Unborn potential people exercise their right to self-determination? How?

Just like everyone else. Have you ever hear of a single complaint of them not being able to exercise their rights?

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not the one who brought it up. The OP did.

The OP brought up the rights of the unborn. YOU on the other hand brought up "It can have self determination when it is not living inside and attached to someone's body". So...based on YOUR standard the newly born child is now capable of self determination and sustainment?

 

[AGENT J]

Translation of translation: you're copping out and declaring victory. Okay. Bye. :2wave:

Thats what I thought, keep running instead od defending your failed claims LMAO
opcorn2:

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Even if you want to limit it to ethical issues, I don't see any ethical way to ignore harm simply because it's not permanent. But if you can make an argument that doesn't make this a special case for ignoring temporary harms, I'm all ears.

Temporary harm doesn't necessarily have to be a special case. It simply represents a lesser degree of risk than permanent harm.

I doubt that any doctor would tell a pregnant woman that it is safe for them to carry to term. What they would say is that there is no reason to expect any difficulties, but that's not the same thing as "safe"

As I alluded to in another post, nothing in life is completely safe, but I agree that this wording is probably used most often.

Furthermore, I don't understand why you're focusing on the probability of harm. Individuals have a right (both legal and ethical) to make their own decisions as to the risks they will take. And in the case of pregnancy, there is a near 100% chance of some harm being done to the mother.

Individuals do indeed have that (ethical) right, and that begs the question of how to weigh the ethical rights of an unborn potential individual.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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

Firstly, I didn't say "permanent harm," nor does harm have to be permanent in most cases of self-defence in order for you to be justified in defending yourself, so why would it here? Why should anyone have to endure any non-consensual harm at all? What, do you think assault victims have no right to defend until the guns come out?

But secondly, it actually does generally cause permanent harm, yes. Most women's bodies never return entirely to normal, and most have permanent visible damage. Permanent damage to the function of the bladder and vagina are also common.

Also, it's not vague at all. Pregnancies are hard on the body. They cause harm in all cases, in the form of immune suppression, extended illness, bone damage, and genital injury at the very least. Those are the typical things. We haven't even gotten into the complications yet.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

It is equally safe to assume that a carrot would choose not to be pulled up and eaten so what does that mean? Self determination for carrots?

Theoretically, perhaps, but unless you give equal weight to the life of a carrot plant and the life of a human, the question is moot.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

The OP brought up the rights of the unborn. YOU on the other hand brought up "It can have self determination when it is not living inside and attached to someone's body". So...based on YOUR standard the newly born child is now capable of self determination and sustainment?

How about let's forget the ''details'' and make infanticide legal just for the ''hell of it.'' (Just kidding btw.)

 

[sangha]

Temporary harm doesn't necessarily have to be a special case. It simply represents a lesser degree of risk than permanent harm.

You're dodging the point. You implied that temporary harm should be ignored. You've given no reason to support this

And no, it's not a lesser risk

As I alluded to in another post, nothing in life is completely safe, but I agree that this wording is probably used most often.



Individuals do indeed have that (ethical) right, and that begs the question of how to weigh the ethical rights of an unborn potential individual.

The unborn have no ethical rights, which explains why you can't make an argument for it. All you can do is ask others to suppose that they do. There is no ethical or logical argument supporting the notion that the unborn have a right to self-determination

 

[VanceMack]

How about let's forget the ''details'' and make infanticide legal just for the ''hell of it.'' (Just kidding btw.)

There are those that advocate for it.

(I get that you are kidding...but really...birth is such an arbitrary declaration of personhood)

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You're dodging the point. You implied that temporary harm should be ignored. You've given no reason to support this

Not dodging the point at all; you simply inferred that I support temporary harm being ignored. You were mistaken in that; I don't.

And no, it's not a lesser risk

...because.......

The unborn have no ethical rights, which explains why you can't make an argument for it. All you can do is ask others to suppose that they do. There is no ethical or logical argument supporting the notion that the unborn have a right to self-determination

The unborn have no ethical rights because you say so? Not much of an argument. From the first of your posts on this thread, the reasons you gave had to do with legal issues, not ethical ones. So if you would like to make some ethical or philosophical arguments, by all means go ahead.