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.
Not dodging the point at all; you simply inferred that I support temporary harm being ignored. You were mistaken in that; I don't.
...because.......
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.
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
Just a second: how can anyone claim that harm from pregnancy is "non-consensual" if a zef was conceived through consensual sex?
If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
Just a second: how can anyone claim that harm from pregnancy is "non-consensual" if a zef was conceived through consensual sex?
If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
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.
The question is... should the unborn have a right to self-determination?
The answer is no. Obviously.
The unborn can't self-determine. Neither can toddlers or children. Not just legally, but ethically. Without guardians making decisions for them, they would hurt or kill themselves, or simply die from failure to provide themselves with the necessities of life.
You can't grant self-determination to someone that has no capacity for autonomy. That would be cruel. I can't think of one example in our society where we would let such a person do their own thing. On paper anyway.
Is that why liberals don't think people should be autonomous and make their own decisions? Is that why some think the government should make decisions for the proles?
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?
If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
Nope
Should the right wing stop telling others what to do with there body
Yup
Does the unborn even have the ability to self-determine?
Yes. And you made the claim they had the right to self-determination after birth. Just as silly...isnt it?The title of the thread is "Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?" So, yes, the OP did bring it up.
The same way we can say that people who die in car crashes did not consent to death because they got into a car
The left is not exactly innocent of that either you know.
Those that lose a functioning brain are often allowed to die, same applies to a fetus that has not yet formed a functioning brain, neither has the actual right to self determination since neither can think or reason without a brain.What of the invalid? Should they be summarily executed because they no longer have the ability of self determination?
Those that lose a functioning brain are often allowed to die, same applies to a fetus that has not yet formed a functioning brain, neither has the actual right to self determination since neither can think or reason without a brain.
Keep repeating that, eventually you might even believe it has merit . :roll:
Why not? Any and all negative consequences to an action should be considered.Fair enough. So you're agreeing that temporary harm is relevant
In that case you should have said, "they aren't necessarily" instead of a categorical "they aren't."Because a great harm that's temporary (such as excruciating pain, loss of income, etc) can be considered greater than a small harm (ex a small scar) that is permanent
No, they have no rights because there is no ethical argument to support them having rights.
But if you have an ethical argument for it, feel free to present it. So far, I haven't seen it. And I'm under no burden to prove they have no rights. If you want to propose that they have rights, the burden is on you to prove your case.
This one's very questionable, but I'll let it go, since it gets into concepts that take one rather far from the thread topic.No, my arguments were ethical. Here they are again
A) There is an ethical argument in favor of democracy
The ethical interest is in the restraint that society as a whole learns when it moves as far as possible from arbitrary execution (assuming the individuality of a potential person).B) If there's no ethical interest being served by unborn rights, it is unethical for the unborn to have rights
By that reasoning, all attempts to punish cruelty to animals would be unethical.C) It is unethical to assign/recognize rights for entities that can not exercise those rights
Certainly, but the political stance may not perfectly mirror what's ethical or unethical.Furthermore, you can not divorce ethics from politics. There is an ethical foundation to politics and it can not be waved away
We were not talking about a "human" it is more accurate to call a fetus a carrot than a human since both have no functioning brain. Even the bible says life begins with the first breath.
Why not? Any and all negative consequences to an action should be considered.
In that case you should have said, "they aren't necessarily" instead of a categorical "they aren't."
Actually there are ethical arguments to support them, but I will put those in a separate post ("coming soon") so that they don't get lost in this shuffle.
This one's very questionable, but I'll let it go, since it gets into concepts that take one rather far from the thread topic.
The ethical interest is in the restraint that society as a whole learns when it moves as far as possible from arbitrary execution (assuming the individuality of a potential person).
By that reasoning, all attempts to punish cruelty to animals would be unethical.
Certainly, but the political stance may not perfectly mirror what's ethical or unethical.
Still doesn't fly: the carrot plant has no chance whatsoever of developing a functioning brain.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?