If you are so concerned about fetal pain, why are you not concerned about the pain of being squeezed through the cervix and down the birth canal? That's gotta hurt!
Well, is it?The pain isn't the concerning part, it's being conscious enough to feel it. Does that bother you?
How is it dehumanizing woman? There are two humans involved(in my view) no one has the right to choose to take someones life... especially when it was with that persons very choices that caused the life to occur. Woman made the choice when they had sex... EVERY-TIME you have sex, there is a chance to have a child.... if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of a child or at least accept the responsibility to bear a child, than DON'T HAVE SEX....Do you not also consider the dehumanization of women that would take place if the govt decided to take their choices, those they make for the betterment of their own lives and those of their families, current and future, out of their hands in the belief that the govt knew "best" for women?
Do you not consider that to place the (proposed) rights of the unborn would require placing some or all of a woman's rights as subordinate to the unborn, making them unequal and reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again? The born and unborn cannot be treated equally, legally or practically, so one must be secondary, be less.
IMO that certainly is the unborn.
I truly am trying to follow your logic here...I have heard this before...and I will try to explain my stanceDo you not consider that to place the (proposed) rights of the unborn would require placing some or all of a woman's rights as subordinate to the unborn, making them unequal and reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again? The born and unborn cannot be treated equally, legally or practically, so one must be secondary, be less.
IMO that certainly is the unborn.
How is it dehumanizing woman? There are two humans involved(in my view) no one has the right to choose to take someones life... especially when it was with that persons very choices that caused the life to occur. Woman made the choice when they had sex... EVERY-TIME you have sex, there is a chance to have a child.... if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of a child or at least accept the responsibility to bear a child, than DON'T HAVE SEX....
and before you have a rebuttal against that... that is EXACTLY what men have to do... no matter what, EVERY-TIME a man has sex, he needs to accept the chance that his action could lead to a child, and if in that instance it happens, must take responsibility.
I truly am trying to follow your logic here...I have heard this before...and I will try to explain my stance
Definition:
Responsibility- the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.
Assumptions/Statements:
Sex can lead to pregnancy
Fetus has human right to life(some will not agree with this assumption, but that would have to be a different argument and is where the discussion can come to an impasse, lets get this out of the way first)
Sex is desired by woman
Woman has human right to her own body.
Woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body
Woman does not want pregnancy
Woman knows sex can lead to pregnancy
Violating a right is Unethical
The pain isn't the concerning part, it's being conscious enough to feel it. Does that bother you?
If violating rights is unethical, how do you justify violating women's rights? Why is she less deserving of them than the unborn? Just because you decided you want to blame her for it's creation?
The pain isn't the concerning part, it's being conscious enough to feel it. Does that bother you?
THIS is exactly what my proof explains...
the rest of your post has zero relevance and you are arguing a strawman. All you had to say is that you disagree with the statement "An infant has a right to life"...that's it, if we cannot come to terms with that, my argument does not work in it's final conclusion. In your'e previous statement you argued that if both the woman and the infant have rights, what happens? THAT is exactly what my argument addresses, nothing else.... maybe I should have lead you more.
In no way I said ANYTHING about government... or ANYTHING about sex being a crime... or that people shouldn't have sex...but if you think a fetus is worth something than there are extra consequences you ethically have to put into the equation.
Aside from not agreeing with the statement "a fetus has a right to life" are my arguments sounds and valid? Because than in theory... all I would need to do is convince you that statement is true, then everything else would follow. So also in theory ANYONE, whom agrees with this statement must have these things follow... UNLESS, you have a rebuttal.
I spent literally 2 hours crafting that post, I expected a better response....
How is it dehumanizing woman? There are two humans involved(in my view) no one has the right to choose to take someones life... especially when it was with that persons very choices that caused the life to occur. Woman made the choice when they had sex... EVERY-TIME you have sex, there is a chance to have a child.... if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of a child or at least accept the responsibility to bear a child, than DON'T HAVE SEX....
and before you have a rebuttal against that... that is EXACTLY what men have to do... no matter what, EVERY-TIME a man has sex, he needs to accept the chance that his action could lead to a child, and if in that instance it happens, must take responsibility.
It's dehumanizing when you or the govt uses force of law to tell a woman that they know what is best for her life, and that she's not capable of choosing. That her right to life and self-determination are not as important as the unborn. After all, that's what it comes down to...the govt violating a woman's rights to a future and instead deciding that the unborn is more deserving of the very same rights. They cannot be treated equally, so the law will end up favoring one over the other.
What makes you think that having an abortion isnt taking responsibility? Of course it is. Having a kid you're not ready for, that may take your attention and resources from the family you already have? Having one that you cant afford, knowing you'll need to accept taxpayer $ in public assistance to help support it? Of course abortion is a responsible option.
That is what my arguement is all about.... please try to rebut it if you disagree.Sex is normal and healthy. Why should *I* abstain just because *you* have a problem with me aborting should my chosen contraceptive method fail?
That is what my arguement is all about.... please try to rebut it if you disagree.
OK...Your "proof" proved nothing. It was all opinion.
It was your way of justifying taking rights away from women in order to bestow them on the unborn. It didnt actually justify it, since I and others obviously disagree and believe that the unborn are not equal to people and that the unborn are certainly not more important than women.
And rights are only recognized legally by a govt. THey have no power or legitimacy outside of the law. So the govt certainly does matter here. YOu kept discussing the rights of the unborn and then balk at my discussing our rights to due process and privacy? Nothing like cherry picking what you find important and what you dont....like women's lives.
Otherwise, you have a very nice speech that cannot change anything, as only the govt and the law can make abortion illegal.
You didn't answer my question.
Once a woman has already had an abortion, it is important not to chastise her too harshly. This is an action that cannot be taken back, no matter how much a woman might wish she could later. This sometimes does happen. We need to send the message that it’s not okay, but at the same time forgive. Forgiveness is key here. What we really need is forgiveness, regardless of the sin or offense committed. Forgiveness is a key tenant of Christianity, and it’s also a great way to promote an atmosphere of peace, civility, and respect for women.
Those that are Responsible for the consequences of an Unethical action that they are Responsible for ought not violate the rights(ought suffer the consequences-of) of those for which were not Responsible .
That is my answer.
What's with the capitalization in the middle of sentences?
Do you think you're writing the Declaration of Independence?
We are getting into the part where arguing abortion is pointless.... the arguement is ASSUMING the unborn child is human.
like the arguement
Humans have a right to not be killed against their will
a Fetus is a genetically unique human
therefore a Fetus ought not be killed.
The unborn is human, it has human DNA. It is not yet a human being, it has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being.
Being a human is a scientific fact. But science does not apply value. Science is objective, 'value' is subjective.
People apply value, it's subjective judgement and in the US we use the Constitution and rights to inform our decisions on the value accorded to humans. All born people are equal, the unborn are not equal to people and do not have any recognized rights. These rights are also a man-made concept and we use our laws to protect and enforce them.
then you would be tempted to alter this to
Persons have a right to not be killed against their will
a Fetus is not a Person
Therefore a Fetus can be killed
what is a Person? I would ask you...
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section
OK...
You are obviously unfamiliar with how philosophical arguments are structured. I am not arguing Policy.... not ONCE did I say ANYTHING about legality.... I made an ethical argument... and a lot of our laws are based on ethics...
I already stated that my argument fails if you do not agree with the statement... but you fail to understand what an argument actually is...
Who says? You? Here is a more factual description if you are going to use 'humans' but the rights you choose to accord them are your opinion:
And here you have your definition of person as it relates to abortion, rights, US law, etc:
U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
I already mentioned that the only real way to affect change regarding abortion is thru the law. So you do need to acknowlege and use the correct terminology.
And after that, you still need to realize that the value recognized for the unborn is a matter of subjective opinion. Yours, if enacted by law, would reduce women to 2nd class citizens again, as they would not be equal to the unborn. This is a fact...both born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law.
*I* value women more. You value the unborn more. The law fortunately favors the born.
I do understand arguing philosophy and ethics but for all the times I have addressed how your choice would unethically violate women's rights with the personal justification of, 'they asked for it when they had sex,' you demonstrate zero ability to recognize the impacts your choice would have on women.
Why don't we just kill everyone? No more suffering for anyone ever again!!!!!!*The Point* that is not an argument...And believe me, you have no moral High Ground here. Ethically, the women's suffering and impact on society would be far far greater. The unborn suffer nothing, women would know exactly the disrespect of a society that decided they were once again 2nd class citizens, they would know when their rights were violated. Their jobs, their families, their very lives would all be impacted. The unborn would suffer nothing.
Has nothing to do with anything... For all I care abortion could improve society greatly.And there has been no demonstrated negative effect on society from abortion at all. Can you demonstrate any?
Oh so as long as the majority in the government beleeives something, it must be right and ethical...*The Point* for someone who claims to know philosophical arguments... you like to make grocery lists of fallacies...But in the long run, if you have no compelling reasons that the courts could consider in order to reverse their decisions that the unborn are not equal and have no rights, then the law actually does reflect an ethical basis: choice. For the individual woman to pursue her beliefs and ethics and not be subjected to govt force.
I would have to convince the courts that a fetus has a soul... or at least has as much value as one. This is something I admitted since the very beginning.Do you have any compelling reasons for the courts to consider that would change their decision? Remember, they also must uphold women's rights, by law.
This has nothing to do with ANYTHING if a fetus is considered to be valued as human..... or has any value at all for that matter.
The unborn is human, it has human DNA. It is not yet a human being, it has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being.
Being human is a scientific fact. But science does not apply value. Science is objective, 'value' is subjective.
People apply value, it's subjective judgement and in the US we use the Constitution and rights to inform our decisions on the value accorded to humans. All born people are equal, the unborn are not equal to people and do not have any recognized rights. These rights are also a man-made concept and we use our laws to protect and enforce them.
Oh so as long as the majority in the government beleeives something, it must be right and ethical...*The Point* for someone who claims to know philosophical arguments... you like to make grocery lists of fallacies...
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?