Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
(June 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
Women, King Arthur is here for your weekly bodily examination.
(June 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
Women, King Arthur is here for your weekly bodily examination.
I plan on being a Doctor of philosophy, not medicine!
June 19, 2014 at 7:51 pm (This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 7:53 pm by Losty.)
(June 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Arthur123 Wrote:
I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
Abortion is not an immoral act. Fetuses are not people. Nothing is traumatizing to a non-sentient being. There are no children involved in abortions. It could be just me, but your posts are very hard for me to follow so that was all I could pick out of it.
(June 19, 2014 at 7:50 pm)Arthur123 Wrote:
(June 19, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Women, King Arthur is here for your weekly bodily examination.
I plan on being a Doctor of philosophy, not medicine!
I hope you plan on getting an education first.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
June 19, 2014 at 7:56 pm (This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 7:58 pm by Arthur123.)
Losty, I have been building a case that fetuses are human beings. Namely that they are informationally complete in their genetic information and belong to the species Homo sapien. My other argument was using the metaphysical principle that, if organism x once exists and x never has never died than x still exists. At no point can a fetus be said to have died in any meaningful sense than a baby to a child, child to an adult ect. Therefore the entity that I am is the same as a fetus. Or stated similarly I am a human, I was once a fetus therefore a fetus is a human being.
Losty, I am saddened by the ad hominem. I go to the best school in my state I am hardworking and open minded! And my education will never be complete as there is always new ideas out there that I haven't heard yet
June 19, 2014 at 8:02 pm (This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 8:21 pm by The Valkyrie.)
(June 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
THat's a lot of rambling and completely missing the point while repeating the already discredited statement that it's immoral.
Okay, I'll break it down once more.
- Comparing a non-organic life support system to an organic being - in this case a woman - is utterly ridiculous and has NO merit.
- Once again "discomfort". Do you know ANYTHING about pregnancy and childbirth? The health risks, the life changes and the changes it does to the body during and after the pregnancy? Trying to call it mere "discomfort" is just a ploy to minimalise the stress on the woman both psychologically and bodily.
- The cabin scenarion does not even come close to equating to my statement. Step back and actually THINK about what I type - it helps.
- Yes, SOME women do get depressed after an abortion. WHat's your point? Postpartum depression is probably one of the lesser health risks to a woman when it comes to pregnancy (and this does not in ANY way mean to minimise its impact).
- So, yes, a woman's life trumps the life of the fetus EVERY time.
- No - NOT end of discussion. You DO NOT get to make idiotic statements and then try to dismiss what others have to say by stated "end of discussion". Doing so is just an indication that your hands are over your ears, that you don't want to listen to what anyone else has to say, and you're stamping your foot like a petulant little brat. If we want to do that I can state that since you're obviously male your opinion on abortion has no relevance and will not until YOU can have kids.
- Now, if you want to know about the impact the "discomfort" has on a woman, ask one who has had children or a doctor . . . oh, wait!
(June 19, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Losty, I have been building a case that fetuses are human beings. Namely that they are informationally complete in their genetic information and belong to the species Homo sapien. My other argument was using the metaphysical principle that, if organism x once exists and x never has never died than x still exists. At no point can a fetus be said to have died in any meaningful sense than a baby to a child, child to an adult ect. Therefore the entity that I am is the same as a fetus. Or stated similarly I am a human, I was once a fetus therefore a fetus is a human being.
A fetus is not a person. You have provided zero evidence to show that a fetus is a person. You have made no attempt to show that a fetus is a person.
You have also given no reason why a being with human DNA should have a right to live if it is not a person.
Quote:Losty, I am saddened by the ad hominem. I go to the best school in my state I am hardworking and open minded! And my education will never be complete as there is always new ideas out there that I haven't heard yet
Study harder, love.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
(June 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I agree life support systems are not life support systems, I don't see how this is relevant. If, what your trying to say is the womans to her own body trumps the babys right to life. I would have to disagree it is important only to the point she commits an immoral act i.e, abortion. The fetuses right to life and not be killed trumps the mothers discomfort every time. In the cabin scenario I was directly responding to your statement "A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival."
Pospartum depression ahh yes but than is the fact also ignored that women, too become depressed sometimes after an abortion? Indeed there our some that end up regretting it and have lasting depressed symptoms due to the fact. Nevertheless, this is neither here nor there. Right now we are purely discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action. In this case, abortion. If fetuses are humans, than abortion is the killing of innocent human beings and is morally wrong. End of discussion.
Losty, my whole point is that fetuses are humans too ergo, abortion would also be violating there bodily rights. In this case, there right to life. The thought experiment could also be changed so that somehow (insert crazy scenario) only the woman can have food, say she is really fat in that case her sustanence will sustain her longer than the baby and all she has is breast milk to save it. And your right, however, abortion is absolutely threatening and traumatizing, to the child.
Women, King Arthur is here for your weekly bodily examination.
I hope not, I'll go to an actual MD for my health. Where I work, there are plenty.
(June 19, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I say they both have rights and the right of the fetus to live greatly outweighs the womans temporary discomfort. Everything stems from morality. Especially law. (Ideally)
Why does a fetus have to live? Why is it that important that you'd rather the woman suffer into being obliged to host it reluctantly for nine months in her own body?
June 19, 2014 at 8:12 pm (This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 8:15 pm by Arthur123.)
Beccs, there was a lot of ad hominem there, appeals to authority genetic fallacy ect. I hope we can have an irenic discussion of the facts and not dissolve into personal attacks. Here, I am discussing personhood of a fetus, my reasons for that have been discussed in other posts. In your previous post, it appears, you have not addressed anything concerning a fetus and its humanity or not. You have attacked the idea that even if the fetus is a human it does not trump bodily rights of a woman. If you wish to debate my view of what a human being is please state your objection. In order to save time and energy I will copy and past what I wrote earlier in response to a similar line of thinking, Some philosophers have likened pregnancy to, a woman who knowingly signs up for a social experiment where she may or may not be trapped in a cabin for nine months with an infant and the infant would need her body to survive for this time. Lets say she is picked, is she now knowing full well she is responsible for bringing about the situation and the dependance of the fetus, should she not be morally and legally held responsible for the child? I believe the answer is a resounding yes. Similarly, in the violinist example, the woman has no responsibility nor connection to the sick man who is hooked up to her body. He is hooked up there because he, (or in her paper she uses "The Society for Music Lovers,") intentionally hooks himself up to her. But why is the fetus hooked up to the woman in the first place? Ninety-nice percent of the time, it is because she engaged in an action (sexual intercourse) that is known to create dependant people(unborn children). The analogy false and misconstrued indeed, in the case of pregnancy the mother and father resemble "The Society of Music Lovers," more than the kidnapped kidney donor in causing an innocent child and using that child to be dependant on a womans body to live. If I am responsible, or freely engaged in an activity that I knew had the possibility of creating a dependent, helpless human life, than I owe that human whatever assistance she needs to survive. A further analogy, shows this in a car-crash scenario. Comparing unwanted pregnancy to that of a car crash. Here, a car crashes into one car propelling it into another car. Now we find out that the owner of the third car also was the driver and instigator of the first car and started the chain reaction. Since she is the owner of both cars, she can only fault herself and indeed the car in the middle can fault her too. Now lets call a pregnant woman A(the father was also involved) the child B and the womans body C. A conceives B thus causing B to inhabit C. Plainly put, C is A, the mother. The child B, the one caught in the middle is innocent. Therefore, the mother has no no reason to evict or indeed kill her child. The metaphysical principle in all of this is,
"If one puts another in a situation without their consent, that situation can not be worse than they would have been in otherwise, and that consent to put someone in a dependent situation, includes the responsibility of caring for that person.
This means that:
If causing someone to exist and then killing that person, does more harm than not causing such a person to exist, abortion is not permissible.
Also,
If one consents to a situation where another is dependent upon them, and that it would have been otherwise true that the person was not dependent upon them, the person consenting is obligated to provide for the other."
Losty, I have said that due to human embryology a human is genetically complete in its human information and belongs to the species Homo sapien thus should be considered a human being with the same rights as myself. I have argued and defended my view that this is the only coherent definition of a human being.
Study harder! Why would I do that when I have you guys?
