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!
(June 24, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Julia I have been arguing that you must put fetus' into the category of human beings because it is the only consistent application of the definitional, and organizational concept of human beings. As for your rebut, I believe I responded to that here:
Julia, thanks so much for joining the discussion! I believe there is an inherent difference between a zygote and a toenail cell. One is a part of a human being while the other is an actual human being. As Dr. Dianne Irving puts it, "the issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings - they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would simply rot. They would not grow as human embryos or human fetuses who are human beings."
And Dr. C. Ward Fisher, "Let’s frame the issue: in human sexual reproduction, when conception [or fertilization] occurs
the continuum of life is initiated. There must be a moment of time at which the time continuum of life begins.
For all these reasons among others, I believe the strength of my argument stands...Biologically, then,first contact
is the event from which all else will follow. There is no point beyond that at which development is suspended or held in abeyance." Stated similarly in Alexander Prus' metaphysical principle, if an organism who once existed has never died than this organism still exists. There i biological continuity between me and my fetus and since I am a human it follows that so is a fetus. This genetically complete, whole, human organism directing its own growth and genetic future in an unbreaking chain of growth is nothing like that of a toenail cell that can be harnessed and experimented with to clone a human being. My definition does not rest on potentialities but actualities and ontology.
By the way, I just want to thank everyone for their responses even though I am a Christian and believe differently from most of you for the most part I have been treated kindly and with respect
Dr. R.J. Anderson: "The question certainly isn't when life begins or even human life begins. The question is when does a growing cluster of cells, an embryo, or fetus, become an actual human? Is it at conception, in the first or second trimester? Or is it when it is truly viable outside the mother's body, when it can survive without her own biological system? I, for one, would suggest that it is precisely at that time when it becomes truly human, and more than a "parasite" dependant on the life of another for it's survival. Then is when it is deserving of protection."
June 24, 2014 at 10:42 pm (This post was last modified: June 24, 2014 at 10:45 pm by bennyboy.)
(June 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, as I have been arguing throughout this thread that in order to be consistent in attributing rights to human beings we must consider fetus' human. My argument is deductive argument and unless you can defeat one of the premises leading to the conclusion the conclusion can be said to be true.
Now lets address your argument, the crux of it, is that of intellectual brain states is the deciding factor in deciding human value. I say this is patently false, for one thing it shifts the idea of human value from intrinsic to extrinsic value which I believe is problematic. For example, coma patients who are not conscious, or baby born with defects have either no right to life or mitigated rights to life. Lets imagine a man whose consciousness shuts down every ten minutes during this time is it permissible to kill him? I would hope your answer would be surely not! Furthermore, since it is a part of a human it is as arbitrary as saying upright walking is the only factor that can deem right to life. Its an arbitrary reasoning through which the sufficient factors of being human are.
Let's imagine the man in the coma never had an idea because he never had a developed brain. Let's imagine he does not have the ability to experience pain for the same reason. Let's imagine that the person responsible for this never-thinking, never-feeling man already has a real life full of real problems. I'd say, pull the plug. The existence and comfort of real people should always be more important than hypothetical ones.
If not, then every moment you spend not shooting your sperm into a viable female constitutes implied murder. So does the use of a condom. So does homosexuality. So does abstinence. But there's a problem. If we all spent all of our time trying to enable the existence of every possible human being, then the world would be covered with unwanted and unnecessary human beings. And since we've moved on from uncivilized tribes of thousands to developed nations of many millions, the enabling of all potential human beings must be considered an evil, rather than a good.
June 25, 2014 at 12:52 am (This post was last modified: June 25, 2014 at 12:58 am by Esquilax.)
(June 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, as I have been arguing throughout this thread that in order to be consistent in attributing rights to human beings we must consider fetus' human. My argument is deductive argument and unless you can defeat one of the premises leading to the conclusion the conclusion can be said to be true.
Look, this is absolutely infuriating. Are you just ignoring me whenever I make this point? Are you deliberately dodging your burden of proof and then trying to shift that burden to us? Or is this just dishonesty, on your part?
You're making a claim: it's not up to us to disprove every random claim that you make, and you don't assume your claims are true, no. You need an actual argument in order to do that, and unfortunately for you, all you've done so far is dismiss legitimate arguments and then assert how great yours is, all the while attempting to shirk your burden of proof.
This is the third time I've explained this to you. If you continue along this line of reasoning I'll be forced to conclude that you're simply lying, now. Look up the burden of proof. Stop simply presupposing your arguments are correct, and stop dismissing things arbitrarily on the basis of "I think I'm correct, therefore you can't be." It's completely maddening, arguing with a person who'll just reassert what he's already asserted, over and over.
Quote:Now lets address your argument, the crux of it, is that of intellectual brain states is the deciding factor in deciding human value. I say this is patently false, for one thing it shifts the idea of human value from intrinsic to extrinsic value which I believe is problematic.
No, it'd just make the thing with intrinsic value the actual important part, the consciousness, rather than the useless meat. Or do you seriously see no difference between a human body with a dead brain, and yourself?
Quote: For example, coma patients who are not conscious, or baby born with defects have either no right to life or mitigated rights to life.
If the coma patient is brain dead, then his life support can be turned off. A baby born with sufficiently damaging defects can also be allowed to die. So... yes.
In fact, with regards to the coma patient and the child, decisions about medical care and their right to life is given to the next of kin, and they get the decision to switch off life support. A fetuses next of kin- and here we're talking about something that has never had a brain or a mind- is the pregnant woman, so... in that context, in the real world we actually live in right now, abortion is permissible.
Quote: Lets imagine a man whose consciousness shuts down every ten minutes during this time is it permissible to kill him?
If it keeps coming back online then we'd have reasonable observational evidence that his consciousness will return, and therefore, no. However, you're not talking about that, you're talking about a fetus, which doesn't even have the correct equipment to have consciousness yet.
Quote: I would hope your answer would be surely not! Furthermore, since it is a part of a human it is as arbitrary as saying upright walking is the only factor that can deem right to life. Its an arbitrary reasoning through which the sufficient factors of being human are.
Arbitrary? The human consciousness is all we are as people. Everything that makes us individuals is bound up in our mind, and when our mind is gone, so are we. That's why brain death is game over, for us. You're simply wrong, here.
Quote:Furthermore, fetus did not choose to be there they were placed.
Which is completely irrelevant. If you get catapulted into someone's house, against your will, then it's still okay for you to be ejected from that house. My rights don't suddenly vanish just because the person violating them isn't doing it of their own free choice.
Quote: Furthermore, through abortion the fetus' rights is violated in the worst possible way. Death. And please don't assume what my thoughts on issues are, you can always just ask
So, if the fetus is simply extracted from the woman and then left to its own devices- whether it survives or not is up to it, as with any other person- would you be okay with that? Or are you just using this issue of rights as a convenient bulwark, when what you really care about is something else?
It's curious that you say I can ask, and then avoid actually giving an answer.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Pro birthers are not arguing anything pragmatic anymore than zealous animal rights activists hate pounds, but don't have the money to adopt all the animals they want to save, then stupidly act like someone taking the animal to the pound is throwing a party over it.
It is simply a refusal to face reality and try to force a unrealistic utopia on society that will simply cause more problems.
(June 17, 2014 at 4:18 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Hello, I am new to these forums and am interested in engaging in fruitful and intellectual stimulating conversations! Today, I am interested in the topic of abortion. I believe it to be morally wrong for non-religious reasons. Simply put, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception since it belongs to the species homo-sapiens and is genetically complete in its information. I look forward to any responses!
Kindest Regards,
A woman that's considering an abortion knows that either she doesn't want to have a child or she is unable to take care of it. So we have to concider if it's morally correct to have a child that's not wanted or cannot be cared for, just because it's part of our species. The abortion seems like the better option for both of them.
