What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer?

[DogmaticDownSouth]

As for whether or not you're a troll, I think you're a polite one. But who looks for help with these sorts of ethical issues online in a forum they've never posted in before, where they know no one? Why would you value any opinion here at all, given that you know no one and no one knows you?

Thanks for the kind reply here, I torched you on another thread because you questioned my honesty.
I don't take kindly to that
I try to be polite and will continue to if treated that way, but when my integrity is impugned, I tend to lash out, You can only take me at my word, but I would ask, based on my questions and responses, what would you say that I have brought up that would make me a troll?

I value opinoins because people have them. Can I only ask for opinions of people I know?
Have you even read my introduction page? I posted my motives clearly there and would refer you to it.

But just becuase you don't understand or didn't bother to find out does not give you cause or right question my integrity. If my actions or words lead to that conclusion, then I will own that, but I would then ask you to specify what action or words did so.
Thanks

---

Embryo is a STAGE of the human organism, not a SEPARATE entity.

Therefor if an embryo or a fetus does not in your opinioin bear human rights then what is necessary to bear these rights and why?

Because the rights of an actual living human trump the rights of a potential human.

And you're absolutely correct: a fetus is not a separate entity. Indeed, it is embedded in a woman, and draws nutrients from her own metabolism, and can perhaps kill her if the pregnancy does not go right. And it cannot live outside her. Why would you give priority to such a being, blind in its outlook, incapable of holding much less expressing an opinion on even its own life, over the life of the adult woman carrying it -- unless you just want to make sure the wimmenfolk are kept in line?

I'll take you seriously about "human rights" when you start talking about the human rights of an adult woman and her right to own her own body.

I have not asked a question about in relation to anyone else, these are suppositions and leaps that you are making, not me. I only ask what is required to be considerd a bearer of human rights? What part of that questions states that one takes precidence over another?

[Losty]

Must. Resist. Urge to merge threads. Lol. Do you really need 3 threads for this??
I was just recently bragging in the staff lounge about our impressive lack of abortion thread and you come to shit in my Apple Jacks.

IMO rights should go to humans that have been born and are still alive.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

I would direct you to my other post : A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
Please give me feed back on that thread about the argument. Would like very much to hear your opinion.,

The question that I feel this begs, however if then if at anytime an organism cannot surive without assistance does it no longer bear human rights? If you are on a ventilator or having srugery and on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine you are no longer able to survive independently. Do you no longer bear human rights if you cannot survive independently?

Hope tone is not attacking, asking questions to further logical argument and get both of us to think about the implications of our thoughts and rationals. thanks for the honest reply

No offense, but I'm really not interested enough in the topic to argue it in three different threads concurrently. I read your argument in that thread and I feel that you, like so many who want to restrict abortion who came before you, are very short sighted. If a woman truly doesn't want child, and there are as many reasons to not want one as there are to want one, no number of laws limiting abortion will ever make her want that child. They will likely make her a mother of an unwanted child though. As if that's any way to go through life.

Do you have a ready solution to caring for the kids once they're born if the mother can't or just plain won't care for them? Or, do you, like the Repugnicunts, not give a shit once they're born?

No offense taken, but I never stated that I wanted to restrict abortion. Infact this thread has nothing to do directly with abortion. On the other thread (I assuem the first one you are referring to) I only stated that if a abortion is take place, then it should be done such that the fetus is not destroyed, which is a viable options, particulary after 20 weeks. I never stated that the woman needs to keep custody of the child. There are many children in this world that are not cared for, but is death a better option, and more importantly do you, I, or anyone else get to decide?
I don't have a necessary solution to who should pay for medical care for medical emergencies, but I can still argue that it is moral to argue for treatment of medical emergencies regardless of ability to pay? One is a question of practicaly the other a question of morality. I started ths to talk about morality
Again I would state, for me atleast I would rather live and experience life with a difficult childhood and try to imrpove and bring my self out of it then not live at all.

But the question at hand is not about termination of rights, but what determines who has those rights.
Do you believe that a fetus has human rights? if so when? At conception, at 20 weeks, at "viability" (a post hoc statement because if you don't try to save it how do you knwo if it's viable), at birth?, at 10 years old? What characteristic define a creature that is entitiled to these rights is my questions. It's a moral and philosophical question that can be the backbone of a lot of different practical questions.

[Foxaèr]

Oh, dear, the three threads are different due to semantics.

*rolls eyes*

[DogmaticDownSouth]

Must. Resist. Urge to merge threads. Lol. Do you really need 3 threads for this??
I was just recently bragging in the staff lounge about our impressive lack of abortion thread and you come to shit in my Apple Jacks.

IMO rights should go to humans that have been born and are still alive.

I have stated why i started 3 threads, they all ask different questions, and one thread gets clogged with 3 different questions so I felt it best to keep each question seperate. You can answer one without having anything to do with the others, they are independent questions.

Only 1 of the threads argues directly ABOUT abortion, and that is asking for other's opinoins on why it SHOULD be justified,, not why it shouldn't

Glad you gave a response, I would ask in return (if we are to have a conversation) what is fundamental about birth? IE in the moment prior to emerging from the canal does the baby have rights? While still attached to the umbilical cord while the placenta is still in the womb, the infant is still "dependent" on the mother, has it been born? does it have rights? can it be killed until it is detached from the cord?

People don't like to thnk hard about these questions, but I suppose the underpin bigger questions. Just wanted to see where your argument led and what you thought about it. Again having a discussion or dialogue (2 people talking). you do't have to respond, but would be interested in your answer.

---

Oh, dear, the three threads are different due to semantics.  

*rolls eyes*

Different questions, each can be answered without the others, not interested, don't join. I didn't compell you here.

[The Valkyrie]

An embryo, in my personal opinion, gains humans rights upon viability, usually at around 20-22 weeks.

Even after that date, it's rights do not trump those of the mother.

[Foxaèr]

An embryo is not a fully functional human.

Boom.

[Losty]

Must. Resist. Urge to merge threads. Lol. Do you really need 3 threads for this??
I was just recently bragging in the staff lounge about our impressive lack of abortion thread and you come to shit in my Apple Jacks.

IMO rights should go to humans that have been born and are still alive.

I have stated why i started 3 threads, they all ask different questions, and one thread gets clogged with 3 different questions so I felt it best to keep each question seperate. You can answer one without having anything to do with the others, they are independent questions.

Only 1 of the threads argues directly ABOUT abortion, and that is asking for other's opinoins on why it SHOULD be justified,, not why it shouldn't

Glad you gave a response, I would ask in return (if we are to have a conversation) what is fundamental about birth? IE in the moment prior to emerging from the canal does the baby have rights? While still attached to the umbilical cord while the placenta is still in the womb, the infant is still "dependent" on the mother, has it been born? does it have rights? can it be killed until it is detached from the cord?

People don't like to thnk hard about these questions, but I suppose the underpin bigger questions. Just wanted to see where your argument led and what you thought about it. Again having a discussion or dialogue (2 people talking). you do't have to respond, but would be interested in your answer.

There's really no need to think hard about it. Just look up the definition to birth.

[The Valkyrie]

An embryo is not a fully functional human.  

Boom.

Correct.

Though, from my perspective, at viability it at least has a chance of surviving outside the mother's body.  Not without medical intervention, of course.

[Losty]

An embryo, in my personal opinion, gains humans rights upon viability, usually at around 20-22 weeks.

Even after that date, it's rights do not trump those of the mother.

I like this. I will change my opinion to reflect yours.