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

[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.

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

Thank you, Lost One.

Still trying not to read through walls of posts but my curiosity has been piqued at the mention of a cardiologist, elsewhere.

[Foxaèr]

I'm too tired to deal with this guy's hoopla.

I'm going to bed.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm too tired to deal with this guy's hoopla.  

I'm going to bed.

Sweet dreams.

Dream of big, green ogre babies...

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Hitting a hot-button topic on your entry here is going to garner skepticism. It's not like I or others know you and have a baseline. The fact that this topic seems to drive most of your posts makes me wonder about the depth you bring.

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.

You can of course ask opinions of anyone you wish. I just find it odd that you'd drop this question in as you have here, asking people whose opinions you have no metric for, and pushing the subject.

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

I, and everyone else here, have the right to question any goddamned thing we have questions about.

---

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?

I've answered this question. Why are you asking yet again if you're not trolling?

[DogmaticDownSouth]

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?

Hitting a hot-button topic on your entry here is going to garner skepticism. It's not like I or others know you and have a baseline. The fact that this topic seems to drive most of your posts makes me wonder about the depth you bring.

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.

You can of course ask opinions of anyone you wish. I just find it odd that you'd drop this question in as you have here, asking people whose opinions you have no metric for, and pushing the subject.

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

I, and everyone else here, have the right to question any goddamned thing we have questions about.

---

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?

I've answered this question. Why are you asking yet again if you're not trolling?

This is the only thing I care to talk about here. I have limited vacation time and chose to spend some of it chatting about a topic I wanted to talk about. Theism is a dumb argument and waste of time. I don't like thumping my chest and talking about stuff that in general we all agree on, I've learned nothing in the interchange.  These are the questions that interest me, how would you suggest I "drop them?" Again, in a free forum, you DONT HAVE TO RESPOND. If the topic doesnt interest you then SKIP it, as I have most of the topics around here. There have been a few that I found interesting and commented on them, but by and large I came here clearly to clarify my own view on this topic.

I started this thread at the request of ignaramus. I was happy to just have a few conversation on PM, again I'm not here to bash everyone. But I was told this would be the best way to do it.

So, I would rather spend my limited time hearing critisims to my arguments to see if I can LEARN something. Also so I can potentially TEACH something. Most atheist started out as theists who were brought around by questioning their dogma. I'm questioning dogma. Period. I'll freely admit I'm not looking for lifelong friends here (I stated as much in my introduction). I was wanting to use this opporutinty to learn something - unfortunately I've been dissappointed by and large. I've stated up front my motives and remain steadfast with them.

Questions are fine - but you made an unsupported conclusion about my integrity. That is not (IMO) a correct thing to do.. Ask a question, but you levelled an acusation, different things.

You brought up the potential life vs actual life, precedence, ect. I was responding to your post comparing the two,. How is that trolling?

[ignoramus]

An embryo is not a fully functional human.  

Boom.

Neither is a bloke with a broken leg? Do we shoot him like a horse?
Boom boom

[Losty]

An embryo is not a fully functional human.  

Boom.

Neither is a bloke with a broken leg? Do we shoot him like a horse?
Boom boom

If he has hooked his body up to mine and is now sucking away all my nutrients, yes I would shoot him.

[ignoramus]

Women get pregnant, create life and then destroy it!
Are you sure you're not a god!

Like I said, I don't have an opinion. I play both sides.
It's good for robust logical analysis!

It's not like we're talking about an independant human being or anything!

[Mister Agenda]

I believe in extending rights to a baby that has been born out of generosity. It does not 'deserve' rights the way a moral agent does. It has no responsibilities corresponding to the rights granted it and has no grasp of right and wrong. However, once born, the bodily autonomy claim of the mother ceases and the value of the potential moral agency of the baby is now unencumbered by that consideration.

[Whateverist]

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?

A fundamental aspect of birth -to answer the question I've bolded- IMO is that it must be by the consent of the woman sustaining the fetus. If she consents to birth it either the old fashioned way or with medical intervention, then we can say it has been birthed and made its way into the world as a stake holder in the game of life.

Any extraction of the fetus to which the mother does not consent can not properly be said to have been "born", merely "taken".