NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think, should Human Rights be considered Human Rights issue or Morale Decency issue? I personally feel that this is a human rights issue. Now, before anyone tries to say anything about religion know this, I rarely go to church, I do believe in god but I have problems with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, I feelt that we should be able to worship god in a manner of our choosing so long as it does not violate the rights of others (i.e. Sacrificing virgins, "initiation" rights, etc.). As it says in the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Now, what right do we have to take away the life of a defenseless baby that is not more than a couple months old, to prevent it from seeking a happy life? To me that sounds like murder, and murder is a Human Rights issue, not a morale decency issue.

Uh...you do know that a thing being a "human rights" issue does not by itself exclude that thing being amoral decency issue as well?

I might as well say that if I'm not tall, that means I'm fat.

Morality is the crutch of those who cannot prove their arguements.

Morality is the crutch of those who cannot prove their arguements.

1. Morality is just a belief people have as to what the appropriate human behavior is. Morality is a conclusion. Some have arguments for that conclusion, some don't, but everyone has morality.

2. Arguments cannot be proven, only facts (if you believe in proof at all). Our arguments are generally interpretations of the facts. For example, an embryo has certain properties, and those are facts. What different persons propose based on those facts can vary widely, depending on their particular system of morality.

1. Morality is just a belief people have as to what the appropriate human behavior is. Morality is a conclusion. Some have arguments for that conclusion, some don't, but everyone has morality.

I was pointing out a simple fact: People who cannot support their claim with facts turn to morality and hope to use that in combination with emotional arguements to persuade people.

2. Arguments cannot be proven, only facts (if you believe in proof at all). Our arguments are generally interpretations of the facts. For example, an embryo has certain properties, and those are facts. What different persons propose based on those facts can vary widely, depending on their particular system of morality.

I hold proof higher than morality for this. And it does not have to depend on morality, as I choose to follow facts when it disagrees with my morality. Others do this as well.

Abortion is the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being.

A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.

When abortion occurs as a an act of self-defense when the mother's very life is directly threatened by the newly conceived unique individual human being living within, then abortion is justified.

When abortion occurs as a response to rape, the justification for abortion, though debatable, is specious.

However, when abortion occurs for all other reasons, such as the ubiquitous reasons of economic/convenience and birthcontrol, then abortion is clearly not justified.

Since abortion can occur when unjustified and since it always involves the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being, abortion is, thereby, a human rights violation, as the human being that was killed has thus been unjustly deprived of that human being's right to life.

Regarding the mother and the father or anyone else involved in the matter, the topic of "human rights" when it comes to abortion does not apply directly to them in any circumstance, and the topic of "human rights" applies only to the person about to be or who has been aborted.

This is real-world reality. Whether it applies the same to NS may be a matter of conjecture.

Uh...you do know that a thing being a "human rights" issue does not by itself exclude that thing being amoral decency issue as well?

I might as well say that if I'm not tall, that means I'm fat.

Yes, but the NS United Nations considers abortion to be a Morale Decency issue, I want to see if people think it should be a Morale Decency issue or Human Rights issue.

Yes, but the NS United Nations considers abortion to be a Morale Decency issue, I want to see if people think it should be a Morale Decency issue or Human Rights issue.

The UN thinks it is a human rights issue, because it legalized it as a human rights resolution.

A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.

It does not fit the qualifications of life and therefore is not alive. Also, not everyone is allowed to ever live but everyone dies, meaning death is the only universal human right. That is the reality of the situation.

Abortion is the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being.

A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.

When abortion occurs as a an act of self-defense when the mother's very life is directly threatened by the newly conceived unique individual human being living within, then abortion is justified.

When abortion occurs as a response to rape, the justification for abortion, though debatable, is specious.

However, when abortion occurs for all other reasons, such as the ubiquitous reasons of economic/convenience and birthcontrol, then abortion is clearly not justified.

Since abortion can occur when unjustified and since it always involves the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being, abortion is, thereby, a human rights violation, as the human being that was killed has thus been unjustly deprived of that human being's right to life.

Regarding the mother and the father or anyone else involved in the matter, the topic of "human rights" when it comes to abortion does not apply directly to them in any circumstance, and the topic of "human rights" applies only to the person about to be or who has been aborted.

This is real-world reality. Whether it applies the same to NS may be a matter of conjecture.


What a load of emotional crap, and, no it, is sin't even connected to "real-world reality". It's just the ramblings of a moralist.

The grand ol' sophistic anti-sophist is at it again...

Abortion is the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being.

unique, yes..... human, yes.... individual? no....


A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.

Conjecture... no substantive argument.


When abortion occurs as a an act of self-defense when the mother's very life is directly threatened by the newly conceived unique individual human being living within, then abortion is justified.

Not individual. Continuous fallacious argument.


When abortion occurs as a response to rape, the justification for abortion, though debatable, is specious.

Your entire argument up to this point is specious...


However, when abortion occurs for all other reasons, such as the ubiquitous reasons of economic/convenience and birthcontrol, then abortion is clearly not justified.

Says who? The United Nations, along with the principles of a majority block of her membership say it is... Over-rulled. Fallacious baseless argument.


Since abortion can occur when unjustified and since it always involves the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being, abortion is, thereby, a human rights violation, as the human being that was killed has thus been unjustly deprived of that human being's right to life.

Continuous fallacious argument.... It is "justified" by present standing law.


Regarding the mother and the father or anyone else involved in the matter, the topic of "human rights" when it comes to abortion does not apply directly to them in any circumstance, and the topic of "human rights" applies only to the person about to be or who has been aborted.


Incorrect, false logical argument based on the repetitive use of deceit and emotional appeal.


This is real-world reality. Whether it applies the same to NS may be a matter of conjecture.

Real word is in "General" This is NationStates.

In addition, you basis of argument of granted rights, places creatorial aspects and force upon the parents, therefore, if the fetus is given rights by their "creator" (ie. parent), then the "parent" (ie. Creator) is capable of removing those rights...

An end to this, once and for all. The following is what everyone, including geneticists and DNA science, uses to define life:

Biology attempts to answer the question scientifically, without resorting to philosophy or theology. Ultimately, science recognizes that a wholly biological answer is inadequate, and therefore, we try to characterize life rather than precisely define it.
What are the characteristics of life? There are a number of features that could be used to characterize life.


A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division

Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

I was pointing out a simple fact: People who cannot support their claim with facts turn to morality and hope to use that in combination with emotional arguements to persuade people.

*sigh* When you make a claim like so: "Abortions should be allowed," you are making an moral argument, a statement of your belief as to what human behavior should/should not be, specifically (in the negative) that humans should not infringe upon the freedom of a woman to have an abortion and (in the positive) humans should allow women to have abortions.. "Abortions should be allowed," is not a fact, it is a moral argument. Quite simply, you use moral arguments, not facts, to justify a position. And yes, emotional arguments are invalid.

I hold proof higher than morality for this. And it does not have to depend on morality, as I choose to follow facts when it disagrees with my morality. Others do this as well.

You cannot follow a fact.

Fact: "I have a brain."

How does one "follow" that?

If you conclude that, "because I have a brain, I should use it," that is not a fact, it is a conclusion. That is a form of morality, a belief about how you are supposed to behave.

Actually, none of you have really addressed the UN question inherent in the topic.
Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.
Declaring limitations on Abortions should be a Moral Decency argument, as it inherently limits the rights of the woman to make a choice. The government defines what is and isn't considered a human life, and imposes that choice on its citizens.

Removing limitations on Abortions is Human Rights, as the fetus is not a citizen of the nation until it is born, and therefore has no inherent nationally-granted rights to protect.

Note that this is not addressing any moral dilemma, only a legal dilemma. I'm unaware of any RL nation that grants citizenship to a fetus in the womb - it's only after a birth certificate or similar document is issued that the government may make legitimate claims on the newborn as a citizen.

(Please note that trying someone for two counts of murder in the death of a pregnanat woman does not imply citizenship of the child. The courts may chose to declare it as a separate life, but the nation doesn't usuall ymake formal recognition of that life as a separate entity in any other circumstance)

If someone wished to roleplay a nation where rights were guaranteed at conception, that would be a different matter ... but it raises all sorts of thorny problems as well. Would the nation charge a drinking or smoking mother with child abuse? How then would they remove the child from the abuser?

In my opinion (and that's the only valid meterstick we can use in this issue - the opinion of each reader), such a national scenario is improbable at best.

Texan, congrats. You caught me being wrong.

The UN thinks it is a human rights issue, because it legalized it as a human rights resolution.

Then it has changed since I last submitted a proposal. I submitted a proposal to end all abortion except when the mother was in danger and I put it as being a Human Rights Violation, after it failed to get enough votes in the proposal process to be put to vote by all the members I got a somewhat stern warning from one of the mods that Abortion was a Morale Decency issue, not one of Human Rights and in so many words that if I tried to submit it as a Human Rights violation again I would be banned. Needless to say I was caught more than a little off guard by this, I did not realize the mods took such an active role in the UN, for that matter I did not realize they took any role in the UN or the rest of NS for that matter since so much happens here.

Then it has changed since I last submitted a proposal. I submitted a proposal to end all abortion except when the mother was in danger and I put it as being a Human Rights Violation
See above (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7652458&postcount=14). You are proposing a limitation, which is Moral Decency.

I actually even find that insufficient:


A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

Too relative... it relies on defining criteria of a life form by the criteria the life-form exists in. In fact, the argument on this point is an oxymoron. Since it is based on relative normology of an already established life-form, it cannot be of itself a definition of life.


B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

This is a biological assumption, and therefore limited to biological life-forms... While it at least seeks to move past merely organo-carbon, it can allow for other organic life outside of the realm of earth's biologic understanding, such as organo-silicate.


C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

This is more or less universally true... However, it irks me to some extent as possibily being insufficient; though I will reserve judgement at this point.


D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

Too limiting, and makes too many physical and enviromental asumptions. Many space born life-forms would not meet this criteria.


E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

The later seems appropriate as long as details of "reproduction" are not entered into.... Though the later part I would have to disagree with.


F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

A relatively more specific aspect of "self-awareness" so a point I can agree with.


G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.


Also relative to "self-awareness" and "intelligence" another point I will accept...

Though these are clearly definitions of biologic life, and not personhood. Since all life forms meet this criteria (including bacteria), but this does not mean that all life itself possesses some sort of inherant rights.

$5 to anyone who can tell me where (after confirming it) I got that from.

Then it has changed since I last submitted a proposal. I submitted a proposal to end all abortion except when the mother was in danger and I put it as being a Human Rights Violation, after it failed to get enough votes in the proposal process to be put to vote by all the members I got a somewhat stern warning from one of the mods that Abortion was a Morale Decency issue, not one of Human Rights and in so many words that if I tried to submit it as a Human Rights violation again I would be banned. Needless to say I was caught more than a little off guard by this, I did not realize the mods took such an active role in the UN, for that matter I did not realize they took any role in the UN or the rest of NS for that matter since so much happens here.

Abortion is a Human Rights issue of the Mother as established by UN legislation...

Limitation upon Abortion would be moral decency (but also illegal by present legislation; without first seeking repeal of those rights).

At this point in time, you would need to submit a "REPEAL" to remove the established right enumerated by the UN to all member nations women; and then propose a "MORAL DECENCY" to limit that accross national boundries. However, I would recommend playing whatever the largest lottery you have, because you would have a far greater statistical chance of that accomplishment, than this one.

Says who? The United Nations, along with the principles of a majority block of her membership say it is... Over-rulled. Fallacious baseless argument.

Are you talking about NS or RL?

Are you talking about NS or RL?
This is the NS UN forum, so you both better be talking about NS.

I'm talking NS of course; trying to impose real world UN members and real world UN operations to NS is baseless pandering.

Bluntly, if you can kill it, it's alive.

"Being alive", however, proves nothing but the presence of life.

It does not fit the qualifications of life and therefore is not alive. Also, not everyone is allowed to ever live but everyone dies, meaning death is the only universal human right. That is the reality of the situation.

They most certainly do. Using the criteria you posted in a later post, I'll demonstrate.

1. True, embrios are constantly changing, but unless the mother realizes that she's pregnant VERY soon after conception, certain features, such as the head, become quite prominent before she even knows the baby is there. Don't believe me? Go look at an early term sonagram. However, even if this weren't true, they'd hardly be the only lifeform to not fit this bill.

2. I think the growth of an unborn baby is obvious.

3. They metabolize via the umbilical cord, recieving nutrients and expeling waste in that manner through their mother.

4. I'll give you this one, but this is the example that your article uses as a 'debateable' criteria.

5. Deny unborn babies on this count and you also have to deny anyone who's yet to reach puberty, as well as the young of almost every animal on the planet. Provided they aren't killed, they will someday be able to reproduce.

6. You said they barely do. Barely is more than most plants (which don't at all), and last time I checked, plants were considered living. Even admitting that argument a frivolous, barely responding is still responding.

7. Ignoring the fact that this qualification is based upon the unproven theory of evolution (yes, unproven, get over it), I'd say it's definately a debatable one. How many plants and animals are there that can only live in a single, small area of our planet? Hundreds? Thousands? Besides that, premature babies do very well these days.

Now, we could go on and on debating this for months, but that would really be pointless, wouldn't it. Obviously unborn babies fit most of the qualifications for life, and the article you quoted admitted that some of them are debatable.

What a load of emotional crap, and, no it, is sin't even connected to "real-world reality". It's just the ramblings of a moralist.

Spoken like a true realist....not. Actually, True Heart made some very good and valid points. You, however, don't back yours up with anything at all. Interesting.

unique, yes..... human, yes.... individual? no....

Admittedly, the individuality of an unborn baby is debatable. However, before dismissing it out of hand, you should consider that many pregnant women believe that their babies respond to external stimuli.

"Being alive", however, proves nothing but the presence of life.

True, but given that that is a HUMAN life, and given that it's pretty much universally accepted that humans have the right to life...ok, so it's an old arguement. That doesn't make it any less valid and I've yet to see it rebutted effectively.

Admittedly, the individuality of an unborn baby is debatable. However, before dismissing it out of hand, you should consider that many pregnant women believe that their babies respond to external stimuli.

Reactionary response to external stimuli is not the soul criteria of "personhood"... a slug can react to external stimuli....

Admittedly, the individuality of an unborn baby is debatable. However, before dismissing it out of hand, you should consider that many pregnant women believe that their babies respond to external stimuli.

That simply proves a system of reactions, not conciousness. The house might be being built, but there is "no one in occupancy". If you'd like proof, there are many comatose and "brain dead" bodies - in fact, some with brains rendered incapable of concious "higher thought" - who will still react if properly struck with a hammer.

And a belief is not proof, it is a belief. That a set of circumstances or environments may or may not create a "better body" later is not germaine to the discussion.



"Being alive", however, proves nothing but the presence of life.


True, but given that that is a HUMAN life, and given that it's pretty much universally accepted that humans have the right to life...ok, so it's an old arguement. That doesn't make it any less valid and I've yet to see it rebutted effectively.

Humans aren't special, and they have no "right to life". Its an invalid arguement, and its been forgotten along with arguements about the world being flat. The only "absolute right" anything which is alive has is the "right to die". That's it. Anything else is given by the state, society, circumstance, or some other entity. Period.

Logic only in rebuttals, I'm wearing out my "Emotional arguement, invalid" button lately. ;)

A creature, regardless of form, mode or plane, exists as a person, if they possess:

1. Intelligence : That is the ability to store and recall information.

2. Self-Awareness : A knowing of their own existance, the world around them, and an ability of interaction.

3. Consciousness : that is the capability of abstract, transcendent thought (pure thought); outside of formulaic delimitation...


Possession of any single, or even two criteria is not enough, to be a person, they must possess all three qualifiers. Anything not meeting all three qualifiers, has no self-possession, and therefore no "personhood".

The presence of life, biological function regardless of base, bodily form, size, medium, plane of existance, or mode is irregardless in relation to universal personhood.

OOOhhh, I like that, I think I'll swipe it

Morality is the crutch of those who cannot prove their arguements.

No, vague and undistinguished morality is the crutch of those who cannot prove their arguments. Defined, purposeful morality can be argued by someone with consdierable skill in moral theory. So far I haven't found such a person here, but I've seen it done before. Morality is not necessarily a cop out, that's just it's most common use here.

See above (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7652458&postcount=14). You are proposing a limitation, which is Moral Decency.
Then perhaps this matter needs to be expressed from the more appropriately valid perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual human being and in terms of recognizing that human being's inviolable right to life that is endowed at the moment of conception.

This would then be expressed as a human right.

Once passed, then the abortion resolution can be repealed on the basis that it is a violation of human rights.

Then perhaps this matter needs to be expressed from the more appropriately valid perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual human being and in terms of recognizing that human being's inviolable right to life that is endowed at the moment of conception.

This would then be expressed as a human right.

Once passed, then the abortion resolution can be repealed on the basis that it is a violation of human rights.

Point of order; this resolution is not passable, without first repeal of Abortion Rights.

The grand ol' sophistic anti-sophist is at it again...



unique, yes..... human, yes.... individual? no....



Conjecture... no substantive argument.



Not individual. Continuous fallacious argument.



Your entire argument up to this point is specious...



Says who? The United Nations, along with the principles of a majority block of her membership say it is... Over-rulled. Fallacious baseless argument.



Continuous fallacious argument.... It is "justified" by present standing law.



Incorrect, false logical argument based on the repetitive use of deceit and emotional appeal.
It is always good to see my posts subjected to ubiquitous erroneous assault by someone using only the extreme mind-only "pure mental" perspective of knowing, void of any use of the other four methods of knowing -- I know that most are not as mentally-centered and will intuitively pick up the sophistry implied in the assaulter's tirade of denial.


In addition, you basis of argument of granted rights, places creatorial aspects and force upon the parents, therefore, if the fetus is given rights by their "creator" (ie. parent), then the "parent" (ie. Creator) is capable of removing those rights...
Capability and authority are two different things. The newly conceived unique living individual human being is granted the inalienable and inviolable right to life by that persons "parents". Inalienable and inviolable means even the parents don't have the authority to remove them unless that person "attacks" the mother and directly threatens her very life when killing that person is the only recourse ... else by your sophistry here a parent has the capability, by which you mean "authority", to kill his/her five year-old child on a whim. Pure sophistry, Tekania, pure sophistry.

Point of order; this resolution is not passable, without first repeal of Abortion Rights.
Not true.

The newly conceived's human rights resolution would simply state that the "act" of passage of this resolution has no effect on previously passed resolutions.

The application of this human rights resolution to subsequently repeal the abortion rights resolution would then follow as a separate action.

An end to this, once and for all. The following is what everyone, including geneticists and DNA science, uses to define life:

...

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

...

Now, to examine it.

...

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

...
Neither can a five-year-old boy. By your sophistry here, DLE, the little boy is not alive.

Such illustrates the HUGE mistake of using the mind's thought-only pure-mental method of knowing (such as conjectured science) without also applying the other four methods of knowing (mental memory-and-emotion, feeling-only pure-soulistic, soulistic memory-and-emotion, heart) deferring always to the heart if methods are in conflict.

There's more to life, DLE, than your mind's limited view of it.

It is always good to see my posts subjected to ubiquitous erroneous assault by someone using only the extreme mind-only "pure mental" perspective of knowing, void of any use of the other four methods of knowing -- I know that most are not as mentally-centered and will intuitively pick up the sophistry implied in the assaulter's tirade of denial.

Obviously, you do not even know what sophistry means.

It's the implication of plausible, yet fallacious argument. Your argument is based on fallacious assessment; one which every single other debater on both forums have pointed out several times. You define conjectures of your own construction, with no formal proof or evidence, as some sort of "truth" and then deny all other claims outside of your own construct... And I will point out the where you have already to have been proven of employing sophist tactics.

At the heart of this True Heart, you degressed from idiocy to being absolutely moronic.


Capability and authority are two different things. The newly conceived unique living individual human being is granted the inalienable and inviolable right to life by that persons "parents". Inalienable and inviolable means even the parents don't have the authority to remove them unless that person "attacks" the mother and directly threatens her very life when killing that person is the only recourse ... else by your sophistry here a parent has the capability, by which you mean "authority", to kill his/her five year-old child on a whim. Pure sophistry, Tekania, pure sophistry.

Says who? Though I don't agree with that accessment, parents are not the "creator" of the child... Merely pointing out the logical error of construct of your argument.

I'm not concerned with "unique living human beings" (and for the last time, a fetus is not an individual, because it possess no real individuality;it is merely a genetically unique biological object; which does not meet the criteria of a person or being.... it is no different than a bacteria or slug.)

If your going to account for any real, universal, functional truth, you're going to have to complete rethink your own philosphies... Because, they can't even handle the individuality of identical twins and clones, let alone the concept of anything outside of your homo-centric thought process. You're going to have to step outside of your nutshell, King True Heart of the Penut Realm.

Declaring limitations on Abortions should be a Moral Decency argument, as it inherently limits the rights of the woman to make a choice.
Though delcaring limitations on abortions would be a Moral Decency argument, such is irrelevant to the consideration of repealing the abortion rights resolution.


The government defines what is and isn't considered a human life, and imposes that choice on its citizens.
So here, in a newly conceived unique living individual human being's human rights resolution, the U.N. government would define that a conception is a human life.


Removing limitations on Abortions is Human Rights, as the fetus is not a citizen of the nation until it is born, and therefore has no inherent nationally-granted rights to protect.
It does appear that being a newly conceived human being possessing the inalienable, inviolable right to life places one in non-citizen jeopardy at the hands of a nation, a nation being a lessor authority than the grantor of that right to life.

However, the nation doesn't grant all rights. A formal enumeration omission of acknowleged rights does not mean there are no other rights that otherwise accrue to the people that the government can trample by virtue of lack of formal enumeration.

By defenition, a newly conceived unique individual human being is a person, a "people" as relevant to this matter. The right to life from the moment of conception is therefore such a non-enumerated right that, not only the government cannot trample, but must also protect ... and "citizenship" here in this exceptional but nevertheless very real circumstance is irrelevant.

And, I will remind you, a government really has no foundational authority to "grant" rights to human beings -- it can only acknowlege rights.


Note that this is not addressing any moral dilemma, only a legal dilemma. I'm unaware of any RL nation that grants citizenship to a fetus in the womb - it's only after a birth certificate or similar document is issued that the government may make legitimate claims on the newborn as a citizen.
But, again, citizenship is not required for the government to uphold the right to life of a newly conceived individual human being.


(Please note that trying someone for two counts of murder in the death of a pregnanat woman does not imply citizenship of the child. The courts may chose to declare it as a separate life, but the nation doesn't usuall ymake formal recognition of that life as a separate entity in any other circumstance)
Not too many years ago, this scenario would have been a charge of only one count of murder. Obviously, progress is being made. Hopefully soon, more articles of progress of this nature will be made, such as explicitly stating the newly conceived's human rights via U.N. resolution.


If someone wished to roleplay a nation where rights were guaranteed at conception, that would be a different matter ... but it raises all sorts of thorny problems as well. Would the nation charge a drinking or smoking mother with child abuse? How then would they remove the child from the abuser?
The avoidance of "thorny problems" is not a valid excuse to deny acknowlegment of rights. Acknowlege the right to life of a newly conceived unique living individual human being, as that is the right thing to do. We can work out the subsequent "thorny problems", I'm quite certain.


In my opinion (and that's the only valid meterstick we can use in this issue - the opinion of each reader), such a national scenario is improbable at best.
In my opinion, such a national scenario is the future, reflective of heart-centered progress, and in the name of human rights we must do all we can to create that future as soon as possible.

A creature, regardless of form, mode or plane, exists as a person, if they possess:

1. Intelligence : That is the ability to store and recall information.

2. Self-Awareness : A knowing of their own existance, the world around them, and an ability of interaction.

3. Consciousness : that is the capability of abstract, transcendent thought (pure thought); outside of formulaic delimitation...


Possession of any single, or even two criteria is not enough, to be a person, they must possess all three qualifiers. Anything not meeting all three qualifiers, has no self-possession, and therefore no "personhood".

The presence of life, biological function regardless of base, bodily form, size, medium, plane of existance, or mode is irregardless in relation to universal personhood.
Wrong, Tekania -- you are merely mouthing an idiosyncratic version of the typical pro-abortionist's sophistry.

DNA science in conjunction with life science has determined beyond any reasonable conjecture that a newly conceived unique individual is a living human being.

The primary dictionary definition for "person" states: 1. a human being.

Thus, a newly conceived unique living individual human being is a "person".

My proof here is based on completely true premises, and thus the conclusion is also true ... and it applies to any other NS specie you wish to imagine.

Your sophistries of attempting to condone your likely previous participation in an abortion are simply powerless in the face of the truth.

Wrong, Tekania -- you are merely mouthing an idiosyncratic version of the typical pro-abortionist's sophistry.

DNA science in conjunction with life science has determined beyond any reasonable conjecture that a newly conceived unique individual is a living human being.

The primary dictionary definition for "person" states: 1. a human being.

Thus, a newly conceived unique living individual human being is a "person".

My proof here is based on completely true premises, and thus the conclusion is also true ... and it applies to any other NS specie you wish to imagine.

Your sophistries of attempting to condone your likely previous participation in an abortion are simply powerless in the face of the truth.

Why don't you actually address my post? Are you incompitent? Are you even sentient? Do you possess intelligence?

I've already stated the fact, I do not disagree that it is a living creature, it is not, however, a person, or an individual, in the universal sense, it lacks all three defining criteria (to which DNA and life-science plays no part in the definition of individuality) .

You have no premise, because it relies on no truth... What you exercize is mere conjecture, that you state is "true". And your application is not transferable to other modes. It's a failure, because it is, in fact, a false construct, a sophistry, incapabable of universality. And therfore your conclusions, are not truth.

Once again, moron, I do not disagree that the thing is a living creature.....

[I]IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, AN INTELLIGENT, SELF-AWARE, CONSCIOUS ENTITY; AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ENJOY ANY RIGHTS AS AN INTELLIGENT, SELF-AWARE, CONSCIOUS ENTITY...... sic. a "person".

Once again, abandon your nutshell...

"Human being" is neither the legal, nor the philosophical definition of "person" it is the vulgar definition of "person".

Reactionary response to external stimuli is not the soul criteria of "personhood"... a slug can react to external stimuli....

Although I like personhood (which none of us is yet to concretely define), such a characteristic is not a qualifiaction for life. If personhood is to be a qualification, then we deny the qualification of life to infants, children, and the mentally disabled.

With respect to life, conciousness is not a requisite, it is an advanced development of biochemical reactions in an organ, and not necessary to live. We evolved the trait. For rights, yes, it is a necessary condition that must be met.

Didn't see your latest post before commenting in the previous, disregard it.

-AP

Bluntly, if you can kill it, it's alive.

"Being alive", however, proves nothing but the presence of life.

Not to go off at a tangent, but you can kill computer processes, and you can kill vampires.

Just thought I would mention that :}

Just to go off at another tangent, the phrase "pro-abortionist" is somewhat inaccurate and incredibly emotive. That's why most people who are debating the topic use the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are considered more neutral and way less inflamitory.

But eh - if the pro-lifers want to be known as the "anti-freedom" brigade, who am I to stop them?

But eh - if the pro-lifers want to be known as the "anti-freedom" brigade, who am I to stop them?

Everyone else in favor of referring to "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as "anti-freedom fascists", and "sex-crazed murderers", respectively, say AYE.

AYE

At least then the titles will be somewhat indicative of the actual stances. And people would maybe start to realize that there're two sides to the coin...

Everyone else in favor of referring to "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as "anti-freedom fascists", and "sex-crazed murderers", respectively, say AYE.

AYE

At least then the titles will be somewhat indicative of the actual stances. And people would maybe start to realize that there're two sides to the coin...

AYE!!!

Also - since I have been resisting the urge to do this all day, I should point out the difference between moral and morale :}

This was a game mechanics question, not a pro- or anti- abortion question, folks. We've got one current massive Abortion topic going, let's not make this another one.

Everyone else in favor of referring to "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as "anti-freedom fascists", and "sex-crazed murderers", respectively, say AYE.

AYE

At least then the titles will be somewhat indicative of the actual stances. And people would maybe start to realize that there're two sides to the coin...

Agreed....... So at least titles would be consistent.

"pro-life" with "pro-choice"

and

"anti-freedom" with "pro-abortion".

so... AYE!

Texan, congrats. You caught me being wrong.

I take no joy in it. :( And thanks for being so graceful about it. When I prove most people wrong on something they generally try to change the subject by throwing red herrings at me. :)

They most certainly do. Using the criteria you posted in a later post, I'll demonstrate.

They have to meet six of the criteria to count as alive. Why do I say that? Viruses meet five and are not, while young animals meet six and are.

1. True, embrios are constantly changing, but unless the mother realizes that she's pregnant VERY soon after conception, certain features, such as the head, become quite prominent before she even knows the baby is there. Don't believe me? Go look at an early term sonagram. However, even if this weren't true, they'd hardly be the only lifeform to not fit this bill.

They also change the nature of how they hold their shape, unlike bacteria which can sometimes change shape but always remain the same in how they hold that shape.

2. I think the growth of an unborn baby is obvious.

3. They metabolize via the umbilical cord, recieving nutrients and expeling waste in that manner through their mother.

4. I'll give you this one, but this is the example that your article uses as a 'debateable' criteria.[/quote]

I debated it on the thread where it was first posted. I was too lazy to correct this one.

5. Deny unborn babies on this count and you also have to deny anyone who's yet to reach puberty, as well as the young of almost every animal on the planet. Provided they aren't killed, they will someday be able to reproduce.

That is why I have come to the conclusion a lifeform must pass six of the criteria.

6. You said they barely do. Barely is more than most plants (which don't at all), and last time I checked, plants were considered living. Even admitting that argument a frivolous, barely responding is still responding.

Actually, you're wrong about plants. They do respond to the environment and environmental factors. In a few areas, they respond better than we do. However, the fact I said "at first" means I cannot disqualify that one entirely.

7. Ignoring the fact that this qualification is based upon the unproven theory of evolution (yes, unproven, get over it), I'd say it's definately a debatable one. How many plants and animals are there that can only live in a single, small area of our planet? Hundreds? Thousands? Besides that, premature babies do very well these days.

You're talking to someone who once spent six hours discrediting as much of the evidence for evolution as being entirely reliable. I have also repeatedly pointed out that it is not proven. So, I have no problems accepting that it isn't.

Now, we could go on and on debating this for months, but that would really be pointless, wouldn't it. Obviously unborn babies fit most of the qualifications for life, and the article you quoted admitted that some of them are debatable.

They fit most, but viruses fit just as many or one more, depending on how you look at it, and are not considered alive.

No, vague and undistinguished morality is the crutch of those who cannot prove their arguments. Defined, purposeful morality can be argued by someone with consdierable skill in moral theory. So far I haven't found such a person here, but I've seen it done before. Morality is not necessarily a cop out, that's just it's most common use here.

After having my head handed to me twice on this one, I cannot argue it.

Neither can a five-year-old boy. By your sophistry here, DLE, the little boy is not alive.

If you can't use the word "sophistry" correctly, then don't use it. Stop leaning on it as a crutch to avoid the fact you have no evidence to back it up as a claim.

However, I've already admitted a living being needs to qualify for six of the seven to be alive. A little boy matches six. An embryo matches only four or five, depending on interpretations. A virus matches five, and viruses are not alive.

Such illustrates the HUGE mistake of using the mind's thought-only pure-mental method of knowing (such as conjectured science) without also applying the other four methods of knowing (mental memory-and-emotion, feeling-only pure-soulistic, soulistic memory-and-emotion, heart) deferring always to the heart if methods are in conflict.

There's more to life, DLE, than your mind's limited view of it.

Thank you for providing the final nail in your coffin. You were told to stop attempting to psychoanalyse people, as it is an attempt to both flame and post flamebait and even then we have disproven your perverted form of psychoanalysis as wrong.

I take no joy in it. :( And thanks for being so graceful about it. When I prove most people wrong on something they generally try to change the subject by throwing red herrings at me. :)

I can't. Honor system. I've actually given up on arguements here when the evidence has fallen away or proven unfindable when I knew it had once existed.

I have not read this entire behemoth of a thread. So forgive me if someone else has already touched on this.

A quick question to ponder: Are there absolute morals?

As a christian I believe there are, but this is not my point in this discussion.
My 2 cents is that there is not a fundamentally accepted set of absolute morals. There are cultural opinions or beliefs, but far from across the board acceptance. Abortion for example, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be argued for or against as being an absolute. Since a majority of the nations here are not based on religious fundamentals anyways. So it is impossible to say that abortion is either right or wrong. That's why, IMHO, it should not be universally mandated. Arguments or elaborations anyone?

Abortion has nothing to do with Human Rights!

Abortion is the act of removing a growing fetus/embryo. It is only a few cells and not a HUMAN, abortion is a moral issue not a Human Rights one.

Abortion has nothing to do with Human Rights!

Abortion is the act of removing a growing fetus/embryo. It is only a few cells and not a HUMAN, abortion is a moral issue not a Human Rights one.
Says you. Seriously, this is a viewpoint adopted by your nation and is not held to be true in many other nations.

Moral Decency.

In other words, it shouldn't be an issue. Everyone's morals are different. XP

- Asylum Nova

Abortion has nothing to do with Human Rights!
Regardless of your nation's stance on the morality of abortions, let me remind everyone once again ...

This discussion is about the UN categories Human Rights and Moral Decency, not about the relative merits of abortion or morality itself.

Issues relating to abortion may fall under either of these categories, depending on whether you wish to loosen restrictions (Human Rights) or tighten restrictions (Moral Decency).
The relative merits of abortion are being discussed HERE (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377743). Let's keep this one on topic.

Yes, EXACTLY, we are supposed to be debating about whether Abortion is a Human Rights issue or Moral issue. My point is that it is not a Humans Right issue since the act of abortion is not actually killing a Human, but more destroying cells. Thats all, its so simple, case is CLOSED.

Yes, EXACTLY, we are supposed to be debating about whether Abortion is a Human Rights issue or Moral issue. My point is that it is not a Humans Right issue since the act of abortion is not actually killing a Human, but more destroying cells. Thats all, its so simple, case is CLOSED.
For somebody who missed the point of the prior post entirely, I'd say you missed the point of the prior post entirely.

This topic is about UN rules and categories ONLY, and your statement above has no bearing on the legalities of how the UN does its business. Please take your simplistic "closed case" to the other topic. Thank you.

Abortion in and of itself is not an issue... it's a procedure...

Formulating statements upon the procedure, or in relation to it, however can be either moral or human rights issues....

Human Rights are indicative of declarative rights passed to persons in absense of subjective criteria... And thus, in general, resolutions declaring the openess to individual choice of something to people are Human Rights issues.

Moral Decency criteria are based on subjective criteria and moral delcarations in absence of objectivity advocating the limitation of choice available to people.

Within the scope of things, Abortion Rights are Human Rights issues, in lieu of their declaritive nature of choice to individuals constructed,and constructed objectively.

Abortion limitations*, and banning are Moral Decency resolutions; since it is impossible to construct a declaritive on the issue without formulating and mandating a subjective moral criteria in the process.

*However, limitation can be Social Justice; if it seeks ballance in the issue; to decrease relative discrepancy between two seperate points of view, as opposed to formulation of mandated moral subjectivity.

*However, limitation can be Social Justice; if it seeks ballance in the issue; to decrease relative discrepancy between two seperate points of view, as opposed to formulation of mandated moral subjectivity.
Social Justice addresses income inequality, not relative balance.

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

While I don't see any possible way to make that about abortion resolution coding, I invite you to make your case.

Social Justice addresses income inequality, not relative balance.

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

While I don't see any possible way to make that about abortion resolution coding, I invite you to make your case.


"increase basic welfare" would be the part it would fall under. For example, limiting the types of abortion procedures available, time frames, and such, would be "increasing basic welfare".

Personally I would like to see a Social Justice, Abortion related resolution: however, in the scope of the present wording of the existing Abortion Rights resolution; said resolution would need to be repealed, in order to enact any form of safty concerns and procedures... Unless it were somehow sneaked in as a resolution defining the scope of "interference" in conjuction with the ARR.

Just to go off at another tangent, the phrase "pro-abortionist" is somewhat inaccurate and incredibly emotive. That's why most people who are debating the topic use the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are considered more neutral and way less inflamitory.

But eh - if the pro-lifers want to be known as the "anti-freedom" brigade, who am I to stop them?

LOL, yeah less emotive all right. Because if your not pro-life, you are anti-life, and if you are not pro-choice, you are anti-choice. Which I am sure does not apply to either group. Yep, non-emotive, non inflamitory, and neutral, that's for sure :) What if you are pro-justified abortion, anti-unjustified abortion. Which neutral category do those individuals fall under?

If it is desired that this be a non human rights issue then UN rights need to be mandated to those beings meeting some standard of person hood or brain development (Vastivas resolution is a good start). By doing so, you would be liniting abortion in some instances due to moral decency.

I'm anti-un-pro-justified-choice... Just to make sure my position on this issue is as nebulous and cloudy as possible, and leave people debating on the extensive usage of prefixes in association with this issue ;)

However, I've already admitted a living being needs to qualify for six of the seven to be alive. A little boy matches six. An embryo matches only four or five, depending on interpretations. A virus matches five, and viruses are not alive.
So now you change the qualifications to be 6 out of 7 instead of all 7 out of 7 to qualify as being alive.

When I show you another glitch in your "reasoning", will you then reduce it to 5 out of 7 ... then 4 out of 7 ... ... ?

Did the scientist intend for you to so liberally pick and choose that which idiosyncratically fits your pre-conceived agenda?

You are nothing but a ubiquitous pseudoscientist, DLE, someone who conveniently mouths "scientific" terms and misuses them to fit his pre-conceptions in typical sophistrical manner, not unlike the pro-abortionist scientists who create such obviously biased and erroneous "definitions" of life that you conveniently tailor further to suit your particular bias.

This list and your application of it, DLE, simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth of what is alive. Only the heart is the ultimate authority in this matter, and you most certainly are not in touch with yours.

And THAT is why this matter is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and only from the single calibrative point of the life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being, for with all of the mentally-centered pseudoscientists out there irrationalizing their relative morality to, in this case, unjustifiably deprive the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being simply for their underlying agenda of fuk-and-kill convenience, the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived human being MUST BE STATED AS SUCH to protect these human beings from those relative moralists who lack the unresolved-damage-issue-compromised complete neurological function to realize that there is more to life than their mind's limited view of it.

So now you change the qualifications to be 6 out of 7 instead of all 7 out of 7 to qualify as being alive.

When I show you another glitch in your "reasoning", will you then reduce it to 5 out of 7 ... then 4 out of 7 ... ... ?

You're not the one who showed the glitch. Plus, I checked up on it and found I was wrong to say they needed all seven. You, sir or madam, have done nothing to change my arguement.

Did the scientist intend for you to so liberally pick and choose that which idiosyncratically fits your pre-conceived agenda?

My agenda is scientific truth and applying that to life. My agenda is to allow maximum choice for the evolution of the species. Combining those two, it does not allow that and I have not done it.

You are nothing but a ubiquitous pseudoscientist, DLE, someone who conveniently mouths "scientific" terms and misuses them to fit his pre-conceptions in typical sophistrical manner, not unlike the pro-abortionist scientists who create such obviously biased and erroneous "definitions" of life that you conveniently tailor further to suit your particular bias.

Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone. Since we have already found you guilty of misusing science, you have no moral basis to back up your unscientific and unprovable arguement.

This list and your application of it, DLE, simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth of what is alive. Only the heart is the ultimate authority in this matter, and you most certainly are not in touch with yours.

So now you are, once again, disagreeing with DNA science, which also uses the list. Looks like you can't even use that to help your arguement.

Also, my heart is telling me the best thing I can do right now is call the mods on you for continuing to practice a false form of psychology over the internet when you have already demonstrated you do not have the qualifications to do so and that you cannot get that science right. I think I'll take your advice and follow my heart. Also, my heart disagrees with you on that.

And THAT is why this matter is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and only from the single calibrative point of the life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being, for with all of the mentally-centered pseudoscientists out there irrationalizing their relative morality to, in this case, unjustifiably deprive the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being simply for their underlying agenda of fuk-and-kill convenience, the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived human being MUST BE STATED AS SUCH to protect these human beings from those relative moralists who lack the unresolved-damage-issue-compromised complete neurological function to realize that there is more to life than their mind's limited view of it.

Congrats. You just disobeyed a mod warning to not do that.

So now you change the qualifications to be 6 out of 7 instead of all 7 out of 7 to qualify as being alive.

When I show you another glitch in your "reasoning", will you then reduce it to 5 out of 7 ... then 4 out of 7 ... ... ?

Did the scientist intend for you to so liberally pick and choose that which idiosyncratically fits your pre-conceived agenda?

You are nothing but a ubiquitous pseudoscientist, DLE, someone who conveniently mouths "scientific" terms and misuses them to fit his pre-conceptions in typical sophistrical manner, not unlike the pro-abortionist scientists who create such obviously biased and erroneous "definitions" of life that you conveniently tailor further to suit your particular bias.

This list and your application of it, DLE, simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth of what is alive. Only the heart is the ultimate authority in this matter, and you most certainly are not in touch with yours.

And THAT is why this matter is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and only from the single calibrative point of the life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being, for with all of the mentally-centered pseudoscientists out there irrationalizing their relative morality to, in this case, unjustifiably deprive the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being simply for their underlying agenda of fuk-and-kill convenience, the HUMAN RIGHT to life of the newly conceived human being MUST BE STATED AS SUCH to protect these human beings from those relative moralists who lack the unresolved-damage-issue-compromised complete neurological function to realize that there is more to life than their mind's limited view of it.

Ah, which means you suffer from neurological dysfunction, considereing that you are limited in your scope of personhood to that which exists in your own mind. And are, by language, a relative moralist. (Don't you just hate objective reasoning, True Heart?). Considering your criteria for rights is based upon the relative criteria of a biological, homo sapien sapien non-diversionary un-cloned entity... at the exclusion of all others. (thinking outside of the "box"). So, irregardless what your heart tells you, it is incorrect, because it is exclusionary of all human criteria, let alone the broader range of concepts; and justifies the denial of rights to clones and identical twins, for not meeting the criteria it has set for itself... let alone granting protected rights to non-sentient beings of one class; while denying them to another.

It can therefore be determined, due to your obstinate holding of this "heart" mindset; that this "heart" of yours is an actual mental dysfunction resulting in your persistent denial or acceptance of the need of universal maxims outside of your limited "box" of self-proclaimed reality.

Just to go off at another tangent, the phrase "pro-abortionist" is somewhat inaccurate and incredibly emotive. That's why most people who are debating the topic use the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are considered more neutral and way less inflamitory.

But eh - if the pro-lifers want to be known as the "anti-freedom" brigade, who am I to stop them?
Your perspective here, TilEnca, is simply another reason why this matter must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and from the calibrative perspective not of the euphemistically sophistrical "woman's right to choose", but from the calibrative perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual HUMAN BEING's inalienable and inviolabel RIGHT TO LIFE.

That the term "pro-choice" is arguably "more neutral and way less inflamitory", is absolutely of no value when it comes to telling the truth of the matter, and that is why the term is inappropriate.

"Pro-choice" is merely a self-described term that pro-abortionists apply to themselves in lieu of the truly accurate term "pro-abortion", a euphemism they apply for the explict intended purpose of drawing attention away from the horrific fact that they advocate indiscriminate killing of newly conceived unique living individual human beings, a horrific reality of their behavior that should indeed make people outraged! That the pro-abortionists attempt to euphemistically minimalizingly neutralize the horror of their behavior by covering it up with the divertive term "pro-choice" is simply an act of egregious dishonesty on their part.

Regarding pro-life vs. anti-abortion, when it comes to the matter of abortion, the function of the two is pretty much the same. The differences between the two are that true pro-life does not tend to orient from religion and not only opposes unjustified abortion, but opposes the killing of post-natals, such as murderers and political prisoners, opposses euthanasia and genocide, opposes war as an economic marketing tool, etc. Anti-abortionists, on the other hand, tend to orient from religion, and they often do advocate capital punishment for a number of offenses and support war as an economic marketing tool.

But it doesn't really matter what a name incites, so much, as that the advocation of the behavior in question be accurately described in that name. Here, pro-abortionists is the single accurate term that refers to those who would unjustly deprive the newly conceived unique living individual human beings of their very lives, and thus, whether it "inflames" or not, it is the correct common term to apply to those that support such horrific behavior, and those who can't manage their own anger that may be triggered by reading the truth need to take their problem to a competent mental health practitioner as opposed to advocating censorship of the neuropsychologically healthy who can sit with their feelings when they acknowlege the truth.

That fact that pro-abortionsists are relative moralists who attempt to excuse their attrocious behavior with divertive euphemistic names is another reason why this matter can never be a morality issue, but must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue to safeguard the rights of the newly conceived.

Your perspective here, TilEnca, is simply another reason why this matter must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and from the calibrative perspective not of the euphemistically sophistrical "woman's right to choose", but from the calibrative perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual HUMAN BEING's inalienable and inviolabel RIGHT TO LIFE.

That the term "pro-choice" is arguably "more neutral and way less inflamitory", is absolutely of no value when it comes to telling the truth of the matter, and that is why the term is inappropriate.

"Pro-choice" is merely a self-described term that pro-abortionists apply to themselves in lieu of the truly accurate term "pro-abortion", a euphemism they apply for the explict intended purpose of drawing attention away from the horrific fact that they advocate indiscriminate killing of newly conceived unique living individual human beings, a horrific reality of their behavior that should indeed make people outraged! That the pro-abortionists attempt to euphemistically minimalizingly neutralize the horror of their behavior by covering it up with the divertive term "pro-choice" is simply an act of egregious dishonesty on their part.

Regarding pro-life vs. anti-abortion, when it comes to the matter of abortion, the function of the two is pretty much the same. The differences between the two are that true pro-life does not tend to orient from religion and not only opposes unjustified abortion, but opposes the killing of post-natals, such as murderers and political prisoners, opposses euthanasia and genocide, opposes war as an economic marketing tool, etc. Anti-abortionists, on the other hand, tend to orient from religion, and they often do advocate capital punishment for a number of offenses and support war as an economic marketing tool.

But it doesn't really matter what a name incites, so much, as that the advocation of the behavior in question be accurately described in that name. Here, pro-abortionists is the single accurate term that refers to those who would unjustly deprive the newly conceived unique living individual human beings of their very lives, and thus, whether it "inflames" or not, it is the correct common term to apply to those that support such horrific behavior, and those who can't manage their own anger that may be triggered by reading the truth need to take their problem to a competent mental health practitioner as opposed to advocating censorship of the neuropsychologically healthy who can sit with their feelings when they acknowlege the truth.

That fact that pro-abortionsists are relative moralists who attempt to excuse their attrocious behavior with divertive euphemistic names is another reason why this matter can never be a morality issue, but must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue to safeguard the rights of the newly conceived.

Why do I always feel like you are trying brainwashing techniques on us after reading your posts?

Why do I always feel like you are trying brainwashing techniques on us after reading your posts?
He's not trying to brainwash us, Tex. He's trying to rationalize it to himself by demonizing any opponents. How else could he live with that level of insanity and condescension?

He's not trying to brainwash us, Tex. He's trying to rationalize it to himself by demonizing any opponents. How else could he live with that level of insanity and condescension?

*I* live with that level of INSANITY and condescension, but *I* don't need to demonize others.

He's not trying to brainwash us, Tex. He's trying to rationalize it to himself by demonizing any opponents. How else could he live with that level of insanity and condescension?
You mean like you're doing here, Dear Lady?

Why do I always feel like you are trying brainwashing techniques on us after reading your posts?

Uhm, as I pointed out long ago, it is using a technique called "framing" or rather "reframing" to attempt to alter opinion. Google will serve you well here. Its an old trick, which sometimes works until you're on to it.

For those who are familiar with the Aquateen Hunger Force show, if you read True Hearts Posts as though he were the character Enignot, they are quite entertaining.

Uhm, as I pointed out long ago, it is using a technique called "framing" or rather "reframing" to attempt to alter opinion. Google will serve you well here. Its an old trick, which sometimes works until you're on to it.

Thanks. If I feel like bashing the poster with a large stick after reading the posts because I don't appreciate the insult to my intelligence, that means it's not working, right? :D

Why do I always feel like you are trying brainwashing techniques on us after reading your posts?

Framing, reframing, whatever.... True Heart is a sophistry.

Thanks. If I feel like bashing the poster with a large stick after reading the posts because I don't appreciate the insult to my intelligence, that means it's not working, right? :D

Yep, that's basically it. :p

Very few people, in possession of their full mental facilities, and operating objectively in thought will fall victim to the "reframe" tactic.

Very few people, in possession of their full mental facilities, and operating objectively in thought will fall victim to the "reframe" tactic.

So basically you're saying that about 1% of the world population would not be susceptible to this "reframe" tactic?

So basically you're saying that about 1% of the world population would not be susceptible to this "reframe" tactic?

Good point... ;) Judging from most issues, RL and NS.... that is about right...

Sliponia will not announce its stance, but feels that the UN should not be able to choose for all nations.

Though you're all quite a bit off track from Frisbeeteria's request to stay on topic, considering how many posts you're spending wondering what's happening to you in response to reading my posts, I felt it was only right to fill you in.

I'm telling the straight truth in the matter.

You're hearing it, unadulterated by pre-conceived ideology, maybe for the first time.

Your thoughts on the matter have been previously skewed by your own emotional experiences "underneath" the surface.

So you are finding no place in your mental frame of reference for the straight truth I am telling.

Thus, you are having to reframe just to follow my presentation.

Since your process of reframing brings your emotional experiences to the surface, and re-experiencing them is unpleasant, you resist your own reframing process.

As a result of your experiences in this regard, you are irritated, and you (hopefully!) blame me for your irritation.

Your assignment of blame to me comes complete with personal attacks upon me ... thereby placing me in ownership of your superego ... for me to do with as I please ... at a later time.

Now -- see if you all can get back to the topic at hand ... go ahead, I dare you. :cool:

Sliponia will not announce its stance, but feels that the UN should not be able to choose for all nations.

*beats the Sliponian delegate with a large trout*

You did read the FAQ when you signed back in, right?

*adds another name to the long list...*

Though you're all quite a bit off track from Frisbeeteria's request to stay on topic, considering how many posts you're spending wondering what's happening to you in response to reading my posts, I felt it was only right to fill you in.

I'm telling the straight truth in the matter.

You're hearing it, unadulterated by pre-conceived ideology, maybe for the first time.

Your thoughts on the matter have been previously skewed by your own emotional experiences "underneath" the surface.

So you are finding no place in your mental frame of reference for the straight truth I am telling.
Thus, you are having to reframe just to follow my presentation.

Since your process of reframing brings your emotional experiences to the surface, and re-experiencing them is unpleasant, you resist your own reframing process.

As a result of your experiences in this regard, you are irritated, and you (hopefully!) blame me for your irritation.

Your assignment of blame to me comes complete with personal attacks upon me ... thereby placing me in ownership of your superego ... for me to do with as I please ... at a later time.

Now -- see if you all can get back to the topic at hand ... go ahead, I dare you. :cool:

Limen prp sou ou kounye-a nou. Gason, deyo sou bwat reflechi bezwen ou a fabrike.....

1. Verite ou lwen. il paran.

2. Diskite a ou konple bonne konsep. Program en chemen an kiles grenn pa grenn pense ou posede. Il voye anro.

3. Pran aspe ankadreman sou ou, e program kikote klere pa sou sole.

4. Petit gason, soufri ou a tet kreye desepsyon.

freedom is limited only in that a persons freedoms must never infringe upon anothers basic rights (ie. the right to live). if a free action does so, it is a crime. If done by a society, it is anarchy.
abortion infringes upon the unborn child's right to live. it doesnt matter if the fetus is conscious of its existence at the time of the abortion; the fact that it will, eventually become so, makes it a person.
therefore, abortion is a crime if not done for direct self-preservation.
murder is the involuntary removal of life by another person. although i can't go inside a fetus' mind (though some claim to be able to state as truth that the fetus' conciousness of existence and environment is, well, non-existent), i can safely assume the fetus wants to live, in if only in a primal, instinctive, biologically universal, way. it has been shown the "non-living" fetus will actually move away from the tools of an abortion doctor through the miracle of endoscopy. just as even anaerobic bacteria avoid harmful environments or actions, because without this instinct, it would become extinct. the same is true of all living organisms in the world, such as a fetus.
therefore, this is a human rights issue as it deals with the right of an unborn human to life; of moral importance, it is secondary.

freedom is limited only in that a persons freedoms must never infringe upon anothers basic rights (ie. the right to live). if a free action does so, it is a crime. If done by a society, it is anarchy.
abortion infringes upon the unborn child's right to live. it doesnt matter if the fetus is conscious of its existence at the time of the abortion; the fact that it will, eventually become so, makes it a person.
therefore, abortion is a crime if not done for direct self-preservation.
murder is the involuntary removal of life by another person. although i can't go inside a fetus' mind (though some claim to be able to state as truth that the fetus' conciousness of existence and environment is, well, non-existent), i can safely assume the fetus wants to live, in if only in a primal, instinctive, biologically universal, way. it has been shown the "non-living" fetus will actually move away from the tools of an abortion doctor through the miracle of endoscopy. just as even anaerobic bacteria avoid harmful environments or actions, because without this instinct, it would become extinct. the same is true of all living organisms in the world, such as a fetus.
therefore, this is a human rights issue as it deals with the right of an unborn human to life; of moral importance, it is secondary.

Within the realm of early stages, the republic considers this a non-issue.... since no creature inherantly possesses any rights outside of intelligent, sentient, consciousness... IOW a being must be self-possessive... Your own criteria shows a fundamental flaw in your conclusion; since a fetus demonstrates a trait that is present in other lower-order animals, bacteria, and plants... why is it that the fetus possesses this "right" and yet no other biological organism does? Under your criteria it would be immoral to kill plants, bacteria, rats, etc... since they possess the same level of existance as that of the fetus, by your own criteria... and therefore, logically, would possess the same "rights to life" as the fetus..... As such, it is recognized by you that bacteria does not possess this "right to life" and therefore an early stage fetus or zygot cannot be said to possess any more rights than that possessed by the bacteria... If we are going to apply a universal concept of the right to life; it must pass the test on universal criteria, as opposed to relativism... Therefore, neither it's "self-defense" reflexes nor it's existance as a functional biologic creature can be valid universal criteria for its basis of rights.

The universal maxims for definition of individual personhood are:

1. Intelligence
2. Self-awareness
3. Consciousness

That is...
1. The ability to store and recall information.
2. The ability to understand its place and enviroment
3. Its ability of abstract thought and inventive reasoning.

Bacteria cannot demonstrate any of the three....
Plants can only demonstrate #2.
Lower order animals can demonstrate only #1
Highter order animals can demonstrate only #1 and #2

A fetus meets different sections of this criteria based on developmental stage.... And it is fairly well documented that it is likely, due to the late-stage development of human capacity, that it is unable to meet #3 untill some time after birth.

The universal maxims for definition of individual personhood are:

1. Intelligence
2. Self-awareness
3. Consciousness

That is...
1. The ability to store and recall information.
2. The ability to understand its place and enviroment
3. Its ability of abstract thought and inventive reasoning.

Bacteria cannot demonstrate any of the three....
Plants can only demonstrate #2.
Lower order animals can demonstrate only #1
Highter order animals can demonstrate only #1 and #2

A fetus meets different sections of this criteria based on developmental stage.... And it is fairly well documented that it is likely, due to the late-stage development of human capacity, that it is unable to meet #3 untill some time after birth.

Would therefore #3 be a definition of Sentience? *winks*

Would therefore #3 be a definition of Sentience? *winks*

Yes, it would be the complete culmination of all criteria in finality.... anything possessing #3, would possess #1 and #2 as well. It's the differentiation of assessment upon what the difference is between "knowing" and "understanding" what oneself is and it's end. A rodent in a trap, might in demonstration of #1 and #2 know of its fate, and react in self-protectionary manners... But it demonstrates no actual understanding, or abstract ability to understand its fate or placement.

The reason why I am more concerned with universal criteria; is because by adopting anything else; we paint ourselves into a box of xenophobic mentalities that could lead, in the future, to our fallacious denial of the rights of entities on par with our level of existance; merely because we are only able to think according to racial and genetic characteristics...

To bring up an example; recalling from Star Trek; the "pro-lifers" would be LCDR Mattox, arguing LCDR Data is star-fleet property, because he is not a biologic entity, and therefore is owed no rights... while those adopting my universal maxims would accept LCDR Data as an intelligent, self-aware, conscious entity, who enjoys the same rights we do... Because of their failure to "think outside of the box" they paint themselves into a corner whereby they develope precedence for the denial of rights of sentient beings...

Though you're all quite a bit off track from Frisbeeteria's request to stay on topic, considering how many posts you're spending wondering what's happening to you in response to reading my posts, I felt it was only right to fill you in.

I'm telling the straight truth in the matter.

You're hearing it, unadulterated by pre-conceived ideology, maybe for the first time.

Your thoughts on the matter have been previously skewed by your own emotional experiences "underneath" the surface.

So you are finding no place in your mental frame of reference for the straight truth I am telling.

Thus, you are having to reframe just to follow my presentation.

Since your process of reframing brings your emotional experiences to the surface, and re-experiencing them is unpleasant, you resist your own reframing process.

As a result of your experiences in this regard, you are irritated, and you (hopefully!) blame me for your irritation.

Your assignment of blame to me comes complete with personal attacks upon me ... thereby placing me in ownership of your superego ... for me to do with as I please ... at a later time.

Now -- see if you all can get back to the topic at hand ... go ahead, I dare you. :cool:

The annoying bullshit you keep employing is currently the topic at hand, or rather one of the many topics. As to you bringing my emotions to the surface, I must inform you that I have explored my own emotions quite thoroughly in regard to the abortion issue and have concluded that from a purely emotional perspective, I value an embryo less than I value that same organism after it has been born. Believe it or not, I have created a hypothetical scenario in which my sister had an abortion, and a scenario in which she killed her newborn child. I had a much stronger emotional reaction to the latter, probably because the fact that I can't see the embryo creates a certain psychological distance that allows me to detach myself from the possible emotional consequences. As it turns out, logic and facts lead me to the same conclusion as my emotions. Despite that, in terms of my personal morality I often object to abortion.

Your perspective here, TilEnca, is simply another reason why this matter must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and from the calibrative perspective not of the euphemistically sophistrical "woman's right to choose", but from the calibrative perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual HUMAN BEING's inalienable and inviolabel RIGHT TO LIFE.

That the term "pro-choice" is arguably "more neutral and way less inflamitory", is absolutely of no value when it comes to telling the truth of the matter, and that is why the term is inappropriate.

"Pro-choice" is merely a self-described term that pro-abortionists apply to themselves in lieu of the truly accurate term "pro-abortion", a euphemism they apply for the explict intended purpose of drawing attention away from the horrific fact that they advocate indiscriminate killing of newly conceived unique living individual human beings, a horrific reality of their behavior that should indeed make people outraged! That the pro-abortionists attempt to euphemistically minimalizingly neutralize the horror of their behavior by covering it up with the divertive term "pro-choice" is simply an act of egregious dishonesty on their part.

Regarding pro-life vs. anti-abortion, when it comes to the matter of abortion, the function of the two is pretty much the same. The differences between the two are that true pro-life does not tend to orient from religion and not only opposes unjustified abortion, but opposes the killing of post-natals, such as murderers and political prisoners, opposses euthanasia and genocide, opposes war as an economic marketing tool, etc. Anti-abortionists, on the other hand, tend to orient from religion, and they often do advocate capital punishment for a number of offenses and support war as an economic marketing tool.

But it doesn't really matter what a name incites, so much, as that the advocation of the behavior in question be accurately described in that name. Here, pro-abortionists is the single accurate term that refers to those who would unjustly deprive the newly conceived unique living individual human beings of their very lives, and thus, whether it "inflames" or not, it is the correct common term to apply to those that support such horrific behavior, and those who can't manage their own anger that may be triggered by reading the truth need to take their problem to a competent mental health practitioner as opposed to advocating censorship of the neuropsychologically healthy who can sit with their feelings when they acknowlege the truth.

That fact that pro-abortionsists are relative moralists who attempt to excuse their attrocious behavior with divertive euphemistic names is another reason why this matter can never be a morality issue, but must be a HUMAN RIGHTS issue to safeguard the rights of the newly conceived.

There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I might not like someone having an abortion just because they could not be bothered buying condoms, but at the same time it is their choice. I am for their right to chose whether to do this or not, regardless of whether I like them doing it or not.

That is the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice".

From the point of view of the one to be aborted and from the point of view of the one wishing to abort, this kind of resolution falls into diametrally opposed categories: for the former, a relaxation on abortion restrictions would take away some of it's right to gain live, for the latter it would extend the rights of self-detemination (obviously, a resolution to restrict abortion, would fall into the respective opposite categories). Now we should ask ourselves, if the right of the ones already living or the rights of the ones still in the process of gaining life shall be held in higher esteem.

Secondly, since it is a presumtion that all citizen of NationStates reproduce in the same way as humans do, abortion should not be discussed on UN level at all.

Your own criteria shows a fundamental flaw in your conclusion; since a fetus demonstrates a trait that is present in other lower-order animals, bacteria, and plants... why is it that the fetus possesses this "right" and yet no other biological organism does? Under your criteria it would be immoral to kill plants, bacteria, rats, etc... since they possess the same level of existance as that of the fetus, by your own criteria... and therefore, logically, would possess the same "rights to life" as the fetus..... As such, it is recognized by you that bacteria does not possess this "right to life" and therefore an early stage fetus or zygot cannot be said to possess any more rights than that possessed by the bacteriaTherefore, neither it's "self-defense" reflexes nor it's existance as a functional biologic creature can be valid universal criteria for its basis of rights.

The universal maxims for definition of individual personhood are:

1. Intelligence
2. Self-awareness
3. Consciousness

That is...
1. The ability to store and recall information.
2. The ability to understand its place and enviroment
3. Its ability of abstract thought and inventive reasoning.

Bacteria cannot demonstrate any of the three....
Plants can only demonstrate #2.
Lower order animals can demonstrate only #1
Highter order animals can demonstrate only #1 and #2

A fetus meets different sections of this criteria based on developmental stage.... And it is fairly well documented that it is likely, due to the late-
stage development of human capacity, that it is unable to meet #3 untill some time after birth.

my argument that the fetus exhibits self-defence reflexes was not to prove that is was intelligence, it was simply to prove that the fetus is indeed alive, and possesses the desire to continue doing so. that was perhaps a bit of a tangent, but my main argument was not properly addressed by your reply.
i did not suggest that by sharing the common elements of life with lower organisms that the fetus was equivalent to them. after all, none of the organisms you listed can ever possess a 'human' level of consciousness in their lifetime, with the obvious exception of the homo sapien fetus. in other words, given time, the fetus will exhibit all 3 characteristics of 'personhood'. we must not judge a life form's right to live by morphological distinctions (ie. just a ball of cells), but rather by what extent its consciousness will reach. to kill a fetus because it is not a 'person' yet is both myopic and an affront to human rights.

my argument that the fetus exhibits self-defence reflexes was not to prove that is was intelligence, it was simply to prove that the fetus is indeed alive, and possesses the desire to continue doing so. that was perhaps a bit of a tangent, but my main argument was not properly addressed by your reply.
i did not suggest that by sharing the common elements of life with lower organisms that the fetus was equivalent to them. after all, none of the organisms you listed can ever possess a 'human' level of consciousness in their lifetime, with the obvious exception of the homo sapien fetus. in other words, given time, the fetus will exhibit all 3 characteristics of 'personhood'. we must not judge a life form's right to live by morphological distinctions (ie. just a ball of cells), but rather by what extent its consciousness will reach. to kill a fetus because it is not a 'person' yet is both myopic and an affront to human rights.

I don't see it that way at all... potentiality plays no part in present judgement. It's rights extend only as far as its will of judgement, it's rights can only exist as far as the mothers will... Because indeed, it's mother is the only form of will of judgment for the fetus. Within the scope of this realm, operating in present reality, the mothers will is supreme over all others.

If you don't believe in miracles just watch the birth of a baby. The detail and ratio of size between you and the baby is just amazing. You will truly realize that human life the most amazing gft to us. People who have abortions are just not willing to take responsibility for their mistakes. A fetus, unharmed, will become a human being. Therefore if commit an abortion you are killing a human. That is just wrong.

Abortion is the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being.

A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.

When abortion occurs as a an act of self-defense when the mother's very life is directly threatened by the newly conceived unique individual human being living within, then abortion is justified.

When abortion occurs as a response to rape, the justification for abortion, though debatable, is specious.

However, when abortion occurs for all other reasons, such as the ubiquitous reasons of economic/convenience and birthcontrol, then abortion is clearly not justified.

Since abortion can occur when unjustified and since it always involves the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being, abortion is, thereby, a human rights violation, as the human being that was killed has thus been unjustly deprived of that human being's right to life.

Regarding the mother and the father or anyone else involved in the matter, the topic of "human rights" when it comes to abortion does not apply directly to them in any circumstance, and the topic of "human rights" applies only to the person about to be or who has been aborted.

This is real-world reality. Whether it applies the same to NS may be a matter of conjecture.

If you don't believe in miracles just watch the birth of a baby. The detail and ratio of size between you and the baby is just amazing. You will truly realize that human life the most amazing gft to us. People who have abortions are just not willing to take responsibility for their mistakes. A fetus, unharmed, will become a human being. Therefore if a person has an abortion they are killing a human. We have laws against that in our nation.

[QUOTE=True Heart]Abortion is the killing of a newly conceived unique living individual human being.

A newly conceived unique living individual human being is endowed by that person's creators (the "parents") with the right to life at the moment of conception.QUOTE]

If you don't believe in miracles just watch the birth of a baby. The detail and ratio of size between you and the baby is just amazing. You will truly realize that human life the most amazing gft to us. People who have abortions are just not willing to take responsibility for their mistakes. A fetus, unharmed, will become a human being. Therefore if a person has an abortion they are killing a human. We have laws against that in our nation.

If you don't believe in miracles just watch the birth of a baby. The detail and ratio of size between you and the baby is just amazing. You will truly realize that human life the most amazing gft to us. People who have abortions are just not willing to take responsibility for their mistakes. A fetus, unharmed, will become a human being. Therefore if a person has an abortion they are killing a human. We have laws against that in our nation.

Actually, I've seen six births, not all of them human. Not a pleasant thing to watch no matter how many times you see it.

There are multiple reasons for abortion, all of which have been stated in this thread. Please read and respond to them. Also, if you are a UN member, you do not have laws against abortion and the UN automatically overturns all attempts to make laws against it.

If you don't believe in miracles just watch the birth of a baby. The detail and ratio of size between you and the baby is just amazing. You will truly realize that human life the most amazing gft to us. People who have abortions are just not willing to take responsibility for their mistakes. A fetus, unharmed, will become a human being. Therefore if commit an abortion you are killing a human. That is just wrong.

You are, of course, aware of the many brain-dead or inhibited "its" that are born, never to achieve any sort of conciousness or in any way to be called "human", the presence of which makes your entire statement ludicrious?

I don't see it that way at all... potentiality plays no part in present judgement. It's rights extend only as far as its will of judgement, it's rights can only exist as far as the mothers will... Because indeed, it's mother is the only form of will of judgment for the fetus. Within the scope of this realm, operating in present reality, the mothers will is supreme over all others.

once again, im afraid i must disagree with you.
destroying something because its present state is inferior is like scrapping a car because it runs out of gas. sure it may appear to be useless now, but its potential is much greater than its present state. it is extremely illogical to eliminate something without taking into account its potential, in this case, the potential of human fetus to achieve conciousness in its state, given time.
also, you state that the mother posesses complete determination of her child. ability does not assure authority or legitimacy. if it were, being capable of going on a killing spree, as i am, would make that action legitimate. this is clearly untrue.
on this same line of reasoning, the mother's control over her child extends as far as she is able to maintain it. however, a child of 6 months in no less capable of defending itself than a 8 month old fetus from a fully grown human with the desire to kill it. therefore, according to your reasoning, infanticide is acceptable as the child's rights cannot be asserted against the mother's will.
this is a terrible violation of human rights and must be treated as such.

I don't see it that way at all... potentiality plays no part in present judgement. It's rights extend only as far as its will of judgement, it's rights can only exist as far as the mothers will... Because indeed, it's mother is the only form of will of judgment for the fetus. Within the scope of this realm, operating in present reality, the mothers will is supreme over all others.

A fetus has no will of judment deserving of rights, nor does an infant, nor does a child, nor does a pet animal. That is why none of the above have rights. Now, in the cases above, particularly three out of the four, is the will of the caretaker supreme over all others, for any reason? Are we really talking about extending rights to a fetus? Or is it a moral notion of care?

A fetus has no will of judment deserving of rights, nor does an infant, nor does a child, nor does a pet animal. That is why none of the above have rights. Now, in the cases above, particularly three out of the four, is the will of the caretaker supreme over all others, for any reason? Are we really talking about extending rights to a fetus? Or is it a moral notion of care?

Animals are non-sentient, and do not get rights. Their owners extend to them rights via "right of property".

Children and infants passed the three way test, and are part of a race which has conciousness of abstract concepts, hence gets rights.

Fetuses do not, as they didn't pass the test yet.

Ergo, mother has rights, fetus has no rights, voila, answer.

Rights based on sentience per Tekania's comment. Infants and children are not sentient, nor are dogs. Furthermore, dogs are never capable of sentience. Yet, all three are afforded the same philosophy of care, not rights.

Operating within realm of Tekania, ergo, Vastivian rules are irrelevant.

In either event, the concept of animals as purely property is draconian, as goods and real estate are incapable of mental suffering and physical pain. More progressive ideology being incorporated is a standards of care for pet animals, to which legal repercussions apply for neglect.

In either event, the concept of animals as purely property is draconian, as goods and real estate are incapable of mental suffering and physical pain. More progressive ideology being incorporated is a standards of care for pet animals, to which legal repercussions apply for neglect.

Draconian works just fine, thank you.

Well, to each his own:)

once again, im afraid i must disagree with you.
destroying something because its present state is inferior is like scrapping a car because it runs out of gas.

I don't agree at all. The analogy of a car with no gas is extremely fallicious- it is not like the fetus once had life and then lost it, as is the case with a car that runs out of gas. Also, gas is itself not a good analogy- gas is to a car what water is to a human. It's not something that a car will eventually acquire through development.

I don't agree at all. The analogy of a car with no gas is extremely fallicious- it is not like the fetus once had life and then lost it, as is the case with a car that runs out of gas. Also, gas is itself not a good analogy- gas is to a car what water is to a human. It's not something that a car will eventually acquire through development.

thank you for pointing out the obvious, that a fetus is not a car.
it was the idea of disposing of something that is not 'useful' at the moment that i was arguing against.
also, humans do not acquire water through development, it must consumed from an exterior source...like a car obtains gas!
a mediocre analogy on my part perhaps, but being an analogy, you must look beyond a literal interpretation. allow me to rephrase it: a person buys a car. the car does not start. ignoring the 'empty' on the fuel guage, he scraps the car because it has no use to him. with the same flawed logic, a lifeform (the fetus) which cannot carry out the function of consciousness (debatable, and ultimately theoretical), should be destroyed, as it poses an inconvenience to its mother/'master'. in both cases, the master ignores a simple fact. with the addition of some other factor (time, gas, etc.) the resulting 'product' is infinitely more useful than the starting product, but that does not make the starting product any less vital.
those opposed to this argue that the fetus lacks "conciousness" of itself and therefore lacks rights. so what? with that reasoning, a sleeping person is derived of all basic human rights, including the right to live. after all, they are not fully aware of themselves as separate in relation to their environment, the main component of individual conciousness.
we would not accept this for grown humans, why should we for developing humans?

thank you for pointing out the obvious, that a fetus is not a car.
it was the idea of disposing of something that is not 'useful' at the moment that i was arguing against.
also, humans do not acquire water through development, it must consumed from an exterior source...like a car obtains gas!
a mediocre analogy on my part perhaps, but being an analogy, you must look beyond a literal interpretation. allow me to rephrase it: a person buys a car. the car does not start. ignoring the 'empty' on the fuel guage, he scraps the car because it has no use to him. with the same flawed logic, a lifeform (the fetus) which cannot carry out the function of consciousness (debatable, and ultimately theoretical), should be destroyed, as it poses an inconvenience to its mother/'master'. in both cases, the master ignores a simple fact. with the addition of some other factor (time, gas, etc.) the resulting 'product' is infinitely more useful than the starting product, but that does not make the starting product any less vital.
those opposed to this argue that the fetus lacks "conciousness" of itself and therefore lacks rights. so what? with that reasoning, a sleeping person is derived of all basic human rights, including the right to live. after all, they are not fully aware of themselves as separate in relation to their environment, the main component of individual conciousness.
we would not accept this for grown humans, why should we for developing humans?

That is still fallicious. For one, you'd almost never get a car that has no fuel, unless the person who sold it to you was not being a fair businessperson.

Second of all, gas is not part of the development of a car. It is required for it to operate, yes, but one does not need gas to build a car.

Third of all, the "abortion is legal" argument stems from the fact the fetus does not have any cognitive abilities- not simply because it lacks consciousness. On a developmental stage, it is at a stage similar to that of a bacteria, which is why it is not considered "human". The brain does not develop until the fetus is six months old, after which it gains the abilities to perform as a normal human being. Furthermore, a sleeping human is not actually unconscious- they are in a relaxed state of consciousness, but should something dramatic occur (like a fire alarm or someone hitting them) they will be able to wake up from their slumber. If one was unconscious, then they would not be able to do so.

Fourth of all, several products- like cars, for instance- do get scrapped in the developmental stage. If a company feels like they do not want to make the car (and the reasoning can simply be they just don't want to release a certain car at that time) then they will scrap it before they fully develop it. So the argument that just because something is developing doesn't mean that it can't be scrapped is faulty because millions of products have been scrapped in the developmental stage- not everything that develops actually becomes useful or even used.