NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350651.stm
Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said abortion will be legalised in Portugal despite the turnout for a referendum being too low to be legally binding.

They had a referendum, and it looked like not enough people voted. But with probably around 60% in favour of legalised abortions, the government decided to make the move anyways.

So all I can say is "Yay!". The church has been pushed back once more.

i love how it got a resounding, "meh, sure, i guess" - must be nice.

This certainly provides an excellent response to future Portuguese anti-abortion activists....

"So you're telling me that we're murdering thousands of babies a year, yet you were too lazy to go out and vote against it?"

Let the slaughter of the unborn child begin.

Fundies lose again.

Democracy at its best. A quarter of the nation says yes, and hence it shall be done.

40% turnout? and people say americans are lazy.

Democracy at its best. A quarter of the nation says yes, and hence it shall be done.

40% turnout? and people say americans are lazy.

nobody could have said yes and it still could have happened. What you are saying is not how a referrendum works. If enough people had shown up and voted it would have happened automatically, and irrevocably.

The government can still do it anyway even if the referendum doesn't meet the necessity. In this case, the government looked at how the voters voted and decided to take reflective action.

The important thing about this in my eyes is that Portugal used to be a lot like Spain in that the Catholic Church had the Death-Grip on the population. The Vatican fucked a lot of things up. After Franco (Spanish Dictator), the Vatican was forced to let go of Spain a bit, and it looks like Portugal got away too.

I haven't heard of any riots in Portugal over the "baby-killing Hitlerite monsters," so apparently the population doesn't give a damn. This is a good thing.

The choice placed before Portugal is whether it resigns itself to staying in the group of the most conservative countries or if it embraces modernity and joins the most developed nations

They should go even further than modernity. They should go postmodern and start allowing post-birth abortions.

Any one up for a referendum?

40% turnout? and people say americans are lazy.

sounds rather high by usian standards for an off-year off-season referendum. we only manage to get in the 50s when the presidency is up for grabs.

sounds rather high by usian standards for an off-year off-season referendum. we only manage to get in the 50s when the presidency is up for grabs.The last three didn't even get into the 50's.

The last three didn't even get into the 50's.

yes but if you add them all up together we might get 100.

Let the slaughter of the unborn child begin.

Man, I can not wait until summer. I'm going to go to Portugal and perform like fifty abortions for vacation!

Wow, I can't say I'm surprised at the anti-Catholic sentiment here.

Wow, I can't say I'm surprised at the anti-Catholic sentiment here.

Neither can I.

Wow, I can't say I'm surprised at the anti-Catholic sentiment here.

Be fair--we jump the shit of all manner of fundamentalists who decide that their religious beliefs are more important than the individual freedoms of citizens in a modern society.

Be fair--we jump the shit of all manner of fundamentalists who decide that their religious beliefs are more important than the individual freedoms of citizens in a modern society.

You are right but in the same breath, they have the right to voice their opinions on the issue. Frankly, I like the idea of a referendum to decide this issue.

Be fair--we jump the shit of all manner of fundamentalists who decide that their religious beliefs are more important than the individual freedoms of citizens in a modern society.

So do you think that all people who oppose abortion do so because of fundamentalist religious beliefs?

Finally, Portugal. Finally... now Poland, Malta and Ireland. The anachronist backwardness must go.

So, sure, it's only until the 10th week - we have a much more acceptable 18 week limit for free abortions and 22 weeks after approval of the national board of health and welfare for special cases and there is no limit if the woman's life is in danger - but the foot is in the door and the abortifacients are down the hatch. :)

So do you think that all people who oppose abortion do so because of fundamentalist religious beliefs?

yeah, pretty much. They might dress it up in some other terms, but really that's what it breaks down to.

Generally only religion can push the line of crap that a clump of cells with no neural network is more important than the fully grown woman that it is inside.

Let the slaughter of the unborn child begin.

Excellent.

I suppose this means my coat hanger smuggling days are over :(

That's horrible. :D

I suppose this means my coat hanger smuggling days are over :(

So do you think that all people who oppose abortion do so because of fundamentalist religious beliefs?

i'm sure there must be a few other paths of sloppy thinking that can get you there too.

You are right but in the same breath, they have the right to voice their opinions on the issue. Frankly, I like the idea of a referendum to decide this issue.

Nope. You should never put civil rights matters on the ballot.

Nope. You should never put civil rights matters on the ballot.

True that but then again, what do you think this was?

Nope. You should never put civil rights matters on the ballot.

Amen.

sounds rather high by usian standards for an off-year off-season referendum. we only manage to get in the 50s when the presidency is up for grabs.

American.

yeah, pretty much. They might dress it up in some other terms, but really that's what it breaks down to.

Generally only religion can push the line of crap that a clump of cells with no neural network is more important than the fully grown woman that it is inside.

Well, I don't support abortion (or however you say it in political unspeak), and I'm not a fundamentalist. I hardly even go to church. And I'm most certainly not an opponent of freedom- I support legalization of drugs and other victimless crimes, oppose immigration quotas, oppose censorship, and support freedom of contract, the logical end of which being that I do not think that homosexual unions should be banned or that homosexuals should be barred from adopting children. But I cannot fit being pro-abortion (or whatever it is you call it) into my philosophical mindset.

Well, I don't support abortion (or however you say it in political unspeak), and I'm not a fundamentalist. I hardly even go to church. And I'm most certainly not an opponent of freedom- I support legalization of drugs and other victimless crimes, oppose immigration quotas, oppose censorship, and support freedom of contract, the logical end of which being that I do not think that homosexual unions should be banned or that homosexuals should be barred from adopting children. But I cannot fit being pro-abortion (or whatever it is you call it) into my philosophical mindset.

you do not support the right to bodily autonomy and claim you are NOT an opponent of freedom? Does not compute.

Even if one does not perscribe to the idea of any particular religion, the idea that a clump of cells has more rights than a fully grown woman is inherently a religiously oriented one.

The Prime Minister's name is Socrates?

Even if one does not perscribe to the idea of any particular religion, the idea that a clump of cells has more rights than a fully grown woman is inherently a religiously oriented one.

Why do you think it assumes that baby/fetus/clump of cells/whatever has more rights? And please be civil, I'd rather not have an angry debate.

you do not support the right to bodily autonomy and claim you are NOT an opponent of freedom? Does not compute.

Even if one does not perscribe to the idea of any particular religion, the idea that a clump of cells has more rights than a fully grown woman is inherently a religiously oriented one.

Not more rights, but equal rights.

And it's much more than just "a clump of cells." It's a human being in development.

Why do you think it assumes that baby/fetus/clump of cells/whatever has more rights? And please be civil, I'd rather not have an angry debate.

because if abortion were to be illegal, this clump of cells without any neural connections or mental awareness what so ever would be granted the right of bodily integrity yet the fully functioning woman would not.

Thus it would have more rights.

Not more rights, but equal rights.

because if abortion were to be illegal, this clump of cells without any neural connections or mental awareness what so ever would be granted the right of bodily integrity yet the fully functioning woman would not.

Thus it would have more rights.

And it's much more than just "a clump of cells." It's a human being in development.

No such thing. it either IS human, or it is NOT human. If it is a "human being in development" then it is not yet human.

if it is not yet human, it does not get human rights. So why the hell should it even be "equal" to a fully grown woman?

Even equal rights for a fetus is as nonsensical as equal rights for a cow.

Well.

*clucks tongue*

How 'bout that.

because if abortion were to be illegal, this clump of cells without any neural connections or mental awareness what so ever would be granted the right of bodily integrity yet the fully functioning woman would not.

The right to life != the right to absolute bodily integrity.

because if abortion were to be illegal, this clump of cells without any neural connections or mental awareness what so ever would be granted the right of bodily integrity yet the fully functioning woman would not.

Thus it would have more rights.



No such thing. it either IS human, or it is NOT human. If it is a "human being in development" then it is not yet human.

if it is not yet human, it does not get human rights. So why the hell should it even be "equal" to a fully grown woman?

Even equal rights for a fetus is as nonsensical as equal rights for a cow.

The only thing that would happen to the woman is pregnancy. She wouldn't be in prison, and her "bodily integrity" wouldn't be significantly constrained. The fetus, on the other hand, would be murdered.

It IS human, to answer your question. The mechanics are there to make a fully developed human being. All that is needed is time.

A human fetus will eventually become self-aware. A cow will never achieve that state. This fundamental difference renders the cow undeserving of rights, and the fetus deserving of rights.

The only thing that would happen to the woman is pregnancy. She wouldn't be in prison, and her "bodily integrity" wouldn't be significantly constrained.

I would call the denigration of a woman to being nothing more than an incubator with a vital part of her integrity - the right to her own body - stripped of her to be a very significant, and completely unacceptable and barbarically chauvinistic, constraint.

The fetus, on the other hand, would be murdered.

Murder is the illegal killing of a human. Since abortion is not generally illegal in the West, it is not murder as per the definition of what murder is.

It IS human, to answer your question. The mechanics are there to make a fully developed human being. All that is needed is time.

Time (and nourishment and a whole bunch of other things) that the woman is to grant or withhold.

A human fetus will eventually become self-aware. A cow will never achieve that state.

Nor will a fetus that is terminated.

because if abortion were to be illegal, this clump of cells without any neural connections or mental awareness what so ever would be granted the right of bodily integrity yet the fully functioning woman would not.

Hm. So, one's mental awareness indicates what level of rights one should have?

I would call the denigration of a woman to being nothing more than an incubator with a vital part of her integrity - the right to her own body - stripped of her to be a very significant, and completely unacceptable and barbarically chauvinistic, constraint.
My body has the right to murder another human. Does that make it morally and/or judicially legal?

I've heard the claim that pro-lifers are against abortion to "keep women down," or so that "more white women could have more white babies" thrown around quite frequently. And I can assure you that it's not true, for the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers. So let's not resort to name-calling and insult-stamping, agreed?

Murder is the illegal killing of a human. Since abortion is not generally illegal in the West, it is not murder as per the definition of what murder is.
For a long time, slavery was not illegal in the West. That doesn't make it morally justifiable. If one regards an unborn child as equal to a human being, then abortion is murder.
Time (and nourishment and a whole bunch of other things) that the woman is to grant or withhold.

Granted.

Nor will a fetus that is terminated

All the more reason to not "terminate" it.

Hm. So, one's mental awareness indicates what level of rights one should have?

It's a good way to draw the line on abortion; I support abortion up to the first trimester because after that point it is a human being. The brain is the thing that really makes us human, and once we have it there is no way to argue that we are not human.

Now, it's also important to note that the potential for a child to be self-aware must be considered; you shouldn't be able to kill a child after the first trimester simply because it has mental or developmental disorders. I see that as no different than murdering a mentally ill or challenged person after they are born, and should be treated as equallly as criminal.

It's a good way to draw the line on abortion; I support abortion up to the first trimester because after that point it is a human being. The brain is the thing that really makes us human, and once we have it there is no way to argue that we are not human.

Now, it's also important to note that the potential for a child to be self-aware must be considered; you shouldn't be able to kill a child after the first trimester simply because it has mental or developmental disorders. I see that as no different than murdering a mentally ill or challenged person after they are born, and should be treated as equallly as criminal.

I think his point was what you basically stated in your second paragraph-that even a one-week old fetus has no self-awareness, but killing it is equal to killing a severely retarded person, simply because they have no self-awareness, or limited mental faculties, if you prefer.

It's pointless to argue about the philosophy or morality of abortion.

Fact of the matter is that women do it, and have done it for as long as humanity has been around. If you outlaw it, all it does is force them to do it in worse conditions.

It's pointless to argue about the philosophy or morality of abortion.

Fact of the matter is that women do it, and have done it for as long as humanity has been around. If you outlaw it, all it does is force them to do it in worse conditions.

Yes, that's why you legalize it, but you also draw the line at a certain point. We can be reasonably morally secure and medically practical with the first-trimester limit to voluntary abortion and reasonable health/safety precautions after that.

It's pointless to argue about the philosophy or morality of abortion.

Fact of the matter is that women do it, and have done it for as long as humanity has been around. If you outlaw it, all it does is force them to do it in worse conditions.

You could certainly say the same about murder.

It's pointless to argue about the philosophy or morality of abortion.
Law is built off morality, be it good or bad, as well as what is practical. It is also undermined by this. So it's highly apposite to discuss moral-philosophical considerations when it comes to such issues.

It's a good way to draw the line on abortion; I support abortion up to the first trimester because after that point it is a human being. The brain is the thing that really makes us human, and once we have it there is no way to argue that we are not human.

OK. Well, you and I would most likely agree that it is an essential to our existence that we are human- without being human, we cannot be ourselves (after all, you cannot be a rock or a plant.) You say that the fetus is not a human at the first trimester. If this is so, does this mean that you and I were not human, and thus ourselves, when we were in our respective mothers' wombs? So what was there in our place, and how did we become ourselves, effectively?

Now, it's also important to note that the potential for a child to be self-aware must be considered; you shouldn't be able to kill a child after the first trimester simply because it has mental or developmental disorders. I see that as no different than murdering a mentally ill or challenged person after they are born, and should be treated as equallly as criminal.

You note that the potential for a child to be self-aware must be considered. So, if potential is important, why is it that the fetus which will become 'fully' self-aware must be inferior to that which will only have partial self-awareness? If potential is the deciding point for whether or not it should be aborted, then it should be the younger fetus with more potential that should survive, as opposed to the older one with disorders.

Not more rights, but equal rights.


No, it would indeed be more rights - more rights, in fact, than any living person possesses. I am not required by law to allow another person, no matter their circumstances, to use part of my body. If you want my kidney, you cannot legally require me to give it to you, no matter what the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it's entirely and completely my fault you need a kidney - you cannot make me share my body with you. You can't use any part of me without my consent - you are not even legally entitled to hold my hand if I do not choose to let you. Therefore, to grant an embryo use of my body without my consent would give it rights that I do not possess, nor you, nor any actual born person.

Let the slaughter of the unborn child begin.

If this

http://www.greenideasblog.com/images/fetus.jpg

is an "unborn child", are these

http://www.boardmanpark.com/images/old%20people%202.jpg

"undead corpses"? I've said it once and I'll say it again: back when Roe v. Wade was happening, the possibility that a fetus was a live was never even considered. There is no scientific evidence to support this, it's all supposedly based on scripture, but where was this scripture back when it was severely needed? The issue was over women's rights and whether or not they were people enough to have a right like to choose what to do with their own bodies. If the Bible has always said that these fetuses and embryos are alive, then where were the Baptist and Catholic militants protesting outside of Planned Parenthood thirty years ago in support of "life"? Of course, nowadays when you're a crackpot for saying that women should not have rights equal to men, the fundamentalists who want to control women can only plead that it's murder to not heed to their reactionary rhetoric. The sad thing is that people fall for this nonsense, which is how pro-life women come along.

(p.s. if my attempt at using HTML did not work, I apologize. the last thing I need is more computer whizzes high on themselves cackling at me for it, so please, be kind.)

True that but then again, what do you think this was?

A bad idea. Just because I approve of the outcome doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place.

You could certainly say the same about murder.
That if we legalised it people could do it in sanitary conditions and not as many people would get hurt?

Law is built of morality, be it good or bad, as well as what is practical. It is also undermined by this. So it's highly apposite to discuss moral-philosophical considerations when it comes to such issues.
And morality is pointless to discuss if no one ever agrees on anything. And since we're not actually asking the only people it concerns, namely the women and maybe their friends and families, the only thing we can sensibly talk about is either women getting abortions in shady back alleys with kitchen tools or women getting abortions in a clinic.

OK. Well, you and I would most likely agree that it is an essential to our existence that we are human- without being human, we cannot be ourselves (after all, you cannot be a rock or a plant.) You say that the fetus is not a human at the first trimester. If this is so, does this mean that you and I were not human, and thus ourselves, when we were in our respective mothers' wombs? So what was there in our place, and how did we become ourselves, effectively?


Embryos are human. Corpses are also human. My right pinky finger and its fingernail clippings are human as well. Anything with human DNA is definitionally human. None of these things, however, are persons by any reasonable definition of the word.

A bad idea. Just because I approve of the outcome doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place.

Good point.

Embryos are human. Corpses are also human. My right pinky finger and its fingernail clippings are human as well. Anything with human DNA is definitionally human. None of these things, however, are persons by any reasonable definition of the word.

OK, I won't debate that. But I'm awfully curious to know what it is that was in my mother's womb, since you seem to be of the opinion that it was not me somehow.

OK, I won't debate that. But I'm awfully curious to know what it is that was in my mother's womb, since you seem to be of the opinion that it was not me somehow.

a non person entity that later became you.

however until it did so, it was not a person, and thus did not gain the rights of personhood.

And morality is pointless to discuss if no one ever agrees on anything. And since we're not actually asking the only people it concerns, namely the women and maybe their friends and families, the only thing we can sensibly talk about is either women getting abortions in shady back alleys with kitchen tools or women getting abortions in a clinic.
Then why evoke consequentialist arguments if moral philosophy is irrelevant?

It is using moral philosophy that one can demonstrate how contradictory and disrespectful of an individual's freedom the criminilisation of victimless crimes is (a foetus is not a human, so any such arguments are irrelevant).

a non person entity that later became you.

however until it did so, it was not a person, and thus did not gain the rights of personhood.

But wouldn't it be me, just like I was me at birth, at seven, at fifteen, and whenever? Why is it separate from my existence? After all, if said entity were killed, I, in turn, would be dead.

Then why evoke consequentialist arguments if moral philosophy is irrelevant?
Because people don't listen to them. They still wave guns around, and they still criminalise everything they personally feel uncomfortable with, and they don't give a shit how many letters your counterargument manages to squeeze in one word.

It IS human, to answer your question. The mechanics are there to make a fully developed human being. All that is needed is time.

If all that is needed is time, natural miscarriage would never occur.

For a human being to develop from a fetus all that is needed is time, a proper enviornment, a series of circumstances to occur, and some luck.

The same, of course, can be said for a single sperm cell.

if the standard is "something that might develop into a human if enough time, a proper enviornment, a series of circumstances and a fair bit of luck happens" is treated the same as a human life, myself and every man has killed MILLIONS.

If all that is needed is time, natural miscarriage would never occur.

For a human being to develop from a fetus all that is needed is time, a proper enviornment, a series of circumstances to occur, and some luck.

The same, of course, can be said for a single sperm cell.

if the standard is "something that might develop into a human if enough time, a proper enviornment, a series of circumstances and a fair bit of luck happens" is treated the same as a human life, myself and every man has killed MILLIONS.

I was referring to a fetus, not just a single sperm cell. Once the sperm has been implanted in the woman, and the woman's egg joins with the sperme, you have life.

And then all you need is time and nutrition.

But wouldn't it be me, just like I was me at birth, at seven, at fifteen, and whenever? Why is it separate from my existence? After all, if said entity were killed, I, in turn, would be dead.

no, you in turn would not be dead as you did not exist yet to be anything.

A blob of cells is not a person, it may, possibly, maybe, given time, become a person.

But it isn't a person itself.

Because people don't listen to them. They still wave guns around, and they still criminalise everything they personally feel uncomfortable with, and they don't give a shit how many letters your counterargument manages to squeeze in one word.
Then you're dealing with irrational individuals, with whom consequentialist arguments will not have much sway either.

OK, I won't debate that. But I'm awfully curious to know what it is that was in my mother's womb, since you seem to be of the opinion that it was not me somehow.

I'm curious in return to know how exactly one can think of a unicellular organism as "me," when all it has in common with the person you are today is its DNA. Which, as I previously mentioned, your fingernail clippings also have - in much greater quantity, even. I doubt you think of a strand of your hair or a drop of your blood as "me" - why would you think of something much farther removed from yourself in such terms?

But wouldn't it be me, just like I was me at birth, at seven, at fifteen, and whenever? Why is it separate from my existence? After all, if said entity were killed, I, in turn, would be dead.

Actually, you wouldn't be dead - because there would be no such thing as "you." If a squirrel eats an acorn, one could not reasonably say that it has just killed an oak tree, because there never was an oak tree there to kill. There was just an acorn, which might theoretically have become an oak tree, but did not do so.

Then you're dealing with irrational individuals, with whom consequentialist arguments will not have much sway either.
But showing them what an abortion is like in a dirty basement in Manila might just have the emotional appeal to tip them over the edge.

no, you in turn would not be dead as you did not exist yet to be anything.

A blob of cells is not a person, it may, possibly, maybe, given time, become a person.

But it isn't a person itself.

But if me at 20 died today, me at 30 would not exist- i.e., be dead. If me at 10 died, me at 20 would not exist- i.e., be dead. Same thing all the way along. So why is it that I change from "being dead" to "not existing in the first place" just from being inside the womb? The effect is the same as in every other case.

I was referring to a fetus, not just a single sperm cell.

You fail at reading comprehention.

Yes I know you were refering to a fetus. However the qualities you perscribe to a fetus to validate your stance could, without any modification also be applied to a sperm cell. There is nothing about a fetus as you have described it that is not equally applicable to sperm.

Once the sperm has been implanted in the woman, and the woman's egg joins with the sperme, you have life.

and a sperm cell isn't alive?

you fail at biology too.

And then all you need is time and nutrition.

So healthy women never miscarry huh?

You haven't said a single thing right in this post. Try again.

no, you in turn would not be dead as you did not exist yet to be anything.

A blob of cells is not a person, it may, possibly, maybe, given time, become a person.

But it isn't a person itself.

Here, in essence, is what seperates the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. The pro-choicers see a fetus, a developing human being, as simply " a blob of cells" that could become a person, but aren't necessarily deserving of that opportunity.

Pro-lifers see a human fetus as something beautiful and special, and something that must become a person by virtue of being human.

To me, a human fetus is more than "a blob of cells" or "a parasite"(yes, I've actually heard some people say that), hence my anti-abortion stance.

But showing them what an abortion is like in a dirty basement in Manila might just have the emotional appeal to tip them over the edge.
Then why not boost it with moral argumentation? I think you are too quick to dismiss it. No one said moral arguments alone are going to have much effect on the minds of bigots, but they sure do help.

But if me at 20 died today, me at 30 would not exist- i.e., be dead. If me at 10 died, me at 20 would not exist- i.e., be dead.

That's absolutly stupid.

If you at 10 died, you at 20 wouldn't also be dead. If you at 10 died, you at 20 NEVER EXISTED. You never reached 20. It never happened. It never was.

Nothing can die that never was. If you died at 10 then you never reached 20. There is a MASSIVE difference between being dead, and having never existed. Unicorns never existed. Have you ever seen a dead unicorn?

Same thing all the way along. So why is it that I change from "being dead" to "not existing in the first place" just from being inside the womb? The effect is the same as in every other case.

Simply by being inside the womb? no. A child 10 seconds from being born can be said to be sufficiently developed to be a person.

If it has not developed to that point than no person exists. A group of cells exists, that will perhaps, maybe, someday become a person.

But it isnt' a person yet.

Here, in essence, is what seperates the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. The pro-choicers see a fetus, a developing human being, as simply " a blob of cells" that could become a person, but aren't necessarily deserving of that opportunity.

Pro-lifers see a human fetus as something beautiful and special, and something that must become a person by virtue of being human.

To me, a human fetus is more than "a blob of cells" or "a parasite"(yes, I've actually heard some people say that), hence my anti-abortion stance.

what's wrong with it being called a parasite? If you think that this is an improper term, you need to review your biology.

And actually, even if I truly, absolutly, 100% believed that a fetus was a human life, I'd still be in favor of abortion.

A "blob of cells" doesn't deserve anything. It isn't entitled to anything. It exists if the host wishes to continue its existance, and if not, then not.

You fail at reading comprehention.

Yes I know you were refering to a fetus. However the qualities you perscribe to a fetus to validate your stance could, without any modification also be applied to a sperm cell. There is nothing about a fetus as you have described it that is not equally applicable to sperm.



and a sperm cell isn't alive?

you fail at biology too.



So healthy women never miscarry huh?

You haven't said a single thing right in this post. Try again.

You completely misunderstood me. My position is that once a sperm is joined with the egg, then you have human life. A sperm or an egg by itself isn't human.

If you go back and read what I said in the other post, you will see that I mentioned time as a necessity for a healthy fetus to be born. That includes the time past the possibility of a miscarriage.

what's wrong with it being called a parasite? If you think that this is an improper term, you need to review your biology.

And actually, even if I truly, absolutly, 100% believed that a fetus was a human life, I'd still be in favor of abortion.

A "blob of cells" doesn't deserve anything. It doesn't need anything. It exists if the host wishes to continue its existance, or not.

Biologically speaking, I suppose it would be correct to call it a parasite. Morally, I find it reprehensible that anyone could call human life parasitic. To me, an unborn human is more deserving than to be called a parasite or a blob of cells.

Here, in essence, is what seperates the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. The pro-choicers see a fetus, a developing human being, as simply " a blob of cells" that could become a person, but aren't necessarily deserving of that opportunity.

Pro-lifers see a human fetus as something beautiful and special, and something that must become a person by virtue of being human.

To me, a human fetus is more than "a blob of cells" or "a parasite"(yes, I've actually heard some people say that), hence my anti-abortion stance.

*sigh*

Biologically, like it or not, embryos are "blobs of cells." As, to be fair, are you, though you must admit you're an immensely more complex blob. Biologically, like it or not, an embryo's relationship with the organism carrying it can be described as parasitic. The fact that you do not understand that the biological term "parasite" is a word with a specific meaning and not some terrible slur spoken by people who just hate embryos is your problem, not theirs.

As for your "something that must become a person by virtue of being human" argument...well, have fun telling fingernail clippings, hairs, drops of blood, and so forth that they "must become persons." I'm sure they'll do exactly as you say. ;)

It's pointless to argue about the philosophy or morality of abortion.

but so much fun. i'm still waiting to hear from the "life begins at fertilization"er that will save the petri dish with two blastocysts on it rather than the toddler from the burning fertility clinic.

You completely misunderstood me. My position is that once a sperm is joined with the egg, then you have human life. A sperm or an egg by itself isn't human.

Yes, it is. Shall I list off "things that are human" again?

You completely misunderstood me. My position is that once a sperm is joined with the egg, then you have human life. A sperm or an egg by itself isn't human.

What makes it human? Human DNA? your toenails have human dna.

If you go back and read what I said in the other post, you will see that I mentioned time as a necessity for a healthy fetus to be born. That includes the time past the possibility of a miscarriage.

Saying a fetus will become human in time, and "in time" means past the point where anything MIGHT stop it doesn't occur is like saying i will become ruler of the world in time, as long as I define "in time" as "long enough for everyone on the planet to die and for me to be left alone on the planet'

A fetus MIGHT become human. MIGHT. It might not. Saying that "all that is needed is time" suggests that time is the only factor. Time, while one factor, is certainly not the only one.

Biologically speaking, I suppose it would be correct to call it a parasite. Morally, I find it reprehensible that anyone could call human life parasitic. To me, an unborn human is more deserving than to be called a parasite or a blob of cells.

that's nice.

Biological fact doesn't give one good god damn about your opinion, or your outdated morality. I will continue to call a spade a spade, and a parasite a parasite.

but so much fun. i'm still waiting to hear from the "life begins at fertilization"er that will save the petri dish with two blastocysts on it rather than the toddler from the burning fertility clinic.

you stole my example omg!

That's absolutly stupid.

If you at 10 died, you at 20 wouldn't also be dead. If you at 10 died, you at 20 NEVER EXISTED. You never reached 20. It never happened. It never was.

Nothing can die that never was. If you died at 10 then you never reached 20. There is a MASSIVE difference between being dead, and having never existed. Unicorns never existed. Have you ever seen a dead unicorn?

I humbly disagree. Ten years would pass after my death at 10, and I would still be dead (barring any sort of miracle.) This would be essential to my not existing alive at 20. Whereas, the unicorn's non-existence is not essential to death but to it not having been in the first place.

Simply by being inside the womb? no. A child 10 seconds from being born can be said to be sufficiently developed to be a person.

If it has not developed to that point than no person exists. A group of cells exists, that will perhaps, maybe, someday become a person.

But it isnt' a person yet.

But why is there a demarcation between 'clump of cells' and me now? The only difference is time, just like the difference between me now and me later.

you stole my example omg!

did i? i've been wondering if i actually heard it somewhere else, or if i made it up myself.

*sigh*

Biologically, like it or not, embryos are "blobs of cells." As, to be fair, are you, though you must admit you're an immensely more complex blob. Biologically, like it or not, an embryo's relationship with the organism carrying it can be described as parasitic. The fact that you do not understand that the biological term "parasite" is a word with a specific meaning and not some terrible slur spoken by people who just hate embryos is your problem, not theirs.

As for your "something that must become a person by virtue of being human" argument...well, have fun telling fingernail clippings, hairs, drops of blood, and so forth that they "must become persons." I'm sure they'll do exactly as you say. ;)

Our argument is moral, not just biological. I previously stated that biologically speaking, a fetus is indeed a "parasite." That's why I'm taking a philosophical standpoint, instead of reducing everything to biology. And yes, calling a developing human being a parasite is a terrible slur.

Fingernails, drops of blood, etc, have no chance of replicating humans because individually they will not develop. Only a sperm and an egg cell can do that.

did i? i've been wondering if i actually heard it somewhere else, or if i made it up myself.

not sure, it's actually a fairly obvious example (where else do you find eggs conveniently located but in immediate peril other than a burning fertility clinic?)

My example did not involve a child, but rather bob, the janitor. A friendly fellow who might, or might not have cancer depending on your particular moral quandry.

What makes it human? Human DNA? your toenails have human dna.
Saying a fetus will become human in time, and "in time" means past the point where anything MIGHT stop it doesn't occur is like saying i will become ruler of the world in time, as long as I define "in time" as "long enough for everyone on the planet to die and for me to be left alone on the planet'

A fetus MIGHT become human. MIGHT. It might not. Saying that "all that is needed is time" suggests that time is the only factor. Time, while one factor, is certainly not the only one.

And my toenails are a part of me. Individually, they aren't human. They're part of a collective whole.

What makes one human? Simple. A human sperm and a human egg. Therefore, a fetus is human.

If the fetus isn't acted on by outside forces, or aborted if you will, yes, it will become human. Barring a miscarriage, which isn't deliberate.

Biologically speaking, I suppose it would be correct to call it a parasite. Morally, I find it reprehensible that anyone could call human life parasitic. To me, an unborn human is more deserving than to be called a parasite or a blob of cells.

This post is funny. :)

I have to wonder what exactly you're expecting people to do. "Hey, we can't call this parasitic relationship "parasitic" anymore, because some guy on the internet finds the word "parasitic" morally reprehensible! I guess from now on we'd better just claim that it's...um...mutualism! Even though it's totally not!"

that's nice.

Biological fact doesn't give one good god damn about your opinion, or your outdated morality. I will continue to call a spade a spade, and a parasite a parasite.

That's why I'm not reducing everything to biology. This is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

Our argument is moral, not just biological. I previously stated that biologically speaking, a fetus is indeed a "parasite." That's why I'm taking a philosophical standpoint, instead of reducing everything to biology. And yes, calling a developing human being a parasite is a terrible slur.
No, you're using emotional arguments. Philosophical ones still correspond to reality - for instance, a moral theory that considers human beings to be moral agents will not include foetuses in its definition. Philosophy does not deny reality, it seeks to understand it.

not sure, it's actually a fairly obvious example (where else do you find eggs conveniently located but in immediate peril other than a burning fertility clinic?)

My example did not involve a child, but rather bob, the janitor. A friendly fellow who might, or might not have cancer depending on your particular moral quandry.

this is my original laying out of the example, back in november 2006. i really am interested in figuring out where i might have heard it from, assuming that i did. cause you are right, it's a fairly obvious one, but i don't recall coming across it in any of my philosophy classes.

suppose you found yourself in this situation:

you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener.

now if you hold the idea that your statement, "a new human being is created at fertilization", has moral implications such as making abortion wrong, then you must be saying something like "personhood begins at fertilization" (along with a bunch of related moral statements about the rights and obligations of persons). and if that is what you are saying, then in my burning fertility clinic you would be morally obligated to rescue the petri dish rather than the kindergartener as then you would be saving two persons rather than just one. but i strongly doubt that your moral intuition agrees with that - in fact, if it is anything at all like mine it strongly objects to the idea.

now suppose you agree, but think that maybe this only shows that blastocysts do not have full personhood, but still hold moral value - perhaps at slightly lesser levels depending on level of development. in that case i would modify the situation so that now there are 1,000 blastocysts in a convenient stack of petri dishes (luckily, they are very small little guys, so this works out). now the choice is between saving one person or saving 1,000 sorta persons. but the choice is still clear, and i'm sure you can already imagine the loud and public condemnation that would be expressed for a person who would choose to save a stack of petri dishes over a 5 year old child.

in fact, it is difficult to imagine a point at which saving a stack of petri dishes rather than a little kid would ever become morally praiseworthy. it looks to me like the petri dish rescuer would be rightfully blamed and morally condemned for it no matter how many blastocysts they saved. so if it is the case that blastocysts do hold some limited level of moral value as a result of their proto-personhood, that value is apparently so limited when placed in comparison to a full person that it might as well not exist at all. thus they are effectively not persons in any relevant sense.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

Our argument is moral, not just biological. I previously stated that biologically speaking, a fetus is indeed a "parasite." That's why I'm taking a philosophical standpoint, instead of reducing everything to biology. And yes, calling a developing human being a parasite is a terrible slur.

Fingernails, drops of blood, etc, have no chance of replicating humans because individually they will not develop. Only a sperm and an egg cell can do that.

A sperm and an egg can individually develop into a human being? Really? That's great! Then you can remove them from a woman's womb, and they'll do just fine!

I humbly disagree. Ten years would pass after my death at 10, and I would still be dead (barring any sort of miracle.) This would be essential to my not existing alive at 20. Whereas, the unicorn's non-existence is not essential to death but to it not having been in the first place.

Not existing alive is remarkably different than being dead.

It is true that a 10 year old who dies will not ever result in a living 20 year old.

But killing a 10 year old likewise is NOT the same as killing a 20 year old. Surely we can agree on this. Killing a 10 year old means the 10 year old will never become 20. But it is not the killing of a 20 year old. Additionally, we can never know for certain if that 10 year old would have reached 20.

So killing a 10 year old means you have killed somebody who MIGHT have, eventually, POSSIBLY, but not certainly, maybe reached the age of 20. But it doesn't mean you killed a 20 year old as there is no 20 year old to kill.

Killing of a fetus does mean that fetus will never become a person. But likewise, killing a fetus does not mean you have killed a person either. At best, as the analogy above, killing a fetus means killing something that MIGHT, eventually, POSSIBLY, but not certaintly, maybe become a person, but it's not killing a person as there is no person to kill.

so here are my options. Either the law should ban:

1) the killing of something that might, eventually, POSSIBLY, but not certaioly, maybe become a person, but isn't a person yet, OR;

2) ban the right to exercise bodily autonomy to someone who already IS a person

The question, to me, is obvious.

No, you're using emotional arguments. Philosophical ones still correspond to reality - for instance, a moral theory that considers human beings to be moral agents will not include foetuses in its definition. Philosophy does not deny reality, it seeks to understand it.

On the contrary, my argument is purely realistic. A human fetus is a human being. Thus, it is murder to perform an abortion, just as it is murder to kill a born human.

That's why I'm not reducing everything to biology. This is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

morality that doesn't consider science is less morality and more fable.

On the contrary, my argument is purely realistic. A human fetus is a human being. Thus, it is murder to perform an abortion, just as it is murder to kill a born human.
Except that others have refuted this via use of scientific evidence. You are making emotional value-judgements. As Arthais said, moral theory that overlooks reality is little more than fable.

And my toenails are a part of me. Individually, they aren't human. They're part of a collective whole.

What makes one human? Simple. A human sperm and a human egg. Therefore, a fetus is human.

Says who? You?

Read Free Soviet's thread. Go on. take a look.

Given the option, who would you save? A child, or two fertilized eggs in a petri dish. If that fertilized egg is HUMAN as you say, then you certainly should save two over one.

So? What do you do? Save the child, or the two fertilized eggs in the dish? how about 100 eggs? 1000? 1 million?

You gonna let that boy burn to death to save the fertilized eggs in the petri dish?

After all, they're human, just as human as the boy you're going to let die horribly if you choose to save them.

...
The question, to me, is obvious.

Only because your definition of person is an arbitrary classification.

On the contrary, my argument is purely realistic. A human fetus is a human being. Thus, it is murder to perform an abortion, just as it is murder to kill a born human.

murder? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

you haven't managed to say ONE THING correct yet.

Only because your definition of person is an arbitrary classification.

and yours is not?

morality that doesn't consider science is less morality and more fable.

I find this statement considerably hypocritical, since you're only basing your view only on science, and not taking philosophical arguments into account. On the other hand, you expect morality to kneel down to your scientific demands.

This begs the question, what science that doesn't consider morality?

this is my original laying out of the example, back in november 2006. i really am interested in figuring out where i might have heard it from, assuming that i did. cause you are right, it's a fairly obvious one, but i don't recall coming across it in any of my philosophy classes.

here is mine:

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

I find this statement considerably hypocritical, since you're only basing your view only on science, and not taking philosophical arguments into account. On the other hand, you expect morality to kneel down to your scientific demands.

This begs the question, what science that doesn't consider morality?

it's....science.

Duh.

I am unfamiliar with the part of the scientific method that requires one ask how AchillesLastStand feels about it.

And in fact I haven't even really MADE my argument yet, but basing on how you've failed to even understand the setup, I have little faith you'd grasp the result.

and yours is not?

If I have to justify killing someone that isn't trying to kill me, I might need arbitrary definitions too. Lots of people have classified different types of humans to value one group over another, generally speaking, this is a bad idea if justice is an objective.

This argument does hinge largely on how you define "person," or at what stage you grant personhood. Unjustly killing a person is murder. Choosing to abort a non-person is not. Morally speaking, being a person is different from being a human being. Now, what criteria do you use to call someone a person?

To be more specific, how does simply having human DNA grant a fertilized egg personhood?

Only because your definition of person is an arbitrary classification.

Um... why?

Says who? You?

Read Free Soviet's thread. Go on. take a look.

Given the option, who would you save? A child, or two fertilized eggs in a petri dish. If that fertilized egg is HUMAN as you say, then you certainly should save two over one.

So? What do you do? Save the child, or the two fertilized eggs in the dish? how about 100 eggs? 1000? 1 million?

You gonna let that boy burn to death to save the fertilized eggs in the petri dish?

After all, they're human, just as human as the boy you're going to let die horribly if you choose to save them.

Quite a convenient Catch-22. If I save the child, then my whole argument is wrong, if I save the petri dish(s), then I appear an illogical lunatic.

Fine then, let me amuse you. I would save the child over a million eggs for the simple reason that the child is more developed than those million fertilized eggs. Just as I would rather save a fully-built car over a million car parts.

If I have to justify killing someone that isn't trying to kill me, I might need arbitrary definitions too. Lots of people have classified different types of humans to value one group over another, generally speaking, this is a bad idea if justice is an objective.

you didn't answer the question.

How is your belief of what constitutes a human life any less arbitrary than my own?

I at least look for evidence of certain qualties that we consider indicative of humanity, such as at least a fundamental neural network, and not things also shared by toenail clippings.

you, apparently, do not, and just point and say "here, here it's human"

Fine then, let me amuse you. I would save the child over a million eggs for the simple reason that the child is more developed than those million fertilized eggs. Just as I would rather save a fully-built car over a million car parts.

So you admit that a fully developed person supersedes a merely potential person? Interesting. Seems to me that that entails the fact that the mother supersedes the fetus.

Quite a convenient Catch-22. If I save the child, then my whole argument is wrong, if I save the petri dish(s), then I appear an illogical lunatic.

Fine then, let me amuse you. I would save the child over a million eggs for the simple reason that the child is more developed than those million fertilized eggs. Just as I would rather save a fully-built car over a million car parts.

OK then, it's more developed. The child has a developmental value of X and the cells have a developmental value of Y and X > Y

SO if X > Y at SOME point the value of a fertilized cell Y multiplied by a quantity of cells would be > X

So even if X > Y, X < (Y*Z).

So how many would it have to be? not 1 million, how about 10? 20? 50?

At some point, certainly the quantity of the 'less" developed fetuses would still amount to, in total, more than 1 life.

Likewise certainly at SOME point you take the parts over the car.

So when would you?

Go on, tell me, how many petri dishes of fertilized cells is worth a child's life?

Or did you just admit that a "more developed" life takes precidence over a "less developed life" and the needs of the already developed mother takes precidence over the "less developed" fetus.

oh shit, did you just wreck your own argument? That sucks.

This argument does hinge largely on how you define "person," or at what stage you grant personhood. Unjustly killing a person is murder. Choosing to abort a non-person is not. Morally speaking, being a person is different from being a human being. Now, what criteria do you use to call someone a person?


The thing is, though, the argument really doesn't have to hinge on that, because even if one did consider an embryo a person, it still wouldn't have the right to make use of another person's body without her permission, since we do not grant that right to any born person. People who will die if they do not get a kidney transplant are still not legally permitted to force someone to donate a kidney to them.

Um... why?

Look at his examples. If you kill a ten year old, you don't kill a twenty year old (but he never disputes that killing either is killing a person).

But then he says, and in the same way, if you kill a fetus you are not killing a person... He first says killing a ten year old (person) is not killing a twenty year old (person), no flaws or leaps of logic here... But then he introduces without quantification from his previous example, how fetus is not simply a younger version of the ten or twenty year old... He took a non supported leap of logic to make that assumption in his analogy, and thus, the analogy failed. I took that and then told him 'why' his example fails, it was because he had an arbitrary definition of person, and this arbitrary definition is not supported by his examples, in fact, his own example could be used to dispute his own conclusion.

IF I kill a ten year old, they won't grow up to be a twenty year old, if I kill a fetus they won't grow up to be a newborn... Proof positive that the only difference between the fetus and the twenty year old is age.

Look at his examples. If you kill a ten year old, you don't kill a twenty year old (but he never disputes that killing either is killing a person).

But then he says, and in the same way, if you kill a fetus you are not killing a person... He first says killing a ten year old (person) is not killing a twenty year old (person), no flaws or leaps of logic here... But then he introduces without quantification from his previous example, how fetus is not simply a younger version of the ten or twenty year old... He took a non supported leap of logic to make that assumption in his analogy, and thus, the analogy failed. I took that and then told him 'why' his example fails, it was because he had an arbitrary definition of person, and this arbitrary definition is not supported by his examples, in fact, his own example could be used to dispute his own conclusion.

IF I kill a ten year old, they won't grow up to be a twenty year old, if I kill a fetus they won't grow up to be a newborn... Proof positive that the only difference between the fetus and the twenty year old is age.

That doesn't show that the reasons are arbitrary. At least, no more arbitrary than saying "one becomes a person at fertilization." The reasons why a 10 year old is a person and a fetus is not are simply not spelled out in this post. No reason they need to be, really, as they've been mentioned before.

But then he says, and in the same way, if you kill a fetus you are not killing a person... He first says killing a ten year old (person) is not killing a twenty year old (person), no flaws or leaps of logic here... But then he introduces without quantification from his previous example, how fetus is not simply a younger version of the ten or twenty year old... He took a non supported leap of logic to make that assumption in his analogy, and thus, the analogy failed.

Arthais101 undoubtedly made the point he did to avoid the "potential life" argument - not as an argument in and of itself for the moral acceptability of abortion.

Look at his examples. If you kill a ten year old, you don't kill a twenty year old (but he never disputes that killing either is killing a person).

But then he says, and in the same way, if you kill a fetus you are not killing a person... He first says killing a ten year old (person) is not killing a twenty year old (person), no flaws or leaps of logic here... But then he introduces without quantification from his previous example, how fetus is not simply a younger version of the ten or twenty year old... He took a non supported leap of logic to make that assumption in his analogy, and thus, the analogy failed. I took that and then told him 'why' his example fails, it was because he had an arbitrary definition of person, and this arbitrary definition is not supported by his examples, in fact, his own example could be used to dispute his own conclusion.

Because I already explained with all qualification in previous posts. It's not my fault if you either didn't bother to read, or didn't understand it.

A fetus is not a person because it lacks the fundamental characteristics we ascribe to personhood.

What is so hard to understand about that?



IF I kill a ten year old, they won't grow up to be a twenty year old, if I kill a fetus they won't grow up to be a newborn... Proof positive that the only difference between the fetus and the twenty year old is age.

No, it's proof positive that the difference between a fetus and a 20 year old are a set of characteristics that develop in the interveaning time frame.

Which is, after all, the whole fucking point.

And more to point, I really don't care if it IS a living person, I'd support abortion either way.

Quite a convenient Catch-22. If I save the child, then my whole argument is wrong, if I save the petri dish(s), then I appear an illogical lunatic.

it's not a catch 22, it's just the horns of a dilemma . and you wouldn't be illogical - saving the petri dish is the only logical thing to do if you start from the premise that blastocysts are persons. we just doubt that when put to the test anyone actually holds that premise. and nobody would expect to be treated as a hero if they saved the petri dish and let the kindergartener burn to death. in fact, they realize right away that they would face moral condemnation for it.

Fine then, let me amuse you. I would save the child over a million eggs for the simple reason that the child is more developed than those million fertilized eggs. Just as I would rather save a fully-built car over a million car parts.

wait, are car parts a car?

Look at his examples. If you kill a ten year old, you don't kill a twenty year old (but he never disputes that killing either is killing a person).

But then he says, and in the same way, if you kill a fetus you are not killing a person... He first says killing a ten year old (person) is not killing a twenty year old (person), no flaws or leaps of logic here... But then he introduces without quantification from his previous example, how fetus is not simply a younger version of the ten or twenty year old... He took a non supported leap of logic to make that assumption in his analogy, and thus, the analogy failed. I took that and then told him 'why' his example fails, it was because he had an arbitrary definition of person, and this arbitrary definition is not supported by his examples, in fact, his own example could be used to dispute his own conclusion.

IF I kill a ten year old, they won't grow up to be a twenty year old, if I kill a fetus they won't grow up to be a newborn... Proof positive that the only difference between the fetus and the twenty year old is age.

I love it when people use the word "proof" to mean "I just made an entirely nonsensical syllogism." It's very cute.

If you do not see any differences between yourself and a unicellular organism other than "age"...well, that's rather a sad statement on you, isn't it? :p

you didn't answer the question.

How is your belief of what constitutes a human life any less arbitrary than my own?

I at least look for evidence of certain qualties that we consider indicative of humanity, such as at least a fundamental neural network, and not things also shared by toenail clippings.

you, apparently, do not, and just point and say "here, here it's human"


You justify having a litmus test before granting a human the right to protection from those that would kill them.

...
A fetus is not a person because it lacks the fundamental characteristics I ascribe to personhood.
...

fixed for correctness.

You justify having a litmus test before granting a human the right to protection from those that would kill them.

I justify having a litmus test to determine that something is, in fact, human, before we give it human rights.

I likewise recognize that even if we DO give it human rights, those rights don't get to over right another's.

So the fetus loses either way. It first fails the test to be considered a person, and even if it did pass that, and be considered a person, with all relevant rights, that STILL doesn't get you where you want to go.

You justify having a litmus test before granting a human the right to protection from those that would kill them.

Stop being disingenuous.

Clearly, we must have a "litmus test" somewhere... unless you wish to grant an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium, equal protection to an adult human being?

You say "human" - but why should our litmus test be humanity? What is it about having human DNA in and of itself that entitles us to life? No, we must look for something more - sentience, self-awareness, sapience. In other words, the characteristics of personhood - characteristics that a fetus lacks (at least during much of the pregnancy).

fixed for correctness.

and again, that is different from you...how?

Of course it's my decision. Who the fuck else am I supposed to speak for? I have my requirements to treat something as a person, so do you.

My requirements are, at least, grounded in rationality as opposed to your "it is because I said so!" "rationale"

In other wise, I can logically back up why I hold the requirements i do. You can not, as there's no rationality behind it what so ever.

wait, are car parts a car?

It would seem his very analogy suggests that a fetus is not ACTUALLY a human, but rather a component part OF a human, something essential to the whole, but not the whole itself.

Much like car parts : the car

Say it is granted that a fetus is a person, and has the rights of a person. Does that mean that is has the right to another person's body? No.

For example, say that you woke up one morning to discover that a sick child had been hooked into your kidneys while you were sleeping. Your kidneys are the only ones that will do. If you do not allow the kid to use your kidneys for 9 months, it will die.

Now, because this kid is hooked up to you, and is dependent on you for life, does it follow that you are morally obligated to let it use your kidneys for 9 months? Does its so-callled "right to life" override your right to your own body?

I sure as shit hope not.

...
If you do not see any differences between yourself and a unicellular organism other than "age"...well, that's rather a sad statement on you, isn't it? :p

I Hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but YOU and everyone else discussing this IS a multicellular organism... an Abortion does not remove a unicellular organism, it removes a multicellular organism. IF the unicellular organism did not become a multicellular organism then there would be no need for an abortion at all...

I Hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but YOU and everyone else discussing this IS a multicellular organism...

so is your appendix, what about it?

Stop being disingenuous.

Clearly, we must have a "litmus test" somewhere... unless you wish to grant an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium, equal protection to an adult human being?

You say "human" - but why should our litmus test be humanity? What is it about having human DNA in and of itself that entitles us to life? No, we must look for something more - sentience, self-awareness, sapience. In other words, the characteristics of personhood - characteristics that a fetus lacks (at least during much of the pregnancy).


Do you really think a fetus might possibly grow up to be an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium? IF so, we can fix that by sending you back to biology class 101. If not, then who is it here that is in actuality being disingenuous? It think it was your argument, not mine.

I Hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but YOU and everyone else discussing this IS a multicellular organism... an Abortion does not remove a unicellular organism, it removes a multicellular organism. IF the unicellular organism did not become a multicellular organism then there would be no need for an abortion at all...

Most "pro-lifers" believe that life begins at conception. If you don't, well, then, good for you. Which stage in embryonic development would you prefer to set as the starting point for personhood?

Do you really think a fetus might possibly grow up to be an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium? IF so, we can fix that by sending you back to biology class 101. If not, then who is it here that is in actuality being disingenuous? It think it was your argument, not mine.

The point was that you can't call something a human or a person simply because you want to, you have to provide a reasoning for it, and you know it.

so is your appendix, what about it?

Ah, I see now that you've lost the ability to differentiate between people and body parts, we shouldn't be surprised.

Do you really think a fetus might possibly grow up to be an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium?

No... I just don't care about what the fetus will or will not grow up to be.

Why should I? What value does potential personhood have?

Ah, I see now that you've lost the ability to differentiate between people and body parts, we shouldn't be surprised.

I very much am capable of differentiating between people and body parts.

It is that differentiation that prevents me from making the ludicrus claim of "it's a multicellular organism with human DNA" which is the keystone to your entire argument.

Because if the only thing that made a fetus a person was that it was an organism with human DNA than your organs would be a person.

I am capable of making hat distinction. you, obviously, are not, since your entire argument would, as a result of necessary logic, result in your organs being treated as people.

Say it is granted that a fetus is a person, and has the rights of a person. Does that mean that is has the right to another person's body? No.

Yes.

The same as every other person that ever lived and discussed an opinion about abortion at all was equally guilty of such an intrussion.

For example, say that you woke up one morning to discover that a sick child had been hooked into your kidneys while you were sleeping. Your kidneys are the only ones that will do. If you do not allow the kid to use your kidneys for 9 months, it will die.

You mean, if a child is brought to your door and left there, istead of seeing to it's well being you should be well within your rights to simply chop it up into smaller pieces and throw it in the trash simply because you weren't expecting it and you didn't want it? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Now, because this kid is hooked up to you, and is dependent on you for life, does it follow that you are morally obligated to let it use your kidneys for 9 months? Does its so-callled "right to life" override your right to your own body?

I sure as shit hope not.

Well you just keep looking out for those kidney stealing strawmen, maybe when you find one then you'll also have an argument.

Do you really think a fetus might possibly grow up to be an ant, or a plant, or a bacterium? IF so, we can fix that by sending you back to biology class 101. If not, then who is it here that is in actuality being disingenuous? It think it was your argument, not mine.

I don't care what it will eventually become. We don't know what it will become. We know, at best what it MIGHT be. Nobody can tell what it WILL be.

I care what it is. And if it IS NOT human than I don't treat it as such.

You mean, if a child is brought to your door and left there, istead of seeing to it's well being you should be well within your rights to simply chop it up into smaller pieces and throw it in the trash simply because you weren't expecting it and you didn't want it? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I'll make you a deal. Once the fetus is out of the woman's body you can do everything you wish to make sure it stays alive.

If the fetus is viable outside the body, the doctors should do EVERYTHING they can to keep it alive.

If there is absolutly no way it will live, then they can do whatever is expedient.

You mean, if a child is brought to your door and left there, istead of seeing to it's well being you should be well within your rights to simply chop it up into smaller pieces and throw it in the trash simply because you weren't expecting it and you didn't want it? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Not quite the same thing, but way to miss the point. Quite expertly, at that.

You seem to be saying that because the kid is in you, you have an obligation to allow it to leech off of you. Okay. Explain.

Well you just keep looking out for those kidney stealing strawmen, maybe when you find one then you'll also have an argument.

Yes, you've pointed out the main flaw with thought-experiments: they require thought. Claiming my point to be refuted isn't quite the same as refuting it, but is a hell of a lot easier, huh?

Yes.

The same as every other person that ever lived and discussed an opinion about abortion at all was equally guilty of such an intrussion.

A horrible immorality such an intrusion was if the mother did not have the option to remove it.

If she did, then that's simply a matter of her consenting to it.

Yes.

The same as every other person that ever lived and discussed an opinion about abortion at all was equally guilty of such an intrussion.


This comment does not even make any semblance of sense.


You mean, if a child is brought to your door and left there, istead of seeing to it's well being you should be well within your rights to simply chop it up into smaller pieces and throw it in the trash simply because you weren't expecting it and you didn't want it? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

No, but you'd be well within your rights to deny it entrance to your home. You'd also be well within your rights to refuse to give the child money. And those things are just your property - vastly less sacrosanct than autonomy over your own body.


Well you just keep looking out for those kidney stealing strawmen, maybe when you find one then you'll also have an argument.

...I don't think you understand what a "strawman" is. Explaining that, legally, no one has a right to demand use of another person's body is very directly relevant to the argument that, legally, embryos should have the right to demand use of another person's body.

No, but you'd be well within your rights to deny it entrance to your home. You'd also be well within your rights to refuse to give the child money. And those things are just your property - vastly less sacrosanct than autonomy over your own body.

Would you really say that it would be morally acceptable to toss a starving and freezing child with nowhere else to go out onto the street simply because your house is your "property"?

did I invite the child into my home and take responsibility for him, or did he come in without my permission?

Let's say the latter.

Would you really say that it would be morally acceptable to toss a starving and freezing child with nowhere else to go out onto the street simply because your house is your "property"?

did I invite the child into my home and take responsibility for him, or did he come in without my permission?

Would you really say that it would be morally acceptable to toss a starving and freezing child with nowhere else to go out onto the street simply because your house is your "property"?

It would be the nice, good samaritan thing to do if you were to bring it in, sure. But do you honestly thing you have a moral obligation to some urchin simply because he's there? Whence this obligation? Please explain.

For that matter, would one of the right-to-lifers please explain, whence the right to life? Explain exactly, explicitly, where this right to another's body comes from. That will certainly clarify the debate a bit. If you can't explain whence, just admit that it's because you feel that way and move on. Not being glib or condescending, but without defining some of your own points clearly, you're not really making an argument.

Would you really say that it would be morally acceptable to toss a starving and freezing child with nowhere else to go out onto the street simply because your house is your "property"?

Not in the least - I think it'd be terrible. I also think that it'd be perfectly legal. One often has the legal right to be a selfish ass - and as far as this subject goes, I really wouldn't mind if people thought abortion was a terrible, selfish choice, provided they left women the option of choosing it just the same.

I also think that it'd be perfectly legal.

Perhaps it would be. So what?

One often has the legal right to be a selfish ass

Yeah, and in cases as egregious as that one, perhaps one shouldn't have.

(Of course, generally there ARE alternative destinations for the child... so the question has little applicability to real life.)

I really wouldn't mind if people thought abortion was a terrible, selfish choice

The choices are not equivalent at all. The child is a person; the fetus is not.

Do I have the right not to give away a bit of my fingernail if it's the only way to prevent an agonizing death for billions of people?

Or is there some limit to this right to bodily autonomy that some on this thread seem to want to make absolute?

Would you really say that it would be morally acceptable to toss a starving and freezing child with nowhere else to go out onto the street simply because your house is your "property"?

It would be the nice, good samaritan thing to do if you were to bring it in, sure. But do you honestly thing you have a moral obligation to some urchin simply because he's there? Whence this obligation? Please explain.

For that matter, would one of the right-to-lifers please explain, whence the right to life? Explain exactly, explicitly, where this right to another's body comes from. That will certainly clarify the debate a bit. If you can't explain whence, just admit that it's because you feel that way and move on. Not being glib or condescending, but without defining some of your own points clearly, you're not really making an argument.

Do I have the right not to give away a bit of my fingernail if it's the only way to prevent an agonizing death for billions of people?

Or is there some limit to this right to bodily autonomy that some on this thread seem to want to make absolute?

Why shouldn't you be able to withhold it? You have no moral obligation to give of your body. It would be nice, but not morally required.

Yeah, and in cases as egregious as that one, perhaps one shouldn't have.

(Of course, generally there ARE alternative destinations for the child... so the question has little applicability to real life.)

Perhaps not - and I would have no problem at all with holding someone legally liable if they did not, at the very least, give the poor kid directions to a nearby homeless shelter or something. But then, I tend to support "good Samaritan" laws, which this would seem to fall under.

The choices are not equivalent at all. The child is a person; the fetus is not.

Agreed, absolutely. This wasn't my comparison, after all, but Poot's. :)

Do I have the right not to give away a bit of my fingernail if it's the only way to prevent an agonizing death for billions of people?

In my opinion, yes, yes you do. There may be reasons that you may find compelling, but that doesn't mean you still don't have the right to it if you want to.

Why shouldn't you be able to withhold it?

Because billions of people are going to die without it, obviously.

Are you really going to say that my right to a bit of my fingernail supercedes their right to life?

You have no moral obligation to give of your body.

I have no absolute right to every bit of my body.

Because billions of people are going to die without it, obviously.

And if you choose to help them good on you. If you do not, then you do not.

Are you really going to say that my right to a bit of my fingernail supercedes their right to life?

Nobody ever has the right to not die. That's stupid. Likewise nobody has the right to live at the expense of others.

I have no absolute right to every bit of my body.

You have the right to prevent any part of your body from being used without your consent.

Because billions of people are going to die without it, obviously.

Are you really going to say that my right to a bit of my fingernail supercedes their right to life?



I'm saying their supposed right to life gives them no right to your or my life or body, yes. Like I said, it would be nice, and decent to give it. I would personally give some fingernail, sure. But, that said, I have no moral obligation to do so. I'm not in the moral wrong if I do not.

I have no absolute right to every bit of my body.

Even if I were to grant this, it still doesn't follow that anyone else--no matter their need or number--has any right to any bit of your body, either. And nor does it follow that you have an obligation to give of your body, simply because they want/need it.

But do you honestly thing you have a moral obligation to some urchin simply because he's there?

No, not because he or she is "there"... because he or she is entitled to the basic goods of life just as much as I am.

If I were that "urchin," I would certainly desire to avoid starvation and freezing cold... and if I truly recognize other human beings as persons, I will respect their desires. Even if it costs me convenience.

Whence this obligation? Please explain.

From the simple moral equality of persons, which dictates that the mere fact that I am not the child on my doorstep does not mean that her desires and needs are not as worthy of fulfillment as mine are.

From the simple moral equality of persons, which dictates that the mere fact that I am not the child on my doorstep does not mean that her desires and needs are not as worthy of fulfillment as mine are.

Perhaps they are. That does not mean however that you are obligated ot fulfill them.

if you are, why are you not out inviting homeless into your home tonight? It's rather cold out there.

And if you choose to help them good on you. If you do not, then you do not.

And bad on me - indeed, to the point where I revealed myself to be a depraved monster.

Nobody ever has the right to not die.

I am not suggesting that anyone does... rather, that everyone has the right not to die without necessity.

You have the right to prevent any part of your body from being used without your consent.

Why? And why does my claim to bodily autonomy (and over such a minor matter) override another's claim to something far more fundamental - life itself?

How is it anything but morally arbitrary to state that just because something happens to be part of my body, I have absolute rights over it?

No, not because he or she is "there"... because he or she is entitled to the basic goods of life just as much as I am.

Honestly, no offense, but you're sort of missing the point. My point, that is.

First of all, if by "entitled" you mean has the right to have have these things provided by others, that others have an obligation to provide them, I flat out disagree with. What's more, even if the kid were somehow entitled to these things, from whence your obligation to provide them?

If I were that "urchin," I would certainly desire to avoid starvation and freezing cold... and if I truly recognize other human beings as persons, I will respect their desires. Even if it costs me convenience.

Desire does not buy moral rights nor confer moral obligations. And again, like I said, if you're a nice person, you would give a kid food. Likewise with fetuses (fetii?).

From the simple moral equality of persons, which dictates that the mere fact that I am not the child on my doorstep does not mean that her desires and needs are not as worthy of fulfillment as mine are.

Full-fledged persons are morally equal, I'll grant you. An urchins needs are as "worthy of fulfillment" as yours, I'll grant that too. The disagreement is when you say that there is a moral obligation for you to provide this fulfillment. I have to ask again, whence the obligation? Simple niceness does not suffice as moral obligation, I'm afraid.

Sorry, this is very off topic, but a couple of things I've tried to post have said that they will not be visible until a moderator sees them, and haven't posted yet (it's been a while). I'm new to the board, and apparently unfamiliar with the rules... why does it do that? Am I posting too quickly, or is it the length of the posts? There was no profanity that I'm aware of...

Perhaps they are. That does not mean however that you are obligated ot fulfill them.

Yes, it does... because in every action I take, I make clear my own commitment to the principle that my own desires are worthy enough of fulfillment that I must actually act to fulfill them.

If hers are just as worthy, than I must do the same, insofar as it is reasonably possible - assuming that there is no alternative way they could be fulfilled, anyway (which was presupposed in both examples.)

if you are, why are you not out inviting homeless into your home tonight? It's rather cold out there.

There are several problems with this analogy, but I'll ignore those, and instead point out the simple fact that it is quite impossible to find anyone who is morally perfect.

This certainly provides an excellent response to future Portuguese anti-abortion activists....

"So you're telling me that we're murdering thousands of babies a year, yet you were too lazy to go out and vote against it?"
Most of the 'Liberals' i know are too lazy to vote or just don't care, but on the flip side sometimes people don't bother to vote or abstain(I know:rolleyes: ) because something will pass so they use their lack of voting as a protest.
----------------------------------
Honestly if someone chooses to have random as unprotected sex they should suffer with a child, but of course that leaves the uestion of the male contributor, they should be found and made to support.

In other cases i can almost accept the idea of abortions (apart from rape then it's a given).

But then again if not enough people voted the law shouldn't be passed.

Because billions of people are going to die without it, obviously.

Are you really going to say that my right to a bit of my fingernail supercedes their right to life?


No - but you're not really denying them their right to life. You're not killing them - you're simply not assisting them in living. Similarly, I'm not killing a patient who will die next week for lack of a blood transfusion when I spend this evening debating on NSG rather than donating blood. I'm not helping that patient live, but I can't reasonably be said to have personally deprived him of the possibility of doing so.

I'd think that anyone who let billions of people die for lack of a fingernail clipping would be a disgusting and reprehensible person, but I honestly don't believe he would have violated anyone's rights.

No - but you're not really denying them their right to life. You're not killing them - you're simply not assisting them in living.

Yeah, I'm aware of the distinction. So? What difference does it make?

Are they any less dead?

Honestly if someone chooses to have random as unprotected sex they should suffer with a child

Why? What reason is there that they should have to "suffer with a child." How about if they are unfit parents and would only provide a miserable life for the child, or have a disease that would pass to the child, or any of other innumerable problems with this? Why must they "suffer"? Punishment for having evil, evil sex?

Yeah, I'm aware of the distinction. So? What difference does it make?

Are they any less dead?

Nope, no less dead. But not dead because of your actions. No moral wrong falls on your shoulders, as you had no moral obligation to save them. If you see the distinction...why are we still debating that? You can't save everyone, and what's more, you have no obligation to try.

Sorry, this is very off topic, but a couple of things I've tried to post have said that they will not be visible until a moderator sees them, and haven't posted yet (it's been a while). I'm new to the board, and apparently unfamiliar with the rules... why does it do that? Am I posting too quickly, or is it the length of the posts? There was no profanity that I'm aware of...

it's a bug, keep retrying and it'll go through.

There are several problems with this analogy, but I'll ignore those, and instead point out the simple fact that it is quite impossible to find anyone who is morally perfect.

Then it makes discussion about what "must" be done rather silly doesn't it?

Must be done, why? Why do you have to do anything? Morality may compell you to not commit an action, but it does not, in my opinion, in this instance, require you to act.

Thanks Arthais101. Didn't want to clutter the board with a repost.

No, not because he or she is "there"... because he or she is entitled to the basic goods of life just as much as I am.

If by "entitled" you mean "entitled to be provided for by others," then I flat out disagree. She may deserve them, same as you, but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has a moral obligation to help her. Except for shelter employees and such, as it's their job to do so.


If I were that "urchin," I would certainly desire to avoid starvation and freezing cold... and if I truly recognize other human beings as persons, I will respect their desires. Even if it costs me convenience.

Unfortunately for urchins, desire does not confer moral obligations upon others, nor grant rights to the urchins themselves. It's nice to feed them, but you have no moral obligation.

Then it makes discussion about what "must" be done rather silly doesn't it?

Not unless I meant it as "actually necessary" (as in: impossible to avoid) as opposed to "morally obligatory" - and I clearly didn't.

Must be done, why? Why do you have to do anything?

Why do you have to avoid murder? It is perfectly possible to murder somebody, after all.

Thanks Arthais101. Didn't want to clutter the board with a repost.

No, not because he or she is "there"... because he or she is entitled to the basic goods of life just as much as I am.

If by "entitled" you mean "entitled to be provided for by others," then I flat out disagree. She may deserve them, same as you, but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has a moral obligation to help her. Except for shelter employees and such, as it's their job to do so.


If I were that "urchin," I would certainly desire to avoid starvation and freezing cold... and if I truly recognize other human beings as persons, I will respect their desires. Even if it costs me convenience.

Unfortunately for urchins, desire does not confer moral obligations upon others, nor grant rights to the urchins themselves. It's nice to feed them, but you have no moral obligation.

Unfortunately for urchins, desire does not confer moral obligations upon others, nor grant rights to the urchins themselves. It's nice to feed them, but you have no moral obligation.
I think I like you. :)

I am not suggesting that anyone does... rather, that everyone has the right not to die without necessity.

I am sure my organs will save several people's life. If the organs in my body will save 10 people, then certainly they do not need to necessarily die, since my organs will save them.

of course then we run into the problem of me dying to save others, so would it be ok to harvest me to the point that I may be kept alive in a semi vegative state to save a few other lives?

After all, me stripping my body would save say...5 people, so in the end 6 live, not one...I'm just not living a really quality life.

Now yeah, it's a ludicrus argument, but so is your fingernail for a billion lives. At some point you say "no, that's stupid". Then it's a matter of scaling back, but if we make miniscule changes it's really hard to find the line.

Which is why I prefer no line at all, and a more hard lined concept.

Why? And why does my claim to bodily autonomy (and over such a minor matter) override another's claim to something far more fundamental - life itself?

Because it is for nobody elses choice but yours to decide what is a minor matter. If you decide it's a minor matter you may act accordingly. But you don't get to choose what is or is not a minor matter for anyone else.

How is it anything but morally arbitrary to state that just because something happens to be part of my body, I have absolute rights over it?

It's arbitrary as fuck that the mystical fingernail just happens to be yours. however the purely arbitrary fact that it IS yours gives you the right.

It's simply not MORALLY arbitrary since morally the smae would apply for anyone. It may be abitrary who gets it, but the morals are the same regardless.

For what it's worth, if a starving and freezing homeless person who I was actually capable of helping came up to my doorstep and had nowhere else to go (and I had some way to be sure of her honesty), then you can bet that I'd let her in. Indefinitely, even. And I would consider it a grievous violation of my moral obligations to do otherwise.

Not unless I meant it as "actually necessary" (as in: impossible to avoid) as opposed to "morally obligatory" - and I clearly didn't.



Why do you have to avoid murder? It is perfectly possible to murder somebody, after all.

are we talking murder, which is a legal term, or are we talking killing in general?

If we are talking killing in general, who says I HAVE to avoid killing in the first place? Now i know it's a silly argument, but really, what is the source of this morality to begin with?

For what it's worth, if a starving and freezing homeless person who I was actually capable of helping came up to my doorstep and had nowhere else to go (and I had some way to be sure of her honesty), then you can bet that I'd let her in. Indefinitely, even. And I would consider it a grievous violation of my moral obligations to do otherwise.

Well, you had me till the end. I hate to keep using the words over and over, but you sort of forced me: whence this moral obligation? Where did your obligation come from. So you're both human. Okay. You have the same rights. Okay. Where did your obligation to help her come from? Surely obligation doesn't come from mere need and proximity.

If that's true, I'm a horribly immoral person because I've been sitting here typing this while my dog is at my knee needing to be let outside...

For what it's worth, if a starving and freezing homeless person who I was actually capable of helping came up to my doorstep and had nowhere else to go (and I had some way to be sure of her honesty), then you can bet that I'd let her in. Indefinitely, even. And I would consider it a grievous violation of my moral obligations to do otherwise.

Well, you had me till the end. I hate to keep using the words over and over, but you sort of forced me: whence this moral obligation? Where did your obligation come from. So you're both human. Okay. You have the same rights. Okay. Where did your obligation to help her come from? Surely obligation doesn't come from mere need and proximity.

If that's true, I'm a horribly immoral person because I've been sitting here typing this while my dog is at my knee needing to be let outside...

If by "entitled" you mean "entitled to be provided for by others," then I flat out disagree. She may deserve them, same as you, but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has a moral obligation to help her.

How convenient for the privileged! She may deserve decent treatment... but I don't have to do anything about it.

:rolleyes:

Unfortunately for urchins, desire does not confer moral obligations upon others, nor grant rights to the urchins themselves.

The basis is not desire, but personhood.

But, go on. Tell me what the basis for ANY right is, if we are to ignore the desires of the subject as irrelevant.

How convenient for the privileged! She may deserve decent treatment... but I don't have to do anything about it.

:rolleyes:

The basis is not desire, but personhood.

But, go on. Tell me what the basis for ANY right is, if we are to ignore the desires of the subject as irrelevant.

Privileged...well, that's certainly something I've never been called before. Wait till the folks at the country club (read: library) hear about my new status! If I deign to speak to them, that is.

I don't recall denying an urchin's personhood. I never denied that a decent human being would help her out. My beef with this is that there is no obligation, no reason to call you an immoral person if you don't help. An asshole maybe, but not immoral. You've shirked no moral duty (finally, a word not "obligation!), nor harmed anyone. You've simply denied them something of yours they had no right to in the first place.

Now, how about this. I desire a second computer. In fact, mine's kind of shabby, and I need it for my work. If I don't get a new one, I won't be able to feed myself. I desire your computer. Yours is the only one that will do.

Now, since by your reasoning you seem to have an obligation to fulfill my needs and desires...I'll email you my address, and you just ship me that dandy typing machine you're on right now. That'll fulfull your moral obligations, and my need. Score!

Yeah, I'm aware of the distinction. So? What difference does it make?

Are they any less dead?

Well, the problem to me comes when one conflates morality (which is necessarily at least somewhat subjective and personal) and legality. Morally, knowingly depriving those people of your fingernail clipping is not greatly superior to deliberately choosing to kill them, as far as I'm concerned. (Assuming, at least, that you have no compelling reason to keep the fingernail clipping - this scenario is already odd enough that I suppose one must rule out the possibility that clipping your flingernails will cause the sun to explode or something. :p ) Legally - well, that's a different question. Like I said, I think "good Samaritan" laws are reasonable, and it's hard to imagine a way that this particular extreme scenario wouldn't fall under such a law. However, that's the only sort of law I can think of that could reasonably obligate you to donate anything of yourself, even something as insignificant as a fingernail clipping, to anyone else.

Well whatever opinion you might hold on abortion, this still isn't democracy. By Portuguese law, if turnout is below 50%, the status quo still holds. I don't care if those who did not vote (1) thought it will pass anyway; (2) had no opinion whatsoever; (3) did not care; (4) did not think the issue was very important to vote for or against; or (5) contented enough with the status quo that they resorted to the easier way of defeating the proposal: by not voting. Anyways, by following the whim of just 23.5% of the voters who cast a yes vote is ignoring the other 60% who did not vote or the 16.5% who said no.

The Portuguese administration cannot legalize abortion with this referendum as a basis. If they really want to go ahead, they must do it via other means. This referendum did not legalize abortion, and had never changed the status quo.

Privileged...well, that's certainly something I've never been called before. Wait till the folks at the country club (read: library) hear about my new status! If I deign to speak to them, that is.

I don't recall denying an urchin's personhood. I never denied that a decent human being would help her out. My beef with this is that there is no obligation, no reason to call you an immoral person if you don't help. An asshole maybe, but not immoral. You've shirked no moral duty (finally, a word not "obligation!), nor harmed anyone. You've simply denied them something of yours they had no right to in the first place.


I think everyone on this thread is using the word "moral" slightly differently, which may be leading to a lot of misunderstanding. It's one of those annoying fuzzy words that lends itself well to several dozen different shades of meaning.

Honestly if someone chooses to have random as unprotected sex they should suffer with a child

Why must they "suffer with a child"? Because they had evil, evil sex, and deserve to be punished for such beastial activity? Even if they are unfit parents and will provide nothing but pain and misery to the child? Even if the child is guaranteed to carry some horrible, incurable disease carried by the parents? This seems like plain old religious desire to punish, nothing more. Certainly nothing to do with moral obligation to the child.

Also, how does it follow that because they had sex, they have to have the child? That's a huge leap in logic. I'd like to see the intervening steps, please.

I think everyone on this thread is using the word "moral" slightly differently, which may be leading to a lot of misunderstanding. It's one of those annoying fuzzy words that lends itself well to several dozen different shades of meaning.

I suppose that's possible... but I have a hard time coming up with very many definitions of moral. I don't mean legal, or prudent, or simply kind, I mean...moral.

I think it's not that we're using "moral" differently, so much as that morality is based on totally different perspectives. Hence the clash.

I've heard the claim that pro-lifers are against abortion to "keep women down," or so that "more white women could have more white babies" thrown around quite frequently. And I can assure you that it's not true, for the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers.

I cannot say with certainty regarding majority, as that would require census data I am not privy to, but there are some noisy people, including fairly influential, but noisy people, that regard abortion as a crime because it offers a woman 'escape' from the 'sins' of having extra-marital relations, and that if she was pregnant and did not desire it, then 'she should have kept her legs shut', never mind cases of rape and failure of family planning tools.

Well whatever opinion you might hold on abortion, this still isn't democracy. By Portuguese law, if turnout is below 50%, the status quo still holds. I don't care if those who did not vote (1) thought it will pass anyway; (2) had no opinion whatsoever; (3) did not care; (4) did not think the issue was very important to vote for or against; or (5) contented enough with the status quo that they resorted to the easier way of defeating the proposal: by not voting. Anyways, by following the whim of just 23.5% of the voters who cast a yes vote is ignoring the other 60% who did not vote or the 16.5% who said no.

The Portuguese administration cannot legalize abortion with this referendum as a basis. If they really want to go ahead, they must do it via other means. This referendum did not legalize abortion, and had never changed the status quo.

They did go ahead via other means. :rolleyes:

-snip-
The real question is: Did you go and vote?

What is abortion anyway?

It's a loaded term, but medically, abortion is defined as "termination of pregnancy below 20 weeks of gestation or less than 500g birthweight". Any termination of pregnancy, induced or not-induced, is considered an abortion. Perhaps here we are debating induced abortion here?

What is abortion anyway?
Well, in this case it's a pregnant woman wanting to end her pregnancy by going to the hospital or an abortion clinic and getting a medical procedure performed to do so.

The government was obviously quite keen on getting Portuguese law to catch up with the rest of Europe (or most of it, anyways), but because they didn't want to decide over the heads of people, they made a referendum.

It was always clear that the government wanted to legalise it. It was up to the anti-abortion activists to mobilise enough people to prevent it. They clearly didn't, because even the people who could be bothered to vote didn't think that reasonable abortions should be criminalised.

So the government gave the Portuguese the choice, and the choice was not to stop the government's plans.

Well whatever opinion you might hold on abortion, this still isn't democracy. By Portuguese law, if turnout is below 50%, the status quo still holds. I don't care if those who did not vote (1) thought it will pass anyway; (2) had no opinion whatsoever; (3) did not care; (4) did not think the issue was very important to vote for or against; or (5) contented enough with the status quo that they resorted to the easier way of defeating the proposal: by not voting. Anyways, by following the whim of just 23.5% of the voters who cast a yes vote is ignoring the other 60% who did not vote or the 16.5% who said no. So the government should ignore the 23.5% that said yes and the 60 % that didn't vote and focus solely on the minority opinion?

The Portuguese administration cannot legalize abortion with this referendum as a basis. If they really want to go ahead, they must do it via other means. This referendum did not legalize abortion, and had never changed the status quo.The Portuguese government doesn't need it's populace's opinion for every law it makes; this isn't Switzerland. I'm sure if you look through Portugal's legislative history, you'll find a whole bunch of laws that weren't based on successful referenda. The referendum is merely not legally binding.

The real question is: Did you go and vote?

Haha. Great trick question, but I am not Portuguese.

BTW, a referendum which does not meet the 50% threshhold is just considered non-mandatory. The Portuguese administration can juice the results of whatever significance they can get, but they cannot say that a majority of the Portuguese voted for abortion to be legalized, 'cause they did not get that from the referendum. Similarly, in the June 1998 abortion referendum, it cannot be said that a majority of the Portuguese voted for abortion not to be legalized, 'cause they did not get that from the referendum (NO won that referendum, with just under 32% participating).

The thing that I find somewhat erroneous is the assertion that "We will pass an abortion law, because 23.5% of the voters said so." Prime Minister Socrates cannot give that as a reason for justification; nor will it give people the reason to say that a majority of Portuguese would now want to legalize abortion.

If they want to legalize abortion, they must justify it by other means.

bringing a child into this world constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
I support this law. depopulating the earth is a good thing.

now another question is: can we allow selective self-abortion

The Portuguese administration can juice the results of whatever significance they can get, but they cannot say that a majority of the Portuguese voted for abortion to be legalized, 'cause they did not get that from the referendum.
They didn't.

They said "Look, guys, we want to change the law. This is what we have in mind. We realise this is a loaded issue, so we reckon you should get a say. Let's have a referendum, and if you say 'no', we'll leave the law as it is."

The people had the obvious choice. They knew that Socrates wanted to change the law, they had the choice to stop that if they wanted.

They obviously didn't, so now Socrates can go on doing what he said he would do.

-snip-
No they don't. Why should the 68% who didn't vote (and don't care) somehow trump the fact that the majority of people who care about the issue voted in favour? It would rightly never be enough for a binding referendum, but it is a clear sign of public opinion.

Abortion laws are relaxed in Portugal, abortion laws are tightened in Nicaragua.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6161396.stm

How does the Hokey Pokey go again?

Human rights should never be put to a vote. The women of Portugal, like all human beings, should have their fundamental right to ownership of their bodies recognized regardless of what the majority of their fellow citizens believe.

It doesn't matter how many people vote in favor of slavery...it's still wrong. It was wrong even when the majority of people in the US supported it and legalized it. It is a violation of the most fundamental right that any of us has; the right to control what is done to our own body, the right to "own" ourselves and to not be owned by anybody else.

It doesn't matter how many people vote that women's bodies don't belong to them...it's still wrong. I'm happy to hear that the majority of people in Portugal appear to believe that women are entitled to the right to choose, but really, when you get right down to it, it's sad that such questions need even be asked (from a legal standpoint).

Why must they "suffer with a child"? Because they had evil, evil sex, and deserve to be punished for such beastial activity?

Yep. Babies are punishments for dirty sluts who consent to sex.

Women who are honorably raped, now, they don't need to be punished with babies. But women who make the horrible, immoral choice to have Teh Sex...those are the women who should be forced to be mothers!

Because babies are precious and special and Human Life and should be protected by being used as punishments and forced upon the most immoral women (SLUTS!!!) of society...waitaminute, this is starting to sound funny...

If they want to legalize abortion, they must justify it by other means.

The best reason of all is that a woman should have the right--as absolute as any right can be--to determine what happens to her own body.

It is a violation of the most fundamental right that any of us has; the right to control what is done to our own body, the right to "own" ourselves and to not be owned by anybody else.


I'm fairly certain that this "right" doesn't exist anywhere. Every country prohibits, for example, consumption of certain narcotics like heroin or cocaine. Most countries prohibit prostitution. All these involve people doing what they want with their own bodies, but the vast majority of countries on this earth - including "liberal" ones - prohibit it.

Human rights should never be put to a vote. The women of Portugal, like all human beings, should have their fundamental right to ownership of their bodies recognized regardless of what the majority of their fellow citizens believe.

It doesn't matter how many people vote in favor of slavery...it's still wrong. It was wrong even when the majority of people in the US supported it and legalized it. It is a violation of the most fundamental right that any of us has; the right to control what is done to our own body, the right to "own" ourselves and to not be owned by anybody else.

It doesn't matter how many people vote that women's bodies don't belong to them...it's still wrong. I'm happy to hear that the majority of people in Portugal appear to believe that women are entitled to the right to choose, but really, when you get right down to it, it's sad that such questions need even be asked (from a legal standpoint).

And:

The best reason of all is that a woman should have the right--as absolute as any right can be--to determine what happens to her own body.



Really? Then conscription into military service should never be allowed, ever? The UN should perhaps begin punishing the countries that have mandatory military service or a draft in their government systems? No, perhaps instead we can simply see that your argument is really just a red herring.

I'm fairly certain that this "right" doesn't exist anywhere. Every country prohibits, for example, consumption of certain narcotics like heroin or cocaine.

Well, for one thing, I happen to believe that anti-drug laws are wrong. Also, even if it were true that there is no country in which ownership of one's own person is recognized, that wouldn't change my stance at all. I'll be the first to admit that we've got a long way to go on this planet. :D

But what you may be interested to know is that in a whole lot of places it is actually not illegal to consume drugs, it's just illegal to possess them or sell them or whatever. In most places, you cannot be convicted of anything simply because you have a drug in your system (except in cases like DUI where the crime is engaging in a given activity while having drugs in your system).

I know this may seem like a nit pick, but it actually reflects the basic value that I'm talking about: the idea that your body is yours.


Most countries prohibit prostitution.

Prohibiting prostitution is, in my opinion, is both morally wrong and also incredibly harmful to sex workers. The fact that prostitution is illegal in many countries is lousy. Likewise, the fact that abortion is not 100% legal in most countries is also lousy. It's lousy to violate people's fundamental rights (in my opinion). And, in both of these cases, prohibition actually doesn't work. Prohibiting prostitution never actually stops it from occurring, it just makes life far worse for prostitutes. Prohibiting abortion never stops it from occurring, it just makes life far worse for women. The countries with the lowest abortion rates, and best levels of infant and maternal health, are the ones with the most liberal abortion laws. The countries that see the lowest rates of disease, death, and abuse of prostitutes are the ones with liberal prostitution laws (though, granted, there are very very few examples of this kind of nation, so the sample size is very small).


All these involve people doing what they want with their own bodies, but the vast majority of countries on this earth - including "liberal" ones - prohibit it.
Yep, the majority of countries on Earth don't do so swell a job with this subject. Of course, at one time the majority of countries on Earth had institutionalized slavery. We're making some progress, albeit more slowly than I might like. :D

Really? Then conscription into military service should never be allowed, ever? The UN should perhaps begin punishing the countries that have mandatory military service or a draft in their government systems? No, perhaps instead we can simply see that your argument is really just a red herring.

Of course they should. I've always said so.

Really? Then conscription into military service should never be allowed, ever?
This wasn't aimed at me, but...

Yep. Conscription into military service is disgusting and pathetic. If you have to force people to fight a war, then it's not a war worth fighting. If you can't convince people that the cause is worth risking their life, then you have absolutely no business forcing them into it against their will.

Wow, I can't say I'm surprised at the anti-Catholic sentiment here.

With the catholic sentiment on my lifestyle why should I think any better of their life choice?

When they stop being backwards dicks (as an organization) then I will stop pointing out issues with them

Prohibiting prostitution is, in my opinion, is both morally wrong and also incredibly harmful to sex workers. The fact that prostitution is illegal in many countries is lousy. Likewise, the fact that abortion is not 100% legal in most countries is also lousy. It's lousy to violate people's fundamental rights (in my opinion). And, in both of these cases, prohibition actually doesn't work. Prohibiting prostitution never actually stops it from occurring, it just makes life far worse for prostitutes. Prohibiting abortion never stops it from occurring, it just makes life far worse for women. The countries with the lowest abortion rates, and best levels of infant and maternal health, are the ones with the most liberal abortion laws. The countries that see the lowest rates of disease, death, and abuse of prostitutes are the ones with liberal prostitution laws (though, granted, there are very very few examples of this kind of nation, so the sample size is very small).


Seconded.
And I'd like to add that very few countries actually outlaw prostitution (as far as I know). Most content themselves with outlawing any form of advertising prostitution and organising prostitution.
And countries I would call liberal did legalise prostitution and treat it as recognised profession these days (Germany, The Netherlands, etc.)

With the catholic sentiment on my lifestyle why should I think any better of their life choice?

When they stop being backwards dicks (as an organization) then I will stop pointing out issues with them

When the Catholic Church stops intentionally spreading lies that kill people, I will stop calling them lying assholes. When Catholics stop giving their money and support to a Church that intentionally spreads lies that kill people, I'll stop pointing out that they are helping to spread lies that kill people.

If it makes Catholics sad to hear me say that they are hypocrites and liars when they claim to be "pro-life," then maybe they should consider knocking it off with the lying and the killing of people.

Really? Then conscription into military service should never be allowed, ever? The UN should perhaps begin punishing the countries that have mandatory military service or a draft in their government systems? No, perhaps instead we can simply see that your argument is really just a red herring.
Umm, I oppose a draft, pretty much completely. What the UN has the power to do about it is another issue all together. Hope you like the taste of that herring, because since I'm not using it for my argument, you probably ought to chew on it.

Seconded.
And I'd like to add that very few countries actually outlaw prostitution (as far as I know). Most content themselves with outlawing any form of advertising prostitution and organising prostitution.
And countries I would call liberal did legalise prostitution and treat it as recognised profession these days (Germany, The Netherlands, etc.)
That's the fun thing about supporting human rights: not only is it moral, but it actually works! :D

That's the fun thing about supporting human rights: not only is it moral, but it actually works! :D

It works brilliantly. The feminist movement in Germany fought for years to have prostitution recognised as a profession, and now they have all the rights that come with it : rights to form unions, health benefits, pension schemes, the whole packet.
They can live and work as full members of society and benefit from the taxes they pay.

It works brilliantly...

Works brilliantly for the sex slave trafficker in Aruba and Peru and Morroco too. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should scratch off some of that rose colored tinting on your glasses, you've covered so much of your vision that you're likely to walk right into a hole.

Works brilliantly for the sex slave trafficker in Aruba and Peru and Morroco too. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should scratch off some of that rose colored tinting on your glasses, you've covered so much of your vision that you're likely to walk right into a hole.
Perhaps you should check your facts about where sex trafficking is the highest, and where exactly those sex slaves end up. Hint: it's not in the countries with a legal and well-regulated prostitution sector.

Perhaps you should check your facts about where sex trafficking is the highest, and where exactly those sex slaves end up. Hint: it's not in the countries with a legal and well-regulated prostitution sector.

Heh. Facts. What are you, some kind of hippie? ;)

Perhaps you should check your facts about where sex trafficking is the highest, and where exactly those sex slaves end up. Hint: it's not in the countries with a legal and well-regulated prostitution sector.

Perhaps YOU should look it up yourself, since legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands, for example, the trafficking of illegal sex slaves has increased there, not decreased, despite the governments good intentions by legalizing it and trying to regulate it openly.

Here's a good place to start...
http://www.protectionproject.org/

Or, specifically...
http://www.protectionproject.org/netherlands.doc

Heh. Facts. What are you, some kind of hippie? ;)
I really should just add this to my sig, since I say it so much, but...

Reality has a well-established liberal bias.

Perhaps YOU should look it up yourself, since legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands, for example, the trafficking of illegal sex slaves has increased there, not decreased, despite the governments good intentions by legalizing it and trying to regulate it openly.

Here's a good place to start...
http://www.protectionproject.org/

Or, specifically...
http://www.protectionproject.org/netherlands.doc
Actually, you didn't contradict Bottle. She was talking about the places where "sex trafficking is the highest, and where exactly those sex slaves end up." The report you cited makes no claims as to whether or not the Netherlands is a place where sex trafficking is the highest, or if it is a final destination for sex slaves.

Perhaps YOU should look it up yourself, since legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands, for example, the trafficking of illegal sex slaves has increased there, not decreased, despite the governments good intentions by legalizing it and trying to regulate it openly.

According to your own sources, the trafficking of sex slaves to the Netherlands has been increasing since BEFORE prostitution was legalized.

The laws recognizing a distinction between voluntary sex workers and those who have been forced into sexual slavery are not even a decade old. Given that prostitution has been occurring illegally in that nation for CENTURIES, don't you think it would be fair to give them at least another couple years to see how this approach works out?

Furthermore, try taking a good long look at the welfare of the women involved in both voluntary and involuntary sex work. Where do you suppose these women receive more help? Nations where prostitution is a crime that lands a women in prison (or even can earn her the death penalty)? Or nations where it is a crime to sell another human being, but not a crime for a person to sell/rent their own body (seeing as how it belongs to them)? Do you think women get more help in countries where THEY can be convicted of a crime because of the abuse that is inflicted upon THEM?

According to your own sources, the trafficking of sex slaves to the Netherlands has been increasing since BEFORE prostitution was legalized.
--Snip--

You've certainly won me over, but I'm curious...do you have any sources to back this up? I'm not going to rant and rave about the "facts" but if you have a source that has these statistics I'm sure it would better illustrate the point you're making.

You've certainly won me over, but I'm curious...do you have any sources to back this up? I'm not going to rant and rave about the "facts" but if you have a source that has these statistics I'm sure it would better illustrate the point you're making.

See PootWaddle's post--it has a link to the Protection Project website.

You've certainly won me over, but I'm curious...do you have any sources to back this up? I'm not going to rant and rave about the "facts" but if you have a source that has these statistics I'm sure it would better illustrate the point you're making.
I just followed the links he provided. :D

I just followed the links he provided. :D

Oh, no, I got that part. I was referring to the places that have the highest rates of slave trade and where they end up.

Actually, you didn't contradict Bottle. She was talking about the places where "sex trafficking is the highest, and where exactly those sex slaves end up." The report you cited makes no claims as to whether or not the Netherlands is a place where sex trafficking is the highest, or if it is a final destination for sex slaves.
One of the big problems that they've got in the Netherlands is identifying who has and has not been illegally "trafficked" into the sex trade.

See, prostitutes from other places have very strong economic motivation to move to the Netherlands. They will get better pay, and can even enjoy legal benefits. This has resulted in a lot of foreign prostitutes relocating to the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, the Netherlands also offers a tempting destination for people who want to engage in sex slavery, because there are ways for them to "hide in the open" by pretending to be legit brothels. Since the official legalization of brothels, the Dutch government is having to sort out how to distinguish between voluntary prostitutes who have chosen to move to the Netherlands, and women who are actually being forced into sex slavery and imported like merchandise.

What's funny to me is that a lot of the "anti-trafficking" laws that first hit the books a decade or so back failed to include the idea that the victims shouldn't be prosecuted. In other words, these laws against sex-trafficking wouldn't stop the VICTIMS from being prosecuted as criminals because they were prostituting! Sure, the traffickers would get busted...but so would their victims. It was fucked up stuff, and a lot of people actually had to fight to include provisions that specifically protect the victims from prosecution.

And:





Really? Then conscription into military service should never be allowed, ever? The UN should perhaps begin punishing the countries that have mandatory military service or a draft in their government systems? No, perhaps instead we can simply see that your argument is really just a red herring.

Actually.......yes, that seems like a perfectly good idea. I think compulsory military service should only exist in situations of most absolute dire need (IE when it's likely the nation will be invaded and the bulk of those drafted killed anyway, along with many others who would not be).

You could certainly say the same about murder.


Greetings

I recently read a story about a teenager, in Portugal, that were pregnant(her boyfriend left her) and had 2 choices

1) Drop out of school, live in the suburb, and have the baby growing up there - almost shure of as a live as poor (and most likely criminal - just to survive).

2) Have an abortion, finish her education and have a fair chance of a good life.

No choice, really!!

Greetings

I recently read a story about a teenager, in Portugal, that were pregnant(her boyfriend left her) and had 2 choices

1) Drop out of school, live in the suburb, and have the baby growing up there - almost shure of as a live as poor (and most likely criminal - just to survive).

2) Have an abortion, finish her education and have a fair chance of a good life.

No choice, really!!

If only there was a third option:
3) Have the baby and receive help from neighbors, friends and family, boyfriend, government to finish education and have a good life with a good child.

What stands in the way of that option being on the table? What can we do as a society to enable people to not have to wrestle with the terrible choice of killing their baby or killing the dreams they had of their own life?

Oh, no, I got that part. I was referring to the places that have the highest rates of slave trade and where they end up.
Well, if we want to talk about the "slave trade" in general, then we're talking primarily about poverty. Victims are obtained from places where they are cripplingly poor, often even sold into slavery by family members. Victims tend to be more often selected from groups that are disadvantaged in their country of origin (women and ethnic minorities, in other words). When it comes to obtaining victims, you're looking mainly at countries with high poverty rates and less social infrastructure. A lot of South East Asia fits this bill. Eastern Europe also has serious problems with this, particularly among populations that still live a more migratory lifestyle (gypsy populations tend to be at high risk).

When you talk about where these slaves are trafficked to, it actually becomes largely about immigration policies of various nations. Or, if you want to put it bluntly, the potential for human smuggling. How easy is it for the slavers to move their "product" into a given country? Because there is "demand" for slaves just about everywhere in the world, so there is a market for sex slaves just about anywhere. What determines the destination is mainly how easy it is to get slaves into that country, and how easy it is to get away with sex slavery while in that country.

One of the main factors in making it easy to get away with sex slavery is how easy it is to keep the victims in line. If they are in a country where being a prostitute is a crime, then they can't very well go to the officials for help because they'll just get sent to prison for being a prostitute. This helps ensure that sexual slavery stays underground, and the victims remain unable to get out.

It also helps to ensure that, perversely, our best numbers on sex trafficking come from countries where prostitution is less harshly regarded. Countries like the Netherlands are actually better able to report on the rates of trafficking they experience! It is absolutely true that the Netherlands is a hotspot for sex trafficking...but it's also true that the Netherlands is devoting more funding and energy to tracking sex workers and sex trafficking than most other nations in the world.

One other serious problem is the number of nations where sex slavery is a routine matter. Look around the world at the number of countries where women and girls are sold into domestic and sexual slavery as a matter of course. Look at the number of countries where female human beings are legally the property of male human beings, and where female human beings are not recognized as having the right to choose when, how, or with whom they have sex. Look at the places where women and girls are bought and sold as "wives" rather than as "prostitutes." Forgive me, but I don't see much difference between those "marriages" and sex trafficking. Human beings owning other human beings is slavery, in my opinion, even if you try to call it "marriage."

Well, I don't support abortion (or however you say it in political unspeak), and I'm not a fundamentalist. I hardly even go to church. And I'm most certainly not an opponent of freedom- I support legalization of drugs and other victimless crimes, oppose immigration quotas, oppose censorship, and support freedom of contract, the logical end of which being that I do not think that homosexual unions should be banned or that homosexuals should be barred from adopting children. But I cannot fit being pro-abortion (or whatever it is you call it) into my philosophical mindset.

*Pro-choice.

The ability to choose, rather than being forced to do something.

Do I have the right not to give away a bit of my fingernail if it's the only way to prevent an agonizing death for billions of people?
Yes. Why is it that these kind of questions are always asked with the most utterly ridiculous scenarios in mind though?

I think I like you. :)
Ditto.

When the Catholic Church stops intentionally spreading lies that kill people, I will stop calling them lying assholes. When Catholics stop giving their money and support to a Church that intentionally spreads lies that kill people, I'll stop pointing out that they are helping to spread lies that kill people.

If it makes Catholics sad to hear me say that they are hypocrites and liars when they claim to be "pro-life," then maybe they should consider knocking it off with the lying and the killing of people.

I agree I was being nice though :p

:confused: Subject = ? now?

And it's much more than just "a clump of cells." It's a human being in development.
QFT

And that's all I have to say in the matter. I hate these abortion wars. :upyours:

What does QFT mean?

*begins abortion war with a new slant*
It is a human being in development. The question is whether it merits our protection using the law, not whether it's human.

At least show some courage and go the full way and argue for sterilisation of morons and a full eugenics program. Then we could negotiate, I'm sure.

What does QFT mean?

"Quoted for Truth".

:confused: Subject = ? now?
The subject, loosely speaking, is whether or not individual human beings own their own bodies. If the answer to this question is "yes," then human females are entitled to decide when/if their bodies participate in reproduction, regardless of whether or not an embryo/fetus is a person. If the answer is "no," or "only under certain circumstances," then it may be viable to legally force human women to carry pregnancies against their wishes.

What does QFT mean?

*begins abortion war with a new slant*
It is a human being in development. The question is whether it merits our protection using the law, not whether it's human.

"if it's a human but doesn't deserve protection under the law" is a nonsensical argument and one basically nobody makes.

There are two arguments:

The first is not "whether it is a person that deserves legal protection" but rather "does it deserve legal protection if it is not a person?"

The second one is "if it is a person does it deserve protection not granted to other persons?"

The answer, for many of us is "no, it's not a person and thus does not deserve to be treated like one, and EVEN IF IT WERE, it still wouldn't allow it to have MORE rights than any other person".

The subject, loosely speaking, is whether or not individual human beings own their own bodies. If the answer to this question is "yes," then human females are entitled to decide when/if their bodies participate in reproduction, regardless of whether or not an embryo/fetus is a person. If the answer is "no," or "only under certain circumstances," then it may be viable to legally force human women to carry pregnancies against their wishes. If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood, people would be allowed to smoke crack, and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.

If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play. The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.

This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.

If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood,

They aren't.

people would be allowed to smoke crack,

They should be.

and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.

Nonsense, the right to make a choice does not mean one shold not be discouraged from making a bad one. I COULD take all the money in my bank account out in cash and dance in the streets throwing it into the air. It's my right.

Doesn't mean it's not a stupid thing to do and I would hope that people who cared about me would discourage me from doing so.

That being said suicide should be legal.

Trying to argue that one bad law should exist by pointing out that OTHER bad laws exists is like saying in 1850 "why shouldn't I be able to kill black people, I can already keep them as slaves" without recognizing that you shouldn't be allowed to keep them as slaves either.

The presence of one stupid law does not in any way validate the existance of another stupid law.

If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play. The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.

This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.

The fetus may continue to live in any way possible once it is removed from the person who does not wish it to be there. The fact that it can not do so is not the fault of anyone else. Take that up with god if you wish.

If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood, people would be allowed to smoke crack, and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.Just for the record, adult Jehovah's Witnesses are not forced to take blood. Occasionally, their children are removed from their custody and made wards of the court, and are then given blood in extreme circumstances, but if the child is conscious and in his or her teens and can make an affirmative statement refusing it, some judges have even then allowed the child to refuse.

If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play. The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.Logical to you, perhaps. Not so much to others. And to call pregnancy an inconvenience is insulting, frankly.

This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.
Call them anti-abortion at the very least, please. There's nothing pro-life about those groups.

If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood,

They're not. At least, not in my country.


people would be allowed to smoke crack,

They should be (in my opinion). People are allowed to use plenty of other intoxicants legally, including many that are more physically harmful.


and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.

How does that follow? Recognizing that somebody has the RIGHT to end their life doesn't require that you endorse their choice. I recognize that another person has the RIGHT to cut up their arm if they want to, but I happen to think it's probably not a good choice in many situations. I'd try to help a friend who was cutting up their own arm.

If you think it is a bad choice for women to have abortions, then by all means you should speak to them. What you should not do is be so arrogant as to believe that you have the right to force them to carry a pregnancy against their wishes. Their body does not belong to you, or to anybody else, and they have the right to choose whether or not it will participate in any part of the reproductive process. You also enjoy this right, so kindly do not try to take it away from others.


If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play.

That question is in play no matter what, seeing as how a woman is involved in the situation regardless of whether or not we choose to rule that a fetus is a human person.

The only pregnancies that don't involve a woman's right to choose are pregnancies not occurring inside a woman's body.


The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.

How so? No born human person has any "right to survive" which trumps another person's right to ownership of their own body in this manner.


This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.
In my experience, people who proclaim themselves "pro-life" actually tend to embrace policies that are completely incompatible with the idea that fetuses are human persons who must be protected. The fact that these people claim to believe in the personhood of embryos/fetuses is not carried out in their actions, and I believe actions speak at least as loud as words. :D

Dependence is not a good argument for non-personhood. Babies (born) are dependent on their mothers and would be completely so were it not for medical technology; we can safely assume that in a few hundred years it will be possible to build artificial wombs which will take the age of viability down to almost zero days.

Basing personhood on the current status of medical technology is laughable.

The fetus may continue to live in any way possible once it is removed from the person who does not wish it to be there. The fact that it can not do so is not the fault of anyone else. Take that up with god if you wish. This is akin to saying "It shouldn't be illegal to leave an old man out in the freezing moors of Scotland. The fact that he can't last a single night is not the fault of anyone else; take that up with God."

Call them anti-abortion at the very least, please. There's nothing pro-life about those groups. I think it's only fair to call each group by its chosen name.

Dependence is not a good argument for non-personhood. Babies (born) are dependent on their mothers and would be completely so were it not for medical technology; we can safely assume that in a few hundred years it will be possible to build artificial wombs which will take the age of viability down to almost zero days.

Basing personhood on the current status of medical technology is laughable.

Happily, the personhood of embryos/fetuses has nothing to do with the right to abortion, unless you decide to grant embryos/fetuses rights which no born human persons possess. :D


This is akin to saying "It shouldn't be illegal to leave an old man out in the freezing moors of Scotland. The fact that he can't last a single night is not the fault of anyone else; take that up with God."

It's actually more akin to saying, "A kidney patient who is dying for want of a kidney must rely on voluntary organ donation. No matter how much they may need a kidney to survive, they are not allowed to steal an organ from an unwilling party."

I think it's only fair to call each group by its chosen name.
See, I'm more concerned with accuracy than so-called fairness.

This is akin to saying "It shouldn't be illegal to leave an old man out in the freezing moors of Scotland. The fact that he can't last a single night is not the fault of anyone else; take that up with God."

Your analogy suck. The old man is independant. Taking him against his will is kidnapping. You have no right to force yourself on an independant actor.

You DO have the right to force him to BE independant. You have no right to go and take him there.

You also have no obligation to go get him. If you want to work analogies, make it proper. Anyone who is not attached in some way to another person and depends on that person to survive does not work as an analogy. That old man is not attached to me, thus my right of bodily autonomy does not affect him, it is not MY body that he needs.

if he is attached to my body, I am free to disconnect him when I choose.

See, I'm more concerned with accuracy than so-called fairness.
Yep. I've met several rapists in my time, and not a single one of them liked being called a rapist. For some strange reason, I found it very hard to care...

Similarly, when a person wants to be called "pro-life" while explicitly endorsing policies that will result in the violation and deaths of human women, I have a hard time caring. "Pro-life" refers to being opposed to legal abortion, pure and simple. If somebody is ashamed to be called anti-abortion, then they probably should reconsider being anti-abortion.

Happily, the personhood of embryos/fetuses has nothing to do with the right to abortion, unless you decide to grant embryos/fetuses rights which no born human persons possess. :D Okay then. Let's say foetuses are autonomous beings (something I feel is almost proven by the "walking and smiling" pictures, which diehards like Johann Hari attacked on the solipsistic grounds that "you might be smiling but that doesn't mean you're alive).
Leaving out the question of rape/weird experiments, how would the pro-life person be granting them any more rights?


It's actually more akin to saying, "A kidney patient who is dying for want of a kidney must rely on voluntary organ donation. No matter how much they may need a kidney to survive, they are not allowed to steal an organ from an unwilling party." If the "unwilling party" had previously signed a document that had a clause stipulating that they must give a kidney and they were fully aware of this clause and decided to sign the document in full knowledge of this, then the "stealing" is not stealing.

Dependence is not a good argument for non-personhood. Babies (born) are dependent on their mothers and would be completely so were it not for medical technology; we can safely assume that in a few hundred years it will be possible to build artificial wombs which will take the age of viability down to almost zero days.

Basing personhood on the current status of medical technology is laughable.

And when such equipment is available I will support abortion in situations where it is possible for the fetus to remain viable.

Until such time as a one day old fetus can be viable outside the womb, I find it not necessary. Since the fetus is going to die anyway, it might as well be removed by whatever means expedient.

Basing your argumen on what MAY be in 100 years is far more laughable than basing it on what exists TODAY.

Okay then. Let's say foetuses are autonomous beings (something I feel is almost proven by the "walking and smiling" pictures, which diehards like Johann Hari attacked on the solipsistic grounds that "you might be smiling but that doesn't mean you're alive).
Leaving out the question of rape/weird experiments, how would the pro-life person be granting them any more rights?

The right to use someone else's body without their consent, which no other person enjoys.

you would give the fetus the right to use a woman's body regardless of her wishes. No other person can do that.

If the "unwilling party" had previously signed a document that had a clause stipulating that they must give a kidney and they were fully aware of this clause and decided to sign the document in full knowledge of this, then the "stealing" is not stealing.

OK, and where is this document in this situation?

Okay then. Let's say foetuses are autonomous beings (something I feel is almost proven by the "walking and smiling" pictures, which diehards like Johann Hari attacked on the solipsistic grounds that "you might be smiling but that doesn't mean you're alive).
Leaving out the question of rape/weird experiments, how would the pro-life person be granting them any more rights?

No born human person has the right to use my body against my wishes, even if they need to do so in order to survive. No other autonomous human entity has the right to take part of my body against my wishes, no matter what their level of need.


If the "unwilling party" had previously signed a document that had a clause stipulating that they must give a kidney and they were fully aware of this clause and decided to sign the document in full knowledge of this, then the "stealing" is not stealing.
Ok. I'm guessing you are now going to try to imply that consenting to sex = consenting to carry a pregnancy to term, so I'm just going to go ahead and start laughing now. :D

Ok. I'm guessing you are now going to try to imply that consenting to sex = consenting to carry a pregnancy to term, so I'm just going to go ahead and start laughing now. :D

Seems like it, but i prefer when they come right out and say it, makes the humor all that more palpable.

OK, and where is this document in this situation?
Why, the "document" is that she spread her legs, the filthy harlot!!!

See, sex has a chance of leading to fertilization of an egg, which has a chance of leading to implantation and pregnancy, which has a chance of leading to child birth. So if somebody consents to have sex, they are legally consenting to carry a pregnancy to term and have a baby!

It's just like how driving has a chance of leading to one's car going into a skid, and going into a skid has a chance of leading to hitting a tree, and hitting a tree has a chance of leading to one suffering serious organ failure, and serious organ failure has a chance of leading to death. Thus, a person who consents to drive a car is consenting to die of organ failure, which is why we legally forbid people to get medical attention if they are in car accidents.

Yep. I've met several rapists in my time, and not a single one of them liked being called a rapist. For some strange reason, I found it very hard to care... Maybe matters should be arranged so that they can be called "shark bait".

Similarly, when a person wants to be called "pro-life" while explicitly endorsing policies that will result in the violation and deaths of human women, I have a hard time caring. "Pro-life" refers to being opposed to legal abortion, pure and simple. If somebody is ashamed to be called anti-abortion, then they probably should reconsider being anti-abortion. You're going into some serious hyperbole here. Banning abortion will not lead to violation and deaths of women, human or alien, anymore than banning slavery led to an economic upset causing the starvation of millions of children.

Bernard Nathanson, the former head of Naral, admitted that the "abortion deaths" statistics were inflated like Blair's ego.

OK, and where is this document in this situation? Teh s3x much?

Teh s3x much?

Ah there it is. So sex is the consent to pregnancy huh? So when you have sex you consent to everything that might happen as a result of that sex?

So if someone contracts an STD they should not be allowed to get treatment for that STD, because they consented to having it?

Additionally if you want to be treated like an intelligent person, try communicating like one.

If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood, people would be allowed to smoke crack, and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.


Adults should be able to decide to smoke crack or not be forced to take blood (though they should be criminally responsible for causing harm to minors)

If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play. The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.

So should people be forced to donate organs while alive (such as kidneys) even to strangers? The strangers right to survive trumps the right to not be inconvenienced

This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.

If you needed to fatally harm someone to get treatment for chlamydia, then you shouldn't be allowed to.

See, I'm more concerned with accuracy than so-called fairness. I prefer the BBC to Pravda, if you know what I mean. Old Pravda that is.

So should people be forced to donate organs while alive (such as kidneys) even to strangers? The strangers right to survive trumps the right to not be inconvenienced Firstly, donating an organ may result in death if the other organ fails, while a pregnancy won't unless there are complications. Which is a whole new can of worms.
Secondly, choosing not a donate an organ is different from actively deciding to terminate. It's like comparing one person who decides not to donate food to Africans, and another person who steals food from Africans and sells it on eBay.

If you needed to fatally harm someone to get treatment for chlamydia, then you shouldn't be allowed to.

and once again your argument runs in circles. May I remind you that you haven't demonstrated that any "someone" is harmed in this?

After all, you certainly don't reject to harming "a life", after all numerous medical treatments were tested on animals.

You're going into some serious hyperbole here. Banning abortion will not lead to violation and deaths of women,

It does. Already. In many countries around the world. Banning abortion NEVER stops abortions from happening, it just ensures that women have unsafe abortions.


human or alien, anymore than banning slavery led to an economic upset causing the starvation of millions of children.

Banning slavery does cause economic upsets in countries where it was previously legal.

This actually seems to be an argument in my favor, though. I say that slavery is wrong no matter what. Even if banning slavery will cause economic upset that results in poverty and starvation, I still say it is wrong to enslave other human beings. I do not believe it is acceptable to sacrifice the human rights of one group of people simply to protect the livelihood of another. You don't get to enslave one population just so you can feed another.

If you believe that women's bodies don't belong to them, then you believe in slavery. Whether women are slaves to men, to other women, to the government, or to fetuses is (in my opinion) beside the point, because I don't believe ANY human beings have the right to enslave other human beings.


Teh s3x much?
Yep. Predictable as the tides.

Secondly, choosing not a donate an organ is different from actively deciding to terminate. It's like comparing one person who decides not to donate food to Africans, and another person who steals food from Africans and sells it on eBay.

Your analogy still sucks. The starving african is not attached to a person. If he was, that person would be well within his rights to sever that attachment.

If you are going to make an argument, make it work. Don't talk about old men or starving africans. Those are not relevant to this debate, the analogy does not work. Someone who is independant is independant, someone who is not is not. You can't use one to compare a situation involving another.

It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and rocks. Big rocks, gray ones. Ones that don't resembles apples in the slightest.

Your analogy still sucks. The starving african is not attached to a person. If he was, that person would be well within his rights to sever that attachment.

If you are going to make an argument, make it work. Don't talk about old men or starving africans. Those are not relevant to this debate, the analogy does not work. Someone who is independant is independant, someone who is not is not. You can't use one to compare a situation involving another.

It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and rocks. Big rocks, gray ones. Ones that don't resembles apples in the slightest.
Actually, it's more like apples and the B'nar people of the planet Clkhohsnfdse in the Bsn;saold galaxy.

and once again your argument runs in circles. May I remind you that you haven't demonstrated that any "someone" is harmed in this? Bottle said that even if a "someone" was, her point would still stand. So I'm proceeding on that basis.

After all, you certainly don't reject to harming "a life", after all numerous medical treatments were tested on animals. Ah yes, those many pro-choice folks who are opposed to animal slaughter.
Animals are not equal to humans. They are different species with more primitive genetics and they lack intelligence, except for possibly the great apes and dolphins.

It does. Already. In many countries around the world. Banning abortion NEVER stops abortions from happening, it just ensures that women have unsafe abortions. But to what extent? I don't buy this as an argument against abortion. You may as well say "Why ban theft? It's not like it's going to stop people from stealing", a la Discworld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh-Morpork_Thieves'_Guild).

Banning slavery does cause economic upsets in countries where it was previously legal.

This actually seems to be an argument in my favor, though. I say that slavery is wrong no matter what. Even if banning slavery will cause economic upset that results in poverty and starvation, I still say it is wrong to enslave other human beings. I do not believe it is acceptable to sacrifice the human rights of one group of people simply to protect the livelihood of another. You don't get to enslave one population just so you can feed another.

If you believe that women's bodies don't belong to them, then you believe in slavery. Whether women are slaves to men, to other women, to the government, or to fetuses is (in my opinion) beside the point, because I don't believe ANY human beings have the right to enslave other human beings.
Actually, it works in my favour. If banning abortion (or mitigating it) causes upsets, those are still acceptable.

If it enslaves women, then women must somehow be natural slaves or something. In America at least, more women are opposed to abortion than men.

Yep. Predictable as the tides. Haven't you seen Al Gore's new film?

Ah yes, those many pro-choice folks who are opposed to animal slaughter.Animals are not equal to humans.

The same can be said for a fetus.

But again, EVEN IF THEY WERE, still doesn't matter. Still doesn't give them rights other people don't have.