"Moral"? I've never brought morality into the debate - that's entirely subjective. What you are suggesting though in your example is already done thousands of times a day in laboratories not necessarily with feotuses but with living, sentient, post-partum, fully developed animals, capable of feeling both emotion and pain.Okay so lets just think about what if the unborn has zero rights, then I guess you would have no problem with scientific experiments where the "fetus" develops with various diseases upon birth so scientists can research the effects. By your logic that would be morral because as a "fetus" by your logic you have no rights.
"Moral"? I've never brought morality into the debate - that's entirely subjective. What you are suggesting though in your example is already done thousands of times a day in laboratories not necessarily with feotuses but with living, sentient, post-partum, fully developed animals, capable of feeling both emotion and pain.
Anti-abortionists mostly seem to presume that even a potential human life is infinitely more valuable than that of all other species, including those that share over 90% of our DNA. I just don't see how that assumption can be justified. I don't see how anyone could get emotional over an unsentient foetus but be indifferent to the fate of a calf being separated from its mother and cut up for food.
Now you are just distracting from the topic; however if the mother chose to have sex or get inseminated she is responsible for the child, and if there was a man involved then he is responsible also.I don't presume to judge rights and wrongs, I just look to see if people are consistent in their beliefs. If someone were to insist that a mother took her embryo to term but were resistant to paying the taxes necessary to give her optimum medical assistance and welfare compensation for her loss of earning capacity and to pay for education, healthcare and facilities for the resultant child I would think that was inconsistent, hypocritical even.
& BTW I never mentioned doing anything to anything after birth, reread my statement.(edit- & btw, "upon birth" means it's no longer a foetus, right? And it's foetuses we're discussing. Infanticide is another debate.)
I completely disagree - all morality is subjective. The ancient Greeks used to let sickly babies die - for them it would be immoral to let weak people develop that would be a burden on the whole society. Cannibals eat people, and you say yourself that diet is subjective.Morality may be a bit subjective when it comes to what to eat or watch on TV, but when you are talking about what you are and are not allowed to do to another human being that is a different matter. If you cannot see a difference in humans and animals regardless of DNA similarities then that's sad.
If the child is her responsibility, it's her decision. If someone insists on making the decision for her by denying her legal recourse to termination, then the child becomes their responsibility.Now you are just distracting from the topic; however if the mother chose to have sex or get inseminated she is responsible for the child, and if there was a man involved then he is responsible also.
I did - you seem to be suggesting that the child would be studied for diseases - after birth. If that's not what you meant you should express yourself better.& BTW I never mentioned doing anything to anything after birth, reread my statement.
Well then the ancient Greeks could be considered immoral by today's standards unless you think letting sick babies starve to death is okay along with eating your neighbor.I completely disagree - all morality is subjective. The ancient Greeks used to let sickly babies die - for them it would be immoral to let weak people develop that would be a burden on the whole society. Cannibals eat people, and you say yourself that diet is subjective.
Well then try this on for size, Ad hominem fallacy, we are not debating "Anti-abortionists," the subject is whether the unborn have right to live or not.Your second comment is a rhetorical troll that doesn't belong in a civilised debate - I'm not biting.
She has the decision not to get pregnant or to get pregnant, that is her recourse. As soon as someone decides to have sex the result is their responsibility. If one day you decide you don't want to foot the bill for your teenager's care you do not have the legal recourse to terminate him or her.If the child is her responsibility, it's her decision. If someone insists on making the decision for her by denying her legal recourse to termination, then the child becomes their responsibility.
Studying someone is not illegal last I checked... besides the reason they did it (hypothetically) is irrelevant; would that action be legal, moral, or okay by your standards or logic?I did - you seem to be suggesting that the child would be studied for diseases - after birth. If that's not what you meant you should express yourself better.
And they may consider us immoral by their standards. That's my point.Well then the ancient Greeks could be considered immoral by today's standards unless you think letting sick babies starve to death is okay along with eating your neighbor.
The only ad hom here was your slur on me, not that I care about it.Well then try this on for size, Ad hominem fallacy, we are not debating "Anti-abortionists," the subject is whether the unborn have right to live or not.
That's absurd. Fertilisation is not volitional.She has the decision not to get pregnant or to get pregnant, that is her recourse.
So stop telling them what they should do. It's THEIR responsibility remember - all you're doing is heckling.As soon as someone decides to have sex the result is their responsibility.
Your posts are full of non-sequiturs and weird tangents.Studying someone is not illegal last I checked... besides the reason they did it (hypothetically) is irrelevant; would that action be legal, moral, or okay by your standards or logic?
But abortion does not result in a suffering human being born (unlike sometimes the outlawing of it) so your point is irrelevant to the discussion.If scientist were experimenting with human fetuses and they were then born in life long agony due to the express purpose of creating that agony for any reason, they would be tried as violating human rights.
Their standards are irrelevant to this debate, but our standards are relevant because practices (such as abortion) result from them.And they may consider us immoral by their standards. That's my point.
Social norms are most often products of morality.The only ad hom here was your slur on me, not that I care about it.
Rights do not exist in nature. They are a product of societal norms consolidated by legislation. The unborn only have the right to live if we confer it on them. For very good reasons we don't.
Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. Sex is volitional and so is in vitro fertilization.That's absurd. Fertilisation is not volitional.
Stop telling me what I should be telling them to do...So stop telling them what they should do. It's THEIR responsibility remember - all you're doing is heckling.
I explained my resoning quite well but thanks for playing... "This is the issue with any murder, the victim is not around to represent themselves as a victim. There needs to be another person to represent them, and unfortunately the government has bowed largely to political pressure, and fancy fallacious lawyer speak in the case of abortion.Your posts are full of non-sequiturs and weird tangents.
Are you asking if I think it would be okay to use a fertilised human egg for scientific research? For non-frivolous reasons that could lead to benefits to society I would be fine with that. Sucking your cheeks and wagging your finger would not change my view on that, but if you could string a reasoned argument together I would be interested to hear it.
That is exactly my point, because the person is dead they are not there to defend their right to life.But abortion does not result in a suffering human being born...
If you want to discuss that start another topic.Just out of interest - apart from the right of fertilised egg-cellls of homo sapiens to come to term, what other rights are you in favour of?
The entire issue boils down to who has priority-
A mother, who chooses ( maybe for medical reasons, far more likely simple to avoid the difficulty of pregnancy and child raising) to abort her baby.
Or, the baby, who wants to live.
Every single word on the topic boils down to who gets the priority of choice? The baby or the mother?
Well for one not everyone on this forum lives in the US and its a bit presumptuous on your part to assume this debate is revolves around US law; however the US constitution guaranties the right to life and abortion violates that right. In no way is this discussion about breaking law to begin with and that is just a false premise. No one here said we should go out and be vigilantes for justice, we are merely discussing what is just.Hehe, you assumed the embryo/fetus/child wants to live, or that they're even capable of choosing. You also assume, by your very statement, that a woman wants an abortion for convenience. Rather presumptuous on your part.
Fact is, a woman is alive, full capable of surviving. When pregnant, her survival (and health) is compromised. If she pursues full term, she may die, at which point so will the embryo/fetus/child.
Abortion relates to a procedure performed when the embryo/fetus is not viable, not capable of physically surviving sans uterus.
Rather obvious where the choice is, and where it should be.
YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME? IT'S THE LAW!
Federal law, backed by a Supreme Court ruling, mandates the right of choice, and yet we still have people trying to curtail and/or subjugate the law through State mandates that are repeatedly being found unconstitutional (and thus illegal), but nonetheless succeed in harming plenty of women in the interim. Indeed, there repeatedly are new mandates being throw out to make it exceedingly difficult, for facilities providing abortion, to stay above the law, like the new one imposed in Mississippi, which requires all physicians in a clinic to have access to a local hospital, despite them having a license to practice medicine in that State. This is problematic for the reason hospitals are not required to allow a doctor access to their facilities. It's also unnecessary, as any complications will be managed by emergency room staff, not the ob/gyn. And yet, what it does is pose yet one more obstacle for the only abortion clinic left standing in Mississippi. Mississippi and other States have classed it as illegal for a woman to cross into another State to obtain an abortion. In some States, it is virtually impossible to obtain an abortion precisely because of the physical threats posed by groups or individuals and legal obstacles posed by State governments..
Ultimately, neither the Federal government, nor the States, own any of us, thus laws should not infringe on travel or medical care, which is precisely what an out of State abortion constitutes.
THIS DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT CHOICE vs. LIFE, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER TO RESPECT THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, BY ALLOWING WOMEN THE RIGHT OF CHOICE, OR TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION, BY DENYING A WOMAN MEDICAL CARE AND BY FORCING HER TO GO TO FULL TERM AGAINST HER WILL.
In other words, this discussion is really about trying to justify breaking the law.
Well for one not everyone on this forum lives in the US and its a bit presumptuous on your part to assume this debate is revolves around US law; however the US constitution guaranties the right to life and abortion violates that right. In no way is this discussion about breaking law to begin with and that is just a false premise. No one here said we should go out and be vigilantes for justice, we are merely discussing what is just.
And no, I'm not avoiding your query regarding fetal experimentation. It is simply not the topic at hand and thus a violation of the forum rules to further discuss it. If you wish to discuss it, create a new thread specifically pertaining to fetal experimentation instead of attempting to derail the ongoing discussion.WillyPete said:I also notice you are avoiding my question about experimenting on human fetuses and letting them be born and whether that would be violating human rights... I guess you are not so sure about your emotion based position after all.
There, you've said it - this is all about you wanting to take rights away from women - via the law ie using the government to erode our rights. That's everything we need to know about you right there.I don't think the mother has a right to choose, and there should be no priority to right to life.
Oh right it was the Delaration of Independence:You are incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that provides the right to life. Indeed, posing such would be absurd, even ignoring the inability to prevent eventual death, having such a clause would provide citizens the right to refuse combat service.[/i]
I guess that ruling goes against the DOI also.Even before Roe vs Wade, abortion was allowed in the first/second trimesters by Common Law. The Constitution protects the right to autonomy, to privacy, to choice. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the case of Roe vs Wade, mandating that States cannot infringe upon a woman's, or a man's, right to choice, privacy, autonomy.[/i]
see aboveYou are wrong. In the U.S., it is wrong, it is illegal, it is a CRIME, to deny a woman the right to choose to obtain an abortion. [/i]
Just because something is popular does not make it right.54 other countries, over 60% of the world's population and every English-speaking nation, also stand by this assertion, thus making my earlier comments NOT presumptuous.[/i]
See you know I'm right and you are just avoiding the issue. The same logic applies to both scenarios.And no, I'm not avoiding your query regarding fetal experimentation. It is simply not the topic at hand and thus a violation of the forum rules to further discuss it. If you wish to discuss it, create a new thread specifically pertaining to fetal experimentation instead of attempting to derail the ongoing discussion.
Babies are born female and male and they are the ones who rights are being violated by their murder.There, you've said it - this is all about you wanting to take rights away from women - via the law ie using the government to erode our rights. That's everything we need to know about you right there.
You're incapable of listening to reasoned arguments presented by Artemis, HS et al, just keep repeating the same oppressive and illiberal mantra that women should be punished for having sex. Fine. Enjoy your life. I'm bored already.
The DOI does state people have those rights and the 5th amendment of the constitution states "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."Hehe, the Declaration of Independence was not and is not a legal document, it was a statement of demand to England, to be independent, autonomous. And before you try and run with it further, the signers of the DOI were all male, none allowed women any rights, at least 7 had wives under 14 years old, almost all owned slaves, a few had children from their slaves, and all allowed abortion within their respective provinces.
So... you were saying?
Man is just the term used for human's as a group.[/I]So, is a fertilised egg a "man"then? Seems to be stretching it.
Actually they would not be happy with you. As you said one person's rights cannot infringe upon another's. The mother's rights do not supersede the unborn's rights to life, therefore you cannot kill the child to save the mother even if both lives are in jeopardy.One person's rights end where another's begins - if you accord a fertilised egg the right to life you infringe the rights of the mother to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and sometimes even her own right to life. The Founding Fathers will not help you Willy.
Yet again "anti-abortionists," this debate has nothing to do with anti-abortionists or the Chinese government for that manner; however as far as the China goes, they have never been very progressive when it comes to human rights, and are not usually the model for attaining to for human rights.During the Chinese one-child programme it would probably have been sometimes considered immoral NOT to have an abortion. So much for universal moral laws.
How about these anti-abortionists manning up to their own responsibilities and taking care of the children they would indirectly bring into the world as a result of their own actions? Dem all talk.