Would you have an abortion? (1 Viewer)

[Lundy]

When you highlight the differentiation between a two week old baby and an unborn one, being that one has a formed body and the other doesn't, how does it make sense to grant them both the same rights?

A newborn baby is still relatively undeveloped (and still completely dependant on it's mother, at that). But do we grant an adult more rights as a human than a baby on account of that?

 

[crazyhomo]

A newborn baby is still relatively undeveloped (and still completely dependant on it's mother, at that). But do we grant an adult more rights as a human than a baby on account of that?

based on the fact that an adult can vote, drink, drive, smoke, have sex and watch porn i'm gonna say, yes, an adult does have more rights as a human being than a newborn baby

 

[ogmzergrush]

A newborn baby is still relatively undeveloped (and still completely dependant on it's mother, at that). But do we grant an adult more rights as a human than a baby on account of that?

Seeing as we're being witty and distorting the point, what I'm saying is that I see significant differences in the way we should treat this:

and this:

The "omg you wouldn't kill #2, why kill #1" argument holds no water, because you sure as fuck wouldn't put a cute little beanie on #1 either.

 

[iambored]

But look at #1, it's there, it's human.

based on the fact that an adult can vote, drink, drive, smoke, have sex and watch porn i'm gonna say, yes, an adult does have more rights as a human being than a newborn baby

But the newborn can't look after themself, they are more fragile. They have the same 'rights.' Adults dont' have the 'right' to watch porn.

 

[*Minka*]

unborn or not, its still the womans child. regardless of how 'formed' it is.
what i am saying is where do you draw the line? why is it morally (and legally) ok to abort before 3 months but not after? its the same child, only older. a young baby is basically dependent upon its mother. your argument is basically that abortions are ok, because the unborn child is nothing mroe than a 'blob of meat' on the basis that the body is not fully formed and dependent upon it's mother.

a young baby is still basically in this boat.

Because in the first trimester, the fetus is not yet a human being - it is a potential human being. It is not the same as killing a person. And in that siutation, the child can be handed to someone else. You can't hand a pregnancy to someone else.

 

[Lundy]

Well no, I wouldn't kill number 1 either. It's still discernably human. Other women might have few qualms about doing so, but I couldn't.

And crazyhomo knew exactly what I meant. A baby is considered human and thus given exactly the same fundamental right to live as anybody else. Why though? all they do is cry and eat and shit everywhere.

 

[Benny1103]

As I see it, whether an adult has more rights than a baby or vice versa is not really clear cut. However, I cannot see how anyone could possibly argue that the rights of something the size of a pea, which is not even human, has 'rights' which are even comparable to that of a child or adult.

 

[glycerine]

i would have an abortion because at this point in my life i have no desire for children. it wouldn't even be a question of '*will* you have an abortion?', it'd be 'when?'

that said, i respect that other people don't like it. and i would never pressure someone into abortion if they were really against it. all i expect is the same respect from others; you may have your opinion but ultimately it's not your burden to bear.

 

[crazyhomo]

And crazyhomo knew exactly what I meant. A baby is considered human and thus given exactly the same fundamental right to live as anybody else. Why though? all they do is cry and eat and shit everywhere.

But the newborn can't look after themself, they are more fragile. They have the same 'rights.' Adults dont' have the 'right' to watch porn.

how can you dispute that adults have more rights than children? it written into law. i'm not trying to make any moral argument about whether or not it should be this way, but it's just a fact. in this country turning 18 (or 16 in some cases) gives you more rights. until then the law doesn't even consider you capable of commiting a crime

 

[glycerine]

in this country turning 18 (or 16 in some cases) gives you more rights. until then the law doesn't even consider you capable of commiting a crime

uhhhh no. your criminal liability increases then, but children over the age of 10/14 (depending on the type of crime etc) are criminally liable, altho admittedly not to the same extent as adults. the childrens court decides on an individual basis whether the child has sufficient mens rea to have knowingly committed a criminal act.

 

[Lundy]

As I see it, whether an adult has more rights than a baby or vice versa is not really clear cut. However, I cannot see how anyone could possibly argue that the rights of something the size of a pea, which is not even human, has 'rights' which are even comparable to that of a child or adult.

It's a grey area though. I don't have a clear-cut belief either way, just because the whole issue is immensely complicated and I'm forever to-ing and fro-ing from one stance to another.

We have rights now, we had rights when we were born, we even had rights just before we were born (termination after a particular stage being illegal). Was there really a stage in our existence where we had no right to exist? I know a lot of people would say that since a foetus is completely dependant on it's mother to survive, it's then up to the mother's discretion whether the foetus will live or die. I just wonder why it's acceptable to play god in some cases and not in others, and if so, where do we draw the line?

how can you dispute that adults have more rights than children? it written into law. i'm not trying to make any moral argument about whether or not it should be this way, but it's just a fact. in this country turning 18 (or 16 in some cases) gives you more rights. until then the law doesn't even consider you capable of commiting a crime

No you're missing my point again. I'm not talking about the right to drink or smoke or vote. I mean the FUNDAMENTAL rights granted to all people (ideally). It's murder to kill a baby just as it's murder to kill an adult. A baby can receive medical care, welfare, etc, because it's health and wellbeing is considered equally as important as anyone elses'. In fact, I'd go as far to say that a baby's safety is of greater priority than that of an adults, due to it's inability to fend for itself.

 

[Benny1103]

I think some people are just nitpicking when they say that a one week old 'foetus' has the same rights as an actual human. It's not 'playing God' to get rid of something which isn't even alive.

The argument that a foetus is alive is a purely emotionally motivated argument. I say this because the huge difference between what a human is, and what a feotus is, is plain and clear. People who suggest that the two have the same rights are letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

 

[iambored]

What is the difference between a foetus and human besides that humans can exist independently and foetuses must be attached to their mother? Foetuses are less developed, but you could argue children are less developed adults - it's just a stage of life. I still think the foetus is living.

 

[YBK]

I think some people are just nitpicking when they say that a one week old 'foetus' has the same rights as an actual human. It's not 'playing God' to get rid of something which isn't even alive.

The argument that a foetus is alive is a purely emotionally motivated argument. I say this because the huge difference between what a human is, and what a feotus is, is plain and clear. People who suggest that the two have the same rights are letting their emotions cloud their judgment.

What do you mean a foetus has the same rights as an 'actual human'? Of course it has, don't you think it should have the right to live?! The argument that a foetus is alive is not purely emotional at all; and I do not see the "plain and clear" difference between a 'human being' and a feotus, especially since a human being IS developed from a feotus. Could you care to try and enlighten me; the only difference is that a 'human being' can be physically seen; you can touch a 'human being', you can also relate with a human. But that is clearly not the case with a feotus right? Does that automatically take away its right to live!?

Okay, take this scenario. You have been placed in another planet, among a different intellectual species. Do you think it's fair for them to kill you merely because they can't communicate with you? Because they can't emotionally connect with you?

By the way, if you want proof that feotus is living, just look at any person around you. We were all a feotus once upon a time. Scientific evidence is also present regarding the feotus being alive.

 

[Riviet]

Would you have an abortion?

I guess this question is more important for women, as they are the ones who ultimately must decide.

 

[Phanatical]

Fathers, and society as a whole must also have a say though. Without establishing guidelines for moral behaviour, there would be no foundation for society.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Fathers, and society as a whole must also have a say though. Without establishing guidelines for moral behaviour, there would be no foundation for society.

and who are you to say what morals exactly are for society?

you, who believes sex can only be had for creation, and expect society as a whole to actually be able to do so.

 

[Generator]

Fathers, and society as a whole must also have a say though. Without establishing guidelines for moral behaviour, there would be no foundation for society.

Few people are of the opinion that such people shouldn't have a say, but given that we are talking about a woman's reproductive rights, the fact of the matter is that the decision is ultimately (and should always be) the woman's alone. As for your point regarding morals, UIC seems to have covered that well enough.

 

[Benny1103]

What do you mean a foetus has the same rights as an 'actual human'? Of course it has, don't you think it should have the right to live?! The argument that a foetus is alive is not purely emotional at all; and I do not see the "plain and clear" difference between a 'human being' and a feotus, especially since a human being IS developed from a feotus. Could you care to try and enlighten me; the only difference is that a 'human being' can be physically seen; you can touch a 'human being', you can also relate with a human. But that is clearly not the case with a feotus right? Does that automatically take away its right to live!?

I can only begin to explain to you what should be obvious anyway, if you elaborate on how the argument that a feotus is alive is not predominantly an emotive arguement.

Okay, take this scenario. You have been placed in another planet, among a different intellectual species. Do you think it's fair for them to kill you merely because they can't communicate with you? Because they can't emotionally connect with you?

Your example is based on the idea of fairness which in itself is an emotionally motivated scenario. Further, by considering a planet different from ours, you would also need to consider their 'laws.' For instance, many people said that we have no say in how Singapore runs its punishment system (the Nguyen issue). That is because it's their country and it's their laws. The same applies to your scenario. Whether or not I believe it is fair for them to kill anyone on their planet is irrelevant because I'm not on my planet, I'm on their planet. So their laws apply to me no matter how 'wrong' I may think they are. You shouldn't use such obscure examples.

By the way, if you want proof that feotus is living, just look at any person around you. We were all a feotus once upon a time. Scientific evidence is also present regarding the feotus being alive.

What you said applies to sperm as well. Like I said before, many people are just nitpicking. Besides, the animals that we consume were also living at one stage. What then gives us the right to take away its life just "because we can't connect with it at an emotional level?"

Do you see the flaw in the previous sentence? If it wasn't immediately obvious then the flaw with it is that humans and the animals we eat; both what they are and what their needs are, differ substantially. This is how we justify killing animals so that we can consume them. A similar argument applies to why a foetus and a human are very different things. I seriously didn't think that anyone couldn't see the huge difference, but I guess I was wrong about that.

 

[braad]

just some thoughts

What do you mean a foetus has the same rights as an 'actual human'? Of course it has, don't you think it should have the right to live?! The argument that a foetus is alive is not purely emotional at all; and I do not see the "plain and clear" difference between a 'human being' and a feotus, especially since a human being IS developed from a feotus

um, humans develop from a foetus? I wouldnt have a clue, but did you just make a line between the two? surely you should've said "feotus's are developing humans"

Okay, take this scenario. You have been placed in another planet, among a different intellectual species. Do you think it's fair for them to kill you merely because they can't communicate with you? Because they can't emotionally connect with you?

lol, nice question, but yes. i'd expect them to kill me, im obviously an alien to them and they wouldnt know what to do with me

By the way, if you want proof that feotus is living, just look at any person around you. We were all a feotus once upon a time. Scientific evidence is also present regarding the feotus being alive.

from before, you made out that a human is different to a feotus, so an alive human is different to an 'alive' feotus




meh, whatever