Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by idiom
1. Why does a woman not foreit her right to not be pregnant when she chooses to become pregnant? If raped why would you punish the embryo rather than the rapist?

Not valid: we are dealing with the rare beast--a true pro-lifer.

jpbrooks

Well, long winded anticipated my position on this matter, but I'll post my comments anyway.
I voted "never" because the reasons that I have heard to justify killing fetuses don't take into account the possibility that we may have some moral responsibility for the way that we approach living things in general. This does not mean that all forms of life should be viewed as having equal value from the standpoint of morality. So, for instance, in cases where a pregnant woman's fetus poses a physiological threat to her life, it may (depending on the circumstances) not be the case that saving the life of the woman's fetus should be deemed as important as saving her life. (Cases like the previous one, actually have less to do with the morality of intentionally ending the life of a fetus than with intentionally saving its life, but this kind of case often comes up in discourse about the morality of abortion.)

We (generally) don't consider fetuses with human DNA to be a part of our food chain, and it is not clear how fetuses could pose a general threat to any segment of humankind (living outside the womb). So even though a woman has the legal right to choose to abort her fetus, I personally can't find any more moral justification for killing fetuses than for killing newborn infants.

In stating my position above, I am not recommending that anyone else adopt it. However, I am open to criticism from any other viewpoint.

Dr Rick

long winded fool; your arguments are based upon your own subjective morals, not logic. Your failure is in your inability to accept that your moral standards are neither superior to nor more logical than all others:



You provide no logical argument here, just your own opinion. On what feat of logic do you base this judgement? You have previously insisted that a fetus has a right to life, but now arbitrarily subordinate that right to another set of rights without any argument or basis upon which to evaluate your stance. There is no exercise of logic in your declaration and no supportive objective standard; there is nothing is this proclamation but your own subjective, illogical opinion.

Here's another arbitrary assertion; your claim is that one set of rights supercede another, but that is nothing more than just your unsubstantiated claim. There is no logical argument provided to support your assertion, and yet you post it as if it is a fact.

Your arguments are miserable because they are not arguments at all; they are just your own unverifiable assertions.



It's a question of whether women should be denied the right to abortion

It's a question of why some humans should be free from the burden and risk of pregnancy and not others.



The morality of the pro-life movement does not logically permit this.



The reason for forced gestation is illogical.

I revoke your...actually, this strawman doesn't even warrant a direct counter; it fallaciously assumes that a right to life for a fetus is a given and that women don't have the right to decide for themselves.

Declaring that embryos have rights is begging the question.

I have shown that they don't, and you insist that they should.

Rick

long winded fool

I have logically supported my claims with law. You reject them based on personal agenda and morality. I state that embryos ought to have the right to life because the alternative is not logical. You assert that they don't have the right to life and that this is a good thing. Do you see that this proves nothing? I am aware that embryos do not have the right to life. That is why I am arguing that they should. The fact that they do not have rights is illogical. I have proven this and unless you can refute my logic, you have no case. The logic of my argument speaks for itself. The fact that you have failed to logically refute me shows that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself when you declare my argument not worthy of refutation so that you don't have to refute it. You can pretend that this is a subjective moral issue in order to get out of admitting that you hold an irrational belief, or you can refute me.

Loren Petchel
But you were assuming it was murder.

I have shown that it is murder. This has not been logically refuted and therefore is a valid premise. Stating that since it is not a crime it can't be murder is a non sequitur. It is denying the antecedent. Changing the accepted definition of murder is not logical and invalidates your argument.

In most cases they are.

Is this fact or opinion? How is this determined? Under your morality or under logical reflection? Morality not based on logic is religion. It is believing what makes you feel good without any need for evidence or reason. Therefore if the opinion that women should have the right to abortion is not logical, then it has no place in the laws of a country which separates religion from government. My argument shows this to be the case. Refuting the argument or accepting it are the only logical alternatives here.

You are trying to dismiss the negatives, though.

The consequences of a logical conclusion do not affect its soundness. The theory of evolution caused Adolf Hitler to massacre thousands of Jews. This has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

The problem is that "human" is used to refer to both "person" and "that which is of human origin". Trying to use a word with two relevant meanings leads to confusion.

As a noun, human means human being. As an adjective, human means "that which is of human origin." I am of human origin. I am also a human. My sperm is of human origin, however it is not a human. A fetus is of human origin and a human. I don't think you are really confused by this concept. All these things are a priori true under the scientific definitions of each word availible for anyone to read and thus need no corresponding argument to prove them.

We are defending the status quo, you are the one trying to change it. Thus you are the one redefining humanity.

The status quo is hypocritical. I am showing this. The status quo says equal inalienable human rights, yet in practice human rights are neither equal nor inalienable. The status quo says murder is wrong, yet it also defies itself and allows it. This type of status quo cannot stand. It makes no sense, like slavery. Human being has an accepted definition. It has become status quo to ignore this definition whenever convenient. Since human being retains its definition despite the ignorance of it by the pro-choice, I have defined human being as it is scientifically defined, regardless of subjective interpretation and the assumption that criteria can be added while maintaining the logic of the original definition. If you want to make the choice of abortion a logical one, you must change the scientific definition of human being, or change the law that guarantees equal rights to all human beings. (Or else show logically that this is a false dilemma, which no one has yet been able to do.) Without one of these actions, legal abortion remains categorically irrational.

alek0

Can you repeat concisely your arguments why should fetus have equal rights?

Also, please provide arguments why should any "right of the fetus" take precendence of the rights of the mother.

Also, can you explain why should a woman be forced to provide support to fetus, while the rest of the population need not be forced to donate organs, bone marrow etc. to "save lives of innocents". If I have a right to refuse to donate a kidney, I should have a right to refuse to lend my body for a 9 month period, especially considering that the body will not be returned to me in the same condition.

Loren Pechtel

Some people consider the placenta to be something to eat.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
I have logically supported my claims with law.

Law?! And when are you going to be arrested for it? Abortion is legal!

I state that embryos ought to have the right to life because the alternative is not logical.

You are basing your arguments on semantics that fall apart if you use "person" instead of "human".

I have proven this and unless you can refute my logic, you have no case.

You have proven no such thing.

The logic of my argument speaks for itself. The fact that you have failed to logically refute me shows that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself when you declare my argument not worthy of refutation so that you don't have to refute it.

Your argument is based on semantics only.

I have shown that it is murder. This has not been logically refuted and therefore is a valid premise. Stating that since it is not a crime it can't be murder is a non sequitur. It is denying the antecedent. Changing the accepted definition of murder is not logical and invalidates your argument.

Murder is unlawful killing. What law?!

Is this fact or opinion? How is this determined? Under your morality or under logical reflection? Morality not based on logic is religion.

If two standards are not in actual conflict there is no reason to think one is inherently wrong.

You are trying to dismiss the negatives, though.

The consequences of a logical conclusion do not affect its soundness. The theory of evolution caused Adolf Hitler to massacre thousands of Jews. This has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

Ok, now you at least seem willing to accept it. Before you were trying to dismiss it.

As a noun, human means human being. As an adjective, human means "that which is of human origin." I am of human origin. I am also a human. My sperm is of human origin, however it is not a human. A fetus is of human origin and a human. I don't think you are really confused by this concept.

If your argument is valid it will stand up even if you don't use the word human. Wanna try it?

We are defending the status quo, you are the one trying to change it. Thus you are the one redefining humanity.

The status quo is hypocritical. I am showing this.

So you admit you're the one redefining humanity?

If you want to make the choice of abortion a logical one, you must change the scientific definition of human being, or change the law that guarantees equal rights to all human beings.

Or recognize that what the law protects are persons, not merely human beings.

Bumble Bee Tuna

long winded fool:

Why must women be forced to keep a fetus alive, but I can't force you to donate a kidney to save a life?

If you do not support forcing someone to save someone's life through donating parts of their bodies, it follows that you cannot support forcing someone to carry a fetus to term. If you still draw this conclusion, it can only e because abortion is actively killing in your eyes instead of just not providing support. What if, then, a pregnant women simply had an abortion where they just cut the umbilical cord? She's not killing it now, just no longer being forced to support it.

Also: You keep talking about "humans" "human beings" and 'inalienable rights". You also claim that your position is based entirely on logic. Where is the logic of these inalienable rights? You haven't supported that statement.

-B

idiom

I voted never, on the basis that the slipery slope extends all the way through a humans life. Unless we arbitraily set a value on human life it doesn't exist.

It is the attempt to justify that arbitration by refering to conciousness or whatever, that creates the slope. It is wiser to leave it from conception>death.

Allowing leeway on that causes the majority of war crimes.

pilaar

--------------------------------------
long winded fool:
How are the consequences of illegal infanticide not placing a woman in a police state? Answer this and you've answered your own question.
------------------------------------------

Because a born baby is a human being with full human rights.

The embryo is not a separate human being, it is a cluster of cells, not even the body recognises that it is a separate full human being. In the cases of naural human chimeras, the two embryos merge and only one human being is born. Here:

---------------------------------------
pilaar:
What about human chimeras? Human chimeras occur naturally when two eggs become fertilized but, instead of developing into twins, one is fused into another in the womb, making a single individual with two distinct sets of genes. Does that mean that one has killed another human being and should be tried for murder? Or was it that two sets of embryos/cells merged?
--------------------------------------


---------------------------------------
long winded fool:
Women have to do what the law tells them to do. If they don't, they commit a crime. Men are no different. If a woman can voluntarily cause a miscarriage without being charged with murder, then I can voluntarily cause a miscarriage without being charged with murder. Since this is not the case, why don't you argue that men are the ones living in the police state and have fewer rights than women?
--------------------------------------

Legal abortion is not about being anti-male. Men are not the only ones to be charged if they cause a bodily harm to another and cause a misscarriage. Women who commit this offence to another woman are also charged the same as men. Mens rights are not violated in this case. Legal abortion is also not anti-male, becase both male and female embryos get aborted.
Legal abortion addresses the imbalance and specific condition in which females find themselves. Legislation should be just for both males and females. Majority of legislation applies equally to males and females. Some legislation addresses specific male or specific female conditions and in these cases it is just that they are different. Eg. I personally believe that automatic male circumcision should be illegal, unless where medical conditions require it. I dont' believe that parents should have the right to decide this on behalf of the child, because the child owns their body (unless for medical conditions and the decision has to be made). Once that child is grown up they can decide whatever they wish, and I can still give them my opinion but the decision is in their hands. However, as the male circumcision affects males primarily, I believe that the decision to make the circumcision illegal is primarily in their hands. I and I support that. There are some medical conditions which are also gender defined, I support equal care for both prostate cancer and ovarian cancer for example.

In the same way, legalised abortion addresses the issues which women are facing primarily, it also addresses the fact that society as a whole is not willing to take more responsibility for childrearing. Even though the children are the future of the society and both males & females benefit equally from that future. When our generations will be pensioners, it is the grown up children who will support our lives, pensions, medical treatment, development, invention, they are the ones who will keep the society going. Without children there is not future for the society, there is no space travel, manufacturing, politics etc etc. However, women are still the ones who shoulder the most responsibility for rearing of children and are in many cases disadvantaged precisely because of pregnancy and motherhood. Financially, timewise, emotionally etc. Society is not prepared to shouder the financial burden of the children, which both mother and father would abandon for watever reason if abortion was made illegal.
However, pro-lifers are still claiming that the woman is the one who is the sole murderess in case of abortion. But she makes the decision on behalf of the father and on behalf of the society, who is not willing to shoulder the responsibility of bringing up the child. I know some women who have had an abortion and all of them have had one with fathers consent. I personally do not know any woman, who had the financial & emotional conditions & willing partner, who have despite this gone and had an abortion. I do know some single women, who have had a child despite the father not wanting to. Many men object to being forced to help out when they don't want a child and the mother decides against the abortion. She gives birth and invests all her time, money, future etc into bringing up the child. I know cases where fathers have stopped working to avoid payments. Although single mothers now receive payment from the government in Australia, it is rarely above basic and poverty level. By not being able to work full time and secure profession, have money to make investments, have money to buy a house and pay off the morgage, pay superannuation, they end up living on basic pension when they are old. They have trouble securing partners (who are not fathers) because a partner does not only enter partnership with the mother, but has to take the children as well. Single mothers don't get any economical conssessions for the fact that they brough up children singlehandedly. I
If involuntary conception does occur, both woman and man have not been responsible with contraception. But woman shoulders the main responsibility for the consenquences and the fact that she is called a murderess by some, when she is the one having to make the decision which suits the man involved as well as the society which is not prepared to take more responsibility for the rearing of children.

As I mentioned before, the industrial work legislation is not friendly to motherhood. It is also not friendly to fatherhood. In Australia, even though the last consensus shows that only about 19 % of the families are living in a traditional way (father a sole financial provider, mother stay-at-home-mum), the majority of work legislation is still based on this model. It is based on the traditional male circumstances, it is based on the model that a person will not have to break the working life due to pregnancy, it is based on the model that long working hours are ok, it does not allow for sick leave due to sick children. It is based on the assumption that a working person has a 'wife' and a 'mother' of the children at home, who has the time to take care of that. It also does not allow fathers to take more responsibility for child rearing, except financially.

These are some of the inbalances that females are having to consider when they involuntarily concieve, which is the result of both male and female engaging in sex. Pregnancy and childrearing is not only a slight discomfort, it is a lifetime decision for women. And when they decide to abort, they are doing it on behalf of both and with the fathe, as well as on behalf of the society as it is now, but pro-lifers place the burden of murder charge solely on the womans' shoulder.

The legal abortion is not here to promote the killing of the embryos, it is set in place to correct the above imbalances. Until such time when the abortion can be made obsolete by the methods which I mentioned in one of the above posts.

pilaar