(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights". I gave evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual. You keep trying to make my argument into something I never said.

Why did you say “wrong” then reword exactly what I said? In the context of this argument, I can see no difference between “criteria granting rights” and “criteria for what is an individual” (OR “evidence of why I think a fetus iso an individual”). IOW: yes, I know what you gave me and it’s the same thing as “criteria granting rights”.

You keep looking at each criteria in isolation and say at say "Just because of X doesn't mean it's got rights". Well duh! But each criteria I mentioned goes further to the proposition that we are talking about a human individual and not a mass of cells. It's like a biologist using a taxonomy to identify a species. A single characteristic is almost never by itself the defining factor.

I've explained why you are wrong several times in this thread, but you keep coming back to the same bull as if by repetition you can turn it into gold.
Now regarding your criteria: Upon analysis, they all fall apart. Apparently, since you think my previous efforts were “lame”, I must go through your list one-by-one and point out what should be excruciatingly obvious:

1) human dna – lots of things in the body have human dna but not rights. Cancers can even have “unique/discrete dna”.

Another example of your poor logic. I never said human dna was the sole criteria.

2) cognitive ability – lots of born people have no cognitive ability (sleeping, retarded, in coma, etc) yet have rights.

People who are retarded have cognitive ability. Being retarded simply means you have less cognitive ability. People who are sleeping have cognitive ability. How do you think an alarm clock wakes somebody up? And some people solve real world problems while they are asleep and wake up with the solution. Some people in comas have cognitive ability. There are many stories of people in comas later waking up and telling their friends and family that they remember them being there and they can even recall the conversations. That said people in comas have less rights! Remember the Terri Schiavo case? A big part of the debate was whether or not she had cognitive brain function. If science determines you lack that then your relatives (or the government) makes decisions for you. You can even be slowly and dehydrated to death. (As was the case with Schiavo). The only way to fully protect your rights should you slip into a coma is to spell out your wishes while you are conscious through a living will.

3) the thing can benefit from singing – other things (plants) can benefit from singing but not have rights.

Again I'm not looking at this in isolation. A tire by itself is not a car. But a car has tires. Your argument fails.

4) you get more out of singing to the thing – same as above, and more.

I'm not looking at this in isolation. Again you fail.

5) the thing recognizes your singing voice – see DOGS; they don’t have rights.

I'm not looking at this in isolation. Again you fail.

6) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby – see #1.

I see you still aren't even going to attempt to answer this question. So I'll ask it again. Do you think that a baby pulled halfway out the birth canal at 9 months is an individual or not? Yes or no? If no then why not?

7) people cry about loosing the thing – people cry about losing LOTS of things that don’t have rights.

Again I'm not looking at this in isolation. But further more this wasn't even my point! I pointed out that the medical profession considers the fetus a baby when it's a miscarriage! This simply shows hypocrisy on the part of the profession itself. Either it should tell mothers who just lost their baby "You just lost a tumor, get over it" or it should be honest with regards to what happens with abortions.

Now regarding my idea of an individual person with rights, I have previously delineated it.

Fine. One more time won't hurt you. It won't take any more time than it does for you to keep cutting and pasting your distortions of my position.

Finally, how about you stop with the attempts to lower the standard of the debate? I’ll appreciate you not continuing to call me names (like “jerk”).

I'll appreciate you not acting like a jerk with comments like "I seeeee. NOT!" or untrue statements like "It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre." But I will apologize for sinking to your level.

 

[idirtify]

Which right of the mother is the baby infringing on by existing?

That’s ultimately up to the mother to say, but as we just demonstrated, it would likely be akin to trespassing or some other invasion violation.

Are you suggesting that pregnancy is an infringement on a mother's rights?

See above.

Then does that mean all pregnancies should be aborted in order to protect those rights?

No. See above.

Are you still trying to say that a human arm and an unborn child are equivalent?

No more “equivalent” than any other attempt at an analogy.

I already stated, a human arm is not a human being.

Yes, I know. I never claimed “human being” = “arm”.

A human arm does not have rights on its own, whether inside or outside another human being. It does not have rights. The unborn child does. It has the right to life whether inside or outside its mother.

There you go again, asserting rights without consistent basis.

Again, I'll ask. Is a mother allowed to cut the baby in half midway through delivery, since half of the "invading" baby is inside of her? When does it become a person according to you?

Don’t know. Not a part of my argument. Because what’s the issue? It’s already coming out.

On that point, how is a fetus an invader, anyway? Invaders come from outside and infringe on a perimeter. A developing child does not fit this definition.

It’s up to the woman to say. But if she says it’s as much a trespasser as any other thing that is growing inside her, who are you to claim it does not fit the definition?

 

[idirtify]

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights". snip

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights".

What’s the difference?

I gave evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual.

I don’t think you understand principle or logical debate. You’ll claim a criterion (you are not only claiming “characteristics”, but things like singing, etc), and then I will refute it. Then you’ll come back and claim another, then I’ll refute it. Then you come and claim it’s not just one (or a few) criterion but all of them together and more; and imply that it could be millions. Again: I don’t think you understand “principle” (or “standard”, or “consistent”). IOW, no matter how many of your reasons I prove to be fallacious, you will simply reply with something to the effect: “it’s everything combined” or “I’m not looking at this in isolation” or some other cop-out.

People who are retarded have cognitive ability. snip

Not all retarded people have cognitive ability; there are many degrees, down to the severely retarded. Not all sleepers have cognitive ability; many deep sleepers can not be woken with an alarm. And you even agree that most people in comas have no cognitive ability. And since I only needed to show ONE example of a class of individual human with rights, yet with no cognitive ability, your criterion is refuted.

I see you still aren't even going to attempt to answer this question. So I'll ask it again. Do you think that a baby pulled halfway out the birth canal at 9 months is an individual or not? Yes or no? If no then why not?

See previous post. The question is about as relevant as asking if you shove someone out of a skyscraper, if you are a murderer before they hit the ground – or if you are a millionaire before you cash your winning lottery ticket.

Fine. One more time won't hurt you. It won't take any more time than it does for you to keep cutting and pasting your distortions of my position.

Once born.

I'll appreciate you not acting like a jerk with comments like "I seeeee. NOT!" or untrue statements like "It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre." But I will apologize for sinking to your level.

Again: Stop with the personal remarks. You have no excuse, let alone that it’s my fault or that I initiated it. If you persist, you’ll at least be seen as intentionally running the thread into the dirt in order to get it locked because you can’t support your positions.

 

[tasteless]

That’s ultimately up to the mother to say, but as we just demonstrated, it would likely be akin to trespassing or some other invasion violation.

But if her claim is questioned, she needs to be able to demonstrate a right was violated. And if her right WAS violated, she needs to demonstrate that she was right to kill the child.

You're saying that an action can violate the rights of one woman, but the same action doesn't necessarily violate the rights of another. And you say I'm being inconsistent?

No more “equivalent” than any other attempt at an analogy.

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

Yes, I know. I never claimed “human being” = “arm”.

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

There you go again, asserting rights without consistent basis.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that discrete human life needs to be protected from murder attempts, regardless of location.

Don’t know. Not a part of my argument. Because what’s the issue? It’s already coming out.

It's not part of the argument because you're in denial about the parts where your criteria for personhood fall short.

The issue is that partial birth abortions are performed, and there was just recently a supreme court decision concerning partial birth abortions.

I guess since it doesn't fit your argument, you're going to pretend like it's no big deal.

You can't even give an answer for when personhood begins, so who are you to say whether or not the unborn child deserves protection from murder attempts?

It’s up to the woman to say. But if she says it’s as much a trespasser as any other thing that is growing inside her, who are you to claim it does not fit the definition?

Are you suggesting women have immunity from the scrutiny of the legal process? Why do women have more rights than others?

 

[idirtify]

But if her claim is questioned, she needs to be able to demonstrate a right was violated. And if her right WAS violated, she needs to demonstrate that she was right to kill the child.

That’s easy. “It’s inside me.”

You're saying that an action can violate the rights of one woman, but the same action doesn't necessarily violate the rights of another. And you say I'm being inconsistent?

Huh?

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

Where?

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

Where?

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that discrete human life needs to be protected from murder attempts, regardless of location.

That’s your opening position. Of course it’s consistent. So what? What really needs to be consistent is your proof / evidence / criteria / principle / support / backup.

It's not part of the argument because you're in denial about the parts where your criteria for personhood fall short.

The issue is that partial birth abortions are performed, and there was just recently a supreme court decision concerning partial birth abortions.

I guess since it doesn't fit your argument, you're going to pretend like it's no big deal.

You can't even give an answer for when personhood begins, so who are you to say whether or not the unborn child deserves protection from murder attempts?

So since there is a point in the birth process/canal when the fetus is minutes or seconds from being an individual person with rights, you claim that shows that the fetus was always an individual person with rights. I don’t understand your logic. How does this in-between hair-splitting transition point show anything of the sort?

Are you suggesting women have immunity from the scrutiny of the legal process? Why do women have more rights than others?

No and no. Any man would have just as much of a right to say a thing growing inside him is a trespasser.

 

[tasteless]

That’s easy. “It’s inside me.”

We're going in circles... Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?

Huh?

Woman A is pregnant, claims the fetus is invading her and kills it. Woman B is pregnant, but does nothing. Is Woman B's child still committing an injustice on her?

Where?

"If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had?"

You are comparing a fetus to an arm and claiming that the arm loses its rights. Unlike a fetus, which is a discrete human being (and therefore possess rights), an arm has no rights on its own.

That’s your opening position. Of course it’s consistent. So what? What really needs to be consistent is your proof / evidence / criteria / principle / support / backup.

I asked you to justify abortion and posed certain hypothetical scenarios for you to apply your logic to in order to determine whether or not you were correct. You refused to answer some of those questions, probably because answering would demonstrate your logic was flawed.

So since there is a point in the birth process/canal when the fetus is minutes or seconds from being an individual person with rights, you claim that shows that the fetus was always an individual person with rights. I don’t understand your logic. How does this in-between hair-splitting transition point show anything of the sort?

I claim that it shows your argument doesn't pass muster. You know that answering my questions will demonstrate that your argument fails, that's why you continue to balk at them.

If you're going to say that the woman has the right to kill her child because the child is infringing upon a border, you'd better be able to define those borders. Yet you can't.

No and no. Any man would have just as much of a right to say a thing growing inside him is a trespasser.

Why can't others question whether or not her child is a trespasser or not? Especially when the fact that the mother has custody of her child by default makes her claim that the child is trespassing a dubious one.

 

[micahnelson]

We're going in circles... Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?

No, only when you marry the human body you entered. Bada... boom...

Yep, marriage joke in an abortion thread. Post of the week?

 

[idirtify]

Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?

I don’t fully understand your question. Maybe this will answer it. (All I can try to do is continue to reword the simple principle in hopes that one version will sink in.) Since the concept of your “personhood” is based on ownership of your own body, and the concept of your “body” is based on your own location in space-time, nothing that exists inside your space-time matter can have rights over you. If it were any other way, your rights would not exist.

Woman A is pregnant, claims the fetus is invading her and kills it. Woman B is pregnant, but does nothing. Is Woman B's child still committing an injustice on her?

No, of course not. Since woman B has given permission (invited), there is no violation (no trespassing, no invasion).

"If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had?"

You are comparing a fetus to an arm and claiming that the arm loses its rights. Unlike a fetus, which is a discrete human being (and therefore possess rights), an arm has no rights on its own.

You claimed I claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, but I didn’t claim that. Just read the quote again.

I asked you to justify abortion and posed certain hypothetical scenarios for you to apply your logic to in order to determine whether or not you were correct. You refused to answer some of those questions, probably because answering would demonstrate your logic was flawed.

My logic may not be perfectly consistent, but it’s far more consistent than yours.

I claim that it shows your argument doesn't pass muster. You know that answering my questions will demonstrate that your argument fails, that's why you continue to balk at them.

If you're going to say that the woman has the right to kill her child because the child is infringing upon a border, you'd better be able to define those borders. Yet you can't.

Well then, let’s see if you can define yours. Although most events have in-between points/stages/phases which resist simple definitions and which really don’t affect the overall principles, you still think I must better “define those borders”. OK, but why shouldn’t you do the same? Assuming that you claim personhood starts at conception, tell me at what POINT during the process of conception you think personhood starts. Good luck with that; because I believe conception can take at least as long as the birth process.

Why can't others question whether or not her child is a trespasser or not?

Because rights mean that she owns her body, which would naturally include everything that goes on (and exists) within her body’s space-time.

Especially when the fact that the mother has custody of her child by default makes her claim that the child is trespassing a dubious one.

Backwards reasoning and an appeal to a false authority (the law is no authority on truth).

 

[jmdrake]

You quit doing any honest debate some time ago.

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights".

What’s the difference?

Common sense. Which is something you apparently lack. Once again, all individuals have not always had rights in this country. Slaves for instance didn't have rights. They were individuals. I believe they should have had rights from the beginning. I believe slavery never should have been allowed. But it was. Some slave owners never tried to justify slavery. But some did by attempting to diminish their humanity the same way you are trying to diminish the individuality of a fetus.

Anyway, most of your "counter arguments" (if you've actually made any) could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Maybe you don't think a newborn baby is an individual too. Maybe it's just a mass of cells. Or mabye it's an invidual once the umbilical cord is cut, but before that it's just a tumor. A mother who has a live birth can still legally kill it if she does so before the umbilical cord is cut. Anyway, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[idirtify]

You quit doing any honest debate some time ago.



Common sense. Which is something you apparently lack. Once again, all individuals have not always had rights in this country. Slaves for instance didn't have rights. They were individuals. I believe they should have had rights from the beginning. I believe slavery never should have been allowed. But it was. Some slave owners never tried to justify slavery. But some did by attempting to diminish their humanity the same way you are trying to diminish the individuality of a fetus.

Anyway, most of your "counter arguments" (if you've actually made any) could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Maybe you don't think a newborn baby is an individual too. Maybe it's just a mass of cells. Or mabye it's an invidual once the umbilical cord is cut, but before that it's just a tumor. A mother who has a live birth can still legally kill it if she does so before the umbilical cord is cut. Anyway, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty.

I thought the “difference” you were arguing was between your claims being a “collection of criteria for granting rights” or “evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual”. You claimed you were not providing the former, but were providing the latter. I asked how they were different. To me, they sound like different ways to word the same thing. And why are you trying to argue something so petty? I mean IF they are truly different, then the former is a better description of what you have been listing. The fact that an individual person might “get more out of” singing to a fetus than singing to something else is certainly not “evidence” for your position, but it could more accurately be described as your “criterion” (not a legitimate criterion, but that’s irrelevant to this argument). So now you introduce “slavery” into this side-argument in an apparent attempt to prove that individual persons have not always had rights, but I can’t tell if you intend it to support your side-argument or your main one. You claim I am trying to diminish the humanity of a fetus the same way slave owners tried to diminish the individuality of slaves to justify slavery. I can’t see how you came up with this. I am not aware that slaves were a) inside other person’s bodies, or that b) slave owners claimed they were. It appears you are using a non-sequitur: Since some people once used fallacy to try to diminish the personhood of another class of people, then anyone who tries to claim that ANYTHING does not have personhood is engaging in fallacy. Obviously that’s not a coherent deduction.

You say most of my counter arguments could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Could you specify? My main argument is that since a fetus is inside a person’s body, it can not have rights that are equal to that person’s. How does that apply to a newborn (which is OUTSIDE the person’s body)?

You say maybe I don’t think a newborn baby is an individual; that maybe it’s just a mass of cells or a tumor as long as the umbilical cord is uncut. That’s not reasonable. No one argues against the mother’s right to destroy the cord, since it will not harm the baby’s body – that is now OUTSIDE in its own space-time.

 

[The Patriot]

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

That is insane. Are you saying child abandonment should be legal?
You have an absolute 100% responsibility to life which you create and go through pregnancy with. Another person's child is a different question, and you certainly don't have an obligation to them. But you imposed life on the subject, it is because of you they exist, and leaving a baby to die is murder.

 

[The Patriot]

. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

Because I guess people on the other side aren't such big holier than thou jerks who have lives.