Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
 thenelli01

Late Term Abortion

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Since you're having trouble with my argument, let's focus on yours. After all, it is your thread.

You say that a late-term fetus has rights because "it could live outside the mother if given the opportunity." Yet once the baby is outside the mother, it "would not be able to survive very long without someone taking care of it." If we perform a little math, the bits about "could or couldn't survive" cancel each other out, and we're left with the final part about "someone taking care of it." Perhaps this is an expression of your actual standard for rights: dependence. 

On 3/7/2019 at 9:38 PM, thenelli01 said:

The fetus is "trespassing" at this point, but that does not give her the right to kill it when it depends on her for life. 

 

17 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

The baby is physically dependent on the mother because of its undeveloped nature, and the mother has a responsibility to the child (until adulthood or transfer of that duty) because she is the one who brought the child into the world.

Does a human baby have rights because of its "undeveloped nature" which makes it dependent on "someone taking care of it"?

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Not that I disagree, but this isn't really an argument, but an ad hominem.

I might have to refamiliarize myself with these fallacies, but I’m not sure how this is ad hominem? 

That question wasn’t making an argument, rather just clarifying his position. That was my original question to him in the previous post “Unless you think it’s morally permissible for a mother to have a child in an alley and abandon it there to die?”

He replied and then in my next response I was just clarifying his position, and then I qualified why I think leaving it to die is the necessary conclusion of abandoning a child at birth.

I’m interested on why you think that is ad hominem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

...I’m not sure how this is ad hominem?

It's not. More like a red herring, to change the subject from the baby to the mother. That's fine, though. I can discuss the mother, if you want.

No, a mother does not have a right to abandon her child and leave it to die. People are responsible for their actions. A woman could adopt a baby or give birth to one, either way it's hers, and she is therefore responsible for it, like she's responsible for anything else that she produces or acquires. Because we're talking about an actual human being, the mother must respect its rights and properly care for it, otherwise the state should intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 2:49 AM, MisterSwig said:

It's not. More like a red herring, to change the subject from the baby to the mother. That's fine, though. I can discuss the mother, if you want.

No, a mother does not have a right to abandon her child and leave it to die. People are responsible for their actions. A woman could adopt a baby or give birth to one, either way it's hers, and she is therefore responsible for it, like she's responsible for anything else that she produces or acquires. Because we're talking about an actual human being, the mother must respect its rights and properly care for it, otherwise the state should intervene.

I don't think it's fair to classify my comments as "like a red herring." It's either fallacious or not, but a quick review of the sequence of the conversation would prove it isn't. 

Can't say the same for you though, as you have been using ad hominem attacks throughout this topic, which is partially why I haven't been so eager to respond.

On 3/9/2019 at 11:56 AM, MisterSwig said:

You don't have a standard for rights. 

On 3/11/2019 at 12:17 PM, MisterSwig said:

Since you're having trouble with my argument...

Hopefully it can be respectful and honest moving forward.

Now regarding below and above:

On 3/9/2019 at 10:30 AM, MisterSwig said:

A fetus is physically dependent upon the mother's exercise of her rights. Therefore it has no right to its own life until it acts toward the removal of that dependency. The first objective act toward such an independent state is bursting through the womb during the birth process. This is not a volitional act, but it is a self-generated one, and could represent the source of a right to physical independence.

I'm positing below (and hopefully I am not redundant because admittedly I have not read through the other topic yet)

A developed fetus has rights because of it's nature as a human being and its potential to develop into an independent, rational adult (similar to newborns). There is a point when the "thing" inside is clearly no longer just human cells, but has developed fully enough to surpass the realm of potential and now actually has the characteristics where it deserves classification as a human being. As such, it should be considered as what it is: a human being physically dependent on the mother for life. How to determine whether or not an entity is a human being is up for discussion but there have been a few suggestions in this thread that I think are worthy of debate.

So when you say,

"A fetus is physically dependent upon the mother's exercise of her rights. Therefore it has no right to its own life until it acts toward the removal of that dependency."

I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb.

(I'm open to arguments - but please just arguments - FYI I'm sure my arguments aren't new per se - this topic has been debated on this forum for ages in multiple threads - Once I have more time and will to read through them, I will do so.)

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

 

12 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

A developed fetus has rights because of it's nature as a human being and its potential to develop into an independent, rational adult (similar to newborns).

This is a form of the classic "potential" argument. It's not worth debating for the millionth time.

12 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

There is a point when the "thing" inside is clearly no longer just human cells, but has developed fully enough to surpass the realm of potential and now actually has the characteristics where it deserves classification as a human being.

Which characteristics? Are we back on consciousness and feelings? Earlier, when I countered that initial notion, you switched immediately to the old "viability/potential" argument: it could live outside the womb which indicates a potential to become independent.

On 3/9/2019 at 7:56 AM, thenelli01 said:

I think if a fetus could survive outside of the womb, that would indicate its developed nature and capacity for independence, which would seem to be a good standard to support that it should be considered human. (Open to arguments here)

At this point I realized that we probably fundamentally disagreed on the definition of a human. We weren't even talking about characteristics particular to the higher animals (consciousness and feelings). Viability and potentiality pertain to the entire living world. So I asked for your definition of a human being, but so far I don't see an answer.

12 hours ago, thenelli01 said:

How to determine whether or not an entity is a human being is up for discussion but there have been a few suggestions in this thread that I think are worthy of debate.

Is my suggestion not worthy of debate?

A human being is a rational animal.

On 3/9/2019 at 1:38 PM, MisterSwig said:

A rational animal is a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, possessing a rational faculty. An organism is an individual living body composed of organs.

A late-term fetus is not a rational animal primarily because it's not an individual body yet. It's not its own organism. A fetus is still anatomically a part of the host organism, the mother. It is physically connected by the placenta and umbilical cord.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have read that other topic in the other section because I would have gotten some other insights before I bothered writing this. Let me review the other topic (which I skimmed and see issues pointed out by other people) and think about it some more. If I have anything to add I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...