Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

There is no such thing as a "unilateral contract".

yes, there is. If I stated that I would pay $100 to anyone who corrected my philosophical mistakes, I would be obliged to pay $100 to everyone who did so. I do not have to have a bilateral contract with each person.

The terms really are "if she absolutely doesn't want to have a baby or an abortion, she should not have sex with a man".

yes. what is wrong with that?

So one should only have sex when they want children!?

only if they are willing to accept the risk and bear the child (then give it up for adoption perhaps). they can do everything to reduce it, condom, iud, pill, withdrawal, rhythm etc to reduce the chances if they don't want kids, but if they get pregnant, they should give birth to the child, yes.

You could have a wreck while driving, so don't drive. If you do get in a wreck and get injured, we should not provide you any medical care and you should remain broken and injured. You knew you could've gotten into a wreck by driving, so what were you doing driving? Is this your logic??

you shouldn't, provide me with medical care, no. I should pay for it myself. that is my logic, taking responsibility for my own actions.

I want to have sex with the man I love and admire now.

you can, just accept the responsibility.

don't want to? tough.

I want a million dollars now. we can't always have our own way.

I may want children later, but to have a child now would be EXTREMELY irresponsible of me, based on my career, finances, etc.

so don't have sex right now.

Again, are you suggesting that people who love, admire and respect each other shouldn't have sex unless they want children?!

they don't have to want children, but they shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the possibility of children and bear the child to term.

Are you really suggesting that I should give up sex because I'm not ready to have a child, even though I'm doing everything technologically possible to prevent a pregnancy?

if you would not be willing to carry the child for 9 months, then yes.

Should women not date, not love, not feel until they're ready to have a child? Should I pass up the opportunity to be with the man I admire and value most just because I don't want a baby?!

if you would not be willing to carry the child for 9 months, then yes.

OK, good. So then you are saying that it is immoral to have sex unless you want children? As K-Mac has asked.

no, I am saying it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy.

When you bought a new, fancy car,you knew that someone might want to steal it. Regardless of having insurance and or a car alarm the risk remains.

yes, it does remain. I would have to accept the consequences that my car has been lost and get the bus for a while... :o but I don't really see the relevance as there is no obligation on me to do anything about a car...? - where I am saying there is an obligation if you have a child

Or, in other words....what? So in the land of RebelConsrvativ-ia, we who are not either rapists nor rape victims get three options: Never have sex, never have children, or pump out as many children as we can.

yes :P

nah, in all seriousness, you can have all the sex you want, but if contraceptions fail, have the child. not difficult.

As a side note, tell me, do you believe in God?

I am genuinely unsure as to whether there was an intelligent, creative force that brought the universe into being. Though if such a force exists, I sincerely doubt whether it spoke to ancient men with long beards in deserts or intervenes in our daily affairs and I have never been to church.

--

unfortunately, I am going on holiday tomorrow (hoping to finish reading atlas though :D ) I will try to respond when I get back next week.

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can, just accept the responsibility.

don't want to? tough.

Having an abortion is one way to accept responsibility for the accidental pregnancy. I know you don't acknowledge that, but it is. The fetus does not have rights, and there is no assumed 'contract' between the woman and the mass that occurred as a result of her having sex. In the same sense that if you smoked and got cancer, she would not have to just accept and live with the cancer, she could take the available medical steps to reduce or eliminate the cancer's effects on her body.

In order for you argument to have merit, you must first establish why the fetus has a right to obliged on the mother... and more than just because she chose to have sex.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, there is. If I stated that I would pay $100 to anyone who corrected my philosophical mistakes, I would be obliged to pay $100 to everyone who did so. I do not have to have a bilateral contract with each person.
I think we should have a separate thread on what contracts are. That is a standard contract of the form offer + acceptance, which involves two (or more) parties. The offeree need not be explicitly named for there to be a contract, there simply has to be one. Your "unilateral contracts" don't have an offeree, just an offeror. I admit that there is a term "unilateral contract" (e.g. "lost dog" rewards), but what you have been calling a "unilateral contract" isn't one of those, whose character is that the offeree is vague and open-ended, not non-existent. Your supposed unilateral contracts don't have any second party as part of an agreement, at all.
yes. what is wrong with that
That means that the woman has no "contractual obligation" to not have an abortion. As long as you concede that there is no such enforceable obligation imposed on her, I think we have made progress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah, in all seriousness, you can have all the sex you want, but if contraceptions fail, have the child. not difficult.

Morning sickness.

Cramps.

Back problems.

Mood swings.

Stretch marks.

Payment for prenatal vitamins.

Payment for ultra sounds.

Ruined shirts (from surprised lactation).

Regular medical check-ups.

Extra money spent on food.

Leaving work for a few months (strong possibility near the end of term).

Contraction pains.

Pushing an eight-pound baby (average weight) through the narrow walls of the vaginal canal.

All of that is just what leads up to the birth.

Nope. Not difficult at all.

Oh, and here's a slight hint to your intelligent, creative force dilemma: There wasn't.

Before you claim responsibility again, here's a question I'd like you to take on:

Is it moral to treat STDs? Viruses have at least as much consciousness as a newly fertilized egg or an underdeveloped fetus, and they come about by having sex. If you're willing to have sex and accept the responsibilities of it, then shouldn't you have to deal with whatever STDs you get? Is the search for the cure for AIDs an immoral one? Should one not take medication if one catches herpes or gonorrhea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning sickness.

Cramps.

Back problems.

Mood swings.

Stretch marks.

Payment for prenatal vitamins.

Payment for ultra sounds.

Ruined shirts (from surprised lactation).

Regular medical check-ups.

Extra money spent on food.

Leaving work for a few months (strong possibility near the end of term).

Contraction pains.

Pushing an eight-pound baby (average weight) through the narrow walls of the vaginal canal.

All of that is just what leads up to the birth.

Nope. Not difficult at all.

I never meant to imply that was not difficult, I was stating that it is not difficult to avoid creating a child.

Oh, and here's a slight hint to your intelligent, creative force dilemma: There wasn't.

that settles it then, thanks ;)

Before you claim responsibility again, here's a question I'd like you to take on:

Is it moral to treat STDs? Viruses have at least as much consciousness as a newly fertilized egg or an underdeveloped fetus, and they come about by having sex. If you're willing to have sex and accept the responsibilities of it, then shouldn't you have to deal with whatever STDs you get? Is the search for the cure for AIDs an immoral one? Should one not take medication if one catches herpes or gonorrhea?

are those viruses human? will they develop into thinking individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have a separate thread on what contracts are. That is a standard contract of the form offer + acceptance, which involves two (or more) parties. The offeree need not be explicitly named for there to be a contract, there simply has to be one. Your "unilateral contracts" don't have an offeree, just an offeror. I admit that there is a term "unilateral contract" (e.g. "lost dog" rewards), but what you have been calling a "unilateral contract" isn't one of those, whose character is that the offeree is vague and open-ended, not non-existent. Your supposed unilateral contracts don't have any second party as part of an agreement, at all.

the human life that she created, the unborn child, the foetus is the second party.

that is not non-existent and she invited it into her body by her actions.

That means that the woman has no "contractual obligation" to not have an abortion. As long as you concede that there is no such enforceable obligation imposed on her, I think we have made progress.

no... that means that a woman doesn't have to not have an abortion if she never gets pregnant.

that is like saying you don't have a "contractual obligation" to pay for whiskey if you never try to buy any.

so, if a woman gets herself pregnant or tries to buy whiskey (hopefully not at the same time...) she is obligated to carry the baby to and pay for the alcohol.

In the same sense that if you smoked and got cancer, she would not have to just accept and live with the cancer, she could take the available medical steps to reduce or eliminate the cancer's effects on her body.

the cancer is not a human being, it will not develop into a thinking adult.

In order for you argument to have merit, you must first establish why the fetus has a right to obliged on the mother... and more than just because she chose to have sex.

why is that not a valid reason?

I mean other than your own desire to divorce sex from procreation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are those viruses human? will they develop into thinking individuals?

You've missed the point. The criterion on whether the entity has rights is not based on its potential, but on its actual state. It is not because a fetus likely will develop into a normal human being, but rather the right of the mother to determine her life. She may not want a child at all. She may not want a child now. She may want a child but not want one with impairments. At any and every stage of the pregnancy she has the right to decide whether to carry on with the pregnancy.

It is only once the child is born that it acquires rights, even though it is yet to become a fully formed thinking individual. It is only once it is born that the mother cannot decide to terminate the child's life. It is only once it is born that the mother, if she decides she doesn't want to raise the child after all, or her circumstances have changed, that her only option is to have the child adopted.

I realize this concept is difficult for you to grasp if not impossible, but you must grasp it if you are to be part of a civilized society. You have the right to run your life. You don't have the right to dictate to others how to run theirs. Whether a person has one abortion or 20 - not your problem. Whether a person finds someone else to have sex with, or pays someone to have sex with - not your problem. How is it that you figure it is your business to tell others how to live? What a nerve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the human life that she created, the unborn child, the foetus is the second party.
Prior to the sex act, the fetus does not exist. The sex act therefore cannot be construed as an agreement with a non-existent fetus, which at any rate is incapable of engaging in a contract.
that is not non-existent and she invited it into her body by her actions.
There is no "invitation". You are just evading. I tought you were serious about having a philosophical discussion, but I can see I was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've missed the point. The criterion on whether the entity has rights is not based on its potential, but on its actual state. It is not because a fetus likely will develop into a normal human being, but rather the right of the mother to determine her life. She may not want a child at all. She may not want a child now. She may want a child but not want one with impairments. At any and every stage of the pregnancy she has the right to decide whether to carry on with the pregnancy.

It is only once the child is born that it acquires rights, even though it is yet to become a fully formed thinking individual. It is only once it is born that the mother cannot decide to terminate the child's life. It is only once it is born that the mother, if she decides she doesn't want to raise the child after all, or her circumstances have changed, that her only option is to have the child adopted.

why should a child, which is not a thinking individual, have any rights?

I realize this concept is difficult for you to grasp if not impossible, but you must grasp it if you are to be part of a civilized society. You have the right to run your life. You don't have the right to dictate to others how to run theirs.

I know I have the right to run my life and I am not dictating how others run theirs - just expecting them to accept the consequences of their actions if they create human life.

Whether a person has one abortion or 20 - not your problem.

is it my problem if a person kills their 3 year old child?

Whether a person finds someone else to have sex with, or pays someone to have sex with - not your problem.

And I don't really see what this has to do with casual sex or prostitution... unless you are making the unwise assumption that I believe casual sex or prostitution should be illegal?

How is it that you figure it is your business to tell others how to live? What a nerve.

how is it that you figure it is your business to tell others they can't steal, rape, murder? What a nerve...

a foetus is human life, you are murdering that life by having a termination, you are denying that life its rights.

Prior to the sex act, the fetus does not exist.

of course it doesn't, my argument rests on the fact that the sex act creates the foetus.

The sex act therefore cannot be construed as an agreement with a non-existent fetus, which at any rate is incapable of engaging in a contract.There is no "invitation". You are just evading. I tought you were serious about having a philosophical discussion, but I can see I was wrong.

I am not evading anything.

The foetus does not exist prior to the sex act, but it is that volitional act that creates the foetus. hence, the argument that woman invited it into her body.

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is filled with wonderful posts from members of the site. Here is one which answers at least some of the questions posed in response to my previous post:

The anti-abortion argument rests on the notion that rights accrue to human life, as opposed to human beings. According to this view, an embryo has the same rights as the woman carrying it, including the right to life.

But what is the right to life?

Objectivism does not merely assert that man has rights; nor does it claim that a creator endows man with rights. Instead, the Objectivist theory of rights starts with a fact: man is a rational being. He survives by thinking, producing what he needs to survive, and by keeping and/or trading what he has produced.

The fact of man’s identity as a rational being means he has certain fundamental requirements – the most fundamental of which is that he must be free from the initiation of force by others. The concept of rights is a means of defining and asserting this requirement vis-à-vis other men.

This, then, is the meaning of the right to life: it is the right to initiate and sustain a process of thought to guide a process of production that creates the values (property) needed to sustain his life.

Observe the context in which rights have meaning: the coexistence of independent, rational, volitional beings that survive by initiating thought-directed, goal-oriented action. This situation creates the need to define the proper relationship between such beings. It is this context that creates the need for the concept of rights.

(Children are a special case. Though at first they do not initiate life-sustaining action at a conceptual level, at the moment of birth they become independent beings, capable of consciousness, volition and rationality, their bodies performing all of the biological processes needed to sustain life — breathing their own air, processing their own food, cleansing their own blood, etc. They are now biologically independent human beings, which entitles them to be free of the initiation of force and more: it entitles them to the parent’s material support.)

This theory is discussed in greater detail by Miss Rand in her essay “Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I offer this bare-bones version of it as the background for a question to those who oppose abortion.

My question is this: given the preceding derivation of the principle of man’s rights, how do you apply that principle to a fetus – an entity that is completely dependent on the mother’s physiology and is incapable of consciousness, of rationality, of volition, of initiating any sort of action.

I challenge those opposed to abortion to show us why such an entity possess the right to life as defined above. Please justify the notion that the right to life can be construed to include the right to use another person’s body against their will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should a child, which is not a thinking individual, have any rights?

First of all, children are thinking individuals. Perhaps you are thinking of newborns, whose command of their rational faculties has only just begun and isn't yet noticeable to those whose development is more advanced.

The point of drawing the line at birth is precisely to provide a way to protect children from abusive parents/guardians. The issue of children's rights needs to be reviewed and revised. At present I believe it is tied up with rights to health care and education as provided by some third party, rather than by one's parents. Since the market for education and health care has all but been completely taken over by government (in America that is; in other countries like Canada these systems are government-run), it is a muddy set of issues at best.

It's worth reiterating: Newborns and children do need to have their lives protected from abusive parents and guardians.

As infants develop, they quickly become adept at manipulating their parents - the point at which a young human being begin to work with the data provided by its senses would probably offer a multitude of thesis topics for post-graduate work.

A child should have rights because it is a separate biological entity possessed of a rational faculty. Its basic nature of rationality needs to be respected by its parents even as those parents are required to provide for its upkeep and nurture during its developmental stages.

The process of securing the rights of all individual human beings is part of the process of establishing true civilization.

I know I have the right to run my life and I am not dictating how others run theirs - just expecting them to accept the consequences of their actions if they create human life.

No, you are asking/demanding the right to force them to bring a child into the world because a child was conceived. These issues about bringing children into the world need resolution now, as we are on the verge of entering the age of more commonplace artificial birthing and DNA selection of characteristics. Delineating at what point the fetus moves from being a thing to being a human being with rights must be established to protect everyone involved.

is it my problem if a person kills their 3 year old child?

It's your personal problem if you're involved of course. But on a wider view, yes it is, just as any abridgement of rights is or ought to be of concern to a rational person.

And I don't really see what this has to do with casual sex or prostitution... unless you are making the unwise assumption that I believe casual sex or prostitution should be illegal?
Well, it has to do with casual sex/prostitution quite a lot actually since it is often casual sex especially that results in unwanted pregnancies.

how is it that you figure it is your business to tell others they can't steal, rape, murder? What a nerve...

Because these are acts that represent initiations of force, that is how I figure it is my business. I oppose all forms of initiation of force by one or more individuals against another.

a foetus is human life, you are murdering that life by having a termination, you are denying that life its rights.

If a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman has no right to her life. This is why it is necessary to differentiate between human life that is unborn. Until it is born it does not have rights. It cannot have rights.

Here's another issue - what about a fetus that is raised entirely in an incubator. At birth it acquires its rights, but who has the right to decide whether to keep the fetus growing or not?

of course it doesn't, my argument rests on the fact that the sex act creates the foetus.

Okay. So, what is the point of forcing people to bear children they don't want? What's in that for you? Why isn't it enough for you to have the right to elect NOT to have an abortion (unlike, say, in China and perhaps soon in the United States if Obamaniac listens to the Envirotards and begins thinking that the population needs to be curtailed in America)?

Supporting freedom and individual rights results in securing your right to have 16 children if you so choose, while at the same time securing the rights of others to elect to have 16 abortions.

I am not evading anything.

The foetus does not exist prior to the sex act, but it is that volitional act that creates the foetus. hence, the argument that woman invited it into her body.

I see. So it's all the woman's fault, is it? She should bear the consequences of her actions and have that child to pay for the fact of having had sex. Again, I ask you - why do you want to force others to have children they don't want?

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I have the right to run my life and I am not dictating how others run theirs - just expecting them to accept the consequences of their actions if they create human life.

Yes, but you are only viewing "accepting the consequences of their actions" in a very limited light. A woman having an abortion is one way of accepting the responsibility for creating a fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex does not = fetus. And even it did, this would not be a valid argument since it takes a human being with rights to be protected by any law. A fetus has no rights.

sex does not inexorably lead to a foetus every single time, but it is almost always a possibility.

just like throwing rocks at windows does not always break them, it is always a possibility.

a foetus is a human being, just like a child is a human being. if rights depend on rational faculties, new borns have no rights - are you pro-choice on infanticide?

First of all, children are thinking individuals. Perhaps you are thinking of newborns, whose command of their rational faculties has only just begun and isn't yet noticeable to those whose development is more advanced. It's worth reiterating: Newborns and children do need to have their lives protected from abusive parents and guardians.

so should we be able to dispose of newborns?

and what is more abusive than terminating their life?

As infants develop, they quickly become adept at manipulating their parents - the point at which a young human being begin to work with the data provided by its senses would probably offer a multitude of thesis topics for post-graduate work.

so... in other words, we don't know?

how can you extend the rights of rational adults to children if you don't know the point at which they become rational?

and if you are able to make that extension, why should the rights not apply to all created human life?

A child should have rights because it is a separate biological entity possessed of a rational faculty. Its basic nature of rationality needs to be respected by its parents even as those parents are required to provide for its upkeep and nurture during its developmental stages.

a foetus is a separate biological entity, it is just dependent on the mother (a fact that leads some pro-choice people to argue it is a parasite)

a child has no rational faculty, only the potential to develop one - like a foetus.

No, you are asking/demanding the right to force them to bring a child into the world because a child was conceived. These issues about bringing children into the world need resolution now, as we are on the verge of entering the age of more commonplace artificial birthing and DNA selection of characteristics. Delineating at what point the fetus moves from being a thing to being a human being with rights must be established to protect everyone involved.

agreed, though I would argue that a foetus is a human being with rights. assigning rights at any other point is arbitrary.

It's your personal problem if you're involved of course. But on a wider view, yes it is, just as any abridgement of rights is or ought to be of concern to a rational person.

exactly. thus, the abridgement of the right to life of an unborn human, a foetus, ought to be a concern to any rational person.

Well, it has to do with casual sex/prostitution quite a lot actually since it is often casual sex especially that results in unwanted pregnancies.

that does not mean casual sex should be illegal.

people use guns for murder, that does not mean guns should be illegal.

Because these are acts that represent initiations of force, that is how I figure it is my business. I oppose all forms of initiation of force by one or more individuals against another.

is a termination not an initiation of force?

If a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman has no right to her life.

would you care to explain this?

This is why it is necessary to differentiate between human life that is unborn. Until it is born it does not have rights. It cannot have rights.

so, you are accepting that there is no rational reason why a foetus should not have the rights you give to a newborn, except for the convenience of the woman whose volitional acts created the child? her rights to her body are not violated because she chose to allow the child into her body by willfully engaging in the act that created it

Here's another issue - what about a fetus that is raised entirely in an incubator. At birth it acquires its rights, but who has the right to decide whether to keep the fetus growing or not?

or you asking me, or generally? it seems easy for the pro-life side, though it raises problems for pro-choicers.

Okay. So, what is the point of forcing people to bear children they don't want? What's in that for you? Why isn't it enough for you to have the right to elect NOT to have an abortion

what's the point of you forcing people not to kill their own 4 year old child?

why isn't it enough for you to have the right to elect to not kill your own 4 year child?

I see. So it's all the woman's fault, is it? She should bear the consequences of her actions and have that child to pay for the fact of having had sex.

not "to pay" for having sex, it is not a punishment, it is a natural consequence of her actions.

Yes, but you are only viewing "accepting the consequences of their actions" in a very limited light. A woman having an abortion is one way of accepting the responsibility for creating a fetus.

if a woman has the child and then can't feed it, is just bored by it or if it affects her career, would she be accepting responsibility by killing the child?

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a woman has the child

Stop right there. If she HAS the child, then she has accepted the responsibility for having a child, not a fetus. Her obligation to a fetus is not the same as the obligation that results from letting the fetus grow for 9 months and coming out into the world as a separate rights-bearing entity. You are equating a child, the result of the decision and action to have a child, with the biological reaction from sex which can result in a fetus.

You are comparing two different decisions/actions and equating each with the same responsibility when each bears a different set of potentially responsible choices and solutions.

The two situations are not analogous.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a foetus is a human being, just like a child is a human being. if rights depend on rational faculties, new borns have no rights - are you pro-choice on infanticide?

A fetus is not a human being.

so should we be able to dispose of newborns?

and what is more abusive than terminating their life?

No, we do not have the right to dispose of newborns. It is not abusive to terminate a pregnancy.

so... in other words, we don't know?

how can you extend the rights of rational adults to children if you don't know the point at which they become rational?

and if you are able to make that extension, why should the rights not apply to all created human life?

I do not extend all rights of rational adults to children. A child should not and currently does not have the right to make decisions for himself. Protecting the child's right to life does not follow that all rights accruing to adults accrue to children.

a foetus is a separate biological entity, it is just dependent on the mother (a fact that leads some pro-choice people to argue it is a parasite)

You have not read even this page of answers, have you? This question has already been addressed.

a child has no rational faculty, only the potential to develop one - like a foetus.

Not true.

agreed, though I would argue that a foetus is a human being with rights. assigning rights at any other point is arbitrary.

Except you ignore the rights of the woman involved if you select any point before birth. Once born, the newborn acquires rights, even though it is still yet unable to exercise its rational faculties.

exactly. thus, the abridgement of the right to life of an unborn human, a foetus, ought to be a concern to any rational person.

When a fetus is accorded rights, then the woman carrying that fetus loses hers. She becomes a slave to the reproductive function. How is that not a punishment? How is that right??? As has been pointed out many times, accepting the responsibility for one's actions does not mean being forced to take a particular course of action (in this case, have a child.)

What about in cases of rape? What about in cases of harm to the woman's health? Are you going to allow these exceptions? Who is to decide if the woman herself does not have the right to decide the course of her life?

The point of drawing the line at birth is to ensure that the rights of everyone involved are respected. Living people are not sacrificed to the non-living, whether they are dead or unborn. You advocate the sacrifice of the rights of the woman in favor of the alleged rights of the unborn.

is a termination not an initiation of force?

No.

would you care to explain this?

Okay. The right of the woman to direct the course of her life - to have three children or to have three abortions - rests on the recognition that it is HER RIGHT to HER LIFE and what she wants to do with it. It is not for others to dictate to her, on behalf of the State or on behalf of the unborn. If the law is passed forcing the woman to have an abortion or forcing her not to have an abortion, it is the same thing. Her rights are being sacrificed for the views and opinions of others.

so, you are accepting that there is no rational reason why a foetus should not have the rights you give to a newborn, except for the convenience of the woman whose volitional acts created the child? her rights to her body are not violated because she chose to allow the child into her body by willfully engaging in the act that created it

There is a rational reason for which a fetus should not have rights. It is an either/or situation. The fetus having rights means the woman does not.

Two adults both have rights to their life. The Law of Human Interaction states that neither may initiate the use of force against the other. So, each person can deal with the other only by means of reason, logic, persuasion. If one person cannot convince the other to buy his product, or work with him towards a particular goal, then those two people won't be able to trade. But their rights to direct the course of their respective lives will remain intact.

Every fetus has to depend on the voluntary choice of the woman to go through with the pregnancy.

or you asking me, or generally? it seems easy for the pro-life side, though it raises problems for pro-choicers.

Asking both. Is it easy for the anti-abortion side? I think the answer would involve who is paying for the upkeep and care of the fetus.

what's the point of you forcing people not to kill their own 4 year old child?

why isn't it enough for you to have the right to elect to not kill your own 4 year child?

...

if a woman has the child and then can't feed it, is just bored by it or if it affects her career, would she be accepting responsibility by killing the child?

Refer to what Rational Biker just said. You demonstrate the usual failing of one who refuses to acknowledge the rights of the living, or rather, to wipe out the rights of the living in order to grant rights to the non-living. Your view that the creation of a fetus/embryo necessitates that it MUST be born means that the view of the woman involved is of no consequence. Hence, her rights are wiped out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fetus is not a human being.

that is a rather silly statement to justify your poisition.

what is it then? a tomato?

a foetus is simply one of the earliest developmental stages of human life.

if it is not, at what arbitrary point does one become "human" in your eyes?

No, we do not have the right to dispose of newborns.

I do not extend all rights of rational adults to children. A child should not and currently does not have the right to make decisions for himself. Protecting the child's right to life does not follow that all rights accruing to adults accrue to children.

why do we not have the right to dispose of newborns?

why should a child have a right to life, but an unborn human doesn't?

Except you ignore the rights of the woman involved if you select any point before birth.

no, I don't ignore her rights. she has the right not to have the child, I would not force anyone to have a child they did not want.

but, if you don't want children, you don't have sex. simple.

When a fetus is accorded rights, then the woman carrying that fetus loses hers. She becomes a slave to the reproductive function. How is that not a punishment? How is that right???

now we get to the nub of the issue, your desire to for sex without consequences.

this is the problem, the emotional, illogical and irrational idea that there is some kind of "right" to sex without the natural consequences.

What about in cases of rape? What about in cases of harm to the woman's health? Are you going to allow these exceptions? Who is to decide if the woman herself does not have the right to decide the course of her life?

in the case of rape, the woman did not consent to the foetus being there, her rights outweigh the rights of the foetus/child, the child can't expect the woman to bear the pregnancy to term.

in the case of health, there is no moral choice, the woman has no option other than to kill the child to save herself.

as to who gets to decide the course of the woman's life? the woman. don't want kids, don't have sex. simple.

The point of drawing the line at birth is to ensure that the rights of everyone involved are respected. Living people are not sacrificed to the non-living, whether they are dead or unborn. You advocate the sacrifice of the rights of the woman in favor of the alleged rights of the unborn.

a foetus/unborn child is living - another silly statement made simply to justify your position.

you ignore the rights of the unborn, living human life for the convenience of the mother, for her desire to sex without responsibility.

it is simple. if she does not want a child, she should not have sex.

Okay. The right of the woman to direct the course of her life - to have three children or to have three abortions - rests on the recognition that it is HER RIGHT to HER LIFE and what she wants to do with it. It is not for others to dictate to her, on behalf of the State or on behalf of the unborn. If the law is passed forcing the woman to have an abortion or forcing her not to have an abortion, it is the same thing. Her rights are being sacrificed for the views and opinions of others.

so does she have the right to kill her three year old child? it is her life, she should be able to do what she wants to do with it... right?

There is a rational reason for which a fetus should not have rights. It is an either/or situation. The fetus having rights means the woman does not.

not at all. she has all her rights. what I am propsing simply means she can't have sex without consequences. that is all.

Refer to what Rational Biker just said. You demonstrate the usual failing of one who refuses to acknowledge the rights of the living, or rather, to wipe out the rights of the living in order to grant rights to the non-living. Your view that the creation of a fetus/embryo necessitates that it MUST be born means that the view of the woman involved is of no consequence. Hence, her rights are wiped out.

her rights are NOT wiped out, they are not at issue. she had the CHOICE to have sex and create the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "implied consent" theory of yours doesn't hold water.

If I leave my front door unlocked or even open, I know that a possible consequence is that someone might enter my house. That is, however, not an invitation, regardless of how careless I was or whether I knew about this possible consequence. There is no way to accidentally or carelessly invite someone. If I ever want you to be my guest, there will be no doubt or ambiguity about it. If you enter my house without my invitation, I may welcome you or (more likely) kick you out. My decision and mine alone. You have no right to be in my home unless I give you my explicit permission. To hell with the door. I could build a house completely without doors, just big holes in the walls, and you'd have no right to enter.

By the way, thanks for admitting that fetuses don't have a right to life, because you apparently don't have a problem with killing fetuses created through non-consensual sex. If they had a right to life, the circumstances of their conception wouldn't matter, would they? If the circumstances do matter, can I kill a grown man who is the child of a rapist? Why not? You don't mean to say that the right to life kicks in at some "arbitrary" point after conception, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is a rather silly statement to justify your poisition.

what is it then? a tomato?

a foetus is simply one of the earliest developmental stages of human life.

There we go! You did it! That is exactly what a fetus (or foetus) is. One of the developmental stages of human life. I am agreeing with you and thanking you for finally adding something to the conversation which it was lacking. There are many stages of development of human life.

Perhaps you are correct, if I were a cannibal. Let us consider at what point a child ought to acquire safety from being eaten by its parents.

Since I've only just allowed that thought into my consciousness, I'll have to think on it a while. Should people have the right to make babies in order to have food?

if it is not, at what arbitrary point does one become "human" in your eyes?

This is a very valid question, as you'll have already noted from my post in response to your previous comment.

why do we not have the right to dispose of newborns?

why should a child have a right to life, but an unborn human doesn't?

These are good questions actually. Thought-provoking. Is the line drawn in the wrong place for a lot of things? Perhaps children aged 6 - or 4, or 3 or at whatever age the infant/toddler/child has proven itself possessed of a functioning rational faculty - it's at that age an individual proves he is a human being and not just a piece of human life.

no, I don't ignore her rights. she has the right not to have the child, I would not force anyone to have a child they did not want.

but, if you don't want children, you don't have sex. simple.

Wrong. That was the olden days before people understood and mastered surgery. It is absolutely possible to enjoy sex and not have to have children. I think your attitude is self-defeating.

If those who support the freedom not to have abortions would only see that they must join with those who support the freedom to have them...

Sex was made to be enjoyable to keep the species going, i.e., to keep people having sex before they figured out how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The ability to solve the problem of unwanted children is much more tidily handled by altering the internal organs so that conception is impossible, instead of having abortions. However, some people don't want to do that. Freedom to direct the course of one's life means just that.

At what point ought individuals to acquire their rights to life and why? - good topic. Why NOT older than birth? Would it be different for each individual? Is there another line at which it ought to be drawn?

Having and enjoying sex is one of the benefits of modern-day surgery.

now we get to the nub of the issue, your desire to for sex without consequences.

My desire for sex without the particular consequence of children, yes. I solved the problem eventually by having a tubal ligation. No more pregnancies = no more abortions.

this is the problem, the emotional, illogical and irrational idea that there is some kind of "right" to sex without the natural consequences.

Yes, absolutely. Well said. Except for the illogical and irrational parts. I have a right to enjoy my sexuality. And yes, thanks to modern medicine, I may do so without the natural consequences. Absolutely.

in the case of rape, the woman did not consent to the foetus being there, her rights outweigh the rights of the foetus/child, the child can't expect the woman to bear the pregnancy to term.

You mean, you don't expect her to. The fetus doesn't expect anything.

You know what that leads to, don't you? People agreeing with each other to call it "rape" - oh, how about a law passed that will permit men to rape their wives, so there can be more incidences of rape and thereby more easy access to abortion? Since it's a rape and all...

This serves to hide the true rapes behind the consensual sex. It does nothing more than hide the true crime by making the crime legal.

If a pregnancy is unwanted, the woman's right to terminate it exists up to the point of birth. Once that cord is cut, the individual is born and acquires rights.

As to whether parents ought to have the right to have babies in order to grow their own food supplement, well, I guess we'll need a new thread for that one.

in the case of health, there is no moral choice, the woman has no option other than to kill the child to save herself.

There you go. That's the loophole everyone uses.

as to who gets to decide the course of the woman's life? the woman. don't want kids, don't have sex. simple.

No, not that simple. This is what I meant by saying that you treat kids as a punishment for having sex. You would punish the person and deny a bodily function to that person by the fact that a child might be conceived. That is intrusion by the State - by government - into the workings of a human being's body. This is why the issue separate entity is brought into it. If that woman doesn't want that child, having Individual Rights means it is her decision on whether to put scarce resources into the growth of that infant. The cost of food, the time lost from work - the bare bones resources needed to sustain her during the maturation of the embryo into a live baby... at the most basic level of survival - where it's just her and her mate and Nature. Having enough food to eat, enough time to gather fuel and food ... in the olden days maybe having a baby meant having food.

The moral way for humans to live is to be able to support a child, to have the basics accounted for. In fact, I expect that it was a lot harder to propagate the species in the olden days. You know, caveman days. Back before there was religion and it was just a couple of people wandering around together. It's a known fact that a woman's period will stop if she isn't eating enough. So, it's quite possible that being fertile and able to conceive so easily is a more recent phenomenon, speaking cosmically. The length of time our species struggled to achieve such fertility, and the speed with which we have achieved it is due to becoming ever more true to our natures - i.e., rational.

So, what is the rational thing to do here? Should parents have the right to eat their young, if hyperinflation destroys our economy and we are returned to a state of caveman days, living in caves 30 floors up, without electricity and having so little food to eat that people get pregnant to have an occasional meal of protein?

Or do you get your way and abortions are banned, but then along comes an OPT guy who says the population on Earth is twice the number it should be and everyone are then forced to have abortions if they conceive a second child?

See how easy it is to get from "ban abortions" to "ban second kids and force abortions on disobeyers" ?

Freedom to direct the course of YOUR life protects both of us, those who support abortion and those who don't. The right to one's own life is what we BOTH need. The right to be free from coercion is what human beings need. That is what you need to fight for, not for the right to force your views on me.

a foetus/unborn child is living - another silly statement made simply to justify your position.

It is a bit of protoplasm.

I already explained to you why it cannot have rights. You care only for the rights of those who do not exist, not for the rights of those who do.

you ignore the rights of the unborn, living human life for the convenience of the mother, for her desire to sex without responsibility.

it is simple. if she does not want a child, she should not have sex.

so does she have the right to kill her three year old child? it is her life, she should be able to do what she wants to do with it... right?

not at all. she has all her rights. what I am propsing simply means she can't have sex without consequences. that is all.

her rights are NOT wiped out, they are not at issue. she had the CHOICE to have sex and create the child.

You refuse to acknowledge that modern medicine has enabled our species to separate procreation and sex. It is not necessary to have a child just because you enjoyed sex.

The effect of all you have said, since you are willing to grant an abortion if the woman did not enjoy the sex because she was raped, but because she did enjoy the sex, i.e., had consensual sex and we are assuming enjoyed it - that woman loses the right to direct the course of her life - is evil.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "implied consent" theory of yours doesn't hold water.

If I leave my front door unlocked or even open, I know that a possible consequence is that someone might enter my house. That is, however, not an invitation, regardless of how careless I was or whether I knew about this possible consequence. There is no way to accidentally or carelessly invite someone. If I ever want you to be my guest, there will be no doubt or ambiguity about it. If you enter my house without my invitation, I may welcome you or (more likely) kick you out. My decision and mine alone. You have no right to be in my home unless I give you my explicit permission. To hell with the door. I could build a house completely without doors, just big holes in the walls, and you'd have no right to enter.

however, the woman didn't simply "leave her door unlocked," she literally welcomed you into her house. a woman who willfully engages in sexual intercourse has freely accepted millions of sperm into her body, all of whom are in search of an ovum to fertilise.

By the way, thanks for admitting that fetuses don't have a right to life, because you apparently don't have a problem with killing fetuses created through non-consensual sex. If they had a right to life, the circumstances of their conception wouldn't matter, would they?

just because it is permissible to kill in certain circumstances does not mean that that person has no right to life. a man who comes to kill me still has a right to life, however, my right to life takes precedence over his, as I am acting in self-defense against his act of aggression. it is an emergency situation, there is no moral answer. the circumstances don't affect their rights, just whose rights take precedence.

in the case of rape, the unborn human, aka the foetus, has a right to life, but the woman's right to her own body takes precedence over the life of the foetus, as the child can not expect the woman to support it. that is why the circumstances matter, not because they affect the right to life of the foetus (it doesn't) but because they affect the right of a woman over her own body.

I have the right to life, but I don't have the right to be supported by you without your consent. however, as a young child, I did have the right to be supported by my parents.

If the circumstances do matter, can I kill a grown man who is the child of a rapist? Why not?

as the circumstances do not affect the child's rights, no, you can't.

You don't mean to say that the right to life kicks in at some "arbitrary" point after conception, do you?

of course I don't. as I stated, the child's right is not affected, only the woman's obligation to carry the child to term.

and do you think that by lamely turning it on me, that you have avoided answering the question?

- at what point does a human have rights, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There we go! You did it! That is exactly what a fetus (or foetus) is. One of the developmental stages of human life. I am agreeing with you and thanking you for finally adding something to the conversation which it was lacking. There are many stages of development of human life.

yes there are. at which point do you believe we have rights?

At what point ought individuals to acquire their rights to life and why? - good topic. Why NOT older than birth? Would it be different for each individual? Is there another line at which it ought to be drawn?

These are good questions actually. Thought-provoking. Is the line drawn in the wrong place for a lot of things? Perhaps children aged 6 - or 4, or 3 or at whatever age the infant/toddler/child has proven itself possessed of a functioning rational faculty - it's at that age an individual proves he is a human being and not just a piece of human life.

so... a child has to take some kind of cognitive test before they have the right to life?

who sets that?

If those who support the freedom not to have abortions would only see that they must join with those who support the freedom to have them...

nonsense.

if only those who support the freedom not to A/murder/steal/rape/loot* would only see that they must join with those who support the freedom to A/murder/steal/rape/loot...

*please delete as appropriate

Having and enjoying sex is one of the benefits of modern-day surgery...

My desire for sex without the particular consequence of children, yes. I solved the problem eventually by having a tubal ligation. No more pregnancies = no more abortions.

that is a very responsible attitude. don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with the desire for sex without children per se, only with those who are willing to kill a child they recklessly created, ignoring the unborn child's right to life.

now, I am very traditional and have my own standards regarding sex prior to marriage etc, but these are standards to which I hold myself and no-one else (not even a potential partner).

let me just state, for the record, that no consenual sexual act between adults should be illegal - that includes casual sex, prostitution and pornography. whether I like these practices is not the issue, the State has no right to prevent them (assuming it is fully consensual).

You know what that leads to, don't you? People agreeing with each other to call it "rape"

if a guy said he raped a woman, he would be jailed. I doubt many guys would go to jail so that their sexual partner could have an abortion.

If a pregnancy is unwanted, the woman's right to terminate it exists up to the point of birth. Once that cord is cut, the individual is born and acquires rights.

why?

[re: abortion acceptable to save the life of the mother]

There you go. That's the loophole everyone uses.

it is not a loophole, it is an emergency situation where there is no moral choice.

Or do you get your way and abortions are banned, but then along comes an OPT guy who says the population on Earth is twice the number it should be and everyone are then forced to have abortions if they conceive a second child?

See how easy it is to get from "ban abortions" to "ban second kids and force abortions on disobeyers" ?

no, I really don't. I am not saying that the State has the right to ban whatever it wants, I am saying that an unborn human life has the right to life (under normal, non-emergency circumstances).

however, I do acknowledge that your argument would also prevent the State from forcing people to have abortions.

The effect of all you have said, since you are willing to grant an abortion if the woman did not enjoy the sex because she was raped, but because she did enjoy the sex, i.e., had consensual sex and we are assuming enjoyed it - that woman loses the right to direct the course of her life - is evil.

I am greatly offended by your apparently cavalier attitude towards rape. rape is not "not enjoying sex." rape is sex forced on a woman who did not consent. I sincerely hope that I have misinterpretted what you wrote, if so, I apologise.

if a woman has consented to sex, whether she enjoys it or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A human has rights when it is human - not before, not after. A corpse has no rights, and an amalgamation of cells equally has no rights, whether "potential" for life is there or not.

Even in the case of bacteria, how do you know it wouldn't have evolved into life by now if we hadn't been killing off so many of their species with anti-bacterial medication?! Oh, the horror! The horror! Won't somebody please think of the Bacilli!

Also, the statement of whether or not the woman must accept responsibility the life of the infant because she invited the fetus into her knowing the consequences is still flawed.

First, a fetus, and especially the clumped together group of cells during the first stages of development, is not life. So saying that a woman has no right to seek medical treatment is like saying if a woman falls riding a bike, then when she breaks her arm she invited the break by not wearing shoulder pads, so she should have to endure the pain.

Even more, how does creating a life situation cause responsibility for that life? If I open a new business that drives another man out of business through nothing but fair trade, am I obligated to get that man back on his feet, or give him a job? Then why am I (speaking generally, as I can't physically do it, of course) expected to incubate a group of cells into a human?

Also, something that popped into my head while I was writing: Let's answer this question separate from the abortion issue - if sex is so ultimately tied to making babies as you say it has been, is, and always will be, then should birth control be illegal, since it lessens the chance of a baby being produced?

What if they one day do make a literally, 100% effective birth control? Should it be legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however, the woman didn't simply "leave her door unlocked," she literally welcomed you into her house. a woman who willfully engages in sexual intercourse has freely accepted millions of sperm into her body, all of whom are in search of an ovum to fertilise.

Wrong. If she was actively trying to conceive, that is the equivalent of an invitation.

I won't respond to the rest of your post, because it is all based on the yet unproven assumption above, namely that having sex is equal to trying to conceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A human has rights when it is human - not before, not after.

so at which point do you become human?

a foetus is human, it is one of the earliest stages of human development. it is not a different species, as in your bacteria example.

Also, the statement of whether or not the woman must accept responsibility the life of the infant because she invited the fetus into her knowing the consequences is still flawed.

First, a fetus, and especially the clumped together group of cells during the first stages of development, is not life.

so what is life?

is it "life" in the second trimester? why not in the first trimester?

is it "life" in the third trimester? why not the second?

is it "life" one second after navigating the birth canal? why not one second prior to that journey?

is it "life" when it is able to say its first word? does "ga ga" count?

So saying that a woman has no right to seek medical treatment is like saying if a woman falls riding a bike, then when she breaks her arm she invited the break by not wearing shoulder pads, so she should have to endure the pain.

it is not analogous at all, no life with rights is created whilst falling off a bike.

abortion is not "medical treatment," it is not a couple of aspirin and a sling, it is the destruction of human life in one of its earliest stages. even if you think the foetus has no rights, you should understand that difference.

Even more, how does creating a life situation cause responsibility for that life? If I open a new business that drives another man out of business through nothing but fair trade, am I obligated to get that man back on his feet, or give him a job? Then why am I (speaking generally, as I can't physically do it, of course) expected to incubate a group of cells into a human?

I don't see any analogy here.

if anything, you have it the wrong way around. the foetus is the new business and the existing business is the woman, the existing businessman has no right to kill his competitor because they are threatening his sales.

also, do you not think that parents have a responsibility for their (born) children?

what about when it is much more than a group of cells? say 10, 20, 30 weeks? is there an obligation then?

Also, something that popped into my head while I was writing: Let's answer this question separate from the abortion issue - if sex is so ultimately tied to making babies as you say it has been, is, and always will be, then should birth control be illegal, since it lessens the chance of a baby being produced?

What if they one day do make a literally, 100% effective birth control? Should it be legal?

you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.

I have nothing against birth control whatsoever and the State has no right to prevent it being sold, people are free to use it to reduce the chances of becoming pregnant. if they want to use the pill, three condoms, an IUD and the rythym method, good luck to them! however, if their method of birth control fails, then the woman has to carry the child to term.

and if they ever do make a 100% effective birth control, then of course it should be legal (it should reduce the number of abortions afterall)

Wrong. If she was actively trying to conceive, that is the equivalent of an invitation.

I am sure you are aware of the mechanics of human sexual intercourse, so you should understand that by consenting to sex, the woman invited millions of sperm into her body.

the equivalent if she was actively trying to conceive is that she would have fluffed the cushions and made some tea as well.

I won't respond to the rest of your post, because it is all based on the yet unproven assumption above, namely that having sex is equal to trying to conceive.

again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

I am not saying that sex = trying to conceive.

what I am saying that there is possibility of conception if you have sex - regardless of the protection used.

that is quite a significant difference.

I may fire a gun on my property, at a target on my tree, which has a 10ft wall behind it. If I miss the target and the bullet ricochets off the tree and hits my neighbour in the leg, I am responsible for that - even though I was not trying to shoot at him and took some preventative measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just replying to one point. I may return to reply in full later over the weekend. (Must get ready for work in a moment.)

in the case of rape, the unborn human, aka the foetus, has a right to life, but the woman's right to her own body takes precedence over the life of the foetus, as the child can not expect the woman to support it. that is why the circumstances matter, not because they affect the right to life of the foetus (it doesn't) but because they affect the right of a woman over her own body.

Since she did not consent to the sex, the woman retains her rights. But if she does consent to the sex, she loses her rights?

What I said earlier stands.

I said,

QUOTE

The effect of all you have said, since you are willing to grant an abortion if the woman did not enjoy the sex because she was raped, but because she did enjoy the sex, i.e., had consensual sex and we are assuming enjoyed it - that woman loses the right to direct the course of her life - is evil.

Then you said

I am greatly offended by your apparently cavalier attitude towards rape. rape is not "not enjoying sex." rape is sex forced on a woman who did not consent. I sincerely hope that I have misinterpretted what you wrote, if so, I apologise.

if a woman has consented to sex, whether she enjoys it or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

And my problem with your position stands. Do not assume I'm being cavalier about rape. I would never be, having experienced that horrible act myself.

But what I understand is that in your view, the woman only retains the right to direct the course of her life/decide what to do with her body if the sex is forced on her. If she consents to the sex and conceives, the woman loses her right to terminate the pregnancy. How is that moral, just, rational?

How about if she (or he) were using protection such as condoms, IUD, birth control pills, or whatever - and that protection failed? Obviously the couple were not intending to conceive/were taking actions to prevent conception. What is your position on that?

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...