 |
|  |
 |
|
dejon
|
|
Nice try, but you cannot say what what you have to show and what you don't, in order to convince me.
When I said "voice", it was a short form for "opinions and choices made by a free will". I wasn't talking about the social ideals of rights to life and liberty.
Did you notice what happened once you assumed it was okay to be a representative voice for a free will you cannot know?
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Good point. Now I have to show why the unborn child's right to life does not supercede the woman's right to life, but only her right to liberty.
I agree with abortion in the case where the mother's life is in danger, most typically found in ectopic pregnancies. In this case, it is better for one life to perish rather than two, since a neglected ectopic pregnancy will rupture the mother's fallopian tubes, killing both the mother and child.
This is why my position does not enforce the child's right to life over the mother's right to life, but only over her right to liberty. No one is justified to kill a person, just because they are an inconvenience.
|
As I said earlier, you are superimposing your viewpoints on your representative voice.
It is very noble, yet very dangerous, to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. In other circumstances, you may have direct contact with the people, have known them for some time, have much in common with them, have communicated with others in similar situations, or any number of other possibilies - all of which may grant you some credibility to speak for someone.
In this situation, no so such credibility exists. Especially when you were the one to declare that those people a) are people (I gave you that one); and b) the opinion you offer is your own. As I said earlier - the idea of a representative voice is self-serving.
We cannot know the choices of a free will that cannot communicate. We cannot know that the clinically brain-dead person, who wrote a letter with their wishes, hasn't changed their mind. And we cannot know that a product of conception would choose life over death. They might be a social maverick who does not subscribe to our social ideals. They might assess the likelyhood of a life of foster care or living in slums (or for that matter, living a materialistic and empty life) as not worthwhile. They might choose to take their chances with the next conception that comes along (if you believe in souls).
The bottom line is - we cannot know. No matter what popular social opinion says, no matter how strong your personal opinions are - you just cannot speak for that free will. (Which is why it doesn't matter scientifically if it is a person or not, for me.)
Once again however, I remind you that you can respect the choices of the woman, and should.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dejon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
What do you mean we cannot 'know' the unborn children? We have ultrasound that enables us to see them. We can see them grow through every stage of development.
|
I meant "know" as in "know their wishes".
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
I assume that unborn children wish to live and not to die. That seems a pretty safe bet to me.
|
Not so, see previous post.
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
What do I have to gain for speaking up for the unborn children? How am I serving myself?
|
Sorry I didn't make this clear - when I say self-serving, I mean your argument is self-serving.
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Clever way to put the question. Since we cannot know their wishes, why should we kill them? How do we know that they want to be killed? I say let them live and then let them decide if they want to play the cards that life has given them.
|
I never said we could know they want to killed, in fact, I said over and over that we cannot know anything.
"Safe bet", "play the cards"? You're truly a gambler - aren't you? (One is out of context, I know - I couldn't resist. )
It comes down this for me: I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
If the unborn child is a living human person, then we have no right to kill the person without their consent. If the unborn child is a living human person, then we already stand condemned for all the abortions performed, since we have not spoken out for the death of an innocent. |
I gave you the "person" in order to illustrate the problem with a representative voice. There is no way to determine the truth or fallacy of personhood at any scientific point. Does adding "living human" in front of "person" somehow make it a social citizen with civil rights?
You might want to avoid using words like "condemned" if you wish to continuing avoiding religious connotations in the debate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dejon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Elok
Dejon: You seem to be effectively placing the desires of one human being above the desires of another based on...what? Seniority? Why are you brushing off the idea of human rights for a fetus so quickly? We cannot know their choice, but assume it's thumbs down to be on the safe side? You'd think erring on the side of caution would be letting the kid out in case s/he wants to live. Your arguments just aren't adding up. Generally speaking, I second what Obiwan says. Three months past conception is a bit young to be developing suicidal angst. And drawing the line on human rights based in any way on material prospects is little short of monstrous. Just my opinion, of course. |
I'll repeat the most relevant part of my previous post here, as it may also clarify my viewpoint for you:
I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
hmm
so if you are asleep
I can kill you, since if you potentially do wake, you might want to die?
actually that is not the negative of your statement, youer statemnt seems to suggests that it is the merest possible chance that you would not want to die (that I can kill you (or anyone else I don't know) because you will probably want to die)
I don't know about you, but most people I know want to live, and those that don't (disregarding med cases) we generally think have psych issues (and should not be allowed to die)
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dejon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by dejon
...but also disagree with their right to choose. |
While I understand everyone's disbelief in the other elements, a large percentage of society supports pro-choice.
Btw, I loved the inference that anyone who doesn't think like the rest of society must be insane.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
dejon:
quote:
You might want to avoid using words like "condemned" if you wish to continuing avoiding religious connotations in the debate.
|
In this context I'm looking at the condemnation future societies harbour for the flaws of the past societies. Can you think of a better word to express the same idea?
quote:
I will not dismiss the woman's free will on the chance that their potential child would not only disapprove of their choice, but also disagree with their right to choose.
|
Now you have retreated a step. I thought that you conceded that the unborn child is an actual person, and not a potential person. I agree, we should not sacrifice the mother's rights for a potential person, but the stakes change if we are dealing with an actual person.
quote:
"Safe bet", "play the cards"? You're truly a gambler - aren't you? (One is out of context, I know - I couldn't resist. )
|
Metaphors are the spice of life. BTW, neither are out of context. 
quote:
Does adding "living human" in front of "person" somehow make it a social citizen with civil rights?
|
No. "Living human" is an important qualifier so that we can seperate the different terms of the debate: life, humanity and personhood.
We know that an unborn child is living and human from what science tells us, but what about personhood? You seem to like free-will as a criterion of personhood, to which I replied earlier that the important feature is not the current ability but the intrinsic capacity for free will possessed by the zygote through the genetic code formed at conception.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002 time: 15:27
|
|
I have a question-if the unborn babies in question may be affected by the disease of their parents [AIDS; sexually transmitted diseases; etc?], would the anti abortionists here approve of abortion?
What about in areas where adoption of a baby is impossible or extremely difficuly to arrange-such as the poorer parts of Africa, or Asia?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
Spiffor:
Do you favor euthanasia when the patient cannot speak his mind, too? |
If there is a strict ethical code that has been elaborated, and the euthanasia follows it spotlessly, yes. If a sickly is doomed, cannot expect anything in his remaining lifetime but pain, yet is too sick to express it, I don't see any moral problem in euthanasiing him.
If you become a scientist Genius, and if you develop some chemical / genetic manipulation that gives the zygote a way to understand his surroundings and to react to them, go ahead. As long as the zygote is unable to understand what's happening outside and to express its views about it, only the parents can speak for him. Or Obiwan 
quote: B. currently, the mother, and the mother only has the right over the unborn child. This is wrong as well, IMO. | Absolutely, a child is the matter of both parents, except in the situations the father has decided to flee from it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
That assumes the patient in question has a mind. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses clearly don't have minds.
| That mind is now basically non-existant. The patient may recover/reactivate it someday, however.
quote: If you become a scientist Genius, and if you develop some chemical / genetic manipulation that gives the zygote a way to understand his surroundings and to react to them, go ahead. As long as the zygote is unable to understand what's happening outside and to express its views about it, only the parents can speak for him. Or Obiwan |
Actually, by "why?" I meant "why can't this be changed?". Now, however, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "this". 
quote: Absolutely, a child is the matter of both parents, except in the situations the father has decided to flee from it. |
currently, this is not the case. At least not with an unborn child. A mother is the only authority. I don't think it's right.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
Zevico:
quote:
I have a question-if the unborn babies in question may be affected by the disease of their parents [AIDS; sexually transmitted diseases; etc?], would the anti abortionists here approve of abortion?
|
No. We don't kill born children who likewise suffer from AIDS, so why should we kill unborn children?
quote:
What about in areas where adoption of a baby is impossible or extremely difficuly to arrange-such as the poorer parts of Africa, or Asia?
|
Most of the mothers in this region see their children as their future, since there is a lack of social security. This is one of the reasons for big families, in the hope that some survive and prosper to adulthood.
In any case you have to look at the essentials of adoption. Could a woman drop a child off at the house of a childless friend? That does not require a high-tech society. Adoption has been practiced along these lines for quite some time.
It will be interesting to see the effects of widespread abortion, before adequate health-care. The African economy needs people, just like the European economy needed people in order to industrialise. If abortion takes hold there, will Africa ever modernise?
quote:
Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses clearly don't have minds.
|
UR:
What do you mean by mind? If you mean the ability to make choices for oneself, then we would have to lump in children as well.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|