The distinction a person makes between a human and a person is and should be their own. It shouldn't be decided for them.
See, this is you denying external reality. You're saying it can't be commented on so people should just choose. But why does that apply to abortion and not to other areas?
And as the distinction can not be made with science or facts a person has to use reason and come to their own conclusion.
No, the distinction can't be made at all. Prove to me that a distinction exists at all. Not just your opinion, prove it. If you can't prove it, and its just your opinion, then why should the law support opinions over science.
It is this inability to present concrete evidence that leads me to believe that abortion should be legal.
And it is the inability of the pro-choice lobby to provide concrete distinction between a person and a human that leads to the logical conclusion that abortion should be wrong. Just because you've invented a distinction between human and person, doesn't mean that in the real world it exists. And unless you can prove it exists, there is no reason to legislate on the belief that it does.
If abortion were illegal people would still be debating this topic. There would still be people who decided abortion isn't wrong and would seek out an abortion, but it would be much more dangerous, even life threatening for them to seek out this option.
So we make birth control available so that people don't have to have unplanned pregnancies, and we give them a secure social system that ensures they can look after their children if they do. I'm not saying either of these things are adequate now, I'm just saying the apocalyptic scenario you paint isn't necessarily the endgame.
abortion has been around for thousands of years and promises to be around for thousands more. Why not make that option as safe as possible?
Murder and theft have been around for thousands of years too. Just because something is old, doesn't make it justifiable.
The right to decide when and if a person decides to start a family does grant you the right to an abortion. It is that person exercising their right to say no I do not want to reproduce at this time.
No, it's not. If you don't want to reproduce, use birth control. An abortion is too late. It isn't a threat to reproductive rights. It's a threat to the child's right to life.
Libel or defamation is when a person slanders someone or something under the pretence that they are correct when they have the full knowledge and understanding that what they say is false. So free speech just don't lie. And I don't get what this has to do with whether or not abortion should be legal.
Then I'll make it bluntly clear for you. There is no such thing as an absolute right. You have a right to free speech except in the case of x, y and z. The same way you have reproductive rights, but they don't extend to x, y and z. The point being that just because you say you have "reproductive rights" that doesn't mean that you have a right to abortion.
I never said that laws against murder were wrong or that people should be allowed to kill others.
Yes you did. You said that people should be allowed to make up their own mind about the line of distinction between a human and a person. My question to that is, why does it stop at abortion? Your logic is that the law should allow people to decide where the distinction between person and human is, but why is that allowed in the case of abortion, but not in other cases?
I have stated my reasons for differentiating between a person and a human.
And you have provided no evidence for the existence of such a distinction. My question is, in the absence of evidence of such a distinction, why should the law respect such a distinction. After all, there is no evidence that it exists.
no you have voiced your opinions based on your interpretation of the facts that are available regarding this issue. I have done the same. We can have different opinions.
No, I have provided evidence. You have stated opinions.
It is a fact that a foetus is biologically a human. That is evidence, not an opinion
It is a fact that a foetus is biologically an organism. That is evidence, not an opinion
It is a fact that a foetus is biologically alive. That is evidence, not an opinion
It is a fact that human rights are intended to be granted to all humans. That is evidence. NOT an opinion.
So I have to ask you, where is my opinion in this? Where is my agenda or opinion, or anything not supported by fact?
But you don't have to follow the law. you choose to. I think you are ignoring that people are free thinking individuals who act according to their own free will. Deciding that red is red and green is green doesn't mean they'll agree or abide by your decisions.
I am not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about cold hard reality. And let's be clear. The law stops you from running a red light. That means we have to admit to the external reality of the lights colour. That means we have to examine reality objectively and agree upon something. We don't accept subjective reality in courts. A driver will not be let off because he says "well, I saw it as green" when it was actually red. This is what I am getting at here. Your argument denies the existence of an external reality, because it says "there is a distinction between person and human" when actually, there is no objective evidence that such a distinction exists. And I am trying to use the example of the traffic light to prove to you that we don't accept subjectivity into our laws. We don't accept what people believe, we accept what is true. Now you may believe that there is a distinction between a person and a human, and you have a right to hold that belief. But unless you can prove that such a distinction exists, what right do you have to demand your opinion be represented in the law.
You are ignoring every point I made about the definition of being not being set in stone. There is proof that yes at conception the fetus is a human, but there is no proof that they are a human being. that's the debate. That inability for society as a whole to define what constitutes a being.
And you have yet to offer any proof that there is, or indeed should be, a distinction between the biological human and the human being. So answer that question, using objective reasoning. Why should there be a distinction at all?
According to you this is why a fetus is a person: DNA, living, organism. Now living and organism can also be applied to a number of different things as well, so what it comes down to is that it is human.
Actually, I said human DNA, so you're going to have to start again.
So what makes humans so special. A cow is both living and an organism, yet it becomes supper so easily. Vegetarian? Plants are organisms too.
Plants and cows don't have human DNA. They have to have all three things.
Your argument rests on this idea that we as humans are separate from other organisms, but does not address what makes us different from these other organisms.
Yes, it does. I said, very specifically, we have human DNA.
I have invented nothing. My theory regarding the person is not new and I am not the first nor the last, to regard a person in the way that I do.
That doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence.
And that applies to you as well just because you don't differentiate doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. Neither argument can be proven. This is one of the oldest debates.
But because you cannot prove a difference, that means that there is no reason your belief should be imposed in law.
But believing that it doesn't exist is no reason to legislate it either. It's like legislating religion. Trying to make a set of beliefs mandatory doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe them and those that don't are going to be oppressed.
Except it is you who are making the claim here. I actually have evidence. Humans have distinct DNA that distinguish them from all other species, they are organisms and they are alive.
By disallowing those who seek abortion from having an abortion, based on a conclusion that you have come to but they have not, is just as oppressive.
Not if I have actual evidence for it.
It's not through making illegal that the pro lifers will save their babies, it's through birth control. We have both said this. Pro lifers should be pushing free birth control and better sex education and healthcare, better child care and maternity leave. This is the vehicle through which to work. Banning abortion oppresses those who would think otherwise and pushes abortion back to a coat hanger in a hotel room.
Unless you can provide me some concrete evidence, I'm not buying your idea that making abortions illegal would leave abortion rates at exactly the same as they are now. A government could do all kinds of things to look after women with unwanted children. It's not impossible to help people in this situation.
true it isn't necessarily the endgame, but the thing is when the abortion argument is raised in government, so is that of birth control and often the case is that if you're anti one you're anti the other.
No, that's the American Government you're thinking of. The rest of the world can manage very well, thank you.
I'm sorry I didn't realize one right cancelled out another.
Well it does. Your rights stop when they start threatening someone else's. That means your reproductive rights stop when exercising them would harm the foetus
So right to life except in the case of x, y, and z. We can even go with longterm coma patients, death penalty and abortion. No right is absolute right?
Indeed, no right is absolute. Regarding right to life, some countires have death penelty etc. There are laws and systems that exist outside human rights decorations that clarify human rights. The one thing that is clear from legal extrapolation, is that the right to life only exists in so far as an arbitary attack on that right is concerened. IE an attack not carried out by the state. Now in some states, even that is outlawed, but the point is that the right to life does protect foetus's. Just because a right isn't absolute, that doesn't mean you can break it whenever. In the same way as speech with libel, where your speech threatens someone else, so your rights can't impinge on someone else. Your reproductive rights end at someone elses right to life.
I fail to see how that's the same as go forth and murder for there are no consequences.
Because if you say that with foetus's we can just decide for ourselves when their a person or not and the law should have no power, why can't that work on other crimes. Why can't I just decide that you may be a human, but your not a person?
These cases exist and are debated. I think abortion is just the most accessible for some people.
Now you're describing reality on the basis of popular will. If many people believe something foolish, it is still foolish. Just because lots of people like abortion, doesn't mean it should happen. You have to base it on the external reality.
human equals person is not a fact.
Untill you can prove otherwise, yes it is. You are making the proposition. You have to demonstrate the existance of a distinction.
No. When you go to run a red light a force does not apply itself to the brake pedal preventing you from doing so
Look, I'm not going to continue discussing with you unless you respond to my arguments as I present them. The law stops you from runing the red light. Yes it doesn't physically stop you, but everyone knows what is meant by saying "the law stops you". If you don't get that, you are being deliberately obtuse. Please engage with the argument I present.
But I can make the same argument. You have yet to prove that human equals a human being and there IS a definitive difference. You just believe that there isn't. Why should your opinion be represented in the law.
Because my opinion can be supported by facts. Yours cannot. I can say that humans are distinct from other animals because of our DNA. That whatever characteristics, be it our sapience, sentience, sexuality, or capacity for art, learning, language rather than communication etc... whatever it is, since DNA is the biologically distinct factor between us and other animals, (since we have Homo Sapien DNA and they do not) we conclude therefore that our DNA is what makes us distinct as people. Now a foetus has DNA which makes it human, it is an organism, so not a specialised cell or an organ or tissue, and it is alive. Since I can prove all these things objectively, my opinion should be represented by the government, becasue I have an externally valid truth. If you want to dispute my truth, and claim it is only an opinion, you need to have evidence that disputes what I say. You can't just say "but its not a person", you have to prove why it isn't a person. You cannot simply suppose it.
As far as I'm concerned it comes down to your definition of human being. I think we all agree that murder is wrong, but at what point abortion becomes recognized as murder changes depending on when we start to consider the life human.
I came to the conclusion by myself at a reasonably young age (thank you parents who aren't afraid to talk about where babies come from) that after conception the resulting "thing" is a human. This leads me to be pro life as a general rule.
Of course, choice does come into it. The 2 major ones are whether or not to have sex and what method of contraception to use. Consider the likelihood of the contraception failing (all methods have a chance, however small) and accept those odds.
Rape, of course, is more difficult. Were I a woman who got raped I would like to think that I would choose to keep the child- at the very least to give up to adoption, but I will not make that choice for others. Either way, I would be very aware that there is a human life in me.
As to recent events in Ireland: what I have been taught on moral theology is very clear- acts which are sins when they stand alone are considered differently when you are working within a larger context. If you carry out an abortion because having a child is inconvenient, that, by Catholic theology, is wrong. If you carry out an abortion in order to save the mother's life, that is less clear, but down to the individuals conscience- and I would have thought that in the context of a miscarriage, clearly the right thing to do.
I am prolife, but not to the point of being crazy or terrorizing people. I believe that abortion is wrong for most reasons such as the parents not wanting a child, or the baby being the wrong gender, or the mother's body image, or some other dumb reason like that. The baby, or fetus, if you prefer to dehumanize it, is alive. It has a heartbeat and brain signals from fairly early on, and by about 20 weeks or a little earlier it can hear and feel pain. At the least, they should have the cut off date [currently 25 weeks where I am] much earlier, and the reason must be a legitimate medical reason. Otherwise, there is adoption, and these people should learn how to deal with the consequences of their actions or just not do those actions. For them, abortion is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I personally don't, although I am kind of young for that anyway, and I don't feel that I am missing anything: except chances of disease and pregnancy.
You can come to that conclusion. Myself and others would dispute it, but I'm sure others would agree with you if you made a convincing argument.
And would you accept it if it were put into legislation? Or would you see it as horrifically backward and arbitary.
Yes. our DNA means that we are humans and not chimpanzees.
Yes, and until you can provide a scientific, rather than opinion based distinction between humans and people, you have to accept that our DNA is the only objective proof that we are human and people. In order to be able to justify the use of the law to allow people to destroy a foetus, you need an objective proof that there is such a distinction that is possible. Not simply people's opinions. Actual proof.
No one is claiming to know all of the things about DNA or the brain. Neurologists and geneticists are constantly learning new things which change what they used to think was fact.
Don't try and paint me as claiming to know more than I do. It won't work.
There are studies being done right now around the idea that the brain builds itself around experiences.
Yes, and what gives the brain the capacity to do that? Our DNA.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that you are painting these constantly developing and expanding ideas as if they were black and white. Yes DNA is the blueprints of the person, but they don't know how that is quite yet. Both neurology and genealogy are such young sciences it's hard for those who study them to say where they'll be or what they'll be doing 10, 20 years from now. It is entirely possible that either field could discover something that changes the science entirely. We just don't know enough yet and it's hard to build on a foundation that doesn't stay still.
You're going to have to give me something concrete. What exactly don't I know. What salient fact or aspect of my argument is incomplete in such a manner that it means that what I am saying is innacurate about my definition of a person being a human. All you're saying here is "the fields are growing" which is great, but it doesn't answer the question.
Furthermore, lets say we applied your logic to other areas. The fields of forensic science are also growing and changing every day. Does that mean we don't give out sentences because while all the avilable evidence says we should lock person X up, we cannot discount the possibility that in 20, 30, or 50 years some new evidence will come to light using some new scientific principle that will in fact demonstrate how we were wrong? No. We use the evidence we have now. At no point in our legislative or judical system do we base our entire judgements on unproven possible future evidence. We base it on what we have right now.
So in conclusion to this point
1. What exactly are we going to find out that is proving me wrong?
2. If your answer to 1 is "we don't know" then why should we base any decisions we make on possible future evidence coming to light, when we don't accept that principle in any other field.
I think that understanding of the complexity and ever changing nature of all of the arguments is what lead to the supreme court's decision here.
Prove it. The way most people see it is that the court arbitrarily based its judgement on viability outside of the mother, which is absurd, seeing as you are not viable outside of an environment that can provide food, water and air.
Also what bothers me about your statement above is how flippantly you address 70,000 deaths. That's 70,000 preventable deaths. It just strikes me as off to get so worked up about the life of a fetus but state so nonchalantly about the deaths of 70,000 people. I know this critique is rather irrelevant to our discussion, but maybe it's something to consider when discussing this with others.
You misunderstand me. I'm not being flippant, I'm pointing out the flaws in the stats. 70,000 deaths is of course terrible, but there are ways and means of preventing both the illegal abortions and still having abortion as being legal.
No. I never said I would go along with what was decided I just said that it could be decided, not to mention has been decided in the past.
Well that's the rub isn't it. You're happy to go along with imposing your subjective value on the world when it suits you. Hypocrite.
Also, you havn't answered my statement.
Until you can provide a scientific, rather than opinion based distinction between humans and people, you have to accept that our DNA is the only objective proof that we are human and people. In order to be able to justify the use of the law to allow people to destroy a foetus, you need an objective proof that there is such a distinction that is possible. Not simply people's opinions. Actual proof.
So, provide some proof.
The specifics regarding human/animal and person. Perhaps solidifying the theory that the brain builds itself up from it's more basic, animalistic state, through experience and repetition. The possibility still holds that before and possibly after birth we as humans are more animal then person. this would confirm the fetus in it's, "potential to be a human being," status wouldn't it.
Yes it would, however that logic is rather dangerous, because it is also the logic that permits infanticide and exceptionally late term abortion, since the brain has not learned anything at that point, and therefore if you are basing the "human/person" distinction on that, you would be needing to permit the killing of foetus's and babies for much longer than is currently permitted. Would you be comfortable with that?
Besides that, the problem with your logic here is the levels of probability involved. The thing is, you claim that because the foetus doesn't yet have the brain experience it is not yet a person. But the problem is that everything it has been doing up to that point has been developing the necessary tools in order for it to begin gaining the experience. The only things stopping it from gaining that experiance is time, and barring human intervention or natural accident, it will certainly get to the stage where it has that ability. 100% certain, no question. So I can hardly call it probability of life/possibility of being human when it is definitely and distinctly going to be there. Possibility implies there is a chance of it not happening. But the only chances of it not happening (human intervention/natural accident) are the same things that potentially stop us all from seeing the next day. Therefore, I'm at something of a loss to see how a foetus is the potential for becoming a human, rather than a human itself. The developmental link is clear.
Furthermore, your suggestion is entirely speculative. At this point, we have no evidence to suggest that there is the kinds of distinction you are arguing for.
Even furthermore, there is no distinction of the kind you are referencing in law. Human rights are not specifically given to "persons" but rather to humans. This is done so that the courts or legal system of a given country cannot simply declare an artificial and non-evidence based distinction between one group and another, only imbuing one with the capacity of "humanity".
I fail to see how that's hypocritical
Let me spell it out for you. You are being selective about when you support the imposing of an external subjective reality in law. You are happy doing it when you like the law, but unhappy doing it when you do not. That means that in point of fact, you don't care about whether there is evidence, or debate etc. You just care about whether you like the law or not.
Yes, I'm not in the position to make this decision for someone else. There's often a lot at stake for a woman seeking an abortion and she needs to consider this debate herself and reach her own conclusion.
I don't think you actually read what I said. If you take the argument that it's brain development and experience, then you can kill the child for quite some time after it has been born.
But the potential to become a person is different then actually being one.
No, but potential is also recognised in law. Let me show you.
You have the potential to reach an old age, but that doesn't mean you are going to manage that.
No, but the fact that you have that potential means the government puts in place things like social security, and safety regulations to allow you to live as long as possible etc.
You have the potential to purchase a gun and shoot up a school or office, but that doesn't mean you are going to do
Before I respond to this, I should point out that that's not the same as the kind of potential of a foetus becoming a child. This is a possibility. The foetus becoming a child will happen, assuming there is no human intervention or an accident, and those things don't count as arguments in a murder case ("I'm innocent your honour, he was going to die at some point!")
Also, because of the potential of you to get a gun etc, the government puts regulations in place to control gun ownership etc.
Humans and animals both have a lot of potential, but you have to reach that potential in order for it to mean anything. Potential is just the idea that there is something more, not that there is actually going to be more.
You're being too generic with the word "potential". Let me demonstrate to you why you are wrong to use it in this way. I have the potential to become a great author/actor/artist etc if I apply myself etc. However, there is no inevitability about it. It is something that can happen.
However, in the case of the foetus, it is more akin to a ball that has been dropped and is in the process of falling. It will hit the ground. It is in the process of hitting it. The only thing to stop it is something intercepting it. In the same way, with the foetus, it will be a child if you do not stop it. It is not a case of potential, it is already happening.
But we have no evidence that the distinction isn't there either.
Yes we do. Namely, the lack of evidence. Until such a time as you can prove it's existence, we only have speculation.
So then this argument falls into that "one right does not cancel out another," does it not. As a human the fetus' right to life disrupts a woman's reproduction rights. its a complicated argument.
The right to life is much more fundamental than reproductive rights.
I still fail to see how this is hypocritical. I have never said anything along the lines of everyone should follow every law, I've always said come to your own conclusions.
The reason it's hypocritical is that you accept this idea with some laws, but not others.
No, but the fact that you have that potential means the government puts in place things like social security, and safety regulations to allow you to live as long as possible etc.
I'd just like to say that the government doesn't put social security and medicare in for people to live as long as possible. They do it so people aren't working at 70 years old.
The point stands. The potential you have to do something is what the law is based around.
Yes that's part of the argument. If a child is neither wanted or able to be cared for get an abortion. Take care of it before it becomes a problem. There are places where unwanted infants are just left to die. Some orphanages in China have what are called 'death rooms'. They're disgusting. I personally, am of the opinion that yes you can kill the child after birth, just don't do it slowly. But that is my opinion and I recognize that I am probably in the minority with this way of thinking and I do not expect this to be reflected in any legislation regarding abortion.
Okay, so now you are being a hypocrite. You are trying to use the argument that humans are not persons in why we should not criminalise abortion, yet you are not prepared to accept into law where your logic (personality defined by brain development) takes you. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that person hood is something that is defined by brain development, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you have to allow later term abortions and the killing of babies. If you're not prepared to support that as what the legislation should be, then you don't really believe your position.
I disagree with your use of the word allow here. Social security and safety regulation don't let you grow old, they certainly make it easier for you to do so, but they neither permit nor guarantee that you will do so.
No, but they are provisions put in place on the basis of the possibility that you will. That is the point. Protections based on possibility. In the same way we should provide legal protections for the foetus based on the possibility that it will survive the womb.
As it stands potential to be and actually being are two entirely different things. The potential to be a senior doesn't mean you get the seniors discount or benefits, you have to prove that you are a senior citizen.
No, but potential to be a senior does mean you have to pay taxes towards funding social security.
that's the argument we're having though. To intervene or not to intervene.
You're not understanding. The potential in this case isn't a possibility. It is a certianty. It is like a ball that has been dropped to the floor, as opposed to one that has been thrown at a target. It will get there, with conditions for the same things that we all have conditions for as to whether or not we will live to see the next day. IE it is only accident or human intervention that will stop this baby being born, in the same way it is only accident or human intervention that will stop you from seeing tommorow. No question. As a result, it needs more robust protections than something that only might happen.
I don't think you are reading what I'm saying. I will quote myself, "question everything." As in ALL things, laws included.
Okay, so in your mind should people be allowed to run red lights if they claim that they don't see red and green the same as other people?
I am willing to support that law. Others who are pro-choice may not. Different people define personhood different ways.
Then frankly, your sick. You seriously support the right of people to kill newborn infants. You're disgusting and I really fail to see how you can claim to any kind of moral highground here.
You are not understanding either. we are debating the human intervention aspect of your argument. That's the whole point of this discussion.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just stupid. Here is the point. The human intervention issue is the same for us. Now. We're born. Your argument that a fetus is a potential person ignores the point that I've made about our potential. We only have potential to live to the next day that is guranteed by a lack of accident and human intervention. The same is true of the fetus. Therefore, since we are the same, and have the same kind of potential, who are you to say that we are different from them. We're talking about inevitable potential. The same kind of potential we base our murder laws on today. So why is the foetus any different?
People will perceive things differently regardless of whether I allow them to or not. They are free to act as they see fit. Traffic laws are based on a kind of common sense, it's a very well organized system that majority of people are willing to follow because it allows them to drive around without getting into an accident. It's laws based off of ideas where a person's perceptions of what's 'red' or 'green' matter.
Right, so you accept there is a reality about what is red and green. So why do you not accept there is a reality about whether the foetus is alive or not? Because lots of people disagree? Just because people disagree, doesn't make them right.