336 Million

[BigBallinStalin]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being, but let's get to the biggest problem in this debate.

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

[daddy1gringo]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being, but let's get to the biggest problem in this debate.

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

No, it's not that at all. It's just that "pro-lifers" are convinced that it is a fact, not an opinion, that the being in question is indeed a person with full rights from conception. Therefore, it no more reflects an inordinate attempt to control other people than when the law says that no, you may not kill that other person even though you believe you are justified because he made you really mad, or because you desperately need the money he has in his pockets.

I have asked this question before and nobody ever answers it honestly, they just dodge it:

IF that is, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF it could be objectively proven that the child in the womb is a person, with no valid rationale for saying that it lacks the rights of any other person, would you agree that there would then be legitimate grounds for considering making abortion illegal? That is, realizing that there is still room for dialogue about exceptions in cases like rape or serious threat to the health of the mother.

[chang50]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being, but let's get to the biggest problem in this debate.

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

No, it's not that at all. It's just that "pro-lifers" are convinced that it is a fact, not an opinion, that the being in question is indeed a person with full rights from conception. Therefore, it no more reflects an inordinate attempt to control other people than when the law says that no, you may not kill that other person even though you believe you are justified because he made you really mad, or because you desperately need the money he has in his pockets.

I have asked this question before and nobody ever answers it honestly, they just dodge it:

IF that is, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF it could be objectively proven that the child in the womb is a person, with no valid rationale for saying that it lacks the rights of any other person, would you agree that there would then be legitimate grounds for considering making abortion illegal? That is, realizing that there is still room for dialogue about exceptions in cases like rape or serious threat to the health of the mother.

If your hypothetical position could be (objectively)proven,exactly how I don't know,then I would go further then making it illegal. But I really can't see any way of exactly defining when a fetus becomes a child and then a person.In fact I am not even sure there is such a thing as objectivity.Now someone has answered your question.

[daddy1gringo]

...No, it's not that at all. It's just that "pro-lifers" are convinced that it is a fact, not an opinion, that the being in question is indeed a person with full rights from conception. Therefore, it no more reflects an inordinate attempt to control other people than when the law says that no, you may not kill that other person even though you believe you are justified because he made you really mad, or because you desperately need the money he has in his pockets.

I have asked this question before and nobody ever answers it honestly, they just dodge it:

IF that is, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF it could be objectively proven that the child in the womb is a person, with no valid rationale for saying that it lacks the rights of any other person, would you agree that there would then be legitimate grounds for considering making abortion illegal? That is, realizing that there is still room for dialogue about exceptions in cases like rape or serious threat to the health of the mother.

If your hypothetical position could be (objectively)proven,exactly how I don't know,then I would go further then making it illegal. But I really can't see any way of exactly defining when a fetus becomes a child and then a person.In fact I am not even sure there is such a thing as objectivity.Now someone has answered your question.

Well, yes, thank you, that is the closest to an actual answer to my question I have gotten, although you only actually answered the question briefly and rather cryptically, while spending most of the post on how you don't believe that the hypothetical conditions could indeed be fulfilled. What you did say was interesting though. What do you mean by "I would go further th[a]n making it illegal", and why would you?

[chang50]

...No, it's not that at all. It's just that "pro-lifers" are convinced that it is a fact, not an opinion, that the being in question is indeed a person with full rights from conception. Therefore, it no more reflects an inordinate attempt to control other people than when the law says that no, you may not kill that other person even though you believe you are justified because he made you really mad, or because you desperately need the money he has in his pockets.

I have asked this question before and nobody ever answers it honestly, they just dodge it:

IF that is, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF it could be objectively proven that the child in the womb is a person, with no valid rationale for saying that it lacks the rights of any other person, would you agree that there would then be legitimate grounds for considering making abortion illegal? That is, realizing that there is still room for dialogue about exceptions in cases like rape or serious threat to the health of the mother.

If your hypothetical position could be (objectively)proven,exactly how I don't know,then I would go further then making it illegal. But I really can't see any way of exactly defining when a fetus becomes a child and then a person.In fact I am not even sure there is such a thing as objectivity.Now someone has answered your question.

Well, yes, thank you, that is the closest to an actual answer to my question I have gotten, although you only actually answered the question briefly and rather cryptically, while spending most of the post on how you don't believe that the hypothetical conditions could indeed be fulfilled. What you did say was interesting though. What do you mean by "I would go further th[a]n making it illegal", and why would you?

Well it would be murder if it had the rights we normally accord to a person,not some lesser illegality.How much closer could anyone get to an answer?

[_sabotage_]

When is it ok to walk away from a hand of cards?

Would it be wise to go all in blind?

IF, HYPOTHETICALLY IF, you had a thousand and realized the big blind was a thousand, would it be ok to leave without seeing a hand? What if only a single opponent sat against you, what if there were nine others? What if you had 7-2 offsuit? What if you had pocket aces? What if you had Bill Gates bankrolling you a thousand each hand? What if you just want to see the river and are planning on committing suicide whatever the outcome? What if the dealer was weak and the players had obvious tells? What if you could win a shot to the poker World Series? What if you were merely a distraction so your pals could rob the place? What if you were Gandolf the Grey? What if the US dollar was an inflated, overprinted currency that was losing its demand?

I expect clear unambiguous replies only. A simple yes or no will do.

[chang50]

When is it ok to walk away from a hand of cards?

Would it be wise to go all in blind?

IF, HYPOTHETICALLY IF, you had a thousand and realized the big blind was a thousand, would it be ok to leave without seeing a hand? What if only a single opponent sat against you, what if there were nine others? What if you had 7-2 offsuit? What if you had pocket aces? What if you had Bill Gates bankrolling you a thousand each hand? What if you just want to see the river and are planning on committing suicide whatever the outcome? What if the dealer was weak and the players had obvious tells? What if you could win a shot to the poker World Series? What if you were merely a distraction so your pals could rob the place? What if you were Gandolf the Grey? What if the US dollar was an inflated, overprinted currency that was losing its demand?

I expect clear unambiguous replies only. A simple yes or no will do.

Lol,if my granny had balls she'd be my grandad!
Supposing it could be hypothetically objectively proven that no Gods exist....???

[thegreekdog]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

Actually, it means they have the best argument. If the argument cannot be applied to the person making the argument; in other words, if Mets makes the argument but won't apply the same rationale to himself, then I think he loses the argument.

You're talking about logical consistency (for lack of a better term). I'm talking about someone asserting an argument which hinges on emotion, which isn't a good argument (recall: appeal to emotion). If we would allow an argument such as, "this is correct because it FEELS correct," then our standard of argumentation would be very low.

I agree with your adherence to logical consistency though.

That's good.

I don't think I'm asserting an "it feels correct" argument. If there is any appeal to emotion, it's an appeal to the nature of organisms to want to survive. I know there are exceptions, but they can be safely ignored here. For the vast majority of living organisms, there are one and perhaps two ideals or needs that supplant all others - (1) surviving; (2) procreating. The measurement of cognitive ability has no impact on the need/desire to survive.

[thegreekdog]

Indeed. This argument by patches misunderstands the position, because the discussion of whether an infant is a person or not is not the only relevant factor in determining whether the infant can be killed without it being considered seriously wrong. For example, if the government went and killed the newborns of infants, that would cause serious distress to the parents of that infant, presumably (if they wanted the baby to survive). So I don't advocate that it it should be legal for anyone to kill any infant; I just argue that it should be legal for you to kill your own infant child if you decide (with the advice of a medical expert) that your child will suffer through a life that is not worth living. It would never be ethical in my standard for the government to kill an infant child against a parents' wishes. As for whether this slippery slope argument would really be vindicated? Since abortion has existed for decades and the slippery slope hasn't been slid down yet, we're probably fine.

Right. His argument is that it should be ethical and legal for a mother to kill her own infant child.

Mets - I'm not sure you can limit yourself to "if you decide... that your child will suffer through a life that is not worth living."

[WestWind]

How are rights inherent? And which rights exactly?

Just Google "human rights". It's pretty well laid-out and "right to life" is among the first that pops up. Basic natural rights are inherent in that we recognize that everyone has them. The government doesn't "give" these rights to anyone, they just protect them if necessary.

I don't see why the difference between "rights" and "privileges" bears on my refutation. You're still granting the "rights" (whatever those are) of a person onto a non-person that may potentially be a person at some point. You give no argument for why we should defend such a structure; you simply assert that we ought to do so. So it's not really an argument at all, it's just a way of constructing a nice sounding ethical framework that comports with your ideas, but that isn't really a sound ethical framework at all. In other words, if you want to defend why a potential person should be treated with rights similar to that of a person, you need to argue that they share something in common, which the rights were designed to protect. So, if we agree that they don't share any of the relevant characteristics in common (e.g. memories, self-awareness, etc.) then there's no logical reason to grant them the same rights. If you think that they do, then this argument is a wash (I didn't initially realize that you had linked the two when we started discussing this).

Bolded is where you're once again missing the point. I'm not granting rights to anyone, you're not granting rights, the government isn't granting rights. Basic life rights aren't granted, they're inherent.

We hold the right to vote in trust for children under the age of 18. In order to vote, they have to fulfill certain criteria. What your "logic" is implying is that we should be able to permanently destroy their right to vote because they haven't fulfilled those criteria yet, even though it is essentially a given that they will in the future. You want other examples of the government holding the rights of an individual in trust until they can be used, just open a damn book.

Mere sentience doesn't put you on the personhood spectrum at all. Otherwise, you would be forced to defend that a frog has some aspects of personhood, and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt and never killed.

We're talking about potential personhood, remember? A frog will never move further up the spectrum than where it's at. A fetus 7 months old will.

[_sabotage_]

To objectively prove that no God exists, we would need to show that something else, godlike, exists. Science doesn't try to prove this, it just tries to make a compelling story of the world we have. Saying it came from a Big Bang is no different from saying it came from God.

Circumstances vary by the individual, and TGD is correct to say that a person can't make a reasonable decision. If they have made a series of unreasonable decisions that would lead them to providing poor circumstances for a child, how can we expect them to make correct decisions at the point of conception? It's one of the arguments against freedom. On the other hand, this can be use on nearly all freedom until freedom becomes the right to follow rules designed by others. As such we give people freedom to make mistakes, or not make them.

[daddy1gringo]

When is it ok to walk away from a hand of cards?

Would it be wise to go all in blind?

IF, HYPOTHETICALLY IF, you had a thousand and realized the big blind was a thousand, would it be ok to leave without seeing a hand? What if only a single opponent sat against you, what if there were nine others? What if you had 7-2 offsuit? What if you had pocket aces? What if you had Bill Gates bankrolling you a thousand each hand? What if you just want to see the river and are planning on committing suicide whatever the outcome? What if the dealer was weak and the players had obvious tells? What if you could win a shot to the poker World Series? What if you were merely a distraction so your pals could rob the place? What if you were Gandolf the Grey? What if the US dollar was an inflated, overprinted currency that was losing its demand?

I expect clear unambiguous replies only. A simple yes or no will do.

Lol,if my granny had balls she'd be my grandad!
Supposing it could be hypothetically objectively proven that no Gods exist....???

No, your humorous criticism of my question is not valid. I was not attempting to settle the whole argument by it. I was merely trying to deal with the "you just want to control other people's lives" nonsense by causing people to think.

The reason "pro-lifers" insist that abortion be illegal is that we are convinced that the being in question is indeed a person. Now I realize that proving that is, at best not simple, and at worst impossible; it involves complex issues of medicine, biology, psychology, ethics, law, and probably a few others. I just wanted to keep us from being prevented from actually dealing with those complex issues by the bigoted ad-hom fallacy of "teh antee-choice are all evil emperors hoo wanna contol everbudy!" crap.

Given the premise of the being in question being a human being with rights it is altogether reasonable for society and law to say, no you may not do that. That's my point. The way you shifted ground to cloud the issue with the fact that it was not proven is exactly the kind of dodge I always get. But don't worry, by the next page everybody will have forgotten and gone back to "teh bad peeple wanna control everbudy". Never fear.

[_sabotage_]

The reason Doystoyevski gambled away all his money is because he was sure that he would win back the money he had already lost. Good thing he was a writer too. The reason Wild Bill sat facing the door is because he was sure he would be shot in the back. Some gamblers are right, some aren't. But being right didn't help one over the other.

[crispybits]

We hold the right to vote in trust for children under the age of 18. In order to vote, they have to fulfill certain criteria. What your "logic" is implying is that we should be able to permanently destroy their right to vote because they haven't fulfilled those criteria yet, even though it is essentially a given that they will in the future. You want other examples of the government holding the rights of an individual in trust until they can be used, just open a damn book.

You're turning his point backwards and upside down. He is saying that a right in potential is not a right we give to anyone until they fulfil that potential. Voting is actually a good example, in that we do not give a 5 year old the right to vote because at some point in the future (s)he will have the right to vote. The right is withheld until a point in time when it is given. The 5 year old has no more right to vote as does a frog, or a rock. If that child is killed by an accidental car crash, for example, then it doesn't remove any right to vote because the child doesn't have that right yet.

Now look at the right to life, and imagine that the right to life is only given to beings who fulfill the criteria of personhood. Before those criteria are met, that being has no right to life, any more than we worry about a snail's right to life if we step on one, or a mosquito's right to life when we swat one. The question then becomes a simple one, when does a person become a person? Is it at the moment of conception, 1 month incubation, 6 month incubation, 1 month after birth, 1 year after birth? Is it separate from an exact timescale and based on some criteria like self-awareness? And more importantly WHY is it at that point.

Given the premise of the being in question being a human being with rights it is altogether reasonable for society and law to say, no you may not do that. That's my point. The way you shifted ground to cloud the issue with the fact that it was not proven is exactly the kind of dodge I always get. But don't worry, by the next page everybody will have forgotten and gone back to "teh bad peeple wanna control everbudy". Never fear.

The anti-religious sentiment is not based on the way in which religions seem to exert control (although there is a strong argument that no religion should even attempt to exercise any control through secular law over anyone who is not an adherent to that religion), it's based on the way they get to the definition of personhood as mentioned above. Arguing for or against something on scriptural grounds leaves no room for changing your opinion or of being persuaded by reasonable argument of the truth of an alternative viewpoint.

I'm happy if I lose an argument, based on reason, logic and proven reality and facts. It means I've improved my viewpoint to be more in line with reality. I'm not so happy if someone shuts down an argument with 100% certainty that they are right and nothing will ever change that, there is nothng on Earth that could be said or done that could possibly ever do so, especially when to do so they cite a source that I don't believe and have never be shown definitely matches reality (and I have been shown that in many cases actually doesn't match reality).

[Metsfanmax]

I don't see why the difference between "rights" and "privileges" bears on my refutation. You're still granting the "rights" (whatever those are) of a person onto a non-person that may potentially be a person at some point. You give no argument for why we should defend such a structure; you simply assert that we ought to do so. So it's not really an argument at all, it's just a way of constructing a nice sounding ethical framework that comports with your ideas, but that isn't really a sound ethical framework at all. In other words, if you want to defend why a potential person should be treated with rights similar to that of a person, you need to argue that they share something in common, which the rights were designed to protect. So, if we agree that they don't share any of the relevant characteristics in common (e.g. memories, self-awareness, etc.) then there's no logical reason to grant them the same rights. If you think that they do, then this argument is a wash (I didn't initially realize that you had linked the two when we started discussing this).

Bolded is where you're once again missing the point. I'm not granting rights to anyone, you're not granting rights, the government isn't granting rights. Basic life rights aren't granted, they're inherent.

If your argument is that a potential person has rights because, well, they just do, I can't argue with that. All I can do is plead with you to select an ethical framework that evaluates actions based on some principle that is agreeable to all, instead of arbitrary selecting a group of rules that you think nature dictates. No one can have a meaningful discussion if we just assert "humans have a right to life" and just stop there. You either agree with the sentiment, or you don't. I don't.

We hold the right to vote in trust for children under the age of 18. In order to vote, they have to fulfill certain criteria. What your "logic" is implying is that we should be able to permanently destroy their right to vote because they haven't fulfilled those criteria yet, even though it is essentially a given that they will in the future. You want other examples of the government holding the rights of an individual in trust until they can be used, just open a damn book.

Is the "right to vote" similar to the "right to life?" Does nature dictate that each person must have a vote? It is wrongheaded to conflate natural law, which is what you are using to respond to my argument, and legal rights. Presumably you would argue that the right to life exists even if a government did not.

And no, my logic does not imply what you said at all. In fact, my logic is precisely what justifies laws that disallow minors from voting. It is not that those legal rights are held in trust; it is that they are not granted until a person is old enough to make a reasonable decision about who to vote for. Similarly, a human ought not to gain legal protection from murder until it is old enough to actually be a person. If a child dies before it turns 18, it will never have been granted the right to vote, and if a child dies in very early infancy, it will never have been a person.

Mere sentience doesn't put you on the personhood spectrum at all. Otherwise, you would be forced to defend that a frog has some aspects of personhood, and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt and never killed.

We're talking about potential personhood, remember? A frog will never move further up the spectrum than where it's at. A fetus 7 months old will.

So your argument is that sentience puts you on the personhood scale, but only if you can be a potential person? That's not a logically sound argument; it smacks of selective argumentation. I challenge you to argue why sentience should be used to as an indicator of personhood when we would never do so in an organism that could never be a person. Why is merely the ability to feel pain at all part of what it means to be a person? Personhood is about being self-aware, essentially. The ability to feel pain is not directly related to that. All sentient beings can feel pain or pleasure, but in principle a person could exist that had no ability to feel pain. If we want personhood to be an ethically and legally distinct concept, it must be able to be described in a meaningfully distinct way.

[BigBallinStalin]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being, but let's get to the biggest problem in this debate.

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

No, it's not that at all. It's just that "pro-lifers" are convinced that it is a fact, not an opinion, that the being in question is indeed a person with full rights from conception. Therefore, it no more reflects an inordinate attempt to control other people than when the law says that no, you may not kill that other person even though you believe you are justified because he made you really mad, or because you desperately need the money he has in his pockets.

I have asked this question before and nobody ever answers it honestly, they just dodge it:

IF that is, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF it could be objectively proven that the child in the womb is a person, with no valid rationale for saying that it lacks the rights of any other person, would you agree that there would then be legitimate grounds for considering making abortion illegal? That is, realizing that there is still room for dialogue about exceptions in cases like rape or serious threat to the health of the mother.

Still trying to control people. Enforcing the negative right to life of a fetus impinges upon the property rights of the mother. That constitutes as controlling and imposing upon other people's property rights. Your mentioning the law is amusing too--as if upholding/supporting a particularly desirable law does not constitute controlling others. (Sorry, it does, but you don't like that implication for obviously emotional reasons).

"Full rights". You're not being clear, and instead are resembling #2, the mask of rights.

RE: the question, suppose I asked you to answer a serious question about unicorns. Would you scoff at it as ridiculous? Anyway, the assumptions don't whittle away the problem. Even if the fetus is granted 'rights' (whatever those may be to you), there's still the issue of conflicting property rights between the mother and the fetus, which is left unmentioned in your question. So, the legitimacy of a prohibition on abortions would not at all be clear.

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

Actually, it means they have the best argument. If the argument cannot be applied to the person making the argument; in other words, if Mets makes the argument but won't apply the same rationale to himself, then I think he loses the argument.

You're talking about logical consistency (for lack of a better term). I'm talking about someone asserting an argument which hinges on emotion, which isn't a good argument (recall: appeal to emotion). If we would allow an argument such as, "this is correct because it FEELS correct," then our standard of argumentation would be very low.

I agree with your adherence to logical consistency though.

That's good.

I don't think I'm asserting an "it feels correct" argument. If there is any appeal to emotion, it's an appeal to the nature of organisms to want to survive. I know there are exceptions, but they can be safely ignored here. For the vast majority of living organisms, there are one and perhaps two ideals or needs that supplant all others - (1) surviving; (2) procreating. The measurement of cognitive ability has no impact on the need/desire to survive.

I don't think you are either; I'm just disparaging emotional arguments, that's all!

I agree with your conclusion, but the bar for personhood status, thus enjoying those rights, must be greater than the need to survive and procreate.

[BigBallinStalin]

How are rights inherent? And which rights exactly?

Just Google "human rights". It's pretty well laid-out and "right to life" is among the first that pops up. Basic natural rights are inherent in that we recognize that everyone has them. The government doesn't "give" these rights to anyone, they just protect them if necessary.

That doesn't explain much. I know some basic arguments on rights, but I'm wondering what you know about it. If you want to base your argument on rights, then you'll have to defend it.

So far, you've essentially said, "natural rights are inherent because we recognize that everyone has them."

We all do?
What's the difference between 'human rights' and 'natural rights'?
Why is the recognition by some group of people enough to conclude that rights are inherent?
And which rights exactly? (#2 time asked)

[chang50]

When is it ok to walk away from a hand of cards?

Would it be wise to go all in blind?

IF, HYPOTHETICALLY IF, you had a thousand and realized the big blind was a thousand, would it be ok to leave without seeing a hand? What if only a single opponent sat against you, what if there were nine others? What if you had 7-2 offsuit? What if you had pocket aces? What if you had Bill Gates bankrolling you a thousand each hand? What if you just want to see the river and are planning on committing suicide whatever the outcome? What if the dealer was weak and the players had obvious tells? What if you could win a shot to the poker World Series? What if you were merely a distraction so your pals could rob the place? What if you were Gandolf the Grey? What if the US dollar was an inflated, overprinted currency that was losing its demand?

I expect clear unambiguous replies only. A simple yes or no will do.

Lol,if my granny had balls she'd be my grandad!
Supposing it could be hypothetically objectively proven that no Gods exist....???

No, your humorous criticism of my question is not valid. I was not attempting to settle the whole argument by it. I was merely trying to deal with the "you just want to control other people's lives" nonsense by causing people to think.

The reason "pro-lifers" insist that abortion be illegal is that we are convinced that the being in question is indeed a person. Now I realize that proving that is, at best not simple, and at worst impossible; it involves complex issues of medicine, biology, psychology, ethics, law, and probably a few others. I just wanted to keep us from being prevented from actually dealing with those complex issues by the bigoted ad-hom fallacy of "teh antee-choice are all evil emperors hoo wanna contol everbudy!" crap.

Given the premise of the being in question being a human being with rights it is altogether reasonable for society and law to say, no you may not do that. That's my point. The way you shifted ground to cloud the issue with the fact that it was not proven is exactly the kind of dodge I always get. But don't worry, by the next page everybody will have forgotten and gone back to "teh bad peeple wanna control everbudy". Never fear.

I'm sorry if you think I clouded the issue,it wasn't my intention,and I do think you are genuine in your beliefs.Perhaps you can explain why you think a fetus is a person and at what point they became one?

[thegreekdog]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

Actually, it means they have the best argument. If the argument cannot be applied to the person making the argument; in other words, if Mets makes the argument but won't apply the same rationale to himself, then I think he loses the argument.

You're talking about logical consistency (for lack of a better term). I'm talking about someone asserting an argument which hinges on emotion, which isn't a good argument (recall: appeal to emotion). If we would allow an argument such as, "this is correct because it FEELS correct," then our standard of argumentation would be very low.

I agree with your adherence to logical consistency though.

That's good.

I don't think I'm asserting an "it feels correct" argument. If there is any appeal to emotion, it's an appeal to the nature of organisms to want to survive. I know there are exceptions, but they can be safely ignored here. For the vast majority of living organisms, there are one and perhaps two ideals or needs that supplant all others - (1) surviving; (2) procreating. The measurement of cognitive ability has no impact on the need/desire to survive.

I don't think you are either; I'm just disparaging emotional arguments, that's all!

I agree with your conclusion, but the bar for personhood status, thus enjoying those rights, must be greater than the need to survive and procreate.

There are levels of rights to which personhood status may apply. For example, a 15 year old doesn't have the right to vote in the U.S. but a 95 year old does. Of all the various rights, wouldn't the right to live be the most important and, thus, applicable to the most people?

[BigBallinStalin]

There are levels of rights to which personhood status may apply. For example, a 15 year old doesn't have the right to vote in the U.S. but a 95 year old does. Of all the various rights, wouldn't the right to live be the most important and, thus, applicable to the most people?

All else being equal, I have no problem with the negative right to life for actual human beings--or 'persons' if you will.

[Funkyterrance]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being.

It sure does, but since no one can effectively nail this definition down there is a high level of uncertainty.

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

I'm not the sort of person who is going to impose my beliefs on someone else. However, I think that people should accept responsibility for their decision in that they admit they are "taking the gamble" that the fetus they are destroying is indeed not a future person since of course we really can't know for sure. All I am suggesting is accountability for an action and the implications that go along with it. I'm so sick of people trying to get completely off the hook by insisting that a fetus is just a clump of cells or whatever because this is in no way an absolute fact, far from it. I mean, why do people bother raising premature babies if they are just a clump of cells?

So basically yeah I suppose I'm pro-choice ultimately on a philosophical level but I'm also going to cast a sideward glance at someone who aborts a perfectly healthy fetus for whatever reason. Values, ya know.

[BigBallinStalin]

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

It depends on what constitutes as a human being.

It sure does, but since no one can effectively nail this definition down there is a high level of uncertainty.

Yup, and humans generally dislike the vague, so we make assumptions (personhood) and whatever to make this easier.

Regarding respecting human life, doesn't that stance cut both ways? You can either respect the life of a potential person or respect the life (i.e. future well-being) of the women and her spouse...

It's not just about your example. It's also about the other person who feels the strong desire to interfere in other people's lives and to control their property (their bodies). We shouldn't forget that aspect of this.

I don't assume I know better than everyone else; therefore, I'm not going to force other people to have their unwanted children. I would hope that they reconsider abortion, and if they must get one, they should consult with others and hopefully get good advice. Having been informed enough, it's up to them to make that decision and reap the benefits and costs---whatever they may.

Other people (the pro-lifers), a.k.a. the controllers, do presume such knowledge of other people's situations--and if not, they simply superimpose their imagined benefits and costs into other people's situations. That would be an awkward situation for me to take. (Some pro-choicers fall into the controller category as well).

Either you can respect other people's circumstances and allow them to exercise their own decisions hopefully with the help of others, or you can uphold the 'rights' of questionable human beings while essentially stomping on the rights of potential aborters.

I'm not the sort of person who is going to impose my beliefs on someone else. However, I think that people should accept responsibility for their decision in that they admit they are "taking the gamble" that the fetus they are destroying is indeed not a future person since of course we really can't know for sure. All I am suggesting is accountability for an action and the implications that go along with it. I'm so sick of people trying to get completely off the hook by insisting that a fetus is just a clump of cells or whatever because this is in no way an absolute fact, far from it. I mean, why do people bother raising premature babies if they are just a clump of cells?

So basically yeah I suppose I'm pro-choice ultimately on a philosophical level but I'm also going to cast a sideward glance at someone who aborts a perfectly healthy fetus for whatever reason. Values, ya know.

For fickle reasons? I think we would both agree. Our 'non-interventionist' stance seems the most reasonable--given the problems of other arguments.

[crispybits]

Your post kind of implies you think people give the abortion decision the same weight as deciding what to have for breakfast. That it's just a "oh well, pregnant again! silly me! best pop down the abortion shop!" thought process. Admittedly I have very little real world experience with it, but the only person I have known who had one was markedly changed by the experience and the process (we could tell she had changed long before she ever told anyone bar maybe her family/closest friend about the reason why).

I'm not saying that nobody ever just callously throws away a potential life like this, I'm sure there are examples of such. But the entire support system and counselling network that exists to help people faced with the decision and the consequences of the decision would indicate that for most people it's a decision taken very seriously indeed, and the fetus is definitely not thought of as just "a clump of cells". But it's also not a simple decision to let the pregnancies run their course. There are so many shades of grey at almost very level that the decision has to be left to the person themselves, there can be no cookie-cutter template to give a black and white answer to the question.

Which is what baffles me about the pro-life stance. If this decision is indeed so fundamentally personal, and the consequences of either a yes or a no are so long lasting and profound, then what right has anyone to dictate to anyone else what that choice should ALWAYS be?

[Funkyterrance]

Regarding respecting human life, doesn't that stance cut both ways? You can either respect the life of a potential person or respect the life (i.e. future well-being) of the women and her spouse...

This seems more akin to convenience and relative comfort than future-well being in a literal sense. It's perceived as inconvenient/uncomfortable to have an unplanned baby so a lot of people opt to just have it aborted. Most of these pro-choice arguments are invented to justify this decision. Why can't we just call a spade a spade? People might consider the events leading up to the abortion more if we did.