Bitcoin Forum

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body. The only exception is when what she does with her body violates someone else's rights.

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

That's not even close. If you want to make an analogy, it would be like me kicking a person out of my house even though they will freeze to death outside.

Ok, we'll go with that.  It'd be like kicking a newborn baby out of your house, even though they will freeze to death outside.

Actually, it's even worse than that.  It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.  After all, if you have an abortion, it's certain death - not death only if no one steps in to help.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.  Worst argument I've ever heard.

What's the difference?  If you abort an unborn baby it will die.  It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.  I'm not trying to make an emotional argument, just pointing out that abortion is certain death for a baby so I don't see the difference between that and murder, given that life does indeed begin inside the womb.  

It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people.

Why not? 

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.


Are you asking me why you can't stab people?

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

This makes more sense to me.  With our current technology I know of no way to evict a fetus without killing it, therefore I am against abortion in most circumstances.


Are you asking me why you can't stab people?
[/quote]

It seemed to me you were saying that the result didn't matter ("It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people").  So if the result doesn't matter why is stabbing a forbidden action?  You can't stab people because it infringes on their right to not be murdered, or physically damaged by you.  It does matter the consequence.  Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

Ok, it makes sense where you get your viewpoint from.  I don't agree with it (seems to be a case of following the letter of the law, not the spirit), but at least I understand where you're coming from.

Right.  So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral.  It's partially a technological issue.

You can't touch me at all.


No, it doesn't matter what happens after it's out of the womb. It only matters how it's evicted. If there is a way to remove it intact then that must be done. If there is no other way, then so be it. Whether or not it dies after being removed is irrelevant.

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?


Sorry, let me clarify, you're saying that if there's no way to evict it without killing it then it's immoral to do so, but if there's some way to eject the baby without damaging it than it's moral regardless of what happens afterwards, correct?

Edit:  The 'so-be-it' phrase made me think you were justifying abortion regardless of the method with which it was implemented.  I.E. whether or not the baby was killed in the process.

I can sue you for damages. If I have brittle bones and your bumping into me causes me a six week hospital stay then the damages would be steep. If I'm just mildly annoyed I might be able to get a few cents, which wouldn't even make it worth my time. Justice is about making the victim whole again, making it, as close to possible, as if the incident never happened.


First of all, I'm not arguing about immorality, I'm arguing about rights. There are plenty of things that are immoral yet we still have the right to do. Also, you misunderstood me. I'm saying that killing the fetus in the process of removing it is only justifiable if that's the only way to remove it. Otherwise, it should be removed intact and anyone that can save it should be allowed to do so.

Bitcoin2cash throws common sense out the window again. No surprise though.

You would have no case here as it's obvious you're the one who is aware of both your condition and the general conditions of what sidewalks are like. The world does not work the way you think it does. Sorry.

apply the analogy to cars then.

you are driving and some other driver is talking on his cellphone and not paying attention... he bumps into your car and puts a scratch in it... it's completely an accident and you should be aware of the fragile state of your paint job and the general conditions of what roads are like.

you most certainly can sue the other driver for damages.

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.

well, in australia at least, people can be sued for damages even if accidentally harming another person.

pay attention, and don't run into anyone on the footpath, because they might just sue you.

And?

what?

surely you can not be serious.

Hard to believe someone actually typed that, let alone believes that.

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

I do not have the right to shoot my gun when you are in its sights.

I do not have a right to drive my car when people are standing at my front and back bumpers, unles they are attacking me or my car.

I do not have the right to burn my land when your land is right beside it, unless I can stop stop the fire before it reaches your land.

Life begins at conception. It isnt religion-based. It's simple common sense. People that say life does not begin at conception are just setting you up to justify themselves and the bad deeds they wish to engage in. Why are pregnant women protected and cared for during pregnancy? To protect the LIFE inside them.

I agree. You have the right not to be shot. You have the right not to be ran over. You have the right not to have your property destroyed. You don't have the right to live inside someone else's body.


I agree. That changes nothing though.

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

A fetus has not developed, has no rational though processes, and can not choose for itself, therefore it is not possible for it to make an informed decision on where to live and can not exercise any rights it has.

This makes the parents the responsible parties until that child can make those decisions for itself or the parents decide to give that right to someone else through adoption.

It is my hope that some day a technology will be invented that can safely remove a fetus from a woman who does not want the baby so that it may develop through the gestation period, for the life of the child to give it a chance at being adopted while giving the woman the right to get rid of it if she so chooses.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

Troll detected

I didn't know that the person you are stabbing is inside your body  ::)

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

Um, thats how abortion works.  You stick something into the body of the unborn person, inject saline solution to kill her and then suck it out with a kind of a vacuum device.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

No, you don't have to make sure they are looked after if you give them up, much like you are giving up the fetus.

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.

So is a house like a body? Is this where you're falling into the trap of thinking a sofa is like land, an animal is like an automobile, etc? Is this where you trot out the homesteading rule?

I own my body. I own my house. My body has to be nourished by food. My house does not. They are alike in the ways they are alike and differ in the ways they differ, but that's trivially true. My point is, all analogies have their limits but that doesn't make them worthless.

After 20 or so weeks, the unborn child has to be killed or else it will be capable of living outside the womb.  That would be called "birth" and would defeat the whole idea of having an abortion in the first place.

Then I am against that. You have the right to evict, not kill.

Somthing else you need to take in consideration is that if you consider a fetus to have all those rights way before it's much more than a simple organism, then shouldn't other similarly simple organisms have the same rights even if currently we don't have the technology to advance them to a similar level as an adult human?

I believe there are distinct differences between food sources and human beings. I do not believe food source life is the same as human life. Most plants and animals are food sources. A fetus is not a food source required for survival by any species of life. So the answer to your question would be no.

Even religion makes this distinction if you believe in such things. For instance, the bible says thou shalt not kill, but Jesus fed the people fish and bread. Those are at least 2 forms of life. Fish and the wheat plant. Yeast as well if it was used then. Same goes with the fermentation process that goes with the sacrimental wine representing the blood of Christ.

The food chain. We are on top not because we want to be, but because we think, learn, rationalize, and most importantly, we have the intellect to ask questions and answer them, which leads to the manipulation of the world around us that improves our quality of life.

This is the belief and rationalization that I believe the ruling elites have. They consider non-thinking humans as beasts, and people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people, according to them, are "beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent".

I suppose it all depends how you justify your actions, but I do not know another way to survive, and in the end its about survival of your species. The preservation of your species. The smartest survive.

All that said, arguements can be made about the unecessary loss of life.

is it ok to kill an insect that is pestering you ?

a rodent ?

a gopher or a groundhog tearing up your yard ?

a bee hive that built a nest in/under the eaves of your home ?

What about tumors, do they have rights? Their DNA is pretty much our own...

No.

But here's some food for thought:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/28/tool-using-fish-caught-on-tape/

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/of_primates_and_personhood/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7475-dolphins-teach-their-children-to-use-sponges.html

Here are two claims that should be uncontroversial. A one-day-old baby has rights. A tumor does not have rights. Now, all you need to do is figure out why that is the case.

I'm always amazed over how quickly the female body becomes a battlefield. Why does everybody think that they have the right to control female sexuality?

And I'll just leave this here too:
https://i.imgur.com/bWxLD.png

Aren't fetuses not much more than relatively healthy teratomas?

If they are then that's only an argument to treat teratomas better, not fetuses worse.

That's how late abortion is usually performed. In most cases, the woman just takes some pills and the undesired microscopic life inside her just goes away.

You people are seriously comparing this (http://www.angryharry.com/images/morula.gif) with a person? You're really equating the act of repealing a minuscule, unconscious and formless life from one's body, something done by hundreds of millions of women all around the world, with the cold blooded act of murder, performed mostly by psychopaths?
Seriously people... just have a bit of common sense! Murder is a serious crime. This comparison is absurd.

You are allowed to use deadly force to repeal an intruder from your property if the intruder leaves you no other choice. That's precisely the case of an abortion performed when early delivery isn't yet possible. If early delivery is already possible (after 6 months I believe, when the lungs are formed), then yes, that should be a preferred path.

And no, waiting a few months isn't an available choice any more than waiting calmly for a robber to get everything he wants from you and leave "peacefully".

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmenuqXCao1qg1srq.jpg

Really...

associating this with the mass killing of baby butterflies doesn't help...

The difference is that we don't protect the lives of persons only.  You can be in a coma or born with severe mental disabilities and we don't kill you.

Abortion is one of those topics where looking for a logically consistent justification is missing the point.  Its something women insist on and anyone who has been married will tell you that, sooner or later, the little woman will get what she wants.

But nobody should be forced to keep a person in coma alive (except somebody contractually obligated to, of course).


Good point, but I disagree logic cannot address the issue. It can, and as common sense alone should indicate, to condemn hundreds of millions of women of murder is an ethical absurd.

+1


Humorous, but actually this aspect is somehow missing from the debate.

You are evicting someone from your house that you took in yourself. Isn't this a non-verbal contract? The person might have sneaked in somehow, or you could have accidentally let them in, but if there is consent I think it's a game changer.

If it's not OK to evict a baby without making it public, maybe you should also make it public before you take it in? Just a thought...

When I said that you can't be logically consistent about abortion, that wasn't an invitation to go totally mad.  Are you seriously suggesting that police raid the records of hospitals, get the tens of millions of names of all women who had abortions, incarcerate them and then perform surgery without consent on them causing permanent infertility?

I disagree with the word "murder" you used.  Murder is unlawful killing.  Even if you firmly believe that some unborn children deserve the same protection from killing that you and I deserve, provided abortion is legal the people who do it are not murderers.  

The problem you have is that people, decent people who would otherwise strike you as model human beings, deeply disagree with you.  And in a democracy, respecting people's right to vote on these things is important.

There's a fair bit of stress on a woman's body during pregnancy. Large health risks. Why shouldn't she alone be the judge on weather or not she's prepared to take those risks?

+1

Using the woman's body as a moral battleground shows how these ideologues struggle to reconcile complex situations with their impractical simple moral rules. Lets all decide what the women can do with her body. That is the only moral and just way to solve this situation.



+10

Your too far ahead.

Yes I can see Americans have a unique problem with guns and abortion.  In the UK and most other countries, these things are put to the vote and people just accept what the majority vote.

Doing sex is in no way a contract with the fetus simply because the fetus didn't even exist when such action took place. You can't make a contract with a non-existent party. Every party in a contract must consent for it to be acceptable.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of contracts with other people which existed before the conception, of course. There may be a contract between the mother and the father, or even between the mother and some religious community, and such contracts may punish abortion.

But a contract with something that doesn't exist, no, that you can't make.

Yes Hawker, we're all very aware of your position on lawfulness. If it's a law then it isn't "murder", or "theft", or "slavery". You never look at the logical consistency of an argument. You merely determine that if a majority of persons within a "society" make it so, it must be lawful. There is no need for logic at that point. You can throw it all out the window and just say, "but the law says....???!!!"

I suppose the same could be said about a young single mother with a baby. If she can't take care of the child, maybe she should give it up. Of course, "giving up" a child is different than abortion. One cannot abort a child outside of the womb (murder), why should should abort one from within? And don't you think if she did attempt to kill the child, that others might want to intervene to save the child? See, it's not so different after all. Who is the advocate for the unborn child? It certainly can't just remain exclusively with the mother could it; any more than it could for a mother with child outside the womb? Why is location the only determining factor here?

I suppose you could look at it from a number of different perspectives. If the woman's life is truly endangered from the fetus, you could look at it from the point of view of self-defense and evict the fetus. This would then potentially kill the unborn child. That's more justifiable. As far as I know, you typically cannot remove the child from the womb at any point in the development of the child and not severely risk it's life.

Nevertheless, it seems we should be weighing the life of the mother against the life of the child in a worst case scenario (imminent threat). The question should be one of eviction, trespass or self-defense not abortion and death irrespective of action and consequence. A proportionality of force thru action is key.

Just as in life outside the womb (analogy), evicting a person from "off of" or "out of" a location, you must use proportional force. For example: if a child wanders onto my property (it doesn't matter how he/she got there actually), I can't just shoot to kill. I could probably escort the child to the edge of my property with a stern warning to not trespass again (assuming he/she would even understand such a request) but that's about the sum total of it.

I know that a child on or in a property, and one inside a woman presents a clearly different environment, but the child within the womb really doesn't have the opportunity to be "free of" the mother until a certain point in its development.

I personally am pro-life.  I firmly believe that one day people will look back at our society's treatment of the unborn in the same way we look back at slavery or serfdom.

I live in a country where the law allows abortion before 20 weeks.  Its a democracy and I see the only alternative to violence being that I try to persuade people that abortion is a bad thing.  Just because I believe something is wrong does not mean I am entitled to use violence against those who disagree with me.

I suspect that off the forums in real life you take the exact same position and would not harm a girl who had an abortion just because you feel she did wrong.  On moral issues, we all have our own consciences but its majority rule as far making laws is concerned.

I humbly disagree. This is just trying to operate on definitions that are inapplicable to the case. The specific norms you have chosen are not God's will, they come from higher philosophical inquiries, which should have a say on this matter. Basically, you are responsible, because it's your decision. To me, it's not at all apparent that it is your right to dispose of a person you've created just because it didn't exist at the time of your decision. At the time if its death, it exists, and it dies as a consequence of prior decision.

Sorry, no matter how enjoyable it is, sex is not a recreational sport. Its a mechanism for the creation of life. With such power comes responsibility.

Maybe a different take on this:

What defines a human life? Can any collection of cells with human DNA be considered human life? Do the cells have to have a potential to become human in the future (fertilized egg cells)? If future technology allows us to take any clump of human cells (such as skin or muscle tissue) and make them grow into a full human being (e.g. through cloning), would any clump of cells being killed be considered equivalent to abortion? What if we progress to a technology level where human consciousness can be uploaded to a computer? In a world where inteligent computers loaded with human inteligence are on par with "natural" humans, would destroying a computer capable or rational thought, though not yet loaded with it, be considered abortion? Or if we go further, and create machines that can develop their own AI on par with human intelligence, would destroying a machine that is capable of this, but was never turned on and allowed to develop its AI, be equivalent to abortion?
These are all questions we'll run up against soon, and I believe anti-abortion people will have a huge problem with.

My opinion is that the value of human life (or intelligent life in general) is determined by its capacity to reason. A clump of cells has no value. An unconsciout person, or a baby, only has value to others who value that person (parents/family). Someone without the ability to have rational thought should be irrelevant, even if they have the ability to some day in the future develop rational thought.

Hypothetical scenario:

There is a proposal to add a safe, temporary, taste-free, sterilizer to piped water and other things so to ensure everyone gets it just by drinking and eating normally, and in order for women to get pregnant and men to produce fertile sperm, they need to take a pill that is highly controlled in order to cancel out the effect of the sterilizer, and anyone wanting to make babies must go thru the same process as people wanting to adopt in order to be given that pill.

Would you be for or against such proposal?

I don't see how "abortion people" have an easier time with these questions. Just because they have a lower threshold? Well, maybe a little...

I'm not exactly against abortion, at least not enough to forcefully prevent other people from doing it, but until I have clear answers to these questions, I abstain from killing as much as possible.

EDIT: If your measure is capacity of reason, you can define a person by the complexity of its nervous system. For instance, if you don't have anything against killing rabbits, you could kill a fetus that is at that level of complexity. I don't kill rabbits as well, so, wouldn't be my preference, but as long as you have that measure, it makes sense. The "machine with the potential to think" problem is much easier for me. It's not on, so, you are not destroying any ongoing process. Not the same as abortion.


While at it, why not take another small step and question why capacity to reason determines value? Nothing apparent, other than the fact that it is an arbitrary point where social evolution took us (economical benefits of better cooperation, etc.). You could as well include animals and beings with potential of rational thought, or go the other way and exclude some human races, social classes, etc. It's all arbitrary from a personal point of view. Not against your opinion (makes sense to me too), just questioning where it's coming from.

Suppose you have a sick person who has lost the ability to develop rational thought. You have means to fix this person. This man has the potential to do important things. Does this entity (I won't even call it a person, since it can't reason) have any value at all? There is some value because of the investment gone into developing this human of course, but let's say fixing has the same cost as developing a new person from scratch, so that we can exclude that.

An interesting side example would be cryogenics. I agree that there is almost no incentive to restore the frozen individual for people who don't value that person directly (family, etc.). However, I just don't see the difference between this and a non-frozen, living thinking person. I think the main anti-abortion opinion in this thread stems from the idea that you don't have to care for any person. No person or entity has inherent value, it doesn't matter of it can reason or not. People are saying you can evict your child from your home without giving any means to survive as long as you make it public.

I guess you could expand it to include being self-aware and feeling pain, too. Rabbits would qualify then. Conscious ones, anyway.


I would argue it's no different from killing someone who is asleep or unconscoious.


The "why" would be because this person/being is able to make their own rational choices, and can chose to live. A fetus or an unconscious entity cannot. I think it's kinda close to the base libertarian or objectivist source or rights thing; I have a right to my own being. If someone can declare that, they have that right. As for animals with rational thought, pretty sure that's coming too, and if right-wing extremists had issues with blacks and gays, omg that will open a can of worms!


I would say that no, this person does not have value by themselves. The development portion is a sunk cost at this point. If someone else values them, like a family member, or a business owner who knows that this person has a lot of potential talent as a future employee, then they can value them. If no one values them, then there's no point in their existence, which I assume would be at the expense of the state with nofuture fix options (unless society deems that people like that should be fixed, and votes to foot the bill, but in this case society is valuing them for whatever reason).


I agree with the eviction sentiment. If you make it public, someone else will step in and take that child.if no one does, then society may have way bigger problems than just abortion.
I have a feeling the main anti-abortion opinion stems from religious beliefs, that as soon as a sperm enters an egg and the two halves of the DNA mingle, god imbues the resulting cell with a soul, and at that point it's a human life, the killing of which is murder. Questions of what embryo or fetus souls would look like in heaven aside, I have a feeling a lot of them also have never really bothered to consider what really defines human life, worth, and consciousness.

Why does that responsibility land only on the woman? Why do men get to fuck about and when conception is the result tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies?
A zygote doesn't have any rights. A foetus gets rights when it can survive outside the womb.

How about this? If you get to decide what a woman has to carry a conception to term (ie. controlling her body), then she has the right to do the same for you. Let her select a few major invasive surgical procedures that you have to undergo, and pay for. Fair enough? I'm sure we could solve a few transplant problems in the process.  ::)

So you think its OK to kill mentally handicapped people?  And brain damaged soldiers?  And newborn babies? 

If mentally handicapped/brain damaged to the point of being catatonic and unresponsive (basically a vegetable), and if no one else values them (I.e. they have been abandoned into the custody of the state or the street), then yes.If someone else claims them and wants to willingly take care of them for whatever reason (I.e. someone values them), then no.


Newborn babies can feel, and killing them inhumanely would be cruel. If they are abandoned and no one wants them, then painless euthinasia would be OK I guess. I seriously doubt no one would want or care about them though.

Why? Do you believe a hunk of living flesh that has all the physical characteristics of a human being, but none of the brain activity, reasoning, or capability for thought, should be forced on someone, and that someone should be required to support it financially and keep it alive, without possibility of it becoming anything useful in the future? Who would be required to pay for that and why?

And the alternative would have been... what? Let the baby lie there and die of thirst because no one wanted it? Or was this custom something enforced by the state against the mother's wishes, in which case there was someone who was valuing the baby, and thus this whole Sparta thing doesn't even apply to what I said?

BTW, it almost sounds like you guys are advocating for controlling sex to make it only exist for the purpose of procreation, not recreation.

Nowhere did I say woman has the only responsibility. Both hold equal responsibility, but in todays law the woman is the only one who can make a life and death decision on allowing the life to gestate or murdering that life.

That is what sex is. The mechanism for the creation of life. Sure its great for recreational activity between comitted individuals, but that does not negate the fact that sex is the way you create human life. With such awesome power comes responsibility.

If you have a problem with it, do not have sex outside of a relationship in which you want to create said life.

It's your choice no matter how you look on it socially.

Again, with such awesome power, and choice, comes responsibility.

You act like humans have absolutely no control over their sexual desires.

You can, by choice, masturbate or take a cold shower much more responsibly, efficiently, and conveniently than having sex with a woman if its just about recreation

Not quite. I advocate stop trying to control female sexuality. A woman can do whatever she chooses with her body, and she alone decides. If she wants to enjoy sex with you then good for both of you, but as a man you should be aware that you could be a father as a result of it. Or not. It's her choice.

Well done on being willing to kill newborn babies.  You've taken your philosophy almost to its logical conclusion.  All you need do now is say its OK to kill people who are stupid, declare anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and it will be perfect.

Heh, nice. Ok, then, ignoring your misapplied slippery slope, why should we value people who are vegetables, or be forced to support people who not only can't support themselves, but don't even have a concept of personhood or self awareness? I mean if the person has no value to their friends and family anymore, why should we as total strangers value them?

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

Capability for emotional intelligence is what matters, not what you're made or how you come to be made. A tumor will never be a person. Computers currently can't either. However, that may change and it would be a mistake to deny them rights simply because they are metal and silicon.

You posted your view that killing newborn babies is OK provided no pain is involved. 

Really, how can you expect people to take your ideas seriously if you don't see that shooting babies is a bad thing?

Would exclude the singularity project, where human minds are uploaded to computers to let people live for ever, and intelligent human-animal hybrids, too?

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it. 

It's not right to abandon it to it's own death, either. Can you tell me why you feel that way though? What is it about the baby you value or are concerned about? Just compassion like one you would feel for an adult stuck on a deserted island, or something else?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Women do abandon their babies.  That's the nature of post natal depression.  For someone else to come along, find that baby and feel entitled to kill it is a repulsive idea.  You may as well say he can eat it afterwards as it's just meat.  Swift made that "Modest Proposal" over 200 years ago as a satire. 

I'm hearing a lot about feelings, "not right," societal norms, and "that's the way it is" from you, on this and the other thread, but practically zero reasons for why, besides that you feel that way. Can't you even tell me why a newborn's or a vegitative state's life is worth something? Or a fetus, if we stick with abortion? I can't discuss this with you if all your reasons are based on just how you feel about it.

Then you can't discuss it.  All morals are based on feelings.

Really? I'm sure the bible thumpers/PinkiePies, libertarians/objectivists, and ethics professors/philosophers will all vehemently disagree with you.
So, did your moral feelings come from what your parents and society taught you, or did they sprung up from your genetic code, like a duck's urge to fly south for the winter?

Does it matter?  Even if you believe your morals come from a fairy in the sky, you will want to act on them.  I find your idea that if a baby is abandoned, then you have a right to kill it, ugly. If you did it, I would happily have you locked up for murder.  The fact that I am not religious makes no real odds - I don't want to live in a world where baby killers are normal.

My "idea" is that if a baby, or an adult in a vegitative/catatonic state, is not valued by anyone else, be it their parents, a random stranger, or society in general, then their life is quite literally not worth anything. I gave no indication on what I personally would think or do if i found an abandoned baby. For the record, I would care, and would likely take it to the police or the hospital.
My morals come from my own ability to reason, specifically that I value myself first and foremost, believe others are likewise capable of valuing themselves, and that I don't want to do harm to others since I wouldn't want them to do harm to me. It's that "respect other's property" and "keep your word" thing I'm sure you've seen on here often. Everything stems from that. Because a fetus, or a braindead human, can not even comprehend the meaning of value or property (theirs, others', or their own body's), I don't see why they have a need to have any rights, or why the idea of rights would even be relevant to them. And while I don't advocate going around and killing them, I don't see a reason for anyone else to take care of them, unless they have some personal worth to someone who "owns" them. An abandoned baby might still have some personal worth to someone else out there. Frozen test tube embryos might, too, though I don't see anti-abortion groups buying expensive cryofreezers and addopting the thousands of them enmasse.
I hope that somewhat explains my position.

It explains that you personally would not kill the baby but that if someone else does, that person should not be punished.

Assuming we are talking about a brand new newborn with no prior experiences, my having no personal attachment or interest in that baby, I would be shocked at the act, but no, I would not personally punish them. That baby was not worth enough to me to go to the trouble of punishing its killers, and not being valued by its parents/owners perhaps may be better off not having existed.

Can you tell me what your purpose for punishing that killer would be? Not the feely "why," but for what result.

That's... actually fairly accurate, I guess. I would even extend that to animals, where, although I don't mind the idea of eating meat, if some cow kicks the crap out of a farmer who trying to butcher it, I'd say that's an example of the thing asserting it's rights, and to leave the thing alone (the idea of "destroying" animals that attacked humans always bothered me for some reason, too).
Regarding children, until they rebel and can say otherwise, they're still the "property" of their parents and family, so just killing them would still be infringing on someone else's rights. Likewise if a state orphanage or a total stranger claimed that right.

I'm not sure why I'd want to.  If you haven't worked out the value of human life, why would I waste the time?

The reason I am asking is because I want to know if you have "worked out" the value of human life. So far you've only ever said that it's valuable. I've yet to ever hear you say why. If you can tell me why it's valuable, then maybe you can tell me why abortion, or euthinising braindead people is wrong.

Rassah, where is the maxim here? Either I don't get what you say, or it is a tautology. The world is, and has to be, exactly like the way you describe anyway... So, if a lot of people care enough for unborn babies to punish who commit abortion, you'd be OK with it as well, is that correct?


Will to power.

Excellent! Thank you for that reply! I love people who think through things and ask the right questions.
Yes, I would, but that is not what I see in the world. There are a lot of people claiming to value the sanctity of life, wanting to make abortion illegal, and wanting to force the mother to carry the baby to term, yet there are way too few people willing to adopt unwanted children, willing to promise to adopt or support an unwilling mother's child, willing to volunteer to have the fetus transplanted to carry it to term themselves (even if not an option now, I'm very sure this will still be true if it is available soon), and willing to adopt and take care of viable frozen embryos. It's the rank hypocricy that steps on other's rights while proclaiming false beliefs and morals that bothers me I guess. If we lived in a world where abortion was not necesary, because anti-abortion people actually cared enough to do these things, this wouldn't be an issue. As it stands, they are just trying to impose their own view on what should be considered valuable on others who don't hold their values.

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing. 

The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments.

If you are OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as you may be his next target.

I'm not OK with it but I'm sick of you and FirstAscent never making any arguments, only demanding everyone do your homework for you.

If one is OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as one's own self may be his next target.

The "you" was not directed at you b2c but intended as a generic alternative to "one" which only the Queen (and now me) uses :P

So what you're saying is that you value human life, and are OK with the way things are now, but have NO IDEA why?
Or, even better: We already don't value life at the fetal stage. If the mother willingly kills her fetus, she will not be punished. If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reasons why allowing people to kill fetuses is a bad thing  8)


You do know that there is a difference between a fetus, a newborn, a child or adult with experiences, and a braindead vegetable, right? Or are they all equally valuable to you simply because they all contain the same proteins wrapped around the same DNA? (In which case I assume you would believe it is ok to kill people who had their brains uploaded to a computer for whatever reason (illness, age, etc), since they are not people?)

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

For some controversial topics, sometimes it's easier to work your way backwards.

Given that we're assuming no incidental or intentional aggression, I ask the following:

Should you kill a 50 year old? No.
Should you kill a 10 year old? No.
Should you kill a 1 year old? No.
Should you kill a newborn? No.

Should you kill the unborn? This is where people seem to think there is a distinction. I have a difficult time seeing how anybody can get to 50 if they can't get past the womb. Everybody knows that the fetus is extremely dependent on the mother for it's survival (and no, you know it's not the same as a cancerous tumor).

The same could be said for somebody who has invited me into their house and then changed their mind. You ask me to leave and show me the door, fine. Let's now suppose I sustain an injury (i.e. paralyzed, broken neck) and any near future or momentary intervention could result in my death (I need specialized medical assistance). If I'm incapable of leaving, can you justify killing me?

Or perhaps another scenario: I'm originally invited in your house, or I was unceremoniously dumped in your house while unconscious by a criminal, and you ask me to leave, but the only way out is thru the 2nd story window. I refuse to leave due to safety issues, or I'm unaware (momentarily unconscious). Can you justify throwing me out the window?

And perhaps last, but certainly not least, let's suppose I'm in your house and I'm on life support, but to leave I must abandon my life support to be evicted. Can you evict, if by doing so, it results in my death?

To wit, should my unintentional occupancy, now turned trespass, rise to the level of lethal force due to circumstantial physical duress beyond my control?

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

But we do this all the time to comatose people on life support  :-\


The big difference is that you actualy know what life and death is, are aware you are alive, and don't want to die. A fetus never gained consciousness to begin with, so this is more like having two groups vehemently argue over whether people, who are born blind, should be wearing red or green dresses.

There's a difference between conscious sentience in progress, and one that has been halted or damaged due to injury, otherwise it would be an arbritrary definition that some ignorant people, or newborns, could fall into and then be "aborted".

Let life be what it will be. Intervene to help, not to harm.

Perhaps you should make your own definition?  That's what everyone else does.

I gave you the definition I am working with: an intelligent conscious being capable of rational thought, self awareness, and understanding of the concept of life, death, and personal rights. My definition covers children, adults, and anything we may come across in the future, be it IA, intelligent animal hybrids, or alien species. It does not include random clumps of cells, beings incapable of higher brain functions, and those who are comatose or in a vegitative state.
I don't know what your definition is, but it sounds like either just "a human" without any differentiation between a skin sample and a firtilized egg, or you just simply don't have a definition, because that is something you don't even care to consider, instead choosing to parrot other's sentiments of things being wrong without caring why.

It's funny, but I get a strong suspicion that if we do get things like computers storing people's consciousness, or intelligent animal hybrids, the side fighting for the "sanctity of life" will be the one denying those beings the right to life on the basis that they are not "hunam," while the "pro-abortion" crowd will likely be the ones defending them...

Again, thats just taking the easy, non-thinking route. On another thread, Hawker was vehemently denying Smallpox's right to life.

Your definition means its OK to kill babies.  That's not likely to get much support so you are welcome to it as an intellectual exercise.

I have a definition. You don't. Using my definition, you think we should allow babies to die a horrible death by thirst or starvation. I don't know how you could be so cruel to babies to leave them to that fate.
If you don't like my definition, feel free to suggest improvements. Somehow I doubt you can come up with anything that isn't arbitrary or just based on your feelings. Prove me wrong.

Um yours is arbitrary and based on your feelings.  So is everyone else's.  That's the way this stuff works.  Are you hoping that there is some definition written in the stars?

Self awareness is arbitrary? Understanding what death means and fearing it is arbitrary? Making choices is arbitrary?
Perhaps the issue is that you believe everything, including the definition of a human life, is arbitrary, thus we shouldn't even think about it, and thus the best option is just to do whatever the law or the bible says, without questioning it?

No wonder you can't even begin to think about where things like laws and rights come from  :P

So tell us, where do you think laws and right come from?

I don't think huh? Right...

Here's a thought; if any human, at whatever point in its development is potentially capable of acquiring self-awareness, sentience, consciousness or self-sufficiency, let it be; or if you're unwilling, convey that responsibility to someone else who is. Interrupting it, destroying it, abandoning it, evicting it, or altering it at the beginnings of life is tantamount to murder. Deal.

Really interesting debate here, I've read all the posts.

It's sad that there is no logical conclusion on that one. The two sides have excellent points, and it's seems like a classic case of "Damned if you, damned if you don't".

I believe the scope of this debate is too small though. Abortion is only a tool in the toolbox to solve a problem in a certain situation. I think that the tool should be kept in the toolbox, but we should find a way to add more tools in it. Women who abort have usually little options in front of them, and it's not a joy either. I know there's a certain aspect of responsibility, but to take responsibility, you need support, and if you don't have it, you usually don't give a shit about responsibility.

Some people have a hard time trying to hold the pieces of their life together, giving them the burden of another life is not what they need, neither the society around them.

If you prevent abortions, people are simply going to find a new way of solving this problem. In certain situations, as horrible as it is, it's a need for those people.

Instead of fighting each other about an impossible position, determining the exact date of a "living being" or just shitting on other's beliefs, whatever they might be, why don't you use that time and energy to add more tools in the toolbox? Create new solutions, so much better than people will find abortion to find a .00001% last resort tool. We live for that, trying to find new ways of solving problems, and solving them in a much better way than before.

I personally find abortion horrible, but it's sometime the last hope of some people, and I refuse to create more despair. That's why my stance is, bury abortion under a massive pile of better solutions(I mean, real BETTER solutions for real people, not forced beliefs) so abortion is somewhat forgotten. If you find the abortion too high, it's simply because you don't offer enough solutions adapted to the needs of the people.

Well, that's what I meant. Develop those options, make them attractive and easy to use. If some great people want to adopt childrens, don't add hurdles in the process, try to make it easier for them. It is possible that some women who aborted would have chose to give their child to a good family if they had the choice. Don't shame them if they have a lack of reasonable choices.


It's not because you perceive the roots as bad that you can't help the rest of the tree.

Can we make serious decisions based on what might or might not be? What if the fetus that was spared from abortion grows up to be another Laugher, or Tim McVeigh, or Kazynsky?
This is usually where these debates tend to come to an impase, with one group wanting to take future possibility into account, and the other believing that possibilities are too infinite and general to consider, and thus should be irrelevant. I don't really know how to progress from that. It's why I asked about an AI that was built that would have all the mental abilities of a human, but that was never turned on, and if it would be wrong to destroy it... but that was kind of ignored with dismissive claims that I would kill babies.

If you knew with 100% sure a kid was gonna grow up to be the next Hitler, would you murder that kid?

Adoption is the most often quoted solution, but I suspect vast majority of anti-abortion protesters never take that route (I would be willing to bet no one on this threat arguing against abortion has adopted either). Those people going around looking to adopt are mostly looking for white or "exotic" babies. Non-white babies, young children, and children from troubled backgrounds are sorta screwed. I keep running into statistics saying that there are approximately 500,000 children out there waiting for adoption, many of whom end up doing all of their growing up in foster care, and I believe that is one of the biggest indicators of why abortion is so high and so needed.

God, I was SO trying not to mention Hitler when I mentioned those three mass murderers. Thanks for killing the thread. It's all over now  >:(

It's only over when we say so, rules are meant to be broken.

No,  sorry, it's over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Any time someone brings in Hitler, it means the debate has come to it's natural conclusion. There is now nothing more left to discuss. This thread is dead now, and it's all your fault.

Abandoning your child is not only an extreme social stigma, it's in such a place in our culture that it's almost impossible for someone to do with clear conscience. I don't see most mothers picking that over abortion, and it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (not that I agree with it, but emotionally it's the best option). Giving your baby should be perceived as normal, a decision everyone can freely make. Maybe then the choice would be obvious.


Hehe, relax, it's just a metaphor. And I wouldn't kill Hitler either. ;)

If it was its natural conclusion why would it be my fault?



Like i said, it will only be over if people don't wanna go any further; regardless of the mention of any infamous figures.

Btw, i would think linking to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Godwin%27s_law would be more appropriated than ad Hitlerum; however neither of those articles specify that there can never be a valid continuation after Hitler, or some standin for him, is mentioned; we can go on, i will, but if you don't wanna you're free to leave.

You are right about Goodwin's law. And I was joking.

It's not about a culture of right vs wrong, it's about a culture of fear and shame that has been perpetrated on women for the past many centuries. Heck, having babies out of wedlock was considered borderline exileable offence not too long ago (but only for the mother; no one cared about the father's mistake). So, as long as women are shamed about this stuff, they will do whatever it if that conceals that. If it's abortion, then it's only the moralist extremists to blame.


Too many conflicting studies on this, so best to leave this out.



Accidents happen, and please don't propose controlling people's sexuality. The church has been using that as their main method of holding control over people through shame for far too long. It only ever leads to bad things (proof? Compare abortion rates in much more securalist Europe where abortion is freely available to much more religious America).


Trial for murder would first have to mean that the fetus is considered on par with a human being. As mentioned by my definitions, it does not. If it did, people who take their comatose family members off life support would have to be tried for murder as well.
Regarding the father wanting to keep the baby, that's a tricky situation. My guess/train of thought: Even though the baby IS valued by someone, it is not actually the property of the father, since it is in possession of the mother and she is the one being required to take care of it (or using her body to take care of it). So, perhaps the father has no right to it, since his contribution to it was very minimal, and whatever contribution he did make (sperm) he technically willingly gave the possession of it to the mother. I know it's "not fair," but we have plenty of benefits women don't too, so it's not like we can complain.
Artificial woumbs have recently been shown to work for mice fetuses, so it's a short matter of time before they can work for human babies, too. At that point, I guess the father, if he insists on keeping the baby, can ask the mother to give him the fetus, and he would be responsible for providing the financing for the procedure, but it would still be up to the mother as to what to do with her "property."

I'm actually kind of with you on that. There are plenty of options for the mother to avoid the financial burden of having a child, and if she decides to take on that burden, anyway, then it's her choice entirely. I would maybe have the father still pay for part of the abortion or adoption services (and maybe the morning sicknesses and ice cream), since the situation was caused by his negligence. Though this thing is a rather inflammatory hot topic issue  :-\


Controlling through shaming is still controlling. That's how the church does it: take something that is people's most basic desire and want, and make them feel ashamed of it, which works great since everyone thinks about and wants it. Then, when they feel shamed and guilty, tell them you have answers, have them come to you, and tell them what to do. It's been pretty destructive, actually. Shame keeps it all in secret, makes people avoid honestly discussing the issues, and just leads to more ignorant mistakes followed by more shame. Compare this (us) to secular cultures, where sex maybe makes people blush, but is not shamed; where sexual issues like contraception, disease, and abortion are freely discussed, and where sex is not something shamefull that you must get before anyone finds out. Those cultures are much better informed of the issues and risks, are much better prepared to discuss, plan for, and deal with them, and thus have far fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion. In a way it's also like keeping candy from a baby. Compare the problems with underage drinking in US with, say, Italy, where there's really no minimum drinking age in family homes, and alcohol is just a part of dinner.


Wrong about what exactly? And why do you suppose that children born to financially destitute parents who don't want them will most likely grow up to be leaders, scientists, and doctors, as opposed to troubled people?


Why do you believe that they would have been aborted? Abortion is not a new invention, and an ancient procedure is even mentioned in the bible. Also, if the mother aborts, who's to say she won't have another baby later, when she is ready, and have that second baby become the great person that the first one never had the chance to?

Those fetuses could just as well grow up to be someone that contributed extremely negatively to humanity; the number of real life supervillains we might have escaped from because they've died before being born is just about incalculable.