[Sivad]

Well, a foetus is a human being and alive. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to debate this on your terms.

You can call it whatever you want but that has no bearing on the question of its moral status.
Why should we accord an overriding right to life to human beings that aren't conscious, have never been conscious, lack the physical capacity for consciousness, and have no beliefs, desires, goals, emotions, or meaningful relationships?

[snapdragon]

Well, a foetus is a human being and alive. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to debate this on your terms.

So you won't accept the facts?

I mean the above is construed to set up a debate that you will always win, so why on earth would you expect me to accept it? How about I dictate terms so that you'll automatically loose?

I'm happy to debate why you think a foetus should have the same rights as people, but I can't accept that unless you can accept they don't at the moment.

Otherwise it's just going round in circles.

I'm not sure if you are just arrogant or actually don't realise this, so please note that the terms of any debate are not dictated by one side only. If there is disagreement on the terms, then these have to be debated first.

Sure. Go ahead. Let's debate the fact a foetus isnt a human being and why that is the case, then go on from there.

You call it being arrogant, I call it being correct.

This is not difficult. You are not allowed to do with your body whatever you want if this leads to the child being harmed, endangered or dying. This is the equivalent case to an abortion.

No, it isn't. You would like it to be for reasons unspecified, but that isn't the case.

It's a legal minefield, which is why states such as Mississippi that have attempted to make foetuses legally people, have failed miserably.

Oddly enough, abortion would have to legal in all cases under self defence laws if it were to gain personhood.
Just by being there, the foetus is causing harm to the woman.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I intended to reply to you about this in another thread, so forgive me this will be off topic a little.

By virtue of the political situation today a centrist position is in actuality a radically progressive one. So whomever conforms to the socially accepted norms promoted today is by virtue an individual who is radically different in their outlook from one lets say 50-60 years ago. Social norms of today would be considered insane by most of humanity throughout history.

I might also add that the current norms are enforced by the state. People are also indoctrinated into progressivism through education and they are not persuaded into it by rational debate. We have young people growing up today thinking that what we have today is the norm and anything out of it is unthinkable wrong, because they are taught this from birth.

As people we have to realize that we live in abnormal times ever since the 60s's "cultural revolution", but I have to add things had been changing slowly prior to, 60s is just when it really came into fruition. And all hell broke loose as they say.

Yeah, the change has been quite fast and maybe has even accelerated, although I think this isn't as true for your average person. There is a question in my view how deep seated any one progressive conviction actually is, especially among those who today almost have to espouse or denounce certain things in order to be socially accepted. Nevertheless, social desirability and self interest are obviously strong motivators and by now progressive orthodoxy is pretty much dominant. On the upside, if rapid change is possible in one direction, irrespective of whether it's real or superficial or a combination of both, this also means that things can quickly move in the opposite or a completely different direction.

And to tie this back to this thread, strategically conservatives/the right should probably not go for an abortion ban, as progressives/the left are more likely to abort. If they feel really cynical, they should encourage already present guilt because of overpopulation and the like to which progressives seem to be susceptible.

You can call it whatever you want but that has no bearing on the question of its moral status.

It does for most people and that's what ultimately matters in practice.

Why should we accord an overriding right to life to human beings that aren't conscious, have never been conscious, lack the physical capacity for consciousness, and have no beliefs, desires, goals, emotions, or meaningful relationships?

What do you mean by overriding? It does deserve protection like all living human beings and it will develop consciousness, etc.

So you won't accept the facts? I'm happy to debate why you think a foetus should have the same rights as people, but I can't accept that unless you can accept they don't at the moment. Otherwise it's just going round in circles. Sure. Go ahead. Let's debate the fact a foetus isnt a human being and why that is the case, then go on from there. You call it being arrogant, I call it being correct.

Feel free to make your case. I've made mine a few times in this thread.

Repeating the same assertion is not sufficient by the way.

No, it isn't. You would like it to be for reasons unspecified, but that isn't the case.

You think it's legal to let your child die because you wanted to go on a holiday?

[Sivad]

It does for most people and that's what ultimately matters in practice.

Sure rhetoric can be effective, but it's not an argument.

What do you mean by overriding?

The right to life trumps all other considerations.

It does deserve protection like all living human beings

Why? I don't value human beings because they're human, I value them because they're self-aware, conscious beings.

and it will develop consciousness, etc.

I think that does give the fetus a moral status, that's why for example it's wrong to smoke while pregnant, but that alone doesn't warrant an overriding right to life. Abortion is definitely immoral in some circumstances, recreational abortion for instance would be completely immoral. In a perfect world all abortion would be immoral, but in this world there are circumstances that justify terminating a 'future like ours', and in many cases not having an abortion is immoral.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sure rhetoric can be effective, but it's not an argument.

That the foetus is a human being that is alive matters for my argument. It also matters for snapdragon, as her arguments rests in part on refusing to acknowledge it.

The right to life trumps all other considerations.

I don't think it trumps all other considerations.

Why? I don't value human beings because they're human, I value them because they're self-aware, conscious beings.

It's both, the fact that the foetus is a human being and that it will become conscious.

I think that does give the fetus a moral status, that's why for example it's wrong to smoke while pregnant, but that alone doesn't warrant an overriding right to life. Abortion is definitely immoral in some circumstances, recreational abortion for instance would be completely immoral. In a perfect world all abortion would be immoral, but in this world there are circumstances that justify terminating a 'future like ours', and in many cases not having an abortion is immoral.

I agree that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances. The mother's life should also take priority. As mentioned earlier, I'm also ok with relatively easily accessible first trimester abortions as a pragmatic compromise.

[snapdragon]

That the foetus is a human being that is alive matters for my argument. It also matters for snapdragon, as her arguments rests in part on refusing to acknowledge it.

You have failed to prove it is a human being, whereas I have shown proof it isn't.

Until you can accept that, none of your arguments work.

The fact it's alive isn't enough, so , yes, it certainly matters as far as my argument is concerned.

It's the whole crux of it.

While it's inside the body of an actual human being and sustaining its life by using that human being's organs, then it can't also be a human being - because human beings sustain their own lives at the same basic level, even if it ls with the help of medical science.

Human beings don't have the right to use another human being's body to sustain their lives without their permission.

Sentience, awareness and everything similar is immaterial when it comes to deciding what makes a human entity a human being. As is length of gestation.

That is a true fact.

It's purely and simply being born alive, when it then becomes a wholly physically independent person with rights that dont infringe on the rights of anyone else.

It;s the only logical time. Explain to me rationally, why that shouldn't be the case.

Whatever anyone might feel personally is down to their own individual consciences. They are free to act on it, but what they should not be free to do is force it on someone else.

Unfortunately, they too often are, which is why I continue to campaign for all laws that restrict abortion to be repealed.

Speaking personally, I don't get why those nutters who hang around outside abortion clinics in gangs asserting "life begins at conception" aren't holding vigils around sewers.

There must be thousands of fertlised eggs floating around in all the piss and shit, and they wouldn't bother anyone doing that.

Maybe that's what they like doing, Bothering people going about their private and lawful business.

[Zamuel]

You have failed to prove it is a human being, whereas I have shown proof it isn't. Until you can accept that, none of your arguments work.

You've presented your argument politely and with precision. Unfortunately you're not involved in a reasonable debate. It's all been said and done several times already, and ignored then as now.

Maybe that's what they like doing, Bothering people going about their private and lawful business.

In greater and lesser degrees, yes. Some people simply wish to focus attention on themselves. At the far extreme you have those advocating bombing clinics and assassinating doctors. At this end posting and reposting disproven concepts suffices.

As society realigns itself, certain people have a hard time adapting. They seem to think they can reverse the massive social inertia and recover a worn out dynamic that has outlived it's usefulness. There doesn't seem to be a "Cure" for them. Some recover eventually, many do not.

Zam

[Drlee]

You have failed to prove it is a human being, whereas I have shown proof it isn't.

Nonsense. Obviously a child that is about to be born is a human being. Your argument is just stupid.

Your argument asks us to believe that a surgeon, knife poised to begin a C-section will not be dealing with a human being until it is out of the mother. That idea is laughable.

So when the child's head is out but his ass not, it the head a human being and the ass something else?

You keep restating your ridiculous notions about humanity and have supported them with no evidence whatsoever.

The scientific community is very clear about this. You should try reading a little science and not feminist clap-trap.

[B0ycey]

The scientific community is very clear about this. You should try reading a little science and not feminist clap-trap.

As a doctor, you should know your terminology better actually. You can argue your opinion in terms of moral judgement or perhaps what should be deemed to be Human, but as soon as you use the Science argument to back up your claim your argument fails I'm afraid.

The simple reason a fetus is not classed as a baby is due to terminology that is biological. So science.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You have failed to prove it is a human being, whereas I have shown proof it isn't.

You haven't shown proof, you've quoted a legal text. Again, if I showed you a legal text that defined minorities in such a way that they had fewer rights would you accept that as proof?

While it's inside the body of an actual human being and sustaining its life by using that human being's organs, then it can't also be a human being - because human beings sustain their own lives at the same basic level, even if it ls with the help of medical science.

I see no reason why this should be accepted as the definition of human being other than it helps you justify your argument (there's a pattern here somewhere). It's also illogical, as the exact same embryo which has so far not been a human being would become a human being by virtue of an incubator that could sustain its life outside the womb becoming available. An unborn child who is able to survive outside the womb would also be both.

Human beings don't have the right to use another human being's body to sustain their lives without their permission.

Yes, they do. I've given you an example already, but you also must help another human being who is in danger even if you don't want to and if you have to use your body to achieve it. Your permission is irrelevant and you'll be charged if you don't provide assistance.

Sentience, awareness and everything similar is immaterial when it comes to deciding what makes a human entity a human being. As is length of gestation.

These are mere assertions again, so I'll ignore them.

It's purely and simply being born alive, when it then becomes a wholly physically independent person with rights that dont infringe on the rights of anyone else.

It;s the only logical time. Explain to me rationally, why that shouldn't be the case.

Sometimes rights are in conflict which each other. That's a fact of life. In that case we try and find a compromise, which most of the people in this thread are willing to do. Reasonable people accept that there isn't always a perfect solution.

So when the child's head is out but his ass not, it the head a human being and the ass something else?

You can argue your opinion in terms of moral judgement or perhaps what should be deemed to be Human, but as soon as you use the Science argument to back up your claim your argument fails I'm afraid.

Where's the conflict with science in what Drlee says?

[Nonsense]

Nonsense. Obviously a child that is about to be born is a human being. Your argument is just stupid.

Your argument asks us to believe that a surgeon, knife poised to begin a C-section will not be dealing with a human being until it is out of the mother. That idea is laughable.

So when the child's head is out but his ass not, it the head a human being and the ass something else?

You keep restating your ridiculous notions about humanity and have supported them with no evidence whatsoever.

The scientific community is very clear about this. You should try reading a little science and not feminist clap-trap.

Driee
Your argument asks us to believe that a surgeon, knife poised to begin a C-section will not be dealing with a human being until it is out of the mother. That idea is laughable.

Nonsense

As I recall it, YOU are the one denying the existence of a human being BEFORE it's birth.

When it comes to 'stupidity', your arguments are unchallengeable, after all, that's one monopoly that you are unlikely to relinquish without dragging everyone else down to your level.

It's self evident that foetus's are living beings of the same species as their parent mother.

To deny the humanity of an unborn human is unbridled ignorance, in your case, accompanied by it's twin, 'arrogance'.

Driee-"So when the child's head is out but his ass not, it the head a human being and the ass something else"?

Nonsense

Like the rest of your post, I merely point out the ignorantly stupid assertions made on your part, which deny the very existence of a living being until it is born.

[KS edit: Rule 2.]

[snapdragon]

You haven't shown proof, you've quoted a legal text.

Which proves my point that the term human being has a legal meaning that doesn't apply to embryos or foetuses.

Again, if I showed you a legal text that defined minorities in such a way that they had fewer rights would you accept that as proof?

Why wouldn't I?

But why would you want to? What would it prove? that some countries don't practise human rights? I already know that.

I see no reason why this should be accepted as the definition of human being other than it helps you justify your argument (there's a pattern here somewhere). It's also illogical, as the exact same embryo which has so far not been a human being would become a human being by virtue of an incubator that could sustain its life outside the womb becoming available. An unborn child who is able to survive outside the womb would also be both.

Well, it isn't. What you mean is you don't like the fact that the term human being refers to people and not to embryos or foetuses, so you would prefer to ignore it.

You can of course, continue to call embryos and or foetuses human beings if you want, as long as you realise, that , legally, they aren't.

I prefer to use the term human entity to the more common shorthand, which is z/e/f.

It avoids confusion. Try it.

Yes, they do. I've given you an example already, but you also must help another human being who is in danger even if you don't want to and if you have to use your body to achieve it. Your permission is irrelevant and you'll be charged if you don't provide assistance.

No, you don't and you haven't shown anything at all to prove they do.

These are mere assertions again, so I'll ignore them.

of course you will. You can't answer them.

Sometimes rights are in conflict which each other. That's a fact of life. In that case we try and find a compromise, which most of the people in this thread are willing to do. Reasonable people accept that there isn't always a perfect solution.

Wrong. Rights don't ever conflict with each other, or else they arent rights.

Reasonable people don't expect the rights of person A to override the rights of person B

that would be outrageous, wouldn't it?

[Nonsense]

Did you not read my link?

I think you will find that this is a forum for debating, clicking on 'Links' can have unintended consequences.

English law is globally recognised as being based upon the rights of citizens from Alfred the Great.

It's very different to American law or it's Constitution that allows the tyranny of it's innocent citizens by gun toting idiots intent on terrorising the locals.

[snapdragon]

[quote="Nonsense"][/quote]

It was just a link to a site that defined what is meant by human being in American law.

As I've been pointing out over and over, using the term human being for a z/e/f ( I dislike that shorthand) is wrong, and can cloud the issue, as posters assume laws that pertain to human beings include unborn human entities, which don't legally have a right to life.

So when it's claimed the right to life covers unborn human entities, it doesn't.

The people who make the claim believe it's true, but they're wrong.

The unborn victims of violence Act would have been unnecessary , for a start.

It's best to use the correct terminology so we all know where we are.

I will point out to Dr Lee that personhood starts when the child has been born and the cord has been cut, so he's right in that when it's only half born, it's not yet a person.

It's still human, of course, but not a human being.

It's not unknown for a foetus to die while being born, in which case its death is recorded as a stillbirth.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why wouldn't I? But why would you want to? What would it prove? that some countries don't practise human rights? I already know that.

Please. How did you get your right to vote? It happened because people fought for changes the law. This is so basic, I have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

Well, it isn't. What you mean is you don't like the fact that the term human being refers to people and not to embryos or foetuses, so you would prefer to ignore it. You can of course, continue to call embryos and or foetuses human beings if you want, as long as you realise, that , legally, they aren't. I prefer to use the term human entity to the more common shorthand, which is z/e/f. It avoids confusion. Try it.

There is no confusion whatsoever on my part. If you are confused, just ask for clarification.

No, you don't and you haven't shown anything at all to prove they do.

Here you go:

Duty imposed by law

In certain circumstances, the law expressly states that a failure to act will result in criminal liability. This constitutes an exception to the general rule that there is no liability for a failure to act.

For example, under s 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is a criminal offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so.

Where there is a special relationship between the victim and the person who failed to act, criminal liability can arise as a result of the omission. Examples of the kinds of relationships that presume a voluntary presumption of responsibility to care for or protect the other person includes:

parent and child;
husband and wife;
doctor and patient.

A doctor will only be criminally liable for an omission if the omission constituted a breach of duty, which is to act in the patient’s best interests.

All these types of relationship impose some kind of duty on each other, and therefore a failure to act and prevent an action which leads to one of the parties becoming a victim of some sort of crime will attach a criminal liability.

You've got to use your body to help other human beings, sorry. I know it's terrible.

You can, of course, contest these laws and say you don't agree with them. If that's what you want to do, please explain why.

Wrong. Rights don't ever conflict with each other, or else they arent rights. Reasonable people don't expect the rights of person A to override the rights of person B that would be outrageous, wouldn't it?

Utter nonsense. Please see my quote above for examples.

[Drlee]

Mr. Nonsense. Your post about me was deliberately insulting and frankly a credit to your name.

I see no real reason to answer it.

[Zamuel]

Here you go: "In certain circumstances, the law expressly states that a failure to act will result in criminal liability.

This is called negligence, which you would know if you bothered to read the articles you quote. It is a legal factor between actual people, it does not apply to Z/E/F(s) who are not legally "People."

You've got to use your body to help other human beings, sorry. I know it's terrible.

In some cases, perhaps. As in other circumstances you can be held liable for neglect. Abortion is not a case of neglect.

Zam

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This is called negligence, which you would know if you bothered to read the articles you quote. It is a legal factor between actual people, it does not apply to Z/E/F(s) who are not legally "People."

This is to a counter the notion that you cannot be compelled to do or prevented from doing something to or with your body. By law, we don't have absolute authority over our bodies.

I realise that you (I think?) and snapdragon also contest that an unborn child deserves any protection whatsoever, but neither of you have in my view presented good arguments in favour of that position.

In some cases, perhaps. As in other circumstances you can be held liable for neglect. Abortion is not a case of neglect.

Right, abortion is often worse, as in most cases it involves the active killing of a living human being.

[Zamuel]

This is to a counter the notion that you cannot be compelled to do or prevented from doing something to or with your body. By law, we don't have absolute authority over our bodies.

Yes, we do ... Negligence in no way compels or constrains our actions. It punishes after the fact both for action and inaction. It's also closely tied to "Intent." Law may abrogate our authority over our body, -but- in the US anyway, only after "due process," which it seems you convieniently choose to ignore.

I realise that you (I think?) and snapdragon also contest that an unborn child deserves any protection whatsoever, but neither of you have in my view presented good arguments in favour of that position.

The law is a good enough position for me, and for most people.

Right, abortion is often worse, as in most cases it involves the active killing of a living human being.

And again, the law defies you and your silly insistence on misrepresentation.

Zam

[Drlee]

OK folks let's lay one aspect of this shit to rest. The question. Does the state view an unborn child as a person?

Here is the definitive answer in the US:

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Full stop.

Fun fact. 76% of states have already enacted these laws. It stands to reason that if an amendment banning late term abortion would pass handily.

How about my own state; Arizona:

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1102, § 13-1103, § 13-1104 and § 13-1105 define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder. The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 13-701, § 13-704, § 13-705 and § 13-751 define aggravated circumstances in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.

Hmmm. There goes your legal argument.

Yea. But what about a lib'ral state. Pay attention:

Wisconsin:

Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (2) et seq. declare that any person who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an is guilty of homicide. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.

The sound of your preposterous arguments hitting the floor. Please refrain from denying that the law does not view unborn children as children. Not spit. Not amorphous tissue. Not anything other than a child.

And remember that 42 states have bans on late term abortions except when it is necessary for the health of the mother. And folks, convenience is not a health issue.

Now Snapdragon will come along and deny all of this but in the US you have just read the law.