Fetal rights

[J842P]

the biological definition of "life" entails reproduction. a fetus cannot reproduce so therefore does not fit the definition of a living thing.
the biological definition of "human" entails "relating to or characteristic of people or human beings" Fetuses look nothing like a person. they communicate nothing like a person, they smell nothing like a human, they are incapable of most human behaviors.

a fetus is neither human nor alive. (I personally will grant "alive" to them, though.. regardless of it not perfectly fitting definitions... but I am a big fan of combating argument by Webster with Webster.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. A fetus is a living member of the species Homo sapiens. No biologist would argue with that. You don't have to be able to reproduce immediately to be alive, that is just silly. But more importantly, that isn't the issue. But you should stop saying that, because it isn't true, and quite frankly, makes you sound silly.

If you don't like the consequence of argument by Webster, then do not commit the fallacy yourself. You are the one that presented the "biological definition" upon which you based your argument. Don't complain to me just because I was able to do the same thing. Yes. It DOES sound silly, does't it? so don't do it.

I am not making any argument. Try to keep up. I'm correcting your factually incorrect statement that a fetus is not alive or not human. It is both, and those are both irrelevant, really, to the abortion discussion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Um, you were the one who asked about the US Constitution and thus framed the subsequent questions.

Um... not until you said there is no legal right to life I didn't. And I brought up a bunch of different legal authorities that speak of a legal right to life.

Good, I'm glad you've once again clarified your concessions, but it still doesn't then address why, in light of that concession, you raised any other irrelevant points?

What irrelevant points? Your game is not working.

As to issues of Canadian legal rights, I'm pretty sure nobody gives a shit, but maybe you can start a thread for fellow canucks, eh?

This thread was started by a non-American and I replied as a non-American. Your country isn't the world. And moral basic human rights cross borders.

I never said there is an absolute right to life that can never be trumped by some other right.

Nor did I say that you did.

Then what the fuck are you on about?

No. I simply wanted to establish, once again, that ALL you or I (or anyone in this thread) have been talking about is personal, subjective opinions. There are no innate or inherent "rights" to be alive or "not be killed"--not even in Canada--so we can finally dispense with ALL of that utter bullshit and instead get to your "objective elements."

There are no innate or inherent rights AT ALL except what society holds to be rights. And as your declaration of independence says, some rights are held to be self evident. Are you going to be this pedantic in every thread we have about rights? Or just in threads where you want to justify killing? How about in the threads we have about black men being killed by police? The black men have no right to life either, and that will be important for you to raise in such threads?

You are wasting everyone's time. You can fuck off now.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What I find unacceptable is the corruption and administrative costs of all of the organizations looking for charity. Take the United Way CEO that makes over $1.2 million/year. No thanks. I will give all my charity instead directly to the people I see in need who really do need help. Some other sucker can contribute to some CEO's bloated paycheck leaving only 2 cents of every dollar to feed someone who is really hungry.

I like your approach, and I do the same. Its easier to do when you frequently visit such areas and can meet personally with the people who need the help. We have a tradition of giving some cash to some homeless people living under the bridges in Manila and bringing them meals from Jollibee. That said, economies of scale can work out for organized charity and donations, plus they know what is needed. Giving money to a food bank is better than buying canned good and putting them in those bins at the grocery store.

Here is a consumer reports article on better giving and lower overhead for charities it in 2018: https://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Are you going to be this pedantic in every thread we have about rights?

Just in threads where pissant sea lions think they bark the loudest and try to argue that there is a universal "right not to be killed" (or "right to live") that somehow applies to the issue of abortion.

You can fuck off now.

Oh, no, no, please. After you.

But first present your "objective elements."

 

[bilby]

Everything I said after.

We mean a right not to be killed by somebody else.

There is no such "right." A right is something codified into the Constitution and enforced by Congress. Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that we have a "right to be alive" or a "right to not be killed by somebody else"?

No, you can't. So you are NOT talking about a "right" in any legal sense as I previously alluded to. Which means you are asserting it in some sort of universal morality sense, if not imposed by a god.

But, of course, there is no such thing as either. Morality is purely subjective.

So there is no moral argument to be made. Or, rather, one can make it, but it has no inherent weight. It is merely opinion and therefore purely arbitrary.

Which means, no matter what, the question of abortion hinges on arbitrarily imposed individual opinion.

So, then it becomes, of course, a question of why one person's opinion on the matter should supersede anybody else's? Like all laws, certainly; but there still must be a reason, not merely, "because that's what we do in other instances."

So, without appealing to your own concept of "morality" and understanding that there is no Constitutional right to "not be killed" (and without appealing to whataboutism), why should one person's opinion on abortion supersede someone else's?

That's easy - the opinions should be weighted by the degree of direct involvement. So the woman getting the abortion should have her opinion respected above any other person's.

That doesn't seem particularly problematic to me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Everything I said after.

We mean a right not to be killed by somebody else.

There is no such "right." A right is something codified into the Constitution and enforced by Congress. Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that we have a "right to be alive" or a "right to not be killed by somebody else"?

No, you can't. So you are NOT talking about a "right" in any legal sense as I previously alluded to. Which means you are asserting it in some sort of universal morality sense, if not imposed by a god.

But, of course, there is no such thing as either. Morality is purely subjective.

So there is no moral argument to be made. Or, rather, one can make it, but it has no inherent weight. It is merely opinion and therefore purely arbitrary.

Which means, no matter what, the question of abortion hinges on arbitrarily imposed individual opinion.

So, then it becomes, of course, a question of why one person's opinion on the matter should supersede anybody else's? Like all laws, certainly; but there still must be a reason, not merely, "because that's what we do in other instances."

So, without appealing to your own concept of "morality" and understanding that there is no Constitutional right to "not be killed" (and without appealing to whataboutism), why should one person's opinion on abortion supersede someone else's?

That's easy - the opinions should be weighted by the degree of direct involvement. So the woman getting the abortion should have her opinion respected above any other person's.

That doesn't seem particularly problematic to me.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Gun Nut]

Indeed. I have already stated I consider only natural viability--i.e., without modern medical intervention. Iow, 26 weeks.

All pointlessly unnecessary arguments to make when we already have a clear, sharp line drawn for us. Birth.

Agreed, but I accept the notion that we should follow nature's guidelines. If at any point a fetus could survive on its own (i.e., if the mother were to die during pregnancy and/or the child was otherwise born prematurely), then that's a reasonable line to draw.

I have been turning over this idea of "natural viability". The philosophy is sound.. where it does not fail to the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Humans are social animals... the most social, in that it takes a community to raise a child... it takes a community to have stores of food, and to divide skill sets and share resources... It's what humans DO... it's part of what makes us so successful on this planet compared with other animals.
We make tools... its another thing that makes us who we are. Tools like stone axes... and centrifuges... and guns... tools that help us survive and thrive.

So, that in mind, what is "natural" in terms of support of a human life, if it does not include all the tools we make and all the cooperation we have?
How much help from the tools and community we make cause the situation to be "unnatural"? Or to avoid a loaded term... what level of tool usage needed for viability makes the thing not viable?

Do you get where I am going with this? The test tube baby made from an unfertilized egg and a sperm is just a matter of tool usage. A single sperm cell is "viable" using the tools humans "naturally" make.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, that in mind, what is "natural" in terms of support of a human life, if it does not include all the tools we make and all the cooperation we have?

How much help from the tools and community we make cause the situation to be "unnatural"? Or to avoid a loaded term... what level of tool usage needed for viability makes the thing not viable?

Do you get where I am going with this?

I do. But the question goes to when is a fetus a person (in the legal sense) and therefore afforded the idea of being protected by governmental powers as codified into laws/rights such that government is permitted to ignore the rights of another person (the host)?

If not viability--i.e., personal autonomy--then no humans have any rights and cannot be protected by governmental powers, because it could all too easily be argued that humans are part of the same species and entirely dependent on each other to survive and therefore none are unique or autonomous, etc.

It's just a matter of adjusting the Venn diagram, then.

There's an old saying, “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

And as I noted before, just because we can use modern medical science to help some prematurely born fetuses as early as 21 weeks, that doesn't just automatically translate into their surviving or surviving without devastating impairment. If the concern is protection from harm, then why doesn't that extend beyond the womb in any significant manner?

You tried to abort your fetus with a coat hanger, but through the wonders of modern medical science we were able to extract it and resuscitate it and will now force you to deal with it, because you're a slutty Jezebel. It will die in about a month, but if it doesn't, it will be effectively brain dead for what few months or years it might manage to keep its heart functioning. But the sanctity of life has been upheld! Now join us at the BBQ feast and see how many pigs and cows and chickens we killed so you can eat for the Lord because ALL LIFE IS SACRED hallelujah!

And let's further stipulate that advances in medical science eventually allow us to do away with

The test tube baby made from an unfertilized egg and a sperm is just a matter of tool usage. A single sperm cell is "viable" using the tools humans "naturally" make.

Exactly. So, again, are we to now employ the power of government to force every male to only masturbate into a cup and freeze it/immediately transport it to awaiting wombs?

And/or charge them all with murder for killing billions of people every time they don't?

So, clearly we accept arbitrarily determined stages of personhood. Which means, the answer to his issue can only be, what is the best arbitrary demarcation point that preserves the rights of the host more so than any other, since it is unquestionably an autonomous person?

We've ruled out sperm as a person for no legitimate reason. We've established that there are biological stages of development such that no biologist would consider the embryo to be a person. We've established that without advanced medical science, it is exceedingly rare (to nearly impossible) for a 21 week old fetus prematurely born to survive, which in turn means that it is entirely dependent upon the host for its existence, which in turn means it's not autonomous, etc.

So, yeah, again, 26 weeks (the point of natural viability) seems to be the earliest logical demarcation point for anyone to agree upon.

But of course, some argue a lot about agreement but don't actually want anyone to agree; they just want to force their beliefs. And that's the real problem.

 

[Gun Nut]

It sounds like you are moving away from forming a legal definition on "medical viability" towards "individual personhood". OK, that's fine. But then my argument is that abortion should be legal up to the age of 18 years... the time in which a person is legally considered an individual (and not a minor, under parental guardianship).
I also agree that we accept arbitrary milestones all the time. 55 mph.... blood alcohol level... whatever. We can't use an arbritary value from "moment of conception" because that itself is unknowable.. or at least, unverifiable. usually. So the arbitrary point that I have always presented that is WORKABLE, is birth. We can measure that down to the second.. no questions... no ambiguity. no special cases. no multiple expert witnesses on the stand arguing over cell count.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It sounds like you are moving away from forming a legal definition on "medical viability" towards "individual personhood".

No, still at "natural viability," as I defined it. If the host died alone in nature, could the aborted fetus survive? That's viability in my book. Note that when a pregnant woman dies, her body aborts the fetus.

"Medical viability" still almost always entails killing the fetus (depending on the week), just at a slightly later time (so no one gets a finger pointed at them in spite of the fact that it's still a medical procedure that results in the death of the fetus) and/or forcing it to develop artificially with torturous horrors of malformed brains and organs etc (which, likewise, no one talks about because culpability is secure and that's all that seems to matter).

OK, that's fine. But then my argument is that abortion should be legal up to the age of 18 years

In regard to the majority of Trump supporters, I have no problem with that.

the time in which a person is legally considered an individual (and not a minor, under parental guardianship).

Bill Hicks put it best, "You're not a person until you're in my rolodex."

I also agree that we accept arbitrary milestones all the time. 55 mph.... blood alcohol level... whatever. We can't use an arbritary value from "moment of conception" because that itself is unknowable.. or at least, unverifiable. usually. So the arbitrary point that I have always presented that is WORKABLE, is birth. We can measure that down to the second.. no questions... no ambiguity. no special cases. no multiple expert witnesses on the stand arguing over cell count.

I'd have no problem with that. This bullshit that there is any kind of inherent "sanctity of life" is just hypocritical nonsense almost always spoken by people purporting to believe in a god, gleefully picking charred bits of cow flesh out of their teeth from a rally in support of capital punishment after voting for the guy who will cut taxes to the rich and medicaid for the sick and dying as they vote for a wall no one needs and another bombing run against brown people.