at what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a living being? becos premature births are quite common and we can remove them from the womb with greater and greater ease. you wanna draw the line for me? 6 months? post-birth? are premature babies not really alive? is a c-section baby just getting alive via loophole?
i'm not saying the life from conception argument is one i agree with, i'm saying it's a pretty valid argument becos nobody has been able to give a definitive answer as to when it suddenly becomes its own life.
Well no fetus, prior to 25 weeks of gestation, can survive outside the womb no matter how many life supporting measures are used. To me a fetus under this 25 week period is not really a living organism, it is a part of it's mother.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
So the right to life is only obtained, in your view, after responsibility for that life can be upheld and secured by the individual?
This is really a fascinating question that I've had a lot of fun playing around with in my head. I'm going to add some additional thoughts here, if only as a personal exercise. Any comments and critiques are welcome.
How can we say that anyone or anything has a "right to life"? And what does that mean, specifically?
Life itself is a state of being pertaining to a specific object. A thing is "alive" when it may act upon itself, whereas a thing is not-alive when it cannot act upon itself. A human, as a living being, may eat in an attempt to maintain its state as a living being and, in the process, maintain some control over its own state. Conversely, a rock, as an inanimate object, has no control over its state and is entirely at the mercy of its environment to determine whatever state it may occupy in the future. Hence, the dividing line between life and non-life is the capacity to have a goal and to act to achieve that goal. The base goal of all living things is to continue living. Unfortunately, the state of life is completely conditional. All life must be sustained in order to continue to exist in the particular state of living. Absent a sustaining force, life becomes non-life or, as we might call it, "dead".
A true Right is something delivered to you as a direct result of your nature. You, as a human being with a brain and muscles have a right to think and a right to act. Together, these two Rights are known as freedom. As a free being, you have a right to eat and you have right to breathe and you have a right to drink in order to maintain your state and, as such, to maintain your rights. However, do not confuse the rights to eat, breathe and drink as rights to food, air, and water. You have no right to food, no right to air, no right to water. Nature may withhold any of those things from you and often does. As an organism, it is your obligation to obtain those things via the rights nature has granted you. You are free to deny that obligation at your own peril.
Therefore, to suggest that one has a "right to life" is to suggest that one has a right to flip a coin and have it always come up heads. The very fact that life itself is conditional implies that life carries no indefinite self-sustaining rights as a result of its nature. If anything, the nature and history of life implies that it carries with it not a right to continue but rather an obligation to end. Regardless, the conditional nature of our existence implies probabilities of divergent outcomes, namely the continuation of existence as a living being or the transformation to a non-living being.
Hence, in the natural sense, human beings do not have a "right to life". By their natures, they had a right to be transformed into a living being and, depending on your perspective, a right or obligation to be transformed into a non-living being. Life itself, however, is not a right. It is a conditional state achieved by a living being acting in a certain manner.
A fetus, at some point, most certainly qualifies as "alive" since it may act upon itself. Fetuses have distinct organs that maintain their lives and metabolize food delivered from their mothers. However, the nature of a fetus is much different than the nature of an individual human being. As a human being reading this, you are a distinct individual that may, to some extent, control your own state as a living being. You then, in effect, have a right to self-determination within your environment. A fetus, by its nature, does not qualify as such. By its nature, a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother to continue to survive and its nature therefore carries with it a right to dependence as opposed to a right of self-determination. In effect, the fetus's state itself is an economic gamble -- the exchange of self-determination for nourishment provided by another. And there is nothing that prohibits that other from not holding up their end of the unagreed-to bargain.
Abortion, as an act, is a form of "murder" completely distinct from killing your 8-year old son or 40-year old neighbor. Murder, as an act, is a denial of another's ability to self-determine. Abortion, as an act, is a denial to let another occupy your body or leech off of your sustenance. To deny someone's ability to self-determine is to call into question your own. To deny another from depending on you does not carry with it the same inherent contradiction.
I fear some might extrapolate these concepts into a free pass to exterminate welfare recipients or to walk through ICU units pulling plugs. Such extrapolations are missing the concept of complete dependence. While individuals have no obligation to support people on welfare or to perform medical services for the infirmed, the act of murdering such people in the name of their dependence is both unethical and logically inconsistent. To let a man in a vegatative state die by withholding your property is well within your logical rights. To stab him in the back, however, is not.
There is no natural "Right to Life". Death demonstrates that. The "right to life" is simply a manufactured social "right" that is better stated as "the compact not to murder". In healthy societies, individuals agree not to use their natural free right to murder in exchange for equal treatment by others.
FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE [P2 S1]: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT STATEMENT? PERIOD?
There is no inbetween. Seems to me the founders spell it out. You DO have a NATURAL GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE!
A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.
You seem to contradict yourself. Not an individual, she OWNS that LIFE. ???
So you concede now that a fetus IS ALIVE, is a LIFE, just that it has no rights? Thats pretty shakey, especialy given the above quote from the declaration.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
........I fear some might extrapolate these concepts into a free pass to exterminate welfare recipients or to walk through ICU units pulling plugs......
and yet, somehow, that hasn't happened. hmmm.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE [P2 S1]: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT STATEMENT? PERIOD?
There is no inbetween. Seems to me the founders spell it out. You DO have a NATURAL GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE!
Hehe...DBTS, if you want to have a philosophical discussion, let's have one. On the other hand, if you want to make your Christmas list, let's just list the things we like. I like apples.
Stop confusing Natural Rights -- the rights inhereted from your existence -- with social rights -- the rights inhereted from agreements between men. In the context of Natural Rights, you do not have an "unalienable" right to any of those things as you are gauranteed to lose them at some point.
You seem to contradict yourself. Not an individual, she OWNS that LIFE. ???
So you concede now that a fetus IS ALIVE, is a LIFE, just that it has no rights? Thats pretty shakey, especialy given the above quote from the declaration.
A declaration has no merit in the context of Natural rights. If I declare that I have the right to free cheese, that won't make any cheese, will it? All I've done is write something down on paper. In other words, if Thomas Jefferson would have written "2+2=7" on a piece of paper, would that have made 2+2=7, in your opinion?
A fetus is certainly alive. It has many rights that extend from its existence. It has the right to exist in a given moment in time. It has the right to depend soley on its mother. It has a right to operate within its environment and, at a certain point, to think and to act within a womb. But it has no right to continue to live indefinitely, nor does it have any right to be born.
Your entire position here -- that a document establishes rights -- is foolish. If that's the case, then this argument is over -- a newer document establishes that women have the right to abort on the federal level. Done deal, huh?
Well no fetus, prior to 25 weeks of gestation, can survive outside the womb no matter how many life supporting measures are used. To me a fetus under this 25 week period is not really a living organism, it is a part of it's mother.
According to your definition, ALL internal parasites are not seperate living organisms, only "part of their hosts".
What ELSE is needed as a distinction?
You guys just need to give up the charade.
I'm not NECESSARILY saying i disagree with abortion, but i disagree with the veil of science to cover up what fundamentaly is about choice, and NOT about compassion or concern for the moral ramifications of an action.
The admission should be: The fetus IS alive, but it isn't really an issue. It is more important to provide women who got pregnant but didn't WANT to be with a CHOICE to rid themselves of this occurance -- REGARDLESS of the consideration of "life".
QUESTION: Why do so many women who have abortions feel SO HORRIBLE about themselves afterwards? Surely they aren't upset about squashing a NON-LIVING object? No. They ARE. They KNOW it is alive, and their conscious is upset over the weight of the decision -- they know they did not want a baby, but they didn't want to kill it either.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Your entire position here -- that a document establishes rights -- is foolish. If that's the case, then this argument is over -- a newer document establishes that women have the right to abort on the federal level. Done deal, huh?
The document clearly states (and i'm sure you disagree here) that the CREATOR endows you with these rights. The "paper" merely REITERATES for you said rights.
The rest of your premise is hinged on perverse logic, to say the least (and outside of this thread, i usualy HIGHLY value your logic & opines).'
Edit: FFG, i can't believe you try to obscure the CLEARLY written truth in the Declaration. You distort "my" argument to say my position is "foolish", when it is spelled out plain as day. You have a GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE ... not by the founding fathers on paper, but BY GOD! Natural, unalienable, NO HUMAN CONTRACT REQUIRED, You have THE UNALINEABLE RIGHT TO LIVE -- any deliberate human attempt to squash your life is a violation of that right.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
QUESTION: Why do so many women who have abortions feel SO HORRIBLE about themselves afterwards? Surely they aren't upset about squashing a NON-LIVING object? No. They ARE. They KNOW it is alive, and their conscious is upset over the weight of the decision -- they know they did not want a baby, but they didn't want to kill it either.
i'm sure that's true for some of them, but not all. i think the feelings of regret or sadness after an abortion can be attributed to a number of factors, not the least of which is social stigma/ pressure to carry to carry an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term. add to that surging hormones and the possible desire to have children in the future- the idea of the POTENTIAL baby- and i can see how a woman might feel a bit funky afterward. but that in no way makes a good argument for taking away that right.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
The document clearly states (and i'm sure you disagree here) that the CREATOR endows you with these rights. The "paper" merely REITERATES for you said rights.
Oh...my mistake. In other words, the God you can offer no proof of backs up your rights, not the paper.
In all seriousness, the founders got that one half right. They understood that natural, individual rights existed. And the social rights they detailed, even though they are not actually natural rights, are largely consistent with our inherent natural rights. Societies that value life, that value liberty, that value property and the general human drive towards happiness, typically end up being very healthy societies indeed.
The rest of your premise is hinged on perverse logic, to say the least (and outside of this thread, i usualy HIGHLY value your logic & opines).
Like most people, you simply "HIGHLY value" my logic & opines when they back up what you already believe in.
But go ahead, attack the logic. But you cannot fight a philosophical argument with paper. Tell me, what natural rights does a fetus have and where do they come from?
Edit: FFG, i can't believe you try to obscure the CLEARLY written truth in the Declaration. You distort "my" argument to say my position is "foolish", when it is spelled out plain as day. You have a GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE ... not by the founding fathers on paper, but BY GOD! Natural, unalienable, NO HUMAN CONTRACT REQUIRED, You have THE UNALINEABLE RIGHT TO LIVE -- any deliberate human attempt to squash your life is a violation of that right.
Ok, let's start here then.
How did God give me that right and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
How did God give me that right and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
You are being obtuse.
And you are also insinuating that the ENTIRE value system which is based primarily upon Judeo-Christian values should be VOIDED since science has yet to offer proof for a "creator" ...
... even science should tell you that the absence of proof does not invalidate a supposition. And i'm SURE you have no proof that god does NOT exist.
Being a pragmatist (and a bit of a taoist) I could care less about the unknowable nature of the universe and it's orign.
However i do have a VERY REAL concern with the ERODING VALUE SYSTEMS that our Founders tried to enumerate for us.
WHETHER or NOT YOU believe in God or not seems to be irrelevant, IMHO. The very foundations of our constitution and enumerated rights STEM DIRECTLY FROM THAT ASSUMPTION.
If you want to overturn the ENTIRE system, go ahead and just say so.
And i am going to make a prediction that you are about to contemplate some response about how "our forefathers also believed in slavery, blah blah blah" ... :rolleyes: ...
Bottom line: You seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. No humor intended with the "baby" cliche.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
And you are also insinuating that the ENTIRE value system which is based primarily upon Judeo-Christian values should be VOIDED since science has yet to offer proof for a "creator" ...
I didn't say it should be "voided". I am, however, insinuating that any value system which has as its foundation in a belief in an omnipresent ghost should be treated with some skepticism. However, the Judeo-Christian value system is mostly borrowed from the very existential beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, so much of it is quite good.
... even science should tell you that the abscence of proof does not invalidate a supposition. And i'm SURE you have no proof that god does NOT exist.
I have absolutely no proof that God does not exist. I have absolutely no proof that Sasquatch does not exist either. I hold both in the same esteem.
Being a pragmatist (and a bit of a taoist) I could care less about the unknowable nature of the universe and it's orign.
Not carrying about the nature of the universe makes you silly. Suggesting that something is "unknowable" and, in the process, implying knowledge about it makes you kind of foolish.
However i do have a VERY REAL concern with the ERODING VALUE SYSTEMS that our Founders tried to innumerate for us.
Meh...the Founders didn't really follow their own value system that often, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
WHETHER or NOT YOU believe in God or not seems to be irrelevant, IMHO. The very foundations of our constitution and innumerated rights STEM DIRECTLY FROM THAT ASSUMPTION.
That's part of the reason they're a bit askew.
If you want to overturn the ENTIRE system, go ahead and just say so.
I don't.
And i am going to make a prediction that you are about to contemplate some response about how "our forefathers also belived in slavery, blah blah blah" ... :rolleyes: ...
Some of them did.
Bottom line: You seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. No humor intended with the "baby" cliche.
Not particularly, no. What I'd really like is for you to answer my question. So I'll repeat it:
How did God give me that right [to life] and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
I didn't say it should be "voided". I am, however, insinuating that any value system which has as its foundation in a belief in an omnipresent ghost should be treated with some skepticism. However, the Judeo-Christian value system is mostly borrowed from the very existential beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, so much of it is quite good.
I have absolutely no proof that God does not exist. I have absolutely no proof that Sasquatch does not exist either. I hold both in the same esteem.
Not carrying about the nature of the universe makes you silly. Suggesting that something is "unknowable" and, in the process, implying knowledge about it makes you kind of foolish.
Meh...the Founders didn't really follow their own value system that often, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
That's part of the reason they're a bit askew.
I don't.
Some of them did.
Not particularly, no. What I'd really like is for you to answer my question. So I'll repeat it:
How did God give me that right [to life] and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
Supposing you did believe in a God, what sense would it make to question how such being bestowed certain rights upon you? Surely such an awe-inspiring force had plenty of means available for bestowing such endowments!
As far as why do you die? The theological answer would be that Gods right was not extended as a permanent right and was a right extended "on call" at the discretion of such creator -- surely not a right intended to be violated by man himself.
But i imagine that the question itself was simply intended as a setup for some clever intellectual trap ...
... you seem to have no shortage of brain power to muscle your way around any argument you take issue with.
So far, you've insinuated that
1. the founding fathers got some things right, but mostly not (which i take issue with)
2. that what they did get "right", they got right in SPITE of judeo-christian values (which, not even being a christian or jew, i take issue with, as MOST of those values are WORTH preserving, in so far as they do not become an excuse to purvey prejudice and discrimenation)
3. the belief that their may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is somehow as uncredible as something that IS CLEARLY within our perceptual ability and STILL which we have no proof of (God vs. Bigfoot)
4. that I am foolish for thinking that man probably isn't equiped with senses to uncover any scientific proof of god (isn't this pretty obvious to most folks?)
5. that i am also arrogant for "knowing" that we "can't know" proof about god (ok. great. now i'm arrogant for simply assuming that it may be too much to ask for man to be able to prove gods existence)
6. that you could probably do a better job yourself of setting up a LEGAL and MORAL system for the governance of this country based on some sort of human contract
7. this system would be eminently more agreeable, even though you just admited that contracts between man are easily over-rideable
???
Keep it coming FFG.
For everyone else:
I am NOT a christian. I am not some religious nutter. I am not a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican. I am not pro-life OR pro-choice. I am just an independent thinker who believes what i believe based on a hope that man can and should seek truth, liberty, and the protection of his INHERENT rights (regardless of whether there really is a "creator" who endowed them or not) ... as this is ALL we really have, and we would do best not to ARGUE THEM AWAY on self-serving (man it makes you feel good to boost your ego by arguing against the founding fathers and thinking you are winning) grounds.
BOTTOM LINE:
The founders said you had certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. They said "The creator" assigned them to you. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RELINQUISH THEM? (in this case, apparently it is simply so we can allow women to have abortions) ... whatever.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Supposing you did believe in a God, what sense would it make to question how such being bestowed certain rights upon you? Surely such an awe-inspiring force had plenty of means available for bestowing such endowments!
Hehe...so you're asking me "Suppose you don't need evidence of anything to believe something, wouldn't you believe everything?" The answer is, of course, yes.
As far as why do you die? The theological answer would be that Gods right was not extended as a permanent right and was a right extended "on call" at the discretion of such creator -- surely not a right intended to be violated by man himself.
But i imagine that the question itself was simply intended as a setup for some clever intellectual trap ...
... you seem to have no shortage of brain power to muscle your way around any argument you take issue with.
Your "theological answer" is based on an unproveable maxim: god exists. In other words, your "answer" is just a question.
So far, you've insinuated that
1. the founding fathers got some things right, but mostly not (which i take issue with)
The founding fathers got most things right.
2. that what they did get "right", they got right in SPITE of judeo-christian values (which, not even being a christian or jew, i take issue with, as MOST of those values are WORTH preserving, in so far as they do not become an excuse to purvey prejudice and discrimenation)
Not "in spite of" at all. Just because Judeo-Christian values are primarily borrowed does not invalidate them or make them a good target for scorn. Judeo-Christian values are largely a good thing.
3. the belief that their may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is somehow as uncredible as something that IS CLEARLY within our perceptual ability and STILL which we have no proof of (God vs. Bigfoot)
The belief that there may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is completely uncredible. Credibility would imply some evidentiary track record or at least something on which one can base a belief. Bigfoot might still be out there somewhere. God might still be out there somewhere. But to say that either exists is to suggest that evidence has absolutely no bearing on your belief and that objective reality has no importance to you.
4. that I am foolish for thinking that man probably isn't equiped with senses to uncover any scientific proof of god (isn't this pretty obvious to most folks?)
That would suggest that you know something about god. And since your only ability to know anything is via your senses, you've contradicted yourself.
5. that i am also arrogant for "knowing" that we "can't know" proof about god (ok. great. now i'm arrogant for simply assuming that it may be too much to ask for man to be able to prove gods existence)
I haven't said you're arrogant. I've said you're contradictory.
6. that you could probably do a better job yourself of setting up a LEGAL and MORAL system for the governance of this country based on some sort of human contract
"Better job" implies a standard against which that job can be measured. In terms of your perspective, I doubt I could do a better job. In terms of my perspective, I certainly could. The neat thing about "human contract", however, is that each of us could set up a system of legal and moral governance based on our own particular standards.
7. this system would be eminently more agreeable, even though you just admited that contracts between man are easily over-rideable
Contracts are certainly easily over-rideable! The funny thing is, however, is that you're pretending that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or Roe v Wade have any relationship to a contract.
The founders said you had certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. They said "The creator" assigned them to you. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RELINQUISH THEM? (in this case, apparently it is simply so we can allow women to have abortions) ... whatever.
How can I relinquish something I don't have, DBTS?
Hehe...so you're asking me "Suppose you don't need evidence of anything to believe something, wouldn't you believe everything?" The answer is, of course, yes.
Your "theological answer" is based on an unproveable maxim: god exists. In other words, your "answer" is just a question.
The founding fathers got most things right.
Not "in spite of" at all. Just because Judeo-Christian values are primarily borrowed does not invalidate them or make them a good target for scorn. Judeo-Christian values are largely a good thing.
The belief that there may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is completely uncredible. Credibility would imply some evidentiary track record or at least something on which one can base a belief. Bigfoot might still be out there somewhere. God might still be out there somewhere. But to say that either exists is to suggest that evidence has absolutely no bearing on your belief and that objective reality has no importance to you.
That would suggest that you know something about god. And since your only ability to know anything is via your senses, you've contradicted yourself.
I haven't said you're arrogant. I've said you're contradictory.
"Better job" implies a standard against which that job can be measured. In terms of your perspective, I doubt I could do a better job. In terms of my perspective, I certainly could. The neat thing about "human contract", however, is that each of us could set up a system of legal and moral governance based on our own particular standards.
Contracts are certainly easily over-rideable! The funny thing is, however, is that you're pretending that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or Roe v Wade have any relationship to a contract.
How can I relinquish something I don't have, DBTS?
Well at least this go round i agree with half of what you've said.
I'm going back to daytrading for now.
At least he market doesn't argue back!
[why are we arguing if "god" is outside of the senses or not? Isn't that implicit in the "understanding" of "god"? Creator existed. Creator creates the universe. The creator exists outside of said universe. Your senses exist withIN said universe. Question: A clown blows up a baloon. Can the baloon ever "know" the clown? Does the clown not exist because of this? I know that is a goofball analogy, but i think the premise is consistent here]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If that's what a particular state wants then they should be able to self regulate if the added paperwork and infrastructure is not an encumbrance. I'm thinking it would be unnecessary division...perhaps not. It should be seen as the state of affairs. When you live in a state that's the state, if the status quo is pro or against...well that's what it is....feel free to vote away. If some people can't deal with the state of affairs so to speak.....the country is free to roam.
i think a step sort of lowering the decision to the state level is just making it evident it should be and is ultimately a personal decision, by it being a federal decision that abortion is not illegal creates clinics and proper ways to perform these rather than making the woman who is actually carrying what could become a person an outcast. You should not be labeled a bad person simply because you cannot afford (money and oppurtunity cost as well) to have a kid in this country, especially when its other federal laws and decision makers that make it so hard to survive on your own.
it probably appears that the federal government is making the decision, but i think they are just making a non decision, which is the right one and this is why we cant have candidates win that don't understand this.
Well no fetus, prior to 25 weeks of gestation, can survive outside the womb no matter how many life supporting measures are used. To me a fetus under this 25 week period is not really a living organism, it is a part of it's mother.
to YOU. i happen to agree with you. all i'm saying is it's a reasonable, but still arbitrary, line and i can understand where pro-lifers are coming from.
why are we arguing if "god" is outside of the senses or not? Isn't that implicit in the "understanding" of "god"?
Nothing is implicit in the "understanding of god". Implicit implies some chain of logic or inferrence from an object, which in turn would imply some knowledge or understanding of said object.
Creator existed. Creator creates the universe. The creator exists outside of said universe. Your senses exist withIN said universe. Question: A clown blows up a baloon. Can the baloon ever "know" the clown? Does the clown not exist because of this? I know that is a goofball analogy, but i think the premise is consistent here]
It is a goofball analogy, but I see what you're getting at and the reasoning is fine. The problem is that you, as a baloon, are assuming there's a clown to begin and, even worse, that the clown has laid down a bunch of orders by which all should live. And you're doing so without any evidence whatsoever.
Again, there certainly could be a God (or Gods). There could also not be a God. As a human being, however, there is absolutely no possible justification from which one could make either statement definitively. Your only tool of reasoning, as a human, is logic, and your only inputs into this tool are your senses. Since God, by definition, is alogical and supersensory, claims regarding its existence are completely self-defeating.
the nature of a fetus is much different than the nature of an individual human being.... You then, in effect, have a right to self-determination within your environment. A fetus, by its nature, does not qualify as such. By its nature, a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother to continue to survive and its nature therefore carries with it a right to dependence as opposed to a right of self-determination.
When does the "right to dependence" end and when does the self-determination happen? It could be argued that a 4 month old is entirely dependent on another being to live.
According to your definition, ALL internal parasites are not seperate living organisms, only "part of their hosts".
What ELSE is needed as a distinction?
You guys just need to give up the charade.
I'm not NECESSARILY saying i disagree with abortion, but i disagree with the veil of science to cover up what fundamentaly is about choice, and NOT about compassion or concern for the moral ramifications of an action.
The admission should be: The fetus IS alive, but it isn't really an issue. It is more important to provide women who got pregnant but didn't WANT to be with a CHOICE to rid themselves of this occurance -- REGARDLESS of the consideration of "life".
QUESTION: Why do so many women who have abortions feel SO HORRIBLE about themselves afterwards? Surely they aren't upset about squashing a NON-LIVING object? No. They ARE. They KNOW it is alive, and their conscious is upset over the weight of the decision -- they know they did not want a baby, but they didn't want to kill it either.
I don't know why so many women feel horrible after an abortion as I am neither a women nor ever had an abortion. I am merely stating fact. You can argue the ethics and morality of abortion all you like but the fact remains that a fetus prior to 25 weeks of gestation cannot live outside of the womb even with the assistance of modern life support measures. To me that seems like a great place to draw the line.
I personally would never have an abortion, but that is my belief and it should not be forced upon another human being and since that fetus is not considered a human being, by scientific terms, it does not have the same rights as we do.
I use science to define my position because unlike ethics and morals, scietific facts do not vary between person to person. It is the only consistant in this debate. Your ethics and morals may not be the same as mine but neither of us can dispute the scientific facts.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
Well no fetus, prior to 25 weeks of gestation, can survive outside the womb no matter how many life supporting measures are used. To me a fetus under this 25 week period is not really a living organism, it is a part of it's mother.
This is really a fascinating question that I've had a lot of fun playing around with in my head. I'm going to add some additional thoughts here, if only as a personal exercise. Any comments and critiques are welcome.
How can we say that anyone or anything has a "right to life"? And what does that mean, specifically?
Life itself is a state of being pertaining to a specific object. A thing is "alive" when it may act upon itself, whereas a thing is not-alive when it cannot act upon itself. A human, as a living being, may eat in an attempt to maintain its state as a living being and, in the process, maintain some control over its own state. Conversely, a rock, as an inanimate object, has no control over its state and is entirely at the mercy of its environment to determine whatever state it may occupy in the future. Hence, the dividing line between life and non-life is the capacity to have a goal and to act to achieve that goal. The base goal of all living things is to continue living. Unfortunately, the state of life is completely conditional. All life must be sustained in order to continue to exist in the particular state of living. Absent a sustaining force, life becomes non-life or, as we might call it, "dead".
A true Right is something delivered to you as a direct result of your nature. You, as a human being with a brain and muscles have a right to think and a right to act. Together, these two Rights are known as freedom. As a free being, you have a right to eat and you have right to breathe and you have a right to drink in order to maintain your state and, as such, to maintain your rights. However, do not confuse the rights to eat, breathe and drink as rights to food, air, and water. You have no right to food, no right to air, no right to water. Nature may withhold any of those things from you and often does. As an organism, it is your obligation to obtain those things via the rights nature has granted you. You are free to deny that obligation at your own peril.
Therefore, to suggest that one has a "right to life" is to suggest that one has a right to flip a coin and have it always come up heads. The very fact that life itself is conditional implies that life carries no indefinite self-sustaining rights as a result of its nature. If anything, the nature and history of life implies that it carries with it not a right to continue but rather an obligation to end. Regardless, the conditional nature of our existence implies probabilities of divergent outcomes, namely the continuation of existence as a living being or the transformation to a non-living being.
Hence, in the natural sense, human beings do not have a "right to life". By their natures, they had a right to be transformed into a living being and, depending on your perspective, a right or obligation to be transformed into a non-living being. Life itself, however, is not a right. It is a conditional state achieved by a living being acting in a certain manner.
A fetus, at some point, most certainly qualifies as "alive" since it may act upon itself. Fetuses have distinct organs that maintain their lives and metabolize food delivered from their mothers. However, the nature of a fetus is much different than the nature of an individual human being. As a human being reading this, you are a distinct individual that may, to some extent, control your own state as a living being. You then, in effect, have a right to self-determination within your environment. A fetus, by its nature, does not qualify as such. By its nature, a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother to continue to survive and its nature therefore carries with it a right to dependence as opposed to a right of self-determination. In effect, the fetus's state itself is an economic gamble -- the exchange of self-determination for nourishment provided by another. And there is nothing that prohibits that other from not holding up their end of the unagreed-to bargain.
Abortion, as an act, is a form of "murder" completely distinct from killing your 8-year old son or 40-year old neighbor. Murder, as an act, is a denial of another's ability to self-determine. Abortion, as an act, is a denial to let another occupy your body or leech off of your sustenance. To deny someone's ability to self-determine is to call into question your own. To deny another from depending on you does not carry with it the same inherent contradiction.
I fear some might extrapolate these concepts into a free pass to exterminate welfare recipients or to walk through ICU units pulling plugs. Such extrapolations are missing the concept of complete dependence. While individuals have no obligation to support people on welfare or to perform medical services for the infirmed, the act of murdering such people in the name of their dependence is both unethical and logically inconsistent. To let a man in a vegatative state die by withholding your property is well within your logical rights. To stab him in the back, however, is not.
FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE [P2 S1]: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT STATEMENT? PERIOD?
There is no inbetween. Seems to me the founders spell it out. You DO have a NATURAL GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE!
You seem to contradict yourself. Not an individual, she OWNS that LIFE. ???
So you concede now that a fetus IS ALIVE, is a LIFE, just that it has no rights? Thats pretty shakey, especialy given the above quote from the declaration.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i agree.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
and yet, somehow, that hasn't happened. hmmm.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Hehe...DBTS, if you want to have a philosophical discussion, let's have one. On the other hand, if you want to make your Christmas list, let's just list the things we like. I like apples.
Stop confusing Natural Rights -- the rights inhereted from your existence -- with social rights -- the rights inhereted from agreements between men. In the context of Natural Rights, you do not have an "unalienable" right to any of those things as you are gauranteed to lose them at some point.
A declaration has no merit in the context of Natural rights. If I declare that I have the right to free cheese, that won't make any cheese, will it? All I've done is write something down on paper. In other words, if Thomas Jefferson would have written "2+2=7" on a piece of paper, would that have made 2+2=7, in your opinion?
A fetus is certainly alive. It has many rights that extend from its existence. It has the right to exist in a given moment in time. It has the right to depend soley on its mother. It has a right to operate within its environment and, at a certain point, to think and to act within a womb. But it has no right to continue to live indefinitely, nor does it have any right to be born.
Your entire position here -- that a document establishes rights -- is foolish. If that's the case, then this argument is over -- a newer document establishes that women have the right to abort on the federal level. Done deal, huh?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
According to your definition, ALL internal parasites are not seperate living organisms, only "part of their hosts".
What ELSE is needed as a distinction?
You guys just need to give up the charade.
I'm not NECESSARILY saying i disagree with abortion, but i disagree with the veil of science to cover up what fundamentaly is about choice, and NOT about compassion or concern for the moral ramifications of an action.
The admission should be: The fetus IS alive, but it isn't really an issue. It is more important to provide women who got pregnant but didn't WANT to be with a CHOICE to rid themselves of this occurance -- REGARDLESS of the consideration of "life".
QUESTION: Why do so many women who have abortions feel SO HORRIBLE about themselves afterwards? Surely they aren't upset about squashing a NON-LIVING object? No. They ARE. They KNOW it is alive, and their conscious is upset over the weight of the decision -- they know they did not want a baby, but they didn't want to kill it either.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
well, in the opinion of those who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, it's not a "baby" until it's viable.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
The document clearly states (and i'm sure you disagree here) that the CREATOR endows you with these rights. The "paper" merely REITERATES for you said rights.
The rest of your premise is hinged on perverse logic, to say the least (and outside of this thread, i usualy HIGHLY value your logic & opines).'
Edit: FFG, i can't believe you try to obscure the CLEARLY written truth in the Declaration. You distort "my" argument to say my position is "foolish", when it is spelled out plain as day. You have a GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE ... not by the founding fathers on paper, but BY GOD! Natural, unalienable, NO HUMAN CONTRACT REQUIRED, You have THE UNALINEABLE RIGHT TO LIVE -- any deliberate human attempt to squash your life is a violation of that right.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i'm sure that's true for some of them, but not all. i think the feelings of regret or sadness after an abortion can be attributed to a number of factors, not the least of which is social stigma/ pressure to carry to carry an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term. add to that surging hormones and the possible desire to have children in the future- the idea of the POTENTIAL baby- and i can see how a woman might feel a bit funky afterward. but that in no way makes a good argument for taking away that right.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
That sure is a convenient position for them to uphold, isn't it?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i think it's referred to as science.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Oh...my mistake. In other words, the God you can offer no proof of backs up your rights, not the paper.
In all seriousness, the founders got that one half right. They understood that natural, individual rights existed. And the social rights they detailed, even though they are not actually natural rights, are largely consistent with our inherent natural rights. Societies that value life, that value liberty, that value property and the general human drive towards happiness, typically end up being very healthy societies indeed.
Like most people, you simply "HIGHLY value" my logic & opines when they back up what you already believe in.
But go ahead, attack the logic. But you cannot fight a philosophical argument with paper. Tell me, what natural rights does a fetus have and where do they come from?
Ok, let's start here then.
How did God give me that right and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
You are being obtuse.
And you are also insinuating that the ENTIRE value system which is based primarily upon Judeo-Christian values should be VOIDED since science has yet to offer proof for a "creator" ...
... even science should tell you that the absence of proof does not invalidate a supposition. And i'm SURE you have no proof that god does NOT exist.
Being a pragmatist (and a bit of a taoist) I could care less about the unknowable nature of the universe and it's orign.
However i do have a VERY REAL concern with the ERODING VALUE SYSTEMS that our Founders tried to enumerate for us.
WHETHER or NOT YOU believe in God or not seems to be irrelevant, IMHO. The very foundations of our constitution and enumerated rights STEM DIRECTLY FROM THAT ASSUMPTION.
If you want to overturn the ENTIRE system, go ahead and just say so.
And i am going to make a prediction that you are about to contemplate some response about how "our forefathers also believed in slavery, blah blah blah" ... :rolleyes: ...
Bottom line: You seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. No humor intended with the "baby" cliche.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
How?
I didn't say it should be "voided". I am, however, insinuating that any value system which has as its foundation in a belief in an omnipresent ghost should be treated with some skepticism. However, the Judeo-Christian value system is mostly borrowed from the very existential beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, so much of it is quite good.
I have absolutely no proof that God does not exist. I have absolutely no proof that Sasquatch does not exist either. I hold both in the same esteem.
Not carrying about the nature of the universe makes you silly. Suggesting that something is "unknowable" and, in the process, implying knowledge about it makes you kind of foolish.
Meh...the Founders didn't really follow their own value system that often, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
That's part of the reason they're a bit askew.
I don't.
Some of them did.
Not particularly, no. What I'd really like is for you to answer my question. So I'll repeat it:
How did God give me that right [to life] and, if I have that right, why am I going to die?
Supposing you did believe in a God, what sense would it make to question how such being bestowed certain rights upon you? Surely such an awe-inspiring force had plenty of means available for bestowing such endowments!
As far as why do you die? The theological answer would be that Gods right was not extended as a permanent right and was a right extended "on call" at the discretion of such creator -- surely not a right intended to be violated by man himself.
But i imagine that the question itself was simply intended as a setup for some clever intellectual trap ...
... you seem to have no shortage of brain power to muscle your way around any argument you take issue with.
So far, you've insinuated that
1. the founding fathers got some things right, but mostly not (which i take issue with)
2. that what they did get "right", they got right in SPITE of judeo-christian values (which, not even being a christian or jew, i take issue with, as MOST of those values are WORTH preserving, in so far as they do not become an excuse to purvey prejudice and discrimenation)
3. the belief that their may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is somehow as uncredible as something that IS CLEARLY within our perceptual ability and STILL which we have no proof of (God vs. Bigfoot)
4. that I am foolish for thinking that man probably isn't equiped with senses to uncover any scientific proof of god (isn't this pretty obvious to most folks?)
5. that i am also arrogant for "knowing" that we "can't know" proof about god (ok. great. now i'm arrogant for simply assuming that it may be too much to ask for man to be able to prove gods existence)
6. that you could probably do a better job yourself of setting up a LEGAL and MORAL system for the governance of this country based on some sort of human contract
7. this system would be eminently more agreeable, even though you just admited that contracts between man are easily over-rideable
???
Keep it coming FFG.
For everyone else:
I am NOT a christian. I am not some religious nutter. I am not a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican. I am not pro-life OR pro-choice. I am just an independent thinker who believes what i believe based on a hope that man can and should seek truth, liberty, and the protection of his INHERENT rights (regardless of whether there really is a "creator" who endowed them or not) ... as this is ALL we really have, and we would do best not to ARGUE THEM AWAY on self-serving (man it makes you feel good to boost your ego by arguing against the founding fathers and thinking you are winning) grounds.
BOTTOM LINE:
The founders said you had certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. They said "The creator" assigned them to you. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RELINQUISH THEM? (in this case, apparently it is simply so we can allow women to have abortions) ... whatever.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hehe...so you're asking me "Suppose you don't need evidence of anything to believe something, wouldn't you believe everything?" The answer is, of course, yes.
Your "theological answer" is based on an unproveable maxim: god exists. In other words, your "answer" is just a question.
The founding fathers got most things right.
Not "in spite of" at all. Just because Judeo-Christian values are primarily borrowed does not invalidate them or make them a good target for scorn. Judeo-Christian values are largely a good thing.
The belief that there may be a force outside of our abilities to perceive is completely uncredible. Credibility would imply some evidentiary track record or at least something on which one can base a belief. Bigfoot might still be out there somewhere. God might still be out there somewhere. But to say that either exists is to suggest that evidence has absolutely no bearing on your belief and that objective reality has no importance to you.
That would suggest that you know something about god. And since your only ability to know anything is via your senses, you've contradicted yourself.
I haven't said you're arrogant. I've said you're contradictory.
"Better job" implies a standard against which that job can be measured. In terms of your perspective, I doubt I could do a better job. In terms of my perspective, I certainly could. The neat thing about "human contract", however, is that each of us could set up a system of legal and moral governance based on our own particular standards.
Contracts are certainly easily over-rideable! The funny thing is, however, is that you're pretending that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or Roe v Wade have any relationship to a contract.
How can I relinquish something I don't have, DBTS?
Well at least this go round i agree with half of what you've said.
I'm going back to daytrading for now.
At least he market doesn't argue back!
[why are we arguing if "god" is outside of the senses or not? Isn't that implicit in the "understanding" of "god"? Creator existed. Creator creates the universe. The creator exists outside of said universe. Your senses exist withIN said universe. Question: A clown blows up a baloon. Can the baloon ever "know" the clown? Does the clown not exist because of this? I know that is a goofball analogy, but i think the premise is consistent here]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i think a step sort of lowering the decision to the state level is just making it evident it should be and is ultimately a personal decision, by it being a federal decision that abortion is not illegal creates clinics and proper ways to perform these rather than making the woman who is actually carrying what could become a person an outcast. You should not be labeled a bad person simply because you cannot afford (money and oppurtunity cost as well) to have a kid in this country, especially when its other federal laws and decision makers that make it so hard to survive on your own.
it probably appears that the federal government is making the decision, but i think they are just making a non decision, which is the right one and this is why we cant have candidates win that don't understand this.
to YOU. i happen to agree with you. all i'm saying is it's a reasonable, but still arbitrary, line and i can understand where pro-lifers are coming from.
Kind of bold to kill on the basis of an opinion, huh?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Thank God!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nothing is implicit in the "understanding of god". Implicit implies some chain of logic or inferrence from an object, which in turn would imply some knowledge or understanding of said object.
It is a goofball analogy, but I see what you're getting at and the reasoning is fine. The problem is that you, as a baloon, are assuming there's a clown to begin and, even worse, that the clown has laid down a bunch of orders by which all should live. And you're doing so without any evidence whatsoever.
Again, there certainly could be a God (or Gods). There could also not be a God. As a human being, however, there is absolutely no possible justification from which one could make either statement definitively. Your only tool of reasoning, as a human, is logic, and your only inputs into this tool are your senses. Since God, by definition, is alogical and supersensory, claims regarding its existence are completely self-defeating.
No more bold than it is to do anything on the basis of an opinion.
When does the "right to dependence" end and when does the self-determination happen? It could be argued that a 4 month old is entirely dependent on another being to live.
You got to spend it all
This is the song that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on my friendssssssssssss
I don't know why so many women feel horrible after an abortion as I am neither a women nor ever had an abortion. I am merely stating fact. You can argue the ethics and morality of abortion all you like but the fact remains that a fetus prior to 25 weeks of gestation cannot live outside of the womb even with the assistance of modern life support measures. To me that seems like a great place to draw the line.
I personally would never have an abortion, but that is my belief and it should not be forced upon another human being and since that fetus is not considered a human being, by scientific terms, it does not have the same rights as we do.
I use science to define my position because unlike ethics and morals, scietific facts do not vary between person to person. It is the only consistant in this debate. Your ethics and morals may not be the same as mine but neither of us can dispute the scientific facts.