Political Crossfire Forums

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Selfish_Meme wrote: You find it amazing that others seem to place so little value on a zygote/fetus because you attribute more to it than others do. If you want to convince others that your view is right then you will have to explain what makes a zygote/fetus inherently more valuable than a woman's right to be pregnant or not and do it in a way that people can understand and take on board.

I explained how once aborted a unique individual dies in the first paragraph. Someone is being robbed of their entire existence, Id say that is far worse than 9 months of discomfort. Nevermind the fact that she created that life through her own actions.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 15954

Selfish_Meme wrote: You find it amazing that others seem to place so little value on a zygote/fetus because you attribute more to it than others do. If you want to convince others that your view is right then you will have to explain what makes a zygote/fetus inherently more valuable than a woman's right to be pregnant or not and do it in a way that people can understand and take on board.

I think he's done a pretty fair job. I'd say that a fetus has as much right to develop as his or her mother had to co-create him. Not more rights, just equal rights.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Unique individuals? yes, so is a cat. Are you saying that it is special because of the species?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 15954

Selfish_Meme wrote: Unique individuals? yes, so is a cat. Are you saying that it is special because of the species?

Absolutely.

Juggalo6772 · Joined: 26 Aug 2006 Posts: 51

AllAmericanMan wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: You find it amazing that others seem to place so little value on a zygote/fetus because you attribute more to it than others do. If you want to convince others that your view is right then you will have to explain what makes a zygote/fetus inherently more valuable than a woman's right to be pregnant or not and do it in a way that people can understand and take on board.

I explained how once aborted a unique individual dies in the first paragraph. Someone is being robbed of their entire existence, Id say that is far worse than 9 months of discomfort. Nevermind the fact that she created that life through her own actions.
What if the woman was raped?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Unique individuals? yes, so is a cat. Are you saying that it is special because of the species?

Absolutely.
And why is it special because of its species?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 15954

Selfish_Meme wrote: Lumina wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Unique individuals? yes, so is a cat. Are you saying that it is special because of the species?

Absolutely.
And why is it special because of its species?

Don't try to play coy, Meme; it's tedious.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I'm not playing coy, you obviously support his argument that just because it is human it has as many rights as any other human on the planet, when we patently don't apply those same rules to all humans, children have less rights than adults, the mentally incapacitated have less rights than other adults. Why does it's species give it inherently more or equal rights to an adult when we obviously discriminate against others of our own species that are even more intelligent, capable, and independant?

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5141 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: I'm not playing coy, you obviously support his argument that just because it is human it has as many rights as any other human on the planet, when we patently don't apply those same rules to all humans, children have less rights than adults, the mentally incapacitated have less rights than other adults. Why does it's species give it inherently more or equal rights to an adult when we obviously discriminate against others of our own species that are even more intelligent, capable, and independant?

Wasn't it you that argued in another thread that "rights" are granted only by those who can concieve of rights? That leaves only ONE species. And you also argued that those within the same species that can not "concieve" of rights are granted rights by those that do concieve of them.

It would seem you have answered your own objection.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

One species, but not all members of that species can conceive of rights, which is my point. She says that every member of the species has equal rights, when that is patently untrue. Why should we grant a fetus equal rights to a fully capable adult when a child or teenager is not equal in rights as well.

On what rational do we say when rights are attributed, in all other cases it is by inferred intellectual ability, age of consent is based on the inferred intellectual capacity of a certain age group, driving, drinking, voting. All of these are applied when we infer an age group attains the required intellectual capability, and we take it away too based on intellectual capability.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5141 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: One species, but not all members of that species can conceive of rights, which is my point. She says that every member of the species has equal rights, when that is patently untrue. Why should we grant a fetus equal rights to a fully capable adult when a child or teenager is not equal in rights as well.

On what rational do we say when rights are attributed, in all other cases it is by inferred intellectual ability, age of consent is based on the inferred intellectual capacity of a certain age group, driving, drinking, voting. All of these are applied when we infer an age group attains the required intellectual capability, and we take it away too based on intellectual capability.

I am unaware of any prolife position that promotes the ability of the fetus to sign contracts or open a bank account, drink or drive.

The only right that is argued for the fetus is the same right Jefferson describes as an unalienable right endowed by our Creator, that being life.

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

A zygote isn't even aware of itself... By no means is it the same as a developed human. I don't know why you seem to think it constitutes as a human...

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: A zygote isn't even aware of itself... By no means is it the same as a developed human. I don't know why you seem to think it constitutes as a human...

Did you read the OP? I laid out my case in the first paragraph. Also, please show me medical or biological evidence that shows awareness determines what species an organism belongs to.

Since the question is if a single celled organism can be a human being, ask yourself what kind of awareness we can detect in such an organism? Since we all start out a single celled organism after conception, what species are we before we transform into human beings?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Selfish_Meme wrote: I'm not playing coy, you obviously support his argument that just because it is human it has as many rights as any other human on the planet, when we patently don't apply those same rules to all humans, children have less rights than adults, the mentally incapacitated have less rights than other adults. Why does it's species give it inherently more or equal rights to an adult when we obviously discriminate against others of our own species that are even more intelligent, capable, and independant?

There is no case when age determines if a person can be killed by another person, other than abortion. Rules like drinking laws are legislated for good reasons. You only have to pick up a newspaper to see the results of teenagers and drunk driving. Kids arent allowed to do certain things, because they are incapable of judging such complex equations accurately, in some cases. It is the generally accepted rule of thumb in our society, that our kids need special protections, not to enslave them or kill them, but to keep them safe and alive.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Gilbert1908 wrote: I am unaware of any prolife position that promotes the ability of the fetus to sign contracts or open a bank account, drink or drive.

The only right that is argued for the fetus is the same right Jefferson describes as an unalienable right endowed by our Creator, that being life.
Whether or not they claim it is besides the point, our system of rights depends on a generally applicable determination of intellectual capability. Why is a fetus outside the bounds of this system?

Jefferson's statement is circular, as someone accused me of, see the second link in my signature.

Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net wrote:

Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident

a tautology: "It is true because....it is true."

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5141 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I am unaware of any prolife position that promotes the ability of the fetus to sign contracts or open a bank account, drink or drive.

The only right that is argued for the fetus is the same right Jefferson describes as an unalienable right endowed by our Creator, that being life.
Whether or not they claim it is besides the point, our system of rights depends on a generally applicable determination of intellectual capability. Why is a fetus outside the bounds of this system?

Jefferson's statement is circular, as someone accused me of, see the second link in my signature.

Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net wrote:

Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident

a tautology: "It is true because....it is true."

A new born has the right to life and it has no more intellectual capability than a fetus, why is it INSIDE the bounds of this system?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

That is not completely true. If you were to graph a line to show intellectual development and capability from conception through to adulthood it would be pretty flat up to around 25 weeks, there it would start to rise as more and more complex brain functions came on board. It would then keep rising before beginning to plateu into adulthood. A newborn would be further along that graph and have a more complex brain than an early fetus, though the difference between an unborn fetus about to be born and a newborn is only slight (the birth process apparently kickstarts a lot of development).

Is a newborn logically different enough from a just about to be born fetus to warrant a sudden assignment of rights? It would be my opinion that it is yes, but to a large degree not because of intellectual difference, more of a property difference, because it now occupies its own space time and it can be inferred to be fully independant of the mother. Where before birth their fates where physically entwined now they can run seperately.

I however did not make the determination on what rights were attributed at birth, society/government did, and it made a general subjective judgment.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5141 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: That is not completely true. If you were to graph a line to show intellectual development and capability from conception through to adulthood it would be pretty flat up to around 25 weeks, there it would start to rise as more and more complex brain functions came on board. It would then keep rising before beginning to plateu into adulthood. A newborn would be further along that graph and have a more complex brain than an early fetus, though the difference between an unborn fetus about to be born and a newborn is only slight (the birth process apparently kickstarts a lot of development).

Is a newborn logically different enough from a just about to be born fetus to warrant a sudden assignment of rights? It would be my opinion that it is yes, but to a large degree not because of intellectual difference, more of a property difference, because it now occupies its own space time and it can be inferred to be fully independant of the mother. Where before birth their fates where physically entwined now they can run seperately.

I however did not make the determination on what rights were attributed at birth, society/government did, and it made a general subjective judgment.

So then you conveniently change your criterium from an intellectual capability to a location, you provide a perfect example of a political stance in search of an argument which maintains a defense.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

No I didn't change my criteria, it is still intellectual capability as far as I am concerned.

I just mentioned a possible reason for rights changes at birth. Not necessarily a right to life per se but something defining a seperation of bodies or untanglement of fate. It was just a passing thought, not a stand on anything.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5141 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: No I didn't change my criteria, it is still intellectual capability as far as I am concerned.

I just mentioned a possible reason for rights changes at birth. Not necessarily a right to life per se but something defining a seperation of bodies or untanglement of fate. It was just a passing thought, not a stand on anything.

Well then what is the significant measureable difference between a new born and a fetus with regard to intellectual capability that justifies life and death?