P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Please help refute the following legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion:
Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute
- Status
Y
yablabo
Guest
If one is going to bring the concept of “right,” meaning moral power, into the discussion, then one should know that no one has the “right,” or moral power, to end the life of a seven-year-old based upon the fact that the has no rights (we call such usurpation by the name of murder), therefore, one cannot end the life of either an infant or a fetus based upon the same argument.
The “argument” you presented does not give an open door to contraception, either. Contraception has to do with contravening nature in the area of conception of new life…not new life already exsistent.
– Nicole
The “argument” you presented does not give an open door to contraception, either. Contraception has to do with contravening nature in the area of conception of new life…not new life already exsistent.
– Nicole
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I’m no longer religious, but I do disagree with abortion. The argument you’ve quoted is flawed because it misunderstands the word “rights”, or more correctly, “human rights”. There is what we call “unalienable human rights”, which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human. Every human has the right to life.
*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say “but a fetus isn’t human. It has the potential to be human”. Such argument is spurious as well because it presupposes that scientists are infallible on what is and isn’t life. However, history shows that scientists have changed their opinion on what constitutes life. Even today, different scientists have different opinions on what is and isn’t life. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren’t deemed “human” by other “humans”.
*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say “but a fetus isn’t human. It has the potential to be human”. Such argument is spurious as well because it presupposes that scientists are infallible on what is and isn’t life. However, history shows that scientists have changed their opinion on what constitutes life. Even today, different scientists have different opinions on what is and isn’t life. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren’t deemed “human” by other “humans”.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Refutations:
*]Try to kill a 7 year old and either you go in the States to death penalty or spend 20 years or more in jail.
*]isn’t enough?
G
GEddie
Guest
S
Saburo
Guest
Please tell the 12 year-old who presented that argument the following:
It is true a 7 year-old does not have the same rights as an adult, but he does have an absolute right to life. Similarly, a fetus does not have the same rights as an adult, but she also has an absolute right to life.
As others have pointed out, some rights are universal while others are dependent on belonging to a class. Life falls into the category of being a human right, and is therefore absolute, as are all human rights. Inheritence is a right of those belonging to a class — in this case the heirs or designated beneficiaries of the deceased. Not all rights are equal, and not all rights belong to all, but human rights do not discriminate.
It is true a 7 year-old does not have the same rights as an adult, but he does have an absolute right to life. Similarly, a fetus does not have the same rights as an adult, but she also has an absolute right to life.
As others have pointed out, some rights are universal while others are dependent on belonging to a class. Life falls into the category of being a human right, and is therefore absolute, as are all human rights. Inheritence is a right of those belonging to a class — in this case the heirs or designated beneficiaries of the deceased. Not all rights are equal, and not all rights belong to all, but human rights do not discriminate.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Wow, great responses! Thanks everyone.
This is the next question/argument. I want an answer from Catholic view.
According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.
So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?
We believe in a God that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And we dare talk about the right not to be killed?!
Please enlighten me.
Super liked it
This is the next question/argument. I want an answer from Catholic view.
According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.
So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?
We believe in a God that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And we dare talk about the right not to be killed?!
Please enlighten me.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Hello,Wow, great responses! Thanks everyone.
Super liked it
This is the next question/argument. I want an answer from Catholic view.
According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.
So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?
We believe in a God that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And we dare talk about the right not to be killed?!
Please enlighten me.
I’m a former Catholic who has great understanding of Church theology. I can answer your question despite my religious status (or lack thereof).
The Church doesn’t necessarily teach that aborted and miscarried children go to Hell. The Church actually has no “official” idea on where aborted and miscarried children go to in the afterlife. What the Church does is entrust aborted and miscarried children to God’s mercy. Some Catholic theologians have also speculated that there is a place called “Limbo” where aborted/miscarried children go to. Other Catholic theologians speculate that aborted/miscarried children go to a paradise-like place, but do not enjoy the Beatific Vision (seeing God face-to-face) as those who are in Heaven.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Brilliant!
Thank you, Sir. I appreciate your participation in this discussion. God bless you.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
I told him some CAF’s members responses to the argument. Please refer to his new responses/arguments in blue. If Pro-Life has time please help to refute.
Why aren’t there equivalent “cow rights” or “dog rights” or “dolphin rights” or “tree rights”?
Is that not totally arbitrary, and self-serving besides?
Usually we see this argument from the pro-lifers, in fact. They argue that a foetus deserves protection because it is a “potential adult human”. The obvious point is that it is not now an adult human, and that makes a difference.
What’s so special about humans?
Why aren’t there equivalent “cow rights” or “dog rights” or “dolphin rights” or “tree rights”?
And your argument is that these rights follow from mere membership of a particular species.
Is that not totally arbitrary, and self-serving besides?
Anybody making that argument is also wrong. A potential X is not an X. Prince Charles is a potential King of England, but that doesn’t mean that he has all the rights of the King of England now.
Usually we see this argument from the pro-lifers, in fact. They argue that a foetus deserves protection because it is a “potential adult human”. The obvious point is that it is not now an adult human, and that makes a difference.
The “human” argument is misleading and irrelevant. Mere membership of a species is no basis for a general right to life, or anything else, because membership of a particular species is a pure accident of birth. Why no dolphin “right to life”? Why no snail “right to life”? Just because the snail wasn’t lucky enough to be a member of the human race?
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I find his view disturbing. So is he attempting to equate a child with an animal?
It’s an evolutionary trait that each specie will want to ensure that their species’ lives are guarded. Dogs do not kill dogs. Dolphins do not kill dolphins. So why should humans, who are more intelligent than these, kill their very own – to kill fellow human beings?
Your friend misunderstood my point. Some rights are unalienable to all human beings. One unalienable right is the right to life. Every human has the right to life regardless of their age. Even pro-choicers can not deny this fact, so they proceed into denying that fetus’ are human. But fetus’ are indeed human, or at least should be assumed as such, because scientists aren’t infallible on what is and isn’t life. To use a scientific study to purport that life begins at XYZ months is to make the assumption that scientists are gods unto themselves - that they are free from error. At least by the claim that life begins at conception, we can remove all confusion that scientists have on the question of “when life begins?” At least from the claim that life begins at conception, we can save lives that would have unnecessarily been killed because of a mistake by contemporary scientists on when exactly life begins.
Gandhi once remarked that we could judge a civilisation by how it treated his animals. But he was living in an era slightly more moral than the one we live in now. We can judge a civilization based on how it treats the most vulnerable of society - including the disabled, the elderly, and the unborn.
Yes, it is a membership to a general right to life. Dogs do not kill dogs and dolphins do not kill dolphins. So why should humans, who are smarter than these animals, kill their own? If dolphins had the equivalent capacity to reason, they would not kill dolphins. This is an evolutionary fact: Every species ensures that its species can continue on living in the future.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Yes, Sir. It seems that he was saying that humans are animals. I am foreseeing that the strongest argument against our viewpoint using that tack would be some thing like *“In reality humans kill other humans non-stop. And they kill even more other animals.” *I don’t know. Meanwhile, I will use your earlier arguments to refute his claims, then I will be waiting for his response.
Many thanks, Sir. You are a brilliant defender of life.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Humans do indeed kill other humans, but that’s in an exceptional circumstance called “war”. And as I’m sure many know, there are just wars, and unjust wars. That’s a different debate entirely; humans do not (or at least, should not) kill their fellow human beings, even more so their own children! Your friend’s arguments supporting abortion are incredibly, incredibly weak.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
I agree with you totally. Another Pro-Choice friend agreed about the so-called unalienable right. But for him this right does not give others unlimited duties towards anyone else.
He said that if he see someone having a heart attack, and he don’t bother calling an ambulance, that’s a crime.
If however he hear that someone has renal failure, and he choose not to donate his own kidney, that is not.
He was asking that even if I label a fetus a person, why does it get rights no one else does?
G
GEddie
Guest
Well, in all fairness, the kidney argument comes straight out of our own Supreme Court. The logic being that if someone cannot be compelled to donate a kidney to save somebody, why should a woman be made to “donate” the use of her body to a fetus for nine months.
The difference, of course, is that in the kidney case, the victim will die naturally if nothing is done; conversely, the fetus will live to be born if not actively killed.
It’s the difference between your not leaping into the sea to save a drowning man, versus putting your foot on his head.
ICXC NIKA
The difference, of course, is that in the kidney case, the victim will die naturally if nothing is done; conversely, the fetus will live to be born if not actively killed.
It’s the difference between your not leaping into the sea to save a drowning man, versus putting your foot on his head.
ICXC NIKA
J
jochoa
Guest
I need some assistance understanding the argument. It seems well-aligned with Pro-Life. Here is my understanding:
- If I see someone attacking a baby’s heart(body), and I don’t bother assisting the baby to my ability, that is definitely a crime.
- If a baby was miscarried, and I did not donate my own life, that is not a crime.
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Hi GEddie,
As long as you are citing the Supreme Court, would you care to state their position on abortion? And what country are you?
E
Equites_Christi
Guest
The difference between humans and all other life is the immortal soul.
If the man refuses to acknowledge a soul, then I don’t think our arguments can prevent him from murdering people when they are the most helpless and innocent.
The very tricky (and ultimately arbitrary) answer a person has to make who says that fetuses are not human is, then, at what point does a fetus become a human being? And why?
Some say a fetus “is only a clump of cells.” Alright, then from that viewpoint, what are we? Bigger clumps of cells! So why can’t I ‘abort’ my neighbor my neighbor when he irritates me, being only a cell-clump?
If the man refuses to acknowledge a soul, then I don’t think our arguments can prevent him from murdering people when they are the most helpless and innocent.
The very tricky (and ultimately arbitrary) answer a person has to make who says that fetuses are not human is, then, at what point does a fetus become a human being? And why?
Some say a fetus “is only a clump of cells.” Alright, then from that viewpoint, what are we? Bigger clumps of cells! So why can’t I ‘abort’ my neighbor my neighbor when he irritates me, being only a cell-clump?
G
GEddie
Guest
As one can see in my header, I am in USA.
As to abortion: the governing principle is the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, which invalidated then existing State laws limiting abortion, based on such infringing the woman’s “right to privacy” (which is nowhere in the Constitution, and exists nowhere in human life unrelated to abortion).
ICXC NIKA
P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts, jochoa. Pro-Choice said, “Any attack on a baby would be a crime and a baby is never miscarried. Only a fetus can be miscarried.” He added, *"Also, keep your personal feelings separate from the law.
Apparently nobodies going to change your mind about the difference between babies and fetuses, but more people in this country don’t feel the way you do about it and that’s why the laws don’t reflect your opinion." *
Here he presents arguments based on “legal” reasoning.
- Status