Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[mapleoak]

Ah, fair enough. Still, however, a contract that signs away inalienable rights is invalid without an exit clause.

A contract that signs away inalienable rights is invalid, period.

No such contract was signed. For any contract to be valid, you need to hammer out the terms, and explicitly agree. To a very large portion of the human population, sex is not an alternative to signing your name.

The contract is a metaphor, not a legal document. There is a difference.

Rights begin at the individual, and proceed outwards.

Rights are bestowed by God, not man.

First comes self-ownership.

There is no such thing as self-ownership. We are stewards of our bodies, we do not own them.

If this is being violated, as it is in the case of a fetus being in the mother’s womb when she no longer wants it there, then you have the right to restore your body to the way you would like it.

An unborn baby being present in the mother’s womb is not a violation of her womb, but a fulfillment of her womb’s purpose. Killing the unborn child is not ‘restoring her body’ but violating her body and the natural order of her womb’s created function. It is furthermore a violation of the unborn child’s intrinsic right to life.

I say she decided not to give up that right. Or even better, that she didn’t make a decision about that right, as it was one of the last things on her mind.

Note that vz71 did not say she gave up a right. She made a decision. And decisions have consequences. The consequence of becoming pregnant is not a loss of rights, since the right to not become pregnant as a result of conjugal relations does not exist. It is a fulfillment of the God given purpose of the mother’s womb. A woman does not decide what rights God should give her.

It certainly does meet that criteria. However, rights proceed from the individual outwards.

Rights are bestowed by God, not man.

If the child is in my body, without my express permission, or after my withdrawal of permission, then it does not have the right to stay there.

The child was created in your body. You didn’t give it permission to be there, and as such you cannot take that permission away.

Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. I have a responsibility not to initiate acts of aggression against others.

Namely performing actions which result in the death of innocent life.

However, I must disagree with you on one point. In certain situations, it is acceptable to defend your life with the amount of force necessary.

Since self defense is not at issue, it is a moot point.

It does sound funny to say that the baby is trespassing, true enough. However, I would say that they still have the right to remove an unwanted guest from their bodies.

Because one does not have the right to kill innocent life, this is an incorrect statement. Note also that one does not have the right to kill someone because they are trespassing. Note further that an unborn child in the mother’s womb does not fit the definition of trespassing.

Harm to another being does not always mandate restitution. There are situations of self-defense, for example.

Again, self defense is not at issue.

Also, if a homeless person asks to stay in your home on a winter’s night, and you give him permission, but later change your mind, and send him into the cold to die, you are not guilty of the murder (though I would imagine you would feel awful).

You would be mistaken to say you would not be guilty of murder. Note that blunt force is not required for an act to be murder in a court of law.

If you had acted in such a way to cause them to be stripped of their ability to care for themselves, then yes, you would be responsible for them to some degree.

Yes you would be responsible to the extent that you limited them. Unborn babies do not care for themselves, they are dependent on another. A person is responsible for the well being of their dependents. A child is dependent on his parents. The parents are responsible for the life and well being of their child. If the parents neglect their child and he dies, they are guilty of murder. If they directly kill their child because they no longer want him, they are guilty of murder. An unborn child is dependent on his mother.

However, since that is how they are created at conception,

They are created at conception with a dependency on the mother.

you have not violated their rights.

If you kill him, you have violated his right to life.

Not having violated their rights, you are not responsible for them.

Having violated his right to life, you are responsible for his death.

 

[vz71]

I say she decided not to give up that right. Or even better, that she didn’t make a decision about that right, as it was one of the last things on her mind.

You are making an unwarranted assumption.
And you are wrong.

It does not matter what was going through her mind at the time. She knew full well what sex can lead to.

Unless you would like to argue that women do not necessarily know how they get pregnent…(perhaps the water).

Your arguments are lost causes.
You cannot even decide where the line is drawn concerning when someone should be allowed to live and when someone should be killed. I count at least 5 different lines you have drawn.
It is painfully obvious that you have not researched your own position at all.

 

[vz71]

All of this talk about rights has me a little confused here…

If I act in one way, do I have a right not to live through the consequences??

Where did this ‘right’ come from?
Who bestowed it?
Why?

 

[mapleoak]

All of this talk about rights has me a little confused here…

If I act in one way, do I have a right not to live through the consequences??

Where did this ‘right’ come from?
Who bestowed it?
Why?

The difficulty is due the fact the such a right is ficticious. It is a case of modifying the terms to fit the deed.

 

[Sair]

First you have to determine why it is even wrong to kill an unborn baby. If it is wrong to kill it because it is an innocent human being, then it is always wrong to kill it. No exceptions.
Since self defense is not at issue here, it is a moot point.
One can never intend to kill an innocent human being, under any circumstances.

And in real life, where people are required to make decisions and act upon them, how do you propose we proceed once our hands are tied by such moral absolutes?

First of all, let’s take the hypothetical example of a woman whose life is endangered by childbirth. There may be several choices here. If the mother’s condition is known early, it would be possible to abort the foetus soon after pregnancy is established, and while - some would argue - the foetus is pre-sentient, therefore incapable of suffering pain. (Incidentally, the capacity to suffer is one point upon which humanist moralists base their evalutation of rights - anything capable of suffering has a basic right to be spared avoidable suffering)

However, if the mother’s condition becomes apparent only once the pregnancy is well established, the decision becomes arguably more difficult. If it is possible to save the life of the mother by aborting the developing foetus, some would argue that this constitutes a morally acceptable reason for performing a late-term abortion. In some cases, if nothing is done, both mother and infant may be likely to die. It seems by your estimation that it would be more acceptable to stand back and do nothing, and let them both die, than to act in such a way that one is killed and the other saved.

If you are going to decide to forfeit someone elses life, why do you need a good reason? Their life has already been determined to be forfeitable.

You’re assuming that the decision to forfeit a life comes before the realisation that there is a pressing reason. To go back to the concept of acting in self-defence, if you see a man walking down the street, you don’t automatically think, “gee, he’s expendable.” If, on the other hand, he then pulls a knife and makes to attack you, your circumstances become a bit more pressing. If you act to save your own life, there may be considerable risk of killing your attacker. Do you stop and wonder if your reasons for acting are morally sound?

Incomprehension of the world does not define innocence.

Check your dictionary. You will find that there are several contexts in which the word ‘innocent’ can be applied. It depends upon which definition you choose. The incapacity to process information and make decisions - the state in which every infant exists - is a form of innocence.

animals are not innocent. They do not have immortal souls capable of rejecting God.

Firstly, refer to the above regarding the definition of innocence. Secondly, for humans to suppose that other animals lack souls or a spiritual aspect is an arrogant presumption, one which was probably first thought of as a means to allow people to feel less guilty about killing animals for food, or abusing them in other ways to serve our own needs.

Whether one has made a contribution to society or not does not determine whether they deserve to be put to death.

It’s not the contribution that determines whether it’s acceptable for a person to die, or to have access to euthanasia - it’s their capacity to make this decision for themselves that makes euthanasia qualitatively different to infanticide.

Further, being incapable of surviving without life-support is also not permission to kill it.

Once again, reality intrudes. In an ideal world, it would never be necessary for us to make life-or-death decisions, but since our world is imperfect, we need to have some rational basis upon which such decisions may be made. You could say that ending life is never permissible. Then you have the case of the hypothetical baby, stuck in a vegetative state, hooked up to a machine that does his breathing for him, and without which he would not be capable of surviving. You could keep him there indefinitely, while his parents are caught in extended mourning for the son who will never open his eyes, never communicate with them in any way. Meanwhile, there are other babies being born in this same hospital who might need the very same life-support system (and some hospitals are limited enough in their resources to make this situation plausible, if unlikely). To complete the moral dilemma, one of these babies has a condition from which she is likely to recover, with the aid of life support. In this case, whose life would you save? Is it right to keep the first baby on life support when he’ll never be able to live any other way, and when doing so denies the second baby the chance to live independently?

 

[vz71]

The difficulty is due the fact the such a right is ficticious. It is a case of modifying the terms to fit the deed.

I’m glad more then one person here understands this.

Now why exactly is anyone here attempting to argue fictitious rights with the pro-choice group?
Once the term is agreed to, you provide their side with support.

 

[mapleoak]

And in real life, where people are required to make decisions and act upon them, how do you propose we proceed once our hands are tied by such moral absolutes?

One proceeds to the extent that they are bound by a moral absolute. ‘Real life’ does not subjugate morality.

First of all, let’s take the hypothetical example of a woman whose life is endangered by childbirth.

In real life, a woman’s life being endangered by childbirth is hypothetical.

There may be several choices here. If the mother’s condition is known early, it would be possible to abort the foetus soon after pregnancy is established,

What is possible does not determine whether same is morally permissable. In this case it is not permissable. It is possible for me burn my house down and collect insurance. But it is not licit to do so.

and while - some would argue - the foetus is pre-sentient, therefore incapable of suffering pain.

Since this same logic would then mean someone who is not currently experiencing pain may be killed, this logic cannot be applied to the unborn.

(Incidentally, the capacity to suffer is one point upon which humanist moralists base their evalutation of rights - anything capable of suffering has a basic right to be spared avoidable suffering)

If it is possible to spare someone of suffering, it should be done so. This has nothing to do with whether an innocent human being can be put to death, capable of suffering or not.

However, if the mother’s condition becomes apparent only once the pregnancy is well established, the decision becomes arguably more difficult.

This decision remains the same as moral absolutes do not change. The decision must be to not kill innocent human life.

If it is possible to save the life of the mother by aborting the developing foetus, some would argue that this constitutes a morally acceptable reason for performing a late-term abortion.

It is never acceptable to kill an innocent human being. It is not acceptable to kill the mother to save the infant just as it is not acceptable to kill the infant to save the mother. Such situations are hypothetical, not reality.

In some cases, if nothing is done, both mother and infant may be likely to die. It seems by your estimation that it would be more acceptable to stand back and do nothing, and let them both die, than to act in such a way that one is killed and the other saved.

One may intercede to the extent that they do not directly kill innocent human life. That is very much different from standing back and doing nothing. The pro-choice ‘black-and-white’ assertion that either the baby must be killed or nothing can be done is a flawed assertion. It is by no means a choice between doing nothing and killing. It is a choice between doing all that is possible (indeed a great deal is possible with medical care available today) and killing. The killing can never be the choice.

You’re assuming that the decision to forfeit a life comes before the realisation that there is a pressing reason.

There is no case where you can purport there to be a pressing reason justifying killing an innocent human being or saying their life is forfeitable.

To go back to the concept of acting in self-defence, if you see a man walking down the street, you don’t automatically think, “gee, he’s expendable.” If, on the other hand, he then pulls a knife and makes to attack you, your circumstances become a bit more pressing. If you act to save your own life, there may be considerable risk of killing your attacker. Do you stop and wonder if your reasons for acting are morally sound?

Once again, self defense is a totally different issue and does not apply to cases of abortion.

Check your dictionary. You will find that there are several contexts in which the word ‘innocent’ can be applied.

Yes there are multiple definition of the word innocent. One has to understand which definition is required when there is a moral absolute prohibiting the taking of innocent human life. The definition to be used here would not be the one of someone who is naive.

It depends upon which definition you choose. The incapacity to process information and make decisions - the state in which every infant exists - is a form of innocence.

But it is not the correct definition to use in this context.

Firstly, refer to the above regarding the definition of innocence. Secondly, for humans to suppose that other animals lack souls or a spiritual aspect is an arrogant presumption, one which was probably first thought of as a means to allow people to feel less guilty about killing animals for food, or abusing them in other ways to serve our own needs.

That animals do not have immortal souls is not an arrogant presumption, but a theological fact. Animals are not innocent as they have no choice but to glorify God by their existence. They do not have immortal souls capable of rejecting God.

It’s not the contribution that determines whether it’s acceptable for a person to die, or to have access to euthanasia - it’s their capacity to make this decision for themselves that makes euthanasia qualitatively different to infanticide.

Which is just as silly as when I mentioned earlier that if an infant could tell you it wanted to be put to death would not mean you can then kill him. Further since the decision to live or die is not ours to make, euthanasia is not permissible either.

Once again, reality intrudes. In an ideal world, it would never be necessary for us to make life-or-death decisions, but since our world is imperfect, we need to have some rational basis upon which such decisions may be made.

since these decision are not ours to make and we don’t decide rationally when someone should die, this point has no merit.

You could say that ending life is never permissible.

Absolutely.

Then you have the case of the hypothetical baby, stuck in a vegetative state, hooked up to a machine that does his breathing for him, and without which he would not be capable of surviving.

Now we are now switching from real life to hypotheticals:

You could keep him there indefinitely, while his parents are caught in extended mourning for the son who will never open his eyes, never communicate with them in any way.

Remember that extraordinary means are not necessary to be taken in order to preserve life. Separate issue altogether.

 

[Sair]

One proceeds to the extent that they are bound by a moral absolute. ‘Real life’ does not subjugate morality.

Perhaps not, but it limits the extent to which we can act upon moral absolutes.

In real life, a woman’s life being endangered by childbirth is hypothetical.

Hypothetical, yes, but also plausible, unlike your suggestion that an infant could exercise rational thought and tell its parents that it wanted to die. Posing hypothetical questions is part of the argumentative process, but suggesting impossible situations is not.

What is possible does not determine whether same is morally permissable. In this case it is not permissable. It is possible for me burn my house down and collect insurance. But it is not licit to do so.

The issue here is not whether abortion is possible. Everyone knows it is. And of course possibility does not make an action right, or wise, or necessary. Circumstances dictate necessity.

Since this same logic would then mean someone who is not currently experiencing pain may be killed, this logic cannot be applied to the unborn.

Not currently experiencing pain and not capable of experiencing pain are different things. I am not currently experiencing pain, but if someone stuck a knife into me, you can bet I’d be in a world of pain. Sticking a knife into a non-sentient entity wouldn’t cause it any pain.

This decision remains the same as moral absolutes do not change. The decision must be to not kill innocent human life.
It is never acceptable to kill an innocent human being. It is not acceptable to kill the mother to save the infant just as it is not acceptable to kill the infant to save the mother. Such situations are hypothetical, not reality.

Hypothetical, but not implausible.

One may intercede to the extent that they do not directly kill innocent human life. That is very much different from standing back and doing nothing. The pro-choice ‘black-and-white’ assertion that either the baby must be killed or nothing can be done is a flawed assertion. It is by no means a choice between doing nothing and killing. It is a choice between doing all that is possible (indeed a great deal is possible with medical care available today) and killing. The killing can never be the choice.

To some extent, this one depends upon which part of the world you live in. Not everyone has access to decent medical care. In any case, you seem to be assuming that I am arguing the case for allowing abortions across the board. Not so. If one does everything else possible, but aborting the unborn child proves to be the only option for saving the mother’s life (once again, hypothetical yet plausible) it’s surely better to save one life than to let both die.

Once again, self defense is a totally different issue and does not apply to cases of abortion.

Self defence, self preservation - quantitatively, these are the same thing, so to continually refuse to address this issue by using semantics is not actually dealing with the argument.

That animals do not have immortal souls is not an arrogant presumption, but a theological fact.

Yes - humans have claimed that it is fact, and it certainly has been convenient to us to assume it is so. Since there is no way of proving this point one way or the other, I shall venture to believe as I always have done on this subject.

Further since the decision to live or die is not ours to make, euthanasia is not permissible either.
since these decision are not ours to make and we don’t decide rationally when someone should die, this point has no merit.

Even if our bodies and lives are not ultimately our own, (and I would dispute that anyway - there’s a reason it’s called the gift of life, and not the *loan *of life) the responsibility is still ours as to what becomes of us while they are in our stewardship. If a terminally ill person, who is suffering and is likely to suffer a great deal more before they die, both in terms of physical pain and through loss of their personal sense of dignity, makes a rational decision to end their physical life before these things become manifest, that is their decision to make. ‘Mercy killing’ is so named for a reason. And I’ll head this one off at the pass straightaway - I would not consider a severely depressed and suicidal person’s decision to end their life when they are physically healthy to be a rational one.

 

[strngrnrth]

In real life, pregnancies that endanger the mother’s life fall into two categories: early danger and late danger.
If the baby would not be able to survive outside the mother’s womb at the latest date at which the mother could be saved, then it is almost always because of a tubal pregnancy. In that case the tube can be removed and the baby supported as long as possible. In such cases, teh abby would not live after the mother died anyway, being too young. So removal of the tube does not actively or intentionally kill anyone, does not affect the baby’s life expectancy and saves the mother. It is not abortion. And one day it will possibly be developed into a way of saving both.
If the baby would be viable (babies have been saved as early as 18 1/2 weeks, and saving babies as young as 22 weeks is perfectly routine now) then in nearly every instance where full-term delivery would endanger the mother, a C-section at a little past mid-term would save them both.

 

[mapleoak]

Perhaps not, but it limits the extent to which we can act upon moral absolutes.

It does allow the performance of immoral actions.

Hypothetical, yes, but also plausible, unlike your suggestion that an infant could exercise rational thought and tell its parents that it wanted to die. Posing hypothetical questions is part of the argumentative process, but suggesting impossible situations is not.

Incorrect. It is a device used in debate whereby absurdity is illustrated by using absurdity.

Sair:

There may be several choices here. If the mother’s condition is known early, it would be possible to abort the foetus soon after pregnancy is established

Mapleoak:

What is possible does not determine whether same is morally permissable. In this case it is not permissable. It is possible for me burn my house down and collect insurance. But it is not licit to do so.

The following response is out of context with your original post above to which I replied that something being possible does not equate to being permissable:

The issue here is not whether abortion is possible. Everyone knows it is. And of course possibility does not make an action right, or wise, or necessary. Circumstances dictate necessity.

But abortion is never permissable and therefore cannot be necessitated by circumstance.

Not currently experiencing pain and not capable of experiencing pain are different things.

The difference is semantics.

I am not currently experiencing pain, but if someone stuck a knife into me, you can bet I’d be in a world of pain.

It is possible to kill someone without inflicting pain. Therefore this is meaningless as to whether the potential to feel pain determines whether someone can be slaughtered.

Sticking a knife into a non-sentient entity wouldn’t cause it any pain.

True, a tomato would not feel pain if a knife was plunged into it. We are talking about the unborn though. Since they feel pain and respond to stimuli, they are sentient. But being sentient does not determine whether or not killing of innocent life is moral.

To some extent, this one depends upon which part of the world you live in. Not everyone has access to decent medical care.

If it is not possible to, then it is not possible. No further debate on whether it is possible to save the mothers life is needed in that situation. The choice still remains between doing all that is possible (not do nothing) to save the life of the mother and child and killing the child. Killing the child is the wrong and immoral choice. Having to choose between doing nothing and killing the child is a pro-choice lie.

In any case, you seem to be assuming that I am arguing the case for allowing abortions across the board.

No, I am calling on your insistance that it is sometimes permissible to kill an innocent human being.

If one does everything else possible, but aborting the unborn child proves to be the only option for saving the mother’s life (once again, hypothetical yet plausible) it’s surely better to save one life than to let both die.

Notice how in the same sentence you start with aborting (murder) and end with let die (passive). The two are vastly different in terms of morals. This type of situation is also extremely rare if even plausible. But if a situation presents itself where someone is about to die, it is not morally justifiable to kill them at ones own hand.

Self defence, self preservation - quantitatively, these are the same thing, so to continually refuse to address this issue by using semantics is not actually dealing with the argument.

Yes I can argue with whether self defense, even self defense which results in the death of the agressor is moral, but it is pointless to the current argument. By stating that self defense and self preservation are one and the same, this would mean eating an apple is self defense. By eating an apple, one is concerned about self preservation. Here again the two are vastly different.

Yes - humans have claimed that it is fact, and it certainly has been convenient to us to assume it is so. Since there is no way of proving this point one way or the other, I shall venture to believe as I always have done on this subject.

Whether you believe animals to be innocent under a definition not applicable to the morality of the intentional killing of the unborn (who are innocent under the applicable definition) or not, does not change the fact that it is immoral always to purposely end innocent human life.

Even if our bodies and lives are not ultimately our own, (and I would dispute that anyway - there’s a reason it’s called the gift of life, and not the *loan *of life) the responsibility is still ours as to what becomes of us while they are in our stewardship.

I have argued this point in a prior post. We do not own our bodies, mothers do not own their wombs. Mothers do not have a right to take the life of an unborn child dependent on them in their womb.

If a terminally ill person, who is suffering and is likely to suffer a great deal more before they die, both in terms of physical pain and through loss of their personal sense of dignity, makes a rational decision to end their physical life before these things become manifest, that is their decision to make.

No it is not their decision. God is the author of all life and it is His decision when to call someone from this world.

‘Mercy killing’ is so named for a reason.

It is misnamed because it fails to recognize what mercy is.

And I’ll head this one off at the pass straightaway - I would not consider a severely depressed and suicidal person’s decision to end their life when they are physically healthy to be a rational one.

Why the difference here? A mental disorder is a physical condition, therefore someone with a mental disorder is not physically healthy. I would consider a severely depressed and suicidal person’s decision to end his life as an irrational and immoral choice. I would not consider it any different than a fully healthy person’s decision to end his life.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Caesar517:

What if the person is not able to leave at the time and you forcing them to leave would spell their certain death?

You can do it if you really want to.

If a man decided he could only be happy as long as he was spreading snares all over an alleyway and a woman stepped in one and was catapulted into his garden and was injured to the point of needing life support for nine months, and one day he went out and saw her there, he would not have the right to throw her right back into the alley to die. He would have an obligation to restore her health or find someone to do so, at the very least. To kill her by throwing her into the alley without life support would be simply premeditated murder. He incurred her dependency and he must take that responsibility.

Yes, he did. However, the mother does not cause the dependency. There was no violation of the fetus’s rights to make it dependent.

“Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.” -Karl Barth

“Thou shalt not kill.”

This is a direct commandment from Our Lord. It does not make a distinction between rational/nonrational, separate/non-separate beings. No one has the right to take an innocent life.

Rational beings frequently make decisions that endanger or seriously inconvenience their own lives, without in any way advancing their own survival or that of their offspring. (Simplistic example=Fireman runs into burning building to save 90-year old woman.) The natural law engraved into our hearts by God trumps evolution.

Inalienable rights are inalienable precisely because they are given by a higher authority-God. Without God, we would not even exist. God is the Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause. Quantum physics supports this assertion–see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

There is a God, a Creator God. He created all of us, and everything around us, and He governs His creation with His law and His justice, and His law states, “Thou shalt not kill.”

This argument is valid only if God exists. Can you demonstrate that he does, and that all of his moral commandments were in fact given by him?

mapleoak:

The contract is a metaphor, not a legal document. There is a difference.

What is it a metaphor for?

mapleoak:

Rights are bestowed by God, not man.

Can you prove that the God of the Bible exists?

mapleoak:

There is no such thing as self-ownership. We are stewards of our bodies, we do not own them.

In a Godless world, there certainly is such a thing as self-ownership.

mapleoak:

An unborn baby being present in the mother’s womb is not a violation of her womb, but a fulfillment of her womb’s purpose. Killing the unborn child is not ‘restoring her body’ but violating her body and the natural order of her womb’s created function. It is furthermore a violation of the unborn child’s intrinsic right to life.

The woman may use her womb for whatever she wishes. Its evolutionary purpose does not dictate to her what she may or may not do.

Killing the child would be a violation of its right to life, yes. This is why you simply remove it from the womb, and place it aside.

From this point on, I shall not reply to arguments that rely on God as the moral authority giver. I understand your perspective, but it is tiresome to demand evidence of a God every time I read such an argument.

mapleoak:

The child was created in your body. You didn’t give it permission to be there, and as such you cannot take that permission away.

When something comes into your body, and you don’t wish to remove it, it certainly has your permission to stay.

mapleoak:

Namely performing actions which result in the death of innocent life.

There is a difference between actively causing another being’s death, and refusing to keep them alive.

mapleoak:

Since self defense is not at issue, it is a moot point.

I am merely pointing out that your blanket statement has holes.

mapleoak:

Because one does not have the right to kill innocent life, this is an incorrect statement. Note also that one does not have the right to kill someone because they are trespassing. Note further that an unborn child in the mother’s womb does not fit the definition of trespassing.

You have the right to kill somebody for trespassing if they refuse to leave, and become physically violent.

Note that the mother, in removing the child, does not kill it, but rather denies it sustenance.

mapleoak:

You would be mistaken to say you would not be guilty of murder. Note that blunt force is not required for an act to be murder in a court of law.

The law would probably find you guilty, but morally, you would not be guilty of anything.

mapleoak:

Yes you would be responsible to the extent that you limited them. Unborn babies do not care for themselves, they are dependent on another. A person is responsible for the well being of their dependents. A child is dependent on his parents. The parents are responsible for the life and well being of their child. If the parents neglect their child and he dies, they are guilty of murder. If they directly kill their child because they no longer want him, they are guilty of murder. An unborn child is dependent on his mother.

Their rights were not violated. They were not independent beings reduced to dependent ones - from the very moment of their existence, they have been dependent. As the mother has not stripped them of any rights, she is not responsible for them.

mapleoak:

If you kill him, you have violated his right to life.

Large difference between killing and refusing to keep alive.

vz71:

You are making an unwarranted assumption.
And you are wrong.

It does not matter what was going through her mind at the time. She knew full well what sex can lead to.

I just don’t see how she gave up the right to her own body. Having sex does not equate to explicitly saying “I hereby give up the right to my body”.

vz71:

You cannot even decide where the line is drawn concerning when someone should be allowed to live and when someone should be killed. I count at least 5 different lines you have drawn.
It is painfully obvious that you have not researched your own position at all.

I am no dogmatist. I simply use logic to draw what seem to be rational conclusions. Obviously, I can be mistaken, as a few times, I’ve had to revise my position. I do not see how this is a negative thing.

vz71:

If I act in one way, do I have a right not to live through the consequences??

Where did this ‘right’ come from?
Who bestowed it?
Why?

Great questions!

Essentially, you have a right to life. So do others. This right comes from one’s nature as a rational being. Why do you have this right? Well, what do you choose as your moral standard? Life, or death? If you choose your life to be the moral standard, then your life, and all things supporting it, are the good, while all things harming it are the evil.

 

[strngrnrth]

Just how does the mother not cause the dependency?

 

[Shredderbeam]

strngrnrth:

Just how does the mother not cause the dependency?

The child comes into being, already dependent. The mother would have caused this if the child was independent, then suddenly stripped of this.

 

[allhers]

Abortion should always be illegal. So, therefore, I didn’t vote anything in that catagory.

 

[vz71]

I just don’t see how she gave up the right to her own body. Having sex does not equate to explicitly saying “I hereby give up the right to my body”.

First, I recognize no such right.
Second, actions dictate consequences.
There is no ‘right’ not to have the consequences of your own actions.

I am no dogmatist. I simply use logic to draw what seem to be rational conclusions. Obviously, I can be mistaken, as a few times, I’ve had to revise my position. I do not see how this is a negative thing.

Sure it is.
You have concluded that abortion is correct and justified, but the logic behind that decision keeps getting revised.
That makes it obvious that you simply have drawn a conclusion out of the ether and are now trying to prop it up with whatever you can.

Essentially, you have a right to life. So do others. This right comes from one’s nature as a rational being.

Nope. Rights are bestowed upon us by our creator.

 

[vz71]

The child comes into being, already dependent. The mother would have caused this if the child was independent, then suddenly stripped of this.

People do not just magically appear out of nowhere to inhabit the mother’s womb. The mother takes action to cause the event.

 

[Feste_1242]

Ah, fair enough. Still, however, a contract that signs away inalienable rights is invalid without an exit clause.

There is no signing away of inalienable rights.

I did change my mind on that, yes.

So what *does *determine a being’s right to life? If it’s not separation *or *rationality…

No such contract was signed. For any contract to be valid, you need to hammer out the terms, and explicitly agree. To a very large portion of the human population, sex is not an alternative to signing your name.

It’s a metaphor!!! The contract is signed when the woman has sex. You have been told this repeatedly.

Rights begin at the individual, and proceed outwards. First comes self-ownership. If this is being violated, as it is in the case of a fetus being in the mother’s womb when she no longer wants it there, then you have the right to restore your body to the way you would like it.

Self-ownership is not violated by pregnancy. Pregnancy is the consequence of sex. A person cannot participate in an activity or action and then decide they don’t want the consequences. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. There’s no way around it.

Sex just isn’t a reasonable substitute for a signature. When signing a contract, it is very obvious that it is a contract. When you are having sex, it is not very obvious that it is a contract.

I can’t even fathom what point you’re trying to make here. You originally argued that grounds for killing a person are 1) If the being is not rational, and/or 2) The being is not physically separate. You have admitted that this is incorrect. So I ask you plainly, when is it ok to kill another being, besides self defense?

I’m not planning on going. I just wanted to know why you or others wouldn’t try to perform as moral of an act as possible.

I thought I was clear; it is not more moral to help people in Africa than it is to help people in America. Some charity is not more moral than other charity. Now let’s abandon this pointless tangent and get on with the debate that has already been won.

It certainly does meet that criteria. However, rights proceed from the individual outwards. If the child is in my body, without my express permission, or after my withdrawal of permission, then it does not have the right to stay there. I may meekly tell it to get out, and when that is ignored, have it removed from me (if it is viable), or in the future, have it transferred to an artificial womb (which has no rights), so the child can then proceed to develop merrily.

There IS no withdrawal of permission. But you’re missing the point here. If a woman becomes pregnant, then decides she doesn’t want to have a baby, it’s too late. Too bad. She should have thought more about it before she purposefully became pregnant. Anyway, your statement relies upon the rights of one person to do what they want overriding another person’s right to life. It has been explained several times that this is wrong.

Every aspect has already been argued, yet you continue to restate the arguments that have been defeated.

It does sound funny to say that the baby is trespassing, true enough. However, I would say that they still have the right to remove an unwanted guest from their bodies.

No, they don’t have that right.

If you had acted in such a way to cause them to be stripped of their ability to care for themselves, then yes, you would be responsible for them to some degree. However, since that is how they are created at conception, you have not violated their rights. Not having violated their rights, you are not responsible for them.

A baby’s rights are not violated when it is conceived, that’s ridiculous. However, a baby’s rights are undeniably violated when it is murdered.

I am not morally obligated to keep a homeless man in my home on a cold winter’s night.

You are if you invited him in, then locked him in the attic, making it impossible for him to leave. Then it is not *his *fault that he cannot leave, it is yours. You are responsible.

Well, depending upon the species, it does vary, but in humans, the basic tendency to protect your offspring is so strong that it can override concerns for your own safety, and that of others. Obviously, this would be a great instinct to have if you wanted to guarantee the survival of your offspring.

…This is going nowhere. I give up on this point.

Not lethal force, no, but you certainly have the right to remove them from the premises if they refuse to/cannot leave of their own free will.

But it IS lethal force people use when they decide to “remove their children from the premises”.

Your arguments are lost causes.
You cannot even decide where the line is drawn concerning when someone should be allowed to live and when someone should be killed. I count at least 5 different lines you have drawn.
It is painfully obvious that you have not researched your own position at all.

Precisely.

 

[Feste_1242]

And in real life, where people are required to make decisions and act upon them, how do you propose we proceed once our hands are tied by such moral absolutes?

You’re wrong, moral absolutes trump “real life”. Your public profile says you are Catholic, yet it sounds as if you are suggesting that we only do what is moral when it is convenient.

Perhaps not, but it limits the extent to which we can act upon moral absolutes.

You have it the wrong way around.

However, if the mother’s condition becomes apparent only once the pregnancy is well established, the decision becomes arguably more difficult.

Why is it more difficult later in the pregnancy? What has changed?

Secondly, for humans to suppose that other animals lack souls or a spiritual aspect is an arrogant presumption, one which was probably first thought of as a means to allow people to feel less guilty about killing animals for food, or abusing them in other ways to serve our own needs.

Animals do lack souls.

we need to have some rational basis upon which such decisions may be made.

The only true basis is the word of God, which, incidentally, says that killing innocent people is bad.

Not currently experiencing pain and not capable of experiencing pain are different things. I am not currently experiencing pain, but if someone stuck a knife into me, you can bet I’d be in a world of pain. Sticking a knife into a non-sentient entity wouldn’t cause it any pain.

So it’s ok to kill someone, as long as they won’t feel it?

 

[mapleoak]

Can you prove that the God of the Bible exists?

Go to the apologetics forum for such questions. They do not belong here. You have stated a godless principle and have nothing to back it up. The principle is unknown to anyone but you. As seen on this forum, your principle doesn’t even hold up to successive questioning.

In a Godless world, there certainly is such a thing as self-ownership.

There is no such thing as the principle of self-ownership, even in the mythical godless world. Step out of the fairyland.

The woman may use her womb for whatever she wishes. Its evolutionary purpose does not dictate to her what she may or may not do.

No she may not as it is not hers to with as she pleases. She must use it in ways which glorify God. And has one sole purpose of bringing new life into the world. If God blesses her with life in her womb, she is obligated to care for her new dependent.

Killing the child would be a violation of its right to life, yes.

Yes.

This is why you simply remove it from the womb, and place it aside.

Which is a violation of its right to life indeed.

From this point on, I shall not reply to arguments that rely on God as the moral authority giver. I understand your perspective, but it is tiresome to demand evidence of a God every time I read such an argument.

It was nice talking with you. Have a good day. This is a Catholic forum, remember.

When something comes into your body, and you don’t wish to remove it, it certainly has your permission to stay.

On planet earth, something doesn’t come into ones body asking permission to be there. I would suggest reading up on the facts of life.

There is a difference between actively causing another being’s death, and refusing to keep them alive.

The difference is method only. The matter of the action remains the same.

You have the right to kill somebody for trespassing if they refuse to leave, and become physically violent.

No you don’t. Check with your county courthouse and see for yourself.

Note that the mother, in removing the child, does not kill it, but rather denies it sustenance.

method.

The law would probably find you guilty, but morally, you would not be guilty of anything.

Now that it suits you, morals taint your reasoning?

Their rights were not violated.

Of course they weren’t

They were not independent beings reduced to dependent ones

No kidding!

• from the very moment of their existence, they have been dependent.

Correct indeed.

As the mother has not stripped them of any rights, she is not responsible for them.

The logic for this statement is absolutely elusive. Parents do not strip their children of any rights, yet are responsible for them. The conclusion arrived at is devoid of logic.

Large difference between killing and refusing to keep alive.

But we are not discussing that difference. So not applicable to the discussion.

I am no dogmatist. I simply use logic to draw what seem to be rational conclusions. Obviously, I can be mistaken, as a few times, I’ve had to revise my position. I do not see how this is a negative thing.

You have demonstrated the lack of ability to use logic to come to rational conclusions. You simply state something as fact and then try to make up the logic to support it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Feste 1242:

So what *does *determine a being’s right to life? If it’s not separation *or *rationality…

It is rationality.
Feste 1242:

It’s a metaphor!!! The contract is signed when the woman has sex. You have been told this repeatedly.

Metaphor: “A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.”

A metaphor is not a synonym.
Feste 1242:

Self-ownership is not violated by pregnancy.

Good. Then the woman, since she still owns herself, retains the right to refuse another being shelter inside her body.
Feste 1242:

So I ask you plainly, when is it ok to kill another being, besides self defense?

If we agree that “kill” means to act aggressively against in such a way that directly ends their life, then self-defense is the only situation. As such, a direct abortion is immoral. However, a c-section, removing the fetus from the body, is not.
Feste 1242:

I thought I was clear; it is not more moral to help people in Africa than it is to help people in America. Some charity is not more moral than other charity. Now let’s abandon this pointless tangent and get on with the debate that has already been won.

I would have thought that since the need was much greater…meh.
Feste 1242:

There IS no withdrawal of permission. But you’re missing the point here. If a woman becomes pregnant, then decides she doesn’t want to have a baby, it’s too late. Too bad. She should have thought more about it before she purposefully became pregnant. Anyway, your statement relies upon the rights of one person to do what they want overriding another person’s right to life. It has been explained several times that this is wrong.

Killing the baby is wrong, yes. However, as when you invite somebody into your home, then kick them out into the cold to die, removing the baby from the womb is not immoral.
Feste 1242:

No, they don’t have that right.

If not, then they clearly don’t own themselves.
Feste 1242:

A baby’s rights are not violated when it is conceived, that’s ridiculous.

Right, that’s what I’m saying…
Feste 1242:

However, a baby’s rights are undeniably violated when it is murdered.

Right. Thus, removal from the womb is the only choice left.
Feste 1242:

You are if you invited him in, then locked him in the attic, making it impossible for him to leave. Then it is not *his *fault that he cannot leave, it is yours. You are responsible.

I’m not locking him in. I’m physically kicking him out, a process that shouldn’t kill him. What will kill him is the cold.
Feste 1242:

But it IS lethal force people use when they decide to “remove their children from the premises”.

If they are killed in the removal of them, then yes, it is. If the die of starvation outside, then no, it’s not.