Men's Abortion Rights.

Southwind17 said:
Darat stated that for him/her everything changes when the baby is born. I'm challenging the relevance of that event, although I accept that when a baby is born it can be argued that then, and only then, does it constitute a human being (as distinct from being human).
Click to expand...

The birth makes it a human being you don't think birth is relevant? WTF?

And, it's a minor point compared to what you just said, but why does birth make it a human being?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
So?
Click to expand...
I merely refer you to my prior post.

"theprestige has the most to gain and lose from a decision about whether theprestige be allowed to reply any further on this topic. It is perverse to the point of obscenity to suggest therefore that theprestige be the one to decide whether or not theprestige is permitted to participate in this discussion any more after this point. There would be something not to like about that"

theprestige said:
Arguments by analogy always fail. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, you can't argue it at all.
Click to expand...
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
The birth makes it a human being you don't think birth is relevant? WTF?
Click to expand...
'Human being' is just a term that we use. I've used it to differentiate between the human entity in the born and unborn state. IMHO being 'human' is the important distinction, and I wouldn't like to even suggest when that status is achieved in embryonic development, or thereafter.

RecoveringYuppy said:
And, it's a minor point compared to what you just said, but why does birth make it a human being?
Click to expand...
See above. There seems to be a distinction between the terms 'human' and 'human being'. As with many inanimate things, until they are 'born' they only exist as a work in progress, or a collection of parts incapable of full function. One cannot really call a car a car (in its original guise) if the wheels remain to be attached in the factory. It wouldn't function very well as a car - in fact not at all!
 
theprestige said:
What is the nature of your concern?

Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?

Do you think it's possible to have such a non-sexist position, but that's not the position I've taken here?

Do you think it's possible to have such a position, and that I've taken such a position here, but my motives are secretly sexist anyway?

Do you think something else that I've failed to account for above?
Click to expand...
Who is dehumanizing anyone in regards to abortions?
 
psionl0 said:
Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.



That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.
Click to expand...

Why not just accept its human from the moment of conception? Seems much more sensible to me.
 
Southwind17 said:
Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?
Click to expand...
Could do that or as I think is more sensible and straight forward and just say human rights start from the moment of birth.
 
Southwind17 said:
'Human being' is just a term that we use. I've used it to differentiate between the human entity in the born and unborn state. IMHO being 'human' is the important distinction, and I wouldn't like to even suggest when that status is achieved in embryonic development, or thereafter.





See above. There seems to be a distinction between the terms 'human' and 'human being'. As with many inanimate things, until they are 'born' they only exist as a work in progress, or a collection of parts incapable of full function. One cannot really call a car a car (in its original guise) if the wheels remain to be attached in the factory. It wouldn't function very well as a car - in fact not at all!
Click to expand...
At some point we say human rights apply. And indeed I would say we already do actually tend to use birth as one of the stages at which we recognise someone has human rights.
 
Francesca R said:
I merely refer you to my prior post.

"theprestige has the most to gain and lose from a decision about whether theprestige be allowed to reply any further on this topic. It is perverse to the point of obscenity to suggest therefore that theprestige be the one to decide whether or not theprestige is permitted to participate in this discussion any more after this point. There would be something not to like about that"
Click to expand...

The forum question is already decided. The owner has clear and well-established rights and privileges. Furthermore, none of those entail having authority over whether I am human, and whether I live or die.

In the case of fetal humanity, these questions are still being debated. I think question of human life should not be unilaterally decided by the one person who has the most to gain.
 
theprestige said:
The forum question is already decided. The owner has clear and well-established rights and privileges. Furthermore, none of those entail having authority over whether I am human, and whether I live or die.

In the case of fetal humanity, these questions are still being debated. I think question of human life should not be unilaterally decided by the one person who has the most to gain.
Click to expand...

What about the person who has the most to lose? Certainly we can agree that people who have little to lose or gain have no part in the decision.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
What about the person who has the most to lose? Certainly we can agree that people who have little to lose or gain have no part in the decision.
Click to expand...

The person who has the most to lose is going to be the baby, depending on how the antecedent question is resolved.

And no, we can't agree on the other thing. Appeal to a disinterested third party is a well recognized solution to the problem of disputes between vested interests.

Look at how we treat children after birth. We give parents a lot of authority, but not absolute authority. Parents still have to answer to the rest of us, about how they treat their children, even though we have little or nothing at stake in the outcome.

Even in scenarios where we grant life and death authority to an individual as a necessary expedient, such as for self defense, that's still a decision we've made collectively. And we still expect that individual to be able to justify their use of that's authority. We still sanction misuse of that authority.
 
Darat said:
Could do that or as I think is more sensible and straight forward and just say human rights start from the moment of birth.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
At some point we say human rights apply. And indeed I would say we already do actually tend to use birth as one of the stages at which we recognise someone has human rights.
Click to expand...
For the avoidance of possible doubt I'm staunch pro-abortion, including for convenience, but surely human rights conferring upon conception rather than birth is the most 'sensible', albeit certainly not straight forward. I don't think straightforwardness should trump ethical and moral challenge and dilemma - that's just dodging the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom