[Kian]

Originally Posted by Rusha

Lemme see ... you will probably state that up until later in a pregnancy that the unborn lack sentience ... which is true.

However, what isn't addressed is the very fact that every BORN person was not always sentient but STILL given the chance to develop that characteristic. Why would it be okay to take away a right that *you* had and took advantage because pregnancy is inconvenient?

Well, I would not have objected to my mother's right to abort me.

But seriously now. The fact that my mother did not abort me does not mean that I had the right to gain sentience. I was given an opportunity, not a right.

I would point out as well that having a child is a fundamentally selfish endeavor. One does not have a child (when it is planned) for the benefit of the unborn child. People have children because they want to have a child. Or, if you're catholic, because abstinence is your only other moral option. If it is unplanned, it is even more selfish. You're having a child with no thought of the child at all, you're having a child because you wanted to have sex (or express your love for your significant other, depending how much thought goes into the act).

So when a pregnancy is carried to term, it was not because the child had a right to be born. It was because the mother wanted to have a child.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Kian

I did not use the fact that they could not do certain things as evidence that they are or not persons. I have already established why I don't think they're persons. I don't need to provide examples.

Go back again, and read it. I asked you how YOU justified that 'people' are given their rights incrementally. Your answer was that 'yes, they are limited' and further, 'people without arms can't juggle.'

Now, I've made it clear that my position is that personhood is related to the mind, not so much the body. I even made the point when I started explaining my position that a person can have an accident that cripples them and still be the same person, while someone cracking his skull and getting extensive retrograde amnesia is clearly not the same person as before (not less of a person, just a different person). Even if they are otherwise physically fit.

Given this, if indeed you used the example of the person missing his arms to point out how wrong my position is, your aim was way off and it betrays that despite my attempts to present my position, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

Worse still, if the example wasn't part of your answer, you then avoided the question. You conceded that babies are limited. Yet you argued that even at 3 years old they can make valid moral judgments (they know killing their brother is wrong). So, can you explain how it is that they are everything they ever need to be, can make valid moral judgments, yet they are not granted rights and responsibilities that other persons have? How are they limited, in your words?

At three years old a toddler has the right to life because he is a person. That right is given to him by God and his personhood conferred by God. The right to drive a car and vote are things given by people. So if you're willing to recognise the difference between a right given by a person and a right given by God then you will recognise how it is OK to keep a child away from firearms, but not OK to kill that child.

this is what you said:

Stripe, you don't believe a newborn baby should vote, do you? You don't think they should be allowed to buy alcohol, smoke, drive, be tried as adults, consent to sex, etc. Why do you think this is? Might it not be because you recognize that they're not really people in the same sense that adults are people? If they are everything they ever need to be since conception, why do you acknowledge their rights incrementally and not all at once? What is it that is changing?

You used ability and legality as a means to determine personhood.

Of course there are times when some rights are not conferred. The only way you are approaching making a point is if you are claiming that personhood is not established until one has a driver's license.

If you are not using any physical trait to determine personhood then how are you ever going to come to a decision about where a person is and where one is not? How can you ascertain if a mind exists when you have no means by which to measure it?

[Kian]

Before you argued that a newly conceived child was a person because they were all they ever needed to be. Now you are defaulting to the "God decrees it position." I have two questions. First, naturally, where does god claim that conceived children are people? I am not asking where he says that killing people is wrong, but where he claims that conceived, as opposed to born or the like, are people.

Second, if you believe that, then that's as far as the argument can go. I don't particularly care about God. If people have a right to life only because God decrees it, then the argument holds no relevance to anyone who is not of your religion. Given the separation between church and state, there's no argument for abortion being illegal.

Also, to clarify, I used the recognition that people can do some things and not others to mark the differing levels of personhood we grant them. Not make the case that those that can't do something aren't people at all.

By the way, beyond the right to life, what other rights does personhood confer according to God?

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Kian

Well, I would not have objected to my mother's right to abort me.

This is the classic answer I have come to expect. Of course you wouldn't object to your mother aborting you because you *couldn't* object.

It is fairly easy to take a position that you know has no possibility of being a reality.

But seriously now. The fact that my mother did not abort me does not mean that I had the right to gain sentience. I was given an opportunity, not a right.

You took advantage of that right regardless of whether or not it was your choice.

I would point out as well that having a child is a fundamentally selfish endeavor. One does not have a child (when it is planned) for the benefit of the unborn child. People have children because they want to have a child. Or, if you're catholic, because abstinence is your only other moral option. If it is unplanned, it is even more selfish. You're having a child with no thought of the child at all, you're having a child because you wanted to have sex (or express your love for your significant other, depending how much thought goes into the act).

*shrug*

People adopt dogs and cats because they want a pet for companionship to nuture. What does that have to do with anything?

As far as parenting *being* selfish ... only in the respect that it is fulfilling and brings extra love and joy into the life of the individual parents as well the child.

How utterly evil!

So when a pregnancy is carried to term, it was not because the child had a right to be born. It was because the mother wanted to have a child.

Wanted eh? So let me guess, you are for abortion, BUT should a pregnant woman get assaulted and lose her child and possibly her life, surely you would only see that as ONE murder and one destruction of property, correct. If not, your position is not consistent.

BTW, since when does *biological makeup and DNA* change based on want?

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Rusha

This is the classic answer I have come to expect. Of course you wouldn't object to your mother aborting you because you *couldn't* object.

It is fairly easy to take a position that you know has no possibility of being reality.

I meant that as a joke. That's why I started the next paragraph with "But seriously now". I know it is a ridiculous argument. Laughable even. Thus, a joke.

You took advantage of that right regardless of whether or not it was your choice.

I take advantage of lots of things that aren't my choice, as does everyone. Doesn't mean I am obligated to reciprocate. If someone decides to give me a gift, am I under the obligation of giving a similar gift to everyone else because I "took advantage" of receiving a gift?

*shrug*

People adopt dogs and cats because they want a pet for companionship to nuture. What does that have to do with anything?

As far as parenting *being* selfish ... only in the respect that it is fulfilling and brings extra love and joy into the life of the individual parents as well the child.

How utterly evil!

Who said selfishness is evil? Selfishness is healthy and when used in moderation good for everyone. That is the idea behind democracy and the free market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and thus everyone is looked after. When you vote, you don't vote for the person someone else wants in office. When you work, buy or sell, you do so in the way that benefits you the most. You don't predicate your every action in how everyone else is best served. You may then spend some portion of what your selfishness made for you in helping others, but you wouldn't have that freedom to be generous if you hadn't been selfish in the first place.

In the same sense, having a child is a selfish action. It will, hopefully, turn out to be the best for everyone involved, and I find it doubtful that anyone would complain. But let's not delude ourselves. The motivation is selfish.

Wanted eh? So let me guess, you are for abortion, BUT should a pregnant woman get assaulted and lose her child and possibly her life, surely you would only see that as ONE murder and one destruction of property, correct. If not, your position is not consistent.

Hmm, I'll admit this is a consideration I had not thought of before.

There is, obviously, the either assault or murder charge on the mother. To what extent the life of the unborn affects the charges is not something I am sure of.

I should first point out that I would find neither crime to have been against the unborn child. The crimes committed are against the mother first, father second, and society as a whole third.

I'm curious, how does the law handle this situation as of now? If the woman has a miscarriage but isn't killed, is there a murder charge? If a woman has a seemingly unexpected miscarriage, and does not report having been assaulted or the like, is there a criminal investigation into determining who was at fault for the death (as there would be if someone was found dead unexpectedly)? If there isn't, do you think there should be?

I'm afraid that not only am I not from the US, I'm not very well read on the law in my own country. So I can't really get into matters of law.

BTW, since when does *biological makeup and DNA* change based on want?

Who said it does? I never predicated any part of my position upon biological makeup or DNA.

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Kian

I take advantage of lots of things that aren't my choice, as does everyone. Doesn't mean I am obligated to reciprocate. If someone decides to give me a gift, am I under the obligation of giving a similar gift to everyone else because I "took advantage" of receiving a gift?

I guess it would depend on the *gift*. It's not like we are talking about a box of candy or bottle of perfume. This gift would be similar to giving a family member a kidney, donating blood, etc ...

And no, you are NOT legally obligated. You would have every legal right to tell them to go suck an egg and die. Your attitude would just be morally reprehensible, which you have every right to.

Who said selfishness is evil? Selfishness is healthy and when used in moderation good for everyone. That is the idea behind democracy and the free market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and thus everyone is looked after. When you vote, you don't vote for the person someone else wants in office. When you work, buy or sell, you do so in the way that benefits you the most. You don't predicate your every action in how everyone else is best served. You may then spend some portion of what your selfishness made for you in helping others, but you wouldn't have that freedom to be generous if you hadn't been selfish in the first place.

Did is say that *all* selfishness is bad? No, I did not. Where the line is drawn is when your selfishness impacts the life of another individual.

I have every right to run my heater up to 80 degrees every moment of the day even though others may not have the same luxury. My right does not hurt others UNLESS I am so irresponsible that I know I have faulty wiring that could cause a fire, do NOT take precautions to fix it and thus burn down my own home and every other house on the block.

Get it yet?

In the same sense, having a child is a selfish action. It will, hopefully, turn out to be the best for everyone involved, and I find it doubtful that anyone would complain. But let's not delude ourselves. The motivation is selfish.

OIC ... the act of someone like myself giving birth even though I KNEW I could face health risks as well as financial hardships is selfish as compared to the person who gets knocked up and aborts to avoid stretch marks or dealing with the responsibility of caring for a defenseless little person who will need constant care and devotion?

Got it.

Hmm, I'll admit this is a consideration I had not thought of before.
There is, obviously, the either assault or murder charge on the mother. To what extent the life of the unborn affects the charges is not something I am sure of.

I should first point out that I would find neither crime to have been against the unborn child. The crimes committed are against the mother first, father second, and society as a whole third.

Why the father or society? Surely if the unborn is just the mother's *property*, the crime would nothing more than vandalism and destruction of HER property?

I'm curious, how does the law handle this situation as of now? If the woman has a miscarriage but isn't killed, is there a murder charge? If a woman has a seemingly unexpected miscarriage, and does not report having been assaulted or the like, is there a criminal investigation into determining who was at fault for the death (as there would be if someone was found dead unexpectedly)? If there isn't, do you think there should be?

I'm afraid that not only am I not from the US, I'm not very well read on the law in my own country. So I can't really get into matters of law.

Well, I base *my* opinion on how it should be handled as a reaction to how the unborn are treated like disposable objects and material possession. Until AOD is overturned, I would like to see the consistent position held up of "NO ... you wanted the unborn treated as choices like other property, now they are!"

Can you imagine how women (and possibly men) who thought this was no big deal before *might* actually take notice when the law would have a NEGATIVE affect of "their choice"?

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Rusha

I guess it would depend on the *gift*. It's not like we are talking about a box of candy or bottle of perfume. This gift would be similar to giving a family member a kidney, donating blood, etc ...

Would you use having donated a kidney as leverage on someone so that they do as well? Not sure which would be more morally reprehensible, someone refusing to donate or another bringing that up. Ok, I'd say not trying to save someone else's life is worse. Then again, if someone gave me a kidney, I'm probably not healthy enough to give it back.

Did is say that *all* selfishness is bad? No, I did not. Where the line is drawn is when your selfishness impacts the life of another individual.

I have every right to run my heater up to 80 degrees every moment of the day even though others may not have the same luxury. My right does not hurt others UNLESS I am so irresponsible that I know I have faulty wiring that could cause a fire, do NOT take precautions to fix it and thus burn down my own home and every other house on the block.

I would point out that in the case of the faulty wiring, it wasn't your selfishness that burnt everyone, it was your irresponsibility. Being irresponsible is always wrong, in my opinion.

OIC ... the act of someone like myself giving birth even though I KNEW I could face health risks as well as financial hardships is selfish as compared to the person who gets knocked up and aborts to avoid stretch marks or dealing with the responsibility of caring for a defenseless little person who will need constant care and devotion?

Got it.

You were both selfish. How selfish is besides the point. Did you plan the birth, or did it come as a surprise? If you planned the birth, then the 'obstacles' you had to go through were all self-imposed. You wanted the child, and were willing to go through all those problems, and in fact drag your child through that as well, to that end.

If you didn't plan it, you were irresponsible, and dragged your child through the same risks you faced to get him to this world. Wow, following the reasoning in the previous paragraph, you having a child would be considered bad selfishness. After all, your child is "another person" following your reasoning, and your selfishness affected him, as medical issues you might have had and financial difficulties would impact in his life directly.

Good thing it wasn't my point.

Why the father or society? Surely if the unborn is just the mother's *property*, the crime would nothing more than vandalism and destruction of HER property?

Who said a child is her mother's property? Her having the right to decide on its life in relation to how it affects her does not mean it's her property.

Well, I base *my* opinion on how it should be handled as a reaction to how the unborn are treated like disposable objects and material possession. Until AOD is overturned, I would like to see the consistent position held up of "NO ... you wanted the unborn treated as choices like other property, now they are!"

Can you imagine how women (and possibly men) who thought this was no big deal before *might* actually take notice when the law would have a NEGATIVE affect of "their choice"?

Notice that my position is at least internally consistent. In my view, a crime is a crime in so far as there's someone who is a victim. I do not recognize the child as a part here, as it doesn't have a mind. The miscarriage negatively affects the people that had an interest in seeing the child born, and who invested themselves financially and emotionally in the pregnancy. That is the mother first, because she bears the greatest burden, and the father second, as he shares the burden. Society as a whole has an interest in seeing it's individual members achieve happiness, so any crime that might impact on its members ability to reach happiness is a crime even if it is hard to identify who exactly is being harmed.

In view of this, abortion is not a crime, while a miscarriage caused by assault is. I'm not going to go through each possible scenario, if you have any which you feel might not fit you can point it out, but let's say a general case of abortion on demand by a mother who is not trying to get pregnant. The mother, upon learning she is pregnant, decides to abort. The mother is not a victim, as she as no interest in the baby. The father is not a victim, as he does not know the child even exists, he was not trying to get the woman pregnant so he is not being 'cheated' of an expectation, and has no financial or emotional investment. The question then is, is society a victim? Does the woman choosing to abort impact significantly enough on everyone elses ability to lead happy lifes, to choose themselves to have children? Clearly no. Thus, with noone being a victim, the abortion is not a crime.

Notice that this brings up a scenario which does deserve consideration. Say the woman has no interest in having a child, but has led the father to believe that she does. In this situation, the woman would be lying, while the father would be emotionally invested in having a child. In this situation, the abortion would feature the father as a victim. What sentence exactly ought to be applied here is hard to define.

I'd say it depends, if the man has made it clear he wants a child, and the woman has made it clear to him that she also wants one and would do her best to get pregnant, and then turns out she was lying, then she is cheating the man. In this situation, I'd say the woman having an abortion would be a crime, and she would have to carry the baby to term if the father, understanding the situation he is in now (he is not going to be raising the child with the woman the way he thought he was) insisted on it.

If the woman has made it clear that she is not looking to get pregnant, then the father has only himself to blame and has victimized himself, the woman would have the right to abort the child.

But then, this is a contrived situation. Still, it shows that my position is internally consistent, which is what I was going for.

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Kian

Would you use having donated a kidney as leverage on someone so that they do as well?

It would depend on the person and their relationship with the patient. For example, I would have no problem whatsoever with mandating that parents with TWO working kidneys, matching blood type or bone marrow be obligated to THEIR child that they gave birth too.

A non-parent ... different relationship, different obligation.

Not sure which would be more morally reprehensible, someone refusing to donate or another bringing that up.

I don't know what is more reprehensible ... someone questioning and comparing the responsibility and obligation of a parent to THEIR child to donate bodily fluids/organs or the person who stated that someone who believes that actually letting a child live is selfish.

Ok, I'd say not trying to save someone else's life is worse. Then again, if someone gave me a kidney, I'm probably not healthy enough to give it back.

Perhaps not ... however, would you be advocating against other parents having a parental and moral obligation to donate to THEIR child?

I would point out that in the case of the faulty wiring, it wasn't your selfishness that burnt everyone, it was your irresponsibility. Being irresponsible is always wrong, in my opinion.

And you think that creating a life and then snuffing it out for the sake of convenience is responsible?

You were both selfish. How selfish is besides the point. Did you plan the birth, or did it come as a surprise? If you planned the birth, then the 'obstacles' you had to go through were all self-imposed. You wanted the child, and were willing to go through all those problems, and in fact drag your child through that as well, to that end.

Regardless of whether or not the life was *planned*, it doesn't change the value of the life. Self-imposing would indicate that unborn children are a BAD thing ... unborn children (and born children) are ALWAYS a gift regardless of how little you personally value them.

Who said anything about dragging a child through anything? The only reason a child would be dragged through anything is if the mother and father are immature, selfish twits. Go speak to one of those insecure, selfish twits for your answers ... I actually value unborn and born children and have never regretted giving birth to any of my children. Those parents that DO regret birth should just do their child a favor and let them be placed in the home of a parent/parents who
are actually deserving of children.

If you didn't plan it, you were irresponsible, and dragged your child through the same risks you faced to get him to this world. Wow, following the reasoning in the previous paragraph, you having a child would be considered bad selfishness. After all, your child is "another person" following your reasoning, and your selfishness affected him, as medical issues you might have had and financial difficulties would impact in his life directly.

Oh no m'dear ... you don't get to project your low values onto me. Parents deal with circumstances all the time with their unborn and born children. My way is to work through the hard times and change the course ... yours is to terminate the obstacle because it is an easy and lazy quick fix.

Good thing it wasn't my point.

You have made no points other than to ignorantly claim you wouldn't have cared if your mother aborted you.

Well, like

What an achievement ... being able to care about something that never happened.

Who said a child is her mother's property? Her having the right to decide on its life in relation to how it affects her does not mean it's her property.

Actually it does, unless you are claiming that your right to trash your own home and furniture being legal is because they belong to someone else? Is that the brilliant point you were *trying* to make?

Notice that my position is at least internally consistent. In my view, a crime is a crime in so far as there's someone who is a victim. I do not recognize the child as a part here, as it doesn't have a mind. The miscarriage negatively affects the people that had an interest in seeing the child born, and who invested themselves financially and emotionally in the pregnancy. That is the mother first, because she bears the greatest burden, and the father second, as he shares the burden. Society as a whole has an interest in seeing it's individual members achieve happiness, so any crime that might impact on its members ability to reach happiness is a crime even if it is hard to identify who exactly is being harmed.

Waiting for the *consistency*

In view of this, abortion is not a crime,

Wow, how quick you are! I already stated that abortion is not a crime.

while a miscarriage caused by assault is.

Right ... the only thing we need to agree on is the correct crime to be charged with. Since the unborn (thanks to those that do not value them such as yourself) are not considered a life worth protecting prior to birth, then obviously you will agree being *wanted* does not change what they are even IF a crime is committed against the mother?

There are no two ways about it ... wanted doesn't change what is. Either the unborn are worthy of protection from outside sabotage (abortion or assault) prior to birth or they are not. Which is it?

I'm not going to go through each possible scenario, if you have any which you feel might not fit you can point it out, but let's say a general case of abortion on demand by a mother who is not trying to get pregnant. The mother, upon learning she is pregnant, decides to abort. The mother is not a victim, as she as no interest in the baby. The father is not a victim, as he does not know the child even exists, he was not trying to get the woman pregnant so he is not being 'cheated' of an expectation, and has no financial or emotional investment. The question then is, is society a victim?

Why are you assuming I care what society thinks? Society is not ALWAYS a victim when crimes or bad acts are committed. It isn't society that is the victim in the case of an unborn child ... it is the unborn child.

Does the woman choosing to abort impact significantly enough on everyone elses ability to lead happy lifes, to choose themselves to have children? Clearly no. Thus, with noone being a victim, the abortion is not a crime.

That would only apply IF the unborn child is not considered a developing person. We are not just talking about one life, but rather two lives regardless of what you believe.

Notice that this brings up a scenario which does deserve consideration. Say the woman has no interest in having a child, but has led the father to believe that she does. In this situation, the woman would be lying, while the father would be emotionally invested in having a child. In this situation, the abortion would feature the father as a victim. What sentence exactly ought to be applied here is hard to define.

IF she doesn't have an interest in having a child and he does, then she could just as easily give birth, give up all rights and NEVER have to worry about her parental obligation.

I'd say it depends, if the man has made it clear he wants a child, and the woman has made it clear to him that she also wants one and would do her best to get pregnant, and then turns out she was lying, then she is cheating the man. In this situation, I'd say the woman having an abortion would be a crime, and she would have to carry the baby to term if the father, understanding the situation he is in now (he is not going to be raising the child with the woman the way he thought he was) insisted on it.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You seem to think I am willing to put the squabbling of two consenting adults above the interest of the unborn child who is the only person in this scenario that is to helpless to have any input. I don't even take that into consideration.

If the woman has made it clear that she is not looking to get pregnant, then the father has only himself to blame and has victimized himself, the woman would have the right to abort the child.

But then, this is a contrived situation. Still, it shows that my position is internally consistent, which is what I was going for.

Your positions are in no way consistent ... they address the value of innocent, helpless human being based on what others think their value is.

I am addressing the well-being of ALL unborn children ... not just those who are *wanted*.

[MrRadish]

I think that crucial to this argument is, at least for me, the question of whether or not the developing foetus has a mind and, personally, I fail to see how this can be the case when its brain hasn't developed to a certain point. Before this, I don't understand where the moral objection to its destruction lies, any more than the millions of mindless bacteria and amoeba and other microorganisms we kill every minute of the day without even realising we're doing it.

I can also see Kian's point, inasmuch as the only distinction between humans and any other animal (which frequently we kill for our convenience without a second thought) is an artificial one; one that we ourselves create. It's to be expected, of course, that we should seek to separate our species from the others, but ultimately the elevated status of mankind exists only because we're the ones making the rules. If history had turned out differently and dolphins, say, had developed full sentience instead of homo sapiens, I find it highly unlikely they'd see us in any light other than 'a fairly intelligent kind of ape'.

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Rusha

Perhaps not ... however, would you be advocating against other parents having a parental and moral obligation to donate to THEIR child?

I would argue that people have a right not to donate to their children. I would say they are bastards. I myself would give my life for my own children if I had any. But as you say, such a position is meaningless because it can never happen (at least until I get around to having children).

And you think that creating a life and then snuffing it out for the sake of convenience is responsible?

No, it isn't. But you can't force people to be responsible. Irresponsibility is not a conscious choice, but a lack of forethought. When you are irresponsible knowing you are being irresponsible, it's called negligence.

Regardless of whether or not the life was *planned*, it doesn't change the value of the life. Self-imposing would indicate that unborn children are a BAD thing ... unborn children (and born children) are ALWAYS a gift regardless of how little you personally value them.

Oh, no. You misunderstood. I did not mean the child was the imposition. I meant the danger of medical complications and the financial difficulties were self-imposed. I think we can agree that those two things are bad.

Who said anything about dragging a child through anything? The only reason a child would be dragged through anything is if the mother and father are immature, selfish twits. Go speak to one of those insecure, selfish twits for your answers ... I actually value unborn and born children and have never regretted giving birth to any of my children. Those parents that DO regret birth should just do their child a favor and let them be placed in the home of a parent/parents who are actually deserving of children.

If the birth had caused you health complications, this would have impacted on the child one way or another. If you had gone through severe financial difficulties, even if you pushed through it would have marked your child as well. You said you knew these were risks, and your child necessarily faced the same risks. The difference was, your child didn't get to choose if it was willing to face these risks.

Oh no m'dear ... you don't get to project your low values on me. Parents deal with circumstances all the time with their unborn and born children. My way is to work through the hard times and change the course ... yours is to terminate the obstacle because it is an easy and lazy quick fix.

As you brought my values into this, let me just say that I would not want the mother of my child to abort my child. I would go to any lengths necessary to change her mind if it turned out that she wished to abort (although I don't think I'd be sleeping with someone if I didn't want a child eventually, and if I didn't want one then I'd take enough precautions that it would take the universe wanting to screw me over to get one, and I find it better not to fight the universe).

I feel that abortion is not something to undertake lightly, and I feel sorry for people that find themselves in the position of choosing abortion as the lesser of two evils. I'd feel disgusted by people that would think lightly of it, as anyone that cares so little about themselves is not someone worth caring about. However, I feel that freedom is a fundamental aspect of finding worth in life, and the freedom to make mistakes is a fundamental aspect of that freedom.

As such, I refuse to force my values on others, in as much as doing so does not affect my freedom or the freedom of others. I do place value on the unborn child, I simply do not put enough value in them as worth imposing my views on others in the general case.

You have made no points other than to ignorantly claim you wouldn't have cared if your mother aborted you.

Well, like

What an achievement ... being able to care about something that never happened.

Didn't say I wouldn't care. Said I wouldn't object to her right.

Actually it does, unless you are claiming that your right to trash your own home and furniture being legal is because they belong to someone else? Is that the brilliant point you were *trying* to make?

My house and furniture are not the same as a child in an uterus. Conversely, my pet is legally my property, but animal rights restrict what I can do with them (as I said in an earlier example, I can throw my furniture into a wood-chipper, but not my dog, and both are my belongings).

So we have the case that I am free to do as I will with some property, and restricted in other cases with what I do with my property. Clearly then, linking the right to abort a child to property rights does not follow.

Wow, how quick you are! I already stated that abortion is not a crime.

I already stated I am not discussing law. When I say crime, I mean my own view of how things should work.

And abortion is a crime in some places. We never defined which penal code were using, which is why I said I do not discuss law. I am not qualified for it.

Right ... the only thing we need to agree on is the correct crime to be charged with. Since the unborn (thanks to those that do not value them such as yourself) are not considered a life worth protecting prior to birth, then obviously you will agree being *wanted* does not change what they are even IF a crime is committed against the mother?

There are no two ways about it ... wanted doesn't change what is. Either the unborn are worthy of protection from outside sabotage (abortion or assault) prior to birth or they are not. Which is it?

There are, unfortunately, two ways about it. Wanted does not change what is, no. And "what is" is an organism growing inside the mother, going through different stages from a single cell to independent, self-sustaining life.

Any rights we wish to give to them are human constructs which do not exist in the physical reality which is unchanged by want, but which are modified by human perception and thus by want.

However, even if you go with the reasoning that they are only 'property', while I may or may not have the right to destroy my property, others do not. Someone throwing my furniture in a wood chipper is a crime even if my doing it is not.

Why are you assuming I care what society thinks? Society is not ALWAYS a victim when crimes or bad acts are committed. It isn't society that is the victim in the case of an unborn child ... it is the unborn child.

I didn't say society is always a victim. Indeed, what you say here is my exact argument. The difference lies in that I don't consider that the child can be victimized, as it is unaware.

That would only apply IF the unborn child is not considered a developing person. We are not just talking about one life, but rather two lives regardless of what you believe.

The whole argument is predicated on the premise of the child not being considered.

Your positions are in no way consistent ... they address the value of innocent, helpless human being based on what others think their value is.

I am addressing the well-being of ALL unborn children ... not just those who are *wanted*.

Ahem. My positions are internally consistent. They are internally consistent with MY values and views.

The whole last bit and the scenarios I presented where to show that given my premises, the results followed logically. If the only objection to my argument is that you disagree with the premise, then we can agree that the argument is consistent, and we should discuss the premises, not the argument.

I only brought this up because you claimed the position was not consistent, I feel that this proves it is. Keeping in mind that consistency means that, without attacking the premises it rests on, the argument holds water. The argument being consistent, however, gives no added value to the premises (other than showing they are not contradictory).

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Kian

Before you argued that a newly conceived child was a person because they were all they ever needed to be.

I have only ever said that personhood is conferred. I have never strayed from my stance that personhood is not something that can be defined by a physical attribute. That a baby is all he ever needs to be is simply to show that arguments claiming the small size of certain attributes has nothing to do with personhood.

Now you are defaulting to the "God decrees it position." I have two questions. First, naturally, where does god claim that conceived children are people? I am not asking where he says that killing people is wrong, but where he claims that conceived, as opposed to born or the like, are people.

:squint:

Why would he need to differentiate between a human being in the womb and a human being outside it?

Second, if you believe that, then that's as far as the argument can go. I don't particularly care about God. If people have a right to life only because God decrees it, then the argument holds no relevance to anyone who is not of your religion. Given the separation between church and state, there's no argument for abortion being illegal.

God also says, "Do not murder" and "Do not steal".

Also, to clarify, I used the recognition that people can do some things and not others to mark the differing levels of personhood we grant them. Not make the case that those that can't do something aren't people at all.

So something you cannot see or measure has a graded set of levels that only you seem to have access to and are only useful in your arbitration of what you like and what you think should happen.

By the way, beyond the right to life, what other rights does personhood confer according to God?

What other rights do you think people have?

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by MrRadish

I think that crucial to this argument is, at least for me, the question of whether or not the developing foetus has a mind and, personally, I fail to see how this can be the case when its brain hasn't developed to a certain point.

Why not? Are the mind and personality the same thing as the brain or are the mind and personality immaterial parts of us?

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Stripe

I have only ever said that personhood is conferred. I have never strayed from my stance that personhood is not something that can be defined by a physical attribute. That a baby is all he ever needs to be is simply to show that arguments claiming the small size of certain attributes has nothing to do with personhood.

Oh, ok then. I thought that when you said things like "At conception we have a living human being. Now emotionally many people want to downplay those facts." you were justifying your position, not pointing mistakes in others. My bad. So you just know God says all humans are people. And sometimes he says these people have to die.

God also says, "Do not murder" and "Do not steal".

So? That he says some things which I agree with, or society agrees with, does not mean that anything he says is right.

So something you cannot see or measure has a graded set of levels that only you seem to have access to and are only useful in your arbitration of what you like and what you think should happen.

Obviously I'm not the only one who sees it. What is the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old (or whatever the age of consent is where you are)? Yet one is considered a consenting adult and the other isn't. Same with when you can start driving, vote, etc.

Also, a mind can be 'seen', just not measured.

What other rights do you think people have?

I asked first. And in any case, by "have", do you mean rights that are inherent, or rights that we decide to give ourselves?

[Redstar91]

Now we're arguing consciousness is the primary indicator of personhood? or what?

[Kian]

Well, I've been arguing with Stripe. For the most part, I've been showing why I don't believe unborn children to be persons. It's a bit pointless, since as far as I'm concerned "person" is a label that has little to do with the right to live. But Stripe seemed to think it was an important distinction despite me saying that I didn't care about it.

He claims personhood is conferred, which I argued against until he specifically claimed it was conferred by God, at which point further arguing on that point became pointless.

I have presented consciousness as being the main indicator of personhood, but it's a personal opinion.