Abortion Controversy

[BTGBullseye]

Why do you care if other people are irresponsible if it doesn't affect you?

But it likely will later in life. Bad lifestyle choices that never get removed WILL affect someone later on.

 

It's not up to you to tell people how to run their lives, or their bodies. Besides, abortion is not a pretty or "easy" procedure I hear; I think the person will have learned their lesson afterwards.

Well, learning the lesson beforehand is usually preferable to being stuck having that regret, pain, and permanent medical issues later because you were never told how shitty abortion is. (the only ones who spread the info about abortion are Pro-Lifers, everyone else proves their lack of knowledge about the subject when they talk about it as a "right")

 

But even if they hadn't, it's not your place to be teaching other people life lessons.

Then who is going to teach them? I suppose you also would suggest that all parents let their kids choose to shit on the carpet, skip school, and never learn to read... Right?

[Eedo Baba]

I'm not religious (I'm a noncommittist) but I think abortion is generally wrong. It shows a lack of responsibility. If you've gotten pregnant, you should face up to the fact that you made bad decisions, but you'll have to tough it out. Taking the easy route (an abortion) would only be continuing your irresponsible choices.

 

Why do you care if other people are irresponsible if it doesn't affect you?

 

It's not up to you to tell people how to run their lives, or their bodies. Besides, abortion is not a pretty or "easy" procedure I hear; I think the person will have learned their lesson afterwards.

 

But even if they hadn't, it's not your place to be teaching other people life lessons.

 

But it isn't just a personal choice, it affects the child that will or will not live. Anyway, even if it was only a personal choice, what's wrong with teaching people life lessons? If people can't show people their own opinion and be shown other's opinions, then what exactly is the point of civilized society?

[Geneaux486]

You're basically saying: "I can't prove my view is true, but you can't prove your view true. Neither of us can prove any view true or false, so I guess we don't know and we will never know."

 

This is a text-book example of an arbitrary statement. To obtain knowledge, humans have to follow strict, objective, epistemological methods. Arbitrary statements have no firm grasp on reality or has it anything to do with how humans think or obtain knowledge. Therefore, arbitrary=irrational.

 

Therefore, I'm dismissing your arbitrary statement.

 

I can’t prove my view is true, not on this matter. Neither can you. To believe otherwise at this point is simply delusional. The third part of your quote does not apply to me. I believe that when a view has not yet been proven true or false, it just means we need to keep researching and/or debating it. Wasn’t an arbitrary statement, it was a simple observation.

 

You can't advocating outlawing abortion without advocating statism; it's impossible by definition. Outlawing abortion would be an infringement on individual rights i.e. the right of a woman to her body; the same right that gives her the right to not be raped.

 

And you can’t argue that outlawing abortion is statism without believing that the fetus does not have the right to live. If one does believe the fetus has a right to live, then it’s the same as wanting murder of any other sort to be illegal.

 

We don't owe any favors to the dead; only those that have been objectively and legally defined in a will.

 

Irrelevant to what I said.

 

Rights are inalienable by definition. Since life is the standard of all rights, your life gives you no moral power to take the life of another, which you would be doing if rights could violate other rights.

 

First of all, rights by definition are not inalienable. Most of the time they are considered such, but that’s really just splitting hairs. We have no moral power to take another life, this is true, but in a sense you’re supporting my argument against taking the life of the developing human being. You hold terms to definition when it supports your argument but throw around phrases like “taking life” in situations where no one is, in fact, going to die. And most of the time when you say “by definition” you aren’t even right about that.

 

But you're a statist and you believe silly things like "property rights" don't exist.

 

You don’t know what you’re talking about here.

 

This is the crux of the argument used by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation.

 

I’m just gonna stop you right there and point out that I’m not Peter Singer, and from what I read of the rest of your strawman argument here I could not disagree more with his views. My statement is similar to the crux of his argument? So what? My statement standing by itself does not say any of what you followed that with.

 

Rights have no meaning (or relevance for that matter) to any being besides humans. Name one animal that respects other animal's rights to life. Name one animal that is not morally condemned for stealing or initiating force on other animals. Name one animal that establishes governments to protect those rights.

 

I can think of many humans that don’t do those things. Furthermore, animals in their basic instincts, in many instances, do in fact respect each other’s territories, and can establish beneficial relationships with other species of animals in their ecosystems. You are dead wrong about rights having no meaning to beings besides humans. They don’t have the same meaning as they do to humans, but they do have some meaning.

 

What if he can't? What if he's an invalid?

 

My point is that it would be immoral to outlaw kicking hobos out of your house, even if they would die.

 

If you remove a homeless person from your house and kill him in the process, then that is murder. Unless he’s trying to kill you, in which case it’s self-defense.

 

Why stop there and say less than ten cents an hour is underpayment? Why don't we just force the corporations to pay their workers a million dollars an hour? That will end child labor and poverty and only raise the standard of living!

 

/sarcasm

 

Another strawman argument. There’s really nothing more I need say about it.

 

to decide what wage after the company makes their money is underpayment and what is not. That is arbitrary and irrational. I don't entertain the arbitrary.

 

There’s nothing irrational about a company having a moral, ethical, and in many cases legal obligation to pay workers what they are worth. Besides, my point was that it was harmful for corporations to do these things. Which it is.

 

Because they know the employees are content with their wages.

 

That’s cold. Pretense aside, it’s because they know they can get away with screwing over these people to cut costs and maximize profit. Which is one reason why corporations having a lot of control is a bad thing.

 

An individual, is not a means to an end for you to use and dispose of; an individual has the right to not be a means to an end i.e. a sacrificial animal who belongs to something else.

 

This coming from the guy who tries to justify corporations underpaying child laborers to minimize cost.

 

It is insanity to suggest because women have the capacity to carry a fetus to a full term, that they have the moral obligation to continue that term.

 

Wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to say that we do not have the right to terminate the fetus when it already exists, and will grow into an adult human being if we do not interfere.

 

Just because the fetus can only survive by living as a parasite and a woman is the only one capable of sustaining that life, does not mean that the woman has to carry it to the full term.

 

And just because the fetus must live as a parasite does not mean that we have the right to decide that it can’t live anymore.

[danielsangeo]

Wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to say that we do not have the right to terminate the fetus when it already exists, and will grow into an adult human being if we do not interfere.

 

But, if we do not interfere, eventually a human being will become a corpse. Therefore, we're all corpses? Having sex with your sweetheart is now necrophilia?

[Axeldeath]

A human being will end up being a corpse whether or not we interfere.

[danielsangeo]

Exactly. Also, if we don't interfere, a child will grow up to be an adult. Therefore, all children are adults.

[Michael Archer]

I'm going to respond to following propositions as if it's not possible for rights to violate other rights. Before you say, "yes they can in a world with limited resources", hear me out. I thought it was self-evident, but I guess it's not:

 

Rights are moral principles defining what people can do in social situations. Nature gives man a bunch of abilities necessary for survival; rights just define those e.g. in order to survive, a man must be able to own property, therefore, man has the right to property. Rights show the capacities of man's nature as a rational being.

 

Rights can only be violated through the initiation of force. The reason for this is that violence and reason are opposites; force can quell reason in any way it sees fit.

 

So to imply that rights can violate rights, you're implying that you have the right to initiate force on other people.

 

Which is statism.

 

But it likely will later in life. Bad lifestyle choices that never get removed WILL affect someone later on.

 

Individual lifestyle choices taken by other people will never affect you. Even if they did, if you can prove they affected you negatively, you would have a claim.

 

Bad lifestyle choices only affect the individual involved.

 

Well, learning the lesson beforehand is usually preferable to being stuck having that regret, pain, and permanent medical issues later because you were never told how shitty abortion is. (the only ones who spread the info about abortion are Pro-Lifers, everyone else proves their lack of knowledge about the subject when they talk about it as a "right")

 

It's not your place to teach that lesson.

 

I actually do have to somewhat agree with what you said in your parenthesis; I've seen many very stupid pro-abortionists saying stuff like "It's not human!" But on the other hand I've seen many stupid anti-abortionists saying stuff like "It's a baby!"

The anti-abortionists give informative information on how it's done, but this is mostly an Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

 

And I have to admit, I'm pretty ignorant about the actual, physical process of abortion. The most I know is that the woman is pregnant; now she's not.

 

But the process is irrelevant; this is an issue of rights.

 

Actually: can I make a motion to change the names of "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice?" I hate both. Anti-abortion is anti-life, and "Pro-Choice" is stupid (does she have the right to choose to rob people?).

 

Then who is going to teach them? I suppose you also would suggest that all parents let their kids choose to shit on the carpet, skip school, and never learn to read... Right?

 

Strawman. I'm not entertaining this.

 

But it isn't just a personal choice, it affects the child that will or will not live. Anyway, even if it was only a personal choice, what's wrong with teaching people life lessons? If people can't show people their own opinion and be shown other's opinions, then what exactly is the point of civilized society?

 

Again, the fetus doesn't have the right to life since it exists as a parasite. How a woman chooses to use her body is her own choice.

 

There's nothing wrong with teaching people life lessons...as long as the "teachers" are parents and the "people" are children. You have no place to be lecturing people on life lessons if they're not your child.

 

I can’t prove my view is true, not on this matter. Neither can you. To believe otherwise at this point is simply delusional.

 

That's fine.

 

But your view says that it's morally ok to sometimes initiate force on other human beings depending on an arbitrary definition e.g. forcing people to pay minimum wage, forcing people to stay pregnant against their will.

 

Which is statism.

 

There's a thread for that.

 

And you can’t argue that outlawing abortion is statism without believing that the fetus does not have the right to live. If one does believe the fetus has a right to live, then it’s the same as wanting murder of any other sort to be illegal.

 

A fetus does not have the right to live, since there's no such thing as the right to initiate force.

 

You also can't argue that the fetus has the right to life without arguing that the woman in question doesn't have the right to life.

 

We have no moral power to take another life, this is true, but in a sense you’re supporting my argument against taking the life of the developing human being.

 

You don't have the right to initiate force, but you do have the right to use retaliatory force in the defense of your life and property. Your body is your property; do you dispute this?

 

You have the right to use your property the way you see fit, as long as you aren't using it to initiate force (whenever I say "initiate force", you can substitute this with "violate rights" if you wish; the two are synonymous.) on other people. You don't morally have to use your property to support someone else, if you wish e.g. you don't have feed and clothe other people without them giving anything back to you in return, if you don't want to.

 

You hold terms to definition when it supports your argument but throw around phrases like “taking life” in situations where no one is, in fact, going to die.

 

Life does not simply mean the absence of death. Life involves all the actions necessary is sustaining ones life, like creating wealth, owning property, using reason. If you don't have the right to property and liberty, you can't sustain your life; they're requirements i.e. if you don't do any of these things, YOU WILL DIE.

 

Let me put it this way: it would be absurd to suggest that you have the right to life, but not the right to buy food.

 

I’m just gonna stop you right there and point out that I’m not Peter Singer, and from what I read of the rest of your strawman argument here I could not disagree more with his views.

 

It's not a strawman at all; your view of rights is not just similar, it's identical.

 

Your view is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that we all have the capacity to experience pain at the same level. So we should try to stop that pain. This is where rights come in.

 

If so, you share this view exactly with Singer.

 

I had to read part of "Animal Liberation" for high school and Singer says that rights are exactly as you define them: ability to experience pain=the source of rights. If you accept this premise, all the other anti-human things I posted logically follow.

 

You might not be a utilitarian, but the view on rights certainly comes from that philosophy.

 

I can think of many humans that don’t do those things.

 

That's why we punish humans who behave like animals.

 

Furthermore, animals in their basic instincts, in many instances, do in fact respect each other’s territories, and can establish beneficial relationships with other species of animals in their ecosystems.

 

They respect each other's territories under the threat of being killed i.e. anarchy.

 

But what about the other animals that do initiate force?

 

If you remove a homeless person from your house and kill him in the process, then that is murder. Unless he’s trying to kill you, in which case it’s self-defense.

 

Ugh...I really need to make myself more clear:

 

What if you knew for sure the hobo would die if you kicked him out of your house? Are your property rights negated?

 

Another strawman argument. There’s really nothing more I need say about it.

 

Again, not a strawman. It just sounds like one.

 

The million-dollar minimum wage is just as arbitrary as any other minimum wage, was my point.

 

That’s cold. Pretense aside, it’s because they know they can get away with screwing over these people to cut costs and maximize profit. Which is one reason why corporations having a lot of control is a bad thing.

 

No one is being screwed over; they choose to work at that wage. No one is being screwed over.

 

How about if they don't like the pay, they negotiate higher, or go work for someone who will pay them more?

 

Corporations only have control over themselves, or at least they should; if they have any more, that's the government's fault.

 

Also, this entire quote is Appeal to Pity and you're not convincing anyone.

 

This coming from the guy who tries to justify corporations underpaying child laborers to minimize cost.

 

Do you understand the difference between violently using someone as a means to an end and a mutually beneficial, peaceful trade?

 

The key thing here, is that there's no force involved; everything is voluntary. If you can show that a corporation using child labor is using any kind of physical force, that's when I'll morally condemn them.

 

Wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to say that we do not have the right to terminate the fetus when it already exists, and will grow into an adult human being if we do not interfere.

 

It's not reasonable at all, since you're not taking into account the life of the woman.

 

So you're saying just because someone has the capacity to do something, they have a moral obligation?

 

The fact that it will grow into an adult is irrelevant. The fact that the nature of its existence can't come with any rights, is relevant.

 

Please stop using "we" when talking about rights; there are no such thing as collective rights. You do not have the right to set the conditions of another human being's existence i.e. you do not have the right to force someone to use their resources against their will.

 

And just because the fetus must live as a parasite does not mean that we have the right to decide that it can’t live anymore.

 

We don't.

 

The person who is carrying it does, since there's no right to live as a parasite as there is no such thing as the right to enslave. Ergo, the fetus does not have the right to life since the conditions of it's very existence do not permit it to have such a right.

 

Just because the fetus does not have a choice, doesn't negate one's right to property.

 

Why is it ok for the fetus to dispose of the life of the woman, but it's no ok for the woman to dispose of the life of the fetus? That's a double standard.

 

People have the absolute right to life, liberty and happiness. To force someone to remain pregnant forces them to give up these rights.

 

You cannot say that you value life, when you advocate sacrificing one life to sustain another. You said yourself, that the fetus lives a parasitic existence; in order to survive, it must consume the resources of another. To force someone to give up resources without their consent is to force someone into slavery.

 

A human being will end up being a corpse whether or not we interfere.

 

The only difference between the process of a fetus becoming a baby and an adult become a corpse is that we can interfere with the latter and not the former. What's your point?

 

Daniel is right: if we start calling fetus' "babies", by the same logic, we can call adults "corpses" and start treating them as such.

[Eedo Baba]

Again, the fetus doesn't have the right to life since it exists as a parasite. How a woman chooses to use her body is her own choice.

 

There's nothing wrong with teaching people life lessons...as long as the "teachers" are parents and the "people" are children. You have no place to be lecturing people on life lessons if they're not your child.

 

There's no such thing as a "right to live". In fact there's no such thing as "rights" at all. Generally something labelled as a right is simply a privilege given by the majority. Hundreds of years ago, slaves had no "rights", yet now, we think such behavior was appalling.

Anyway, even if a fetus exists as a parasite, it is a voluntary parasite. A woman makes decisions that lead to her pregnancy. (even having protected sex is a decision you make knowing there may be a chance of pregnancy) You don't adopt a dog, then since it's living as a parasite, and you can't afford dog food, kill it. That would be psychotic.

Oh, and leaving parents to teach their children lessons is how we got religion. Oh snap!

Really though, a child is a human being, and their parents have no more claim to raising them than any person off of the street.

[Michael Archer]

The problem with the anti-abortionists is that they think that potential=actual i.e. a potential baby=a real baby.

 

The problem with this is that potential is very metaphysically different than actual. An acorn is a potential oak tree, but birds cannot live in an acorn. When driving a car, I have the potential to murder many people; my potential does not make me a murderer. I could potentially make billions of dollars eventually; this does not mean the government should tax me as much as a billionaire etc.

 

Because of this, there are moral and physical differences between potential and actual. Potential babies do not have rights, unlike real babies.

 

There's no such thing as a "right to live". In fact there's no such thing as "rights" at all. Generally something labelled as a right is simply a privilege given by the majority.

 

Oh my god; this is the most evil thing I've ever read.

 

Rights are conditions of existence; they're things that are inherent in our nature.

 

To imply that that they're given by society, is to imply that our existence is only permitted by society. An individual does not need a permit to live. To think that they need one, is to advocate slavery.

 

"Will of the majority" doesn't mean anything, anyway. All it can mean is "the sum of the will of most of the individuals", still that doesn't mean anything.

 

Also, how the hell can the majority give rights if rights don't exist? The majority is simply most of the individuals in a society; if those individuals don't have rights, they can't give anything.

 

Anyway, even if a fetus exists as a parasite, it is a voluntary parasite. A woman makes decisions that lead to her pregnancy. (even having protected sex is a decision you make knowing there may be a chance of pregnancy)

 

"Voluntary parasite" is a contradiction in terms. Someone can choose to carry a fetus to a full term.

 

This is also not an issue of sexual history; it's a matter of rights. The question is: does a fetus have the right to live within the body of a woman and consume her resources without her consent?

 

You don't adopt a dog, then since it's living as a parasite, and you can't afford dog food, kill it. That would be psychotic

 

I agree; it would be psychotic. You shouldn't kill your dog when you've adopted it and you can't afford dog food.

 

But my point is that the government shouldn't do anything about it because the government's job is to protect rights and animals and fetus' don't have rights. We should morally condemn people who get abortions capriciously, but the government shouldn't do anything.

 

Really though, a child is a human being, and their parents have no more claim to raising them than any person off of the street.

 

Children cannot be raised without a guardian.

 

But parents don't have a "claim" per se, they're just "guardians". There's a big difference.

[Eedo Baba]

Oh my god; this is the most evil thing I've ever read.

Rights are conditions of existence; they're things that are inherent in our nature.

To imply that that they're given by society, is to imply that our existence is only permitted by society. An individual does not need a permit to live. To think that they need one, is to advocate slavery.

"Will of the majority" doesn't mean anything, anyway. All it can mean is "the sum of the will of most of the individuals", still that doesn't mean anything.

Also, how the hell can the majority give rights if rights don't exist? The majority is simply most of the individuals in a society; if those individuals don't have rights, they can't give anything.

 

I'm saying that rights are an illusion. And of course our existence is only permitted by society. If the whole of society (or just one outlying variable) decides I should die, then I'll be killed. Look what happened to jews in Europe in the 1940's. The Nazis certainly didn't believe they had a "right" to live, and so they died. The majority spoke, evil as it was. What is a right then? Something that you should have, or something that you do have?

If rights are like laws, to be obeyed, then we do a pretty good job. The Nazis obeyed their own laws, as they certainly didn't think the Jews had a right to live. The Allied forces disagreed, saving the lives of many, thus obeying the law once more, as their conceived set of rights granted the Jews the right to live.

Your assumption that such an idea requires a "permit" to live is certainly right. My "permit" is the majority's choice not to kill me or let me die. The jews in my point before lacked this "permit", which I'll point out is of course a bad thing, as this "permit" is not godgiven or necessary by nature, it is simply the "Will of the majority", as you put it so eloquently.

 

My point, is that rights are meaningless, subjective, and thus, nonexistent. We make them up, and change them often. They do not matter and taking them into account in your own actions makes very little sense.

[Geneaux486]

I'm going to respond to following propositions as if it's not possible for rights to violate other rights.

 

This is different from usual how?

 

Rights are moral principles defining what people can do in social situations. Nature gives man a bunch of abilities necessary for survival; rights just define those e.g. in order to survive, a man must be able to own property, therefore, man has the right to property. Rights show the capacities of man's nature as a rational being.

 

Rights are legal, ethical, or moral entitlements. To say they only extend to human beings goes beyond the most basic definition of rights. Your definition of rights is based on your own interpretation, not fact.

 

Rights can only be violated through the initiation of force. The reason for this is that violence and reason are opposites; force can quell reason in any way it sees fit.

 

And humans need, in order to survive, the ability to grow in develop in the womb. Following your logic, it is a violation of rights through force to remove that developing human being from the womb and let it die, or kill it in the womb.

 

So to imply that rights can violate rights, you're implying that you have the right to initiate force on other people.

 

Which is statism.

I’m not implying anything, or talking in hypotheticals. Rights already do violate other rights. And no, it is not statism.

 

But your view says that it's morally ok to sometimes initiate force on other human beings depending on an arbitrary definition e.g. forcing people to pay minimum wage, forcing people to stay pregnant against their will.

 

Okay seriously, you have to be aware that force is always going to be initiated on other human beings in damn near every type of society aside from total anarchy. It is morally wrong to pay someone less than they’re worth. It is morally wrong to extinguish a human life without there being a discernable difference between that life and any other human life.

 

Which is statism.

 

There's a thread for that.

 

You’re the one who keeps bringing it back to statism. My views are not statism, as I’ve proven time and again. You keep trying to make it sound like statism, but you have not succeeded.

 

A fetus does not have the right to live, since there's no such thing as the right to initiate force.

 

Then we have no right to kill it. Your argument contradicts itself.

 

You also can't argue that the fetus has the right to life without arguing that the woman in question doesn't have the right to life.

 

Yes I can, because not every situation involves the woman dying. My argument, on the other hand, does not contradict itself.

 

You don't have the right to initiate force, but you do have the right to use retaliatory force in the defense of your life and property. Your body is your property; do you dispute this?

 

You have the right to use your property the way you see fit, as long as you aren't using it to initiate force (whenever I say "initiate force", you can substitute this with "violate rights" if you wish; the two are synonymous.) on other people. You don't morally have to use your property to support someone else, if you wish e.g. you don't have feed and clothe other people without them giving anything back to you in return, if you don't want to.

 

Illogical comparison. You do not have the right to kick your child out onto the street because you simply don’t feel like using resources on him or her. Furthermore, you keep saying we don’t have the right to initiate force, but this argument is only relevant if we can factually say that a developing human being has no right to live. This is not factual.

 

Life involves all the actions necessary is sustaining ones life, like creating wealth, owning property, using reason.

 

There is literally no basis for this statement. Like, you just have to ignore biology in general for this to work. Like I said, when you say “by definition” you are not, in fact, using an actual, official definition, you are using your own interpretation, which is highly debatable, and then when I point this fact out, you call me a statist, or a moral relativist, etc.

 

It's not a strawman at all; your view of rights is not just similar, it's identical.

 

Yes it’s a strawman argument, no my view is not identical, or even highly similar.

 

Your view is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that we all have the capacity to experience pain at the same level. So we should try to stop that pain. This is where rights come in.

 

If so, you share this view exactly with Singer.

 

It’s more that we simply can’t treat other living things in certain ways if there is no discernable difference between us and them. For instance, needlessly inflicting pain on other living things that can feel and understand pain is morally wrong, we do not have the right to do it, just as no one has the right to do it to us. It is not wrong, however, to forbid a dog from voting because dogs are not capable of reasoning on that level. It’s the capacity of a living thing that determines what we should or should not do to it from a moral standpoint.

 

If you accept this premise, all the other anti-human things I posted logically follow.

 

This is completely untrue. My views that rights are dependent on the capacity of a living thing can not lead to anti-human ideals because humans have the capacity to do many things other living beings cannot. That does not mean that all non-human living beings have no rights whatsoever, nor does it mean humans are dead even with other living things in terms of rights. There is no foundation upon which you can say that anti-human ideals follow logically from that.

 

They respect each other's territories under the threat of being killed i.e. anarchy.

 

Oversimplification. This is one reason, but not the only one.

 

But what about the other animals that do initiate force?

 

Then the responding entity has the right to defend itself.

 

What if you knew for sure the hobo would die if you kicked him out of your house? Are your property rights negated?

 

Let’s say the homeless person broke into your house. The above conditions were true, and you kicked him out. At that point you’re defending your property. If you want to compare this issue to pregnancy though, we have to include one key element of this hypothetical situation, and at that point your comparison defeats your own argument, not mine. If you were the one who brought the homeless person into your house, then kicked him out knowing full well that he would die immediately thereafter, and in fact did die, that is murder, not self-defense.

 

Again, not a strawman. It just sounds like one.

 

It sounds like one because it is one.

 

 

The million-dollar minimum wage is just as arbitrary as any other minimum wage, was my point.

 

Yeah, I know what your point was, and it’s still a strawman in the context you used it. If someone busts their butt to produce something for you, and you don’t compensate them fairly (fairly being their work relative to what you’ll charge for the product), then you are wronging that person, and violating their rights. Legal wages being arbitrary could not be less relevant here.

 

No one is being screwed over; they choose to work at that wage. No one is being screwed over.

 

They work at that wage because they have no other option, and the company in question takes advantage of that and pays them less than their work is worth relative to what it is being marketed for. Yes, the worker is being screwed over. You can say “No one is being screwed over” three times next go around if you want, it still won’t be any less false.

 

Also, this entire quote is Appeal to Pity and you're not convincing anyone.

 

What, because I said your reasoning was cold? It damn sure is. That’s not an appeal to pity, that’s just calling it like it is.

 

Do you understand the difference between violently using someone as a means to an end and a mutually beneficial, peaceful trade?

 

Better than you do, it seems.

 

The key thing here, is that there's no force involved; everything is voluntary. If you can show that a corporation using child labor is using any kind of physical force, that's when I'll morally condemn them.

 

Then your interpretation of rights and morality is simply insufficient and incomplete. You cannot morally justify someone taking advantage of someone else’s desperate situation to get cheap labor out of them.

 

It's not reasonable at all, since you're not taking into account the life of the woman.

 

So you're saying just because someone has the capacity to do something, they have a moral obligation?

 

The fact that it will grow into an adult is irrelevant. The fact that the nature of its existence can't come with any rights, is relevant.

 

But the nature of its existence does come with rights, because it’s a developing human being, exactly like us, and we have rights, and we had them in every stage of our existence.

 

 

You do not have the right to set the conditions of another human being's existence i.e. you do not have the right to force someone to use their resources against their will.

 

You are doing the exact thing you say I don’t have the right to do. You’ve said over and over again that the fetus has no right to live as a parasite. That is setting a condition for the existence of another human being.

 

the fetus does not have the right to life since the conditions of it's very existence do not permit it to have such a right.

 

And again, you’ve set conditions for whether or not it can continue to exist. The core of your argument in this thread cannot support itself.

 

Why is it ok for the fetus to dispose of the life of the woman, but it's no ok for the woman to dispose of the life of the fetus? That's a double standard.

 

Not if the woman isn’t actually going to die from the pregnancy it’s not.

 

You cannot say that you value life, when you advocate sacrificing one life to sustain another.

 

And I’ve advocated no such thing. Again I say, you say “by definition” repeatedly in your arguments, but then throw around phrases like “sacrificing a life” in situations where a life is not going to end. That is a double standard.

 

 

Daniel is right: if we start calling fetus' "babies", by the same logic, we can call adults "corpses" and start treating them as such.

 

This is utterly illogical. A living being cannot be compared to a dead one.

 

There's no such thing as a "right to live". In fact there's no such thing as "rights" at all. Generally something labelled as a right is simply a privilege given by the majority. Hundreds of years ago, slaves had no "rights", yet now, we think such behavior was appalling.

 

Rights can be legal, ethical, and/or moral. Rights given by a majority would be legal or ethical, never moral. No one can assign a living thing moral rights, all living things have them. To say otherwise is to say morality itself does not exist, which some people do, but that’s a much deeper debate for another thread. Rights and morality go hand-in-hand.

 

The problem with the anti-abortionists is that they think that potential=actual i.e. a potential baby=a real baby.

 

But your labeling of “potential life” is incorrect, which is the problem with your line of reasoning. A sperm and egg are a potential life/potential baby. The fetus is not a potential anything, it already exists, it’s already growing and developing. It is a developing life, not a potential one.

 

But my point is that the government shouldn't do anything about it because the government's job is to protect rights and animals and fetus' don't have rights. We should morally condemn people who get abortions capriciously, but the government shouldn't do anything.

 

But animals and fetuses do have rights, as they are living things. They will not have the same rights as a full grown adult, but they will have rights.

 

Really, the basis of our disagreement is what has moral rights and what doesn’t. I see little logical justification and no moral justification for your view that only fully formed humans have any rights at all.

[Eedo Baba]

No one can assign a living thing moral rights, all living things have them.

 

Says you. So, you are assigning them moral rights. Even if your belief is that they had them to begin with, in my humble opinion, the rights came from those who thought them up. Though it's also moot in my opinion, as I think I said before.

 

Oh, and I should admit I only skimmed your post. These giant posts don't fit well with my time schedule.

[danielsangeo]

"This is utterly illogical. A living being cannot be compared to a dead one."

 

A potential human being cannot be compared with an actual human being. But, let's set that aside for a moment.

 

Children are human beings, right? Adults are human beings, correct? Without interference, a child will eventually become an adult, yes?

 

Therefore, having sex with a child is the same thing as having sex with an adult. Pedophilia is legalized!

 

Because children are adults. Right?

[Geneaux486]

So, you are assigning them moral rights.

 

No, they already have them. As I said, you can't believe in morality without believing in moral rights.

 

A potential human being cannot be compared with an actual human being.

 

Sperm and eggs are potential, a fetus is an already existing, developing human being, not potential.

 

Children are human beings, right? Adults are human beings, correct? Without interference, a child will eventually become an adult, yes?

 

Therefore, having sex with a child is the same thing as having sex with an adult. Pedophilia is legalized!

 

Because children are adults. Right?

 

lol no. Calling a fetus a developing human being =/= legalizing pedophilia. Easily the most amusing strawman argument in this thread yet.

[danielsangeo]

Well, if a fetus is a baby, a child is an adult.

[Geneaux486]

Well, if a fetus is a baby, a child is an adult.

 

Yeah, you said that already. It's still wrong. Those are all stages of a living human being, the difference being what moral rights a person has at each of those stages. I argue that a person's basic right to live exists from the moment the person itself does. Your child = adult response and your adult = corpse response don't contradict that idea at all.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Eedo Baba]

So, you are assigning them moral rights.

 

No, they already have them. As I said, you can't believe in morality without believing in moral rights.

 

Who said I believe in morality? lol

Anyway, my point was that even if you believe they already had them, (making them natural and inalienable, correct?) I do not. I believe all rights (including the accepted platitudes like "moral rights") are manmade and thus meaningless. (which makes arguing about it somewhat unexciting.)

Though I'm speaking totally in philosophical terms. In everyday life I certainly obey the laws of societies accepted morality, though I believe it to be meaningless in the big picture.

[Geneaux486]

Who said I believe in morality?

 

No one.

 

Anyway, my point was that even if you believe they already had them, (making them natural and inalienable, correct?) I do not. I believe all rights (including the accepted platitudes like "moral rights") are manmade and thus meaningless. (which makes arguing about it somewhat unexciting.)

Though I'm speaking totally in philosophical terms. In everyday life I certainly obey the laws of societies accepted morality, though I believe it to be meaningless in the big picture.

 

So you believe the concept of morality doesn't exist outside of a person's interpretation of it. That is where you and I disagree, but I've talked at great length about where moral rights come from, so I won't repeat myself right now.

[Eedo Baba]

Who said I believe in morality?

 

No one.

 

Anyway, my point was that even if you believe they already had them, (making them natural and inalienable, correct?) I do not. I believe all rights (including the accepted platitudes like "moral rights") are manmade and thus meaningless. (which makes arguing about it somewhat unexciting.)

Though I'm speaking totally in philosophical terms. In everyday life I certainly obey the laws of societies accepted morality, though I believe it to be meaningless in the big picture.

 

So you believe the concept of morality doesn't exist outside of a person's interpretation of it. That is where you and I disagree, but I've talked at great length about where moral rights come from, so I won't repeat myself right now.

 

Alright. I'm glad we understand each other. Debates like this usually don't end in one side admitting defeat, but it's nice when we can agree to disagree.

[danielsangeo]

Well, if a fetus is a baby, a child is an adult.

 

Yeah, you said that already. It's still wrong. Those are all stages of a living human being, the difference being what moral rights a person has at each of those stages. I argue that a person's basic right to live exists from the moment the person itself does. Your child = adult response and your adult = corpse response don't contradict that idea at all.

 

Wait, so, the "right to life" is different from "moral rights"?

 

Left to their own devices, a fertilized egg (a "baby"?) will, the majority of the time, never even implant and are evacuated soon afterwards. Does that mean that this is a death in the family?

 

How about if the woman takes the "morning after" pill and doesn't allow it to implant? Is she a murderer?

 

Also, contraception. The sperm can't reach the egg. Without that kind of interference, one of those sperm will fertilize the egg and create a "baby"....so contraception is now murder. As are nocturnal emissions and periods.

 

This is the logic I see here. Or the lack of it.