[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Antityranicals]

Living creatures that do not possess brains are not sentient, ergo having a heartbeat doesn’t make a fetus a human being. (ex: If your heart stops beating you only die when blood flow stops going to your brain) Women’s choice therefore becomes irrelevant when a baby develops basic brain activity, and using religious reasoning is plain stupid, god does not control each sperm cell which inevitably all perish at room temperatures. (In a “Life begins at conception” idiot, that makes actual conception mass murder)

Rights are not somehow connected to sentience! That makes no sense! Why do you all keep saying that?

[Antityranicals]

So a tumor excised from a human body is a person? I'm struggling to see what Humanity is if it doesn't involve the essential components of what we consider to be part of being human.

And by inference he is saying a fetus is a person because of its "humanity". I'd like him to point out the traits of humanity that a fetus has.

"Humanity" is the state of being human. A fetus is a human due to the genetic material which he or she carries, from the very moment of conception onwards.

[Antityranicals]

One literally can't productively discuss this with someone who doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality any more than one can discuss relativity with someone who denies the existence of objective scientific laws. If you want to live in fantasy-land, where truth is nothing more than what you think of it, I can't stop you.

And if you want to live in a fantasy land where - despite every piece of evidence to the contrary - morality is somehow objective, I can't stop you.

Oh, and I denied the existence of an objective morality, not objective truth.

I know you didn't deny the existence of all objective truth, I'm just pointing out that I can't argue morality with someone who doesn't believe in it anymore than I can argue science with someone who doesn't believe in it.

[Cantelo]

Living creatures that do not possess brains are not sentient, ergo having a heartbeat doesn’t make a fetus a human being. (ex: If your heart stops beating you only die when blood flow stops going to your brain) Women’s choice therefore becomes irrelevant when a baby develops basic brain activity, and using religious reasoning is plain stupid, god does not control each sperm cell which inevitably all perish at room temperatures. (In a “Life begins at conception” idiot, that makes actual conception mass murder)

Rights are not somehow connected to sentience! That makes no sense! Why do you all keep saying that?

One cannot exercise their rights when not sentient. That's why the dead have no rights, that's why there's legal guardians and conservatorship for people in comas. In the case of a fetus, those rights aren't being put on hold or taken away, they were never granted in the first place because it was never born.

[Antityranicals]

It is a person by definition.

No it isn't.

Agency is not required to be a person, sentience is not required to be a person, consciousness is not required to be a person. All that is required is humanity.

We told you before that "person" and "human" are not equivalent, so personhood cannot be based on being human; we base it on the other traits I listed. Using your ridiculous definition, a tumour removed by a surgeon would be a person, as what is being extracted is human. Hence why we don't use your ridiculous definition.

It is a person, however, who has already been deprived either by man or by nature of all of his rights, and therefore cannot be violated further.

It just doesn't follow that it is still a person.

A fetus, however, has yet to be deprived of these rights, and so has them.

Can't deprive rights if it doesn't have them until it is born.

What happens at birth that gives a fetus rights? How does that even make sense? And there is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species homo sapiens. The fetus is a human. My skin cells are human. Your argument is similar to if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples.

[Cantelo]

And by inference he is saying a fetus is a person because of its "humanity". I'd like him to point out the traits of humanity that a fetus has.

"Humanity" is the state of being human. A fetus is a human due to the genetic material which he or she carries, from the very moment of conception onwards.

"A severed limb is human due to the genetic material which it carries, from the very moment of severance onwards."

Using your logic, we should give rights to disconnected limbs as well because they are human, came from a human, and are still human. We would have no right to decide the fate of the severed limb and should let nature take its course, however God wills it.

[Antityranicals]

Rights are not somehow connected to sentience! That makes no sense! Why do you all keep saying that?

One cannot exercise their rights when not sentient. That's why the dead have no rights, that's why there's legal guardians and conservatorship for people in comas. In the case of a fetus, those rights aren't being put on hold or taken away, they were never granted in the first place because it was never born.

Rights are not based upon exercise. If I don't say something, does that mean I don't have a right to say that thing? No, of course it doesn't. And rights are not somehow granted by birth, that doesn't make sense either. How would that work, anyway?

[The New California Republic]

It has nothing to do with stage of development! The arguments you're making would allow for you to claim that infants aren't human, because they aren't sentient or self-aware.

But they do have several other traits of personhood usually lacking in the fetus, such as agency, and consciousness.

It is a simple fact that a human is an organism with a certain genetic makeup. That's it.

"Humanity" is the state of being human. A fetus is a human due to the genetic material which he or she carries, from the very moment of conception onwards.

Using the deeply flawed genetics argument, a tumour is human too.

That, along with certain theological characteristics [...]

...and it's thrown straight in the bin.

What happens at birth that gives a fetus rights? How does that even make sense? And there is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species homo sapiens. The fetus is a human. My skin cells are human. Your argument is similar to if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples.

It's you that keeps using the concepts interchangeably, not me. So don't blame me if your fast and loose use of words is muddying the waters.

[Cantelo]

No it isn't.


We told you before that "person" and "human" are not equivalent, so personhood cannot be based on being human; we base it on the other traits I listed. Using your ridiculous definition, a tumour removed by a surgeon would be a person, as what is being extracted is human. Hence why we don't use your ridiculous definition.


It just doesn't follow that it is still a person.


Can't deprive rights if it doesn't have them until it is born.

What happens at birth that gives a fetus rights? How does that even make sense? And there is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species homo sapiens. The fetus is a human. My skin cells are human. Your argument is similar to if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples.

If you wanna play the semantics game like a lawyer, here we go, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

This implies that one must be born in order to benefit from human rights as outlined by the United Nations. Aborted fetuses were never born and thus, according to the UN, never had any rights. Stop using God as the anchor to your talking points because I don't believe in a God and thus it's a worthless argument to make.

[Antityranicals]

"Humanity" is the state of being human. A fetus is a human due to the genetic material which he or she carries, from the very moment of conception onwards.

"A severed limb is human due to the genetic material which it carries, from the very moment of severance onwards."

Using your logic, we should give rights to disconnected limbs as well because they are human, came from a human, and are still human. We would have no right to decide the fate of the severed limb and should let nature take its course, however God wills it.

There is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species "homo sapiens." "Human" is an adjective describing something related to such a living unit. The fetus is "a human." My skin cells are "human." What if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples? You wouldn't be too happy, and for good reason.

[Antityranicals]

What happens at birth that gives a fetus rights? How does that even make sense? And there is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species homo sapiens. The fetus is a human. My skin cells are human. Your argument is similar to if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples.

If you wanna play the semantics game like a lawyer, here we go, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

This implies that one must be born in order to benefit from human rights as outlined by the United Nations. Aborted fetuses were never born and thus, according to the UN, never had any rights. Stop using God as the anchor to your talking points because I don't believe in a God and thus it's a worthless argument to make.

The damn UN can declare whatever it wants, but that doesn't change anything. If the damn UN declared you a mushroom, would it be so? Why is the idea that the UN is stupid and overly PC so ludicrous to you?

Besides, in order for humans to be born free and equal, wouldn't they have to be so directly before?

[Cantelo]

"A severed limb is human due to the genetic material which it carries, from the very moment of severance onwards."

Using your logic, we should give rights to disconnected limbs as well because they are human, came from a human, and are still human. We would have no right to decide the fate of the severed limb and should let nature take its course, however God wills it.

There is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species "homo sapiens." "Human" is an adjective describing something related to such a living unit. The fetus is "a human." My skin cells are "human." What if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples? You wouldn't be too happy, and for good reason.

Those shreds of apple skin are pretty analogous to a fetus in the sense that its not the whole apple much as a fetus is not the whole human, and thus can be disposed of much like apple skins.

[Antityranicals]

It has nothing to do with stage of development! The arguments you're making would allow for you to claim that infants aren't human, because they aren't sentient or self-aware.

But they do have several other traits of personhood usually lacking in the fetus, such as agency, and consciousness.

It is a simple fact that a human is an organism with a certain genetic makeup. That's it.

"Humanity" is the state of being human. A fetus is a human due to the genetic material which he or she carries, from the very moment of conception onwards.

Using the deeply flawed genetics argument, a tumour is human too.

That, along with certain theological characteristics [...]

...and it's thrown straight in the bin.

What happens at birth that gives a fetus rights? How does that even make sense? And there is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species homo sapiens. The fetus is a human. My skin cells are human. Your argument is similar to if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples.

It's you that keeps using the concepts interchangeably, not me. So don't blame me if your fast and loose use of words is muddying the waters.

In order to be "a human" an organism must have the genetics of the human, and be an individual living organism of that species. Why is that hard to understand?

[The New California Republic]

One cannot exercise their rights when not sentient. That's why the dead have no rights, that's why there's legal guardians and conservatorship for people in comas. In the case of a fetus, those rights aren't being put on hold or taken away, they were never granted in the first place because it was never born.

Rights are not based upon exercise. If I don't say something, does that mean I don't have a right to say that thing? No, of course it doesn't. And rights are not somehow granted by birth, that doesn't make sense either. How would that work, anyway?

He isn't talking about exercise alone, he is talking about their total lack of ability. It's pure sophistry to say something has the right to use a certain thing, when said something absolutely does not even have the ability to use it in the first place. It'd be as sophistic as saying "all dogs have the right to fly planes".

[Antityranicals]

There is a difference between "human" and "a human." "A human" is actually a specific living unit of the species "homo sapiens." "Human" is an adjective describing something related to such a living unit. The fetus is "a human." My skin cells are "human." What if you bought fifty apples from me, and I came to you with fifty shreds of apple skin, and told you that this was fifty apples? You wouldn't be too happy, and for good reason.

Those shreds of apple skin are pretty analogous to a fetus in the sense that its not the whole apple much as a fetus is not the whole human, and thus can be disposed of much like apple skins.

No, an apple skin will never, ever become an apple. A fetus will become an adult, and is already a human individual with the same rights as any other human individual.

[The New California Republic]

In order to be "a human" an organism must have the genetics of the human, and be an individual living organism of that species. Why is that hard to understand?

Again it is you that is playing fast and loose with the usage of it, not me.

[Cantelo]

If you wanna play the semantics game like a lawyer, here we go, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

This implies that one must be born in order to benefit from human rights as outlined by the United Nations. Aborted fetuses were never born and thus, according to the UN, never had any rights. Stop using God as the anchor to your talking points because I don't believe in a God and thus it's a worthless argument to make.

The damn UN can declare whatever it wants, but that doesn't change anything. If the damn UN declared you a mushroom, would it be so? Why is the idea that the UN is stupid and overly PC so ludicrous to you?

Besides, in order for humans to be born free and equal, wouldn't they have to be so directly before?

I cite the UN because it is a concrete, visible body of nations that has more of a direct effect on peoples' lives than any deity ever has. Citing God is, once again, as worthless as citing Harry Potter.

I don't ever bash religion but I will gladly take a stance against it if it's used as a basis to make laws that can have severe consequences for bodily freedom and women's health. Your God has no business in what I do with myself and never will, neither do you or anybody else that holds your opinion.

[Estanglia]

And if you want to live in a fantasy land where - despite every piece of evidence to the contrary - morality is somehow objective, I can't stop you.

Oh, and I denied the existence of an objective morality, not objective truth.

I know you didn't deny the existence of all objective truth, I'm just pointing out that I can't argue morality with someone who doesn't believe in it anymore than I can argue science with someone who doesn't believe in it.

Oh, I believe in morality. I reject the idea that there is any form of objective morality, or that at the very least we are largely incapable as a collective of finding out what that objective morality is, considering the sheer amount of moral systems out there that all claim legitimacy.

[The New California Republic]

A fetus will become an adult, and is already a human individual with the same rights as any other human individual.

"Knock knock, reality calling. Yeah, that's total nonsense."

[Antityranicals]

Rights are not based upon exercise. If I don't say something, does that mean I don't have a right to say that thing? No, of course it doesn't. And rights are not somehow granted by birth, that doesn't make sense either. How would that work, anyway?

He isn't talking about exercise alone, he is talking about their total lack of ability. It's pure sophistry to say something has the right to use a certain thing, when said something absolutely does not even have the ability to use it in the first place. It'd be as sophistic as saying "all dogs have the right to fly planes".

But that's a false analogy, because clearly a fetus has the ability to exercise a right to life, as it is a right which it is currently exercising. If it weren't, we'd have no disagreement.

[Antityranicals]

I know you didn't deny the existence of all objective truth, I'm just pointing out that I can't argue morality with someone who doesn't believe in it anymore than I can argue science with someone who doesn't believe in it.

Oh, I believe in morality. I reject the idea that there is any form of objective morality, or that at the very least we are largely incapable as a collective of finding out what that objective morality is, considering the sheer amount of moral systems out there that all claim legitimacy.

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake." If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist. If the sun doesn't exist for both you and I, it doesn't exist.

[Kernen]

Rights are not somehow connected to sentience! That makes no sense! Why do you all keep saying that?

One cannot exercise their rights when not sentient. That's why the dead have no rights, that's why there's legal guardians and conservatorship for people in comas. In the case of a fetus, those rights aren't being put on hold or taken away, they were never granted in the first place because it was never born.

The dead do have some rights, depending on how you conceptualize estates.

Rights are not based upon exercise. If I don't say something, does that mean I don't have a right to say that thing? No, of course it doesn't. And rights are not somehow granted by birth, that doesn't make sense either. How would that work, anyway?

No, they're based on enforceability. A right without a remedy is no right.

[Kernen]

Oh, I believe in morality. I reject the idea that there is any form of objective morality, or that at the very least we are largely incapable as a collective of finding out what that objective morality is, considering the sheer amount of moral systems out there that all claim legitimacy.

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake." If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist. If the sun doesn't exist for both you and I, it doesn't exist.

This just in, opinions are fake.

[The New California Republic]

[...] clearly a fetus has the ability to exercise a right to life, as it is a right which it is currently exercising. If it weren't, we'd have no disagreement.

How the actual fuck is a fetus exercising its right to life? Is it holding a placard in the womb? Is it sending letters to Senators?

Honestly, this is the most nonsensical statement I have seen in NSGeneral thus far this year, so congrats I guess.

[The New California Republic]

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake." If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist. If the sun doesn't exist for both you and I, it doesn't exist.

This just in, opinions are fake.

My love for my bf clearly doesn't exist, as it doesn't exist for everyone.