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

[Genivaria]

No you don't get to have it both ways, either the fetus is entitled to the mother's body or it is not.
If it is not then removing it from the her body is entirely the mother's choice, period.

Removing it without manslaughter is entirely the mother's choice. Medical science is far more advanced than people who think that fetuses are tumors can imagine.

Nope. You don't have the right to put caveats on it.
The mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy. Full stop.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

PETA will be ecstatic.

It has everything to do with whether or not an organism is an individual member of "homo sapiens." It's that simple.

Are my stemcells then given human rights?

[The New California Republic]

No you don't get to have it both ways, either the fetus is entitled to the mother's body or it is not.
If it is not then removing it from the her body is entirely the mother's choice, period.

Removing it without manslaughter is entirely the mother's choice. Medical science is far more advanced than people who think that fetuses are tumors can imagine.

Free Joy basically annihilated that viewpoint earlier, but clearly you ignored it. Again.

[Antityranicals]

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

Does my skin stemcells then have human rights?

I've already discussed this at length. There's a difference between being "human," and actually being "a human," just like there's a difference between being earth, the dirt, and Earth, the planet.

[Estanglia]

No you don't get to have it both ways, either the fetus is entitled to the mother's body or it is not.
If it is not then removing it from the her body is entirely the mother's choice, period.

Removing it without manslaughter is entirely the mother's choice. Medical science is far more advanced than people who think that fetuses are tumors can imagine.

Damn, we've already cracked artificial womb technology and can now remove fetuses of any developmental stage from the woman with them surviving?

[Estanglia]

PETA will be ecstatic.

It has everything to do with whether or not an organism is an individual member of "homo sapiens." It's that simple.

To you.

[Antityranicals]

Removing it without manslaughter is entirely the mother's choice. Medical science is far more advanced than people who think that fetuses are tumors can imagine.

Free Joy basically annihilated that viewpoint earlier, but clearly you ignored it. Again.

No, Free Joy clearly has a knowledge of medical technology which dates back to the 1980s. Modern technology is really quite incredible...

[Estanglia]

Does my skin stemcells then have human rights?

I've already discussed this at length. There's a difference between being "human," and actually being "a human," just like there's a difference between being earth, the dirt, and Earth, the planet.

Yes, because the Earth and earth are vastly different things.

At what point does something that's human become a human, and vice versa?

[Antityranicals]

It has everything to do with whether or not an organism is an individual member of "homo sapiens." It's that simple.

To you.

How does sentience give people rights? How does that work?

[Genivaria]

To you.

How does sentience give people rights? How does that work?

It's what grants humans more rights than a slug.

[Estanglia]

To you.

How does sentience give people rights? How does that work?

A non-sentient and never-previously-sentient entity has no desires or will. It is fundamentally incapable of suffering (or, at the very least, of feeling the suffering) or of any desires, wants, emotions etc. Thus, it does not require the protection afforded by giving it rights, because there are no desires that need to be fulfilled nor no suffering that needs to be stopped.

[Antityranicals]

I've already discussed this at length. There's a difference between being "human," and actually being "a human," just like there's a difference between being earth, the dirt, and Earth, the planet.

Yes, because the Earth and earth are vastly different things.

At what point does something that's human become a human, and vice versa?

There's only one case when two things that are "human" become humans, and that's at the combination of a haploid sperm and a haploid egg. The result is actually and literally a completely new, unique, and distinct person, who is "a human." Something that is "human" and something that is "a human" are completely different. You like to cite examples which are "human," but you don't give examples which are actually a human.

[The New California Republic]

Does my skin stemcells then have human rights?

I've already discussed this at length. There's a difference between being "human," and actually being "a human," just like there's a difference between being earth, the dirt, and Earth, the planet.

By "a human" you mean an individual human being. Such a concept relies on personhood. Personhood starts a birth. You have yet to give us any convincing proof as to why it should be pushed back from that point to include fetuses.

Free Joy basically annihilated that viewpoint earlier, but clearly you ignored it. Again.

No, Free Joy clearly has a knowledge of medical technology which dates back to the 1980s. Modern technology is really quite incredible...

No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

[The Alma Mater]

To you.

How does sentience give people rights? How does that work?

You could reason from the harm perspective. If you destroy something before it gains the capacity to experience anything you can argue it was not harmed by its destruction since it never was.

[Antityranicals]

How does sentience give people rights? How does that work?

A non-sentient and never-previously-sentient entity has no desires or will. It is fundamentally incapable of suffering (or, at the very least, of feeling the suffering) or of any desires, wants, emotions etc. Thus, it does not require the protection afforded by giving it rights, because there are no desires that need to be fulfilled nor no suffering that needs to be stopped.

And how do desires and will give people rights? I can desire the Empire State Building, but I don't have a right to it.

[Necroghastia]

Yes, because the Earth and earth are vastly different things.

At what point does something that's human become a human, and vice versa?

There's only one case when two things that are "human" become humans, and that's at the combination of a haploid sperm and a haploid egg. The result is actually and literally a completely new, unique, and distinct person, who is "a human." Something that is "human" and something that is "a human" are completely different. You like to cite examples which are "human," but you don't give examples which are actually a human.

If it's distinct, tell me where it ends and the carrier begins.

[Estanglia]

Yes, because the Earth and earth are vastly different things.

At what point does something that's human become a human, and vice versa?

There's only one case when two things that are "human" become humans, and that's at the combination of a haploid sperm and a haploid egg. The result is actually and literally a completely new, unique, and distinct person, who is "a human." Something that is "human" and something that is "a human" are completely different. You like to cite examples which are "human," but you don't give examples which are actually a human.

What makes a fetus more distinct than, say, a tumour or a severed leg?

[Necroghastia]

A non-sentient and never-previously-sentient entity has no desires or will. It is fundamentally incapable of suffering (or, at the very least, of feeling the suffering) or of any desires, wants, emotions etc. Thus, it does not require the protection afforded by giving it rights, because there are no desires that need to be fulfilled nor no suffering that needs to be stopped.

And how do desires and will give people rights? I can desire the Empire State Building, but I don't have a right to it.

That's not what the word "rights" means in this context and you know it.

[Estanglia]

A non-sentient and never-previously-sentient entity has no desires or will. It is fundamentally incapable of suffering (or, at the very least, of feeling the suffering) or of any desires, wants, emotions etc. Thus, it does not require the protection afforded by giving it rights, because there are no desires that need to be fulfilled nor no suffering that needs to be stopped.

And how do desires and will give people rights? I can desire the Empire State Building, but I don't have a right to it.

Will and desire give us rights because we want to do something, and are given the right (i.e ability) to do so as long as it doesn't conflict with others' rights.

If we had no will to, say, own property, there would be no need for a right to own property because nobody would engage in buying property.

If I was wealthy enough, and the owners were willing enough, I could probably buy the Empire State Building.

And even if "desires and will" couldn't be used as a qualifier, suffering can.

[Antityranicals]

I've already discussed this at length. There's a difference between being "human," and actually being "a human," just like there's a difference between being earth, the dirt, and Earth, the planet.

By "a human" you mean an individual human being. Such a concept relies on personhood. Personhood starts a birth. You have yet to give us any convincing proof as to why it should be pushed back from that point to include fetuses.

No, Free Joy clearly has a knowledge of medical technology which dates back to the 1980s. Modern technology is really quite incredible...

No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth. That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.
2. This is simply medically incorrect. I don't know what to tell you...

[Antityranicals]

And how do desires and will give people rights? I can desire the Empire State Building, but I don't have a right to it.

Will and desire give us rights because we want to do something, and are given the right (i.e ability) to do so as long as it doesn't conflict with others' rights.

If we had no will to, say, own property, there would be no need for a right to own property because nobody would engage in buying property.

If I was wealthy enough, and the owners were willing enough, I could probably buy the Empire State Building.

And even if "desires and will" couldn't be used as a qualifier, suffering can.

But I just pointed out a conflict of wills and desires. Why do the nominal owners of the empire state building get it, and not you? There's a lot more than will and desire to rights... Same can go for suffering, just the other way around.

[Estanglia]

By "a human" you mean an individual human being. Such a concept relies on personhood. Personhood starts a birth. You have yet to give us any convincing proof as to why it should be pushed back from that point to include fetuses.


No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth.

One, nothing happens at birth to give people rights to you.
Two, you're missing the big event: being born.

That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

"Individual" could totally be argued to not apply here, considering the fetus is not only not independent, but so wholly and entirely dependent upon the mother to survive that with our current technology there's no way to remove a fetus from her without killing it for the majority of its existence.

[Necroghastia]

By "a human" you mean an individual human being. Such a concept relies on personhood. Personhood starts a birth. You have yet to give us any convincing proof as to why it should be pushed back from that point to include fetuses.


No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth. That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

A fetus is demonstrably not an individual, and "genetically sovereign" makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does, "indivisible," come to think of it.

[Necroghastia]

Will and desire give us rights because we want to do something, and are given the right (i.e ability) to do so as long as it doesn't conflict with others' rights.

If we had no will to, say, own property, there would be no need for a right to own property because nobody would engage in buying property.

If I was wealthy enough, and the owners were willing enough, I could probably buy the Empire State Building.

And even if "desires and will" couldn't be used as a qualifier, suffering can.

But I just pointed out a conflict of wills and desires. Why do the nominal owners of the empire state building get it, and not you? There's a lot more than will and desire to rights... Same can go for suffering, just the other way around.

Again, that's not what "rights" mean in this context and you fucking know it.

[Antityranicals]

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth. That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

A fetus is demonstrably not an individual, and "genetically sovereign" makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does, "indivisible," come to think of it.

If a fetus is demonstrably not an individual, go ahead and demonstrate. And "genetically sovereign" just means that an organism has his or her own genetics. If you divide a fetus, you don't get two fetuses. That's what indivisible means.