Abortion is about the most fundamental human right: self-ownership

Hmm, how about the fact that it's fundamental, as you just said?

 

define fundamental and how does that equate to something being a right.

 

A fundamental right is thus a "necessary base" upon which all other rights are built. If you don't have that, you don't have anything. No rights. We even acknowledge that animals have rights. Hell, we even acknowledge legally that corporations have rights, and they're imaginary constructs!

 

Your arguement really comes down to the baby not having a right to life because of the physical connection to the mother. That only admits to the unique situation, it does absolutely nothing to clarify the issue of whether the baby is human or not, or whether the baby has rights or not.

Your arguement also leads to the conclusion that once the baby reaches viability and can survive outside the mother, then it is an individual. At the point of viability, retaining the baby in the mother is not required and the womans discretion is limited to continuing the pregnancy or giving birth - abortion is no longer an option. Viability is as early as 21 weeks.

 

Abortion is still murder. People waive their sanctity of self when they elect to engage in sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy.

 

The baby does not have a right to life because it is not a biologically autonomous individual. Of course the baby is human, in the same way that my eyes are human or my heart is human. That does not make it an individual. Only individuals have individual rights. Only biologically autonomous human beings are individuals. A fetus is not a biologically autonomous human being, and thus cannot be said to have individual rights.

And yes, once the baby is not biologically dependent on the mother and can survive on its own, it is an individual human being with individual rights. A fetus in an artificial womb, however, is still not an individual--it is not autonomous, and its host has merely shifted.

 

That is an assertion without backing. People do no such thing when they elect to engage in sex. The onus is on you to prove that they do.

 

That is correct. The right to life is a fundamental individual human right. All human individuals have a fundamental right to life, rooted in the primary right of self-ownership. A fetus is not a human individual, and thus has no such right.

 

That would be incorrect. Let's for the sake of argument assume the "experimental fetus" grows into a Human Being. That child would soon grow to the fundamental understanding that it does not have a parent. It doesn't have an intimate connection with our human species. (I don't think we actually have allowed embryonic tests to reach the stage where an actual human has been born), in fact a link I once provided on a study in a discussion with Fugazi said specifically that the scientists couldn't have created that artificial being.

But that lack of any parental connection, may very well also create a form of developmental issues mentally. Who knows what kind of diseases or complications there could be as well. To insulate that artificial life will ever be on the same level as organic matter is simply laughable.

So a question beckons us: Of all the Artificial Beings, how many do we have? The ones we do have, rely largely on the sperm banks. That 'ability' can only be negated by the (selfish) actions of a human being(partially the woman, and the abortion doctor who makes a buck via the practice). In disagreeing with you and others, I'll condemn your 'intellectual' thought in the strongest terms possible:

It's your position that's opinionated, with at best a form of scientific "reasoning"(or shall we call it excuses) to justify our rather egotistic thoughts on human development.

Let's take a flower seed, if you take it out of the soil it won't be a flower. But that doesn't change the genetic DNA that would allow it to be a flower.

Let's ask a new question: On what authority does Humanity have to strip the right of life from a Sentient being on the verge of development?

Your argument for Self-Ownership denies the fetus its own right to Self-Determinism. Our Consciousness doesn't grant us some kind of rights.

We may believe so from an emotional standpoint, but indeed what of comas and other such conditions?

The reality is that both Fetus and Women have unalienable rights. They're equals, and only the Abortionist strips these rights from the Fetus.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, your position is one of supremacy. Your position denies the Cycle of Life in which all mammals participate in a manner of Biological Law. That's why I call it dancing and will never acknowledge it. My position is also unbreakable, because it's a position of Naturalism.

Through my searching of the internet, I cannot find an example of a parasite bestowing its own characteristics unto the human body. In fact, most cases seem to be US extracting the element from parasites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticoagulant (Forgive the Wiki use, but I think it's better than plastering the post with a bunch of links to prove our extraction of the element).

There's also the fact that the parasite is a foreign entity taking root in the host's body. Do you want to know what the difference is with a fetus?(Specifically, sperm).

Human Sperm comes from **gasp** Humans! Furthermore, it's been scientifically proven that other species cannot impregnate humans(or vice versa).

Not only is a fetus NOT a parasite, it doesn't have any parasitical tendencies. To claim it has parasitical tendencies, you'd have to prove that a direct action of the fetus is responsible for the loss of life of the woman.



This is where my link on exercise comes into play, the former argument by many here(and I'm sure your argument) was that women were bed-ridden. But the truth is that We thought of that in general as being the best thing for pregnancy. In the future, we may decide the best thing is for women to continue their daily lives/health routines.

We may even have a 180* degree attitude on pregnancies(for example, there's some scientific correlation between a healthy birth and healthy breast tissues to fight breast cancer).

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/about.html

The freaking Center for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't define a fetus as a parasite. I'd think they'd know.

Given my own interpretation, I can safely say your opinion borderlines on biological delusion. I won't even entertain it, so if you claim yourself an intellectual please support Abortion through something that actually makes sense.

That goes to everyone else who believed in this utter farce.(There are far too many of you to respond, with basically the same intellectual flaw). Your fourth point is also a laughable utter farce that I'll gladly expose.

I just did, tough luck. Now, to dismantle this laughable proposition. Do you think to yourself when you're writing something? An expert writer often stops and thinks to himself "Does this actually make sense"?

A liver is merely a part of an individual being. Forget the consciousness part, it merely has a biological function that can only function as long as the body itself remains in tact. A liver cannot reproduce, a liver doesn't have any reproductive traits. It has no life signs, or anything at all. It has Human DNA because it was a part of human's body.

You're good for humor, I'll grant you that.

The Truth is not a strawman, it's Truth. The highest form of knowledge. If you dare call yourself an intellectual, what you should be pursuing is truth, not Confirmation Bias. The fact that abortion is debated, is proof that the Abortion theory holds no truth.

Here's the Cold Hard Truth:

Biological Autonomy(Grandpierre, Kafatos)(2013)

"the number of
molecular reactions in an average cell must be by order of magnitude around 108/sec/cell. The corresponding
rate of information processing characterizing the intrinsic activity of the cells at the molecular level is estimated
to be roughly 108 bits/sec/cell (Grandpierre 2008 ). This means that there is something like 19 orders of
magnitude difference between the rate of information processing of human self-consciousness and that of
molecular-level cellular activity. It is already known that self-consciousness represents only an infinitesimal
fraction of our ability to process information (Norretranders 1998, 124-56)."

One more quote from this delicious paper I found.

"organisms must continuously solve newly encountered tasks in their daily lives.
Organisms must have certain intelligence since they can solve problems that no specific individual in the
evolutionary history of the species has solved before (M. Heisenberg 2009). Accordingly, numerical estimations
indicate that a significant part of the thermodynamic potential of cells is utilized to generate novel information
(Grandpierre 2008 ).".

To put it in layman terms for everyone, there's a reason a fish is able to find its way back to the group. A reason why the house trained animal, after living a certain place for a number of years is able to come back home. The Fetus itself is created through various mechanisms that have to be fulfilled.

The aforementioned study basically craps on the theory of randomization for these acts, and basically does what Liberalis says is impossible: It grants a form of consciousness to any and all living organisms. They don't have to be conscious in the "present context".

Game, Set and Match. Observable Nature denies a form of supremacy. The only difference between a child and a zygote, is merely the difference of biological evolution. Or is a teenager or an adult a vastly different species from a child?

The cycle of life cannot be negated or interpreted for the whims of social benefits. That's all your doing here.

 

Um, if the e baby in the womb is not an individual human being, then explain how we can cure and treat diseases of said baby in the womb, that the mother does not have, but the baby does?

And you claim the baby is not an individual until the baby can survive on the own. Well, wha do you consider say, a 16 month old child? That child cannot survive on its own without the aid of his mother. So with your warped logic, this 16 month old child can be "aborted".

 

Quote prometeus:

In this very same forum is an opinion poll, subject: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science.
The opening statement by the creator of the poll: YES, it is.
Until present 30.77% of voters confirm, 63. 46 % reject the claim, 5.77% are undecided.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=227355

Statements like:

reveal either that the author has not the slightest understanding of human ethics, in which nothing is to be "understood", to be "grasped" or of which someone has to have a "clue" about. Ethics always is a matter of personal opinion,which is influenced by knowledge, belief and background. There are however basic ethical principles about which a society has found a consent. One of those principles is the right of life. None of those principles cannot be discussed, amended in consent or be subject to exceptions. The right of life has exceptions. Those are justified by a societes right to be protected from crime, the right to defend oneself or in cases ones own life is in danger.

Making an exception from a fetus right of life can be subject of consent. It must however be clear for the society that in this case the right of a mother to live an easy, independent and financially more comfortable life allegedly more full of profane pleasure and todays women's general refusal to accept any responsibility for others or even for own deeds has a higher ethical value as the right of an unborn human being to become a full grown living being outside of his/her first protective environment.

All other cases like mothers being vitally endangered by pregnancy or victim of rape, the pregnancy "killing" the mother psychologically or any other case of emergency are out of question., Those cases justify abortion. Only the lowering of ethical standards of the state downto the level of feminists, who do not want to be aware of the fact that living beings have basic rights but also basic responsibilities, that is the matter of the present discussion. This Armaggedon of ethics would occur if abortion would be subject of a mother's choice only. Societies must decide if they are willing and able to take that risk. Lowering ethical standards on one place always lowers them in many others. To my opinion societies cannot survive such a fiasco.


That is however my own personal opinion and I am not a prophet. I was pro abortion until present but with this discussion I am beginning to change my mind. I am beginnig to realize that women of today are egocentric, dishonest and infantile.

The change from "protective" to hostile seems to characterize not only the outer but also the inner reality of women becoming feminists. In that vicinity nobody and nothing can survive. My regrets are with the fetus. They die for a political obession. I am therefore fully aware that I have turned into an anti feminist, politically incorrect and patriarchaic misogynist. At least I have learned why the Patriarchat in ancient times has oppressed women: because they deserve it and because it is necessary for a society to survive.

 

Irrelevant speculation. The fact the a fetus was created through natural processes does not make it a biologically autonomous human individual deserving of individual human rights. I also never said a word about how viable artificial human life would be. That is another strawman on your part.

None of that addresses my point in the slightest. You just went off and threw out a punch of different ideas and assertions. The fact remains that a potential X is not an actual X. Thus a potential human individual is not an actual human individual. Only actual human individuals have the right to self-determinism, self-ownership, etc. A potential human individual has only potential rights--in other words, none. A fetus is a potential human individual, and thus has none of the rights you are throwing out. So yes, the woman is supreme--she, in contrast to the fetus, is an actual human individual, with actual individual rights. The fetus has no rights.

Whether or not a parasite bestows its own characteristics on the host is irrelevant and doesn't even make sense to this discussion. The fact is that a leech, which is a parasite, can be used to prevent blood clots (coagulation). The fact that a leech may provide a benefit is irrelevant to it being a parasite--this you cannot deny. In the same way, whatever benefits a fetus may provide to the woman are equally irrelevant.

Again, to say a fetus has no parasitic tendencies is laughable. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for resources necessary for their survival, such as food, water, heat, or habitat. A fetus does all of these things. Also, parasites typically do not kill their hosts...otherwise they would die. So to say in order to prove a fetus is a parasite I have to prove it causes the loss of life of a woman is completely absurd--parasites typically keep their hosts alive. I support abortion not because a fetus is a parasite, but because a woman has a right to self-ownership. Again, you throw out a strawman. This topic is not titled "a woman has a right to an abortion because a fetus is a parasite."

No you didn't. And considering the bulk of your response is now ad hominem, it is clear you are failing to come up with an actual rational argument in response to my own. Typical, unfortunately.

If a grow a liver from stem cells in a lab, thus meaning it was never part of a human being, it is still not an individual human being.

You say a liver is not a human being because: it cannot reproduce and doesn't have reproductive traits. Neither does a fetus. You also say a liver shows no signs of life...that is completely false. A liver is fully alive. It is simply not an individual human organism. The same holds true for a fetus, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.

Nope, like I said, you began your previous post with a strawman. That is not truth. Your study is irrelevant. A fetus/zygote is not a human organism, in the same way that a liver is not. It is not a biologically autonomous individual. A zygote becoming a child is not evolution. It is development. A fetus is developing into an autonomous human individual, but it is not yet one. We can therefore not give it the same rights as autonomous human individuals. Likewise, a 10 year old is not an adult, and does not have the same rights as an adult. Should 10 year olds be able to vote or buy alcohol because they are "potential" adults? Of course not. It is equally ridiculous to say that a fetus has a right to self-ownership because it is a "potential" individual.

In your entire longwinded post, you said the same thing I already refuted, just in more words. That is the sign of a failing argument.

 

You have two arguments.

First, you claim that being able to cure and treat diseases of something human makes it an individual human being. This is a very strange and unheard of definition of what it means to be an individual organism of a species. An infected organ can be cured of diseases that other organs do not have. That does not make the organ an individual human being. For example, say I have prostate and lung cancer. My prostate cancer may be eradicated, but I still have lung cancer. Because the prostate is no longer cancerous, does that mean it is an individual human being? Of course not. Likewise, single cells in human beings are cured of viruses and bacterial infections by our immune systems, while others are still sick. Again, that does not make the cured cells individuals. Your notion makes no sense whatsoever.

Second, you claim that I said a baby is not an individual until it can survive on its own. That is a strawman. I said a fetus is not an individual until it is biologically autonomous. I can only assume that you did not read the entire OP, because it addressed your point explicitly: "Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences."

 

So now you are changing your arguement. At first, the degree of care required to keep the baby alive was not relevent. The fact that the baby was dependent upon the mother was not relevent either. Remember this:

"Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences."​

It was the physical connection to the mother that meant the baby was not a "biologically discrete person" and denied the baby its right to life. Remember this from your post #1:

"As long as the fetus is physically within the woman's body, nourished by the food she eats, sustained by the air she breathes, dependent upon her circulatory and respiratory system, it cannot claim individual rights because it is not an individual. It is part of the woman's body and subject to her discretion."​

A baby in an artificial womb is totally independent of the mother. Once the baby reaches viability, it can be totally independent of the mother, and abortion is no longer an option.

And how are you going to define "host"? What is the difference between a baby in an incubator, a person on dialysis, a person in the late stages of dementia and requiring total care 24/7, and a paralyzed war veteran? All have "hosts" of equal importance.

 

Well, since being human isn't enough for you, I guess I should point out that the mother isn't an individual either. When pregnant, a woman is not a single human (which is the very definition of an individual.), but a symbiotic mix of two humans.

 

That study specifically disproved your notion that a fetus had to develop a form of self-consciousness in order to be appropriated as a living being. The fact that you couldn't recognize that(among other things) proves your intellectual inferiority.

We're done, you just claimed a non-sentient bodily function(a liver) is a living being. Although I will give you some points for being honest in admitting belief to Supremacism(which was also flatly denied). Those seemingly supreme humans were born through the same cycle aforementioned.

If the-so called "potential" humans can be denied their rights, I equally deny the same rights to the "current" Humans. Because they're no better or worse, or biologically different.

I want you to define and separate the so-called "potential" being from the human being, and you can no longer do so since I refuted and thoroughly debunked the notion of potentiality via consciousness.

You CAN'T. You'd have to define them as an entirely separate species.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus

Playing with you is cute, but your theory is improvable, in fact it's so flimsy it's not even worth discussing. Do us all a favor by choosing a new theory. Either that, or by creating a new definition for the fetus.

And I'd like some evidence to solidify this new definition, which will be superior to the one I just gave you ROFL.

 

It's not about being Biologically the same or different, it's about whether or not a human being has the right to make life-changing medical decisions about their own autonomy and whether or not a certain subset of people (quite specifically women) should be denied the right to bodily integrity, the most basic of all human rights, because if we do not own our own bodies, then what rights do we really have?

 

Hey RTL, haven't seen you in a long while. How you been?

Also I think my jaw hit the floor at your admission to being pro-choice now. May I ask what changed your view?

 

We own our own body, that's a fact. But our bodily ownership does not in anyway permit us to deny the same ownership to the fetus(which, as the pregnancy develops, gains more and more independence.). It's true that the mother's body is the source for the child, but if a mother is also aware of her own health, she can easily come out of a pregnancy just as well-off as she was pre-pregnancy. Quite controversially, some women have come out and have said much to the same effect.

Pregnancy doesn't have to overpower women, and women don't have to violate a baby's developmental phase to ensure good health. Only in the most extreme cases where said pregnancy actually does threaten a woman's life, would I agree.

Otherwise, I believe we have an obligation to children, no different from ages 0-18. A bird has to build a nest, other animals have to also take precautions. Our superiority is that the Human Ecosystem is separate from and entirely superior to animals.

In the future, science will evolve and we'll solve even more and more problems. As long as we maintain morality surrounding human life, our species will never truly diminish.

We've lived through the Black Plague, the Nazis, etc all in tact. And we can continue to live. But the idea of human life being subjective is our greatest test yet.

 

There are plenty of risks involved with pregnancy and the risk of death is always there. Why do you think pregnancies are monitored so much for the whole nine months? Because physicians know things can go from perfectly fine and healthy to totally dangerous and unhealthy at any time.

If a woman is to take these kinds of risks she should have all medical say in them and the option of ending the pregnancy early on should always be a safe and available option for her.

Well then we will agree to disagree because I just don't believe people should be forced to endure any kind of risk to their lives and health for the sake of another.

Is this really a fear people have? That the human race will start to dwindle and die off? At 7 billion and counting > http://www.worldometers.info/ < I hardly think we have anything to worry about, except killing ourselves off by destroying our eco-system with our indifferent consumerism and deprivation of resources form over consumption or perhaps through violence and war.

How melodramatic.

 

Being biologically autonomous is not only defined as "independent from the mother." To be a biologically autonomous individual means to be dependent on neither a mother nor a machine nor anything else living or not. Your reasoning would mean that if a zygote from the moment of conception is put into a futuristic machine that exactly simulates a mother, it would be biologically autonomous, but the same fetus left in the mother would not be.

I don't see how any of your other examples relate to a fetus in a womb feeding off the nutrients of the mother. You are going to have to explain how one can possibly say that a person on dialysis is acting as a parasite. I am using host in the biological sense. The host is what harbors a parasite. I don't see how you can possibly say a person an dialysis, or someone who has dementia, or a paralyzed veteran is a parasite. None of them are remotely similar to the parasitic attributes of a fetus.

 

The hair on my head is also human, and that is also not enough to make my hair an individual. A woman is always a single human individual. When pregnant, she is an individual with something inside of her. At best you can say the woman is an individual with another individual inside of her--she does not suddenly lose her individuality by becoming pregnant. Still, no individual has the right to live inside the body of another individual, so even if you grant a fetus individuality it can still be aborted.

Furthermore, the fetus is not an individual, so it has no rights. Only biologically autonomous beings are individual, and the fetus is simply not that.

 

You can stop right there because that is a strawman, which I already pointed out. My argument has consistently been that a fetus is not an individual because it is not biologically autonomous.

I claimed no such thing. I even explicitly claimed the opposite--twice. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you aren't even responding to my actual argument at this point, and you are clearly doing so intentionally.

 

Hey! I've been great, yourself?

Also, I've just really though about it and looked up the stats. I found out that most people that get abortions are single, unmarried young women. Who are around the poverty line. I really can't see any good coming from that, for anyone involved. For instance my family told me about one of my cousins who got an abortion. She was like 19 at the time, broke, semi-psychotic and her boyfriend was a deadbeat who she left after a few months. I couldnt imagine her raising a kid, and would feel bad for the kid.

Personally I would never want to abort my own child, I believe I've told you this but if my girlfriend was to get pregnant unplanned, we would keep the baby. At this point we both have wealthy parents who would help with time and money. As well as me myself having some decent bank now that i've been working 4 years now and saving up. But at the same time I realize other people dont have my saftey net, they are poor and cannot provide for the child. Even they simply might not want the child even if they could support it. In the end, it doesnt effect me so it should be their choice.

Also I sort of realized that being anti abortion is simply hating on women for having sex. Because honestly I dont really care about these kids, I used to think I did but after thinking about it I really dont. Then I realized that also I didn't like the idea of no strings sex because I view it as something sacred. But I realized that is my personal preference, and others have differing opinions. So let every option be available for everyone as long as no one is hurt in the process.

Take a look at my signature, which shows my old and new views from last year and this year. I've changed like that with a lot of issues. Abortion, as well as same sex marriage and other issues. Not to mention I think these minor issues are pawns/fake issues brought up to distract people and have the "poor vs poor" so the wealthy and issues of income inequality are ignored and continue to plunder.

Also, I realized that neither side is ever going to end abortion. Republicans had control of the white house before obama for like 28 of the last 40 years. Abortion passed under nixon, the republicans all added supreme court justices, and had control of the entire legislature multiple times. not once did they try to end abortion, obviously because they support it as well. Its common sense, we can barley provide for the poor now. We'd turn into India if abortion was made illegal and we'd become broke, both parties know this.

 

Precisely as you just said, she's an individual with another being inside of her. Her own individual will does not make her sacrosanct over the other life. Only an arrogant bias would make such a suggestion. That's the same basis that once legalized slavery, that continues to rape and torture all of mankind throughout our centuries of existence.

And my study proved to you that a fetus is biologically autonomous, actually, more to the point that any organic lifeform is autonomous by definition. There's no strawman, there is only truth.

As I said earlier, if we are to claim the fetus to be dependent, the child too is also dependent. By that same definition, if a fetus is not granted protection(which we know isn't true. See: Peterson case), then are you going to claim a child doesn't have the "right" to proper nutrition and care?

And if you didn't claim what you've posted, then what is this?

. No, it's not. Not that it's merely "not an individual", it's that hair is not an organic lifeform of any shape, size or form. Your argument is incoherent, illogical and it does not defend your statement about the fetus whatsoever.

Don't take it from me, there's evidence to the silliness of your proposition.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hair

http://hairfoundation.org/hair-library/article-hair-science.htm

It's about time you realized the false charges you've pinned against me, are accurate charges that I can and I will now pin against you for I am losing my patience with you. You've done nothing but post strawmans and ignore the counter argument. Actually, no, "ignoring" it would give you too much credit. You're so feeble you can't even understand.

I'll give you one last chance to prove that you didn't just quote intellectuals and choose the path of intellectualism in some flimsy hope of actually being one. You should realize by now that your position no longer has any merit. It's no longer scientifically possible to claim a fetus is NOT a sentient being.

I'm giving you a chance to come up with something else. Surely you can think of another reason besides so-called autonomy or racist supremacy. And if you can't, you shouldn't have bothered with the thread.