|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
I fear you may have picked a bad analogy here..
It is your problem if you have cause that person to be in your house (against their will) and put them in a situation where they have dependancy on your 'Hospitality' for their very existance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
I'm treading a fine line here, because this issue is one I have real problems forming a solid opinion on.
But your analogies are flawed.
crashfrog writes:
So.. whose 'will' was involved? was there any free will in this situation? For sure Not in the impregnation. I think you've made it pretty clear that you were not inviting the zygote over; the zygote entered, in fact, clearly against your will.But the will of the consenting adults brought about the risky situation which gave the opportunity for the conception to occur. I feel like I have argued this point re Adam and eve's free will with Iano a few times. Then I felt that God was guilty of bringing about the circumstances of the fall. I think the same opinion applies here inso far as the parents brought about the conception of the child/embryo. or rather they took the risk knowingly.
crashfrog writes:
again.. this all revolves around intent on the part of the intruder. If I open a window to cool a pie, and you use it to break into my kitchen, that's unlawful entry, even though my actions provided the mode of egress. My will was obviously that you not break into my house; it doesn't matter what actions I took that allowed you to get inside.The only intent in an unwanted pregnancy was the intent to have sex, and the intent to knowingly use methods of contraception know to be less than 100% effective. Of course untill agreement is reached on the status of the embryo as person or a clump of cells (which is strangely barred from this debate) the argument remains impotent (pun intended)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
So..
If a man and woman have consentual, protected sex. While outside, in a futuristic car(for pleasure), while smoking a cigarette. But still get pregnant. Should they have the baby in a restaurant?or.. terminate it and have some of the pie that was cooling on crashfrog's window? sorry.. it's been a long day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Ok.. so consider that it has free will. How can it act on it's free will? If it 'decides' that it doesn't want to be there what can it do? If it decides that it wants to stay what can it do? Unborn babies react to stimuli, move about when uncomfortable etc etc. (without being able to communicate or enforce its "will") much like a newborn does.
For the zygote? I'm sorry, I was arguing from the position that the zygote was a person. If it's a person then it has free will crashfrog writes:
A new born child may have free will, but has no capacity to act on it other than to wave it arms and crap itself. If what we're talking about here is a willess mass of cells with no capacity for independant action "will" and "ability to act or communicate that will" are two different things But we're now heading into the realms of the human/not human debate.I think RiverRat was naive to expect that it not be a part of this debate. If the embryo is to be treated as a clump of cells or a vestigal organ that must be removed. then there is absolutely no problem.If it is to be treated as a person then there are issues. before you go getting all "hoity-toity" I'm coming down on either side of this. I was originally just pointing out that your analogy with a burglar doesn't really hold here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
That's not what I said
without consciousness crashfrog writes:
I feel it's morally wrong to destroy an animals life.
I still don't see how it becomes a moral wrong to destroy that life crashfrog writes:
RiverRat has stated stated that he felt that was an exception along with rape, for the purposes of this dicussion.. (at least he did in the PNT). Regardless.. not all pregnancies are harmful.
Particularly when its presence is harmful crashfrog writes: If it's a human with every identical right as a fully-fledged adult, as is often put forth, then it's also a human with responsibilities that can be held accountable for its actions. So.. what exactly do you see as being the difference between a late term foetus, and a newborn baby? Both are fully dependant on a 'parent'Both cannot really exert their will or communicate their wishes. Both are living. This is where I have problems with this issue. Does the newborn have responsibilities? can it be held accountable for its actions? or, is it ok to terminate it if you decide it's unwanted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
that's an entirely different discussion
Plants, too? Insects? I'm just curious how far vegetarianism goes. crashfrog writes:
But the woman/man involved are responsible (through their intercourse) for that 'human being' being there. therefore I see it as their responsibility to ensure the welfare of that 'human being' but it doesn't place any onus on the woman to meet those responsibilities if she opts not to allow another human being to reside inside of her and leach nourishment from her body at a potential risk to her health. If you get me in a situation (intentionally or by accident) whereby i am dependant on your actions for my survival. Is it moral for you to ignore my welfare? given that I wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for you? for example.. you drive into in your car, an inquest shows that although unintentional, you are at fault. I now depend on your insurance or your money to pay for my life saving hospital operation.By your logic, you have absolutely no responsibility to ensure my welfare. crashfrog writes:
I'm not sure that I said the zygote is a 'fully fledged' human (whatever that is). but I certainly don't think it is responsible for its own existance in any way.
You can't say that the zygote is a fully-fledged human, but then deny it has any responsibilities vis-a-vis its trespassing on another human's body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
{ABE:
crashfrog writes:
If you had the skills, and if in fact you were the ONLY person who had the required skills, do you not feel you would be obligated to use them to save my life?} I'm not the one who's obligated to perform the surgeries, etc. Financial or moral... you have a responsibility to do whatever you can to help me seeing as you put me in this position.admittedly I would draw the line at endangering your own life. crashfrog writes:
I'm not sure I have a definite 'position' to disagree with
and perhaps people like me who disagree with your position entirely crashfrog writes:
I would suggest that very few, if any, abortions were carried out as a result of a womans fear for her bodies 'resources'. except in life threatening situations. leech off her body's resources. Edited by Creavolution, : inital paragraph added to Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
and if I was say.. 1 day old child? Yeah, because you're a fellow mind; an adult of independent will and experience. A unique individual, fully human. we're heading toward the crux of the whole matter here. at what point does the clump of cells become a human.
crashfrog writes:
good question, we take risks all the time, walking on a busy street, driving a car, riding a motorcycle, getting pregnant... It would be interesting to see what the biggest killers were
How much danger are we talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
riverrat writes:
You've approached this topic from a very strange angle IMHO,
We are not talking about morals here. Firstly:I don't see how you can exclude the issue of morals in one breath and in the next talk about infringing the personal freedoms of another 'person' in the next. the two are inextricably linked. And both are certainly core to this topic. Secondly:Dicussing this without a clear opinion/position on when the fertilised egg becomes fully human is pointless, untill that is decided you may as well be having your appendix removed. That said I think the 'burglar' or 'trespasser' analogies here are seriously flawed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024