Firstly I want to thank you for your respectful intro, I really appreciate it. Now, in response to your first few arguments, I agree that if the unborn AREN'T human, then there is no need to justify abortion. But, if the unborn ARE human, then no justification of abortion is adequate. So the question is "Are the unborn human?" You bring up many arguments, but if you're interested in scinetific evidence and information, I invite you to take a look at my other video answering this very question.
@FyreFoxXP That is inconsistent with the actual phenemology of our moral beliefs [the point that no possible justification is available for abortion if the fetus/embroyo is human]. Neither common-sense morality or various ethical theories are likely to commit speciesism to this degree. If we one day had some intergalactic, multi-species society, would it be [on a general level] okay to murder, rape, or steal from our sentient [and conscious] neighbours because they are not human?
ABORTION IS A CIVIL/CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
no human has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not force to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception.
consensual sex =/= a legal, binding contract for an unwanted fetus to live.
@Dhorpatan Actually by the definition that "a person is by definition a human being an individual, the physical body of a specified individual," a fetal child would be by definition a person:
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." ~Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Genetics Professor at the University of Descartes
Notice that this is not mutually contradictory to being attached to another person or else conjoined twins wouldn't be persons.
a parasitic relationship occurs between organisms of two different species. therefore a baby is not a parasite. For the dumbasses that said that a fetus is a parasite.
as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—-so her body won't KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!
wikipedia org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
"it is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
answers com/topic/symbiosis —–Gale's Science of Everyday Things:
@galerouth symbiosis- Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.
@galerouth as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—-so her body won't KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!
wikipedia org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
That little girls parents are morons. I baby in the womb is defined as a parasite. A parasite is defined as any living thing that can not live without feeding off, or assistance from another living object. If you took the baby out after the 2nd trimester, could it live on its own? I think not :D
By the way Dhorpatan, I love your videos, you show rebutle and argument, instead of just pure opinion like that little girl, or her parents. I especially love your videos on anti-christianity.
I have a way to shut up people that have made this girl do this video. You dont want people to abort unwanted babys, fine put your name on a list and we'll match you with a baby a woman didnt want and you can raise it, that way no babys die and they all go to people that want them. I've talked with my wife, in the unlikely event we find out the fetus has downs we're aborting it.
"almost 1/3 of all women who have an abortion are dissatisfied with their decision." LOL... sounds like most of them were quite happy with their decision.
Anti-abortionists are vicious life-haters. A WOMAN'S RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY BASED ON YOUR MYSTICAL RELIGION, OR ON THE RIGHTS OF A NON-INDIVIDUAL.
@nathanreinhardt Happy with their decisions? Nobody sane is happy to have an abortion. I do believe that people should have the right to commit abortion of the fetus. There medical reasons to do so. There are also lots of people who would adopt a baby. Abortions suck. They are not a fun visit to the doctor or coat hanger. But I believe is a a procedure that should be kept as a last measure for the safety of life.
Risk is unavoidable . . . insurance can be purchased to provide protection from these risks. It is not moral for other people to have to bear your risk for you . . . in this case, the fetus. I can see "unwanted pregnancy" insurance arising for cases where the mother had no control over whether she became pregnant or not (i.e. rape). In rape cases, it would be in the best interest of the insurance company to apprehend and prevent rapists, otherwise they would have to indemnify their clients.
At conception, the genetic makeup of the zygote is comprised of DNA from both the mother and the father, which makes it separate from the mother. This makes the point of conception the beginning of a life; this is irrefutable. Any other distinction is arbitrary. True, the fetus resides in the mother's body, and is dependent on the mother for its survival. However, this fact does nothing to deny the existence of the right to life that a fetus has a rightful claim to.
ur not taking the choice away, a women could still have an abortion(illegally), now hypothetically if abortion is wrong, then it ought to be outlawed, in the same way that murder is outlawed, an exception to this would be if the life of the mother is endangered in which case it is more good(more good? haha) to save one life than lose two.
and what about the mothers choice for a better life for herself?, maybe the child would be brought into a house of violence, hence the mother made the best choice.
@neoarcadezr Thanks for your sympathy, but I really don't need it, seeing as I chose to do this video on my own. I'm now 15 years old and I'm still making videos and speaking on this issue, so this is entirely my own choice, but thanks.
yes objectivism is living for self interest but rand's rule of "without sacrificing yourself for others, nor others for yourself" we all know abortion isnt murder. murder is the taking of life, abortion is the denial of life. therefore abortion is the denial of life for self interest which would make it a sacrifice.also rand stated that man cannot control nature, and abortion is preventing childbirth/controlling nature which is kindve a fallacy from this standpoint but this is my opinion so yea
That's not what he's saying. His argument is on a philosophical level which is much deeper than you are understanding it.
It is the question, on an ontological level, "What IS Goodness." Because morality is just the choosing of the good over the evil.
If you belief the quality we call "good" has an objective existence transcendent of any subjective interpretation, you have a hard time explaining it while denying the existence of God.
I dont believe anything moral exists on an objective level, but when I say "moral" I refer to the ones that are kinda stablished in our society, Im talking about not hurting others... or the famous "dont do something to others that you dont want to be done to yourself"...
I know there isnt anything we could call objective morality...
But you see, that's the basis for why he said "if you rule out God there is no basis for morality anyway."
Agreed, this alone does nothing to prove that God exists (although there are proofs related to this question). But it does accurately sum up the practical situation, as observed by Nietzsche, Sartre and others.
The problem with moral relativity is that not everyone agrees about what is moral. Even Hitler believed he was acting on his morality, as a savior to society.
your argument fails because the fetus is a separate human being as evidenced by the fact that it has his/her own unique DNA. It has a separate body growing in the womb. It is connected and dependent on the woman yes, but not the same person. The woman should not be compelled to provide her body as a natural life support system to the fetus.
I am a libertarian Christian but am repulsed by objectivism. How can you have a truly ethical system based on "self interest". We as a society should strive for a higher value system than self interest. How about the Golden Rule? Plus, if you rule out God there is no basis for morality anyway, everyone becomes a law unto themselves.
@Spillers72 Self interest it's NATURE. I'm not saying that all the people should be selfish and never help others. But the acction of helping it's a CHOISE you don't NEED to help others if you don't want.
We humans like all animals we always think about survival of ourselves, then are the things or the people that interest you.
But first you are the most important "thing" for yourself.
Men need to have equal reproductive rights and that means the right to legally force women into an abortion if they don't want to have a child against their own will!
Men has all the right in the world to produce sperm, that doesnt mean we should make it legal for women to kick them in the balls and in return legal for men to forcefully abort fetuses in the woman's belly..
Human rights and all that 'complicated' stuff you know..
Men need to have equal reproductive rights and that means the right to legally force women into an abortion if they don't want to have a child against their own will!
and as a follow-up to that I would ask you at one point does it become an individual. Science is ever evolving so that now we can save children at half term. Are we then basing individuals rights on how soon we can get them out of the oven?
at 3:50you say that it does not become a person until it is outside of the female body so by that assumption we should be able to abort right up until and including the time a woman is in labor so you could perform an abortion at nine months so long that she has not actually given birth?
first of all I I can't believe that you're basing your argument on the definition of words found on the Internet. Your assumption that because an individual is parasitic in nature that they have no individual rights is misguided to say the least. The handicapped would perish without the assistance of others so by our philosophy we should be able to kill them when they become inconvenient
I'm not Christian and I think abortion is a despicable excuse to avoid taking responsibility for your actions. What about the man? He has no say in the matter! As a father of 2 and a 3rd on the way, I can assure you, A man can be just as emotionally tied to an unborn child as a woman. If my wife ever killed my unborn child, (She would never) she would find herself alone without me or our children. This girl is right! Some babies are born premature and live. We give ourselves far too many rights!
Here's a better way to argue for the right to abortion. Ask pro-lifer if denying a homelessman access to your house is murder if they are going to die out in the street on a cold winter night. Or ask them is not helping Dwarfur murder? If they say no that neither of those is murder then they have no reason for equating a cancellation of a pregnancy with murder.
@Dhorpatan. Except a it is "individual" in the sense that it is an individual organism. It may be connected to the mother sure, but it has it's own separate DNA.
And to back this up, let me point out Siamese twins. They are considered individuals in the same sense that they are "individual organisms," yet their bodies are connected.
Hey objectivist, could you explain to me how you have made such a blatent error in judgement? By your logic, until the baby is entirely disconnected from the mother, it is not an individual. How fucking stupid can you be. This means it can be born (cord still attached), and she is OK to kill it. It also means you can kill one half of a siamese twin. Also, theoretically the baby is allowed to kill the mother. You have a damn big mouth and a damn small brain. You are no objectivist.
@Mithcoriel Its also long and squishy, I don't see what relevance 'usefulness' has. He is saying that since the two individuals are not physically discrete, the smaller, nutrient receiving one is not an individual, thus can be destroyed. Thats ridiculous. And dependancy does not modify rights, thats just common sense. And the woman should be perfectly happy with the dependancy. Its her damn baby for fcksake. If a woman doesn't love her baby she is broken.
@tothemax01 What's long and squishy, the cord? Well I'm assuming Dhorpatan meant that you can't kill a baby if the only thing connecting it to the mother is the cord. I could also make an artificial meat cord between me and you, that doesn't mean we're not two individuals anymore.
Oh yeah, the woman should be perfectly happy with being forced to change her whole life around, that sounds great. I'm guessing you're not a woman? I'm quite sure you wouldn't say that if you were pregnant unwanted.
@Mithcoriel The meat cord would not be human, so the persons would still be physically discrete. The inconvenience on the part of the woman, gives her no priviledge to kill someone, and her own child at that. Why not allow her to kill her 3 year old daughter, because she changes her life around?
Lets stick to the essence: when does a human life start, and when does it get rights.
@tothemax01 It's not just about dependancy. Making a child is a gradual process. You start with the woman's choice of wether she wants to have children, wether she wants to risk pregnancy by EVER having sex, wether she wants to use contraception, wether she should abort a tiny cluster of cells, an embryo, fetus...and in the end it's a complete person you shouldn't kill. We'd like everything to be black and white, with a clear line where it's murder. Where is that line, tell me?
Who is this girl, where did you find that video? I would very much like to know if she was simply given a script by a grownup and made to say this, without fully understanding it.
Or putting it in terms more familiar to Objectivists: abortion is like a government bailout ;) You shouldn't be running to the government for help, when it was YOU that made the risky choice knowing fully what the consequences can be.
Abortion is one of the very few issues on which I don't agree with Ayn Rand and Objectivists. First of all (linguistics aside) it's absurd that a creature is not a human in one second and a second later (after birth) it becomes human, even though nothing about it changed. Also: pregnancy doesn't just happen by itself. You have sex - you take the risks. I am supportive of abortion only in cases where the woman's right to decide about her life and body was breached (rape).
@Mithcoriel She knew there was a risk, and she still took it, or she didn't know there was a risk, in which case she is responsible for her ignorance. The baby, of course, it quite happily growing and starting its life, while the mother is humming a hahing about this issue, as though it was a decision about which handbag to buy. Fcked up world, it is.
@Mithcoriel Why would I suggest that? The whole concept of 'a baby as an evil' is horrific. The correct initial response to 'I am pregnant' should be 'that is wonderful', for both the man and the woman. The proceeding burden and corresponding discomfort should be offset by the couples love for each other, and the ultimate manifestation of that love, their child. If this is not the case, they have made errors (choosing their partner, rushing to sex too quickly etc).
@tothemax01 "while the mother is humming a hahing about this issue, as though it was a decision about which handbag to buy"
What exactly does it matter what attitude the mother might have while she decides if she should abort? My mom was probably "humming and hahing" about which man to marry at some point. If she hadn't picked my dad, it would have been fatal to me. Does that make the ease with which she decides evil in any way?
@Mithcoriel No contraceptive gives you guarantee, and when you use it you should be aware of that. So even if the risk is very small you still take it, you know about it and if you became pregnant it's through your actions and decisions. You have assumed the responsibility for the hypothetical child out of your own free will when you decided to copulate.
@khunag So you think people shouldn't be allowed to have sex at all, without accepting that their whole life could be messed up by pregnancy?
That sounds kinda like saying you're not allowed to eat cookies unless you accept that occasionally a cookies has a note in it saying "you must quit your job and dedicate your life to [insert a specific job you didn't want]" and you're legally bound to obey.
@Mithcoriel Sex is not cookies. A child is not a big deal. You don't need to quit your job to have one, that's just false. And if you're one of those people that would have to: well it's simple really - you need your legs? don't hack them off. Or don't eat the damn cookies all day long if you don't want to get fat ;) I'm happy to take the risk myself. I won't be counting on bailouts/abortion when i go bankrupt/pregnant (well, not me, I'm male ;) ).
@khunag A child is no big deal??? To anti-abortion people like you, who are quite happy with forcing women to suddenly take care of unplanned babies (assuming they tried to prevent them but it failed once), I'd just like to say: why don't you find a woman who's planning on having an abortion, and save the child by offering to raise it yourself? It's so easy to tell someone else what they "must" do, especially if you can never be in that situation yourself.
@Mithcoriel If the woman has not been raped it's not an unplanned babies. It's like cutting your leg off and being surprised you have no leg, demanding a new one.
@khunag You know there are plenty of pro-lifers who end up having an abortion after all, saying "Hey, the condom burst, I had no choice!"
People should be able to enjoy sex without ever having children. And the cutting the leg off comparison is just stupid. It's more like: a person works with a chainsaw, has an accident and looses a leg. He's given the choice to magically regrow the leg, but you insist he can't, cause he should live with the consequences of the risk, despite this not helping.
@khunag Which takes us back to the issue of whether the fetus is a human or not. I say it's not in this respect, cause it can't feel pain or fear of its death, it hasn't yet started a life which would be destroyed if it's killed. It's still just a bunch of cells. Cells with potential, yes, but nothing that can feel harm.
The parent is a person with a lot to loose. What does the fetus lose if it dies?
@khunag I don't see the logic of how you're perfectly cool with preventing is future person from ever existing by using contraception, but if you prevent the future person from ever existing by aborting an embryo, it's a huge difference. You do realize that to the aborted child there is no difference, right? Both "feels" exactly the same to it: nothing at all. Both has the same result. Only in one, a bunch of cells live and divide for a while. Do you think the fetus cares about that difference?
@Mithcoriel You think it's a future person, I think it's already a person. I know some people that are nothing but a poison to this world and everyone would be better off if they died. I do not have th right to kill them however even if their value is much lower than the "bunch of cells" that is the fetus.
@khunag I would never say a criminal should be killed! Their value is far greater than that of a fetus, they are conscious, they feel pain and fear, and they have lives to lose!
Ok, let's call the fetus a person, if you insist on that terminology. But it changes nothing, cause it's still a “person” who has nothing to loose and who won't feel pain, and that's why I think it's okay to kill it.
(Philosophical question: Which part of “being a person” makes it wrong to kill you?)
How about not getting pregnant if you don't want a child? Or are we such a stupid species that we can't grasp the idea of prevention? Humans never cease to amaze me.
@futbolangel02 You do know that pregnancy isn't voluntary, right? No prevention is 100% safe. Would you allow abortion, then, if the condom burst? How about if the woman forgot to take the pill once?
@Mithcoriel Pregnancy is voluntary. You voluntarily join your body with another in an act THAT YOU KNOW causes Pregnancy. Prevention is 100% safe. The word "prevention" means to stop something. Sex is for procreation not recreation. I don't want to get pregnant so I don't have sex. It works. I tested my own theory...I don't want to be pregnant so I'm not going to be pregnant. Sounds pretty smart to me. I'm pro-prevention...I have brought a solution and you want to battle me? Come on. Be smart.
@futbolangel02 Prevention is not 100% safe, genius. Kondoms and pills etc. have a success rate of 99% or something around there.
And saying sex is only for procreation is old-fashioned. It makes as much sense as saying eating is only for keeping yourself alive, and you should never add spices or eat a cake or anything that's just for the taste, only the nutrients. Couples should be allowed to express their love for each other and have fun, without the intention of making kids.
@Mithcoriel Then have an abortion. I don't care. I'm not against abortion if you can live with the guilt then have at it. I just brought a solution to the table. Look up the word "prevention" please. The thing with us geniuses is that we love words and we love definitions. Clearly prevention is 100% because the word itself means that whatever we are talking about was prevented. Never happened so it's a non-issue. P.S. Eating IS only for keeping yourself alive. :o) Thanks for the laugh.
Only in your silly repressed world view. You're also ignoring rape. I guess you'd want to coerce the rape victim into carrying and birthing the child.
@ephekt420 I'm all for abortion. Have all that you want if you can live with the guilt. I wouldn't have one. I just thought that maybe humans were smart enough to not get pregnant if they didn't want a baby. Guess I was wrong. I don't know where in my posts you fuckers get that I'm Anti-abortion. God forbid someone come up with a 3rd platform to your Pro Choice vs. Pro Life party. Did I ruin the party with a smart solution? Shouldn't be having sex if you don't want a baby.
Smart is understanding that sex has utility and is therefore not regulated to procreation. Smart would be realizing that, despite the view you put forth (which I agree with to an extent), the choice/life dichotomy is still quite sound. But I do apologize for misreading your posts. There was quite a bit of typically anti-abortionist language in them.
@ephekt420 I think what he's getting at is that sex's teleological function is procreation not recreation. This means that while we DO IT for recreation, its LOGICAL FUNCTION is procreation. As such sex is by definition reproductive behavior, and thus having children with it is a recognized sexual liability. Since children have rights as well the parental responsibility for said kids to be born is also a recognized sexual liability.
I was thinking moralistic. But it makes little sense in that framing either. Eating is unequivocally 'for' nourishment in a biological sense, and yet we enjoy food - even in the absence of nourishment - all the time. 'For' is mostly a social label.
Children do indeed have rights. A child is also defined as a human between the stages of birth and puberty. A blastocyst may or may not have rights depending on your ethic, but it has nothing to do with being a child.
@ephekt420 Right what I was getting at though was the connection between teleology and morality -via Aristotle. If something has a teleological function that sets it's "ought" parameter.
Now as for a blastocyst, first of all you are pointing to the "bite the bullet" part of the model pro-lifers use for personhood. But there are even more ridiculous "bite the bullet" examples with the models pro-choicers use. Secondly abortions aren't done on blastocysts.
I'm not sure what "bite the bullet" even means. However, I'm simply pointing out that, if used to support "pro-life," your argument would be disingenuous, as children _must_ have been born. I'm not terribly concerned with other's opinions of personhood, as they are necessarily arbitrary. I just want to prevent the state from answering this question.
@ephekt420 "So you want to derive an ought from an is here?"
Of course. You necessarily have to if you are to derive objectively true oughts. Without this there is no such thing as objective morality which is a preposterous conclusion and so the opposite must be true.
"Bite the bullet" points in philosophy are apparent absurdities which one has to hold in order to remain consistent with ones philosophic position. All models have them it's just a matter of where.
You're joking right? There is no such thing as an factual definition of 'person' that can be achieved objectively?
"prevent the state from answering this question."
Haha MUHAHA Very well, but then I call homo sacer on abortionists. I henceforth define them as non persons for summary liquidation. And the state can't tell me not to. Why? -it's my right to choose!
Ok, but the emotional category isn't relevant here because it's a person with objective rights regardless. Just image search abortion -it looks like a kid anyway. (It's not that it's emotional -just natural)
"Can you provide me with an objective definition?"
Ok, the manner in which they are similar is that they are both persons, and that before "fetus" came up as a term "unborn child" was common place as in phrases such as "mother with child."
"it's a person with objective rights regardless. "
"Ok, the manner in which they are similar is that they are both persons"
You're presupposing the thing you're supposed to be providing an objective definition of. I'm open if you can actually provide an one, but I believe I'm wasting my time here.
@ephekt420 Well the point is that I don't have to presuppose it, it is already defined that way from the dictionary. Person = human organism (we haven't found aliens yet). So it's common sense to say a fetal child is a person.
There is "personhood theory" as well and I can talk about that. Intelligence is a factor yes, but there's also identity. Namely, a person is the same "thing" all along. (ie. "you" were once a fetal child and that "you" is a person) The person has to be a concrete "thing."
You're still avoiding the central problem: philosophy has typically considered personhood to be endowed at birth. Magical thinkers say it's at conception. Others at gestation or viability. There is no objective means to determine when this social construct begins to apply, as it is a social label without any hard empirical analog.
@ephekt420 No, to consider personhood to begin at birth one would need to engage in magical thinking. Here's why: a natural a priori definition of personhood would have to be both precise and non-arbitrary. The fetal child does not change form a second before birth compared to a second after birth. Since it's the same being it is silly to say that it is not a person before and suddenly magically becomes a person afterwards for no other reason than where it happens to be.
@ephekt420 "Magical thinkers say it's at conception."
There's nothing magical about that. Perhaps it is a "hard point" for this model, but it is precise and non-arbitrary -it is a distinct organism at this point. (none of the other models give precise non-arbitrary points)
"or viability."
I never understood this position. What does viability have to do with personhood? It's like saying hair color has to do with personhood. It's completely irrelevant.
There is no "distinct organism" at the point of conception. There is a mass of cells that cannot exist outside the womb, which has none of the infrastructure or sentient capabilities persons have. This is what I mean by subjective; you want to use labels with rhetorical and emotional appeal without explaining why and glossing over the empirical base.
@ephekt420 "There is no "distinct organism" at the point of conception."
It has it's own genetic identity, and it is identical with the same being that we call a fetal child, baby, child, teenager and adult later on. Sure it can't exist outside by itself yet, but that is besides the point. It actually is an actual being with it's own DNA separate from the mother which will develop along that DNA just like any born organism. You can't take a biology class and not understand this.
@ephekt420 "There is no objective means to determine when this social construct begins to apply, as it is a social label without any hard empirical analog."
See that's where you're thinking goes all messed up. You aren't thinking objectively because you're starting point is wrong. Persons are real actual entities not "social constructs." So if you start from a subjective point of course you are going to reach subjective conclusions.
Empirically though a living organism begins at conception.
@ephekt420 Look if personhood is subjective, then what is OBJECTIVELY WRONG with doing anything at all? I mean if persons are subjective objective persons don't exist and therefore their objective rights don't exist either. Without objective rights to violate how could ANYTHING be defined as wrong? If that's so how is this different from moral relativism?
If we go down this path with moral relativism, then why can't I just assert my will on this issue? Relative to me it's the right thing to do.
I already explained that natural rights have historically been endowed at birth.
Morality is subjective and objective. Objective in the sense that it often speaks to real actions/consequences, but subjective in that each society or group tends to define their own moral codes. For example, a secular state and a theocracy may share some of the same determinations, but the theocracy will inevitable have some determinations based in nothing but myth.
@ephekt420 "I already explained that natural rights have historically been endowed at birth."
But you haven't explained why. Or why they should.
"but subjective in that each society or group tends to define their own moral codes."
Ok fine, but I'm a Straussian. I believe I have a right to manipulate society so as to ensure that this moral code aligns with my own enlightened code. Since morality is subjectively determined do you have a problem with this? It's my right to choose.
All of our systems are based around the concept of rights after birth, so your slippery slope doesn't apply. It only applies to questions of pre-birth rights. All I'm saying is that there is no objective metric for determining if rights are endowed at conception or beyond. I'd love to hear an argument that does this, but pointing to the dictionary or using biologically incorrect terminology will not get you this. Sorry.
@ephekt420 No "at birth" is an ad hoc addition here. No one said that "all our systems" are based on this concept. In fact this is why there is such a thing as an abortion debate at all.
"using biologically incorrect terminology will not get you this."
I'm not ignoring the biology here you are. If you want a concrete "entity" to point to to call a person it will have to be a biological entity. You are replacing biological entity though with "social construct." That's not objective.
@ephekt420 "All I'm saying is that there is no objective metric for determining if rights are endowed at conception or beyond."
Then how do we know that you or I even objectively have rights? What is a "right" without an objective person to have it anyway? This should be very easy, it's just a priori self-evident.
In effect, you would coerce the victim into carrying/birthing a constant reminder of her attack, thereby causing emotional suffering. Abortion causes no suffer prior to 24 weeks. I hold this to be unethical.
@ephekt420 Ok, here's the trouble and I see this over and over and over again in this debate. You are framing this in an emotional context rather than a logical context and the end result is that this is totally messing up your reasoning. Now follow this through:
The right to be free of emotional pain exists because one is alive in the first place. Thus one would not have the first right without the second. And so the second is greater. Yes it may be unpleasant, but logically it has to be so.
Really, you're proven that you can't actually back up your claims in an objective manner, thereby proving my point. Thank you for doing this so quickly.
I am framing this in an ethical context. If anything, you've appealed to emotion with your homo sacer rhetoric. I've tried to remain objective. I've even asked for an objective definition that would further your argument and you've so far avoided providing that. I do hope you will, but my patience is wearing thin.
Also, keep in mind that my positions is ONLY that there is no objective way to solve this issue, so evoking the state would effectively be collectivist tyranny.
@ephekt420 No, the homo sacer argument was simply the LOGICAL EXTENSION of what happens once the state is not allowed to define person. If everyone else gets to define person, then NO ONES rights are safe. Why? Because depending relative to another person's definition they may not even be persons at all!
Not that I would mind this scenario. My brother is joining Blackwater and I'm sure he will loan me some firepower when the free-for-all hits in. But this situation seems absurd to most people.
Natural rights, citizenship etc are endowed at birth so your argument is rather obtuse, and perhaps a bit disingenuous (assume you're not this shortsighted). The issue here is at which point, if any, do rights apply PRIOR TO BIRTH.
@ephekt420 No natural rights are INHERENT. Ie. they are INTRINSIC to a given being. If that being exists (in whatever stage of development) then that being has natural rights. Being given at birth is an artificial socially fabricated determination -which means these rights you are talking about are not natural at all.
@ephekt420 "Natural rights is a social construct, so you have little point there."
No, if they were natural then they would be existing naturally. They would not by definition be socially fabricated by a society. Duh! Socially fabricated rights are by definition synthetic rights or else they would be based on natural law rather than societal consensus.
@ephekt420 "I've even asked for an objective definition that would further your argument and you've so far avoided providing that."
I just gave you one though. Person = human being. And then I delved a little further into the concept of personhood and why exactly fetal children count as persons too.
@ephekt420 "Also, keep in mind that my positions is ONLY that there is no objective way to solve this issue, so evoking the state would effectively be collectivist tyranny."
But if there is no objective way to solve it, then there is no precise defining cutoff for when a person is a person -hence it would become a free-for-all. So this would trade a collectivist tyranny with a "state of nature tyranny" -everyone running around tyrannizing each other on whim.
There has never been an objective cutoff for personhood. Whether you say conception, gestation, viability, birth - it's all arbitrary and based not on empirical or scientific study. Your argument changes literally nothing, despite making a silly slippery slope and emotional appeal.
That siad, traditionally, personhood WAS measured at birth. See Robert Nisbet's Prejudices for a review of the historicity of abortion.
@ephekt420 "There has never been an objective cutoff for personhood."
Ok if there is no objective cutoff, then logically it follows that there are not objective criterion either. This means that the criterion are subjective and that therefore there are no OBJECTIVE PERSONS. This means I can determine personhood on a whim.
"the historicity of abortion."
You should read Leo Strauss on historicism. Because it is a form of sophistry. BTW when you reduce the debate to subjectives it's sophistry.
I find abortion regrettable but ethical up to the point the fetus feel pain (24 weeks). Others don't. I do not feel either side can provide a solid argument, so I'd like to leave the choice where it has traditionally been - with the mother/family.
As for your yoru rhetoric, I'd be more interested in your opinion on 'rape babies' and the mother's rights.
@ephekt420 Ok well I can respect that (at least you have a precise cut-off and are leaving it to unjustified existential choice) though I do disagree. (sleeping people lack pain and other conscious qualities)
@ephekt420 As for rape, first, I will point out that only 1% of abortions are done for this so why justify the 99% of the 1%. Secondly strictly logically think of it this way:
1. People are equal and have equal rights. (and so the mother is equal to her offspring)
2. If one had the choice of giving up ones right to live vs. giving up ones right to not have a rape baby one would choose the former because it is greater.
3. Therefore because of 1. the babies greater right takes priority here.
Your numbers, if real, are irrelevant to the question.
The problem with your "syllogism" is that you must implicitly assert that the non-sentient, non-feeling fetus' rights (which up until now you've merely presupposed - even when asked for an objective definition) is more important than the mother's right to self-ownership or happiness.
@ephekt420 Well no the rights of the fetal child are EQUAL to the rights of the mother. The trouble is that the PARTICULAR right in question of the fetal child happens to be greater than the PARTICULAR right in question of the mother.
life >> self-ownership
Now it's not exactly true about the fetal child being non-feeling and this is a separate issue, but feeling does not in itself make one not a person. An early enough fetal child is cognitively identical to sleeping person for example.
You haven't established why a fetus has rights in the first place. I'm well aware that you want to punish the victim with coercion, but can you provide an objective basis for doing so - as you claimed?
"Now it's not exactly true about the fetal child being non-feeling and this is a separate issue"
Fetuses cannot feel pain prior to 24 weeks. This was thought to be true for a long time and just recently proven conclusively. Newscientist did a write up on the article if you're interested.
Also, sleeping persons feel pain so this is obviously presumptuous at best.
The point is that aborting a fetus causes no pain or suffering, as the fetus lacks and has yet to be endowed with those abilities, while coercing a mother to birth a rape baby does. It's depraved.
@ephekt420 No sleeping persons do not feel anything. They are unconscious. If not then then comatose people.
As for the study this may have to do with the wiring of the brain, and this boils down to a matter of interpretation. Other studies I've seen say 13 weeks. The trouble is that pain is internal and so can't be determined empirically. Which exact arrangement corresponds to it? Who knows.
Nonsense. Pain inflicted during sleep wakes the person up.
The study was indeed based on nerve infrastructure. It's not "up in the air" as you'd like to claim, as pain signals cannot traverse infrastructure that doesn't yet exist. Older studies may indeed cite other period, but this newest - peer reviewed study - covers novel information. I'm sorry, but you'd really need to point to a proper meta-analysis to refute this.
@ephekt420 Not a comatose person, and it still takes a split second to wake the person up. And who ever said that the pleasure/pain dichotomy was the correct framework?
@ephekt420 "The point is that aborting a fetus causes no pain or suffering, as the fetus lacks and has yet to be endowed with those abilities, while coercing a mother to birth a rape baby does. It's depraved."
You are missing the point. You are breaking all of ethics down to a pleasure/pain dichotomy. And I reject that framework. For example it can be proven (via Kant's arguments) that for example suicide is wrong even if it reduces the amount of pain or suffering.
Suicide is tricky given what we know of depression et al. But in certain situations, I feel it would be depraved to not allow euthanasia. My grandfather, for example, recently died. He no longer wanted to live and so gave up eating. Some magical thinking moralistic douche might have tried to force him to stay alive - for their benefit - but we as a family decided to let him pass the way he wanted to. That's ethical.
Then you haven't read Kant. His argument was very logical, and it derived from a rigorous ethical model -ETHICAL RATIONALISM. His whole model was derived from pure logic so it's hard to see how it is "magical."
"That's ethical."
See you are making this up as you go along though. You are letting the "feel" of the situation determine what is best rather than a priori principles. With this approach how can you call this objectively ethical?
Perhaps I think a more consequentialist view is appropriate here? No, it must be that I'm making it up as I go - after all, anyone who rejects Kant's a priorism must be ill educated.
"Perhaps I think a more consequentialist view is appropriate here?"
Ok, I'm fine with some consequentialism, but you need an a priori basis for it. You'll need something like Kant to put a "basement" on your view. If not then it's just floating on thin air.
Consequentialism is based on consequences, but whose to say which consequences are better than worse or others? Without an a priori foundation you have no way to determine this, and it just becomes a matter of subjective choice.
10 Seconds in you see a little GIRL saying its my Choice O.o Well it was not her Choice it was Her MOMS and the little Girl is alive today - If she was aborted I bet the Sign would say "I never had a Choice "
@AudioRedemption So why aren't you making a baby right now? If your parents had been answering youtube comments that minute instead of sleeping with each other, you wouldn't be here now.
I am a huge fan of philological evaluations as per your definition of "person." Yet no one has suggested that that definition which you used is the correct one. From the only authoritative definition, the biological one, the embryo, from conception meets all six requirements for life (will post in another comment if you want). These requirements confirm a single cell embryo as independently alive, and a human apart from its mother.
Firstly I want to thank you for your respectful intro, I really appreciate it. Now, in response to your first few arguments, I agree that if the unborn AREN'T human, then there is no need to justify abortion. But, if the unborn ARE human, then no justification of abortion is adequate. So the question is "Are the unborn human?" You bring up many arguments, but if you're interested in scinetific evidence and information, I invite you to take a look at my other video answering this very question.
FyreFoxXP 3 months ago
@FyreFoxXP The title of the video is "Are the Unborn Human?"
FyreFoxXP 3 months ago
@FyreFoxXP That is inconsistent with the actual phenemology of our moral beliefs [the point that no possible justification is available for abortion if the fetus/embroyo is human]. Neither common-sense morality or various ethical theories are likely to commit speciesism to this degree. If we one day had some intergalactic, multi-species society, would it be [on a general level] okay to murder, rape, or steal from our sentient [and conscious] neighbours because they are not human?
xStrelok 3 months ago
@F
ABORTION IS A CIVIL/CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
no human has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not force to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception.
consensual sex =/= a legal, binding contract for an unwanted fetus to live.
galerouth 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan Actually by the definition that "a person is by definition a human being an individual, the physical body of a specified individual," a fetal child would be by definition a person:
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." ~Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Genetics Professor at the University of Descartes
Notice that this is not mutually contradictory to being attached to another person or else conjoined twins wouldn't be persons.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
Comment removed
GadgetGearup 4 months ago
She would make a great actor.
vain911 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Dhorpatan
a parasitic relationship occurs between organisms of two different species. therefore a baby is not a parasite. For the dumbasses that said that a fetus is a parasite.
MrRedo123123 8 months ago 5
fetus is a parasite:
as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—-so her body won't KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!
wikipedia org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
"it is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
answers com/topic/symbiosis —–Gale's Science of Everyday Things:
Symbiosis
galerouth 2 months ago
@galerouth symbiosis- Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.
MrRedo123123 2 months ago
@MrRedo123123www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis
MrRedo123123 2 months ago
@galerouth as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—-so her body won't KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!
wikipedia org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
..................read about the placenta
MrRedo123123 2 months ago
That little girls parents are morons. I baby in the womb is defined as a parasite. A parasite is defined as any living thing that can not live without feeding off, or assistance from another living object. If you took the baby out after the 2nd trimester, could it live on its own? I think not :D
By the way Dhorpatan, I love your videos, you show rebutle and argument, instead of just pure opinion like that little girl, or her parents. I especially love your videos on anti-christianity.
cjdabes 8 months ago
I agree with you but you dont have anything to do except critique little kids?
friedoctorock 8 months ago
fetus = parasite, not a person
I have a way to shut up people that have made this girl do this video. You dont want people to abort unwanted babys, fine put your name on a list and we'll match you with a baby a woman didnt want and you can raise it, that way no babys die and they all go to people that want them. I've talked with my wife, in the unlikely event we find out the fetus has downs we're aborting it.
Blueace12345 9 months ago
"almost 1/3 of all women who have an abortion are dissatisfied with their decision." LOL... sounds like most of them were quite happy with their decision.
Anti-abortionists are vicious life-haters. A WOMAN'S RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY BASED ON YOUR MYSTICAL RELIGION, OR ON THE RIGHTS OF A NON-INDIVIDUAL.
nathanreinhardt 10 months ago
@nathanreinhardt Happy with their decisions? Nobody sane is happy to have an abortion. I do believe that people should have the right to commit abortion of the fetus. There medical reasons to do so. There are also lots of people who would adopt a baby. Abortions suck. They are not a fun visit to the doctor or coat hanger. But I believe is a a procedure that should be kept as a last measure for the safety of life.
UltraEpicLoser 6 months ago
Risk is unavoidable . . . insurance can be purchased to provide protection from these risks. It is not moral for other people to have to bear your risk for you . . . in this case, the fetus. I can see "unwanted pregnancy" insurance arising for cases where the mother had no control over whether she became pregnant or not (i.e. rape). In rape cases, it would be in the best interest of the insurance company to apprehend and prevent rapists, otherwise they would have to indemnify their clients.
JeffL08 10 months ago
At conception, the genetic makeup of the zygote is comprised of DNA from both the mother and the father, which makes it separate from the mother. This makes the point of conception the beginning of a life; this is irrefutable. Any other distinction is arbitrary. True, the fetus resides in the mother's body, and is dependent on the mother for its survival. However, this fact does nothing to deny the existence of the right to life that a fetus has a rightful claim to.
JeffL08 10 months ago
her parents raised a demon child...
w4rr3np34c3 10 months ago
I wonder how many pro lifers adopt or foster these unwanted children?
HarrysSecret 11 months ago 3
Just stick a clothes hanger up there and scramble its brains a little! Job done.
garyheller55661 11 months ago
Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary
fe·tus definition: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception
Try looking fetus up next time. Fetuses ARE individual humans. Their dependency on the host body is irrelevant and does not diminish their personhood.
gambleor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ur not taking the choice away, a women could still have an abortion(illegally), now hypothetically if abortion is wrong, then it ought to be outlawed, in the same way that murder is outlawed, an exception to this would be if the life of the mother is endangered in which case it is more good(more good? haha) to save one life than lose two.
atbigdog24002 11 months ago
Comment removed
atbigdog24002 11 months ago
If you need to use online dictionaries for defining what a human being is...you've already lost the argument.
MoneyIsSilver 11 months ago 2
how can say that they "are going to live or die"?
"they" are not people yet.
and what about the mothers choice for a better life for herself?, maybe the child would be brought into a house of violence, hence the mother made the best choice.
d34dbol7 1 year ago
poor little girl forced by her parents to do this
neoarcadezr 1 year ago 9
@neoarcadezr Of course, if she had said "Christians are idiots", you'd be saying, "Boy, that kid sure knows how to think on her own". STFU.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 no i wouldn't say that so why dont you shut the fuck up :)
neoarcadezr 1 year ago
You are poor talking something like this. She is talking about painfool throuth
trebuch 9 months ago
@neoarcadezr
Forced? she seems quite voluntary.
Hyddrossil 5 months ago
@neoarcadezr Thanks for your sympathy, but I really don't need it, seeing as I chose to do this video on my own. I'm now 15 years old and I'm still making videos and speaking on this issue, so this is entirely my own choice, but thanks.
FyreFoxXP 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FyreFoxXP yea you are brainwashed into thinking that this is normal so i still feel for you :(
neoarcadezr 3 months ago
if someone was deciding i wouldn't die for a bullshit reason yet i couldn't do anything about it...i honestly wouldn't worry about it
hiimquinn 1 year ago
yes objectivism is living for self interest but rand's rule of "without sacrificing yourself for others, nor others for yourself" we all know abortion isnt murder. murder is the taking of life, abortion is the denial of life. therefore abortion is the denial of life for self interest which would make it a sacrifice.also rand stated that man cannot control nature, and abortion is preventing childbirth/controlling nature which is kindve a fallacy from this standpoint but this is my opinion so yea
lepreconstellmestuff 1 year ago
>if you rule out God there is no basis for morality anyway, everyone becomes a law unto themselves.
So you are saying that the only thing that keeps you a moral being is god... pathetic.
You should be moral regardless if a god is watching or not.
Brutal90Death 1 year ago
@Brutal90Death
That's not what he's saying. His argument is on a philosophical level which is much deeper than you are understanding it.
It is the question, on an ontological level, "What IS Goodness." Because morality is just the choosing of the good over the evil.
If you belief the quality we call "good" has an objective existence transcendent of any subjective interpretation, you have a hard time explaining it while denying the existence of God.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv
I dont believe anything moral exists on an objective level, but when I say "moral" I refer to the ones that are kinda stablished in our society, Im talking about not hurting others... or the famous "dont do something to others that you dont want to be done to yourself"...
I know there isnt anything we could call objective morality...
Brutal90Death 1 year ago
@Brutal90Death
Ok.
But you see, that's the basis for why he said "if you rule out God there is no basis for morality anyway."
Agreed, this alone does nothing to prove that God exists (although there are proofs related to this question). But it does accurately sum up the practical situation, as observed by Nietzsche, Sartre and others.
The problem with moral relativity is that not everyone agrees about what is moral. Even Hitler believed he was acting on his morality, as a savior to society.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
your argument fails because the fetus is a separate human being as evidenced by the fact that it has his/her own unique DNA. It has a separate body growing in the womb. It is connected and dependent on the woman yes, but not the same person. The woman should not be compelled to provide her body as a natural life support system to the fetus.
Spillers72 1 year ago
I am a libertarian Christian but am repulsed by objectivism. How can you have a truly ethical system based on "self interest". We as a society should strive for a higher value system than self interest. How about the Golden Rule? Plus, if you rule out God there is no basis for morality anyway, everyone becomes a law unto themselves.
Spillers72 1 year ago
@Spillers72 Self interest it's NATURE. I'm not saying that all the people should be selfish and never help others. But the acction of helping it's a CHOISE you don't NEED to help others if you don't want.
We humans like all animals we always think about survival of ourselves, then are the things or the people that interest you.
But first you are the most important "thing" for yourself.
alanoasiss 1 year ago
Men need to have equal reproductive rights and that means the right to legally force women into an abortion if they don't want to have a child against their own will!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343
Men has all the right in the world to produce sperm, that doesnt mean we should make it legal for women to kick them in the balls and in return legal for men to forcefully abort fetuses in the woman's belly..
Human rights and all that 'complicated' stuff you know..
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KarinMikazuki,
Men need to have equal reproductive rights and that means the right to legally force women into an abortion if they don't want to have a child against their own will!
undercover343 1 year ago
You're the man.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 year ago
"it's a part of her body so she has all right over it"
WRONG !
It's the father's right ALSO. THAT is the main problem with abortion now.
HE has no say in it - but the fetus is not created by the woman alone.
It's like you make an investment and your business partner scams you.
cr4yv3n 1 year ago
Good, less fuckers clogging up the planet.
batmanpronz 1 year ago
and as a follow-up to that I would ask you at one point does it become an individual. Science is ever evolving so that now we can save children at half term. Are we then basing individuals rights on how soon we can get them out of the oven?
TGLymantaiste 1 year ago
at 3:50you say that it does not become a person until it is outside of the female body so by that assumption we should be able to abort right up until and including the time a woman is in labor so you could perform an abortion at nine months so long that she has not actually given birth?
TGLymantaiste 1 year ago
first of all I I can't believe that you're basing your argument on the definition of words found on the Internet. Your assumption that because an individual is parasitic in nature that they have no individual rights is misguided to say the least. The handicapped would perish without the assistance of others so by our philosophy we should be able to kill them when they become inconvenient
TGLymantaiste 1 year ago
I'm not Christian and I think abortion is a despicable excuse to avoid taking responsibility for your actions. What about the man? He has no say in the matter! As a father of 2 and a 3rd on the way, I can assure you, A man can be just as emotionally tied to an unborn child as a woman. If my wife ever killed my unborn child, (She would never) she would find herself alone without me or our children. This girl is right! Some babies are born premature and live. We give ourselves far too many rights!
MackenzieMichael 1 year ago
If it has it's own DNA it is NOT part of the womans body
RAKEYREDARMS 1 year ago
Embryo Slash Fetus... Didn't he used to be the lead guitar player in Guns'n'Roses?
termsofusepolice 1 year ago
Would the people who bash abortion have the balls to raise all these unwanted children?
I don't think so.
LowJackKoJack 1 year ago
What about conjoined twins? Are they individuals?
FFFUCKKAYOUUWWHALLEE 1 year ago
How can a fetus have rights?
bbmkanata 1 year ago
girl just got pwned by Dhor.
i dint hink this 10 year old even knows what sex is. thanks bible. :D
8fl0z 1 year ago
Here's a better way to argue for the right to abortion. Ask pro-lifer if denying a homelessman access to your house is murder if they are going to die out in the street on a cold winter night. Or ask them is not helping Dwarfur murder? If they say no that neither of those is murder then they have no reason for equating a cancellation of a pregnancy with murder.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan. Except a it is "individual" in the sense that it is an individual organism. It may be connected to the mother sure, but it has it's own separate DNA.
And to back this up, let me point out Siamese twins. They are considered individuals in the same sense that they are "individual organisms," yet their bodies are connected.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Hey objectivist, could you explain to me how you have made such a blatent error in judgement? By your logic, until the baby is entirely disconnected from the mother, it is not an individual. How fucking stupid can you be. This means it can be born (cord still attached), and she is OK to kill it. It also means you can kill one half of a siamese twin. Also, theoretically the baby is allowed to kill the mother. You have a damn big mouth and a damn small brain. You are no objectivist.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 I'm sure the cord isn't part of what he meant. Especially since it becomes useless after birth.
And why should you be allowed to kill one half of siamese twins? Those are two babies.
And why should the child have the right to kill the mother? It's dependent on her, she's not dependent on it.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Its also long and squishy, I don't see what relevance 'usefulness' has. He is saying that since the two individuals are not physically discrete, the smaller, nutrient receiving one is not an individual, thus can be destroyed. Thats ridiculous. And dependancy does not modify rights, thats just common sense. And the woman should be perfectly happy with the dependancy. Its her damn baby for fcksake. If a woman doesn't love her baby she is broken.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 What's long and squishy, the cord? Well I'm assuming Dhorpatan meant that you can't kill a baby if the only thing connecting it to the mother is the cord. I could also make an artificial meat cord between me and you, that doesn't mean we're not two individuals anymore.
Oh yeah, the woman should be perfectly happy with being forced to change her whole life around, that sounds great. I'm guessing you're not a woman? I'm quite sure you wouldn't say that if you were pregnant unwanted.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel The meat cord would not be human, so the persons would still be physically discrete. The inconvenience on the part of the woman, gives her no priviledge to kill someone, and her own child at that. Why not allow her to kill her 3 year old daughter, because she changes her life around?
Lets stick to the essence: when does a human life start, and when does it get rights.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 It's not just about dependancy. Making a child is a gradual process. You start with the woman's choice of wether she wants to have children, wether she wants to risk pregnancy by EVER having sex, wether she wants to use contraception, wether she should abort a tiny cluster of cells, an embryo, fetus...and in the end it's a complete person you shouldn't kill. We'd like everything to be black and white, with a clear line where it's murder. Where is that line, tell me?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel I have explained the line in a previous comment, tell me if you agree.
tothemax01 1 year ago
Who is this girl, where did you find that video? I would very much like to know if she was simply given a script by a grownup and made to say this, without fully understanding it.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
Or putting it in terms more familiar to Objectivists: abortion is like a government bailout ;) You shouldn't be running to the government for help, when it was YOU that made the risky choice knowing fully what the consequences can be.
khunag 1 year ago
Abortion is one of the very few issues on which I don't agree with Ayn Rand and Objectivists. First of all (linguistics aside) it's absurd that a creature is not a human in one second and a second later (after birth) it becomes human, even though nothing about it changed. Also: pregnancy doesn't just happen by itself. You have sex - you take the risks. I am supportive of abortion only in cases where the woman's right to decide about her life and body was breached (rape).
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag And what if you dutifully used all the contraceptives, but you're part of that 0.1% where it didn't work and you got pregnant anyway?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel She knew there was a risk, and she still took it, or she didn't know there was a risk, in which case she is responsible for her ignorance. The baby, of course, it quite happily growing and starting its life, while the mother is humming a hahing about this issue, as though it was a decision about which handbag to buy. Fcked up world, it is.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 "She knew there was a risk". So what do you suggest instead? Never having sex?
(Here's another idea: How about the father has to raise the child, at least after it's off breast milk?)
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Why would I suggest that? The whole concept of 'a baby as an evil' is horrific. The correct initial response to 'I am pregnant' should be 'that is wonderful', for both the man and the woman. The proceeding burden and corresponding discomfort should be offset by the couples love for each other, and the ultimate manifestation of that love, their child. If this is not the case, they have made errors (choosing their partner, rushing to sex too quickly etc).
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 "while the mother is humming a hahing about this issue, as though it was a decision about which handbag to buy"
What exactly does it matter what attitude the mother might have while she decides if she should abort? My mom was probably "humming and hahing" about which man to marry at some point. If she hadn't picked my dad, it would have been fatal to me. Does that make the ease with which she decides evil in any way?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel 'it would have been fatal to me' - incorrect. Nothing can be fatal to that which does not exist.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel No contraceptive gives you guarantee, and when you use it you should be aware of that. So even if the risk is very small you still take it, you know about it and if you became pregnant it's through your actions and decisions. You have assumed the responsibility for the hypothetical child out of your own free will when you decided to copulate.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag So you think people shouldn't be allowed to have sex at all, without accepting that their whole life could be messed up by pregnancy?
That sounds kinda like saying you're not allowed to eat cookies unless you accept that occasionally a cookies has a note in it saying "you must quit your job and dedicate your life to [insert a specific job you didn't want]" and you're legally bound to obey.
Just curious: how old are you?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Sex is not cookies. A child is not a big deal. You don't need to quit your job to have one, that's just false. And if you're one of those people that would have to: well it's simple really - you need your legs? don't hack them off. Or don't eat the damn cookies all day long if you don't want to get fat ;) I'm happy to take the risk myself. I won't be counting on bailouts/abortion when i go bankrupt/pregnant (well, not me, I'm male ;) ).
27
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag A child is no big deal??? To anti-abortion people like you, who are quite happy with forcing women to suddenly take care of unplanned babies (assuming they tried to prevent them but it failed once), I'd just like to say: why don't you find a woman who's planning on having an abortion, and save the child by offering to raise it yourself? It's so easy to tell someone else what they "must" do, especially if you can never be in that situation yourself.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel If the woman has not been raped it's not an unplanned babies. It's like cutting your leg off and being surprised you have no leg, demanding a new one.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag You know there are plenty of pro-lifers who end up having an abortion after all, saying "Hey, the condom burst, I had no choice!"
People should be able to enjoy sex without ever having children. And the cutting the leg off comparison is just stupid. It's more like: a person works with a chainsaw, has an accident and looses a leg. He's given the choice to magically regrow the leg, but you insist he can't, cause he should live with the consequences of the risk, despite this not helping.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel It's more like he has the choice between living without a leg, or killing his neighbour and taking his leg.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag Which takes us back to the issue of whether the fetus is a human or not. I say it's not in this respect, cause it can't feel pain or fear of its death, it hasn't yet started a life which would be destroyed if it's killed. It's still just a bunch of cells. Cells with potential, yes, but nothing that can feel harm.
The parent is a person with a lot to loose. What does the fetus lose if it dies?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel It's okay to kill mentally handicapped people then? Or people shorter than you, they do have less cells than you after all...
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag I don't see the logic of how you're perfectly cool with preventing is future person from ever existing by using contraception, but if you prevent the future person from ever existing by aborting an embryo, it's a huge difference. You do realize that to the aborted child there is no difference, right? Both "feels" exactly the same to it: nothing at all. Both has the same result. Only in one, a bunch of cells live and divide for a while. Do you think the fetus cares about that difference?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel You think it's a future person, I think it's already a person. I know some people that are nothing but a poison to this world and everyone would be better off if they died. I do not have th right to kill them however even if their value is much lower than the "bunch of cells" that is the fetus.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag I would never say a criminal should be killed! Their value is far greater than that of a fetus, they are conscious, they feel pain and fear, and they have lives to lose!
Ok, let's call the fetus a person, if you insist on that terminology. But it changes nothing, cause it's still a “person” who has nothing to loose and who won't feel pain, and that's why I think it's okay to kill it.
(Philosophical question: Which part of “being a person” makes it wrong to kill you?)
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
How about not getting pregnant if you don't want a child? Or are we such a stupid species that we can't grasp the idea of prevention? Humans never cease to amaze me.
futbolangel02 1 year ago
@futbolangel02 You do know that pregnancy isn't voluntary, right? No prevention is 100% safe. Would you allow abortion, then, if the condom burst? How about if the woman forgot to take the pill once?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Pregnancy is voluntary. You voluntarily join your body with another in an act THAT YOU KNOW causes Pregnancy. Prevention is 100% safe. The word "prevention" means to stop something. Sex is for procreation not recreation. I don't want to get pregnant so I don't have sex. It works. I tested my own theory...I don't want to be pregnant so I'm not going to be pregnant. Sounds pretty smart to me. I'm pro-prevention...I have brought a solution and you want to battle me? Come on. Be smart.
futbolangel02 1 year ago
@futbolangel02 Prevention is not 100% safe, genius. Kondoms and pills etc. have a success rate of 99% or something around there.
And saying sex is only for procreation is old-fashioned. It makes as much sense as saying eating is only for keeping yourself alive, and you should never add spices or eat a cake or anything that's just for the taste, only the nutrients. Couples should be allowed to express their love for each other and have fun, without the intention of making kids.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Then have an abortion. I don't care. I'm not against abortion if you can live with the guilt then have at it. I just brought a solution to the table. Look up the word "prevention" please. The thing with us geniuses is that we love words and we love definitions. Clearly prevention is 100% because the word itself means that whatever we are talking about was prevented. Never happened so it's a non-issue. P.S. Eating IS only for keeping yourself alive. :o) Thanks for the laugh.
futbolangel02 1 year ago
@futbolangel02
"Sex is for procreation not recreation."
Only in your silly repressed world view. You're also ignoring rape. I guess you'd want to coerce the rape victim into carrying and birthing the child.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 I'm all for abortion. Have all that you want if you can live with the guilt. I wouldn't have one. I just thought that maybe humans were smart enough to not get pregnant if they didn't want a baby. Guess I was wrong. I don't know where in my posts you fuckers get that I'm Anti-abortion. God forbid someone come up with a 3rd platform to your Pro Choice vs. Pro Life party. Did I ruin the party with a smart solution? Shouldn't be having sex if you don't want a baby.
futbolangel02 1 year ago
@futbolangel02
Smart is understanding that sex has utility and is therefore not regulated to procreation. Smart would be realizing that, despite the view you put forth (which I agree with to an extent), the choice/life dichotomy is still quite sound. But I do apologize for misreading your posts. There was quite a bit of typically anti-abortionist language in them.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 I think what he's getting at is that sex's teleological function is procreation not recreation. This means that while we DO IT for recreation, its LOGICAL FUNCTION is procreation. As such sex is by definition reproductive behavior, and thus having children with it is a recognized sexual liability. Since children have rights as well the parental responsibility for said kids to be born is also a recognized sexual liability.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Comment removed
ephekt420 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
I was thinking moralistic. But it makes little sense in that framing either. Eating is unequivocally 'for' nourishment in a biological sense, and yet we enjoy food - even in the absence of nourishment - all the time. 'For' is mostly a social label.
Children do indeed have rights. A child is also defined as a human between the stages of birth and puberty. A blastocyst may or may not have rights depending on your ethic, but it has nothing to do with being a child.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Right what I was getting at though was the connection between teleology and morality -via Aristotle. If something has a teleological function that sets it's "ought" parameter.
Now as for a blastocyst, first of all you are pointing to the "bite the bullet" part of the model pro-lifers use for personhood. But there are even more ridiculous "bite the bullet" examples with the models pro-choicers use. Secondly abortions aren't done on blastocysts.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
So you want to derive an ought from an is here?
I'm not sure what "bite the bullet" even means. However, I'm simply pointing out that, if used to support "pro-life," your argument would be disingenuous, as children _must_ have been born. I'm not terribly concerned with other's opinions of personhood, as they are necessarily arbitrary. I just want to prevent the state from answering this question.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "So you want to derive an ought from an is here?"
Of course. You necessarily have to if you are to derive objectively true oughts. Without this there is no such thing as objective morality which is a preposterous conclusion and so the opposite must be true.
"Bite the bullet" points in philosophy are apparent absurdities which one has to hold in order to remain consistent with ones philosophic position. All models have them it's just a matter of where.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "your argument would be disingenuous"
You're playing semantics here.
"as they are necessarily arbitrary."
You're joking right? There is no such thing as an factual definition of 'person' that can be achieved objectively?
"prevent the state from answering this question."
Haha MUHAHA Very well, but then I call homo sacer on abortionists. I henceforth define them as non persons for summary liquidation. And the state can't tell me not to. Why? -it's my right to choose!
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Defining a fetus as a child is inaccurate and has is a huge emotional appeal. Call it what you need to, but it remains true.
Can you provide me with an objective definition?
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "has is a huge emotional appeal."
Ok, but the emotional category isn't relevant here because it's a person with objective rights regardless. Just image search abortion -it looks like a kid anyway. (It's not that it's emotional -just natural)
"Can you provide me with an objective definition?"
Ok, the manner in which they are similar is that they are both persons, and that before "fetus" came up as a term "unborn child" was common place as in phrases such as "mother with child."
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
"it's a person with objective rights regardless. "
"Ok, the manner in which they are similar is that they are both persons"
You're presupposing the thing you're supposed to be providing an objective definition of. I'm open if you can actually provide an one, but I believe I'm wasting my time here.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Well the point is that I don't have to presuppose it, it is already defined that way from the dictionary. Person = human organism (we haven't found aliens yet). So it's common sense to say a fetal child is a person.
There is "personhood theory" as well and I can talk about that. Intelligence is a factor yes, but there's also identity. Namely, a person is the same "thing" all along. (ie. "you" were once a fetal child and that "you" is a person) The person has to be a concrete "thing."
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
So what you're saying is that you can't, contrary to you claims, provide an objective definition of a person.
ephekt420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ephekt420 "So what you're saying is that you can't, contrary to you claims, provide an objective definition of a person."
I already did, from the dictionary:
Person = human organism
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
You're still avoiding the central problem: philosophy has typically considered personhood to be endowed at birth. Magical thinkers say it's at conception. Others at gestation or viability. There is no objective means to determine when this social construct begins to apply, as it is a social label without any hard empirical analog.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 No, to consider personhood to begin at birth one would need to engage in magical thinking. Here's why: a natural a priori definition of personhood would have to be both precise and non-arbitrary. The fetal child does not change form a second before birth compared to a second after birth. Since it's the same being it is silly to say that it is not a person before and suddenly magically becomes a person afterwards for no other reason than where it happens to be.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Personhood is not the same thing as a person. You're still avoiding the crux of the issue. Personhood is indeed a social label.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "Magical thinkers say it's at conception."
There's nothing magical about that. Perhaps it is a "hard point" for this model, but it is precise and non-arbitrary -it is a distinct organism at this point. (none of the other models give precise non-arbitrary points)
"or viability."
I never understood this position. What does viability have to do with personhood? It's like saying hair color has to do with personhood. It's completely irrelevant.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
There is no "distinct organism" at the point of conception. There is a mass of cells that cannot exist outside the womb, which has none of the infrastructure or sentient capabilities persons have. This is what I mean by subjective; you want to use labels with rhetorical and emotional appeal without explaining why and glossing over the empirical base.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "There is no "distinct organism" at the point of conception."
It has it's own genetic identity, and it is identical with the same being that we call a fetal child, baby, child, teenager and adult later on. Sure it can't exist outside by itself yet, but that is besides the point. It actually is an actual being with it's own DNA separate from the mother which will develop along that DNA just like any born organism. You can't take a biology class and not understand this.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "There is no objective means to determine when this social construct begins to apply, as it is a social label without any hard empirical analog."
See that's where you're thinking goes all messed up. You aren't thinking objectively because you're starting point is wrong. Persons are real actual entities not "social constructs." So if you start from a subjective point of course you are going to reach subjective conclusions.
Empirically though a living organism begins at conception.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Look if personhood is subjective, then what is OBJECTIVELY WRONG with doing anything at all? I mean if persons are subjective objective persons don't exist and therefore their objective rights don't exist either. Without objective rights to violate how could ANYTHING be defined as wrong? If that's so how is this different from moral relativism?
If we go down this path with moral relativism, then why can't I just assert my will on this issue? Relative to me it's the right thing to do.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
I already explained that natural rights have historically been endowed at birth.
Morality is subjective and objective. Objective in the sense that it often speaks to real actions/consequences, but subjective in that each society or group tends to define their own moral codes. For example, a secular state and a theocracy may share some of the same determinations, but the theocracy will inevitable have some determinations based in nothing but myth.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "I already explained that natural rights have historically been endowed at birth."
But you haven't explained why. Or why they should.
"but subjective in that each society or group tends to define their own moral codes."
Ok fine, but I'm a Straussian. I believe I have a right to manipulate society so as to ensure that this moral code aligns with my own enlightened code. Since morality is subjectively determined do you have a problem with this? It's my right to choose.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
All of our systems are based around the concept of rights after birth, so your slippery slope doesn't apply. It only applies to questions of pre-birth rights. All I'm saying is that there is no objective metric for determining if rights are endowed at conception or beyond. I'd love to hear an argument that does this, but pointing to the dictionary or using biologically incorrect terminology will not get you this. Sorry.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 No "at birth" is an ad hoc addition here. No one said that "all our systems" are based on this concept. In fact this is why there is such a thing as an abortion debate at all.
"using biologically incorrect terminology will not get you this."
I'm not ignoring the biology here you are. If you want a concrete "entity" to point to to call a person it will have to be a biological entity. You are replacing biological entity though with "social construct." That's not objective.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "All I'm saying is that there is no objective metric for determining if rights are endowed at conception or beyond."
Then how do we know that you or I even objectively have rights? What is a "right" without an objective person to have it anyway? This should be very easy, it's just a priori self-evident.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
In effect, you would coerce the victim into carrying/birthing a constant reminder of her attack, thereby causing emotional suffering. Abortion causes no suffer prior to 24 weeks. I hold this to be unethical.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Ok, here's the trouble and I see this over and over and over again in this debate. You are framing this in an emotional context rather than a logical context and the end result is that this is totally messing up your reasoning. Now follow this through:
The right to be free of emotional pain exists because one is alive in the first place. Thus one would not have the first right without the second. And so the second is greater. Yes it may be unpleasant, but logically it has to be so.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohananRaatz
"but logically it has to be so."
You haven't shown this.
Really, you're proven that you can't actually back up your claims in an objective manner, thereby proving my point. Thank you for doing this so quickly.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
I am framing this in an ethical context. If anything, you've appealed to emotion with your homo sacer rhetoric. I've tried to remain objective. I've even asked for an objective definition that would further your argument and you've so far avoided providing that. I do hope you will, but my patience is wearing thin.
Also, keep in mind that my positions is ONLY that there is no objective way to solve this issue, so evoking the state would effectively be collectivist tyranny.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 No, the homo sacer argument was simply the LOGICAL EXTENSION of what happens once the state is not allowed to define person. If everyone else gets to define person, then NO ONES rights are safe. Why? Because depending relative to another person's definition they may not even be persons at all!
Not that I would mind this scenario. My brother is joining Blackwater and I'm sure he will loan me some firepower when the free-for-all hits in. But this situation seems absurd to most people.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Natural rights, citizenship etc are endowed at birth so your argument is rather obtuse, and perhaps a bit disingenuous (assume you're not this shortsighted). The issue here is at which point, if any, do rights apply PRIOR TO BIRTH.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 No natural rights are INHERENT. Ie. they are INTRINSIC to a given being. If that being exists (in whatever stage of development) then that being has natural rights. Being given at birth is an artificial socially fabricated determination -which means these rights you are talking about are not natural at all.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Natural rights is a social construct, so you have little point there.
ephekt420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ephekt420 "Natural rights is a social construct, so you have little point there."
No, if they were natural then they would be existing naturally. They would not by definition be socially fabricated by a society. Duh! Socially fabricated rights are by definition synthetic rights or else they would be based on natural law rather than societal consensus.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ephekt420 "I've even asked for an objective definition that would further your argument and you've so far avoided providing that."
I just gave you one though. Person = human being. And then I delved a little further into the concept of personhood and why exactly fetal children count as persons too.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "Also, keep in mind that my positions is ONLY that there is no objective way to solve this issue, so evoking the state would effectively be collectivist tyranny."
But if there is no objective way to solve it, then there is no precise defining cutoff for when a person is a person -hence it would become a free-for-all. So this would trade a collectivist tyranny with a "state of nature tyranny" -everyone running around tyrannizing each other on whim.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
There has never been an objective cutoff for personhood. Whether you say conception, gestation, viability, birth - it's all arbitrary and based not on empirical or scientific study. Your argument changes literally nothing, despite making a silly slippery slope and emotional appeal.
That siad, traditionally, personhood WAS measured at birth. See Robert Nisbet's Prejudices for a review of the historicity of abortion.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "There has never been an objective cutoff for personhood."
Ok if there is no objective cutoff, then logically it follows that there are not objective criterion either. This means that the criterion are subjective and that therefore there are no OBJECTIVE PERSONS. This means I can determine personhood on a whim.
"the historicity of abortion."
You should read Leo Strauss on historicism. Because it is a form of sophistry. BTW when you reduce the debate to subjectives it's sophistry.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
I find abortion regrettable but ethical up to the point the fetus feel pain (24 weeks). Others don't. I do not feel either side can provide a solid argument, so I'd like to leave the choice where it has traditionally been - with the mother/family.
As for your yoru rhetoric, I'd be more interested in your opinion on 'rape babies' and the mother's rights.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Ok well I can respect that (at least you have a precise cut-off and are leaving it to unjustified existential choice) though I do disagree. (sleeping people lack pain and other conscious qualities)
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ephekt420 As for rape, first, I will point out that only 1% of abortions are done for this so why justify the 99% of the 1%. Secondly strictly logically think of it this way:
1. People are equal and have equal rights. (and so the mother is equal to her offspring)
2. If one had the choice of giving up ones right to live vs. giving up ones right to not have a rape baby one would choose the former because it is greater.
3. Therefore because of 1. the babies greater right takes priority here.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Your numbers, if real, are irrelevant to the question.
The problem with your "syllogism" is that you must implicitly assert that the non-sentient, non-feeling fetus' rights (which up until now you've merely presupposed - even when asked for an objective definition) is more important than the mother's right to self-ownership or happiness.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Well no the rights of the fetal child are EQUAL to the rights of the mother. The trouble is that the PARTICULAR right in question of the fetal child happens to be greater than the PARTICULAR right in question of the mother.
life >> self-ownership
Now it's not exactly true about the fetal child being non-feeling and this is a separate issue, but feeling does not in itself make one not a person. An early enough fetal child is cognitively identical to sleeping person for example.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohananRaatz
You haven't established why a fetus has rights in the first place. I'm well aware that you want to punish the victim with coercion, but can you provide an objective basis for doing so - as you claimed?
"Now it's not exactly true about the fetal child being non-feeling and this is a separate issue"
ephekt420 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Fetuses cannot feel pain prior to 24 weeks. This was thought to be true for a long time and just recently proven conclusively. Newscientist did a write up on the article if you're interested.
Also, sleeping persons feel pain so this is obviously presumptuous at best.
The point is that aborting a fetus causes no pain or suffering, as the fetus lacks and has yet to be endowed with those abilities, while coercing a mother to birth a rape baby does. It's depraved.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 No sleeping persons do not feel anything. They are unconscious. If not then then comatose people.
As for the study this may have to do with the wiring of the brain, and this boils down to a matter of interpretation. Other studies I've seen say 13 weeks. The trouble is that pain is internal and so can't be determined empirically. Which exact arrangement corresponds to it? Who knows.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Nonsense. Pain inflicted during sleep wakes the person up.
The study was indeed based on nerve infrastructure. It's not "up in the air" as you'd like to claim, as pain signals cannot traverse infrastructure that doesn't yet exist. Older studies may indeed cite other period, but this newest - peer reviewed study - covers novel information. I'm sorry, but you'd really need to point to a proper meta-analysis to refute this.
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 Not a comatose person, and it still takes a split second to wake the person up. And who ever said that the pleasure/pain dichotomy was the correct framework?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ephekt420 "The point is that aborting a fetus causes no pain or suffering, as the fetus lacks and has yet to be endowed with those abilities, while coercing a mother to birth a rape baby does. It's depraved."
You are missing the point. You are breaking all of ethics down to a pleasure/pain dichotomy. And I reject that framework. For example it can be proven (via Kant's arguments) that for example suicide is wrong even if it reduces the amount of pain or suffering.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Suicide is tricky given what we know of depression et al. But in certain situations, I feel it would be depraved to not allow euthanasia. My grandfather, for example, recently died. He no longer wanted to live and so gave up eating. Some magical thinking moralistic douche might have tried to force him to stay alive - for their benefit - but we as a family decided to let him pass the way he wanted to. That's ethical.
The rest of your reply has no basis
ephekt420 1 year ago
@ephekt420 "Some magical thinking moralistic douche"
Then you haven't read Kant. His argument was very logical, and it derived from a rigorous ethical model -ETHICAL RATIONALISM. His whole model was derived from pure logic so it's hard to see how it is "magical."
"That's ethical."
See you are making this up as you go along though. You are letting the "feel" of the situation determine what is best rather than a priori principles. With this approach how can you call this objectively ethical?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Perhaps I think a more consequentialist view is appropriate here? No, it must be that I'm making it up as I go - after all, anyone who rejects Kant's a priorism must be ill educated.
ephekt420 1 year ago
"Perhaps I think a more consequentialist view is appropriate here?"
Ok, I'm fine with some consequentialism, but you need an a priori basis for it. You'll need something like Kant to put a "basement" on your view. If not then it's just floating on thin air.
Consequentialism is based on consequences, but whose to say which consequences are better than worse or others? Without an a priori foundation you have no way to determine this, and it just becomes a matter of subjective choice.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
But abortions lower crime rates, which means that it means less people and potential people are killed!
872463051 1 year ago
Its not a part of an individual, it feeds off of the mother but they are separate entities.
shilohman07 1 year ago
so wiktionary has the last say on life and death?
xnorthcarolinax 1 year ago
like gregory house from house md said .... its not a baby its a tumor
tilemacro 1 year ago
10 Seconds in you see a little GIRL saying its my Choice O.o Well it was not her Choice it was Her MOMS and the little Girl is alive today - If she was aborted I bet the Sign would say "I never had a Choice "
AudioRedemption 1 year ago
@AudioRedemption So why aren't you making a baby right now? If your parents had been answering youtube comments that minute instead of sleeping with each other, you wouldn't be here now.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
I am a huge fan of philological evaluations as per your definition of "person." Yet no one has suggested that that definition which you used is the correct one. From the only authoritative definition, the biological one, the embryo, from conception meets all six requirements for life (will post in another comment if you want). These requirements confirm a single cell embryo as independently alive, and a human apart from its mother.
fungusoflannery 1 year ago
It's not a part of her body--It has independent organs that have no function for the mother--but it is neither a human with rights either.
mitchblatt1dot1com 1 year ago
her speech can be twisted for forced organ donation, too.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago