Abortion?

I see, haha. I could've guessed.

So wait a sec, you in fact don't believe that abortion should be illegal?

Back to the topic of the debate, I don't think that rights should be granted by rationality, but rather a combination of reasonable thought AND the ability to feel pain. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, does it make a sound? How about if a person dies in the middle of the forest, does it really matter? Hmm...wow, that really has nothing to do with anything. Why would I even say that - maybe just more dumb stuff to think about.

I feel like suffering is really what we have to protect - if a baby will SUFFER, which it ultimately probably will, is it really worth protecting it? For some reason, I feel the concept of Fetus rights is very similar to animal rights, except for a fetus will eventually develop into a rational being while an animal will not.

 

I do not believe that abortion should be illegal - or you could say that

Why the ability to feel pain? Can you explain how that creates rights? Or what if the kid is one of those who cannot feel pain? Do they partially lose their rights?

 

People have rights, thus defining what a person is is necessary if we want to pursue the matter of whether a fetus has rights. It's not really possible to define a person scientifically, but philosophers have grumbled the issue for hundreds of years. Neo-Kantian philosophers came up with a shopping-list of possible criteria for personhood.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/person/personhood-theory.html

So the question of whether pain gives the fetus rights is an important one, at least it seems to be for the people making the legislation.

 

I can see why the ability to feel pain would be on the top of their list - it's probably evolutionary. Those ancestors who tried to save their offspring when they were in pain probably did a bit better than those who didn't.

But purely rationally speaking, why would pain confer rights?

 

If you couldn't feel emotional pain, would you mind if I bullied you?

 

Well really the top of the list is rationality, pain isn't seen as very important at all;

That's Immanuel Kant. Pain is presumably part of sensibility. Though fetal pain isn't necessarily what we think of as pain.

For the record I don't believe fetal pain is an important question when it comes to abortion, but I know that policy makers do, since it'd be bad for them if they alienated all the religious types.

 

I'm guessing that I wouldn't.

I probably need to re-read Kant.

Sensibility and reason are needed for rights, that's reasonable enough, although I would agree that reason is at the top of that list.

Oh, if only they would make rational decisions rather than play to the majority.

 

What about a year old baby, he will become rational one day, does he deserve rights? And I'm not talking about potential, provided nothing extreme happens he one day will be a rational being.

 

The same is true of a fetus though. Unless something goes wrong, that fetus will be born, become a baby and then an adult etc.

This is why I have a problem with Shredder's position. How can we say that kids up to 4 years of age can't have rights? We need to have more factors than rationality alone for determining when something deserve rights.

 

I don't think its wrong to abort a child. It can ruin your life.

Yes, I have morals...

 

i think in my opinion it is wrong, everyone deserves to have a life, but then again every person should be given the right to have a abortion or not, i understand what you are saying about pain, if your family knew you was to die feeling no pain i am sure they w ould feel alot better rather than knowing you felt the pain while you was getting killed.

This could go either way becuase everyone deservs a right, even the unborn, if your saying killing a unborn baby is ok then thats like saying killing any unborn animal or creature is ok, it is still a living thing.

 

M P W D, we eat caviar and most of us eat meat...your argument about animals is very flawed. Does every living creature deserve a right to live? Where is the line drawn?

 

Except in that scenario if we accept the mother owns her body, she shouldn't be forced to do something with her body she doesn't want. A 2 year old isn't really invading somebody elses body.

I agree, but it is difficult to find more factors that don't interfere with other things.

 

He will be a rational being one day, but currently he is not. If you look at the baby just as it is, it's a crawling, crying, laughing thing. It cannot reason, it cannot. I really don't see why it would receive any rights, if we accept that reason/sensibility are the basis for rights.

Why can't we say that?

 

Well the baby murderers would have a field day

 

They would, yes, but is there a purely logical reason not to allow it?

 

Not if you don't acknowledge factors other than rationality as a basis for rights.

 

All I can say is agreed. Plus, fuck that shit when it's the mother's choice, if the father doesn't want a kid, and the mother keeps the baby and not abortion, that bitch better not call for some fuckin' child support.

 

I neither Agree or Disagree in abortion, as it is right and wrong in one hand you are killing a life form, which has taken billions of years of evolution to create, in the other hand it is your body and essentially you are in control of it, and can do what you like, or if you are too young you are getting rid of a threat to your life.

 

Why is it wrong to kill a life form?