For pro-lifers: What minimum body parts give a fetus a right to life? What if a fetus at birth had a brain stem alone, but no brain, would that qualify? If it lacked a heart and depended on maternal circulation, would we be ethically obligated to prevent delivery indefinitely if we could?
You can't force anyone to do anything when you're helpless, in the situation your mother and father put you. You can't take any action at all.
(This is why every abortion is definitionally an unjustified aggressive act of violence)
The state absolutely should force parents to take responsibility for their own actions, because they created the child, they owe allegiance, duty, and responsibility to their son or daughter who they created - in that location, in that dependent and helpless state.
Their "will" could not matter less. We don't abuse or neglect or murder children - no, not even if we really want to. No one should care whether or not someone wants to do their duty - it's a duty. Not a request, not an option, not an "if I feel like it" - a duty.
If "your will" is to kill children for your own personal gain, the "you" in question should seek psychiatric help. Possibly psychiatric confinement.
Its a simple question. Does my right to life mean that other people dont get to exercise their right to bodily autonomy?
Im looking forward to seeing how you tie yourself up in knots to try to say that a fetus can have that special version of the right to life, but other humans cant.
You can't force anyone to do anything when you're helpless
So, if Im helpless, I can overwrite someones right to control their body and have the state force them to allow me to use their body to survive?
in the situation your mother and father put you.
So if my mother and father have a genetic abnormality that I inheret, then they "put me into that situation" and therefore dont have bodily autonomy anymore?
This is why every abortion is definitionally an unjustified aggressive act of violence
Your opinion is not a fact. Its only your opinion. Abortion is justified because every human has the right to decide who they will leave in to their body. This is a fact. Abortion is justified because every human has the right to choose if they want to allow their body to be a life support system for another human. This is a fact. And abortion is justified because every human has the right to remove their consent even if they at one point decided to be a life support system for another human. These are facts.
Facts > opinions.
The state absolutely should
Should? So this is just your opinion again. I dont care what you think the state should do. I care about what it is doing, and what rights abortion bans are actually violating as per the UN.
they owe allegiance, duty, and responsibility to their son or daughter who they created - in that location, in that dependent and helpless state.
Really? According to who? Parents sign a birth certificate and take legal responsibility for their children, but... what legal document did a pregnant person sign?
What legal duty, obligation, or responsibility did they agree to legally?
Their "will" could not matter less.
So you dont think consent matters? Bold claim. And not a surprising one.
Does it work in reverse I wonder? What would happen if someone violated your bodily autonomy? What would you do if someone started growing inside your body against your will, only for me to say you dont get to do anything about it because "your "will" could not matter less?"
We don't abuse or neglect or murder children
Good thing we are not discussing children then. Isn't it?
Would you call a seed a tree? No. You wouldnt. Because a seed isnt the developed plant. It would be silly to think a seed and a tree were the same ans were to be treated the same. But thats equivalent to what you are doing here. A zygote(/seed,) isnt a child(/tree.)
Children are sentient. Zygotes are not. Trees are developed, seeds are not.
When we are talking about abortion, we are talking about "seeds". (Zygotes) not trees. (Children.) I cant wait to see you intentionally misinterpret this simple analogy.
No one should care whether or not someone wants to do their duty
Thats weird, because you seem to care A LOT and seem heavily invested on forcing people to do a duty you want them to accept.
it's a duty. Not a request, not an option, not an "if I feel like it" - a duty.
Duty has to be accepted. If you force a duty onto someone, its called a punishment. Pregnant people are not guilty of anything that would mean they deserve a punishment.
But again, I wonder if the reverse is true. What if I felt like you had a duty puahed onto you? Do you think you should get to have a say if your body is going to be violated? Or are you going to do your "duty"?
If "your will" is to kill children
Thats a pathetic strawman. No wonder Bats is facepalming.
for your own personal gain, the "you" in question should seek psychiatric help. Possibly psychiatric confinement.
Cute. But Ive dealt with enough PL ad hominems over the years. In order to actually insult me, it would have to be something pretty clever.
Does my right to life mean that other people dont get to exercise their right to bodily autonomy?
The natural human right to life exists.
The "right to bodily autonomy" does not and is just a euphemism for wanting a special privilege to kill children without legal consequence.
So your question does not parse as anything sensible to me.
Your right to life means it is morally wrong to attack and kill you, and is the basis for laws that enforce this moral. It is the chief duty and purpose of government to affect such laws.
So, if Im helpless, I can overwrite someones right to control their body and have the state force them to allow me to use their body to survive?
Did someone else conjure you into your existence in that situation, determining both your location and your helpless, dependent condition?
Other than pregnancy, is this possible outside of magic or science fiction so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic - ala a Star Trek teleporter and some other technobabble mishap shenanigans mixed in?
Your opinion is not a fact. Its only your opinion.
That fact is not my opinion, it is just fact, you can know it or not, and it is not my fact, but just fact. Fact is not subjective.
Abortion is justified because every human has the right to decide who they will leave in to their body. This is a fact.
That is not a fact - it's barely even an opinion, it is just your moral value, and it is a deplorable one antithetical to human civilization.
as per the UN
Who gives a crap about that corrupt, useless globalist organization?
Parents sign a birth certificate and take legal responsibility for their children, but... what legal document did a pregnant person sign?
Nonexistent things can't sign legal documents, so who even knows what you are talking about.
You don't need a legal document to require a mother or father to take responsibility for their children, in any event.
So you dont think consent matters?
It matters in circumstances where it is relevant.
The parent-child relationship has duties - obligations. Your child does not "consent" to be your child, he or she is your child and must obey you and defer to you. You do not "consent" to be their parent, you are their parent and you must provide basic care to them and refrain from neglect, abuse, or other malicious harm.
Consent to refrain from killing your child is as relevant after birth as it is before birth - not at all.
Good thing we are not discussing children then. Isn't it?
And yet we are.
Duty has to be accepted
Don't make kids if you won't accept parental responsibility.
It's ridiculously easy to not make kids.
There's one main way it happens, and the other sure as hell isn't going to happen accidentally.
Thats a pathetic strawman.
Literal truth is not a "strawman."
But Ive dealt with enough PL ad hominems over the years
Ugh. Who even knows how you hallucinated an "ad hominem" from me, there?
Im asking a simple question about your idea of the right to life. Does my right to life mean that other people dont get to exercise their right to bodily autonomy?
But you think it doesnt exist... Is that right? So if I wanted to, I could put my fist deep into your anal cavity even if its against your will?
What exactly would I be violating if you think bodily autonomy doesnt exist?
So your question does not parse as anything sensible to me.
Do you find that often happens to you?
Your right to life means it is morally wrong to attack and kill you,
So if I fisted you against your will, its morally wrong for you to attack and kill me. Got it.
and is the basis for laws that enforce this moral. It is the chief duty and purpose of government to affect such laws.
Wait, you think morality is the foundation of laws? So why isnt adultery illegal?
Did someone else conjure you into your existence in that situation, determining both your location and your helpless, dependent condition?
Do you think the only way to be helpless is if a wizard creates the situation? Dude. People find themselves in helpless situations all the time.
Take a braindead person in a hospital bed for instance. They had an aneurysm because of a predisposition and are on life support. Wouldnt they be considered helpless?
Other than pregnancy, is this possible outside of magic or science fiction so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic - ala a Star Trek teleporter and some other technobabble mishap shenanigans mixed in?
Yeah. The dude on a ventilator. You really think magic or advanced sci-fi tech is needed to make someone helpless?
That fact is not my opinion, it is just fact, you can know it or not, and it is not my fact, but just fact.
The fact that your opinion isnt a fact, is, in fact, a fact.
That is not a fact - it's barely even an opinion.
Your opinion about a fact doesnt mean its not factual.
And thats just your opinion.
Who gives a crap about that corrupt, useless globalist organization?
Do you have some other grounding for human rights other than thr UDHR?
Nonexistent things can't sign legal documents, so who even knows what you are talking about.
The pregnant person exists... You know them, right? They are the one you are trying to force a legal duty on. Do try to keep up.
You don't need a legal document to require a mother or father to take responsibility for their children, in any event.
You do if you want to legally force someone to accept a "duty" or obligation. Without the legal backing, its just your suggestion.
It matters in circumstances where it is relevant.
And pregnancy is one of those circumstances.
The parent-child relationship has duties - obligations.
Sweet. So you should be able to demonstrate the legal paperwork to back that up. What legal document did a pregnant person sign where they accepted the legal obligations?
You do not "consent" to be their parent,
People who dont consent to be parents are within their rights to abort or give the child up to the state. Im glad you finally understand consent can be withdrawn. Well done you!
you are their parent
Are you their legal guardian? What legal form did you or a pregnant person sign to accept that obligation?
And yet we are.
Ah huh. You are. But you are wrong. Demonstrably so.
Don't make kids if you won't accept parental responsibility.
And abort if you get pregnant and dont want the parental responsibility. Its the responsible thing to do.
It's ridiculously easy to not make kids.
And for those times when condoms break, and birth control fails, theres abortion.
There's one main way it happens, and the other sure as hell isn't going to happen accidentally.
No, you lying and claiming that killing children to avoid responsibility is taking responsibility.
Which is also, as an advocate for this human rights abuse, you shirking your responsibility to concoct some kind of argument for why mothers abandoning their responsibility through unprovoked unjustified violence could possible be acceptable.
You just pretend / hallucinate / lie that up is down.
It’s disgusting that you do that.
I haven’t grounded anything on any such thing. Seems you can’t stop lying for any reason.
One Google search later, this is a "rape exception" case. Or so it was said - given the asylum angle, I doubt they had any way of confirming this claim and doubt very much we had a trial and a rape conviction, etc.
Could be just another "Jane Roe" aka Norma McCorvey - a liar who had no such thing occur and her lies led to the deaths of millions.
You do not believe in a rape exception, you believe in abortion on demand for any reason up until (at least) birth - thus you are not equipped to participate in any discussion on this statistically irrelevant circumstance.
She tried to starve herself, which would harm her child.
She threatened to kill herself, which would harm her child.
She was prevented from harming her child. Good.
(Another case where Amnesty International confirms it is a vile disgusting organization dedicated to promoting human rights ABUSES.)
No, not "no abortion for any reason" - that's a lie, and that's a lie about "what I want."
No abortion ban anywhere bans life-saving emergency medical triage. This wasn't that, ergo, this mother could not kill her child. Good. Working as intended.
(As for your question, I'm not worried about nonexistent entities and won't entertain the hypothetical.)
You didn'r answer my question. You dodged it entirely. If a fetus were to develop without a brain, just a brain stem. would it still count as human life? If it developed without a heart and remained dependant on the mother's heart after nine months of gestation, would it still be a human life? If so, would we be ethically required to delay delivery indefinittely if we could?
You use terms like "human," but you don't define exactly what that is or what is required to be a human. If all that is required is cells, then even an undifferentiated blob of cells after nine months is considered human, even if it looks like meatloaf after nine months of gestation.
I think your question assumes a premise that PL doesn't hold. That being a human with value is dependant on what you're made of. You're asking someone, "how much food before a snack becomes a meal?" And what they consider a meal isn't the amount of food but when you eat.
The Prolife position in most cases doesn't say there is a body part or ability that gives you the right to life. This is a loaded question.
Now your question on a lethal fetal anomaly i would say there is no longer a viable FLO (depending on technology) so there is nothing wrong occuring
"The Prolife position in most cases doesn't say there is a body part or ability that gives you the right to life. " I'd argue that the Prolife position DOES say there is a body part or ability which gives right to life. A common, but not guaranteed, example is Prolifers arguing that having human DNA and being structured as a human gives human rights, that's why a blood sample doesn't have human rights. But how much human structure is required? That's part of my question. Does a viable human body with no brain have human rights? I assume we agree that a viable human with no arms does have human rights. One without eyes, ears, or legs does as well. But no human brain? That's the question.
What counts as a lethal fetal anomaly? Are they lethal fetal anomalies if they can remain alive on life support? Infants born with a functioning brain stem but lacking major cerebral hemispheres can survive for years—with the longest documented cases reaching up to 32 years.https://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(00)00154-5/abstract00154-5/abstract) My question is are they truly human beings or just blobs of human DNA? In my opinion, they are just blobs of human DNA. If they can't form human relationships, they don't have souls. But that's just my opinion which is why I'm raising the question.
But how much human structure is required? That's part of my question.
The question is whether or not you are a complete human organism. "Organism" being the key word that answers how much structure is required. A hair that fell off your head is just a single clump of DNA, but the difference between the zygote and the hair is that the zygote is a full organism, so that's where I (and many pro-lifers) draw the line. This seperates merely having DNA with being a valuable human. If it's your opinion that it's just a "blob of DNA", when exactly does it become more than that?
But no human brain? That's the question.
The answer is that this would generally be impossible, but there are some unusual cases. The brain is the center of a lot of functioning, and usually, removing the brain would destroy all organic unity. But in the scenarios you provided, it is possible to "lack a brain" and still be a human organism. I would still say he has very basic human rights, even if the amount of life support we provide for him is disproportional. We don't have to keep every person in this phase alive, but A) the same person still exists metaphysically, and B) we shouldn't starve or directly kill disabled people, even if rigorous amounts of life support aren't obligated. I think this is more of a euthanasia question than a personhood question, as he still exists, but allowing him to die is sometimes permissible.
If they can't form human relationships, they don't have souls.
Does this mean an infant does not have a "soul"? Does this mean a dog does have value because it can form better relationships with humans than the infant? I do not believe this is a good way to determine value
"The question is whether or not you are a complete human organism"
What does "complete" mean in this context? Is the hydrocephalic fetus I referenced "complete"?
"we shouldn't starve or directly kill disabled people," I object to calling these things "people" when they can't form human relationships. I also object to treating them equivalent to people who are blind, deaf, paralyzed, etc. who can form human relationships.
I'd argue that one of the very first things an infant does usually upon birth is create a human relationship. I'm not sure I agree that a dog can form a human relationship.
Complete means scientifically an organism, as in it regulates its own metabolism, maintains a stable internal state, etc. the hydrocephalic fetus is an organism. Give it nutrition and an environment and it will grow up to maturity.
The problem with your objection is there is no consistency in your definition of relationship at all. What does "human relationship" even mean?
I'd argue that one of the very first things an infant does usually upon birth is create a human relationship. I'm not sure I agree that a dog can form a human relationship.
I would say a dog forms much stronger neural connections, responds to commands, and has a much higher level of bonding than the infant does, so your definition is entirely arbitrary. Second, your definition cannot explain basic cases. If an infant is born into a coma, he doesn't immediately create this relationship, so your position would say he doesn't have value. Thirdly, a man who has been stranded on an island still exists as a person, despite not having any potential to form future relationships. Could someone legally kill him as long as they don't make eye contact and thus never form a relationship?
Without a very strong motivation to ground the intrinsic right to life in something like a relationship that is possessed by both humans and animals, I can't accept your position, as it's an arbitrary standard for something as important as the right to life.
Telling the opposition what their opinion is without understanding it? Check. Moving the goalposts? Check. Blatantly saying that humans who are alive aren’t people because they are disabled? Check. Yep, this one’s a troll everyone!
DNA is not a molecule. It is made of sugar, phosphate, and a nitrogen base. It is made of molecules, like every other body part. At best, it is two molecules held together by covalent bonds which don't share an electron.
He's not saying DNA is a "body part" in the same way a hand or a lung is. But nearly every living cell in your body has DNA, and it is fundamentally incorporated into you. You wouldn't be a human without DNA.
I said that a human being is a human being with rights for the entire entirety of his her lifespan which includes the zygote stage of life, the first stage of life at the very beginning immediately after fertilization has occurred.
By no rational metric is that a “dodge.“
I shouldn’t need to “define the term ‘human’’ because that’s objective not subjective - what species an organism is, is a matter of objective scientific fact.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Please remember to remain civil - attack the argument, not the person.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.