Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Dirty Name]

Brainwaves indicate sentience. Sentience is what animals rely on to dynamically adapt to and manipulate thier environment. It's the foundation of what MAKES an animal what it is. Without that, they are blobs of muscle and fat, and are utterly biologically useless. The same goes for a human. Braindead patients still operate on the most primal of levels, and still function and live. Embryos and foetuses don't have this ability, and thus do not deserve the rights that protect that ability.

Do sixteen-year olds and older have the ability to drive a car? Yes. If they are not driving a car, they merely have the potential to do so. Does this mean they do not deserve the rights that protect their ability to drive a car? Should they be stripped of their driver licenses?

I'm curious how you would justify ignoring the potential of a child in the womb to have brainwaves, but would defend the right of a person to drive a car even though they have yet to do so.

[ZNFYRH]

You've been brought to the point where you are contradicting yourself. I'll show you where, but first...

Quote by: p A law is not directly equivalent to a right. You don't earn laws, they will always be there. Rights, you can lose or gain.

You said, "Don't bring legality into this. Rights are different." I'm confused. What good are rights if there are no laws to protect them?

Quote by: p Care is a voluntary action committed by the mother with a 1 year old child. However, if you ban abortion, that care would become be a legal obligation that the mother SHOULD NOT have to assume.

I didn't realize I mentioned banning abortion, but here's the problem with you assuming that I did.

The right to life is circumnavigated legally all the time. Self-defensive murder. Euthanasia. Even triage in emergency rooms is allowing legitimate suffering for some under the reasoning that it will save others.

I don't believe in banning abortion. Not at all. I think it is possible to agree that the fetus has the right to life while acknowledging the mother's right to terminate the fetus due to the reason I gave.

Quote by: p You need to define a mother's want to rid herself of the embryo/fetus relative the to the term 'abuse'.

I also never mentioned "ridding" herself of the fetus. I said abusing.

You might want to look into what happens to mothers who drink or do drugs while they are pregnant and deliver a baby with dependencies or birth defects. They suffer legal consequences.

Quote by: p The child moves from dormant parasitism to independent function. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that the child can feel pain, can feel even the most basic of instinctual 'feelings', and hence needs rights to protect it.

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite
Note the part where is states:

A human embryo or fetus is a human being...

Quote by: p An embryo or foetus doesn't DESERVE these rights, as there is no sentient being to protect in the first place. Right's should be given to people who don't exist yet.

You meant "shouldn't be given..." right?

In that case, the person does exist. They just aren't fully developed.

Gestation is just a phase of growth, as is childhood.

Birth just happens to be a marked transition where the mothers body can no longer support the fetus internally.

Quote by: p Supporting a child involves a lot of money, time and effort. 'Supporting' a person on life support involves emotional strain, and the power required to keep the machines running. It's DIFFERENT

Based on this statement, you're saying that a child does not involve emotional strain. And you're saying that a person on life support does not require money or effort. Is that what you mean to say?

I want to be absolutely sure that's what you want to say.

You are posing that there is a difference. Having experienced both, I don't see it.

Quote by: p Braindead patients still operate on the most primal of levels, and still function and live. Embryos and foetuses don't have this ability, and thus do not deserve the rights that protect that ability.

Here is where your argument starts falling apart.

How is a person on life support fed and how do they breathe?

How does a fetus feed and how does it breathe?

Finally, your contradiction...

I talked about the rights for an unborn fetus.

You said:

Quote by: p but i repeat, that's not the issue!

Yet you mention how rights don't apply to a fetus and do so repeatedly. How are they not the issue when you are the one who told me to start focusing on rights in the first place?

Let me summarize my argument for you:

I'm not talking about banning abortion, but allowing it as a function of the mother's ability to determine her capability, as well as an assessment of health.

The justification for this is related to laws regarding euthanasia and the foundations for such a decision.

[ZNFYRH]

Dirty Name,

In reference to your previous quoting of me in your post, I believe that human life, and therefore human rights, begin at conception. But I also think that there are certain justifications for abortion that justify bypassing that right to life, just as euthanasia and murder are justified.

[Dirty Name]

Rights apply to what is, not to what will be.

And a conceived child IS. Brainwaves WILL BE. You are the one applying rights to what "will be" while we are urging the application of rights to what "IS."

You are the one who wants to ignore what IS, and try to determine what WILL BE.

You are the one who is arguing to ignore what IS, in favor of trying to measure arbitrary criteria to determine what WILL BE.

You said it best. Rights apply to what IS. And a conceived child IS. Brainwaves? Please.

Naturally, through all of this you people are admitting that late-term abortions strip the child of their right to life.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do sixteen-year olds and older have the ability to drive a car? Yes. If they are not driving a car, they merely have the potential to do so. Does this mean they do not deserve the rights that protect their ability to drive a car? Should they be stripped of their driver licenses? I'm curious how you would justify ignoring the potential of a child in the womb to have brainwaves, but would defend the right of a person to drive a car even though they have yet to do so.

These two things have potentials that must be examined in different ways. The potential to BE a person, and a person that HAS potential to do something, are markedly different things, and should be treated as thus in lawmaking.

[ZNFYRH]

Dirty Name,

Any abortion strips the child of the right to life.

[Dirty Name]

But I also think that there are certain justifications for abortion that justify bypassing that right to life, just as euthanasia and murder are justified.

Do share. I sit at my desk right now examining late-term abortion records that do not indicate any justifiable reason for aborting other than guilt and convenience.

[Dirty Name]

Any abortion strips the child of the right to life.

You are preaching to the choir, brother. I'm just saying that they have admitted more than Planned Parenthood would ever want them to.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name And a conceived child IS. Brainwaves WILL BE. You are the one applying rights to what "will be" while we are urging the application of rights to what "IS."

That foolish reasoning. I SAY that the RIGHTS SHOULD BE APPLIED at said POINT.

A conceived 'child' doesnt deserve rights, until it gains sentience. Then you can truly feel sympathy for it in whatever manner, and give it rights. Until then, its a blob of biomass as far as you are concerned.

[Dirty Name]

These two things have potentials that must be examined in different ways. The potential to BE a person, and a person that HAS potential to do something, are markedly different things, and should be treated as thus in lawmaking.

Why?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Why?

Because is the first situation, an actual PERSON to apply rights to doesnt exist. In the second, it does.

[Dirty Name]

I SAY that the RIGHTS SHOULD BE APPLIED at said POINT.

What point? An arbitrary one, chosen by YOU, based on little more than the best medical technology you have at your disposal at the time. And when technology changes your understanding of the situation, you will again revise your position.

The concept of life - and the right to life - beginning at conception will never change, regardless of the technology. It's not arbitrary and therefore superior.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name What point? An arbitrary one, chosen by YOU, based on little more than the best medical technology you have at your disposal at the time. And when technology changes your understanding of the situation, you will again revise your position.

Well, seeing a brainwave is either present or it isnt, that's a stretch. But yes. I work off the best data available at the time, like most educated choices. It's a safe bet in this situation, I believe.

Quote by: Dirty Name The concept of life - and the right to life - beginning at conception will never change, regardless of the technology. It's not arbitrary and therefore superior.

That doesn't make it any more ethically or practically valid.

[Dirty Name]

Because is the first situation, an actual PERSON to apply rights to doesnt exist. In the second, it does.

Logical fallacy = Circular reasoning. Fallacy: Begging the Question

Try again.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: p These two things have potentials that must be examined in different ways. The potential to BE a person, and a person that HAS potential to do something, are markedly different things, and should be treated as thus in lawmaking.

Evaluation of potential is subjective.

You don't issue rights because someone may or may not use them.

You issue them so that they can be used.

You don't issue the right to life for a fetus at some arbitrary point. You issue it and protect it because it will be a human.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Logical fallacy = Circular reasoning. Fallacy: Begging the Question Try again.

Ok.

Because is the first situation, an actual PERSON to apply rights to doesnt exist. In the second, it does.

How many times do I need to post it?

By the way, there is no circular reasoning involved there.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do share. I sit at my desk right now examining late-term abortion records that do not indicate any justifiable reason for aborting other than guilt and convenience.

Are there any justifiable reasons for euthanasia other than guilt and convenience?

There is also the medical reason of a birth or gestation possibly killing the mother.

My point is that if you can legally justify euthanasia, which is someone else with the legal responsibility deciding to take away the right to life, then abortion is the same.

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore,

But it's faulty.

You're saying the application of human rights should be when brainwaves start.

100 years ago we had no way of measuring brainwaves at all. So does that mean no one had human rights until we were able to technologically verify it?

That doesn't make sense.

[Dirty Name]

Are there any justifiable reasons for euthanasia other than guilt and convenience?

No, and those aren't justifications either.

There is also the medical reason of a birth or gestation possibly killing the mother.

The possibility of a birth killing the mother exists in EVERY birth.

Gestation-related deaths apply only to ectopic pregnancies, which are non-viable from the start. "Aborting" in that circumstance is merely performing a procedure to remove the doomed child in a safe manner rather than allowing it to kill both mother and child in an uncontrolled manner.

By the way, I have yet to see any late term abortion for health reasons where the mother facing death if she carried the baby to term. Anyone care to cite one for me?

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Evaluation of potential is subjective.

Well... not really in this case. It isn't human until it has a functioning brain that houses the human consiousness. You can put a brain in a jar, and if it still is switched 'on', you still have a human 'being', and human consciousness/'soul' present. That's what makes us human, and that's what right ultimately aim to protect: our minds.

Quote by: ZNFYRH You don't issue rights because someone may or may not use them. You issue them so that they can be used.

It's not a matter of if it may or may not be used, it's a matter of whether or not they are APPLICABLE.

Quote by: ZNFYRH You don't issue the right to life for a fetus at some arbitrary point. You issue it and protect it because it will be a human.

Not neccessairly, it may die from malnutrition from the mother or there may be a fatal error during the development. You can't be certain it will be born. You aren't even protecting a certainty.