Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, becuase your cat is not a human being. Are you denying that a foetus is a human being?
    No, I'm denying it's (necessarily) a person. Being human and being an actual person are very different. Anyway, my point was that the foetus being able to feel pleasure and pain doesn't necessarily give it rights, because many living things can feel pleasure and pain. However you've changed your argument to 'but it's human', which is a whole other issue.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If i was to excersize my rights to self ownership by driving a car after drinking, i hit sombody and kill them. Would you say that i shouldn't have to face up to the responsibility of my actions?
    Drink driving isn't a right, it's impossible to argue that it is. Being able to do what I please with my body, however, is a right.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    It is a human being though. It has a heart which is beating and blood which is pumping. That is undeniable. You are still advocating the killing of a very innocent human.
    Like I said- being biologically human and being a person with rights- very different. My skin cells are human.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, that child is a consequence of the females actions. It did not suddenly appear inside her. She consented to the intercourse knowing the risks. She excersized her right to self ownership, as she should have done. She had a chance to terminate the fertilised egg, but again she didn't. Just because she didn't take responsibility for her actions, as all free individuals should. It doesn't mean she should be allowed to kill another human life. That is something disgusting which shouldn't happen in civilised society.
    Well, I guess all I can say is I totally disagree. You seem to think that exercising self ownership obviously ends after having sex- it doesn't. Maybe you can argue that the woman should be selfless and responsible and give birth to the child, but that doesn't mean you can force her to. Her body is her body, and it doesn't add up that just because something else needs her body to survive she has to surrender it. It seems blindingly obvious to me that in a civilised society where women are taken seriously they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their body. Forcing a woman to carry a baby in her womb is barbaric and disgusting.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    They shouldn't have ahd sex then should they? Or if they did have sex then they should have takenn responsibility for their actions.
    Funny how it's always the woman who has to take responsibility. And how it's always the men arguing against abortion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aeolus,

    What if there were a hole in a condom and a woman got pregnant that way? Is it still her responsibility? Or should Durex then start adopting these babies to live up to its "responsibility"?

    You're basically saying that if you have sex, having a baby, however unplanned, is entirely your responsibility. That seems totally ridiculous to me.

    I hope you're not sexually active. Otherwise, I hope you're somebody who is entirely prepared to support a baby.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Because human rights are there to protect those who have the capacity to feel injustice. Not all humans can, only people who have met the criteria of being a person can.
    What? :lolwut:

    The right to self ownership is something all human beings posess. In the west anyway. We are not allowed to force chilldren or mentally disabled into slavery, we are not allowed to kill children or mentally disabled, we are not allowed to own children or mentally disabled.

    It seems that your argument is, because some in the world do not respect individual rights, then nobody should.



    Lol, try explaining it to a fetus.

    You've proved my point entirely there. You only deserve human rights if you are capable of understanding them.
    Exactly, and humans are capable of understanding them. A fetus is potentially capable of understanding them, and it is almost garunteed it will do when it grows older.

    No other species will understand rights. Because they are a uniquely human concept.

    You still haven't explained why the fact only those who understand rights can have them means that rights shouldn't exist.



    I already said, I don't care if something is human. I will give anything what is conventionally considered human rights as long as it meets the criteria of personhood. If a dog came up and asked me to protect it, I would try my best to, because, with the ability to grasp and use language, one would expect, it is inherently capable of experiencing the suffering that human rights are there to protect us from.

    But you have just contradicted yourself. If a dog was capable of asking you to protect it, then a dog would be capable of understanding individual rights. You criticised this methodology above.

    Actually, our primary function is to maintain our own genes. Naturally, we have no concern for others of our species, unless they are directly related to us, becaus ethey carry our genes.

    You are just repeating my previous points. You haven't actually put forth any kind of argument in this post. 'Our genes' are our species, and that is what i said before. if we were not concerned by our own species then we would have died out millenia ago.

    This whole, "look out for your own" is an entirely primitive concept. It is one that is often used to justify ridiculous concepts such as racism and eugenics.

    Ok then. Lets say that we extend individual rights to the animal kingdom. Bearing in mind the animal kingdom has no comprehension of what rights are.

    What happens when one animal kills another? It has violated the rights of another, something we punish. Do we punish the animal? Do we lock it up?

    How will carnivores survive? How will they eat meat if they cannot violate the rights of others.

    They cannot. Which is why rights are a uniquely human concept and a uniquely human value.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Aeolus,

    What if there were a hole in a condom and a woman got pregnant that way? Is it still her responsibility? Or should Durex then start adopting these babies to live up to its "responsibility"?
    Does Durex claim it's condoms work 100% of the time? Doesn't it warn the opposite?

    thus it is the female/males responsibility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ugh, I just cannot be bothered. We're not going to get anywhere here. I think we should agree to disagree fundamentally here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Btw, I'd just like to point out the meat analogy you used in your last post does not work.

    I do not eat meat, and I live just fine; healthier than most in fact.

    Rights are a person concept, not just a human concept. You need to get that through your head. It is not a concept of fetuses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Does Durex claim it's condoms work 100% of the time? Doesn't it warn the opposite?

    thus it is the female/males responsibility.
    What about condoms that are marketed as "extra safe". That could easily lead people to conclude that they are entirely safe. The fact is, many people go into sex thinking it is absolutely impossible to conceive and then they do get pregnant. To say it is always their responsibility is ridiculous, I maintain.

    Otherwise, I could always bring out the rape card. Who's responsibility is it then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    No, I'm denying it's (necessarily) a person. Being human and being an actual person are very different. Anyway, my point was that the foetus being able to feel pleasure and pain doesn't necessarily give it rights, because many living things can feel pleasure and pain. However you've changed your argument to 'but it's human', which is a whole other issue.

    No that is the criteria for rights. Rights are an entirely human concept,



    Drink driving isn't a right, it's impossible to argue that it is. Being able to do what I please with my body, however, is a right.
    How is using your body to drink drive any different from using your body to have sex? You are excersizing your right to self ownersip in both scenarios.

    If we were to ignore civil law. What is the big difference? You are taking a risk doing both are you not? You are gaining enjoyment and thrills from both are you not?


    Like I said- being biologically human and being a person with rights- very different. My skin cells are human.
    :rolleyes: no, your skin cells are skin cells. they are not a human being, they are parts of a human being.


    Well, I guess all I can say is I totally disagree. You seem to think that exercising self ownership obviously ends after having sex- it doesn't.

    :facepalm2: Have you read nothing i have written?

    Rights mean responsibilities. You cannot truly have one without having the other. Do you agree?


    Maybe you can argue that the woman should be selfless and responsible and give birth to the child, but that doesn't mean you can force her to. Her body is her body,
    You could argue that the axe murderer should be selfless and responsible and not kill the victim. but that does not mean you can force him to. his body is his body.


    and it doesn't add up that just because something else needs her body to survive she has to surrender it.
    But she got herself into that situation. She consented to intercourse, and only an idiot wouldn't have it in the back of their minds that sex can result in pregnancy. Even if the odds are extremely remote. In the same way that getting into a car can result in crashing, and that diving into a swimming pool can result in drowning.

    It seems blindingly obvious to me that in a civilised society where women are taken seriously they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their body.
    I am a feminist, or at the very least a strong advocate of womans rights. But just because i feel strongly about this doesn't mean i support the womans right to knife another human being in the back, or put a bullet between someones eyes.

    I think the abortion debate has been twisted by the patriachal right wing and the femenist left into a question of womans rights only. And in this clash of fundamentalism the innocent child in the womb is forgotten about.

    That doesn't sound like civilised society to me.

    Forcing a woman to carry a baby in her womb is barbaric and disgusting.
    A mother killing her baby because it will make her look fat is barbaric and disgusting. The child is a consequence of her consenting actions. Why should she be able to shirk the responsibility?

    It's not like she hasn't had enough chances. Contraception, birth control, morning after pill etc.. etc...

    Why the hell should she be able to destroy a fetus at 20 weeks, because she could not take responsibility for her own actions? Why should a fast developing child have it's life destroyed and future blotted out because the woman is a ******* irresponsible idiot?

    Maybe we should let irresonsible drunk drivers who kill people off? Why not, they were excersizing their rights to self ownership, why should they be forced to go to prison because someone else got in the way of their car?

    Funny how it's always the woman who has to take responsibility. And how it's always the men arguing against abortion.
    I am arguing in favour of the child. Not the man and not the woman. Once again the innocent life growing in the womb is forgotten about in lieu of who has more rights and who is more equal. I think it is savage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    What about condoms that are marketed as "extra safe". That could easily lead people to conclude that they are entirely safe. The fact is, many people go into sex thinking it is absolutely impossible to conceive and then they do get pregnant. To say it is always their responsibility is ridiculous, I maintain.

    extra safe=/=completely safe.

    Are you suggesting idiots should not be responsible for their actions?

    Otherwise, I could always bring out the rape card. Who's responsibility is it then?

    :rolleyes: Obviously the woman has not consented to the child. If you would bother reading my posts in this thread you would see i am not competely anti-abortion and i would be able to stop repeating myself.

    But, keep in mind that the exception doesn't mean the rule. The fact you have resorted to extreme examples shows that your position is weak.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Then you'll argue that an embryo is not a human life.....etc Since there is no scientific evidence indicating the beginning of a human life we should rightly so put the limit at the time interval when uncertinity beings or otherwise we'll be risking lives.
    The status of the foetus (whether it's a person or not) is obviously a subjective thing, like you've said. As far as I'm concerned this means that it's up to people to make up their own minds about whether the foetus is a person or not. If you think the foetus is a person, then don't have an abortion, simple. It doesn't mean you should impose your subjective view about the state of the foetus onto women who don't think the foetus is a person. It just means you can decide for yourself whether you want to have an abortion or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Btw, I'd just like to point out the meat analogy you used in your last post does not work.

    I do not eat meat, and I live just fine; healthier than most in fact.

    :nothing:What about a lion, what about a piranha, what about a leech etc..etc... etc..

    Rights are a person concept, not just a human concept. You need to get that through your head. It is not a concept of fetuses.

    No, rights are a human concept. Find me a lion who will recognize and reciprocate the rights of a tasty umpala and you may have a point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    extra safe=/=completely safe.

    Are you suggesting idiots should not be responsible for their actions?
    These condoms are actually marketed to trick stupid people. Should it not be the responsibility of the companies rather than the stupid woman?

    And yes, on the basis that knowledge is a justification of responsibility (which is the justification you have been using this entire thread), then yes. Otherwise, no, abort the little *******. I don't care.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rolleyes: Obviously the woman has not consented to the child. If you would bother reading my posts in this thread you would see i am not competely anti-abortion and i would be able to stop repeating myself.
    Oh, so it's okay to abandon "human rights" (the rights you've been banging on about the whole thread, the rights that have pretty much made up your entire argument) if the mother does not consent to the thing that made her pregnant? But that excludes mothers who were too stupid to realise they might get pregnant by 99.9% safe condoms? They didn't consent to getting pregnant...

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But, keep in mind that the exception doesn't mean the rule. The fact you have resorted to extreme examples shows that your position is weak.
    Well, how about the fact that most people here are arguing with you and the fact that the law (one that we have taken thousands of years to determine a sustainable law on) is on my side, shows that you're argument is weak? Don't use circumstantial debate, unless you're actually going to get somewhere with it. I didn't even use it, even thought it works against you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :nothing:What about a lion, what about a piranha, what about a leech etc..etc... etc..




    No, rights are a human concept. Find me a lion who will recognize and reciprocate the rights of a tasty umpala and you may have a point.
    Find me a fetus, who will agree with your crap.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No that is the criteria for rights. Rights are an entirely human concept,
    Er, no, they're not, they don't apply to anything and everything that is biologically human. My skin cells are human and they don't have rights. If someone cuts me it isn't murder because blood cells are dying. Rights apply to people. That's why someone on permanent life support can be euthanised.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How is using your body to drink drive any different from using your body to have sex? You are excersizing your right to self ownersip in both scenarios.
    Being able to do what I like to my body is a human right. You can't deny this, even though you think that this right can be overruled. Drink driving has nothing to do with human rights. There is no human right to drive.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rolleyes: no, your skin cells are skin cells. they are not a human being, they are parts of a human being.
    Which is a very important distinction. As far as I'm concerned a foetus is human- like a sperm cell is a human cell- but is not a human being, if human being=person.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :facepalm2: Have you read nothing i have written?

    Rights mean responsibilities. You cannot truly have one without having the other. Do you agree?
    No, I don't necessarily agree. I think rights should mean responsibilities, but shouldn't be conditional on them. For example, we have the right to free speech, and I think this comes with responsibilities. So, for example, people using free speech to write hateful newpaper articles (remember Jan Moir?) or for Islam4UK protests or whatever aren't being responsible about their right to free speech. That doesn't mean we can withdraw this right. If they're exercising their rights in a way we don't like, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about this. Rights shouldn't be conditional.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You could argue that the axe murderer should be selfless and responsible and not kill the victim. but that does not mean you can force him to. his body is his body.
    Killing someone completely independent from your body isn't comparable. The only reason a woman is allowed to abort is because the foetus is in her body. It's not just because we think people should be able to do what the hell they like. It's because the foetus is inside her body against her wishes, and the only way to remove it is abortion.



    But she got herself into that situation. She consented to intercourse, and only an idiot wouldn't have it in the back of their minds that sex can result in pregnancy. Even if the odds are extremely remote. In the same way that getting into a car can result in crashing, and that diving into a swimming pool can result in drowning.
    If you own a house, there's a possibility of squatters. That doesn't mean that when someone comes to squat in someone's house you can say 'well you knew there was a remote chance of squatters and so you consented to squatters, if you didn't want them you shouldn't have bought the house'. The possibility of something happening doesn't mean you consent to it happening.


    I am a feminist, or at the very least a strong advocate of womans rights. But just because i feel strongly about this doesn't mean i support the womans right to knife another human being in the back, or put a bullet between someones eyes.
    Like I said, the distinction is that in this case the foetus is living inside the woman's body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, no, they're not,
    Aren't they? :lolwut: Which other species have developed them?

    they don't apply to anything and everything that is biologically human. My skin cells are human and they don't have rights./quote]

    Oh please youre clutching at straws with this ridiculous argument. We as a society extend rights to all human beings. A red blood cell will never be a human being, neither will a mouse or a tiger.

    [quoteIf someone cuts me it isn't murder because blood cells are dying. Rights apply to people. That's why someone on permanent life support can be euthanised.
    That is because someone on permanent life support will never be able to make the choice for themselves, nor will they be able to excersize their right to self ownership. The same does not apply to an unborn child.


    Being able to do what I like to my body is a human right.
    Yes of course. But the child inside of you is not your body, you do not own it. A pilot is not allowed to kill his passengers is he?

    Drink driving has nothing to do with human rights. There is no human right to drive.
    But there is a human right to choose to drive, to choose to drink, to choose to accept the risks. The same way there is a human right to choose to have sex, to choose to not wear protection, to choose to not take the morning after pill. That doesn't mean you should be allowed to kill the unborn child which is a consequence of your irresponsibility.

    Which is a very important distinction. As far as I'm concerned a foetus is human- like a sperm cell is a human cell- but is not a human being, if human being=person.

    You keep using the term person, what exactly, according to you is the criteria for personhood?


    No, I don't necessarily agree. I think rights should mean responsibilities, but shouldn't be conditional on them. For example, we have the right to free speech, and I think this comes with responsibilities. So, for example, people using free speech to write hateful newpaper articles (remember Jan Moir?) or for Islam4UK protests or whatever aren't being responsible about their right to free speech.
    How is that even a comparison. You are comparing killing an unborn child to offending anothing individual. Bearing in mind that nobody has the right to not be offended. try harder.


    Killing someone completely independent from your body isn't comparable. The only reason a woman is allowed to abort is because the foetus is in her body. It's not just because we think people should be able to do what the hell they like. It's because the foetus is inside her body against her wishes,
    But she consented to having sexual intercourse. She took the risk she acceppted the responsibility. What if a pilot allows a drunk man onto his plane knowing that he may cause trouble. He takes the risk. At 30,000 feet the man starts going mad and the pilot wants him out of his plane. Does that mean the pilot should be allowed to jettison him so he falls to his death?


    If you own a house, there's a possibility of squatters. That doesn't mean that when someone comes to squat in someone's house you can say 'well you knew there was a remote chance of squatters and so you consented to squatters, if you didn't want them you shouldn't have bought the house'. The possibility of something happening doesn't mean you consent to it happening.

    It also doesn't mean you can shoot the squatters in the head with a shotgun because you want them out instantly. You would have to wait for the proper authorities to make the proper arrangements, something which may take some time and cause alot of inconvenience to your person and your property. You do not throw the squatters who are human beings out of the top floor window to their death.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Find me a fetus, who will agree with your crap.


    :rolleyes: Good argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rolleyes: Good argument.
    Cheers.

    Dude, I understand your argument, and I don't want to get into a debate on it: it's just not my thing. Could we agree to disagree here?

    Seriously, man, I totally understand your opinion, and especially if it coming from a religious viewpoint, I don't want to try to pick it apart. I just hope we can agree to disagree on this one
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    These condoms are actually marketed to trick stupid people. Should it not be the responsibility of the companies rather than the stupid woman?
    Why would a condom company trick it's customers into having babies? Don't you think that would be detrimental to their business as the reports come flooding in that their condoms aren't working properly.

    :eyebrow: Your arguments are getting worse by the minute.


    Oh, so it's okay to abandon "human rights" (the rights you've been banging on about the whole thread, the rights that have pretty much made up your entire argument) if the mother does not consent to the thing that made her pregnant? But that excludes mothers who were too stupid to realise they might get pregnant by 99.9% safe condoms? They didn't consent to getting pregnant...

    Are you trying to make a comparison between women who have a man force himself upon them using violence, and a woman who consents to having sex?

    If so.....:lolwut:

    However, if you were to check my above posts concerning rape. (so that again i wouldn't have to keep repeating myself) You would find a summary of my views on victims of rape.


    Well, how about the fact that most people here are arguing with you and the fact that the law (one that we have taken thousands of years to determine a sustainable law on)
    In some countries it is legal to execute human beings for being homosexual. One hundred years ago women did not have the vote. Just because something is legall does not automatically make it, or you right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    Cheers.

    Dude, I understand your argument, and I don't want to get into a debate on it: it's just not my thing. Could we agree to disagree here?
    No, i feel that your position is indefensible. The reason you have posted the above is because you cannot defend it. So i will in fact agree to agree that you are wrong.

    Seriously, man, I totally understand your opinion, and especially if it coming from a religious viewpoint, I don't want to try to pick it apart. I just hope we can agree to disagree on this one

    My opinion comes from no religious point. I am an atheist and in fact an anti theist. I am completely against the patriarchal religious right wing in the USA who have hijacked the pro-life argument and turned it into a tool to opress women and deny them their equality and rights int he name of God and primitive teachings.


    Oh, and i will be sure to return your generous neg rep later this evening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, i feel that your position is indefensible. The reason you have posted the above is because you cannot defend it. So i will in fact agree to agree that you are wrong.
    Heh, I just offered the olive branch, because I'd rather talk about things I enjoy rather than debate a fruitless argument that we would always disagree on.

    Look, mate, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I know I will never get my point across to you and so I decided to opt for the friendly disagreement. If you don't want to take it, fair enough, but don't make me out to be an idiot. At least I take action on things I care about. I'm a vegetarian and a philanthropist (to as much of an extent as I feel I can be).
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.