Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortysixandtwo)
    We're getting confused in our terms.

    A cell that respires is deemed to be alive. What we're talking about is when human life begins.

    That is, actual conscious life. The fertilised egg has the potential to form into a human being. My point is that we're never going to know when that actual moment is.

    When does a bunch of cells become conscious? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

    We can, of course, guess, but to build an argument against the right to abortion you need more than guesswork.
    A fertilised egg is a human being with potential.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    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).


    Well done, but that does not add too nor further your position. My belief is that you will not argue it because you cannot defend it. Hence your hesitation to do so. You say you will never get your point across, which is wrong, you did get your point across, i argued it and defeated it. Just because you cannot defeat my counter point does not mean i did not 'get' you point. It means i blew it out of the water.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    eh?

    I can see the names of those who rep me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well done, but that does not add too nor further your position. My belief is that you will not argue it because you cannot defend it. Hence your hesitation to do so. You say you will never get your point across, which is wrong, you did get your point across, i argued it and defeated it. Just because you cannot defeat my counter point does not mean i did not 'get' you point. It means i blew it out of the water.
    Well, If you want, I will argue it when I'm more sobre.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Aren't they? :lolwut: Which other species have developed them?
    I explained quite clearly what I meant, I'm surprised you didn't get it.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    And as far as I'm concerned, a foetus isn't a human being either. What's your point?


    (Original post by Aeolus)

    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?
    No, because his passengers are not living inside him. The right to do what you like with your own plane is incomparable to the right to do what you like to your body.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    Drink driving is certainly not a human right. I'm pretty shocked that you seem to think it is. Do you have much understanding of the concept of human rights?


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You keep using the term person, what exactly, according to you is the criteria for personhood?
    Many but not necessarily all of these qualities- having an independent body, being able to feel emotion, form relationships, have some sort of intelligent ability, basically being sentient and self aware.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    Jeez, you need to try harder to understand a basic point. I wasn't making a comparison to abortion, I was referring specifically to your question 'do you agree [that rights come with responsibilities)'. If you're going to ask a question, listen to the answer.




    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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?
    No, but like I said- the right to decide what happens to your own body is way more important than the right to decide what happens to your plane. Plus, the woman doesn't consent to getting pregnant.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    If the squatters might die of cold, or there's someone waiting to kill them outside, that doesn't mean I'm obliged to keep them in my house. The foetus cannot live outside the womb, but that doesn't mean it has the right to live in the womb.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I can see the names of those who rep me.
    So you can just neg rep those who neg rep you when you feel like it? Will have to complain about this. That is absolutely ridiculous... Well you've admitted what you will be doing anyway. Print screen.

    Good thing a bunch of other people neg repped you, and you spent your rep on neg repping them back for now, eh? How pathetic are you? You don't deserve the powers you have.

    That's why I'll have to wait two hours or so to get your rep, lol, because you can't right now. Don't woz, dawg, You will be getting reported and I have more than a case against you... unless you want to carry on this promise of neg rep... lol

    regardless, you will be getting reported. I don't care about my rep you see...
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Toxic Tears)
    A fertilised egg is a human being with potential.
    Well obviously that's the debate.

    But then, what about all the fertilised eggs that don't implant into the womb - that end their "life" in a sanitary towel? Crappy way to go.

    Faulty design by God, I guess. :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    So you can just neg rep those who neg rep you when you feel like it? Will have to complain about this. That is absolutely ridiculous... Well you've admitted what you will be doing anyway. Print screen.
    It is not against the rules. So i am unsure as to what you think you will achieve.

    Good thing a bunch of other people neg repped you, and you spent your rep on neg repping them back for now, eh? How pathetic are you? You don't deserve the powers you have.

    LOL "powers". I didn't realise the internet was such serious business.

    That's why I'll have to wait two hours or so to get your rep, lol, because you can't right now. Don't woz, dawg, You will be getting reported and I have more than a case against you... unless you want to carry on this promise of neg rep... lol

    regardless, you will be getting reported. I don't care about my rep you see...

    Again, i am unsure as to what you think you will achieve by doing this. Negging you is not against the rules, unless i leave an abusive message. Why should you be alllowed to neg me but i cannot return it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    But why do people have a right to life if they have no right over life.

    Misconception. Nobody has a right on life; not even his own. That's my belief.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I explained quite clearly what I meant, I'm surprised you didn't get it.
    No, im afraid you didn't. I said that individual rights were a concept unique to our species. You said that they were not. I asked what other species has developed them as well as our own?

    And as far as I'm concerned, a foetus isn't a human being either. What's your point?
    But a foetus is a human being. It has all the charecteristics of a human being, it has a beating heart like a human being, it has a brain and a developing nervous system.

    I am quite surprised you are comparing such a complex organism to a blood cell? :lolwut:


    No, because his passengers are not living inside him. The right to do what you like with your own plane is incomparable to the right to do what you like to your body.
    Hmmm, rather hypocritical of you considering you have no problem with using the 'squatter' comparison. However, the analogy stands. The passengers cannot survive outside of the plane, which the pilot owns. Just because they are inside his plane doesn't mean he owns them.

    The same goes for the woman and the unborn child in her womb.


    Drink driving is certainly not a human right. I'm pretty shocked that you seem to think it is. Do you have much understanding of the concept of human rights?

    I think you are smart enought to see this perfectly simple point, you are merely being pedantic. However i will put it in simple terms for you.

    Human right = Self ownership

    Self ownership = Drinking and driving

    In the same way that:

    Human right = self ownership

    Self ownership = having sexual intercourse.


    Do you not agree that both actions have consequences, and both actions come with responsibilities?



    Many but not necessarily all of these qualities- having an independent body, being able to feel emotion, form relationships, have some sort of intelligent ability, basically being sentient and self aware.

    So you do not believe coma patients or those with severe mental retardation are people?

    Wow.....


    No, but like I said- the right to decide what happens to your own body is way more important than the right to decide what happens to your plane. Plus, the woman doesn't consent to getting pregnant.

    :facepalm2: She consents to having sex, a consequence of which may be pregnancy. Just because she doesn't like the unintended yet obvious consequences doesn't mean she can kill an unborn child.



    The foetus cannot live outside the womb, but that doesn't mean it has the right to live in the womb.

    The newborn baby cannot live outside society, does that mean society has the right to kill newborn babies?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, im afraid you didn't. I said that individual rights were a concept unique to our species. You said that they were not. I asked what other species has developed them as well as our own?
    It was pretty obvious that my point was that individual rights to not apply to everything and anyhting that is biologically human, not that animals have developed individual rights.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But a foetus is a human being. It has all the charecteristics of a human being, it has a beating heart like a human being, it has a brain and a developing nervous system.

    I am quite surprised you are comparing such a complex organism to a blood cell? :lolwut:
    My point being that being biologically human doesn't automatically give you rights. Of course a foetus is more complex than a blood cell. That's not necessarily enough, I'm afraid.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Hmmm, rather hypocritical of you considering you have no problem with using the 'squatter' comparison. However, the analogy stands. The passengers cannot survive outside of the plane, which the pilot owns. Just because they are inside his plane doesn't mean he owns them.

    The same goes for the woman and the unborn child in her womb.
    Like I said, the right to do what you like to your body and the right to do what you like with your plane are very different, the first being obviously vastly more important than the other.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I think you are smart enought to see this perfectly simple point, you are merely being pedantic. However i will put it in simple terms for you.

    Human right = Self ownership

    Self ownership = Drinking and driving

    In the same way that:

    Human right = self ownership

    Self ownership = having sexual intercourse.


    Do you not agree that both actions have consequences, and both actions come with responsibilities?
    You're completely annoying the central point- drink driving is not a right. This isn't difficult to understand.

    Being able to drive and being able to drink are not human rights either. I have no idea where you got this notion from.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you do not believe coma patients or those with severe mental retardation are people?

    Wow.....
    Gosh, you have a remarkable ability for simply ignoring crucial parts of what I say. Did you not read the 'many, but not necessarily all of these traits', which totally explains away your point?


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :facepalm2: She consents to having sex, a consequence of which may be pregnancy. Just because she doesn't like the unintended yet obvious consequences doesn't mean she can kill an unborn child.
    That's like saying that if you leave a window open you consent to being robbed. Doing something that has a risk doesn't mean you consent to any bad consequences, especially if the risk is remote.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The newborn baby cannot live outside society, does that mean society has the right to kill newborn babies?
    No, because there are plenty of people willing to care for these babies. No one person is forced to support them. In the case of pregnancy, the woman has no other choice but to support the foetus, because it's reliant on her body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It was pretty obvious that my point was that individual rights to not apply to everything and anyhting that is biologically human, not that animals have developed individual rights.

    Pray tell when i implied anything biologically human had rights?

    Im pretty sure i said that individual rights are a uniqely human concept http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=


    My point being that being biologically human doesn't automatically give you rights. Of course a foetus is more complex than a blood cell. That's not necessarily enough, I'm afraid.

    Why not?


    Like I said, the right to do what you like to your body and the right to do what you like with your plane are very different, the first being obviously vastly more important than the other.
    :rolleyes: Ok, i see that you want to avoid my point.



    You're completely annoying the central point- drink driving is not a right. This isn't difficult to understand.

    Being able to drive and being able to drink are not human rights either. I have no idea where you got this notion from.

    Well then surely using this reasoning, having sex is not a human right either, which is what you originally implied.

    But regardless you are just plain wrong. My point is not that specific actions are a human right, my point is that the decision to carry out these specific actions is a human right. The decision is the individuals and no others, hence the responsibility is also theirs.

    I realise you are just being pedantic. But you have argued your way into a corner here.


    Gosh, you have a remarkable ability for simply ignoring crucial parts of what I say. Did you not read the 'many, but not necessarily all of these traits', which totally explains away your point?
    So what is the difference betweena severely disabled human being and an unborn child? What is it which makes one a person and the other a 'thing'?


    That's like saying that if you leave a window open you consent to being robbed. Doing something that has a risk doesn't mean you consent to any bad consequences, especially if the risk is remote.

    Of course it does. The consequences of your actions are your own fault. Who elses are they?

    Why should an unborn child be murdered because a woman who takes no responsibility for herself or her actions, doesn't want to get fat?


    No, because there are plenty of people willing to care for these babies. No one person is forced to support them. In the case of pregnancy, the woman has no other choice but to support the foetus, because it's reliant on her body.

    Im not talking about 'plenty of people' read carefully and actually address a point for once instead of trying to avoid them.

    A newborn child cannot survive without society. If not one person in that society wanted to care for the child. Would you say it was ok for them to kill the child?

    If it wasn't ok then society would have no other choice but to support the newborn because it was reliant on their care. They would have to support the child against their will, even though nobody wants to.

    Do you think they are justified in killing the child?


    Dont try and wriggle your way out of this hypothetical. I am saying that nobody in this society wants to care for the child given a choice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Pray tell when i implied anything biologically human had rights?

    Im pretty sure i said that individual rights are a uniqely human concept http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=
    You implied that the reason the foetus has rights is because it's human.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well then surely using this reasoning, having sex is not a human right either, which is what you originally implied.

    But regardless you are just plain wrong. My point is not that specific actions are a human right, my point is that the decision to carry out these specific actions is a human right. The decision is the individuals and no others, hence the responsibility is also theirs.

    I realise you are just being pedantic. But you have argued your way into a corner here.
    Er, I don't think sex is a human right at all, and I never implied that anywhere. I think it's also blindingly obvious that the decision to drink drive is not a human right either, and I'm confused as to why you're insisting it is.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So what is the difference betweena severely disabled human being and an unborn child? What is it which makes one a person and the other a 'thing'?
    It would help if you specified which disability, because obviously they all differ. However, a disabed person has a body that isn't reliant on one specific person's body. To me, this is the most important aspect. I've never heard of a disability that stops you feeling emotion or participating in bonds and relationships, however basic. I've also never heard of a disability that causes someone to not be sentient.


    (Original post by Aeolus)

    Of course it does. The consequences of your actions are your own fault. Who elses are they?

    Why should an unborn child be murdered because a woman who takes no responsibility for herself or her actions, doesn't want to get fat?
    Even if the the pregnancy is the woman's fault, that doesn't mean she consents to it. FFS, the concept of consent is not hard to understand. What do you not get?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not talking about 'plenty of people' read carefully and actually address a point for once instead of trying to avoid them.

    A newborn child cannot survive without society. If not one person in that society wanted to care for the child. Would you say it was ok for them to kill the child?

    If it wasn't ok then society would have no other choice but to support the newborn because it was reliant on their care. They would have to support the child against their will, even though nobody wants to.

    Do you think they are justified in killing the child?


    Dont try and wriggle your way out of this hypothetical. I am saying that nobody in this society wants to care for the child given a choice.
    I've already answered your question, of course I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. But since you've changed the question I'll answer the new one. Nobody in society should be forced to care for a baby they don't want. If this means the baby is left to die because not one person wants it then that's tragic, but so be it. What else do you suggest? You can't force a baby on someone.

    Anyway, a baby is a person, a foetus is not. Sooo the analogy isn't great, obviously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    You implied that the reason the foetus has rights is because it's human.

    No i didn't i implied that individual rights were a uniquely human concept.


    Er, I don't think sex is a human right at all, and I never implied that anywhere. I think it's also blindingly obvious that the decision to drink drive is not a human right either, and I'm confused as to why you're insisting it is.

    Having the ability to choose for yourself to do these things is a human right. Come on now, this is basic wikipedia info.



    It would help if you specified which disability, because obviously they all differ. However, a disabed person has a body that isn't reliant on one specific person's body. To me, this is the most important aspect. I've never heard of a disability that stops you feeling emotion or participating in bonds and relationships, however basic. I've also never heard of a disability that causes someone to not be sentient.

    So there are certain human beings with disabilities which you feel stops them being people and therefore strips them of their rights? Makes them naught but animals?



    Even if the the pregnancy is the woman's fault, that doesn't mean she consents to it. FFS, the concept of consent is not hard to understand. What do you not get?

    So if i throw a penny from a skyscraper and it kills someone, it is not my fault because i did not consent to murder? And according to you, i should't really face the consequences of my actions because the possibility of my penny actually killing someone was remote.



    I've already answered your question, of course I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. But since you've changed the question I'll answer the new one. Nobody in society should be forced to care for a baby they don't want. If this means the baby is left to die because not one person wants it then that's tragic, but so be it. What else do you suggest? You can't force a baby on someone.

    Finally. Does the same go for the disabled and the injured who cannot survive without a society who wants to care for them?

    And you called me savage and uncivilised earlier. :eyebrow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is pointless to argue with anyone who is so arrogant that they won't even accept to agree to disagree.

    You can't win an argument that is based on personal moral judgement and I think certain people here feel that they are 'winning' when in fact they are just too involved with their own opinions to notice that personal belief does not equate to fact.

    At the end of the day, what gives anyone the right to judge a woman for this decision?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No i didn't i implied that individual rights were a
    uniquely human concept.
    Ok, whatever, if that was your point then how is it even relevent?


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Having the ability to choose for yourself to do these things is a human right. Come on now, this is basic wikipedia info.
    Go on then, show me your sources if you're going to be so insistent (not wikipedia please).




    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So there are certain human beings with disabilities which you feel stops them being people and therefore strips them of their rights? Makes them naught but animals?
    Are you literally just reading what I say and thinking 'she means the opposite', and replying as if I stated the opposite?


    (Original post by Aeolus)

    So if i throw a penny from a skyscraper and it kills someone, it is not my fault because i did not consent to murder? And according to you, i should't really face the consequences of my actions because the
    possibility of my penny actually killing someone was remote.
    You can't 'consent' to something happening to someone else (unless you're their guardian or something). You've just shown you really don't know what consent means.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Finally. Does the same go for the disabled and the injured who cannot survive without a society who wants to care for them?

    And you called me savage and uncivilised earlier. :eyebrow:
    Of course. Now you answer my question- what else would you suggest? There is literally no other option, if nobody wants to care for these people. Of course, it would be great if someone took responsibility for them, but if nobody wants to there's no way of forcing this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Ok, whatever, if that was your point then how is it even relevent?
    My point was that rights are a uniquely human concept which apply to humans. Not human red blood cells, not human sperm cells, not human hairs. Human beings. Thus your ridiculous point was invalid


    Go on then, show me your sources if you're going to be so insistent (not wikipedia please).

    Are you serious? The right to self ownership is the natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his or her own body and life. Are you saying you do not agree with this? I thought you were all about rights?

    If you want to read more about individual rights then i would suggest John Locke, Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Franklin etc..etc..

    But i don't believe you haven't heard, nor believe in individual sovreignity as a concept?



    Are you literally just reading what I say and thinking 'she means the opposite', and replying as if I stated the opposite?

    You said that there are some cases depending on the disability, levels of conciousness etc.. In which you would not class that human being as a person.


    You can't 'consent' to something happening to someone else (unless you're their guardian or something). You've just shown you really don't know what consent means.

    :facepalm2: This is becoming tiring. Are you saying that if i threw a penny from the summit of the empire state building and it killed somebody, it wouldn't be my fault? According to you, if the possibility of something bad happening due to our own actions negates the consequences or blame.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hay.hay)
    At the end of the day, what gives anyone the right to judge a woman for this decision?


    I suppose you could say, what gives anyone the right to judge a man who kills a baby in his care for their decision?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    My point was that rights are a uniquely human concept which apply to humans. Not human red blood cells, not human sperm cells, not human hairs. Human beings. Thus your ridiculous point was invalid
    Well, my repeated response to that has been that a foetus is not necessarily a human being.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Are you serious? The right to self ownership is the natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his or her own body and life. Are you saying you do not agree with this? I thought you were all about rights?

    If you want to read more about individual rights then i would suggest John Locke, Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Franklin etc..etc..

    But i don't believe you haven't heard, nor believe in individual sovreignity as a concept?
    So I take it you don't have a source.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You said that there are some cases depending on the disability, levels of conciousness etc.. In which you would not class that human being as a person.

    I really, really did not say this. Are we reading the same posts?




    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :facepalm2: This is becoming tiring. Are you saying that if i threw a penny from the summit of the empire state building and it killed somebody, it wouldn't be my fault? According to you, if the possibility of something bad happening due to our own actions negates the consequences or blame.
    Of course I am not saying this. My point is about CONSENT, as was yours, originally. Something can be your fault but this doesn't mean you consented to it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.