My abortion debate in the YouTube comments section

[dUSt]

dUSt:

So are you willing to have a critical thinking discussion with someone who is pro-life? If so, I'm game. We can leave emotion, politics, and religion completely out of it. I'm curious to know when you think a human being actually becomes a human being, and when that human being should have the same rights as any other human being. I can tell you with 100% confidence that science does not teach us human life begins when it leaves the uterus.

Andrew:

Well why should a fetus have more rights than an already birthered human?

dUSt:

@Andrew Scientifically, a fetus is a human being. If you do not think a fetus is a human being, I'd like to hear your reasons of why you think that way. So, if we establish that we are dealing with a human life, all human life should have equal rights, should it not? If not, who should determine which humans have more rights than others? Should mentally challenged people have less rights? Should older people have more rights than younger people? Rich people more rights than poor? I guess my question back to you would be, why should some humans have more rights than others?

Andrew:

@dUSt:  There is no hard scientific classification tho for when an individual "becomes" a human. Only what designates the species "homosapian". Don't start playing word games or i can easily take this into a "every sperm is sacred" argument just as easily. So, if we establish that we are dealing with a human life, all human life should have equal rights, should it not? Except you seem give more rights to a fetus than you do other humans. I guess my question back to you would be, why should some humans have more rights than others I do not, this is a question for you. I believe humans have the right to bodily autonomy. You however seem to think that a fetus should have rights over another human's body. For example, i can not force you to give me your kidney. I can not even force my mother or father to give me their kidney. Or blood, or liver donation... whatever. I have no right to use another human's body to sustain my own life. However you are giving that right to a fetus. YOU are the one giving more rights to a fetus than to other humans. Unless you do think i should be able to force another human to sustain me.

dUSt:

Andrew, I do think in certain situations, where human (A) is depending on another human (B) to live, that human (B) should have a lawful obligation to keep human (A) alive. If we disagree on this point, then we simply place different values on human life, and we can go our separate ways, agreeing to disagree. You have yet to answer my original question though. When do you believe a fetus turns into a human being that should be afforded the same rights as other human beings? Based on your bodily autonomy argument, I'm only left to assume that you believe abortion should be legal up until the second before birth, since the human life before that point is dependent on the body of the mother.

Andrew:

@dUSt:  Well there you go, you are rejecting the idea of bodily autonomy and saying a fetus has access to rights other humans can not have. So please stop saying you think all humans should have the same rights when you clearly want special protections for a fetus, but deny those protections to other humans. You have proved my point that you, and many like you, think the unborn should be given rights you would deny to other humans.

dUSt:

@Andrew Gentle reminder, you still have not answered my question about when you think a human should begin to have rights. Also, I do not think a fetus should have any access to rights that any human wouldn't have. There is a difference between giving up a kidney, and being pregnant. Although being pregnant can be a great hardship to women, it is how nature intended things to work. Cutting out someone's kidney to put it in another person is not exactly working in cooperation with nature. It's not really a fair comparison. Here's a better one: A pregnant woman runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere. She has the baby. The baby dies unless the woman breast feeds. I think the woman should have a lawful obligation to violate her bodily autonomy and feed the baby. You don't? It's actually really hard to have this discussion with you until you answer my leading question, because you haven't even defined when you think a human should begin to have rights.

Andrew:

@dUSt:  Youtube's fault. Sometimes the "show more" doesn't actually show up. But i think its completely reasonable to grant a human it's rights when it no longer becomes dependent on the anatomy of another human. Not that hard to get your head around. At that point the bodily functions of that fetus are able to operate independently for themselves. It is no longer an extension of the mother, but rather it's own person. This puts them on par with other humans without having to make special exceptions for them that grants them rights other humans are denied. Also, I do not think a fetus should have any access to rights that any human wouldn't have Except you keep arguing that it should... There is a difference between giving up a kidney, and being pregnant Not really... a fetus must rely on the body of another human to live. Without using that body it would never be able to function and survive on it's own. Without my kidney i would also not be able to survive. I would die. What you are saying is that that fetus has the right to use another human's body even if that other human wants to deny them that right. However i can not use another human's body to also live if that other human denies me that right. For me to have access to another human's body to live i must get consent from that human. Even in cases were i would certainly die if i did not get the blood or tissue donation. Even if it is my own mother i need the kidney from, she can deny it to me, as is her right. I do not have the right to use my mother's body to sustain my own. However you keep arguing that a fetus can. Meaning that right stops at birth, meaning you are arguing for more rights for a fetus than for anyone else. it is how nature intended things to work The intentions of nature are moot here. Nature for example intends for people with cancer to die. Nature would intend for a vast quantity of newborns to die soon after birth. However we have found ways to subvert nature. Also if we are talking about nature you could make the argument for survival, and for some women having a child can mean they quite literally would not survive. Either way arguing the "intentions" of nature is a non argument, especially when nature actually has no intentions or goals. Only processes. Giving nature "intentions" is us personifying it. Gravity does not "intend" for objects to fall, its just how those processes are interpreted by us. A pregnant woman runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere. She has the baby. The baby dies unless the woman breast feeds. I think the woman should have a lawful obligation to violate her bodily autonomy and feed the baby. You don't You really seem to have trouble grasping what the argument is. See once the baby reaches a point of it being able to survive on it's own, we do not actually mean it has to go out and get a job and start buying it's own milk. It means that biologically it is not dependent on another human. Of course it will rely on people while helpless, but it can be fed by anyone. This is no different than you refusing to feed your dog. We do not say the dog is violating your bodily autonomy if you refuse to feed it. However if the mother does not wish to take on the responsibility of feeding the baby there is a legal requirement for them to pass that responsibility on to someone else. You cant do that when pregnant. You cant pass your pregnancy on to someone else. In the case of refusing to feed a newborn this is neglect of another human because that baby is now a human, with human rights. And it is illegal for anyone to purposefully neglect another human. Now... if that newborn baby needed a tissue donation and only the mother had a match we DO NOT force the mother to donate to that baby and WOULD NOT charge her with a crime. Because as a human that baby does not have anymore right to that than i do to demand an organ donation from you.

dUSt:

@Andrew "...its completely reasonable to grant a human it's rights when it no longer becomes dependent on the anatomy of another human." ... So, when a person becomes dependent on an anatomy of another human, that person should no longer have rights. Got it. Disagree completely, but now I better understand your stance. The humanity of that first person does not factor into you granting that person rights. Whether or not that person depends on someone else is how you think that their human rights should be determined.

dUSt:

@Andrew "..you keep arguing that a fetus can. Meaning that right stops at birth, meaning you are arguing for more rights for a fetus than for anyone else." ... No, I'm not arguing that right stops at birth. Parents are lawfully required to keep their children alive after birth, and I agree with these laws. Anyway, I'm also not opposed to the more vulnerable having more rights. For example: People who can't afford healthcare should have a fundamental right to it. A person confined to a wheelchair should have a right to have a ramp into a business, but it should not be a right for someone who does not require a ramp.

dUSt:

@Andrew "In the case of refusing to feed a newborn this is neglect of another human because that baby is now a human, with human rights." ... So, you said earlier you think its reasonable to grant a human it's rights when it no longer becomes dependent on the anatomy of another human. A baby born in the middle of nowhere, without any other options, would be 100% dependent on the anatomy of it's mother to provide milk--so therefore, in your view, not be granted human rights yet. Your stance is that the mother should not be lawfully obligated to provide that milk. It's just not a stance I'm down with, and a stance I can't fathom 1/2 the country supporting.

dUSt:

@Andrew "Nature would intend for a vast quantity of newborns to die soon after birth. However we have found ways to subvert nature." ... I don't understand your point here. We were discussing when a person should be required to violate their bodily autonomy in order to save another person from dying. You tried making a point about forcing people to donate kidneys. 1. There is a difference between preventing a life from ending and actively performing a medical procedure to end a life. The kidney thing is a bad comparison. 2. The person with the kidney likely had no responsibility over the life of the person who needed one. A mother (along with the father, except in cases of rape) would have some culpability in that life being created in the first place. 3. Here is where nature comes in. The uterus does not serve the mother. The only function of that uterus is to provide a place for a human being to grow. A human being with completely separate DNA mind you. It's not "part" of the mother's body. It's "inside" the mother's body.

Andrew:

@dUSt:  No, I'm not arguing that right stops at birth. Parents are lawfully required to keep their children alive after birth, and I agree with these laws But not to the point where they must give up the right to their body for their child. Or do you think that if a baby needs a tissue/blood donation after birth the mother is legally required to donate said tissue or blood? Because they are not. Like... at all. Anyway, I'm also not opposed to the more vulnerable having more rights So back tracking on your earlier claim that you are not giving anyone more rights... People who can't afford healthcare should have a fundamental right to it. A person confined to a wheelchair should have a right to have a ramp into a business This is not granting unequal rights to people, this is making things equal. A fully able person can enter a building, putting in a ramp only makes sure that that disabled person can now enjoy what the abled person can as well. Giving free healthcare to a poor person allows them equal access to healthcare that the rich person can also have. However what you are saying is that i CANT have equal rights as a fetus. You are creating inequality, not equality. Your analogies you tried to give would only make sense if we only allowed the poor to have healthcare, or access to MRI's or something and refused that right to rich people. So, you said earlier you think its reasonable to grant a human it's rights when it no longer becomes dependent on the anatomy of another human. A baby born in the middle of nowhere, without any other options, would be 100% dependent on the anatomy of it's mother to provide milk--so therefore, in your view, not be granted human rights yet It would have the same rights as any other human in that position. Now im not sure the legality of if a lactating woman would be required to feed another human in that situation or not, but that would be the same thing. But on top of that a parent does take on extra legal responsibility for their own child, unless they give up that right. Having the child does put that extra responsibility onto the mother since she did not legally give signal to give that up. And that is what an abortion is, a legal signal that you are rejecting the responsibilities of a parent. Same with adoption. When you give a child up you are legally signalling that you are rejecting your responsibilities to care for that child. Intent is important. This is why for example you are legally required to care for your own children, but not responsible for feeding your neighbors kids. By signalling you are a parent to that child you now are more responsible.

dUSt:

@Andrew " do you think that if a baby needs a tissue/blood donation after birth the mother is legally required to donate said tissue or blood?" ... No, of course not. A person shouldn't be legally required to give up a part of their body in order to keep another human alive. I'm confused about your point though because at no time during pregnancy does a woman give up a "part of her body". I'm no doctor, but doesn't a women's body stay 100% intact? There's also a fundamental difference between taking no action to keep a human alive, and taking action to end a human life. I don't think you are making this distinction in any of your arguments.

dUSt:

@Andrew "Your analogies you tried to give would only make sense if we only allowed the poor to have healthcare, or access to MRI's or something and refused that right to rich people." ... That's actually exactly what I'm saying. Rich people with health insurance that cover MRIs should not have a right to free MRIs. Bill Gates should not have a right to eat free meals at a food bank, but someone without an income raising children should. I think we are going off topic though. I'd like to keep this focused on the most basic right anybody could have, which is the basic right to live.

dUSt:

@Andrew " And that is what an abortion is, a legal signal that you are rejecting the responsibilities of a parent. Same with adoption." ... Well, except that in all other cases you are not violating another human being's basic right to live, where as with abortion, you are denying another human being that basic right. Let me ask you this. You said earlier that a human being should have rights beginning when they are able to survive without the mother's body. As technology progresses, that time is getting shorter and shorter (22 weeks I think). So, for the sake of argument, and agreeing on SOMETHING, would you say you are then opposed to abortion after the third trimester?

Kylie Hill:

@dUSt:  Okay fine let's assume that a fetus is 100% as much of a human being as you or me. That still doesnt make forcing someone to stay pregnant okay. All people have the right to bodily autonomy and someone else's right to life doesn't outweigh that. If it did then there'd be nothing wrong with things like forced organ transplants. After all wouldn't someone else's right to life outweigh your own right to decide whether or not to give them your organs?

dUSt:

@Kylie Hill "wouldn't someone else's right to life outweigh your own right to decide whether or not to give them your organs?" ... I don't think anyone should be forced to give up their organs, so I will not argue with this point, because I agree with you on that! Of course, we both know that a woman is not being forced to give up one of her organs by remaining pregnant.

Andrew:

@Kylie Hill The guy does not understand what bodily autonomy is nor why forcing a human to give an organ to another is analogies to forcing a women to carry a fetus.

dUSt:

@Andrew You're right. I don't understand why giving up an organ is a good analogy for remaining pregnant. Giving up an organ is a completely unnatural intervention. Remaining pregnant is a completely natural process. In reality, the better and more accurate analogy of giving up an organ is actually having an abortion.

Nicc:

@dUSt:  so if someone was dying and needed your kidneys, its alright to force you/legally compel you to undergo surgery to give up your kidneys right? i mean, that persons life outweighs your temporary bodily autonomy.. thats your logic. it fall apart very quickly. im flabbergasted that people actually buy into your pseudo moralistic stances

dUSt:  

@nicc No, it's not okay to force someone to give up their kidney's, lungs, or any other body part. That is completely unnatural. We are both smart enough to understand that when a woman is pregnant she is not giving up any organs to remain pregnant. I've heard this argument repeated hundreds of times but cannot understand the analogy at all.

[little2add]

The spark of life at conception is real

 

 

A new Life begins

[Guest]

If it wasn't for the moment of conception, there could be no new human life i.e. conception is intrinsic to and essential to human life.  Each stage of development after conception is it's flowering.  Conception does not cease at some point and human life begin.

[Didacus]

The fetus is the fruit of a union, not a parasite.  It is its own distinct entity and it is fully human.  This is based on science - not faith.

 

Grea job debating DuST, you son-of-a-great.

 

Cheers

Edited August 16, 2019 by Didacus

[fides' Jack]

On 8/12/2019 at 10:55 AM, dUSt said:

A person confined to a wheelchair should have a right to have a ramp into a business This is not granting unequal rights to people, this is making things equal. A fully able person can enter a building, putting in a ramp only makes sure that that disabled person can now enjoy what the abled person can as well. Giving free healthcare to a poor person allows them equal access to healthcare that the rich person can also have.

I think this was a point agreed on by both Dust and Andrew.  I completely disagree.  I don't think someone confined to a wheelchair should have any right to have a ramp installed at a private small business.  If he wants one, let him request one from the owner.  If the owner thinks it's good for business or just wants to be a nice guy, he'll do it regardless of whatever law is established.  But when you make it law you infringe on the business owner's rights, and I find this argument to be a slippery slope to many worse things.

And it doesn't even guarantee access!!  What about the disabled guy who can't afford a wheelchair.  Does that business owner now have an obligation to have wheelchairs available in front of his store?  And what about more severely disabled people for whom wheelchairs don't work?  And what about the hundred following arguments about more and more odd situations that require the business owner to give up everything he has because he can't possibly fulfill all the new government regulations?

My take: laws and regulations bad, freedom good.  When he's entirely free to do what he wants, the free market will balance things out and he'll lose some customers, but it'll be his decision.  Other customers he'll cater to and win their business.

Healthcare is another matter entirely.  I don't agree it's a human right to have free healthcare.  

 

Still, it was an engaging debate and definitely worth reading. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by fides' Jack