| Subject: I wish I were 0 years old again |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/17/02 11:29pm
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "...all ages above zero" on 11/17/02 9:11pm
>
>Okay. So what has any fetus done which should offer
>justifiable conditions for revoking its right to life?
>It has not murdered any other human, has not gone to
>war, etc. It has simply been brought into existence by
>the actions of two other people, actions over which it
>had no control. For this its life can be terminated?
To this I would simply answer as I've answered before; just because something is alive doesn't guarantee it the right to live. You've answered to this that the constitution of the U.S. honors life except in certain circumstances. I don't deny that it does. To quote the passage in its entirirty it reads thusly "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ". All men are created equal. What constitutes a man? Is a man a little fetus without yet a functioning body? Are all men really created equal, or is this merely something that we ought to assume is true in matters of justice? I'd argue that all men are not created equal, and that this notion simply states the author's ideas about how things "ought" to be rather than how they actually are. Does this passage implicitly guarantee the fetus the right to life? Well put simply no, it doesn't. Even if it said all fetuses are created equal that is an assumption that is rather another idea of how things "ought to be" according to the author. One thing for sure is that the fetus is not a man by any definition of what we take the word "man" to be, and it surely isn't a human being anymore than a fish embryo is a fish.
As I recall, your challenge was to put forth an argument that justifies abortion. If the right to human life isn't somehow sacred, then the abortion debate becomes less complex, and as this premise hasn't been shown to be false by the declaration, (for it too recognizes implicitly rules by which a life can be taken) then it would seem I've put forth the argument you defied people to put forth, namely something that would justify abortion. The inalienable right passage doesn't cut it, because the logical extension of this passage is to say that we never have the right to kill anyone period. That certainly isn't the case.
>>
>>Okay, the fetus is alive. Why is it entitled to live?
>
>Is this an admission? Given that we accept that a
>fetus is a living human, it is not necessary to
>provide justification for its right to life. Rather,
>if it is to be terminated, justification must be given
>to end its life. None of us is required to prove that
>we are entitled to live, we have already been granted
>that right. If someone's right to life is to be
>forfeited, it must be shown that there is good reason
>for that, i.e. this person deliberately killed
>another, this person betrayed national security, etc.
No, I wasn't admitting that a fetus was a de facto life. I was merely granting that premise for a moment to see where the argument went. Again, just because something is a life doesn't grant it the right to live in all circumstances. Abominable babies are another category you've left out. They are terminated because their quality of life wouldn't be good, and the parents don't want responsibility for that life. So, in considering why something should live or die, we come up with other "rules". You've stated that the baby should live because of the declaration's inherent right to life. I've shown that if we were to take that in extension, no criminal should ever perish. We are in fact in a conversation by which it is neither inherently plausible that the fetus should necessarily live or die except by external rules we deem appropriate to the situation. Now, without the Declaration's argument, as I've shown to be faulty in regards to other matters of life, why should I consider a human life to be of more worth than any other life? Why should I think a human ought to live anymore than an unwanted litter of puppies? The burden is strictly yours.
>You're right, our prisons are overrun with fetuses.
If anything Biff, the humans in the prison are "more alive" than a fetus, but you don't seem to have many qualms with ending their lives due to some external set of rules that run contrary to the whole "right to life" scenario you've put forth.
>
>This is the part of the pro-choice argument which
>never ceases to amaze me. If you stop the average
>person on the street and ask them simply, without
>introducing the topic of abortion: "Which is more
>fundamental, the right of an innocent person to live
>or the freedom of a person to choose their
>circumstance?" the vast majority of people would
>answer, "life," without hesitation.
I don't think we can afford the fetus "people" status just yet. I certainly don't think that even if most people would say life were more important that this argument you've adduced amounts to much other than to show many people feel the right to life being sacred with regards to humans to be true. This wouldn't be too surprising, given that society is set up in such a way as to honor human life being sacred above all others. However, my question remains and demands an answer worthy of the question, "Why should human life be considered more sacred than any other form of life"? Because people want it to be? Because other people before have thought that is the way it should be? Big deal. Other cultures have thought the opposite in the past. Which one is right? Before I accept your argument, you are going to have to offer me compelling reasons that make human life more sacred than any other. If you cannot, then I think it is the case that you must admit my argument as justification for abortion. The rules of course, (governing such action) are something we could quibble over later.
This is why murder
>has a greater penalty than kidnapping. Bring it up in
>the context of abortion and suddenly, for some reason,
>it's so very complicated. I contend that this
>"complication" is, for the most part, political
>correctness.
I'm not sure this is why murder carries a higher penalty. I think that murder carries a higher penalty probably in part because society feels that human life is sacred, but also because it can't have its members waltzing around and killing other members or it will collapse. A fetus has yet to be afforded the status of "member to society".
>
>Again, the right to life versus freedom of choice.
>Which is more fundamental?
That question is irrelevant given today's socities pitching the sacredness of human life. Ask an ancient greek person which was true and you might have been surprised. Different inherent values govern differnt cultures. Which of them is right?
>
>I stand before you as an example of a human who
>successfully abstained from sex before marriage. It
>wasn't easy, I admit, but it was a value that I held
>in high regard and I maintained it. So it is possible.
>And I don't think you necessarily have to be a
>Christian to do it. We all have a choice whether to
>engage in any form of behaviour.
Well, I'm glad you held to your beliefs. Of course, I'd have to ask you Biff, what do you think is going to be the truer case in reality for all people? Abstinence or sex? Which is more realisitic in terms of the world?
>
>Believe it or not, there have been societies which
>never really had any problems like unwanted
>pregnancies. If a woman was found to be pregnant
>outside of marriage she was considered to be guilty of
>so high a crime that she was executed. Now I certainly
>do not advocate that. But I think there is a moral
>standard here from which our society can benefit. I
>think virtually everyone would agree that in a perfect
>world there would be no need for abortion, for there
>would be no unwanted pregnancies. Abstainance outside
>of marriage would achieve that. And I simply don't buy
>the argument that this is an unrealistic expectation.
So I assume then that you realistically think the world population will seriously consider abstinence? If it isn't a realistic option, then we must look to the other condition.
>
>Oh, so now the fetus is less human. Wouldn't that make
>the mother less pregnant? I had no idea there were
>degrees of humanity. You're either human or you're
>not, and until we can undeniably prove that the fetus
>is not, we must at least grant it the right to live,
>as we do every other human.
I'm sure when I say the word "man" you don't conjure up the image of a fetus in a womb. Simply put, man in our minds is something independant of another for immediate survival. In other words, it isn't "parasitic" on another human being. It isn't five pounds, and it isn't breathing in fluid. No, a man is breathing in air, it eats indepedantly of someone else, (e.g. nobody has to carry it and let it eat whatever they eat) and it is well over five pounds. A fetus isn't a man anymore than a fish embryo is a fish. If it were simply a human, we wouldn't really need a word for it while it was in the womb. The mere fact that we do have a word for it shows the uniqueness of the situation.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 