Should a foetus have the right to life?

Sean.3516

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Before you ask this you should ask yourself who (in your opinion) is more important. The "foetus"? Or the sentient woman who (for whatever reason) has requested a termination.

I believe that all humans are equally important.

Ash.J.Williams

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I believe that all humans are equally important.

Would you ride your ma to save your da?

Sean.3516

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you agree with abortion in certain instances?

If so, then is it just the ones that you approve of?

What gives you, or anyone else, this authority?

The only circumstance in which I agree with abortion is when the continuance of the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. (This includes suicidality by the way.)

What gives me the authority? Authority to do what?

I'm not making an argument from authority at all. My argument is a deductive one based on reasoning which you are free to agree or disagree with.

I'll summarise it in the simplest possible terms:
Premise 1- All innocent human beings have the right to life.... This is an assumption that is almost universally accepted in Western society regardless of one's religious beliefs.

Premise 2- The thing that grows into baby in the womb is an innocent human being.... It is conclusively proven by science that from conception onwards, this thing is not only a human but a separate human. i.e. not a part of the mother.

Conclusion: Since abortion kills and removes the thing referred to in Premise 2, abortion is killing an innocent human being and violates the right of that thing to life.

Premise 2 is undisputed among scientists. Although some will make the case that the foetus being human is not enough for it to have the right to life.

You can't make this case without disputing Premise 1. By saying that innocent humans don't have an automatic right to life. That there are in fact certain qualifiers to this right.

When you introduce these qualifiers, you open up room for all sorts of
externalities that are equally applicable to born humans. Such as humans who are a burden to others and humans who are lacking in some capacity that would justify an abortion if they were a foetus in the view of the pro-choicers.

Anyway, I was simply summarising to argument simply to make the point that I think what I think because I've gone through the process of thinking it through. I'm not making a moral declaration from authority. I would assume the other poster has thought their position through and although we've come to different conclusions that's fine. We're free to disagree, probe and cross-examine each other's arguments.

I will say it's interesting to be accused of making an argument from authority when so many of the arguments from the pro-choice side are just that.

''66% of voters agree with me, therefore I must be right, argument over." This is an argument from authority. It neglects any of the intellectual rigour that should go into making a coherent deductive argument as I've made the effort to do.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, CUT OUT THE INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. OUTLINE YOUR PREMISES AND YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

The difference between me and you guys is that I'll freely acknowledge I don't have the authority to say anything and expect to be believed.

Loafing Oaf

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I believe that all humans are equally important.

Even invisible-to-the-naked-eye embryos in a freezer at an IVF clinic?

Sean.3516

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Even invisible-to-the-naked-eye embryos in a freezer at an IVF clinic?

If they're an organism of the species homo-sapien. ie. Humans

Then of course.

What do you think qualifies someone as a human?

Loafing Oaf

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If they're an organism of the species homo-sapien. ie. Humans

Then of course.

So an IVF clinic employee who pours a few dozen 'surplus' embryos down the sink is ethically equivalent to a guy who runs amok with an AK47 in a shopping centre, in your eyes?

s7ryf3925pivug

no not for first few months at least

Sean.3516

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So an IVF clinic employee who pours a few dozen 'surplus' embryos down the sink is ethically equivalent to a guy who runs amok with an AK47 in a shopping centre, in your eyes?

Yes

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Premise 1- All innocent human beings have the right to life.... This is an assumption that is almost universally accepted in Western society regardless of one's religious beliefs.

But you're ignoring the very first assumption you're making, which is that from the moment of conception a zygote/embryo/foetus is a human being. Why are you assuming it's already a human being, and not a potential human being?

Premise 2- The thing that grows into baby in the womb is an innocent human being.... It is conclusively proven by science that from conception onwards, this thing is not only a human but a separate human. i.e. not a part of the mother.

If it was separate, you could remove it from the woman and it would not die.

You can't make this case without disputing Premise 1. By saying that innocent humans don't have an automatic right to life. That there are in fact certain qualifiers to this right.

But you said yourself there are qualifiers to its right to life such as when it puts the woman's life at risk. You are contradicting yourself.

Hotblack Desiato

So if you believe these frozen embryos have a right to life, how are you going to vindicate this right on their behalf? Forcibly implant them into women? According to you they have a right to be born, so this would be ethical.

Ash.J.Williams

He's gone

Hotblack Desiato

Account isn't closed, so maybe in another few weeks there'll be another couple of drive-by postings

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I believe that all humans are equally important.

Therefore a pregnant woman should have exactly the same rights as a man, or a non-pregnant woman, to bodily autonomy and control over their own healthcare.

If you don't agree with the above sentence, you don't believe that all humans are equally important.

weldoninhio

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”

The referendum debate focused on the second question rather than the first and although both questions are important, the second is dependent on the first.

My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

The foetus can have all the right to life it wants. Once women have the right to remove foetuses from their bodies. If the foetus can survive outside the womb at 12 weeks, let it live.

Sean.3516

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But you're ignoring the very first assumption you're making, which is that from the moment of conception a zygote/embryo/foetus is a human being. Why are you assuming it's already a human being, and not a potential human being?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If it was separate, you could remove it from the woman and it would not die.

Because there is no such thing as a potential human being. Something is a human being or it isn't.

I define a human as science defines a human. An organism of the species homo-sapien. When a sperm fuses with an egg. The zygote that is formed is a human. It is a cell with 46 chromosomes. This tells us that it is human.

We know that it is a separate human because it's DNA is not the same as it's mother. Genetically determined characteristics such as sex, hair colour, predisposition to male pattern baldness are all determined at conception when genetic assortment takes place. It may even have a different blood type than the mother. This all proves that it is not the same human.

Your point that it is not seperate unless you can remove it from it's mother without it dying is incorrect.

Yes, it is dependent on the mother to survive until such a time as it becomes viable. This does not negate the fact that the mother and the zygote are different humans.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But you said yourself there are qualifiers to its right to life such as when it puts the woman's life at risk. You are contradicting yourself.

I never said that the foetus lost it's right to life when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. In these cases when the mother's life is threatened the foetus's life is also. When both lives are threatened, the question becomes how can you mitigate as much of the damage as possible. Sometimes this means removing the foetus from the womb to save the mother's life.

Ash.J.Williams

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as a potential human being. Something is a human being or it isn't.

I define a human as science defines a human. An organism of the species homo-sapien. When a sperm fuses with an egg. The zygote that is formed is a human. It is a cell with 46 chromosomes. This tells us that it is human.

We know that it is a separate human because it's DNA is not the same as it's mother. Genetically determined characteristics such as sex, hair colour, predisposition to male pattern baldness are all determined at conception when genetic assortment takes place. It may even have a different blood type than the mother. This all proves that it is not the same human.

Your point that it is not seperate unless you can remove it from it's mother without it dying is incorrect.

Yes, it is dependent on the mother to survive until such a time as it becomes viable. This does not negate the fact that the mother and the zygote are different humans.



I never said that the foetus lost it's right to life when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. In these cases when the mother's life is threatened the foetus's life is also. When both lives are threatened, the question becomes how can you mitigate as much of the damage as possible. Sometimes this means removing the foetus from the womb to save the mother's life.

he's back

Sean.3516

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So if you believe these frozen embryos have a right to life, how are you going to vindicate this right on their behalf? Forcibly implant them into women? According to you they have a right to be born, so this would be ethical.

The ideal would be to not create surplus embryos in the first place, if they are presumably going to be dumped if they're not needed.

Sean.3516

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

he's back

I left for like a day or two. Apologies, Boards is good fun but I actually have other responsibilities.

Sean.3516

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Therefore a pregnant woman should have exactly the same rights as a man, or a non-pregnant woman, to bodily autonomy and control over their own healthcare.

If you don't agree with the above sentence, you don't believe that all humans are equally important.

One's bodily autonomy does not extend to other humans. A foetus is not part of the woman. It's a seperate human.

Both men and women have the responsibility not to infringe upon the bodily autonomy of others. The difference is that men are never in the situation where they are carrying another human in their bodies.

That's not an inequality of rights and responsibilities but an inequality of nature.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

One's bodily autonomy does not extend to other humans. A foetus is not part of the woman. It's a seperate human.

Never heard of a placenta and umbilical cord then? A foetus is directly attached to a woman and cannot survive without the woman, up until a certain stage.

suicide_circus

its a parasite stealing nutrients from the woman

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Never heard of a placenta and umbilical cord then? A foetus is directly attached to a woman and cannot survive without the woman, up until a certain stage.

Yes, everything in that post is correct. It just doesn't disprove the fact that a foetus and it's mother are two separate humans.

(When I say separate humans I mean two distinct organisms)

I never said that the foetus wasn't dependent on the woman or that it wouldn't die if prematurely removed from the womb.

But if you're going to conclude from this that the mother and the foetus are the same human, and that therefore an abortion is equivalent to having an appendix removed, you're wrong.

The foetus is a separate organism with separate DNA from the mother. It's not a part of the mother. It's connected to the mother's body by an umbilical chord. That doesn't make it a part of the mother's body.

Sean.3516

suicide_circus wrote: »

its a parasite stealing nutrients from the woman

Mmmm no. Foetuses aren't parasites.

First of all, parasites are never the same species as their host.

Second of all, the mother's body makes no attempt to resist or reject this "parasite" as happens in a normal parasitic relationship. Instead the woman's body actively changes in order to make room for and accommodate this new organism. It grows a whole new organ: the placenta.

Third of all, the foetus doesn't "steal nutrients". The placenta doesn't just suck nutrients out of mom and give them to the foetus. It responds to metabolic signals from both organisms and optimally regulates the distribution of nutrients ensuring the health of both the mother and the foetus.

It's just basic biology.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, everything in that post is correct. It just doesn't disprove the fact that a foetus and it's mother are two separate humans.

(When I say separate humans I mean two distinct organisms)

I never said that the foetus wasn't dependent on the woman or that it wouldn't die if prematurely removed from the womb.

But if you're going to conclude from this that the mother and the foetus are the same human, and that therefore an abortion is equivalent to having an appendix removed, you're wrong.

The foetus is a separate organism with separate DNA from the mother. It's not a part of the mother. It's connected to the mother's body by an umbilical chord. That doesn't make it a part of the mother's body.

Can the foetus live independently,?

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Can the foetus live independently,?

I just told you, not until the point of viability.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

One's bodily autonomy does not extend to other humans. A foetus is not part of the woman. It's a seperate human.

Both men and women have the responsibility not to infringe upon the bodily autonomy of others. The difference is that men are never in the situation where they are carrying another human in their bodies.

That's not an inequality of rights and responsibilities but an inequality of nature.

If it’s a separate person then she is under no obligation to host it in her body at all.
She can just remove it.
It’s another human, completely separate, so she can simply remove it if she doesn’t want to gestate it and what will be will be.

It’s laughable that your arguing in favour of the bodily autonomy of a fetus when in order for it to have that autonomy, the woman has to sacrifice hers.

Actual people are more important than potential people. If you see them as the same then that’s fine, but you don’t get to decide for everybody else.
Your opinion is no more superior or valid than mine. I’m just not inflicting my view on you.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I just told you, not until the point of viability.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.

You literally haven’t made one single valid point, all you’ve done is contradict yourself.
Harping on about the bodily autonomy of a 10 week gestated fetus when in order for it to have that autonomy, a living breathing woman would be forced to sacrifice hers, whether she’s willing or not.
Absolutely ridiculous.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Can the foetus live independently,?

I just told you, not until the point of viability.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.

I'm not waiting on you to set the barometer for validity here.

The feotus cannot live without the mother. It is not seperate.

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

If it’s a separate person then she is under no obligation to host it in her body at all.
She can just remove it.
It’s another human, completely separate, so she can simply remove it if she doesn’t want to gestate it and what will be will be.

I would agree with you except for two points.

1. There is no way to remove the foetus from the womb (ante-viability) without killing it. If there was some way of just removing the foetus from the womb and allowing it to complete it's gestation in some artificial/in-vitro womb then I'd be all for it. But there isn't.

You prefaced your point by saying "If it's a separate person." It's not clear to me if you've actually conceded this point or if you're playing Devil's Advocate. In any case, if it is a person, separate or otherwise, then it's our responsibility to vindicate it's right to life to the extent practicable with regard to the equal right to life of others. (i.e. As long as the pregnancy doesn't threaten the life of the women.)


2. The women is the foetus's mother.

In all of the relationships you have throughout your life with other humans there is basically only one type of relationship where you have a default obligation to look after the other person and that's the parent-child relationship.

The only exceptions are obviously if there is abuse or the parent is literally incapable of looking after the child. In this case either the child goes with a relative or is placed up for adoption. Not killed.

Also a woman can voluntarily decide to place the kid up for adoption. What you can't do is have the child killed.

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s laughable that your arguing in favour of the bodily autonomy of a fetus when in order for it to have that autonomy, the woman has to sacrifice hers.

This point completely overlooks one of the premises of my argument which is that the foetus is a separate human with a separate body.

The principle of bodily autonomy simply means you get to control your own body. Not another human's body with the location of that other human's body being irrelevant. (Unless that other person's body is a clear and present threat to your life.)

SusieBlue wrote: »

Actual people are more important than potential people. If you see them as the same then that’s fine, but you don’t get to decide for everybody else.

Your opinion is no more superior or valid than mine. I’m just not inflicting my view on you.

It's convenient how you inserted the premise "If it's a separate person" at the start of the post and then completely negated that premise by saying "potential people" in a different part of the post.

Obviously the question of whether or not the foetus is a person or not is what the whole debate hinges on.

As regards "deciding for everyone else", as I've stated before, I'm not making a unilateral declaration of what "is". I'm just laying out an argument of what I believe "is". That's what people do in discussions like these.

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The principle of bodily autonomy simply means you get to control your own body. Not another human's body with the location of that other human's body being irrelevant. (Unless that other person's body is a clear and present threat to your life.)

A woman's womb is part of her own body. Not allowing a woman to remove from her womb something which she doesn't want to have in her womb is clearly placing a limit on her bodily autonomy. Her control over a part of her own body has been limited or removed. I don't really see how it's possible to deny that.


Whether or not we consider a foetus to be a human, potential human, separate life, or whatever else, has nothing to do with the question of whether it is a limit on her bodily autonomy.