Also I really should see Rent now I guess.
PS its long.
Quote:
Fetuses ARE living humans. They are most certainly alive and are most certainly humans, and please do not use the weak argument that "they have GILLS they dont even look human!" Its a foolish call on pathos that if adhered to would strip the rights of many a deformed person.
You also have to realize that most pro-lifers believe that fetuses ARE human beings, not just human. We believe that they have the same rights as infants (who are not self-aware untill at the least 18 months and some speculate as late as 3 years,) and those who are incapable of utilizing their cognitive abilities for reasoning or self-awareness such as some mentally handicapped and the senile.
We believe that fetuses are extended rights as part of being a living human, especially one with the ability to progress and develop, thus being a productive member of society.
So, the killing of unwanted people for selfish economical or personal gain is very similar to what happened in the holocaust. Many Nazi's didnt believe the Jews were people either. Thomas Jefferson observed African slaves and determined they were not people as well. Does it justify what they did simply because they had their background arguments?
Ive posted this before but I find it interesting that everytime in history someone has sought out to argue that some group of humans were in fact not humans was an attempt to strip them of their human rights - slavery all over the world, holocausts and ethnic cleansings, and the abuse and subjigation of women. Now its fetuses. When have we argued against a group's human rights when it hasnt later turned out that we were only selfishly justifying our actions and maintaining our own authority?
Abortion is wrong because it is the neglect of a fetus, which is a human being based on an extension of human rights from human society. What makes humans special and what therefore makes us have to adhere to morality is the society we live in. One person alone is nothing, but our race as a society is capable of good through communication and collective reasoning and higher thought. Because of this, all humans are extended rights, not just those that earn them. Nobody human life should have to prove to society that they do in fact have rights. It is a given from being a human life.
Furthermore, this is why parents cannot neglect their children. They are the caretakers by default of their children untill they find a suitable replacement. Children cannot defend or take care of themselves, thus as a function of society, they have caretakers of some sort - their parents untill they are adopted or can maintain their own existance - at the sacrifice of the caretakers rights. We sacrfice our rights in society to uphold those that cannot take care of themselves. I pay taxes to help those on medicare. They didnt earn my money. I did. However, as part of society it is my duty, not just obligation, to help support those that cannot support theirselves by outside means.
Does it mean I have to give them my kidneys? No. This is a case of their own bodies failing them. I am not required to sacrifice my own BD to defend themselves against theirselves. The same is with your children. You are required to give up your right to autonomy and privacy and property untill you find a suitable alternative, yet you do not have to give them anything from your body if their body fails them. You are responsible to not neglect them. Providing organs or blood for someone because their own body has failed them is not neglect. You would likewise not have to die to save your child from death. You must however feed and shelter your child.
The same is true for pregnancy. By default, the mother and father are responsible for their fetus. Unfortunately the mother is the one to care for it physically. The father MUST aid in this care in everyway possible, although he does not factor in to abortion so that is a different subject entirely. Anyways, the mother is the default caretaker and like a mother of an infant (without selfawareness or many other cognitive abilities pro-choicers claim give us human rights), is duty bound to not neglect her fetus by way of not feeding and not sheltering it. This requires a greater sacrifice than supporting a child and even greater than supporting the poor because it requires a sacrifice in not only your privacy and autonomy, but also in your bodily domain. However, like parenting and paying taxes, you are still required to make this sacrifice untill a suitable alternative to careing for the fetus is found.
A sacrifice of your right to autonomy and privacy is no less important than a sacrifice to your bodily domain. You should not have to make any sacrifices unless they are warranted. The trespass on your BD is jusitfied in pregnancy because it is so that you do not neglect your fetus.
Morals are established and extended based on the existance of society, so to ignore the duty to not neglect your children or fetus is to ignore the very basis on which our societal morals (which you all go to great lengths to prove by claiming morals are subjective based on society.) Also, to try and establish human rights, an issue of morality, on an individual basis would be to assert that morals are based on an individual basis, which would imply that there can be no laws governing our lives because every choice is an independently discerned one. If rights are established individually then so are morals. If morals are established societally, then so are rights, then fetuses and the senile and the mentally handicapped all are derserving of human rights.
You also have to realize that most pro-lifers believe that fetuses ARE human beings, not just human. We believe that they have the same rights as infants (who are not self-aware untill at the least 18 months and some speculate as late as 3 years,) and those who are incapable of utilizing their cognitive abilities for reasoning or self-awareness such as some mentally handicapped and the senile.
We believe that fetuses are extended rights as part of being a living human, especially one with the ability to progress and develop, thus being a productive member of society.
So, the killing of unwanted people for selfish economical or personal gain is very similar to what happened in the holocaust. Many Nazi's didnt believe the Jews were people either. Thomas Jefferson observed African slaves and determined they were not people as well. Does it justify what they did simply because they had their background arguments?
Ive posted this before but I find it interesting that everytime in history someone has sought out to argue that some group of humans were in fact not humans was an attempt to strip them of their human rights - slavery all over the world, holocausts and ethnic cleansings, and the abuse and subjigation of women. Now its fetuses. When have we argued against a group's human rights when it hasnt later turned out that we were only selfishly justifying our actions and maintaining our own authority?
Abortion is wrong because it is the neglect of a fetus, which is a human being based on an extension of human rights from human society. What makes humans special and what therefore makes us have to adhere to morality is the society we live in. One person alone is nothing, but our race as a society is capable of good through communication and collective reasoning and higher thought. Because of this, all humans are extended rights, not just those that earn them. Nobody human life should have to prove to society that they do in fact have rights. It is a given from being a human life.
Furthermore, this is why parents cannot neglect their children. They are the caretakers by default of their children untill they find a suitable replacement. Children cannot defend or take care of themselves, thus as a function of society, they have caretakers of some sort - their parents untill they are adopted or can maintain their own existance - at the sacrifice of the caretakers rights. We sacrfice our rights in society to uphold those that cannot take care of themselves. I pay taxes to help those on medicare. They didnt earn my money. I did. However, as part of society it is my duty, not just obligation, to help support those that cannot support theirselves by outside means.
Does it mean I have to give them my kidneys? No. This is a case of their own bodies failing them. I am not required to sacrifice my own BD to defend themselves against theirselves. The same is with your children. You are required to give up your right to autonomy and privacy and property untill you find a suitable alternative, yet you do not have to give them anything from your body if their body fails them. You are responsible to not neglect them. Providing organs or blood for someone because their own body has failed them is not neglect. You would likewise not have to die to save your child from death. You must however feed and shelter your child.
The same is true for pregnancy. By default, the mother and father are responsible for their fetus. Unfortunately the mother is the one to care for it physically. The father MUST aid in this care in everyway possible, although he does not factor in to abortion so that is a different subject entirely. Anyways, the mother is the default caretaker and like a mother of an infant (without selfawareness or many other cognitive abilities pro-choicers claim give us human rights), is duty bound to not neglect her fetus by way of not feeding and not sheltering it. This requires a greater sacrifice than supporting a child and even greater than supporting the poor because it requires a sacrifice in not only your privacy and autonomy, but also in your bodily domain. However, like parenting and paying taxes, you are still required to make this sacrifice untill a suitable alternative to careing for the fetus is found.
A sacrifice of your right to autonomy and privacy is no less important than a sacrifice to your bodily domain. You should not have to make any sacrifices unless they are warranted. The trespass on your BD is jusitfied in pregnancy because it is so that you do not neglect your fetus.
Morals are established and extended based on the existance of society, so to ignore the duty to not neglect your children or fetus is to ignore the very basis on which our societal morals (which you all go to great lengths to prove by claiming morals are subjective based on society.) Also, to try and establish human rights, an issue of morality, on an individual basis would be to assert that morals are based on an individual basis, which would imply that there can be no laws governing our lives because every choice is an independently discerned one. If rights are established individually then so are morals. If morals are established societally, then so are rights, then fetuses and the senile and the mentally handicapped all are derserving of human rights.
