[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The relationship between a mother and their young of any other species of animal is never described as being parasitic. Rather than me building a case against your straw man, find one reputable source provide the link please that describes the unborn human fetus as [i]PARASITIC[/i].
[/quote]
Kids outside the womb are little parasites… They just keep hanging around.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I’m afraid that’s not how it works. Lack of counter evidence is not evidense for your position. In this case, lack of a counter argument is not an argument for your position, especially if you’ve given no argument to counter.
Even if he can’t initially demonstrate that a right to life is not objective, it would only, at best, prove that “a right to life”'s objectivity is a possibility, not that it is so. That’s your job.[/quote]
If people outside the womb, have a right to live then so does the in utero human, because both are living human organisms.
You don’t understand burden of proof, by asking this question you are tacitly implying that you have a right to kill. What give you the right to kill?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I know what you’re getting at and I’m going to save you time by plainly admitting; I don’t think any living thing, regardless of age, is above the possibility of a mercy killing. To me, it’s not a matter of who or what you are, but a matter of circumstance. If the circumstances are as such that continuing life is worse than death, I think you should be able to request assisted suicide. If you are incapable of consent, then, unless you have some sort of will indicating who you trust to make that call, it should be up to your closest relative.
In the case of a pregnancy, since it is the mother’s body, it it her choice. After birth, if no suitable relatives/friends offer to take care of the kid and the child is still not developed enough to be self aware, then it it’s still the mother’s choice.
Now, I completely understand your concern. There’s a lot of room for abuse, and I’ve also considered that. The thing is, for a mother to agree to killing her own child would take one of two things; Either an incredibly severe situation in which a mercy killing really is better than letting her child grow up (you can use your imagination on this one), or the woman is a sadist with an infanticide fetish. In the first case, it’s understandable because… well it’s tautologically the case. in the second scenario the mother is clearly not of sound enough mind to make that call and so the child (hopefully if it’s still alive) should be placed in some form of immediate foster care.
Why foster care and not immediate euthanasia of the child? Well, as stated before, this scenario involves no other suitable relative to act as a caretaker, which means the child is now technically in the care of the government. A mother has a personal interest in her own child, so for her to opt for a mercy killing would require one of the two scenarios above, but the government has no personal interest and so I wouldn’t trust them with that decision since they would, more than likely, choose murder as often as they can get away with it. [/quote]
Okay, I still ended up writing less than I have to say but this is certainly plenty to chew on for now.
Setting aside for a second my disagreements with euthanasia, the problems I see with your idea of the mother assuming “power of attorney” to grant consent to a mercy killing are:
In the case of an adult, an argument (that I do not want to get into in this thread) could possibly be made for assisted suicide precisely because he does possess a will (or at least he once did) to request his life be ended. A baby has not yet developed to the point that she can make her own choices or even understand the world around her. She has never had the opportunity to give consent one way or the other, which leads me to my next point:
No matter how bad she may believe their situation to be, there is no way she could possibly know that the life awaiting her child is bad enough that her child would be better off not existing to live it. This has all sorts of problems with it.
First, she could be wrong. Life may not to be all that bad. She’s already in the state of mind to kill her own child, so she’s won’t likely be noticing the silver lining shimmering at the edges of those clouds. There are many biographies of famous, influential and important people who suffered through the worst of hardships before finally succeeding. Sometimes they succeeded despite those conditions, and often, very often, they succeeded exactly because the pain of those ordeals forced them to look at their world in a different way than they otherwise might have. Oprah Winfrey, as much as you may not personally like the woman, had a childhood so bad it would make a Francis Bacon exhibit look cheery. NO one, looking at her life then, could ever have guessed this girl would use the monstrous abuse she was subjected to to become of the the most powerful, most influential women of all time (who also apparently supports abortion - ahh my head is going to explode).
Second, your argument assumes that a shitty life is actually a bad thing, enough so that death itself is preferable. MANY people disagree with this. They are the people who are living in shitty situations who have not killed themselves. The ones that did made their choice after they were allowed to weigh the options. But the child in your case would never have the chance to weigh those options. That might be okay, except that exactly what constitutes “a life not worth living” is a PURELY subjective concept. I just don’t see any way you can justify granting anyone the authority to determine the life or death of anyone based on such a foggy notion of just what constitutes “bad enough.” You couldn’t even create a scale, the situation is so infinitely complex.
You and I are both adroit enough to realize that this excuse is almost never really the case. The mother who justifies murdering her child in the wombs is “mercifully” concerned about one person and one person only, herself and how her own life is going to be affected. If that is true in our present case, it most certainly would be true, and indeed an equivalent justification, if not the actual reason, for her choice.
Finally (for now), just as a mother cannot be said to possess the ability to accurately assess future quality of life for her child (she’d have to know literally everything), WE cannot accurately judge the quality of life for her child under her care. That she might not love her child, or neglect him, or abuse him is nothing but conjecture. But this conjecture is very often used as justification for her just going ahead and killing it (huh?).
Your argument of the act as “mercy killing,” exactly this assumption.
We don’t know a thing about that child’s future because there is NO EVIDENCE for future abuse or neglect. The experience may completely change her life, save her, even. She also may exceed our worst expectations and become the shittiest mother on earth. But until she actually commits a real crime against her child, unfortunate as it may be, we can’t do or say one thing about what is. We could as easily convict her for future crimes against her child as we could preemptively abort her baby by force. A scary thought, but not at all fantastic.
They’ve got a word for that kind of world. It’s called “China.”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Actually, it doesn’t even matter. Call it whatever you want, but if we agree that humans outside of the womb deserve special protected status against murder, then there is no rational justification that the human inside the womb not enjoy the same status. Unless, of course, it could be shown that the creature inside the womb was NOT human.
That’s why we waste so much time telling the pro-abortion side to pick up an introductory biology book.
Good grief that post ended up getting long.
Hope someone actually makes it through it. There’s some good stuff in there.
Plus, I’d have wasted an hour I could have spent watching Game of Thrones…and now it’s time for bed.
(._.)
Yes I did. Did you comprehend my previous post about other mammals NOTE-Can I use the term mammals because humans are in fact a specific type of animal, a mammal, my apologies for using the term “animals” previously? Can a cow/calf, a mare/foal, a dog/puppy or any other mammals young be described as a parasite? No they cannot. Why only the distinction for humans? Redefining words is a dirty debate tactic used by the pro-death crowd.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:Did you even read my post?
Honest question, and please answer it.[/quote]
Yes, my example is quite simple cb. I will bold the words for you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:Seriously?
Please point out provide the quote of my words please where I made such a claim.[/quote]
Previous page - [quote][quote]countingbeans wrote: . . . . I’m really trying not to take positions in this thread, but ask questions/make demands of both sides in order to learn. However, when someone wants to call a fetus parasitic as a justification, I just cannot keep my opinions out of it.
Dirty debate tactic or not, there is nothing,[/quote]Here is another portion of your post. [quote]countingbeans wrote:not one single thing in this world that could convince me that a fetus is analogous with a parasite. I would also question the moral fiber of someone that could look at it that way.[/quote][/quote]
I did nothing but try and help you understand. When you use the term of parasite, you infer they are a foreign body of a different species, the definition of the terms used are critical. In fact the human unborn are the exact same as their mother save the four traits of SLED.
trying to highlight previous quoted portion
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Actually, it doesn’t even matter. Call it whatever you want, but if we agree that humans outside of the womb deserve special protected status against murder, then there is no rational justification that the human inside the womb not enjoy the same status. Unless, of course, it could be shown that the creature inside the womb was NOT human.
That’s why we waste so much time telling the pro-abortion side to pick up an introductory biology book. [/quote]
They don’t as written under the letter of the law.
“Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn
child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four
weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first
degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent
homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first
degree.”
So fetuses less than 24 weeks old do not have a right not to be murdered.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically I don’t think that a right to life exists and I’m asking him to prove it. By asking me to demonstrate that it doesn’t exist is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.[/quote]
Raj, sometimes I think you just come here to argue with the “our side.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically I don’t think that a right to life exists and I’m asking him to prove it. By asking me to demonstrate that it doesn’t exist is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.[/quote]
Raj, sometimes I think you just come here to argue with the “our side.” [/quote]
Haha you’re probably right!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Do humans have a right to live?[/quote]
Right to life is just a human concept, so we are free to grant to whatever we want.
Oops, next parents will then claim they can justifiably kill their parasitic kids ; )
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Do humans have a right to live?[/quote]
Right to life is just a human concept, so we are free to grant to whatever we want.[/quote]
So you’d feel right at home in North Korea, then, yes?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically I don’t think that a right to life exists and I’m asking him to prove it. By asking me to demonstrate that it doesn’t exist is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.[/quote]
Do you believe in objective moral facts?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Do humans have a right to live?[/quote]
Right to life is just a human concept, so we are free to grant to whatever we want.[/quote]
So you’d feel right at home in North Korea, then, yes?
[/quote]
What does me feeling at home in a different country have to do with how a concept originated?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Can a cow/calf, a mare/foal, a dog/puppy or any other mammals young be described as a parasite? No they cannot. Why only the distinction for humans? [/quote]
I have no idea. Ask the person who said it, because I didn’t.
I never, ever once called a fetus a parasite or said it was parasitic. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
Did someone slip some weed in my morning coffee? Am I losing my mind?
Why are you trying to argue with me when I agree with you? I stated as much in plain English, which you just quoted.
Holy shit.
No one did that.
Holy shit again.
Please explain how the above equates to below.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
However his claims that the unborn is parasitic [/quote]
EDIT: took out 2 f-bombs
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I don’t have to.
The claim that fetuses have a “right to life” has not met its burden of proof. The person claiming that fetuses do must demonstrate so.
[/quote]
Do humans have a right to live?[/quote]
Right to life is just a human concept, so we are free to grant to whatever we want.[/quote]
So based on this, should we punish murder?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< Right to life is just a human concept, so we are free to grant to whatever we want.[/quote]Ya jist gotta love this guy. lol! What if I were to decide that yours ended with us meeting?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]
Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]
Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]
I’m afraid that’s not how it works. Lack of counter evidence is not evidense for your position. In this case, lack of a counter argument is not an argument for your position, especially if you’ve given no argument to counter.
Even if he can’t initially demonstrate that a right to life is not objective, it would only, at best, prove that “a right to life”'s objectivity is a possibility, not that it is so. That’s your job.[/quote]
If people outside the womb, have a right to live then so does the in utero human, because both are living human organisms.
You don’t understand burden of proof, by asking this question you are tacitly implying that you have a right to kill. What give you the right to kill?[/quote]
And you don’t understand how commas work.
What if I question a birthed human’s innate right to life as well? From where do you draw a fetus’ right to life then?
Killing is not the only way a person can die and not having the right is not the same as not being “allowed” or being illegal, so no, this isn’t a shift in burden of proof. All points are neutral until proven otherwise. If you refuse to logically prove that human’s have a right to life, then the best you can do is keep the point neutral.
For the record, I don’t think the right to kill is a universal truth either. Now, if I don’t have the right to kill and you don’t have the right to life, then me killing you isn’t a matter of rights at all. The point remains neutral.
I believe I took your posts wrong countingbeans and I apologize for that. I will edit them, to clean this post up.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically I don’t think that a right to life exists and I’m asking him to prove it. By asking me to demonstrate that it doesn’t exist is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.[/quote]
Do you believe in objective moral facts?[/quote]
I honestly don’t know if objective morals facts exist.