• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?[W:1064]

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Firstly, I didn't say "permanent harm," nor does harm have to be permanent in most cases of self-defence in order for you to be justified in defending yourself, so why would it here? Why should anyone have to endure any non-consensual harm at all? What, do you think assault victims have no right to defend until the guns come out?
Click to expand...

Just a second: how can anyone claim that harm from pregnancy is "non-consensual" if a zef was conceived through consensual sex?

But secondly, it actually does generally cause permanent harm, yes. Most women's bodies never return entirely to normal, and most have permanent visible damage. Permanent damage to the function of the bladder and vagina are also common.

Also, it's not vague at all. Pregnancies are hard on the body. They cause harm in all cases, in the form of immune suppression, extended illness, bone damage, and genital injury at the very least. Those are the typical things. We haven't even gotten into the complications yet.
Click to expand...

If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Not dodging the point at all; you simply inferred that I support temporary harm being ignored. You were mistaken in that; I don't.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So you're agreeing that temporary harm is relevant

...because.......
Click to expand...

Because a great harm that's temporary (such as excruciating pain, loss of income, etc) can be considered greater than a small harm (ex a small scar) that is permanent

The unborn have no ethical rights because you say so? Not much of an argument.
Click to expand...

No, they have no rights because there is no ethical argument to support them having rights.

But if you have an ethical argument for it, feel free to present it. So far, I haven't seen it. And I'm under no burden to prove they have no rights. If you want to propose that they have rights, the burden is on you to prove your case.

From the first of your posts on this thread, the reasons you gave had to do with legal issues, not ethical ones. So if you would like to make some ethical or philosophical arguments, by all means go ahead.
Click to expand...

No, my arguments were ethical. Here they are again
A) We live in a democracy and the people have rejected efforts to give the unborn rights time and time again

B) There is no legitimate governmental or societal interest served by doing so

C) The unborn are incapable of determining anything themselves
Click to expand...

A) There is an ethical argument in favor of democracy

B) If there's no ethical interest being served by unborn rights, it is unethical for the unborn to have rights

C) It is unethical to assign/recognize rights for entities that can not exercise those rights

Furthermore, you can not divorce ethics from politics. There is an ethical foundation to politics and it can not be waved away
 
The question is... should the unborn have a right to self-determination?

The answer is no. Obviously.

The unborn can't self-determine. Neither can toddlers or children. Not just legally, but ethically. Without guardians making decisions for them, they would hurt or kill themselves, or simply die from failure to provide themselves with the necessities of life.

You can't grant self-determination to someone that has no capacity for autonomy. That would be cruel. I can't think of one example in our society where we would let such a person do their own thing. On paper anyway.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Just a second: how can anyone claim that harm from pregnancy is "non-consensual" if a zef was conceived through consensual sex?
Click to expand...

The same way we can say that people who die in car crashes did not consent to death because they got into a car



If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
Click to expand...

There's a variety of reasons why. In each case, it's the woman's choice to decide if the benefits outweigh the costs
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Just a second: how can anyone claim that harm from pregnancy is "non-consensual" if a zef was conceived through consensual sex?

If it's that odious, why do so many women willingly damage their bodies this way because of their desire to be mothers?
Click to expand...

How can anyone claim being hit by a drunk is non-consensual when it happened because you consensually decided to drive somewhere that day? Same logic, or lack thereof. Consenting to one thing does not mean you consent to a million other unrelated things.

All kinds of reasons. Same reason people have elective surgeries and modifications, enjoy kinky sex, or get into sports. It's worth it to them and whatever their goals are. Ultimately, we all pick something that's gonna wear us down in the long run. Ask my right leg. :shrug:

However, that does not mean anyone should ever be forced into things like that. We call that rape and slavery, and trying to stop women from getting abortion is some sort of ill-begotten combination of the two.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
Theoretically, perhaps, but unless you give equal weight to the life of a carrot plant and the life of a human, the question is moot.
Click to expand...

We were not talking about a "human" it is more accurate to call a fetus a carrot than a human since both have no functioning brain. Even the bible says life begins with the first breath.
 
Northern Light said:
The question is... should the unborn have a right to self-determination?

The answer is no. Obviously.

The unborn can't self-determine. Neither can toddlers or children. Not just legally, but ethically. Without guardians making decisions for them, they would hurt or kill themselves, or simply die from failure to provide themselves with the necessities of life.

You can't grant self-determination to someone that has no capacity for autonomy. That would be cruel. I can't think of one example in our society where we would let such a person do their own thing. On paper anyway.
Click to expand...

Is that why liberals don't think people should be autonomous and make their own decisions? Is that why some think the government should make decisions for the proles?
 
Patrickt said:
Is that why liberals don't think people should be autonomous and make their own decisions? Is that why some think the government should make decisions for the proles?
Click to expand...

Well, you know, people deciding to not buy healthcare is unacceptable. The government has to get involved in that.

You know, I went with the AOC example for laziness sake, but there is so many examples to pick. lol.
 
There has to be a "self" for there to be self-determination. And there has to be a mind in order for there to be a self. So no, certainly not at the stage in which abortions are legal.
 
VanceMack said:
The OP brought up the rights of the unborn. YOU on the other hand brought up "It can have self determination when it is not living inside and attached to someone's body". So...based on YOUR standard the newly born child is now capable of self determination and sustainment?
Click to expand...

The title of the thread is "Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?" So, yes, the OP did bring it up.
 
Nope

Should the right wing stop telling others what to do with there body

Yup
 
yankintx said:
Nope

Should the right wing stop telling others what to do with there body

Yup
Click to expand...

The left is not exactly innocent of that either you know.
 
TheGoverness said:
Does the unborn even have the ability to self-determine?
Click to expand...

What of the invalid? Should they be summarily executed because they no longer have the ability of self determination?
 
Scrabaholic said:
The title of the thread is "Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?" So, yes, the OP did bring it up.
Click to expand...
Yes. And you made the claim they had the right to self-determination after birth. Just as silly...isnt it?
 
sangha said:
The same way we can say that people who die in car crashes did not consent to death because they got into a car
Click to expand...

I like how you don't apply this logic to men that have sex.

Just sayin'.
 
countryboy said:
What of the invalid? Should they be summarily executed because they no longer have the ability of self determination?
Click to expand...
Those that lose a functioning brain are often allowed to die, same applies to a fetus that has not yet formed a functioning brain, neither has the actual right to self determination since neither can think or reason without a brain.
 
Casper said:
Those that lose a functioning brain are often allowed to die, same applies to a fetus that has not yet formed a functioning brain, neither has the actual right to self determination since neither can think or reason without a brain.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating that, eventually you might even believe it has merit . :roll:
 
sangha said:
Fair enough. So you're agreeing that temporary harm is relevant
Click to expand...
Why not? Any and all negative consequences to an action should be considered.

Because a great harm that's temporary (such as excruciating pain, loss of income, etc) can be considered greater than a small harm (ex a small scar) that is permanent
Click to expand...
In that case you should have said, "they aren't necessarily" instead of a categorical "they aren't."


No, they have no rights because there is no ethical argument to support them having rights.

But if you have an ethical argument for it, feel free to present it. So far, I haven't seen it. And I'm under no burden to prove they have no rights. If you want to propose that they have rights, the burden is on you to prove your case.
Click to expand...

Actually there are ethical arguments to support them, but I will put those in a separate post ("coming soon") so that they don't get lost in this shuffle.

No, my arguments were ethical. Here they are again


A) There is an ethical argument in favor of democracy
Click to expand...
This one's very questionable, but I'll let it go, since it gets into concepts that take one rather far from the thread topic.

B) If there's no ethical interest being served by unborn rights, it is unethical for the unborn to have rights
Click to expand...
The ethical interest is in the restraint that society as a whole learns when it moves as far as possible from arbitrary execution (assuming the individuality of a potential person).

C) It is unethical to assign/recognize rights for entities that can not exercise those rights
Click to expand...
By that reasoning, all attempts to punish cruelty to animals would be unethical.

Furthermore, you can not divorce ethics from politics. There is an ethical foundation to politics and it can not be waved away
Click to expand...
Certainly, but the political stance may not perfectly mirror what's ethical or unethical.
 
iguanaman said:
We were not talking about a "human" it is more accurate to call a fetus a carrot than a human since both have no functioning brain. Even the bible says life begins with the first breath.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't fly: the carrot plant has no chance whatsoever of developing a functioning brain.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Why not? Any and all negative consequences to an action should be considered.
Click to expand...

Agreed

In that case you should have said, "they aren't necessarily" instead of a categorical "they aren't."
Click to expand...

Agreed

Actually there are ethical arguments to support them, but I will put those in a separate post ("coming soon") so that they don't get lost in this shuffle.
Click to expand...

I look forward to it


This one's very questionable, but I'll let it go, since it gets into concepts that take one rather far from the thread topic.
Click to expand...

I understand why you don't want to get into it, but there's nothing questionable about. The merits and demerits of different political systems is infused with ethical arguments.

The ethical interest is in the restraint that society as a whole learns when it moves as far as possible from arbitrary execution (assuming the individuality of a potential person).
Click to expand...

I think the word "restraint" is inappropriate way to describe forcing a woman to give birth, unless you're talking about tying her down to ensure she doesn't harm the fetus.

And what's with anti-choice love for the word "arbitrary". There's nothing arbitrary about abortion. Do you really think tossing in a word with a negative connotation will make your argument sound stronger? It only makes it appear unintelligent (at best) and dishonest (at worst)


By that reasoning, all attempts to punish cruelty to animals would be unethical.
Click to expand...

Animal cruelty laws are not based on animal rights, no matter how much the PETA types would like it to be. They serve a legitimate governmental interest (public safety)


Certainly, but the political stance may not perfectly mirror what's ethical or unethical.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Politics and ethics are not synonymous but you can't divorce politics from ethics.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I didn't make this thread into a poll, because any well-thought-out answer would be much more nuanced than a yes or no.

Nor did I say, "do the unborn have a right to [x]?" because legality has nothing to do with this issue. It's strictly a philosophical question.

So what is your position and why?
Click to expand...


At a certain stage of development 100%. I would say at the age of viability... 24 weeks at the very latest.

Anybody against that is utter scum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom