QUESTION:
Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?


ELABORATION OF POSITIONS:
Yes: There is no exception. An unborn child has an ethical right to life which should be protected by law in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law.

No:There exists exception(s). An unborn child does not have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law.




This poll is intended to present the abortion debate in a basic format. There are many people who have different takes on abortion. Here we may debate on this particular question in its most basic format.

Please choose a position, and provide points supporting your position in a constuctive manner.

The important word in the question statement is "equal", and hence I answered "No."

This is not to say that an unborn child has NO ethical rights which should be protected by law at all. Just that an unborn child should not have the same or equal] rights to those of a born individual.

Also, I'm a little worried about the word "Does", as opposed to "Should" in the question. As the law currently stands, the answer to the question "Does an unborn child have rights equal to a born individual's rights?" has a simple, unequivocal answer: no.

Thanks for the great answer. I would absolutely agree that just because you do not believe an unborn child's rights to be equal to that of a born individual's rights, it does not mean that you do not believe an unborn child has any rights at all.


REGARDING DO vs SHOULD.
This is a different debate.
I use the word "do (or does)" from my understanding of ethics.

I use a basic frame when approaching ethics. It is this:
The law is based on our ethical rights.
Our ethical rights are not based on the law.
(Ethical rights are independent of law. They can be protected by law, but they are not bestowed upon us by law.)


The "Do" question is: Do we or do we not have X ethical right?
The "should" question is a practical question that comes after the "Do" question. If we do have X ethical right, should X ethical right be protected by law?

According to this frame of understanding of ethics:
It is impossible to ask "Should a person have X ethical right?".
Either a person has X ethical right or a person does not have X ethical right.

That is the basis of an ethical debate. Do we or do we not have X ethical right?
Of course, the 2 opposing positions are "yes we do", and "no we do not".

Whether X ethical right is protected by law or not protected by law, we may conditnue the debate: Do we or do we not have X ethical right?
Usually when the community as a whole concludes we do not have X ethical right, the community agrees that X should not be protected by law because X is not our ethical right.
When the community as a whole concludes we do have X ethical right, the community usually agrees that X ethical right should be protected by law.

My response was no.

What we value about autonomous, self aware, conscious human lives does not apply to a fetus. Why do we really abhorr killing?

1) We empathize with the inner conscious state of a fellow human or other creature.

2) We empathize with the loss suffered by family and friends of the deceased.

The unwanted fetus has:

a) No consciousness

b) No family or friends

c) No autonomy

The only ones who have any vested interest in the fetus are the parents. And if they don't want it, that's their decision. The fate of the fetus is and should be in the hands of the parents. Once the child is born it is autonomous (no longer connected to the mother and no longer a potential health threat) and should therefore be accorded at least partial rights as an individual.

Blast away.

The only ones who have any vested interest in the fetus are the parents.
If a fetus can have no vested interest in its own life, it could not possibly be said to have the same ethical rights as a born individual. Because whether a born individual does or does not have a vested interest in their own life, the fact that the born individual has the ability to have a vested interest in their own life allows the individual the sole right to their own life.

Meanwhile, the parents of an unborn child have the sole right to the unborn child's life because, being that the unborn child cannot have a vested interest in its own life, the parents ethically have the sole ability to have a vested interest in their unborn child' life.

ohhh kay...

Please choose a position, and provide points supporting your position in a constuctive manner.
Unborn fetus ain't a child. Simple as that. Furthermore, since it is attatched to the umbilical cord, the fetus ipart of the woman's body, and it is her decision whether to keep it or not.

The important word in the question statement is "equal", and hence I answered "No."

This is not to say that an unborn child has NO ethical rights which should be protected by law at all. Just that an unborn child should not have the same or equal rights to those of a born individual.
That there basically explains it for me.

In addition, I would say that only once a fetus is conscious and can feel pain should his or her rights be equal to those of born individuals.

Unborn fetus ain't a child. Simple as that. Furthermore, since it is attatched to the umbilical cord, the fetus ipart of the woman's body, and it is her decision whether to keep it or not.
An unborn child is not a child. Nor is it a separate entity from its host parent. It is but a part of its host parent's body in the similar way a hand, head, stomach, and lung is a part of the human body. No part of a any human's body has quality of independent life. Therefore, an unborn child could not be be considered to possess any sort of more independent ethical rights than that of a lung or a hand. Therefore, an unborn child does not posses any right to life.

An unborn child is not a child. Nor is it a separate entity from its host parent. It is but a part of its host parent's body in the similar way a hand, head, stomach, and lung is a part of the human body. No part of a any human's body has quality of independent life. Therefore, an unborn child could not be be considered to possess any sort of more independent ethical rights than that of a lung or a hand. Therefore, an unborn child does not posses any right to life.
Isn't that basically what I just said? :confused:

I was just trying to clarify, and see where you were coming from.

unborn child

i just love words like this

i voted no

The term “unborn child” is used to keep the visentitude of the "unborn child" open.
Therefore, the question does not assume it has life or it does not have life.

If the unborn child was not a separate entity, it would have the same DNA strands and would be genetically identical. Therefore, it is its own being. The unborn have just as much right to life as the born. In the case where the baby's birth threatens the mother's life, especially in cases where the child has a high percentage of dying with the mother if born, but the mother has a high chance of surviving if the baby is aborted, there is no question because of the fact that the lives are equal and only one death (abortion) is better than two. I therefore do not see that particular case pf abortion unethical, even by the standards of the equality of rights between the born and unborn. I vote yes.

You assert that the unborn child is an independent life.
You assert that the right to life of the unborn child is equal to the right to life of the host parent.
Therefore, the unborn child's right to life is not greater than the right to life of the host parent.
And The right to life of the host parent is not greater than the right to life of the unborn child.

You also assert that if the parent's life would likely be in danger for giving birth, and the unborn child would likely not survive, the certainty of the parent living outweighs the small posibillity that they both will survive.

Therefore, in any case not necessarily abortion, the right for Person A to take the life of Person B to save his own life, outweighs the high probability that both Person A and Person B will die if Person A doesn't take Person B's life.


Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?

If the host parent's life is more valuable, it is ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If the unborn child's life is more valuable, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If they are equal, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.

Horrible poll. Yes or no? Abortion is not that simple of an issue. How about "Yes, with restrictions", or "No, with exceptions"?

Until those options are included I will abstain from voting in this poll. :m:

OK. I would explain thereason behind the yes/no, but it appears you have already made up your mind.

No, please explain. If you're wondering, abstaining is not an option I would vote for.

The real question here 'maps' into a question of suicide in the real world.

The reason, and hence desire, to end your own life in the real world can sometimes be as great as the desire to live. The reason needs not elaboration on this thread. The reason why we don't is because of the fear of the unknown, and the possibility that something great might happen.

For killing any given person in the real world, we might be doing them all a favor. This is almost universally against everyone's consent, or at least to a potential degree for those with mental problems against themselves, which is why it is almost universally illegal as well. This applies for all individuals with a developed consciousness.

The unborn do not have consciousness. It is not unfavorable to abort an unborn child because of the above reasons. And it is favorable to bring them life as well. The inevitability of development is irrelevant in this case.

However, this issue is very sensitive. I myself have sometimes tended to sympathize with pro-life advocates, but there is already a balance in that after a certain stage in development abortion cannot be implemented. Inevitability of development is irrelevant, but development itself is used in this case to strike a balance.

I would say to maintain the status quo of Roe vs. Wade.

Therefore, in any case not necessarily abortion, the right for Person A to take the life of Person B to save his own life, outweighs the high probability that both Person A and Person B will die if Person A doesn't take Person B's life.

Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?


The issue here is whether the foetus is a 'life' before it is born. To the parents involved, their baby is a life but I am guessing in the majority of cases, the life of the mother will be put first. In the majority of cases, the doctors involved in the case will place the mother's life first as a standard practice, unless they realise that there is nothing to be done to save her, in which case they will attempt to save the baby's life.

I know in my case at the start of my labour, the specialists advised me that they were concerned because I was at risk of dying if the complications they feared arose and I was advised that my life would be placed first before that of my son's. Luckily what we feared did not occur to the degree we thought it would and we both came out alright. But the doctors told me in no uncertain terms that they would do what was necessary to save me as well as my child, but if the worst of the worst occured, my life would be saved over that of my child's. I wasn't really given a choice as to which life was more valuable. I guess by that point I was in a state of shock and extreme pain and the only thing I can remember is trying not to cry as I thought to myself that I didn't want to die and I didn't want to lose my son, while my husband told the doctors he wanted me to come out of this alive as well as our child... but he wanted me to be saved at all costs.. and as we've spoken about it since, he does not regret that decision even though he loves our son.

Personally, I try not to think about my thoughts of 'I don't want to die' when as the doctors spoke to me because I still feel a level of guilt for wanting to live and not wanting to lose my child all at the same time. I will admit it was not one of my better moments, but at that time, the shock of it had me stressing that if I started bawling like I really wanted to, they'd think me weak... go figure..

If the host parent's life is more valuable, it is ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If the unborn child's life is more valuable, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If they are equal, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
While you may disagree with abortion and view the foetus as a 'child' and a 'life', the reality of it is that the mother should have a say. It does not make her unethical. In reality, they are not equal. The foetus is an invasion on her body and as a parasite, could not exist outside of her body. It is for that reason alone that foetus' in the first two trimester's are not given equal rights at law, and are given some rights in several countries in the third trimester if a criminal act by a third person puts the mother's life and the baby's life at risk (eg stabbing a pregnant woman can result in charges of murder or manslaughter being laid against the defendant if the mother and the foetus dies as a direct result of that stabbing).

Why in the third trimester? Because a foetus has a higher chance of survival outside of the mother's body if given the proper medical care. But it's rights will never be equal to that of the mother's or the living individual.

No, please explain. If you're wondering, abstaining is not an option I would vote for.
The abortion debate itself is rooted in the above debate definition.
A debate definition is a single question in which individuals can take opposing positions on. Yes/no. True/false. Agree/disagree.

The debate definition in this case as quoted in the original post:
"Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?"


There are 2 opposing positions. It is impossible for there to be any other position other than the standard abstain/present positions.


In regards to this particular debate definition question, any other debatable opinion regarding the abortion debate is not a separate position, but falls under one of those 2 opposing positions.

For example: Is cool skill 100% human? Yesor No?
To say Yes with restrictions is logically impossible. I cannot say that I am 100% human with the restriction that I'm 2% alien. It would contradict the statement that I am 100% human. Therefore, I am not 100% human. Therefore, the answer is no.


Regarding this topic, I would like to see how you could have a restriction on the "yes" position or exceptions on the "no" position.

The issue here is whether the foetus is a 'life' before it is born.
This has nothing to do with the issue, and is taken out of context of the issue. The issue as presented above bears the assumption that the unborn child is a living separate entitiy in relation to its host parent just as one human is a living separate entity in relation to another human.

For your information, the following statements of mine that you quoted out of context were in regards to a post made by Arquibus.

cool skill:
--------------------
"Therefore, in any case not necessarily abortion, the right for Person A to take the life of Person B to save his own life, outweighs the high probability that both Person A and Person B will die if Person A doesn't take Person B's life.

Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?"
--------------------


Taking statements out of context is not necessary. Please review the thread, and refrain from taking statements out of context, and imposing positions on others. I have had great problems communicating with you in other threads because you do not seem to wish to follow logical forms of communication.

The biggest problem I have had with you on other threads is illogical personal attacks and illogical statements that make no sense. Please do not bring that into this thread. Everybody has points that they wish to discuss, and everybody has the right to discuss them.

Your entire post is a response to cool skill's calrification of what Arquibus posted as if it was cool skill posting those comments. I have no idea what the relevance is of responding to an objective explaination of somebody else's post.

Again, that post was nothing more than cool skill trying clarify and understand what arquibus had said. Next time you respond do that post, do not respond to it as if that is what cool skill is saying. Instead, be more helpful.

For example: Well maybe I can help cool skill be more clear on what arquibus said by giving my opinion regarding what I think Arquibus was trying to say. That way, I might be able to give cool skill some insight on understanding what Arquibus' opinion is.



********************
Some people just do not understand how to understand others. I have encountered many people here and in RL that are so focused on their own point of view that they are completely incapable of even stating the othe person's opinion or point of view.

If I have my point of view, at least I can hear the next person's point of view. And I can restate the next person's point of view exactly or if not more clearly than the person that stated it. It does not mean that I must agree with that person's point of view.

On the other hand, some people are incapable of stating the point of view of a person they disagree with. I have seen this alot on these forums. Dealing with such people can be time consuming because you have to sit there and explain to them the following over and over:
BEFORE YOU ARGUE WITH SOMEBODY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PERSON'S POSITION AND OPINION!!!!

In order to clearly understand that person's position and opinion, try restating it to that person, and try to ask the person questions if you are not clear about what they said. Allow the person to respond to confirm that you understand what exactly it is that person is saying. Then you can decide what you may or may not agree with regarding that person's opinion.

This is what I was doing in the case of Arquibus' post. Instead of seeing it as a post of cool skill trying to understand what Arquibus was saying, you jumped in, and started arguing against certain statements in that post as if it was cool skill's.

IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE/DISAGREE WITH THEM, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU. PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN A FRIENDLY REASONABLE MANNER OR EXIT THIS DEBATE
********************

Your entire post is a response to cool skill's calrification of what Arquibus posted as if it was cool skill posting those comments. I have no idea what the relevance is of responding to an objective explaination of somebody else's post.

Again, that post was nothing more than cool skill trying clarify and understand what arquibus had said. Next time you respond do that post, do not respond to it as if that is what cool skill is saying. Instead, be more helpful.

I apologise for responding to your repetitive reiteration of another.

QUESTION:
Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?
No.

Before the third trimester, a foetus is not viable outside of the mother's body. To give this foetus equal rights to life as that of the mother's which is protected at law without exception is dangerous not only to the mother, but to the foetus itself. For example, if at 12 weeks into her pregnancy, the mother discovers that she has cancer (as an example), if the foetus she is carrying had equal rights to life "without exception", then she would be denied the right to save her own life in seeking treatment for her cancer. In this example alone, the child's right to life has superseded hers and is no longer equal to that of the mother's.

How can one give equal ethical rights to life to a being that is not yet alive? Who would make the choice? If the answer to this question was yes, then if during the birth for example, complications arose which put both the mother's and the baby's life at risk, who's equality and ethical right to life would supersede the other's? For this reason the foetus' life could not be equal to that of a living person's. After all, if both have an equal or ethical right to life, then how would one decide which has the a superior right to life in the event of an emergency? If it is an ectopic pregnancy for example, shouldn't the woman have the right to abort the embryo to ensure that she survives since the pregnancy could result in not just the embryo dying but also the mother once the tube ruptures? If we are to say that the unborn has equal and ethical rights to life, then the mother would not be allowed to abort the ectopic pregnancy. There must always be exceptions to such rules.

In the case where nothing has gone wrong and the mother wishes to abort, my answer is still the same. If the woman feels that the pregnancy and the child that follows will impede on her way of life and she does not want it, she should be allowed to abort the embryo. The "child" at this point cannot survive outside of her body and is parasitic in nature and her body would reject it given the chance, and something not yet alive or living should not be given the same rights as one who is alive.

That is my personal opinion and if you disagree that is your perogative. Since it seems we are not allowed to discuss, debate or argue each other's opinions and statement, merely state it, I have given you my own as a statement.

-----------------------------------------

There? Does that satisfy the rules you have set down for your thread? As for your attack on my unfriendly style in this thread and others, I will only say this... Pot.. Kettle.. Black.. :)

Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?

If the host parent's life is more valuable, it is ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If the unborn child's life is more valuable, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If they are equal, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.

Depends on the meaning of "valuable". From an human evolutionary standpoint, the baby's life is more "valuable". For the pregnate woman with cancer scenario, who is or has the potential to be more "valuable" to society. Shouldn't the law favour the one who has the potential to contribute more to society?

It is necessary if the Mother's life is in danger to abort the fetus to save the life of the woman.

Muslims believe it is ok to abort the fetus before it develops, which is something like 120 days.

(1) Abortion could be allowed for a lady's health sake, and that too when properly suggested by some responsible specialist/physician.

(2) Under normal health conditions, and particularly when the foetus is developed enough (that specialists consider it a live body), abortion amounts to deliberate killing and therefore, not allowed.

(3) Abortion or even prevention of conception for fear of economic hardships, is the negation of the basic article of Islamic faith that God is sole Provider and Sustainer of every living soul. That being the reason, the act will be un-Islamic.

(4) Seeking abortion for no "good" reason at all, and saying that the "mother" or "father" just does not want that baby - is inhuman and cruel thinking. No sane person would allow that.

(5) If even the conception is the result of extra-marital union or forced rape, abortion is not allowed, because the (innocent) baby to be, has the right to life, that can not be denied. The biological parents - both or either one - or else the society/state is responsible to take care of such "un-wanted" or illegal births.

http://www.jamaat.org/qa/abort.html

Peace

Regarding this topic, I would like to see how you could have a restriction on the "yes" position or exceptions on the "no" position.

No, with exceptions! = Incest, rape, if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Yes, with restrictions! = Restrict the number of abortions one can have. The women must provide substantial documentation to prove that she would be unable to care for the child.

It's quite simple, actually. Perhaps you are confusing all pro-lifers as religious objectors?

The key point to me is " Can the fetus survive outside the womb on its own?" this was not stated in the poll question and to my mind this is the key distinction re the morality of abortion. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that it's not my place to try to force my own feelings on abortion onto anybody else.

who cares about abortion,

thousands of animals die all the time, humans arent so special, let people abort if they want, and if they dont want to abort then dont let them, its win win, the people who dont want abortions dont have them, the people that want them should have them,


happy both sides win,

peace.

No, with exceptions! = Incest, rape, if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Yes, with restrictions! = Restrict the number of abortions one can have. The women must provide substantial documentation to prove that she would be unable to care for the child.

It's quite simple, actually. Perhaps you are confusing all pro-lifers as religious objectors?

I've never understood how people could be totally against abortion untill rape or incest.

So if a woman is raped, decides to have to baby, and then two weeks after the birth she decides to kill her child is she wrong? The aforementioned reasoning seems to imply that's its okay to kill a baby you were rapped or impregnated by your father. But it's not okay if its some one-night-stand? :confused:

I'm a firm believer in moral relativism.
The Spartans dropped unfit or deformed babies off tall cliffs... and, in my mind, it was not wrong for them.

I deny that there is any inherent right or wrong built into the universe. A culture has to decide such things for itself... and there is no god or gods to help it do so.

I've never understood how people could be totally against abortion untill rape or incest.

So if a woman is raped, decides to have to baby, and then two weeks after the birth she decides to kill her child is she wrong? The aforementioned reasoning seems to imply that's its okay to kill a baby you were rapped or impregnated by your father. But it's not okay if its some one-night-stand? :confused:

By law, killing a baby after birth is murder. By law, killing a fetus inside the womb is not, ergo abortion. Depending on the developmental stage of the fetus, it is a good law. Late term abortions are illegal for a reason, the fetus is almost fully developed and sentient.

My opinion? Continue to outlaw late term abortions, outlaw all other abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Why an exception for rape and incest? Psychological reasons and health issues (incest).

[QUOTE=Bells]I apologise for responding to your repetitive reiteration of another.


No.

Before the third trimester, a foetus is not viable outside of the mother's body. To give this foetus equal rights to life as that of the mother's which is protected at law without exception is dangerous not only to the mother, but to the foetus itself. For example, if at 12 weeks into her pregnancy, the mother discovers that she has cancer (as an example), if the foetus she is carrying had equal rights to life "without exception", then she would be denied the right to save her own life in seeking treatment for her cancer. In this example alone, the child's right to life has superseded hers and is no longer equal to that of the mother's.
QUOTE]

This isn't entirely true. A foetus is viable before the third trimester. My cousins are living proof of this. They were born in the 5th month of pregnancy. If I remember correctly there have been babies born as soon as 4 and half months. I might be wrong about this last statement and if I am I'm sorry. My cousins were born in the early 80's and technology has come a long way since then.

This isn't entirely true. A foetus is viable before the third trimester. My cousins are living proof of this. They were born in the 5th month of pregnancy. If I remember correctly there have been babies born as soon as 4 and half months. I might be wrong about this last statement and if I am I'm sorry. My cousins were born in the early 80's and technology has come a long way since then.
The third trimester begins from week 27 (in Australia anyway). There have been some babies born at that point and some even born from 25 weeks and have survived. However most of those babies do end up having disabilities ranging from mild to extreme.. if they survive. The longer the foetus remains in the womb, the better the chances. A friend of my sister in law's gave birth to her daughter when she was 26 weeks. After many many months spent in hospital, she is still quite a sick little girl. She is 2 years old and still cannot walk or talk. She has to undergo intensive physiotherapy to get her limbs moving and extensive speech therapy to get her to try to talk. She is also blind and partially deaf. She has heart problems as well. Her heart stopped more times than I can remember when she was in the hospital and her parents pushed for resuscitation. It has stopped since she was released and again, was able to be resuscitated successfully.

The viability of these babies is.. well.. slim. They cannot survive without extensive medical treatment and care. Most do not survive even with the best of care. If they do survive, many end up needing extensive care for the rest of their lives, even with the advancement of medicine and technology. The friend of my sister in law was told that her daughter's viability (or survival chance) was that of winning a lottery. I guess she won the lottery and yes she was viable, but at what cost...?

Shit. I voted Yes, but meant to vote No. Can someone edit the polls?

Absolutely not, picture in your mind the poor little kids in romanian orphanages and other eastern bloc countries in particular, no care, no love, little chance of making a decent life for itself, the social lessons we learn and take for granted whilst we are raised are non existant for these children.

So what future do they have? crime? drugs? prostitution? creating more orphans and so the cycle is complete.

Also i could never expect a rape victim to give birth to the maniac rapists offspring.

in britain, there seems to be a growing culture of mothers being younger and younger, i have personally seen girls that are barely teenagers pushing their babies around - the mothers havnt finished school, havnt got an education and so have little prospects for providing a good life for their babies.

so they get older, resent their choice, and are reminded of their choice everytime they see their child, the usually single mother eventually gives in, stops caring, the result - ASBO nation. 1000's of children terrorising the streets, into crime, into drugs, violent, no respect, in trouble with the law, no prospects, no education, the gutter.

im not suggesting this is the 100% truth in every case, but if allowing abortion gives one girl the chance to correct a mistake, make something of herself before becoming a mother then isnt it worth it?