Abortion Poll

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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.