[PeterJB]

TheCracker

Does an unwanted child always have the opportunity to develop into a well rounded adult? - The 10's of thousands of kids dwelling in orphanages around the world say otherwise. Why not abort a child who's likely childhood will probably consist of starvation, suffering and abuse?

Because then you're not even giving it a chance. If it's unwanted by it's parents that doesn't guarantee it a life spent in an orphanage. If the parents had any sense they'd put it up for adoption instead of just abandoning it straight away.

[TheCracker]

PeterJB

Because then you're not even giving it a chance. If it's unwanted by it's parents that doesn't guarantee it a life spent in an orphanage. If the parents had any sense they'd put it up for adoption instead of just abandoning it straight away.

Perhaps in the developed western world. In other parts of the world those children will likely have zero chance of a 'normal' life.

You could maybe call it cruel to abort a child just because they are unwanted, but is it any less cruel to ordain that child to a life spent in gulag conditions?

[Jubby]

Encyclopedia

What about my second example?

Okay, I missed that... sorry...

Encyclopedia

Say a family-less person then, for the argument's sake. You find him/her lying unconcious on the street. Do you have the right to shoot the person in the head then? The person has no family or people who care for him/her and cannot understand the concept of right to life as he/she is unconcious and may die on the spot or perhaps never wake up.

I would direct that to the objectivity of a medical professional. They will either become a type of guardian ad litem or appoint someone as such. Therefore the morality and ethics of a difficult decision like this is covered, and is different than abortion. Ultimately, abortions are a 1 person decision; the mother. I know you need to find a willing doctor, but anyone can go to a length to make that happen. It's usually a team of medical professionals with checks and balances that make the ultimate determination in your example.

Exorcet

As in would abortion be OK if it was determined that the fetus could never develop? I think so. It's the same as an adult that suffers from the same condition. In either case, the individual is basically dead.

So, would it be fair to say that if a 20 year old has the mentality of an infant, it's okay to abort them post birth(essentially euthanasia)? If not, why not, and what is the difference?

[Encyclopedia]

Jubby

Okay, I missed that... sorry...

I would direct that to the objectivity of a medical professional. They will either become a type of guardian ad litem or appoint someone as such. Therefore the morality and ethics of a difficult decision like this is covered, and is different than abortion. Ultimately, abortions are a 1 person decision; the mother. I know you need to find a willing doctor, but anyone can go to a length to make that happen. It's usually a team of medical professionals with checks and balances that make the ultimate determination in your example.

Thank you for the reply.

[Danoff]

Encyclopedia

Undoubtedly. But the question remains. Would it be right for anyone to end the person's life?

No.

Similarly, it is a rights violation to pick the pockets of a dead guy. Similarly it is a rights violation for you to kill someone while you sleep (though perhaps not an intentional one).

I just typed up a long discussion of human rights, and I think it's hijacking this thread. So rather than post that, I'll answer this in as succinctly a way I know how.

You own your body (and all other possessions). Nobody has the right to shoot holes in your body (or any other possessions), even after you die. You have the right (while you're alive and have rights) to dictate who takes possession of your belongings after you die. Once you die, those people take possession of your belongings, and still can't have holes shot in them by random people even though you're dead.

If you're sleeping and someone tries to stab you, they're violating your property rights (more than that, but this is the short version). If you're dead and someone tries to stab you, they're violating the rights of whoever you gave your belongings to (including your body).

That's the conceptually easy explanation. The rest is for another thread.

Sam48

We don't abort a child because we know it will die, we abort it because we know it's alive/will live. An abortion is murder before it's legally murder.

It doesn't matter why we abort fetuses/embryos (I think "child" is a stretch. Otherwise I've personally had dozens of my "children" die). We can abort them because we know they will die, or because we expect them to live. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the nature of the thing we are terminating at the time of termination. Someone who does not yet exist has no rights to infringe.

PeterJB

A difficult topic this. I'd say I'm a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. If the foetus isn't developing properly, if it's causing potentially fatal harm to the mother, or if it's a product of rape, then I think abortion is justified. But I condemn anyone who has a perfectly healthy child growing inside them but decides to abort it simply because they don't want it.

This is generally the most pragmatic approach. It's also the least principled approach. You're willing to commit the "murder" of an innocent "child" in some circumstances but not others? There is no principle behind that. Either it is a child with rights or it is not. I see scenario where it makes sense to curtail the mother's right to her own body in favor of an entity that we decide should also have rights, only to decide that the entity doesn't have rights if we feel like it.

[Encyclopedia]

Danoff

No.

Similarly, it is a rights violation to pick the pockets of a dead guy. Similarly it is a rights violation for you to kill someone while you sleep (though perhaps not an intentional one).

I just typed up a long discussion of human rights, and I think it's hijacking this thread. So rather than post that, I'll answer this in as succinctly a way I know how.

You own your body (and all other possessions). Nobody has the right to shoot holes in your body (or any other possessions), even after you die. You have the right (while you're alive and have rights) to dictate who takes possession of your belongings after you die. Once you die, those people take possession of your belongings, and still can't have holes shot in them by random people even though you're dead.

If you're sleeping and someone tries to stab you, they're violating your property rights (more than that, but this is the short version). If you're dead and someone tries to stab you, they're violating the rights of whoever you gave your belongings to (including your body).

That's the conceptually easy explanation. The rest is for another thread.

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one thing though, in my example the person did not have any people to pass on his/her possessions.

You could PM me instead of replying here if you want.

[Sam48]

Danoff

It doesn't matter why we abort fetuses/embryos (I think "child" is a stretch. Otherwise I've personally had dozens of my "children" die). We can abort them because we know they will die, or because we expect them to live. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the nature of the thing we are terminating at the time of termination. Someone who does not yet exist has no rights to infringe.

Then it's simply a difference of opinions. I simply believe that one should not have the right to blow another's one shot at life.

[Danoff]

Encyclopedia

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one thing though, in my example the person did not have any people to pass on his/her possessions.

You could PM me instead of replying here if you want.

No next of kin, no will, the state would own the possessions after a period of attempting to identify next of kin.

Sam48

Then it's simply a difference of opinions. I simply believe that one should not have the right to blow another's one shot at life.

Tell it to the cow/pig/chicken/etc. that you ate today.

[Sam48]

Danoff

Tell it to the cow/pig/chicken/etc. that you ate today.

We all earn the right to life at some point (Something I believe one should be granted before birth, and comprehension, in my opinion), but animals will never be able to comprehend rights (at least not in the near future).

[Exorcet]

Jubby

So, would it be fair to say that if a 20 year old has the mentality of an infant, it's okay to abort them post birth(essentially euthanasia)? If not, why not, and what is the difference?

Brain death isn't the same as having limited mental capability. If you meant before than a fetus would only develop infant level intelligence, then I don't think it would be OK to abort. Same goes for the 20 year old.

If the 20 year old was brain dead, then euthanasia would be OK.

[Encyclopedia]

Danoff

No next of kin, no will, the state would own the possessions after a period of attempting to identify next of kin.

And the persons right to life? Decided by the state then I assume?

[Danoff]

Encyclopedia

And the persons right to life? Decided by the state then I assume?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you asking me whether a person in a persistent vegetative state with no next of kin or guardians can have the plug pulled by the state to avoid taxpayers footing the bill forever? Yes.

[Encyclopedia]

Danoff

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you asking me whether a person in a persistent vegetative state with no next of kin or guardians can have the plug pulled by the state to avoid taxpayers footing the bill forever? Yes.

No, an unconcious person, who may or may not wake up. He cannot understand rigths and there's no guarantee he'll wake up.

Unborn child - can't understand concept of rights= doesn't have any rights. No guarantee they'll ever understand as fetuses die all the time

Unconcious person- can't understand concept of rights because unconcious = doesn't have any rights (and assuming no next of kin) - No guarantee he/she ever wakes up as unconcious people die all the time.

Are they the same, rights wise? Or am I missing some key difference, if so what?

Hopefully I've got my thought translated to english in a good enough way now.

[Jubby]

Exorcet

Brain death isn't the same as having limited mental capability. If you meant before than a fetus would only develop infant level intelligence, then I don't think it would be OK to abort. Same goes for the 20 year old.

If the 20 year old was brain dead, then euthanasia would be OK.

I'm confused at your position, then. If I remember correctly, part of your point was that abortion is wrong due to the fact that the fetus cannot make an informed decision, but will at some point in its life. It seems your equating termination of life with not being able to make informed decisions(or being able to in the future). Is that the case?

[Swift]

Encyclopedia

No, an unconcious person, who may or may not wake up. He cannot understand rigths and there's no guarantee he'll wake up.

Unborn child - can't understand concept of rights= doesn't have any rights. No guarantee they'll ever understand as fetuses die all the time

Unconcious person- can't understand concept of rights because unconcious = doesn't have any rights (and assuming no next of kin) - No guarantee he/she ever wakes up as unconcious people die all the time.

Are they the same, rights wise? Or am I missing some key difference, if so what?

Hopefully I've got my thought translated to english in a good enough way now.

A newborn can't possibly understand rights. So, how does your argument work there? does a newborn not have any rights because it can't understand them?

[Danoff]

Encyclopedia

Unconcious person- can't understand concept of rights because unconcious = doesn't have any rights (and assuming no next of kin) - No guarantee he/she ever wakes up as unconcious people die all the time.

Functioning adults have property rights. Until it can be proven that they are no longer capable of operating their brains, they are assumed to be functioning adults and retain property rights (including their bodies). Once they cease to function, their property rights are temporarily in the hands of their guardian.

Your hypothetical is actually very similar to postulating that the guy walking down the street, who was normal yesterday, has suddenly lost his mind and is a crazed killer. It could be true. Certainly I imagine one could find a case where a normal person suddenly lost their mind and went on a killing spree. Once you're an adult with a full compliment of rights, you're assumed to still be until you demonstrate otherwise. Falling asleep is not demonstrating otherwise.

[Encyclopedia]

Swift

A newborn can't possibly understand rights. So, how does your argument work there? does a newborn not have any rights because it can't understand them?

It's not my own opinion. It was my attempt to understand Danoff's argument.

Danoff

Functioning adults have property rights. Until it can be proven that they are no longer capable of operating their brains, they are assumed to be functioning adults and retain property rights (including their bodies). Once they cease to function, their property rights are temporarily in the hands of their guardian.

Your hypothetical is actually very similar to postulating that the guy walking down the street, who was normal yesterday, has suddenly lost his mind and is a crazed killer. It could be true. Certainly I imagine one could find a case where a normal person suddenly lost their mind and went on a killing spree. Once you're an adult with a full compliment of rights, you're assumed to still be until you demonstrate otherwise. Falling asleep is not demonstrating otherwise.

Thanks for the reply. I understand now.

The unconcious person has acquired his/her rights before the accident, so are given the benefit of doubt. The unborn baby has not.

I was making a difference between falling asleep and being unconcious through an accident of some sort where the likelyhood of waking up is much less. I see now how that would be irrelevant.

[Exorcet]

Jubby

I'm confused at your position, then. If I remember correctly, part of your point was that abortion is wrong due to the fact that the fetus cannot make an informed decision, but will at some point in its life. It seems your equating termination of life with not being able to make informed decisions(or being able to in the future). Is that the case?

It's confusing because I was expressing my own ideas while also acknowledging that Danoff's were logical.

I never really did fully explain my position, and I'm trying to revise it after discussing the matter in this thread. But the gist of it was, being genetically human should grant someone with rights even if they can't understand rights. When I said that the fetus might only develop infant level intelligence, I was assuming that it would develop into an infant and be born. If it couldn't be born, then the issue is trickier since it has a direct, physical, permanent effect on the mother. I was not thinking of that situation, and I my previous thoughts on the matter don't have an answer for it.

[Pako]

I really think the psychological impact of the mother needs to be taken into account. We have laws that require us to wear seat belts, what about protecting mothers from a life time of emotional scaring? I am addressing this more towards the young, unplanned pregnancy. They are old enough to propagate, but they have no idea what kind of psychological damage they could be causing by getting an abortion. If we are such advocates of pro-choice, then why don't we have picket signs for no more seat belts? We've heard all the campaigns, seat belts save lives. Not getting an abortion (unless medical reasons demand it) saves lives. Not only the life of the child, but also the healthy emotional life of the mother.

[DK]

Part of that emotional scarring is brought on by some of the more extreme pro-lifers. Here is one example.