Discussion in 'Opinions & Current Events' started by Danoff, Sep 26, 2003.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
It's not my own opinion. It was my attempt to understand Danoff's argument.
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.
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.
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.
Part of that emotional scarring is brought on by some of the more extreme pro-lifers. Here is one example.
Any shameful or embarrassing feelings will be shadowed by the guilt of terminating the life of her baby. Unless they bury it nice and deep, they will always be tormented by the "what if's" as they imagine the life that could have been for their baby.
I'm not a fan of seat belt laws - or pretending that we know what's best for the emotional health of others. Having an unwanted kid can lead to just as much emotional scarring. Nobody knows better than the person who has to live with the decision.
I wouldn't compare seat-belt laws to "obligated" abortion laws, since it has been proved again and again and again that wearing a seat-belt is far much better than the alternative, where as for the abortion there's a lot of discussion (see: this thread) about if it should be allowed, obligated, forbidden, etc.
As for my two cents: I think we should let the "mother" choose. Being able to choose on a situation like this is better than being forced or prohibited to do it.
Unfortunately, most won't know until after the fact.
I am baiting a little bit, but you guys are all missing out on a great opportunity. We could create breading camps where all the unwanted newborns would go. They would be raised to be indentured servants of the state or country. We could brand them and let them take care of all our services like roadside cleanup, maintenance, janitorial services, etc. If they ever quit doing their job, we can just abort them from society by putting them in a big chipper shredder to be used for soil top dressing.
For who? The person who's choice it is to wear the seatbelt. Same is true of the helmet law. If you want to crack your head on the curb or fly through your windshield, feel free. None of my business.
They're in a better position to decide than you are.
There are really a lot of applications for this kind of human segregation. You could do genetic screenings where "athletes" or at least genetically disposed stock could be used for state vs. state games and even battles (Hunger Games comes to mind). The applications for all these unwanted fetuses is really only limited to our own moral boundaries.
You are assuming that every one is capable of rational and mature thought. That is awfully presumptuous on your part.
Let's go back to my breading camps. If they are just going to toss the fetuses away, why not capitalize on it? We can setup factories with the unwanted fetuses that are grown and trained to do one job. We can turn this country around and bring manufacturing industries back to America. We can export to other nations and get back on track as being a global supplier of goods and services to other countries.
Again, when they don't work out or start getting too needy, we just toss 'em into the shredder and recycle the organic material, but not before harvesting the healthy organs that are in high demand.
I definitely am not.
Pesky human rights.
Human rights, fetus rights....should there really be a difference? A fetus being a parasite on the mother, therefore has no rights is a pretty poor argument. The fetus has a one way ticket to development, and that is human. A fetus will no more become a frog than I will spontaneously sprout an extra head.
So my point is, if we are going to close our eyes and turn the other way, ignoring the fact that a fetus is human, then we should compromise our human rights and make the exception that because the fetus is unwanted, that it is not human, rather it is a sub-race not worthy of protection or rights and in my mind, should therefore be capitalized upon with the dehumanizing of this rejected sub-class of human.
Yes. There is a massive difference.
So does a sperm.
Show me anywhere on here where anyone said that "that because the fetus is unwanted, that it is not human". Seriously, look for it. You won't find it. Now ask yourself why you said it.
Now ask yourself why an 8 year old doesn't have the right to drink alcohol and smoke. Are children a sub-class of human being? We seem to be treating them with fewer rights than we have!
Yes, they are a sub-class of human being. We call the sub-class "children". We call the class before that "fetus". The reason fetuses don't have rights is because they don't deserve rights.
*fap fap fa... Wait what?
Don't worry, lots of them never develop into children.
I don't see a difference how one has a right to life and another does not. As you pointed out, a child is a sub-class of human and so is a fetus. The point being is that it is still human.
Sperm does not have a one way ticket to human development, shower drains, socks, etc.... I will leave it at that...
Adult Human ~ has human rights.
Sub-human (child) ~ has human rights.
Sub-human (fetus) ~ doesn't deserve human rights?
I said that fetuses must not be human because we uphold no human rights to them. My point is, and I will say it again, if we are to de-humanize a fetus and abort it just because we don't want it, then what would be the difference in bearing that child and denying it's rights after it is born? The fetus is human, and should have the right to live whether it deserves it or not. I know grown adults that don't deserve the rights they have, but they are still given to them. Why deny the unborn child their right to live? Is a fetus any less human just because it is still attached to it's mother? I know many people that are attached to the government and their survival is dependent on their parasitic nature. Can we abort them to or do we have a humanitarian obligation to see to their well being where they cannot care for themselves?
I then go on to say that if we are to deny those rights that, as you put it, don't deserve, why extend those undeserving rights after they are born? Put them to work man, lets turn this country around with all the unwanted fetuses. Think of all the long lists of people needing organ donors. Those lists could be filled in just a few short years. Think of all the benefits of not extending those rights to this unwanted sub-class of humans? I mean, their own mother doesn't even want them, why not reap some benefits instead of just breaking it up and filling up a tiny toxic bag for the dumpster.
How does one acquire rights (considering these rights are objective).
Just my two cents, but if the mother has given birth and the baby is still attached to her by the umbilical cord, I don't think she should be allowed to abort it, but if she doesn't want it for whatever reason, then to put it up for adoption instead. No loss of life that way.
Abortion has to be done before the baby is born.
Just realized I was replying to the first page. Everyone was talking about killing the baby after it was born but it was still attached by the umbilical chord to the mother. They were calling it abortion so..
The point is not everything that is human genetically gets all rights. Terri Schiavo being another example.
Same for fetuses.
Children do not have all rights - that was kinda my point.
At some point it becomes self-aware, perceives its reality, understands the concept of other beings and the arbitrary nature of force. At that point, it has rights. Until then it is a living creature, and genetically human, but more Terri Schiavo than John Q. Public.
The only thing that is important in this conversation is why human beings have rights in the first place. And fetuses do not meet that criteria.
Terri Schiavo. Genetically human is of absolutely zero importance to anything.
They'd be in jail if that were the case (without their rights).
Why give it the right to live? That's what you should be asking.
Terri Schiavo. Genetically human is of no consideration for this issue.
They're functioning adult human beings (meaning a certain level of cognitive brain function). They have rights until they violate the rights of others. If they are truly parasitic (violating the rights of others by theft etc.) then they can be locked in jail.
Cognitive functions. It is conveniently early to assume that those are possible at birth (even though medically it will happen later).
Nobody is talking about compromising the human rights of the cognitively self-aware. It's a strawman, leave it.
That's what I'm interested in, after being told that human rights are fact (objective).