does a fetus have rights?

[BenTheMan]

Isn't a sperm cell a potential human being?

Reductio ad absurdum: What about a carbon atom?

A sperm cell is just a mass of DNA, and cannot progenate life itself. As is, I think, a zygote (i.e. fertilized egg). I don't know where the cutoff of "potential human being" is, but surely if an infant can survive outside of the womb and live a healthy life, we must consider this. I think this, coupled with spidergoat's definition of "human", gives every reason to make abortions after the first trimester available only in medical emergencies.

another example. A 5 year old child. Isn't a 5 year old child potentially a 21 year old adult? does the 5 year old child then, get the same rights as a 21 year old adult? LMAO, does this mean that the 5 year old child can thow a keg party for his bithday? because, after all, he is potentially 21, and being 21 and potentially being 21 are the same thing according to you.

One must be careful as to how we define "human" and how we define "21". The rights that one gets upon becming a human are a subset of the rights that one is granted upon turning 21 (in America, the age where one can buy alcohol). I though it was clear that we were talking baic human rights, vs. the ability to drink alcohol.

Can one's status as a human be revoked? That is, if you go into a comatose state, should your human rights be revoked?

 

[Nasor]

Reductio ad absurdum: What about a carbon atom?

A sperm cell is just a mass of DNA, and cannot progenate life itself. As is, I think, a zygote (i.e. fertilized egg).

But a sperm swimming around in a petri dish were an egg is present also has the "potential" to be a human. Am I "killing" a "potential person" if I slam a barrier down between the sperm and egg at the last second to prevent them from developing into a child? Why do we decide that the moment when the sperm and egg merge is the cutoff? That seems pretty arbitrary...

I don't know where the cutoff of "potential human being" is, but surely if an infant can survive outside of the womb and live a healthy life, we must consider this. I think this, coupled with spidergoat's definition of "human", gives every reason to make abortions after the first trimester available only in medical emergencies.

A fetus born in the second trimester isn't going to survive without significant medical assistance. What if we developed mechanical incubators that were able to carry a fetus to term after only the first month of pregnancy? Would that suddenly push back the boundary of when it's acceptable to abort?

Can one's status as a human be revoked? That is, if you go into a comatose state, should your human rights be revoked?

Ah yes, that's the issue that frustrates many people's attempts to develop a coherent standard for what constitutes being human and having rights. It's hard to come up with an explanation for why we should be able to abort a fetus but shouldn't be able to summarily kill people when they are drugged into unconsciousness without being arbitrary.

 

[BenTheMan]

Am I "killing" a "potential person" if I slam a barrier down between the sperm and egg at the last second to prevent them from developing into a child?

No. Note that you might be able to find a girl that this would work on at an evangelical conference...you know, her not having sex with you is killing a baby. Interesting...

Why do we decide that the moment when the sperm and egg merge is the cutoff?

Who said that? Not me.

A fetus born in the second trimester isn't going to survive without significant medical assistance. What if we developed mechanical incubators that were able to carry a fetus to term after only the first month of pregnancy? Would that suddenly push back the boundary of when it's acceptable to abort?

For me, no. But it is something that we should consider. And I thought was careful to clarify that the other aspects of foetal development warranted greater consideration---if this was not clear, apologies around. I think spidergoat gave an excellent criterion, using development of the cerebral cortex as a delimeter of "human".

It's hard to come up with an explanation for why we should be able to abort a fetus but shouldn't be able to summarily kill people when they are drugged into unconsciousness without being arbitrary.

This is the point I was making, yes. Do you disagree?

 

[visceral_instinct]

Someone who has been drugged is a person.

Is it ok to kill someone in their sleep?

 

[camilus]

Since Roman times foetus has inheritance rights, but can get inheritance only after birth, till then he has to be taken into account if father dies.

Couldnt be more wrong, abortion was common in Greece and Rome.

Reductio ad absurdum: What about a carbon atom?

A sperm cell is just a mass of DNA, and cannot progenate life itself. As is, I think, a zygote (i.e. fertilized egg). I don't know where the cutoff of "potential human being" is, but surely if an infant can survive outside of the womb and live a healthy life, we must consider this. I think this, coupled with spidergoat's definition of "human", gives every reason to make abortions after the first trimester available only in medical emergencies.



One must be careful as to how we define "human" and how we define "21". The rights that one gets upon becming a human are a subset of the rights that one is granted upon turning 21 (in America, the age where one can buy alcohol). I though it was clear that we were talking baic human rights, vs. the ability to drink alcohol.

Can one's status as a human be revoked? That is, if you go into a comatose state, should your human rights be revoked?

we were talking about potential, and your definition of the word. Whether it relates to human rights, or the ability to drink alcohol. The definition of the word potential in the phrase "potential human being" is what counts, and it relates to a potential anything, call it x, when you say a potential x, what does that mean? Im guessing something along the lines of having the ability to be/become x.

 

[BenTheMan]

we were talking about potential, and your definition of the word.

No. You are failing to differentiate basic human rights with the right to consume alcohol. You know "...certain inalienable rights, which are endowed by our Creator..." The right to drink isn't classed as such.

 

[BenTheMan]

In other words, your argument doesn't apply, unless you are arguing that consumption of alcohol is a basic human right, (comparable to the right to exist). If this is the case, then perhaps you should start another thread.

 

[spidergoat]

We cannot use "potential" to be a human as the benchmark, since with cloning, each of your skin cells is a potential human. Also, would that include sperm and eggs?

 

[BenTheMan]

We cannot use "potential" to be a human as the benchmark, since with cloning, each of your skin cells is a potential human. Also, would that include sperm and eggs?

No, see above.

The more important criterion (as I've mentioned) is your's---namely, the stages of brain development.

 

[lightgigantic]

???????????????????

Can anyone remember the name of that american woman with cerebral palsy (I think) who survived her mothers attempt to abort her (a nurse rescued her from the bin apparently) ... she is about late 30's I think, and somewhat of a christian ... big on pro-life of course .....

?????????????????????????

 

[lightgigantic]

Found it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen

Anyway, there you have it ... a fetus with not only rights, but one that went on to go forth proclaiming the rights of others

 

[James R]

I think the standard should be measured scientifically. We do not grant rights to animals, and at the early stages, the human foetus is no more complex than an animal, or animal foetus.

Of course, it may be that animals need more rights, rather than human foetuses needing less.

The standard isn't pain, because a slaughtered animal probably feels some pain too, and that doesn't make it illegal.

Legal doesn't automatically imply moral. While it is certainly legal to kill animals in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean it is right to do so.

By your argument, the law is automatically right, whatever the law says. But on the contrary we have a moral duty to question unjust laws.

The only problematic thing about this standard is that it would extend rights to other animals with a highly developed cerebral cortex, such as dolphins, whales, and apes...

That would be a desirable outcome, not a problematic one. It is perfectly logical to treat like as like.

Okay, so according to your #1, the sliding scale permits abortion in a 3 week old, but not in a 8 month old?

In general, yes.

Do you think it is morally right for the woman to be able to decide what she wants or is best for her life at all stages of pregnancy, including right after birth? In other words, if the woman is able to decide what she wants or is best for her life, meaning she can choose to kill the fetus before it is born, does she have the same rights after it's born? What's the difference between killing a fetus a day before it is born, and killing a newborn a day after it is born? aren't they almost essentially the same fetus, the only difference being one is inside the womb and the other got lucky by a day or two and is already out?

I would have the same problem with the woman killing a fetus the day before it is born naturally as with her killing it the day after birth. At either of these times, the baby is viable for life independent of the mother outside the womb. The same cannot be said at much earlier stages of pregnancy.

Those are good questions. Probably enough to decide the matter if they could be answered. My personal belief is that human life is protected, not all life. This is why we raise cows for slaughter, it's not wrong to kill a cow because it is not human life, just life.

What makes human life so special, in your opinion, such that we need to grant a whole different set of rights to life to humans compared to cows?

Now the question of when life becomes human to me is best answered by your first question, when can it think. Because cows feel pain like humans, but they are not human life, they cant think in order to complain about it, if you want to be black-and-white about it. So when you're able to think, and I guess complain about pain, you are considered human life?

You think cows can't think? Are you familiar with cows? Have you ever spent any reasonable length of time with them? Individual cows are as individual as you or I. They aren't unthinking robots. They have desires. They like some things more than others. They enjoy being alive, I can assure you.

what about potentiality? does having the potential to be human essentially the same as being human?

Is having the potential to get a driver's licence the same as having one?

One must be careful as to how we define "human" and how we define "21". The rights that one gets upon becming a human are a subset of the rights that one is granted upon turning 21 (in America, the age where one can buy alcohol). I though it was clear that we were talking baic human rights, vs. the ability to drink alcohol.

So, are the rights one gets as a foetus in the womb a subset of the rights one is granted at birth? Or not?

Can one's status as a human be revoked? That is, if you go into a comatose state, should your human rights be revoked?

The relevant moral category, many philosophers would argue, is not humanity, but personhood.

It is persons that ought to have moral status, not humans per se. Limiting yourself to humans denies the possible existence of other persons. Moreover, a single-celled embryo is human, but not yet a person.

 

[BenTheMan]

So, are the rights one gets as a foetus in the womb a subset of the rights one is granted at birth? Or not?

There is some point between conception and birth that a fetus should be considered a person, I just am not sure what that point is. At the moment of "person-hood", I don't see what rights a fetus shouldn't have.

 

[James R]

You think there's a single moment that a foetus becomes a person?

Would that be like turning 18 and suddenly gaining the right to vote?

If so, is this just a convenient legislative fiction, or a real moral line to be drawn?

 

[Asguard]

James, Ben

there are only two destint cut off points you could chose, birth and conception. The
"pro life" lobby would like to chose conception (wonder what there opinion on ectopic pregancys are), i chose bith because any where before that you are looking at "what happens if its a day after ...." which is silly. The parents, with the assistance of there doctor can make an informed decision themselves. Why should we who arnt in there shoes be setting arbatary limits on it when we have no idea of the circumstances they find themselves in

 

[greenberg]

Is anyone of you here a child whose parents are "pro-choice"?

Does anyone here know what it is like to be brought up by people who in effect think it might have been perfectly okay if you had not existed?

Does anyone here know what it is like to be brought up to think of oneself as fully at the mercy of one's parents?

In some tribes, parents had the right to kill their adult child if they deemed the child disrespected them.
The child was deemed property of the parents.

The pro-choice stance is the same as that: the (unborn) child is deemed property of the parents.

For the child -born or unborn- the right of a parent or parent-to-be to kill it is like saying "You don't matter. Your existence doesn't matter."

Does anyone of you here know to grow up believing that you don't matter, that your existence doesn't matter?

 

[Sciencelovah]

what about potentiality? does having the potential to be human essentially the same as being human?

No, having potential to be human is not essentially the same as being human,
but what would you expect? Would you expect that an embryo or a fetus
(8 weeks old embryo) will suddenly be a baby in one day? It needs time to
develop, it needs time to grow. Every human being needs to be a fetus first
at the beginning of their development.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

I believe that life does start at conception, but like what James said. The more developed the fetus is the more people feel a connect to it. When I worked at the clinic there was a woman who came in and had a choice to make. It was her life or the baby's. This woman's misshapen uterus had her baby located somewhere underneath her ribcage and none of the doctor's could figure out how they could get the baby out with potentially killing the mother. She wanted an abortion from the start so, this was just good news for her, but her mother made her keep the baby because she believed it was murder, but when she found out the baby's growth might kill her daughter all of the sudden the baby wasn't the "baby" anymore. The "baby" became "it". It seems like the value placed on someone's life is the pain it would cause those who know that person if they were to die. No one knows the unborn baby and no one except for the mother possibly has formed any real attachments to it. When my aunt had a miscarriage all i felt was What a pity, that's too bad. But if my cousin had died I think I would have cared a lot more. I actually know him, I didn't know my aunt's unborn daughter, so I don't miss her.

 

[Sciencelovah]

I believe that life does start at conception, but like what James said. The more developed the fetus is the more people feel a connect to it. When I worked at the clinic there was a woman who came in and had a choice to make. It was her life or the baby's. This woman's misshapen uterus had her baby located somewhere underneath her ribcage and none of the doctor's could figure out how they could get the baby out with potentially killing the mother. She wanted an abortion from the start so, this was just good news for her, but her mother made her keep the baby because she believed it was murder, but when she found out the baby's growth might kill her daughter all of the sudden the baby wasn't the "baby" anymore. The "baby" became "it". It seems like the value placed on someone's life is the pain it would cause those who know that person if they were to die. No one knows the unborn baby and no one except for the mother possibly has formed any real attachments to it. When my aunt had a miscarriage all i felt was What a pity, that's too bad. But if my cousin had died I think I would have cared a lot more. I actually know him, I didn't know my aunt's unborn daughter, so I don't miss her.

The only excuse I would agree with an abortion is if it is emergency situation
in which if you don't abort the mother will likely die.

I see a fetus or an unborn baby as an individual, although it would attach to
me in the beginning, it's not mine because there is no way I could create it,
it's just entrusted on me and have its full right to live just like I do. People's
life and death are none of my privilege, but theirs.

 

[TW Scott]

Is anyone of you here a child whose parents are "pro-choice"?

Yep, right here.

Does anyone here know what it is like to be brought up by people who in effect think it might have been perfectly okay if you had not existed?

yep, right here. In fact I almost was never born as my mother was unsure she could raise me alone.

Does anyone here know what it is like to be brought up to think of oneself as fully at the mercy of one's parents?

Isn't every child. Hell, there were times I was sure my parents had the grave dug and were just waiting for me to do something bad enough to be put in it. Of course at times I was a hellion.

In some tribes, parents had the right to kill their adult child if they deemed the child disrespected them.
The child was deemed property of the parents.

Strange tribes, but hey, if it;s a rough enough area I can see how such laws came about.

The pro-choice stance is the same as that: the (unborn) child is deemed property of the parents.

Not actually. The pro-choice stance is more along the lines of...the parent must decide if it is the right time to bring a child into their life. Much the same as it has been throughout history. Abortion has saved many a villagers from starvation during famines.

For the child -born or unborn- the right of a parent or parent-to-be to kill it is like saying "You don't matter. Your existence doesn't matter."

Mo, not at all. No one is even suggesting that. In fact it is becuase the child matter that sometimes they are aborted. There maybe be medical, financial, societal, or even criminal justice related reasons for abortion. Would you make a rape victim carry a child to term? What about a 14 year victim of incest? Would you make a woman carry a child when it is her seventh one and she has no husband?

Does anyone of you here know to grow up believing that you don't matter, that your existence doesn't matter?

Nobody knows that at all. Mainly becuase if you exist you matter. Sometimes not as much as you would like, and sometimes you only matter as much as a very hard decision. But never, ever believe that a woman who has an abortion believes for a moment her fetus didn't matter.