At What Point Does a Baby Get Human Rights in Your View?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elts1956 said:
You are absolutely right. They could do as good a job as some adults.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It seems strage that someone who is compusivley unemployed, in debt to the point of judgement, and with mental problems can vote but a 17 honnor student can’t.
 
PLAL said:
Why Do Some Pro-Choicers Find it Hard to Say “Babies Should Get Human Rights At Birth”?

jillstanek.com/
Click to expand...
The only acceptable criteria for when human rights begin is at existence or conception. This is because the right to live comes from God and not the government. The government does not have jurisdiction over when God given rights begin or end, so if someone exists in whatever human form they get human rights.

Pro-Choicers value human beings based upon what they can or can not do. For them the unborn are the property of the mother and she can do what she wants with them. If the unborn can be property, why not children?
 
Steve40 said:
The only acceptable criteria for when human rights begin is at existence or conception. This is because the right to live comes from God and not the government. The government does not have jurisdiction over when God given rights begin or end, so if someone exists in whatever human form they get human rights.

Pro-Choicers value human beings based upon what they can or can not do. For them the unborn are the property of the mother and she can do what she wants with them. If the unborn can be property, why not children?
Click to expand...
Wow, sounds a lot like the days when men could claim women as chattel…Women as pro-abort, especially nuns and religious "intelligentsia:shrug: "…I cannot for the life of me get my head around that one.
 
Steve40 said:
Pro-Choicers value human beings based upon what they can or can not do. For them the unborn are the property of the mother and she can do what she wants with them. If the unborn can be property, why not children?
Click to expand...
That doesn’t describe me; as I elaborated earlier in this thread, I prefer a Benthamite approach to the issue. To me, I am concerned whether they can suffer or not.
 
ribozyme said:
That doesn’t describe me; as I elaborated earlier in this thread, I prefer a Benthamite approach to the issue. To me, I am concerned whether they can suffer or not.
Click to expand...
So with this logic, what’s to stop us from taking people we don’t like, pumping them full of drugs so they can’t feel, and killing them?
 
savienu said:
So with this logic, what’s to stop us from taking people we don’t like, pumping them full of drugs so they can’t feel, and killing them?
Click to expand...
Nothing. :eek: his is what is being done in nursing homes, hospices and other euthanasia clinics in this country and around the world. Life does not seem to hold much value in its beginning or at its natural ending.:mad:
 
ribozyme said:
That doesn’t describe me; as I elaborated earlier in this thread, I prefer a Benthamite approach to the issue. To me, I am concerned whether they can suffer or not.
Click to expand...
Great approach as long as you are not one of those who get crushed to make way for the others hapiness.
 
Human Rights are those given by God. In our Country they are listed as Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Those rights are given at conception by God. They are ones we should ensure are given to everyone, everywhere. When one person steps on another’s rights then they should be stopped. A baby at conception can be given those rights. NOTE: it is PURSUIT of Happiness, not Happiness. We pursue happiness all our lives. As preborn that is by being in a safe environment. After our birth the Pursuit is finding God. We are always pursuing never obtaining totally. We can never acheive a state of endless happiness until we are reunited with God.

As for the voting question. Not all people in our country have the “right” to vote. You must be a citizen, eighteen and over and not convicted of a felony. You also must register. Thus, it is NOT a HUMAN right it is a duty of the adult citizenry.
 
Heard a great line today. If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms.?
 
manualman said:
Voting, drinking, smoking, etc. are not human rights inherent to the dignity of the human person. They are all priviledges bestowed upon those judged to have the responsibility to handle them.

Pro-choicers have a major problem in that they are unable to demonstrate any significant point in human development where a true change in substance occurs. Anything they suggest is so obviously arbitrary and convenience-based, that they recognize that it is better to dodge the issue altogether.

Unlike pro-choicers, pro-lifers correctly note that at conception an entirely new and unique DNA code if formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. A true change in substance is scientifically proveable. Thus, we conclude that conception is the only defensible place to determine personhood.
Click to expand...
Amen! Very well said. 👍
 
ribozyme said:
That doesn’t describe me; as I elaborated earlier in this thread, I prefer a Benthamite approach to the issue. To me, I am concerned whether they can suffer or not.
Click to expand...
I believe you got your words mixed up.
The Bethamite approach has to do with the greatest happiness for the greatest number; not suffering.
 
vz71 said:
I believe you got your words mixed up.
The Bethamite approach has to do with the greatest happiness for the greatest number; not suffering.
Click to expand...
Here is the relevant Jeremy Bentham quote which should be known to ANYONE who has a rudimentary understanding of ethics:
The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
Click to expand...
Although the context was animal rights.

But I do not consider myself a classical utilitarian; instead, I consider myself a negative utilitarian.
“I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. Both the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians and Kant’s principle, “Promote other people’s happiness…”, seem to me (at least in their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point, which is, however, not one for rational argument…In my opinion…human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” - Karl Popper
Click to expand...
from this website

utilitarianism.com/karl-popper.html
 
estesbob said:
Heard a great line today. If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms.?
Click to expand...
Bob, I don’t understand why this is a great line. The obvious answer is that condoms are handed out to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of disease. Is there a hook that I am missing?
 
Dale_M said:
Bob, I don’t understand why this is a great line. The obvious answer is that condoms are handed out to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of disease. Is there a hook that I am missing?
Click to expand...
It’s like trying to explain a joke. Either you get it or you don’t
 
Dale_M said:
Bob, I don’t understand why this is a great line. The obvious answer is that condoms are handed out to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of disease. Is there a hook that I am missing?
Click to expand...
Think a little harder on this one. 😉
 
ribozyme said:
Here is the relevant Jeremy Bentham quote which should be known to ANYONE who has a rudimentary understanding of ethics:
Click to expand...
I see…
You are one of those special people that gets to define their terms.:rolleyes:

A hardly believe a single quote adequetly describes the mans viewpoint. But you are more then welcome to believe otherwise.

I simply will stand on the knowledge that what the man is known for, and what you are claiming ar two entirely different things.
 
vz71 said:
I see…
You are one of those special people that gets to define their terms.:rolleyes:

A hardly believe a single quote adequetly describes the mans viewpoint. But you are more then welcome to believe otherwise.

I simply will stand on the knowledge that what the man is known for, and what you are claiming ar two entirely different things.
Click to expand...
I am sure he is experiencing the euphoria one gets when they take their first college level philosophy class. Wait until he gets to Descartes. I am sure will be bored to death.
 
estesbob said:
I am sure he is experiencing the euphoria one gets when they take their first college level philosophy class. Wait until he gets to Descartes. I am sure will be bored to death.
Click to expand...
It could be worse…we could be questioned about who is the friend, the lover or the beloved…:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top