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

[KathleenElsie]

Could you show me a popular formulation of utilitarianism that states we should kill the unproductive or that is simply your strawman? I do not know any popular utilitarian ethicists who claim that “productivity” should be a major factor in ethical consideration. It seems that other schools such as libertarianism and Objectivism use that as a major criterion for the provision of benefits, but not utilitarianism. Do not conflate utilitarian ethics with libertarianism as the latter emphasizes productivity, while the former emphasizes welfare.

Instead, I base it on the capacity to suffer and hold preferences, and we should respect people’s preferences. As a negative utilitarian, I do not have happiness in high regard either.

Utilitarianism is not a license to extinguish the undesirable of society and ignore their preferences. *Atlas Shrugged *is, but not Practical Ethics.

Try this one.

.org/resources/endoflife/charles_2002-10-02.htmwww.cshl

the century immediately behind us constitutes a sobering reminder that freedom is capable of annihilating itself; this occurs when human freedom is no longer tethered to moral principle.

 

[KathleenElsie]

A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.

I pray that you really do not believe this.

 

[royal_archer]

A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.

Do you think the father has any say?

 

[whatevergirl]

The problem is that if a child is born alive during an abortion and allowed to be provided with lifesaving treatment, that makes abortion all the more horrifying. It would also mean acknowledging that just because the baby is inside your body doesn’t mean it’s not human. I’ve heard lots of pro-choice people say the fetus becomes human when it is born. But I betcha that wouldn’t count if it was born during an abortion…

Interesting point!

My dh and I were chatting about this today, and he said he heard a great argument for when life begins. He said that the person (ugh, I can’t remember if it was someone on the pro life side of this upcoming election) said that why are people buying contraception, condoms, etc…if they don’t think a baby begins at conception? What are they worried about, then, and what are they protecting themselves from? It was really a perfect rebuttal to all people who don’t believe life begins at conception.

 

[whatevergirl]

A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.

I wish it was as simple as that.

 

[mapleoak]

Because the point of the utilitarian view isn’t to facilitate murder between people who don’t get along, but to maximize the overall happiness of society. One person not caring for you (because, say, you’re ugly and have an annoying laugh) isn’t quite the thing we’re talking about.

That is not the point of utilitarianism. You seem to hold a convoluted view based on more on self interest. Nobody specified a situation where two people don’t get along either. What was specifically pointed, and a point indicating the lack of logic with your idea, is that you can’t seem to give a solid reason for why a parent can decide if his child is human. Further it was asked then, if a parent can decide, what is to hinder him from ungranting his child the status of human. You didn’t answer when I asked does age have anything to do with it. If I had a sixteen year old child and decided she was no longer a human because I don’t want to support her anymore, what is to stop me from aborting her? It’s my child.

It is not clear how well Hitler was going to implement utilitarian ideals. However, he was very practical in regards to killing the unfit. His reasons were based more on unscientific ideas of racial purity, but there was also the issue of saving precious resources in a time of war.

He sure was practical in how he went about killing innocent human beings. That is not what I asked. What makes his ideals wrong and yours right? Do you believe Hitler was a good man for his concern and attempt at preserving the ‘elite’ of society? I will say your ideals are unscientific (don’t forget modern science is in full agreement that a human being is a complete, separate, and unique human being from the moment of conception) and that they are based, not on racial purity, but on prejudice against those helpless to your advances. Actually a type of bigotry.

My system is based on utilitarian ethics: how to distribute resources in such a way as to maximise happiness within a society.

Parents can decide before the human is a person. In fact, this is exactly the situation in much of the world right now, with most people currently granting personhood at birth. Presumably, the parents will be the ones electing to love and support the child. Now, in the case of it being the wrong sex or having the wrong hair color, there could be an argument for giving that infant to someone else who could love it. This may add happiness to society. That could be debated… Anyway, after the status of personhood is achieved, then the decision rests with whoever would be expected to pay for that person’s maintenance, should they not be able to support themselves.

Since you claim a person is only a person if someone else says so, what exactly is your definition of a person? Back to the horse. My horse is a horse whether I say it is or not. Solid and unchanging logic. Can your logic stand such a test. Of course not. You will have to adjust it to make it work.

Because I am currently supporting myself and contributing to society. I pay taxes, participate in the economy, contribute to the enjoyment and happiness of my friends and family, etc. There is no discernible difference between my function and your function.

But maybe that doesn’t fit my idea of being productive. In fact majority rule can decide that you are not productive. Basically you are saying a person is not a person until they move out on their own and get a job, regardless if the parents deem him a person. Another twist of logic.

I am only trying to understand how people can think such things with honest conviction and at the same time be able to keep a straight face.

Pssst! I’m not keeping a straight face!

I wasn’t referring to you. I was saying I am only trying to understand, and keep a straight face at the same time. Believe me, it is rather difficult.

 

[ironman62292]

A baby gets human rights right at conception. Plain and simple truth. Not this “it’s above my pay-grade” as Obama says

 

[mapleoak]

I thought utilitarians believe it was okay to kill a child during the first nine months of its existence? Was I incorrect in this?

Careful, he might come back at you with something about being able to suffer. Be prepared.

 

[whatevergirl]

I can’t believe some of the sentiments that I’ve read throughout this thread. It’s downright so sad. It is a sad day when I see people arguing over if a baby deserves the same ‘rights’ as an adult. Just sad.

Babies are people. Life begins at conception. If it didn’t…how did we all get here? It’s our culture’s way of twisting truth to look evil, and evil becomes the ‘new’ truth. And people are believing it…intelligent people are believing it. That’s what is so scary.

It’s like invasion of the body snatchers…or something. lol Come on, people. I can’t believe we can’t see eye to eye on something so fundamental as when life begins.

Again–if it doesn’t begin in the womb…how did we all get here?

 

[mapleoak]

A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.

Science disagrees with you. Grab a good textbook. Sign up for some classes at your local community college. Go to the library, …

 

[mapleoak]

I can’t believe some of the sentiments that I’ve read throughout this thread. It’s downright so sad. It is a sad day when I see people arguing over if a baby deserves the same ‘rights’ as an adult. Just sad.

Babies are people. Life begins at conception. If it didn’t…how did we all get here? It’s our culture’s way of twisting truth to look evil, and evil becomes the ‘new’ truth. And people are believing it…intelligent people are believing it. That’s what is so scary.

It’s like invasion of the body snatchers…or something. lol Come on, people. I can’t believe we can’t see eye to eye on something so fundamental as when life begins.

Again–if it doesn’t begin in the womb…how did we all get here?

Yes its sad, but we have to do what we can to refute such nonsense. There are so many just waiting for the reassurance of the pro-aborts words to resound within them all the while mocking their intelligence. It is sad indeed that we have to defend the unborn at all, but don’t let the pro-aborts be a discouragement for any of us. :console:

 

[st_lucy]

A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.

This statement is just really bothering me. So what if the mother doesn’t want the child BUT instead of killing him she decides to put him up for adoption? Does he still get human rights or does that only kick in when he gets his new parents?

I am sorry but this is just a really bizarre way of thinking. Its kind of like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it still make a sound?

 

[maggiemay2u]

This statement is just really bothering me. So what if the mother doesn’t want the child BUT instead of killing him she decides to put him up for adoption? Does he still get human rights or does that only kick in when he gets his new parents?

I am sorry but this is just a really bizarre way of thinking. Its kind of like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it still make a sound?

I may be 180 degrees off here, but when I read the post, I thought of the unborn babies that are killed in utero as a result of the murder of mom–the offender is charged with two murders. If an aborted baby is born alive and allowed to die in a waste bin, there is no crime (at least in Illinois)

 

[maggiemay2u]

If I’m in sync with the original poster, a priori, then he was merely emphasizing how nuts our legal system is at present. If a baby who is wanted dies before birth due to some violent act–the baby has the right to personhood. If the baby is unwanted and is torn to shreds by a doctor, then the baby was just a blob of tissue…

If I’m wrong, then it’s only one of the minimum half dozen mistakes I allow myself per day.

 

[estesbob]

Science disagrees with you. Grab a good textbook. Sign up for some classes at your local community college. Go to the library, …

A Priori is merely stateing the law of the land. Unitl they are born a child has not rights whatsoever unless the Mother deems to give them to them. It is, of course, absolute nonsense but it the very underpinnings of Roe V Wade

 

[a_priori]

Science disagrees with you. Grab a good textbook. Sign up for some classes at your local community college. Go to the library, …

OK. Let’s do it this way. A pregnant woman is driving down the road and suffers a gunshot wound that kills her baby. If she wants the baby then it is considered murder and the perpetrator is charged.

If another pregnant woman is driving down the same road carrying a baby of the exact same gestational age and happens to pull into an abortion clinic to have her baby sucked into a jar, then no one gets charged with murder.

Each baby is exactly the same. They both end up dead. The shooter is charged with murder. The abortion doctor makes another payment on his yacht.

With all due respect to your point, if you happen to be the baby, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[a_priori]

These are all part of the slippery sloop when you start appointing humans right as if it were a popular ticket vote.

I agree that it is a slippery slope. But it IS sort of a popular ticket vote (or at least a judicial branch decree). This is what determines who lives and who dies.

 

[a_priori]

I pray that you really do not believe this.

I believe that abortion is murder.

But I do believe that the point of my post is absolutely true. See #155.

 

[a_priori]

Do you think the father has any say?

He should. But he doesn’t.

 

[a_priori]

This statement is just really bothering me. So what if the mother doesn’t want the child BUT instead of killing him she decides to put him up for adoption? Does he still get human rights or does that only kick in when he gets his new parents?

I am sorry but this is just a really bizarre way of thinking.

I agree with you. See post #155.

Its kind of like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it still make a sound?

Actually, in the world of quantum mechanics it doesn’t. But that’s a different thread.