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.
What is the difference in a mother deciding to kill her baby in the womb vs out of the womb? Why is society so horrified when mothers kill the 4-5 years old kids? Why is it a crime when a mother throws her live born newborn in the dumpster? How long until we decide that grandma doesn’t need to live anymore because we don’t want to take care of her? Right now only one of these is acceptable in society. Why? They are all the same thing. Killing a human being. How come in one instance someone (the mother) can decide that the baby is human, but in all of the others, the government makes that decision? I don’t understand at all.
 
You don’t understand because you are still making decisions based on principles. You and I and catholicism in general still haven’t gotten with the program and moved to making such decisions based on how we FEEL…
 
manualman said:
You don’t understand because you are still making decisions based on principles. You and I and catholicism in general still haven’t gotten with the program and moved to making such decisions based on how we FEEL…
Click to expand...
Show how people such as Peter Singer eschew rationalism when they advocate a particular version of utilitarianism. I am also interested in your argument that utilitarian ethics are bereft of any principles.

They instead eschew the essentialism advocated by Catholics and prefer nominalism as you have noted before. (Although you haven’t explicitly mention this.)

Here is an excerpt from Popper’s *The Open Society and Enemies * discussing the difference between essentialist and nominalist definitions.

dieoff.org/page126.htm (Under “Two kinds of definitions”)

I might ask why does being a human deserve special protections during their inchoate stages? Singer argues that humans do not merit such special consideration when they are embryos and fetuses because they do not have the ability to have preferences when their nervous system isn’t even developed. A Benthamite might consider whether embryos and fetuses have the capacity to suffer. Of course, embryos do not have the ability to suffer, but the question of when fetuses suffer is an open question.
 
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…
 
ribozyme said:
Show how people such as Peter Singer eschew rationalism when they advocate a particular version of utilitarianism. I am also interested in your argument that utilitarian ethics are bereft of any principles.

They instead eschew the essentialism advocated by Catholics and prefer nominalism as you have noted before. (Although you haven’t explicitly mention this.)

Here is an excerpt from Popper’s *The Open Society and Enemies * discussing the difference between essentialist and nominalist definitions.

dieoff.org/page126.htm (Under “Two kinds of definitions”)

I might ask why does being a human deserve special protections during their inchoate stages? Singer argues that humans do not merit such special consideration when they are embryos and fetuses because they do not have the ability to have preferences when their nervous system isn’t even developed. A Benthamite might consider whether embryos and fetuses have the capacity to suffer. Of course, embryos do not have the ability to suffer, but the question of when fetuses suffer is an open question.
Click to expand...
To be honest, do find it very hard to relate a group of cells, and some DNA with a human, who is aware of it’s own existence. If you have no concept of self, or any concepts whatsoever, then what are you really.
 
Starwynd said:
Okay, if babies have full rights as adult humans then they should be allowed to vote. Allowed to drink smoke and drive a car at any age.

After all, there is no difference between a baby an an adult.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a refresher course in the difference between rights and privileges is in order for you.

.
 
savienu said:
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…
Click to expand...
This happens more often than you’d think. I personally took care of a baby girl in NICU that was left to die in a bowl in an OR of a county hospital after an attempted abortion, and a nurse who’s conscience suddenly kicked in literally grabbed her, wrapped her up, and took her by cab to children’s hosp, because she knew once there she would HAVE to be treated. There is the born alive infants protection act, which is just for this kind of situation, and for live birth abortions (yes there is such a thing horrifying as it sounds…), but the act is easy to get around if all parties keep things hush hush.

To the person who said something about babies voting…my son is severely autistic and mentally retarded. He’s never going to be able to vote, or drive, but that does not take away his inherent human dignity. The logic you use is seriously flawed, unless you advocate the unbridled killing of any ‘unfit’ person.
 
Starwynd said:
Okay, if babies have full rights as adult humans then they should be allowed to vote. Allowed to drink smoke and drive a car at any age.

After all, there is no difference between a baby an an adult.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between HUMAN rights and LEGAL rights.
 
ribozyme said:
Show how people such as Peter Singer eschew rationalism when they advocate a particular version of utilitarianism. I am also interested in your argument that utilitarian ethics are bereft of any principles.

They instead eschew the essentialism advocated by Catholics and prefer nominalism as you have noted before. (Although you haven’t explicitly mention this.)

Here is an excerpt from Popper’s *The Open Society and Enemies * discussing the difference between essentialist and nominalist definitions.

dieoff.org/page126.htm (Under “Two kinds of definitions”)

I might ask why does being a human deserve special protections during their inchoate stages? Singer argues that humans do not merit such special consideration when they are embryos and fetuses because they do not have the ability to have preferences when their nervous system isn’t even developed. A Benthamite might consider whether embryos and fetuses have the capacity to suffer. Of course, embryos do not have the ability to suffer, but the question of when fetuses suffer is an open question.
Click to expand...
Utilitarianism is morally bankrupt from a Catholic or Christian point of view.

We can not sacrifice the rights of some to make others better off, it is fundamentally immoral.

God Bless
 
Ribo, I don’t recall mentioning Peter Singer. He’s your fetish, not mine.

If you honestly think the bulk of our culture has made its value decisions based on rational, if tortured logic like his, you need to turnt he computer and TV off and get out and interact with live humans more often! The trend in our country/culture is to make value decisions based on feelings, not principles. I find it hard to believe anybody is prepared to argue that assertion. :rolleyes:
 
manualman said:
Ribo, I don’t recall mentioning Peter Singer. He’s your fetish, not mine.

If you honestly think the bulk of our culture has made its value decisions based on rational, if tortured logic like his, you need to turnt he computer and TV off and get out and interact with live humans more often! The trend in our country/culture is to make value decisions based on feelings, not principles. I find it hard to believe anybody is prepared to argue that assertion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I do not watch much television.

Yes, I am aware that most people who advocate the right to choose do not invoke Peter Singer’s utilitarian arguments. To the contrary, most of the arguments have a libertarian ethos focusing on the woman’s body. However, Singer’s argument is based on whether the fetus’ interests should be considered in a utilitarian framework. Since a fetus has no interests, the interest of the mother takes precedence.

All I wanted to point out is that one can have a strong intellectual foundation when one argues the position that abortion is morally acceptable.
 
Since LIFE begins at fertilization (when the sperm meets the egg), and since even science prooves this, why not start there?
Afterall, if its the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, that which comes into being from that is a human, a BABY.

It’s a fact that we all started that way, aren’t we all human beings?
Weren’t we all once babies and didn’t we all come from a sperm and an egg?

Since a baby (at the moment of fertilization) comes into being, ought it not to follow that a baby should get human rights at the moment of conception?
 
allhers said:
Since LIFE begins at fertilization (when the sperm meets the egg), and since even science prooves this, why not start there?
Afterall, if its the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, that which comes into being from that is a human, a BABY.

It’s a fact that we all started that way, aren’t we all human beings?
Weren’t we all once babies and didn’t we all come from a sperm and an egg?

Since a baby (at the moment of fertilization) comes into being, ought it not to follow that a baby should get human rights at the moment of conception?
Click to expand...
Could you provide your definition of “life?”
 
shannyk said:
The logic you use is seriously flawed, unless you advocate the unbridled killing of any ‘unfit’ person.
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that this is precisely what the utilitarian ethic would entail. Human beings who have less than, say, Peter Singer’s idea of “utility” would have no human rights–even to life.
 
I find it one of the strangest things that we refer to babies in the womb as fetus. As though the word fetus changes what a baby is. A baby at all stages is a human being and there for has human rights.

All the arguements in the world will not make a fetus anything other then a human being.

I have heard fetus’ described as a clump of tissue, well we are all clumps of tissue, but the tissue is still human.

Adults, children, babies, and fetus are all human beings and therefore have human rights.

God Bless America with eyes to see, what it already knows, but denies.
 
JimG said:
Not to speak for allhers, but I’ll give you mine: a new individual of the human species.
(i.e., one of us.)
Click to expand...
If that is your definition of the word “life,” then I have contempt for that definition. My definition of life is a “self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution” which was derived from Gerald Joyce. (My name here is a homage to his research.) Of course, that definition doesn’t have meaning in *any *ethical system. Enough with the semantics game: your definition of life is actually a definition of what you consider a “person.” The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer carefully makes the distinction between the word “life” and “person.” Again, your definition of the word “person” and Singer’s are quite different, and one of Singer’s contributions to utilitarian ethics was to emphasize the interest of animals in ethical considerations. Singer’s definition excludes human embryos but as includes some animals. The precursor to such thought is found in the work of Jeremy Bentham when he famously expressed his concern about the capacity of animals to suffer.
 
ribozyme said:
If that is your definition of the word “life,” then I have contempt for that definition. My definition of life is a “self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution” which was derived from Gerald Joyce. (My name here is a homage to his research.) Of course, that definition doesn’t have meaning in *any *ethical system. Enough with the semantics game: your definition of life is actually a definition of what you consider a “person.” The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer carefully makes the distinction between the word “life” and “person.” Again, your definition of the word “person” and Singer’s are quite different, and one of Singer’s contributions to utilitarian ethics was to emphasize the interest of animals in ethical considerations. Singer’s definition excludes human embryos but as includes some animals. The precursor to such thought is found in the work of Jeremy Bentham when he famously expressed his concern about the capacity of animals to suffer.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought you were looking for a definition of human life, not life in general, since the thread was about when babies get human rights.

Of course, such a general description of life as you propose says nothing about the beginnings of any human individual. And it is human individuals we are concerned with here.

I didn’t define “person,” because “person” is a philosophical concept and a legal concept but not a biological one. For the purpose of conferring human rights, however, I think that any human being is a human person. And any distinct individual of the human species is a human being.
 
ribozyme said:
I
All I wanted to point out is that one can have a strong intellectual foundation when one argues the position that abortion is morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Really? I’ve never run across one. Could you elucidate for us?(Hope you’re impressed with that big word)
 
ribozyme said:
If that is your definition of the word “life,” then I have contempt for that definition. My definition of life is a “self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution” which was derived from Gerald Joyce. (My name here is a homage to his research.) Of course, that definition doesn’t have meaning in *any *ethical system. Enough with the semantics game: your definition of life is actually a definition of what you consider a “person.” The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer carefully makes the distinction between the word “life” and “person.” Again, your definition of the word “person” and Singer’s are quite different, and one of Singer’s contributions to utilitarian ethics was to emphasize the interest of animals in ethical considerations. Singer’s definition excludes human embryos but as includes some animals. The precursor to such thought is found in the work of Jeremy Bentham when he famously expressed his concern about the capacity of animals to suffer.
Click to expand...
In short you don’t have a definition of human life. What you have is an amalgamation of various unrelated views and theories that you have tried to throw into a coherent definition and have failed miserably in doing so.

I use another big word for you. Hope you’re impressed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top