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

[fix]

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.

What does that mean? Some person who can read and write can conclude killing innocents is licit?

To be blunt there are all types of credentialed misfits who advocate all sorts of nonsense.

 

[estesbob]

What does that mean? Some person who can read and write can conclude killing innocents is licit?

To be blunt there are all types of credentialed misfits who advocate all sorts of nonsense.

There has never been an an atrocity that some one did not claim was morally acceptable

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Why Do Some Pro-Choicers Find it Hard to Say “Babies Should Get Human Rights At Birth”?

Because some of them recognize (consciously or not) that if one supports abortion consistency demands that they must also support infanticide.

As such, their view can only be justified if they deny that anyone should be afforded human rights at any time within which they would like the opportunity to remove them.

I am also interested in your argument that utilitarian ethics are bereft of any principles.

Atheist & utilitarian thought are not “bereft of any principles.” In fact, they have one principle above all - “Do what thou wilt.”

In practice, this boils down to a universal application of “Might Makes Right”.

Athiest/utilitarian “morality” is basically parasitical, riding on the coattails of the culturally dominant morality, while rejecting the particular items the atheist/utilitarian finds objectionable – most often the item seems to involve sex, money or power.

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.

Sadly enough, most libertarians who use the “woman’s body” argument fail to note that a child is NOT a part of the woman’s body, but is a living human being with its own body. A consistent libertarian who truly defends the right to life & self-ownership of all people would be staunchly anti-abortion, defending the child’s own life & 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.

This claim fails to recognize the universal interest of all living things – the instinct of self-preservation. As such, a child, regardless of it’s developmental stage – fetus, embryo, etc. – does have an interest.

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.
…
The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer carefully makes the distinction between the word “life” and “person.”
…
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.

Singer, Bentham & Joyce all show the common habit of justifying their predetermined preferences by “deriving” their own custom definitions of terms, such as the custom definition of “life” that assumes the truth of secular or “Darwinian” evolution.

Those with a fondness for objectivity prefer to stick to fixed definitions from the dictionary instead of making up custom-fitted meanings designed to justify our preferences.

Life is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as:

life
“a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”

A child developing in the womb is a vital & functional being.
A child developing in the womb is an animate being.
A child developing in the womb shows the characteristics of metabolism, growth & reaction to stimuli, & develops the ability to reproduce.

You might be tempted to say that since a child in the womb doesn’t actually reproduce, but this is an absurdity. Reproduction is not a requirement for life, but the capacity for reproduction is an indicative characteristic of a living being. The inability to reproduce is not a design feature, but an intermittent flaw. It is absurd to claim that since a person may not be capable of reproduction at a given time, they are not “alive.”

Which comes back to the twisting of definitions needed to justify killing the innocent. Such dehumanization & “liquidation” is an all too common occurrence by adherents of the two systems, as evidenced by such pillars of atheist orthodoxy as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc… Your utilitarian heroes Singer, Bentham, et al, have not performed such “liquidations”, but they advocate them quite strongly, based on their custom definitions of human & life, combined with their primary principle of “Might Makes Right”.

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.

It is not so strange when one realizes that “fetus” is simply a term that is descriptive of a particular stage of development, just as the terms “infant”, “toddler”, “child”, “adolescent”, “adult”, etc. are.

The reason abortion supporters prefer to use the terms “embryo" & "fetus” is because these descriptions of the pre-birth stages of human development distance the individual they describe from it’s humanity.

This dehumanization is required to be able to successfully kill an innocent life, whether that life is just beginning, or has existed for decades.

• Call the developing infant a “fetus”, or claim it is “not alive” and you can have an abortion’
• Label Jews or blacks “subhuman”, & you can “purify” your land by killing them or enslaving them.
• Call farmers, employers, or educated people "parasites” & “exploiters” & it becomes OK to banish or starve them.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Nechasin]

My definition of life is a “self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”

And when Darwinian evolution is proven to be false, does that mean that we are all dead? Tying your definition of life to a single theory of evolution is putting a limit on your definition. Why not just say evolution instead of Darwinian evolution? A baby is a self-sustaining chemical system. It gets it nutrients from it host and as long as the host doesn’t rip it out, then it will survive. It does undergo evolution. If a mutation has occured and it is bad, the baby will die. If it is not bad, it will live. You can’t say that it’s dependancy on the mother makes it non self-sustaining. We are dependant on the earth

 

[Island_Oak]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t even the Catholic Church condone the use of life-saving medical intervention in a pregnancy that, at any stage, threatens the life of the mother, even if the intervention would destroy/end the pregnancy? If this is the case, and with the caveat understood that all means to ensure the survival of the unborn child are to be employed, then don’t we have to conclude that under Catholic theology, the point at which the unborn achieve human rights is the time at which they are viewed as co-equal with the mother and not subject to her choice to “rescue” or her charity to continue their existence?

 

[estesbob]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t even the Catholic Church condone the use of life-saving medical intervention in a pregnancy that, at any stage, threatens the life of the mother, even if the intervention would destroy/end the pregnancy? If this is the case, and with the caveat understood that all means to ensure the survival of the unborn child are to be employed, then don’t we have to conclude that under Catholic theology, the point at which the unborn achieve human rights is the time at which they are viewed as co-equal with the mother and not subject to her choice to “rescue” or her charity to continue their existence?

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at herebut Catholic teaching is very clear that the child attains human rights at the moment of conception. Direct abortion is not allowed even to save the life of the mother. However if procedures are taken to save the life of the mother that result in the child dying that is acceptable under the principle of double effect. A good example of this would be a mother who has cancer and must undergo radiation treatment to save her life. The purpose of the radiation is to save the mother’s life. If the child dies as a result of this is not considered to be an abortion.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t even the Catholic Church condone the use of life-saving medical intervention in a pregnancy that, at any stage, threatens the life of the mother, even if the intervention would destroy/end the pregnancy? If this is the case, and with the caveat understood that all means to ensure the survival of the unborn child are to be employed, then don’t we have to conclude that under Catholic theology, the point at which the unborn achieve human rights is the time at which they are viewed as co-equal with the mother and not subject to her choice to “rescue” or her charity to continue their existence?

Another example would be in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (in which the embryo implants itself inside of the fallopian tube); a condition which directly & immediately threatens the life of not only the mother, but of both.

The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not performed for the purpose of ending the life of the child, although that is an unfortunate & grievous result, but to save the life of the mother.

Nonetheless, this does not mean that a child achieves “human rights” only once they are viewed in a certain way.

Life begins at conception, & at that time, the child is already “co-equal” with the mother. The right to life is inherent from the moment life begins.

God bless,

Chris

 

[royal_archer]

Sadly enough, most libertarians who use the “woman’s body” argument fail to note that a child is NOT a part of the woman’s body, but is a living human being with its own body. A consistent libertarian who truly defends the right to life & self-ownership of all people would be staunchly anti-abortion, defending the child’s own life & body.

Actually most libertarians and ("L"ibertarians) are anti abortion including a recent libertarian leaning presidential candidate and myself. They are as split as society as a whole on the definition of “life”. But I beleive they are nearly universal in believing that after the start of human life the child has the same rights as any other human being.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

There are natural rights, rights we have the ability to execute, and rights that are protected by society.

At birth we have the right to life, self governence (vote), self defense (bear arms), etc. Obviously a prenatal child can not physicaly vote or cary a fire arm. in the case of self defense. a parrent has the right to act in the childs best interest and protect him/her. until that child reaches 18 society considers the child incapable of exercising most of their rights and does not protect the childs rights to self government or defense. (Wouldn’t it be interesting if parrents / guardians could vote on their child’s behalf?) You will also see that in some societies some individuals right to life itself is not protected by society at any age.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Some pro-choice (read pro-abortion) people don’t believe a child should have rights till they can live independent of others. So at what age is this? 1yo or 100yo?

As for me and my family we believe it is at conception.

 

[ribozyme]

Some pro-choice (read pro-abortion) people don’t believe a child should have rights till they can live independent of others. So at what age is this? 1yo or 100yo?

As for me and my family we believe it is at conception.

Who says that? Children have interests. Presumably most of them “want” to live.

However, utilitarians explicitly deny “natural rights” though. Many utilitarians see utility in promoting some forms of individual rights such as freedom of speech and cultivation of talents.

 

[thomfra]

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at herebut Catholic teaching is very clear that the child attains human rights at the moment of conception. Direct abortion is not allowed even to save the life of the mother. However if procedures are taken to save the life of the mother that result in the child dying that is acceptable under the principle of double effect. A good example of this would be a mother who has cancer and must undergo radiation treatment to save her life. The purpose of the radiation is to save the mother’s life. If the child dies as a result of this is not considered to be an abortion.

Here’s a question:

What if presented with the question: You can save the baby, **or **the mother. What then?

 

[shannyk]

Some pro-choice (read pro-abortion) people don’t believe a child should have rights till they can live independent of others. So at what age is this? 1yo or 100yo?

And is anyone able to live independent of others? It’s not possible. We are made by design to need each other. So, yet another flawed argument on their part.

 

[estesbob]

Here’s a question:

What if presented with the question: You can save the baby, **or **the mother. What then?

You can take any action to save the mother that is necessary as long as it does not include direct abortion of the child.

This question is asked all the time but I’ve yet to have somebody show me a reasonable scenario where the child had to be aborted the save the mother. I am sure that if one thinks hard enough they can come up with one but before we go down this goat path let’s make sure that we remember that abortions to save the life of the mother or because of rape or incest account for less than .0003% of all abortions.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**well, if you (or rather the docs) can save either the mothers or the babies life, we should leave it to God and pray THY WILL BE DONE.
That’s what I prayed, when we where unsure, if our son dies or not. He died when he was 26 of alleged murder.

Now - several authors here said, human rights belong to a baby beginning at conception.

Let me say - it begins earlier, for a very simple reason:

When my son died, a dear person wrote:
He was an idea of God, going back to its origin. Yes that’s what it is! That’s what we all are; and Idea of God - and finally going back to our origin.

So, this baby is an idea of God before conception and this going to be child consequently deserves a lot more than human rights; to be honoured as a living idea of God.
How dare we to abort an idea of God?!
**

 

[fix]

Here’s a question:

What if presented with the question: You can save the baby, **or **the mother. What then?

Then you would say we intend to save both. It is not a legitimate question. Kinda like asking would it be better to be murdered by knife or gun.

 

[pete_29]

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.

Voting, driving ,smoking, and drinking are priviledges not rights.

 

[vz71]

Voting, driving ,smoking, and drinking are priviledges not rights.

 

[allhers]

Could you provide your definition of “life?”

I did in my very first sentence. I said since life begins at fertilization.

(including but not limited to sexually and asexually reproduced human beings, if you want to get technical about it.)

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Why is the question about „the beginning of life“ so often topical.

OK – to an atheist, life begins when either a human being or animal is born and ends finally at death. (An other question would be life of plants).

But there’s an insurmountable gab between the opinion and definition of life how an atheist sees it, and that of a Christian. As we know it’s not up to fortuity if one lives or not, we might, referring to the “idea of God” I mentioned in last posting, even ask: “Where have we been before birth?”

Now, even if we many years before birth “simply” where an idea of God, we still had been and existed as idea of the Almighty, or perhaps as soul, not jet born.

Paying attention to a results of Gods omniscient awareness of everything – manifested in Luke 12:7 in that metapher of the counted hair - moreover so being aware, that God knows about anyone He wants to one day live in His kingdom; let’s not give way to the idea, that it might be kind of contingency how many will finally be trying to get into heaven.

No, God will NOT be surprised how many we will finally be. He knows and it’s His intention, as any person is Gods purpose and consequently everyone not yet born, in a way is alive as „Gods Idea“, way before this human being is born.

With this in mind, the often heard word of “to make a child” is more than horrible, inhuman, yes godless.
In a way related thoughtless, is the word of “when begins life”. Your live and my life had begun as an Idea of God, not just 9 month before we where born.

Some dicide to end this life even when this human being lived among us for 3 month already in the body of his mother.
Must we now be happy not to have been aborted?**