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

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

You state that a human gets human rights when the parents grants them. SO what if a a parent decides that his child who is 14 teen and OMG is acting like at 14 year old, he can take away that right to human rights! At what age does this right of the parents not eligible? You state that if the child has read hair or a deformity they cannot choose to invoke this right. So what if the child is born healthy but later on at about the age of 3 becomes mentally handicapped due to many many reasons, does the parent than get to re invoke this stance?

You are also stating that ones worth needs to be decided? As a child I was very shy and all through our my elementary and HS years I was deemed too dumb to be educated, thankfully society didn’t have your point of view and off me before I could prove myself. I did go on to graduate from college with honors and in a record amount of time. In your scenario you would have many potential children killed because they don’t fit YOUR ideal human. Very sad, indeed.

Yes, a few mistakes would be made… you might have slipped through the cracks. But, society, overall, would benefit because the majority of people weeded out would truly be the unfit. Like the death penalty: even proponents of it recognize that innocent people occasionally are unjustly convicted and executed, but they still support the death penalty as good for society.

The question of whether or not it would be ethical for parents to keep a child who became handicapped after achieving the status of personhood would be an interesting debate. After all, it comes down to the person not being potentially productive. I suppose keeping such a child would be like keeping a pet. And, as long as the parents could provide for their offspring, insuring it never became a burden to others, it could be tolerated. But, it’s not really a good example to set, is it? What about the environmental impact of this person? If the parents have the resources to spare, shouldn’t they expend them on something more worthy?

(At least some people recognize that I’m being ironic. But, if I didn’t believe in God, I would probably believe in what I was saying.)

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, a few mistakes would be made… you might have slipped through the cracks. But, society, overall, would benefit because the majority of people weeded out would truly be the unfit. Like the death penalty: even proponents of it recognize that innocent people occasionally are unjustly convicted and executed, but they still support the death penalty as good for society.

Does a pro-abortionist benefit or harm society? Apply your criteria. Millions of people would benefit without them by being able to be born.

The question of whether or not it would be ethical for parents to keep a child who became handicapped after achieving the status of personhood would be an interesting debate.

What about parents choosing when their child is a person or not? Are you changing your mind? What does handicapped have to do with it? What does age have to do with it? Explain.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Does a pro-abortionist benefit or harm society? Apply your criteria. Millions of people would benefit without them by being able to be born.

What about parents choosing when their child is a person or not? Are you changing your mind? What does handicapped have to do with it? What does age have to do with it? Explain.

I’m not sure where the lines are drawn, but you can say that a person has greater or less utility. Just like a plow horse. When it’s a foal, if it’s healthy you raise it in the expectation of it growing up to be a strong horse. Then, it serves you for its useful life. Eventually, it is no longer useful. You may be fond of the horse and keep it as a pet. Or, you may send it to the glue factory. That would be your choice.

That’s an animal. There are different nuances when it’s a human being. But, at some point, you can respect the feelings of the human being that has achieved personhood - a sense of self - and look forward to it growing into a productive citizen. When they cease to be productive, or lose their potential to be productive… well, you know… SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

 

[mapleoak]

I’m not sure where the lines are drawn, but you can say that a person has greater or less utility.

If there is no stationary line, then it is movable. Therefore there would be no limit to where the line could be moved to.

Just like a plow horse. When it’s a foal, if it’s healthy you raise it in the expectation of it growing up to be a strong horse.

Yes, that is what you do with a horse. If it is deemed of quality to raise, then it is raised. Otherwise it is killed. But no it is not the same.

That’s an animal. There are different nuances when it’s a human being.

Really, such as?

But, at some point, you can respect the feelings of the human being that has achieved personhood - a sense of self - and look forward to it growing into a productive citizen. When they cease to be productive, or lose their potential to be productive… well, you know… SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

So if I decide you are not productive by my standards, can I kill you?

 

[ribozyme]

If there is no stationary line, then it is movable. Therefore there would be no limit to where the line could be moved to.

Yes, that is what you do with a horse. If it is deemed of quality to raise, then it is raised. Otherwise it is killed. But no it is not the same.

Really, such as?

So if I decide you are not productive by my standards, can I kill you?

Could anyone show any evidence that utilitarians want to kill unproductive people? I used the term people and I still do not regard the unborn as “people.”

 

[mapleoak]

Could anyone show any evidence that utilitarians want to kill unproductive people?

Hopeful UK posited just that. The poster seems to speak as a utilitarian.

I used the term people and I still do not regard the unborn as “people.”

But that doesn’t make them not so.

 

[st_lucy]

Could anyone show any evidence that utilitarians want to kill unproductive people? I used the term people and I still do not regard the unborn as “people.”

So please let us know exactly what an unborn child is, a dog? a pig? A spider?

Because if you where to take the dna of an unborn (thing) that is growing in a woman’s womb it would tell you that it is in fact a human.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

If there is no stationary line, then it is movable. Therefore there would be no limit to where the line could be moved to.

Yes, that is what you do with a horse. If it is deemed of quality to raise, then it is raised. Otherwise it is killed. But no it is not the same.

So if I decide you are not productive by my standards, can I kill you?

Yes, where the line would be is subjective. Just like with the horse. Some people may value the animal as a pet, while others think “dog food.”

If I am not productive by your standards, can you kill me? It’s probably not something that could be down to one person. There would have to be a general broad consensus on how the worthy are winnowed out from the worthless. There would probably be a petty bureaucrat to make judgement calls in some situations. It wouldn’t be an exact science, by any means. However, if you were my guardian (that is to say, immediate family member who might elect to spoon feed me out of sentimental attachment), then you might, indeed, be in the position to have me killed if I am otherwise considered worthless.

ETA: I see I missed your question about what the different nuances between an animal and a human are. One difference is that a human being potentially - generally expected to become - a person. A person can assert their own right to live. Rather, they can assert their right to support themselves. When they can no longer make that assertion or can no longer support themselves, they cannot claim the resources of other people. It would be humane and civilized to offer such people the option of a painless death, for those who are aware enough, but I suppose they may have the right to simply starve or die naturally, provided they don’t do so in an unsanitary or inconvenient way. You can’t just, you know, expect to be allowed to lie down in Rockefeller plaza and die. Decorum should be maintained, for the comfort of society.

A horse, on the other hand, can never even assert their right to live. A perfectly healthy, useful horse, can be killed for whatever reason its owner chooses. Most people prefer to keep healthy horses and use them, but that’s not because the horse is a person with dignity.

 

[ribozyme]

So please let us know exactly what an unborn child is, a dog? a pig? A spider?

Because if you where to take the dna of an unborn (thing) that is growing in a woman’s womb it would tell you that it is in fact a human.

I am curious, what would your “pro-life” arguments be before Watson and Crick?

 

[st_lucy]

I am curious, what would your “pro-life” arguments be before Watson and Crick?

I am not sure who these people are but my arguments would not change infront of anyone. I only answer to one person and I am sure these individuals are not him.

Also just as any evil that has occurred in this world abortion will one day end and when people look at you and ask what you did to stop these atrophies against life what will you say?

 

[ribozyme]

If I am not productive by your standards, can you kill me? It’s probably not something that could be down to one person. There would have to be a general broad consensus on how the worthy are winnowed out from the worthless. There would probably be a petty bureaucrat to make judgement calls in some situations. It wouldn’t be an exact science, by any means. However, if you were my guardian (that is to say, immediate family member who might elect to spoon feed me out of sentimental attachment), then you might, indeed, be in the position to have me killed if I am otherwise considered worthless.

You still have preferences and the capacity, and we should respect your desire not to be killed. Embryos do not have such a desire.

 

[st_lucy]

You still have preferences and the capacity, and we should respect your desire not to be killed. Embryos do not have such a desire.

And how many embryos have you asked this to?

As an adult who was once an embryo I will like to state that I would not have liked to have been killed.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

You still have preferences and the capacity, and we should respect your desire not to be killed. Embryos do not have such a desire.

Well, that’s what some people say makes embryos non-people.

 

[mapleoak]

If I am not productive by your standards, can you kill me? It’s probably not something that could be down to one person.

Why not? Even if it were illegal, people are going to do it anyways. Instead of happening in the hospital, we could go to a back alley, under less sanitary conditions.

There would have to be a general broad consensus on how the worthy are winnowed out from the worthless.

I would think you understand the dangers of blind obedience to government, don’t you? I could be wrong. Do you believe Hitler was a good man for his concern and attempt at preserving the ‘elite’ of society.

There would probably be a petty bureaucrat to make judgement calls in some situations.

But why the double standard. You said parents can decide one their own if and when there children are human beings. Why doesn’t this extend to everyone else? What relative morality is your system based on?

It wouldn’t be an exact science, by any means.

Of course not. Anything with moveable lines is anything but exact.

However, if you were my guardian (that is to say, immediate family member who might elect to spoon feed me out of sentimental attachment), then you might, indeed, be in the position to have me killed if I am otherwise considered worthless.

Why do I have to be your legal guardian? And why can’t I just decide you are no longer a human being?

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.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Why not? Even if it were illegal, people are going to do it anyways. Instead of happening in the hospital, we could go to a back alley, under less sanitary conditions.

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.

I would think you understand the dangers of blind obedience to government, don’t you? I could be wrong. Do you believe Hitler was a good man for his concern and attempt at preserving the ‘elite’ of society.

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.

But why the double standard. You said parents can decide one their own if and when there children are human beings. Why doesn’t this extend to everyone else? What relative morality is your system based on?

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.

Of course not. Anything with moveable lines is anything but exact.
Why do I have to be your legal guardian? And why can’t I just decide you are no longer a human being?

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.

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!

 

[ribozyme]

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.

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.

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

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.

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

 

[royal_archer]

A baby should get human rights when and if the parents decide to grant them.

How about when they learn to pull up their pants?

 

[a_priori]

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.

 

[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.

And what if the mother after birth decides she doesn’t want it. Does the child still have human rights? Or what if while he is being -]killed/-] aborted he happens to live and is born does he than have human rights? These are all part of the slippery sloop when you start appointing humans right as if it were a popular ticket vote.