Bob_Jones

First, I do not understand why physical independence is relevant when discussing the issue of being. Please provide a logical explaination of why you think it is. I agree with all of this. I would like to argue that birth is non-objective for the same reasons. Each fetus spends a different length of time between conception and birth. It seems odd to me that a baby born 8 months and 2 weeks after conception is a person, while a fetus that is not yet born 9 months after conception is not a person. I would. I saw an analogy earlier in this thread involving an oak tree. The argument was something like this: "an acorn is a potential oak tree, but one cannot build a house with it." A baby oak tree that is six inches high is an actual oak tree, but one could not build a house with it either. I would argue that, in the same way, a fertilized egg is an actual human being, but it cannot do most of the things most other humans can. All fetuses are exercising their right to life, except when they are prevented from doing so. I would argue that the fetus living and then being killed is, philosophically, the same as an adult who is living and gets shot. The adult is exercising his right to life, and is then prevented from doing so by an initiation of force by another person. The same is true for the fetus. (for this to be valid, you must agree that a fetus is an actual human) This is an interesting point. I would say that the fetuses right to life is not a claim on the lives of the parents, because they chose to engage in an act that they knew might result in the creation of a new life. This is similar to the fact that enforcing a contract is not a claim on the lives of those envolved because they agreed to sign the contract. If you do not agree with this arguement, then I would like to ask you the same question, but regarding the life of a 1 year old baby. I would argue that there are two lives present in a pregnant woman. I agree that the word "separate" is contradictory when refering to the physical entities of the fetus and its mother. However, I think that a fetus and its mother are separate in all ways with the exception of being "physically connected." (they are 2 distinct beings, similar to conjoined twins) I am arguing that an actual human being is created at conception, and that sperm and eggs are only potential human beings. My definition of "actual human being" is: A entity that is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens (also, I would like to see your definition of "actual human being") Reasons: this definition applies to all humans and does not apply to anything else Your argument against viability being the point of potential changing to actual was logical and reasonable. I hope that you (as opposed to many of the other forum members) and I can have a logical and reasonable debate on this important issue.

Please give me an example of a week old baby being engaged in conceptual interaction I disagree. If you choose to drive a car, and then happen to get in a crash, you cannot "uncrash" your car. This fact of reality does not violate the driver's rights. By making a choice to drive, the driver becomes responsible for what happens while he is driving. (in this case, the crash) The same principle (that one must be responsible for their actions) applies to pregnancy (with the exception of rape). If you choose to have sex, and then happen to get pregnant (creating a new human fully dependant on you), you cannot become "unpregnant" WITHOUT violating the rights (see below for why these rights exist) of the new human you created. Remaining pregnant does not violate your rights, it is the result of a choice you made. This same principle can also be applied to young babies. It is absurd to suggest that a mother can gain value by giving tremendous amounts of time and effort to serving a young baby's needs. Because the baby is not creating values, but using the pre-existing values that the mother created, he should not have rights according to the above idea of rights. Therefore, the above justification for a baby's rights must be wrong. (I agree with that justification for adult's rights) The reason that the baby has rights is:(this was on page 2 of this thread) It seems logical to me that this principle would apply from the moment of conception (the moment that a new human is created). The justification is that the parents have brought the Human into existence and are responsible for it until it can support itself. In no other relationship is such a situation extant and in no other relationship is such an obligation involved. If you disagree, please give a logical reason why

If rights arise from conceptual interaction, than any time someone is not interacting with others, he would have no rights Also, babies do not interact conceptually for quite a while after birth. If what you are saying is right, then babies after birth would also have no rights for several years. A fetus in the days immediately preceeding birth is as much a conceptual entity as a baby in the days immediately after birth. The difference is one is physically independent, the other is not. babies are not conceptually interacting with other conceptual beings

I apologize for not being clear. I think that anything human has rights. As I stated before, a fetus is allways human. An elbow, on the other hand, is not human. It is merly a portion of a human. Also, being attached to something is not the same as being part of it. A fetus, unlike a heart or liver, performs no useful fuction for the mother, and does not interact with the mothers body other than to gain food and remove waste. A fetus is its own entity (by virtue of being human) that is living within the mother, not part of the mother (like the mother's heart and liver). I agree that all your arguments would be valid if the fetus had no rights. I repeat my earlier logic behind my belief that a fetus must have rights It seems to be a contradiction that some level of independence (the baby being born) is required before a woman is responsible for her baby, yet it is when full independence is achieved (the baby becoming mature enough to care for himself) that the woman's responsibility ends. I would argue that the mother's responsibility is inversely proportional to the level of the new humans independence. (a mother has the most responsibility immediately after conception, which decreases until the human can care for himself)

Some questions on property rights I am wondering how something first becomes owned (not becoming owned by being purchased from a previous owner) and how you apply ownership to things that move over or through many properties (such as air, rivers, and aquifers). Also, does an individual own the airspace above his land to an infinite height? who own's the moon (or how could one come to own it)

QUOTE (m0zart @ Jan 5 2004, 05:43 AM) The newly conceived is a human being, a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, from the moment of conception, from a scientific standpoint. There is hardly a textbook in the field of human embryology which doesn't make that immediate classification. The fetus is human at conception, an elbow is only a part of a human, and could be destroyed by the human it is a part of. as I stated previously, I have seen no compelling reason why physical independence is required for something to have rights. Deciding to become "unpregnant" is like deciding to "unsign" a contract. It is violating the rights of the fetus, which has rights by virtue of being human, irrespective of independence.

I still do not understand why you think being an "independent entity" is so important. I have always thought that a woman has the right to control her body, but she exersizes that right by choosing to become pregnant, at this point, the woman must be responsible for her choice by caring for the new human until he is able to care for himself. If a woman had a baby on a deserted island, the baby, although no longer physically attached to the woman, is still dependent on the woman for his survival. It follows that full independence is not achieved until the baby is able to take care of himself, at which point the woman's responsibility is over. It seems to be a contradiction that some level of independence (the baby being born) is required before a woman is responsible for her baby, yet it is when full independence is achieved (the baby becoming mature enough to care for himself) that the woman's responsibility ends.

I know nothing about dolphin intelligence, but the "law" (reason) against torturing higher mammals (or anything) is that it is not in one's self interest to do so

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that a mature unborn fetus is functioning self sufficiently, and is simply gaining its food through the umbilical cord. I would argue that this is similar to a baby breast-feeding, also processing the food independently, but gaining the food through the mother. Are you saying that in order to have rights, a human must be physically independent of other humans If you are, do conjoined twins, people born with two heads (and brains able to conceptualize) on one body, have rights?

I am not as concerned about the exact time a baby is able to conceptualize, What I am wondering is if conceptualization, or the ability to conceptualize is required for a human to have rights. It appears that you are saying one of the following A) because a baby is unable to use his conceptual faculty for XXX ( days, months, or years after birth) he has no rights until that time or although a baby is unable to use his conceptual faculty, he still has rights for (unknown reason of yours) please clarify your position as to when a person gains rights and why at that time

if this is true, then at what point does a baby develop his conceptual faculty. I would assume it is at some point before birth, so that argument would apply to late term babies

Thanks for the input. I am now wondering why the "independent" is so important. A human immediately after birth is dependent on the mother to nearly the same extent as a human immediately before birth. As technology advances, humans will be able to survive and mature outside the womb at earlier and earlier ages. Hypothetical: one mother has a premature birth at 7 months. This baby is now an "independent human being" and therefore has rights another mother has a baby within the womb at 8 months. This baby, while being more mature in every respect than the 7 month baby, is not independent, and has no rights. This does not make sense to me.

This may belong in the abortion section, but why exactly do children gain their rights at birth. If children do not conceptualize until about 3, birth is an arbitrary time to give them rights. If a person cannot, and will never be able to, conceptualize (brain damage) why do they have rights? What attributes are required for someone (or something) to have rights?

Hi All, Before one can decide if abortion is morally permissable, one must decide when a human (member of homo sapiens sapiens) gains his rights. The ability to conceptualize cannot be required to have rights, because if it were, it would be permissable to kill a person who is asleep or unconscious. Consciousness cannot be required for the same reason. I am unaware of any objective standard to grant a man his rights other than conception. If anyone has one, I would be interested in hearing it. Aside: In the case of rape causing pregnancy, (and assuming rights are granted to a human at conception) I would argue that it is the rapists responsibility to fully compensate the mother for her time and effort used to provide for the new person until he is able to provide for himself. (given that rape is an initiation of force, the governing body should use force to obtain this compensation from the rapist) ((In a fully rational society rape would never happen ))