Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Fetus Is Human

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I guess this is the proper place here for this...As you can see I'm against abortion, not all abortion though. Let me start by saying scientifically, a fetus is a human. At conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being. It's a completely separate person in the womb. That's why the person is entitled to inalienable rights. Because it's a person. Just because it's inside the mother doesn't make it any less a human. Abortion to me is infanticide.

Reason or not...even though a fetus/baby's ability to feel pain. If you stick an 8 week fetus/baby in the hand with a needle they'll open their hand and pull away. It's ability to respond to pain is evidence of reason. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days (a heart is formed within 18 days). Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

And on the issue of rape. The percentage of abortions due to rape is 1%...Though a large number compared to 30 million. I personally know a woman that has had a child from rape, but despite that being a criminals child...it's still her child...It's still another person. It doesn't make it any less a human. However, I take into consideration a woman's mental state after rape. Experiencing tense, sometimes unpredictable emotions. And they may find it difficult to deal with their memories. It even impacts and disables some women's ability to function. Even in extreme cases resulting in suicide. These are (mental) health issues. Even though not in all cases...I find health reasons a logical reason. In this case it should be an option.

You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.

Edited by shyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tumors are genetically different from the original cells, too. Based on your argument we should also give them rights, and make sure no one murders any innocent tumors? It is in their nature to need the body's nutrients, after all. And they're certainly human cells.

(I think this sufficiently demolishes the first part of your argument; having separate DNA is not the basis for a human being having rights. Someone else can have the feelings part :D).

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.
What does this mean? An ameoba has life, does it thereby have rights? Life -- as such -- does not imply rights. If you think it does, then state your case. And, even if you think that human life implies rights, you need to explain why. Please do not take it for granted, just because this is an Objectivist forum. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this is the proper place here for this...As you can see I'm against abortion, not all abortion though. Let me start by saying scientifically, a fetus is a human. At conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being. It's a completely separate person in the womb. That's why the person is entitled to inalienable rights. Because it's a person. Just because it's inside the mother doesn't make it any less a human. Abortion to me is infanticide.

The most important issue here is the fact that the mother has the right to choose whether or not another being that she is aware of gets to feed off her and no one else has the right to make that determination for her.

Reason or not...even though a fetus/baby's ability to feel pain. If you stick an 8 week fetus/baby in the hand with a needle they'll open their hand and pull away. It's ability to respond to pain is evidence of reason.

That is not even remotely true. Animals respond to pain; they move away from what is hurting them or attack it. They have no ability to reason.

A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days (a heart is formed within 18 days). Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Being alive alone that gives them rights. If that was the case animals would have rights as well, but they don't.

And on the issue of rape. The percentage of abortions due to rape is 1%...

When a woman decides whether or not to have an abortion after being raped - or any other time - how many other women do it should not enter into her mind. To make her decision based on how many other women do it would be a form of collectivism and as such something any rational women would reject.

You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.

You can't argue the right to life without stating what the right to life is based upon, ie, the ability to reason, which, I as I have already stated, you have not proven babies have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientifically, a fetus is a human.

Not quite. a fetus is human. No one can deny it. A cancerous tumor growing on your lung is human, too. So is a cyst obstructing your bowel, or a diverticulum in your throat. They're all undeniably made of human cells with a full complement of chromosomes and a nucleus no different from any other cell's in your body.

And so?

At conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother.

Until such a time as cloning becomes widespread, yes.

And so?

To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate.

Of course it's innacurate. The mother only has one appendix (assuming she has one at all). Her feet are not her appendix, either.

And so?

Stick to fundamentals. A fetus cannot exist alive outside thee mother's womb. It is, essentially, a parasite on the mother's body. If she doesn't want it there, there's no reason why she should keep it there. Whether it is or not her appendix, or human, or genetically distinct (all of which are given because otherwise it would not be a human fetus), are irrelevant facts. So is the fact that the fetus can feel pain, assuming it can. Body parts, for example, react to various stimuli. Cancer cells grow their own blood supply and defend themselves as best they can. So what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tumors are genetically different from the original cells, too. Based on your argument we should also give them rights, and make sure no one murders any innocent tumors? It is in their nature to need the body's nutrients, after all. And they're certainly human cells.

(I think this sufficiently demolishes the first part of your argument; having separate DNA is not the basis for a human being having rights. Someone else can have the feelings part :D ).

Well said, Maarten. I wish I had thought of that myself in my reply. Of course this might end up getting approved before that one. :lol:

I did cover something similar though.

What does this mean? An ameoba has life, does it thereby have rights? Life -- as such -- does not imply rights. If you think it does, then state your case. And, even if you think that human life implies rights, you need to explain why. Please do not take it for granted, just because this is an Objectivist forum.

I said something similar (though that post might not yet be approved). However, I think your approach is better since it uses a lower organism than mine (I used animals).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fetus is an entirely different entity from the mother, then why can't it survive on its own? When you say it has its own DNA, you have to keep in mind the fetus has a unique DNA combination. All the acids came from the mother, as well as the blood, nutrition, cells, and everything else that is needed to make up the body. Until it leaves the mother's body, it is completely dependent and will get what it needs via taxing Mom's resources.

Using the human DNA example is extremely fallacious. If having human DNA is what is needed to be considered human, then we're all murderers since we all at one point willingly destroyed some of our skin cells by scratching our arm or another.

Reason or not...even though a fetus/baby's ability to feel pain. If you stick an 8 week fetus/baby in the hand with a needle they'll open their hand and pull away. It's ability to respond to pain is evidence of reason.

No it isn't, that's just a knee-jerk reaction. Reason can only be exercised through the mind, on the third level of consciousness: the conceptual faculty. The fetus does not gain access to this until it has unlocked the second level: the perceptual faculty.

The sensational faculty is a given amongst any animal with a nervous system. By your definition, anything capable of feeling pain is capable of being rational.

A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days (a heart is formed within 18 days). Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

The definition of life is irrelevant. Simply being alive does not entitle a life to life.

You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.

And here lies the contradiction of believing the right to life while at the same time being "pro-life". The right to life does not solely mean being medically alive, but living as a man and flourishing. The reason a man should be entitled to be allowed to flourish is because men needs this in order to survive; what other motivation do we have to survive if we have nothing to work towards?

Also, one cannot have rights one cannot exercise, which is what position the fetus is in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a completely separate person in the womb.

How? It, the fetus, is what Andrew Bernstein properly refers to as in his Philosophic Basis of a Woman's Right to Abortion pamphlet, a biological parasite feeding off a host organism. As long as there is umbilical blood flow between fetus and woman, the fetus is not at all a completely independent or separate "person", but rather dependent upon its host. Even if fetus is considered viable...same thing. When the cord is clamped and cut, only then does it become a completely separate person.

That's why the person is entitled to inalienable rights. Because it's a person. Just because it's inside the mother doesn't make it any less a human. Abortion to me is infanticide.

A fetus is not an infant. Abortion is not murder.

Even though not in all cases...I find health reasons a logical reason. In this case it should be an option.

Abortion should always be an available option for a woman. She should always have the choice, whatever her reason may be for abortion whether it's logical, rational, irrational. Do not infringe on a woman's rights by assigning rights to a fetus that has none.

You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.

The pregnant woman is the one with the right to life. Abortion is an inalienable right of hers. ---> Abortion is Prolife

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reason or not...even though a fetus/baby's ability to feel pain. If you stick an 8 week fetus/baby in the hand with a needle they'll open their hand and pull away. It's ability to respond to pain is evidence of reason.

First, a fetus does not develop pain receptors until 23-24 weeks. These receptors function properly only by 26-29 weeks. The phenomen you are referring to is a reflex. It is not indicative of any pain felt by the fetus.

Second, the fetus feels pain after 26 weeks. So what? The doctor uses anesthesia.

Third, the ability to respond to pain does not constitute evidence of reason. How are you even justifying that statement? Pain is automatic. It cannot be controlled in most cases (ceratinly not by a fetus). It is a physiological response to a negative event, whether physical or mental. Dogs feel pain. So do birds. They will both recoil when you hurt them. Yet, they do not use reason.

Edited by Mimpy
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between Langerhans cells and the cells that make up a human body. The baby has those cells too. The baby also has a heart, a brain, an actual human body structure. Just like you had at one point. Skin cells are none of those. So that isn't convincing?

You all are comparing a child to an abnormality. A child to an abnormality. Cancer is an abnormality. It can be malignant, metastatic (spread to other parts of the body)

No it isn't, that's just a knee-jerk reaction. Reason can only be exercised through the mind, on the third level of consciousness: the conceptual faculty. The fetus does not gain access to this until it has unlocked the second level: the perceptual faculty.

The sensational faculty is a given amongst any animal with a nervous system. By your definition, anything capable of feeling pain is capable of being rational.

True, having a nervous system doesn't make you rational, but they have the same level as children in infancy outside of the womb. Level 1.

"A fetus cannot exist alive outside thee mother's womb. It is, essentially, a PARASITE on the mother's body. If she doesn't want it there, there's no reason why she should keep it there."

A parasitism is a relationship between organisms of a DIFFERENT SPECIES in which the host is harmed. To compare children to tapeworms, flukes, plasmodiumspecies and fleas...That's going a little too far isn't it? They are of the same species therefore they are not parasites...I'm not saying you don't have the right to say that cause you do, but just because you said it doesn't make true.

"What does this mean? An ameoba has life, does it thereby have rights? Life -- as such -- does not imply rights. If you think it does, then state your case. And, even if you think that human life implies rights, you need to explain why."

It's called human life, not decaying vegetation as an ameoba. It's called human rights...they are entitled to every human. They are inalienable. Which means they shouldn't have to be directly shown or expressed. You just have them. A Human Being doesn't need a documented right to take a dump, but he does...Why should you need one to live? It's a call to nature.

Edited by shyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called human rights...they are entitled to every human. They are inalienable. Which means they shouldn't have to be directly shown or expressed. You just have them.
These are simply assertions without any proof or explanation whatsoever. How can they be answered. You say yes, I say no; end of story. I think your basic misunderstanding is not in the area of abortions and fetuses; you need to understand the nature of rights. That's why I asked for your explanation in my previous post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You all are comparing a child to an abnormality. [...] Cancer is an abnormality.

They were just drawing an analogy between the genetics of fetuses and tumors with respect to the argument you had made. That's not the same as comparing the two.

However, I do object to the use of the word "parasite" to describe a fetus. A parasite is a separate organism (which the fetus is not) of a different species (which the fetus is not) whose primary means of survival is to feed off the host (which is not the primary means of survival of the fetus's species), and which is detrimental to the host's life (which a fetus is not necessarily). In addition to being inapplicable in so many ways, the word "parasite" is highly emotionally charged, so its use will only encourage your readers to dismiss your argument as making a blatantly false appeal to emotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this is the proper place here for this...As you can see I'm against abortion, not all abortion though. Let me start by saying scientifically, a fetus is a human. At conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother.

To focus this question on viability or non viability is innacurate. A delivered baby is still not viable without a human taking near 24/7 care of it, does anyone here suggest literal infantacide is justified? To focus this question on "human" vs not human is also innacurate. If, to you, a human is a unique genetic code, then a living adult which is brain dead is just as human as a 1 day old fetus. Do you object to 'pulling the plug' on brain dead patients?

What you should be focusing this question on is what is the nature of a *person* not what is a 'human' there are many physiological and biological 'humans' which are not 'person' A person needs to, at the very least, have the physiological mechanisms responsible for self awareness present. The neo-cortex is largely thought responsible for our sense of self and the recognition of our identity, as clearly evidenced by accidents where the neo-cortex has been destroyed with little damage to other parts of the brain, or intentional destructions of this region of the brain, as in old fashioned labotomies, these people are still human, but certainly are not 'persons' they are merely piles of meat.

Many thousands of fetus are lost naturally, do you propose having burial ceremonies when a 1 day old fetus is aborted spontaneously?

The neo cortex does not start to develop until the 3rd trimester, so if a legal line were to be drawn this might be a good place to look, as only after the start of the 3rd trimester does a human fetus start to have the physiological mechanisms present to become aware of itself.

Additionally, recent evidence has suggested that spindle nueron cells, which are unique to humans and great apes, and though rare are huge on the scale of the brain and often have hundreds of thousands of connections spanning large regions of the brain, seem to play a major role in emotional and cognitive abilities. These cells are not even present in humans till about 1 - 1.5 years of age.

From wikipedia

Spindle cells appear to play a central role in the development of intelligent behavior and adaptive response to changing conditions and cognitive dissonance. They emerge postnatally and eventually become widely connected with diverse parts of the brain, evidencing their essential contributions to the superior capacity of hominids to focus on difficult problems. Evidence of the importance of their role has been established through single-neuron recording, electrical stimulation, EEG, PET, fMRI, and lesion studies.

If spindle cells are indeed a major component of 'personhood' (being concious of one's conciousness, etc) then it would be hard to argue that a human baby without them is a 'person'.

Even so, the larger crux of the issue is pointed at by DragonMaci

The most important issue here is the fact that the mother has the right to choose whether or not another being that she is aware of gets to feed off her and no one else has the right to make that determination for her.

To call the removal of the forcible sustaining of another life 'murder', even if 'human' AND a 'person' is egregious. If I were to wake in a hospital with cords coming out of me to sustain the life of another person, I have every single right to remove those cords and be free of the forced sustaining of that life, EVEN IF I had previously agreed, and simply changed my mind. No one has a right to force others to provide them with the material sustenance of existence. No human, person, or fetus with fewer nerve cells than an ant. Could I accuse you of murder because you chose stop farming to provide food for others? A right to life, is not a right to be provided with the necessities of life by other people, it is a right to provide yourself with the material necessities for life. No 'right' can be born of the right to enslave others.

I find it interesting the the greatest champions of this right to own one's life in this context, liberals, blatently refuse to apply it to any other aspect of life or contexts, and are more than happy to advocate the forced enslavement of some people to provide the material sustenance of others.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to wake in a hospital with cords coming out of me to sustain the life of another person, I have every single right to remove those cords and be free of the forced sustaining of that life, EVEN IF I had previously agreed, and simply changed my mind. No one has a right to force others to provide them with the material sustenance of existence.

An excellent analogy, although I disagree with the part I put in bold. Once you agree to something, you don't get to change your mind.

I find it interesting the the greatest champions of this right to own one's life in this context, liberals, blatently refuse to apply it to any other aspect of life or contexts, and are more than happy to advocate the forced enslavement of some people to provide the material sustenance of others.

Liberals never champion the right to own one's life. Their motivation in defending abortion is entirely different from ours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An excellent analogy, although I disagree with the part I put in bold. Once you agree to something, you don't get to change your mind.

I think this point is debatable, still, you should not be held in bondage to a contract in perpetuity. If I agreed to be the 'life support' for another person, I think I would have the right to change my mind about it later as well.

Liberals never champion the right to own one's life. Their motivation in defending abortion is entirely different from ours.

Right, I said that only in this specific context are they 'champions of the right to ones OWN life' and in *ALL* others they wantonly and flagrantly abandon it. This is one of the primary ethical justifications used by liberal 'pro-choice' adovcates (who, again, are pro-choice about virtually nothing else!)

Edited by Matus1976
Link to post
Share on other sites
A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being. It's a completely separate person in the womb. That's why the person is entitled to inalienable rights. Because it's a person. Just because it's inside the mother doesn't make it any less a human. Abortion to me is infanticide.

I agree with you that Abortion is infanticide. I however disagree with you that the infant has inalienable rights. He himself is an alien. A fetus, embryo, 8 month old infant requires to some degree or another another human host to survive... unlike an adult, child, or infant human being. It is his dependence on another human being that is the issue, NOT whether or not it is "fully human"!

Just like all other human beings, it is NOT owed anything unless it has the voluntary agreement of another. A potential mother still has the choice to make whether or not she will host another life form within her own body. A baby's inalienable rights DON'T in my view take precedence over the rights of his mother.

Extract if you want to (at your own expense) the fetus, embryo, zygote, or whatever and allow it to develop in an incubator; but to chain a woman to it is immoral!

You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.

True dat. But the sacrifice of one life for another is wrong, especially where the life being sacrificed is also forced to host with her own body the life form that will drain her life for at minimum the next 18 years. Not to mention the possibility of her own life ending during the birth process, or the deterioration to her own physical beauty as a result thereof.

"Pro life" people should resign themselves to NEVER aborting their own children, and realize that their choice should NOT be forced on the rest of the world.

C!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like all other human beings, it is NOT owed anything unless it has the voluntary agreement of another. A potential mother still has the choice to make whether or not she will host another life form within her own body. A baby's inalienable rights DON'T in my view take precedence over the rights of his mother.

But the "baby" (actually embryo/fetus) doesn't have any rights. The rights of one person do not conflict with the rights of another. Abortion is not infanticide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A parasitism is a relationship between organisms of a DIFFERENT SPECIES in which the host is harmed. To compare children to tapeworms, flukes, plasmodiumspecies and fleas...That's going a little too far isn't it? They are of the same species therefore they are not parasites...I'm not saying you don't have the right to say that cause you do, but just because you said it doesn't make true.

One cannot simply change definitions at their discretion.

Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Health Definition: An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis.

Dental dictionary: An organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism.

In no way, does that require (1) different species, and (2) harm to the host.

A parasite is what it is. A fetus is a parasite, regardless of how you wish to frame it.

So. Just because you said a parasite requires it to be a different species doesn't make it true, and that's the definition to back it up.

So, do you wish to continue to assert that a fetus is NOT a parasite despite the explicit definition of the term?

Edited by Chops
Link to post
Share on other sites
Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

(emphasis added) Again, that is not necessarily true of a fetus. An unwanted fetus does indeed not contribute, but one of a mother who has rationally chosen to have a child, does. The concept "parasite" (in biology) relates to particular kinds of organism; either all individuals of a certain kind of organism are parasites, or none are. Biology classifies organisms based on their biological attributes and processes, and in that respect there is no difference between an unwanted and a wanted fetus. (Or do you wish to argue that a wanted fetus is a parasite as well?)

Besides, as I said in my post above, a fetus is not a separate organism from the mother (which is precisely the basis for one of they key arguments for the right to abortion).

Why do you think this is important in the first place, though? Whether or not something is a parasite, it has no rights unless it is an actual human.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is by this reason that Abortion is definitely infanticide. Justified, but still infanticide... a baby dies in the process, no matter how you slice it.

No. Life is self-generated action. THAT is the fundamental difference between a fetus and a baby, and that is why killing a fetus is NOT infanticide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It really seems to me that many of you have a need to dehumanize the infant in order to justify the mother's precedent right to her own life. This I believe is a mistake. A woman's right to end her pregnancy is NOT because she isn't killing anything human, but in the fact that she does not owe her own life as sacrifice to another. This inalienable right is true whether we are talking about another adult, child, or hosted life form.

Killing is not an appropriate word to use. If a neighbor isn't working to provide for his own existence, are you 'killing' them by not laboring to provide him food? Are you Killing all those poor kids in Africa by not donating every waking moment and calorie burned toward their lives? Can you be accused of a 'homicide' by not enslaving yourself to the survival of another person?

Killing is the active and willfull taking of a life through a deliberate action, one can not be accused of killing someone through inaction it corrupts the meaning of killing / murder etc, while simaltaneously implying that it is our moral obligation to make sure everyone survives, even to our own detriment.

Additionally, a fetus is NOT a "person" which is something different than "human" which while it alleviates moral qualms about performing an abortion, is yet still absolutely true.

It is 'persons' that have a right to life, not clumps of cells which happen to share a genetic code (are you ok with pulling the plug on a comatose brain dead patient? Would you consider that "killing" them?)

An inalienable right is not an inalianiable claim to someone else's labor, life, or effort, to sustain your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"drawing an analogy between the genetics of fetuses and tumors with respect to the argument you had made. That's not the same as comparing the two."

Well I think it was a terrible analogy...

I think the misunderstanding lies in what you consider a person. NO ONE can draw the line. Not even the Supreme Court who failed to do so with Roe vs Wade. That resulted in the overturning of laws in 50 different states. It is based off of an element of doubt...They didn't feel that they should determine when life started.

The burden of proof should lie with the life-taker, and the benefit of the doubt should be with the life-saver."When in doubt, don't"... A hunter who hears rustling in the bushes shouldn't fire until he knows what is in the bushes. Likewise, a Court which doesn't know when life begins, should not declare open season on the unborn.

The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. The benefit of doubt is with the defense. This is also known as a presumption of innocence. The defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Again the burden of proof is on the entity that would take away life or liberty. The benefit of the doubt lies with the defense.

The Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not know when life begins and then violated the very spirit of this legal principle by acting as if it just proved that no life existed in the womb. Even more curious was the fact that to do so, it had to ignore the international community on the subject of the unborn.

I think I fully understand the nature of rights. I understand we live in a country where an animal has the rights and status similar to that of a Human slave before abolition, more than what we grant our own unborn children. I think the problem with this subject is people's inability to hold sacred Human life or maybe life in general...over all things. People's ability to exploit ambiguity in the written law to avoid it's intended effect. That's no misunderstanding I don't think.

Edited by shyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the misunderstanding lies in what you consider a person.
There is no misunderstanding: a fetus is not a person, nor is a tumor a person. A fetus is not a separate individual, and a person is.
The burden of proof should lie with the life-taker, and the benefit of the doubt should be with the life-saver.
The burden of proof lies with the rights-restricter, and the benefit of the doubt should lie with the individual wishing to exercise her rights. This is not seriously in question, from the perspective of the Objectivist ethics. I take it that you reject some aspect of the Objectivist ethics -- you should explain how you justify the claim that a person wishing to act according to their own values, when not violating the rights of another person, must still justify their decision. The legal principle of benefit of the doubt for the defense applies: the woman, who is innocent until it is proven that she has no right to her body, does have the right to act as she elects. The government must provide proof positive before restricting her rights, in any way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is actually inaccurate, or needs clarification. What does "cannot" mean in this context?

I think you could look at David's post. "The burden of proof lies with the rights-restricter, and the benefit of the doubt should lie with the individual wishing to exercise her rights."

A fetus is not an individual person and it cannot wish to exercise its rights whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...