RE: What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer?
July 5, 2017 at 2:02 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2017 at 2:04 pm by Whateverist.)
(July 4, 2017 at 11:17 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote:(July 4, 2017 at 11:09 pm)Losty Wrote: Must. Resist. Urge to merge threads. Lol. Do you really need 3 threads for this??
I was just recently bragging in the staff lounge about our impressive lack of abortion thread and you come to shit in my Apple Jacks.
IMO rights should go to humans that have been born and are still alive.
I have stated why i started 3 threads, they all ask different questions, and one thread gets clogged with 3 different questions so I felt it best to keep each question seperate. You can answer one without having anything to do with the others, they are independent questions.
Only 1 of the threads argues directly ABOUT abortion, and that is asking for other's opinoins on why it SHOULD be justified,, not why it shouldn't
Glad you gave a response, I would ask in return (if we are to have a conversation) what is fundamental about birth? IE in the moment prior to emerging from the canal does the baby have rights? While still attached to the umbilical cord while the placenta is still in the womb, the infant is still "dependent" on the mother, has it been born? does it have rights? can it be killed until it is detached from the cord?
A fundamental aspect of birth -to answer the question I've bolded- IMO is that it must be by the consent of the woman sustaining the fetus. If she consents to birth it either the old fashioned way or with medical intervention, then we can say it has been birthed and made its way into the world as a stake holder in the game of life.
Any extraction of the fetus to which the mother does not consent can not properly be said to have been "born", merely "taken".
