![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
At what point is a baby entitled human rights?
I wish I had seen the Saddleback debates. (See this article for my reference.) John McCain immediately answered the above question with "at conception."
Aaaarrggh!
I too am pro-life! Which is why I'm against the death penalty, pro-environmentalism, 100% in favor of sex ed and birth control, and pro-choice.
McCain must know that his answer is nothing but a ploy to rope in conservative voters. How, o how, can we assign human rights at conception? This kind of thinking is so troublesome on many many levels. We cannot even pinpoint conception. Does this mean that every woman having intercourse must assume the possibility that she is carrying another life? How do we apply human rights to a being that is in utero? At what point do those minimal rights that the foetus can participate in override the human rights of the mother? I want to know McCain's answer to that!
Muslim law (in general) says that a baby gets its soul/becomes a person at 120 days. This is approximately 4 months, which is about the time the baby's movements become noticable and about the time the threat of miscarriage has passed. I would advocate that baby rights could start at about this point. This makes more sense. If we ascribe rights to a clump of cells (which is what a foetus is for the first couple of months) merely because it has the potentiality for life then testicles and ovaries need to be guarded as well. Do we then give human rights to sperm and eggs? Uh.... wait a sec. That means that all humans carry the potentiality for life (not counting that humans are already alive) and therefore deserve human rights... which they already have.
To all those people who loved McCain's answer and who go along with the theory that "life begins at conception" I want to know what they'd do if they were faced with crippling poverty, the news that their foetus had severe genetic disorders that would either severely limit the child's development or cause bankruptcy due to being underinsured, the reality of rape, etc. It is all fine and dandy to go on and on about "life beginning at conception" if never faced with a reality other than a wanted and healthy pregnancy and child. I want ALL foetuses to be wanted and healthy, but sadly that's not the reality all of time.
Granting human rights to clumps of cells limits the options for already living and breathing women (and their partners) and places the possibility of "moral failure" where it doesn't need to be. As if women need one more thing to monitored for and feel guilty about.
I hate the "pro-life/pro-choice" debate. It's a false dichotomy, a ruse, a moral distraction for the real issues that we struggle with. I want to a see a politician refuse to even entertain these sorts of ridiculous baited questions.
Aaaarrggh!
I too am pro-life! Which is why I'm against the death penalty, pro-environmentalism, 100% in favor of sex ed and birth control, and pro-choice.
McCain must know that his answer is nothing but a ploy to rope in conservative voters. How, o how, can we assign human rights at conception? This kind of thinking is so troublesome on many many levels. We cannot even pinpoint conception. Does this mean that every woman having intercourse must assume the possibility that she is carrying another life? How do we apply human rights to a being that is in utero? At what point do those minimal rights that the foetus can participate in override the human rights of the mother? I want to know McCain's answer to that!
Muslim law (in general) says that a baby gets its soul/becomes a person at 120 days. This is approximately 4 months, which is about the time the baby's movements become noticable and about the time the threat of miscarriage has passed. I would advocate that baby rights could start at about this point. This makes more sense. If we ascribe rights to a clump of cells (which is what a foetus is for the first couple of months) merely because it has the potentiality for life then testicles and ovaries need to be guarded as well. Do we then give human rights to sperm and eggs? Uh.... wait a sec. That means that all humans carry the potentiality for life (not counting that humans are already alive) and therefore deserve human rights... which they already have.
To all those people who loved McCain's answer and who go along with the theory that "life begins at conception" I want to know what they'd do if they were faced with crippling poverty, the news that their foetus had severe genetic disorders that would either severely limit the child's development or cause bankruptcy due to being underinsured, the reality of rape, etc. It is all fine and dandy to go on and on about "life beginning at conception" if never faced with a reality other than a wanted and healthy pregnancy and child. I want ALL foetuses to be wanted and healthy, but sadly that's not the reality all of time.
Granting human rights to clumps of cells limits the options for already living and breathing women (and their partners) and places the possibility of "moral failure" where it doesn't need to be. As if women need one more thing to monitored for and feel guilty about.
I hate the "pro-life/pro-choice" debate. It's a false dichotomy, a ruse, a moral distraction for the real issues that we struggle with. I want to a see a politician refuse to even entertain these sorts of ridiculous baited questions.
no subject
no subject
We don't have any way of legally addressing "this person has rights, but instituting those rights automatically causes restrictions on this other person."
We could make some. We could declare fetuses humans-with-limited-rights, and delineate what those rights are, based on age of the fetus. Start with "right not to be killed," but declare that accidental deaths, unlike those of other humans, don't need to be recorded, and their remains don't need to be held to the same disposal standards as other cadavers. Declare they don't have the right to avoid unlawful incarceration, but on the flip side, can't be prosecuted for assault. And so on. (Gotta get ready for work, or I'd continue to ramble.)
But that would take a MAJOR change in some laws, and very careful writing... and the pro-birth crowd doesn't want to think that much.
no subject
Also, what's insane journal about. I notice you have an account and I've heard some other people mention it.
no subject
InsaneJournal is a "livejournal clone," another site run on Danga software, like DeadJournal, Blurty, GreatestJournal, Journalfen.net, Inksome, CommieJournal, and so on. A great many fans moved there after Strikethrough last June, when LJ deleted several hundred accounts based on their interest lists. (They put most of them back, and went through a psychotic episode when they tried to define "acceptable content" as "stuff that doesn't squick our staff.") Because of the combination of their inconsistent polices and the growing number of ads on LJ, I've mostly moved to IJ.
IJ offers 100 userpics for free accounts, and some ridiculous number for paid accounts. (I have a perm account; I think I get 400 or something like that. I can't remember; I don't use anywhere near that many.)
IJ's biggest disad: no picture storage.
Biggest advantage: they don't patrol user content; if it's legal, it's okay on IJ. LiveJournal has decided it needs some kind of "family-friendly" standards, but refuses to explain them; apparently, we're all supposed to agree on what content is inappropriate for teenagers to see. Sigh.
no subject
Hm. Like I said in Lilli's post, I am out of the Feri gossip loop. All for the best, me thinks! Perhaps we shall cross paths at some other Feri gathering (pie in the park or Pantheacon, perhaps, or some other gathering starting with P).