Bill requiring Ultrasound prior to Abortion before SC House

[Spinoza]

I'm confused, I thought the discussion had at some point mentioned that fetuses should or should not have the same rights as people. With that in mind consider what I was talking about.

I infer from your comments that it is silly to say that fetuses are equal to people, which I agree with.

Trust me on this one, Ken......

You are not the confused "dawg" in this particular kennel!

Relax......
Drink a cold one......
Smoke 'em if you got 'em......
Cheers!

[9701Dawg]

^You are dodging the issue.

I guess I am late in the game :icon_wink: . I wrote that response immediately after reading the response that was quoted.

[FishingBack]

I think the guy in the lab should receive a very light sentence in relation to the crane operator because I believe that the intent to kill the people with the crane is much more severe and shocking to the conscience than killing embryos.

So do I, but I was going off the idea mentioned of "fetuses having the same rights of people."

16 babies killed = 16 children killed = 16 adults killed

but embryos shouldn't be on the same level, which is my point

[arkansasbob]

(1) Does it make sense to give conjoined twins individual rights?

(2) Individual rights would only make sense if the child is a rational animal. Is he?

1) absolutely.

2) that's my point. the environment is irrelevent. the question is whether the child (or fetus) is a rational animal.

[Guisslapp]

I guess I am late in the game :icon_wink: . I wrote that response immediately after reading the response that was quoted.

No problem, I think my hypo got mixed in with a slew of new posts. I tried to focus the issue more on my last one.

[FishingBack]

I guess I am late in the game :icon_wink: . I wrote that response immediately after reading the response that was quoted.

Yes, these monster threads are hard to keep up with, and this one isn't nearly the size of the global warming thread, but it is catching up fast!

[FishingBack]

1) absolutely.

2) that's my point. the environment is irrelevent. the question is whether the child (or fetus) is a rational animal.

From your number 2, would it be appropriate to conduct experiments to determine the age of rationality when considering abortion?

[Guisslapp]

1) absolutely.

2) that's my point. the environment is irrelevent. the question is whether the child (or fetus) is a rational animal.

(1) Elaborate please

(2) I agree, but I was posing the issue hoping someone else would give more insight.

[arkansasbob]

Not trying to play games.. I was only pointing out that the specific dumpster case is easy to answer, whereas other cases in which the child is acting in some rational capacity that end up in the child's death are more complicated.

If a mother sits becide a crying baby and starves it, that is in my mind very analogous to the mountain story. In fact, the baby was put up on the mountain to begin with by being born, so the positive right from the guardian is established.

Incidently, though (and not to get too sidetracked), if a positive right is owed, the actual intent of the mother has no bearing - it is only whether or not the positive right is carried out. With that, I would point out that if a fetus is deemed to have positive rights owed to it by the carrier, then a miscarriage at any point after the fetus is determined to have positive rights is a violation of the rights of the fetus. I am not suggesting that a miscarriage would be the equivalent of murder (which I believe does require intent), but I can see no justification for it not being considered manslaughter IF a fetus has positive rights.

so we agree that a baby brought into this world is owed the positive right of survival?

as for your last paragraph, that is absolute nonsense. if it is not in the mother's power to prevent her child's death, she is in no way responsible.

[arkansasbob]

1) a conjoined twin does not have a positive right owed to it from the other twin. It might have some rights owed to it from the mother, depending on a host of factors (although Guisslap is right to point out that "individual rights" are perhaps not relevant in that context). To what level are the two physically separated? Does one possess a brain and heart, while the other possesses a complete body? Are they complete, except that their heads are fused together?

2) I'm not arguing that the environment that a child grows up in determines the degree of rationality. I'm arguing that the sensory shock at birth might in fact be significant to the congnitive development of a child, and therefore might be a reasonable line to draw if no other line can be drawn.

1) the conjoined twin analogy was not referring to any positive rights.

2) that is completely arbitrary.

[Guisslapp]

so we agree that a baby brought into this world is owed the positive right of survival?

I think the positive right only extends to the mother (potentially the father) for "creating the danger." If the mom dies,during childbirth the child has no positive right IMO. I have a longer post somewhere in this thread why I believe the child has the positive right. It is predicated on the fact that the child has individual rights first, however.

[9701Dawg]

So do I, but I was going off the idea mentioned of "fetuses having the same rights of people."

16 babies killed = 16 children killed = 16 adults killed

but embryos shouldn't be on the same level, which is my point

16 babies killed = 16 embryos killed, with respect to the homicide statutes, but not with respect to sentencing.

[Guisslapp]

I don't agree that a baby is owed a positive right to be cared for - but something close to that. Here is my reasoning -

A newborn is given some level of negative rights (this arises partly because it is difficult to pick an exact point in time where the baby because fully rational). We are making an assumption here - that the baby is at a stage where it is thinking and learning - afterall, individual rights would not make sense otherwise. Clearly, giving a newborn the right to liberty is pointless - the newborn may not want its diaper changed, to get shots, etc, but it isn't fully rational OR DEPENDENT, so there is no point to it having a full blown liberty.

My suggested twist is that the baby MAY actually develop a positive right WITH RESPECT TO the mother. Because the mother chose to put an individual (having some rights) in a precarious situation - a situation of dependency, the mother has some level of obligation with respect to this individual to get the individual to an independent state. This situation can only arise where the baby is appropriate to consider an individual for the purpose of individual rights however.

Bump for arkansasbob,

[Guisslapp]

16 babies killed = 16 embryos killed, with respect to the homicide statutes, but not with respect to sentencing.

WHat about my hypo in post 435?

[FishingBack]

16 babies killed = 16 embryos killed, with respect to the homicide statutes, but not with respect to sentencing.

So if I had a test tube with 50 fertilized eggs in it and purposefully smashed it I would be liable for 50 counts of homicide?