With a general idea of human - though I am refraining from picking at the definition of organism - we can now move onto the less scientific, more ethical/moral/economical side of the debate.
When should we give humans rights?
We acknowledge that some rights are not fundamental rights. But the right to life has always been a "fundamental" right - one that always exists.
If the right to life begins at conception, a chain of bad consequences follow.
1. The woman who spontaneously aborts is now a murderer.
2. IVF scientists are now murderers, and the current method of helping women become pregnant basically halts.
3. Abortion is outlawed - cept maybe in narrow cases where the mother's life is in danger. Maybe, depending on how it's written.
4. Women who become pregnant by rape now have to carry the baby to term.
5. Women whose babies have major handicap issues (like spina bifuda) could not abort, even if they baby would not live beyond a day outside the womb.
6. what else?
But does all of that justify denying humans the right to life - a right we deem fundamental? It is in the heart of our most valuable legal documents - "...inherent and inalienable rights..." Can we justify tossing aside one of the most important and basic rights because it'd make life a lot more complicated?
I feel like there is a problem with the idea that the little fertilized egg, one minute after conception, is protected. Especially since it's not always a guaranteed baby. But I'm uncertain as to what the problem is - where the error in reasoning lies.
If you're like me, and have a problem with the idea that the baby should be protected from minute one, it seems like we can pick at this problem from a few different angles:
1. We can say the definition of human is incorrect.
2. We can say that the right to life is not a fundamental right (and maybe it's not always present).
3. We can say there is something else that supercedes the fundamental right to life.
I don't know which of these I'll use. Or maybe there's another area we can focus on. So this is still a work in progress, but that's where I've progressed to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Here's a question for you...
Does the right to life extend to those incapable of living expect by the direct action of another person?
examples...
Do all people have a right to stay on life support indefinately regardless of their condition?
or
Can anyone be forced against their will to care for another human? In the case of children, adoption is always an options.
We can't well progress into a legal argument if we can't reasonably conclude that the zygote should or shouldn't have fundamental rights.
If he or she doesn't, then we're done. So let's ignore that because if instead he or she does, then this gets way more interesting.
Now we are at the interface of the mother's rights and the rights of the zygote and whether or not the justice system has the authority to enforce jurisprudence at that interface.
...discuss!
Post a Comment