should unborn babies have rights?

Paramahansa

Banned
?

well they are helpless and totally defenceless like animals

all they have is their mother
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
Do they have any responsibilities?
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
Sorry, my question was for intelligent people.

Ok, simplified: can we impose rights on something that has never heard of rights?
 

deadgirl

Dead inside
i really dont think thay have any rights
 

lala69

51% Sweetheart,49% Bitch
I think it depends on how religious you are. If you believe that it is human from conception, then yes. If not - then no. Looking at it from a strictly developmental point of view, the baby starts to process neurally after 12 weeks. It has a central nervous system and can thus process information from it's environment. However - at this stage it has no more ability to interpret and affect its environment than an animal does. So - I'm going to say it doesn't have rights.
 

ozdave

Phased and misused.
Of course their mothers have the right to kill them. If you don't like that then go and live in the USA.
 

SugarPixie

unforgoatable
dave arc-i said:
does the DNA know that it has these rights?

Clearly, not. What I sort of mean is, if I was pregnant, that bunch of DNA would have rights. .. I think.
I have never been pregnant and if I was pregnant maybe I would decide that it didn't have any rights.
I am not saying people shouldn't have abortions. I am saying that I would probably not have one. I see nothing wrong with people deciding to what degree the bunch of DNA inside them counts as a person.
 
D

dave arc-i

Guest
but if this DNA doesnt know it has any rights is there then any point in granting these rights?
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
Rights come with responsibilities. Anything you have the right to do, there is a responsibility that goes with it - please just think about this. Even a well-developed embryo has no responsibilities. In fact, a new-born baby has no responsibilities. Certainly, if the mother doesn't wish to terminate the pregnancy, she should do those things conducive to the health and well-being of the baby, but the mother is responsible.

To understand where I'm coming from, here's two questions:

1) What does a collection of DNA want to do?
2) What does a collection of DNA want the right to do?

Q. 2 is absurd, of course.

Can DNA (actually, the process is more complex than that - it's cell division, and when cells divide, they divide equally, except for the little package of DNA which is replicated in one cell and passed to the other, but that's by the by) grasp the concept of rights? No. Can it do anything for itself, other than form an embryo? No. Rights are for doing things, not being, nor having things done for you. Rights are ideas, and I doubt very much that embryos have such complex ideas. Even new-borns are more interested in food.

So, look after yourself and your embryo if you want to have a happy healthy baby, but it doesn't have rights, even if you want it to.

I want this to be the last thing on the subject of rights I say for a loooong time! :ilol:
 

SugarPixie

unforgoatable
I guess i was interpreting the question in an abortion context - I think I could probably not justify to myself to have an abortion on myself because for me it is living as soon as it is a unique full set of DNA. I guess I would give it rights because I would see the bunch of DNA not as just what it is in the present, but also what it has the potential to become.

I'm gonna push it a little and say.. what rights does someone in a coma have? They are not aware whether they have rights either, and, like a foetus they have the potential to become a concious person.
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
SugarPixie said:
I guess i was interpreting the question in an abortion context - I think I could probably not justify to myself to have an abortion on myself because for me it is living as soon as it is a unique full set of DNA. I guess I would give it rights because I would see the bunch of DNA not as just what it is in the present, but also what it has the potential to become.

I'm gonna push it a little and say.. what rights does someone in a coma have? They are not aware whether they have rights either, and, like a foetus they have the potential to become a concious person.
Your question about the coma perso is a good one, but before looking at that - after all, it's a bit early in the thread for tangents :Wink3: - you say you guess you would give rights to the DNA/embryo. What rights would you give it?
 

SugarPixie

unforgoatable
Well, the right to be alive. There's not much else right-wise that applies really..

Right to food - umbilical cords and all that... Right to education - doesn't really apply when you have no brain as such. Right to freedom of speech - ..! Right to a fair trial ... err..

I can't think of any other rights that a bunch of DNA would have other than the right to be alive, and I personally would say that whether the bunch of DNA has even that right depends on who's parasite it is.
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
If, through no fault of anybody, the pregnancy miscarried, then how could that right be said to have worked? Surely you can only say that you'll do your best to ensure the potential baby's survival? That's good, but it's not the same as granting a right. A right is for doing things, not just being. Rights invariably come with responsibilities. Embryos don't have responsibilities.
 

SugarPixie

unforgoatable
what about children? When I was 4 I am pretty sure I had no responsabilities other than to tidy my bedroom once a week. What are the rights of a child?

The only right I'm really granting this hypothetical unborn child is the right to be alive; for me that would mean taking care of my body by not smoking, or drinking, eating sensably all that stuff.. If it miscarries then so be it. Maybe the responsability of the unborn baby is to live and its right is the right to life? I think I'm getting a bit silly here, I should probably go to bed..

edit: maybe the only right I am giving it is the right to have maybe be a real person at some point..
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
Sugarpixie, the "right" to be alive is not really a right at all, not even for adults - if it were, then how come we all die at some point? Nature decrees that every living thing dies, so the right to be alive is unnatural - as funny as that may sound!

The embryo/DNA is in your tummy - so you look after it. That's all. You're right, children don't have responsibilities. We don't give them the right to drive because they wouldn't be responsible road users. We don't give them the right to vote because they'd be more interested in colouring in the voting slip! This is why we have age limits on things - the age limit may not reflect the individual person's ability to be responsible, but at least it goes across the board.
 

redpoppy

Senior Member
This is one of those questions that sends me crazy.

I know what i think on most things and i know my morality but its such a difficult choice.

A child does not know or undertsand the concept of rights, but a child still has inalienable ones, so i think that argument is irrelevent.

Its just one of those things where humanity and moderation should be used surely.

I mean there are casese where women are forced to go through with pregnancies which ruin their lives. That particular case of arape victim comes to mind. and also the horrible prospect of women being outcast or having to cope with illegal abortions. GRIM!

Then there are women who JUST don't f*cking learn. LEARN!!! you idiot braindead wh*res! learn!
Don't be all "whoops I've done it again".

In those "oh yeah, i was really horny and this is my third abortion" cases i really believe the unborn child should have more rights than the stupid mother. NOt that the child should be born to such an idiot, but yeah. if there was some magic spell...

And then there are the people who abort Ridculously late. (the system doesn't help in this either, making abortions very difficult in some cases) If you dont want a child you shuld KNOW unless there are EXTREME mitigating circumstance.

and lastly there is the philisophical question as to whether it is really immoral or not. Again i think intention, humanity, moderation and reason should lead the debate.

however if we all die and God wakes us all up and tells us all that it was OBVIOUSLY murder all along, then we're all buggered. :ibiggrin: except thsoe crazies who knew all along.
 
Top