Abortion

[sammy neuman]

@Danoff said: "In otherwords... "because a pig is not human and a human is". Ok, why do humans get rights at all? How about nobody has rights? You're hanging the important concept of human rights on something totally arbitrary - what species you are. You've now made an argument that all killing should be allowed (not just dead fetuses).

As the statement "How about nobody has rights" is not included in my point of view, I have made no argument such as you claim above. "How about nobody has rights?" is a point of view introduced by you, so the argument that "all killing should be allowed" is made by you, and nowhere have I made the statement that abortion should be limited to "dead fetuses". That is an assumption made by you.

"Nobody has any rights" is the argument I expected to see from you. From this point of view, any notion that we have "rights" originates in our minds, and has no independent existence. Therefore a "right" is limited only to those that agree with that viewpoint, and that group can choose how it is applied and change it whenever they desire to do so, and no-one else need honor it. This is the argument that allows unlimited killing.

This line of reasoning is uncomfortable for me to follow. Fortunately it represents a point of view. I don't have to accept it. As for where rights come from other than our brains, any answer would be subjective and un-verifiable.

 

[Famine]

As the statement "How about nobody has rights" is not included in my point of view, I have made no argument such as you claim above.

He's asking you a question, not making a claim on your position. That's why it has a question mark.

"How about nobody has rights?" is a point of view introduced by you, so the argument that "all killing should be allowed" is made by you

He hasn't made that argument. In fact he's made almost exactly the opposite argument.

"Nobody has any rights" is the argument I expected to see from you.

Then you're not reading closely enough. Danoff's position can best be described, almost always, as "People who can understand rights have rights", with rights given to some who can't - young children - out of convenience.

The question is why humans have rights and pigs don't. You dodged it before. Perhaps if you make an effort to answer it you won't be making the claims you have made above.

 

[Danoff]

As the statement "How about nobody has rights" is not included in my point of view, I have made no argument such as you claim above.

You come really close. By making the argument that humans have rights because they're human, and pigs don't have rights because they're not human, you're basically saying that rights are arbitrary and pointless. You need a better basis for rights than "because human". Luckily there is one.

 

[sammy neuman]

You come really close. By making the argument that humans have rights because they're human, and pigs don't have rights because they're not human, you're basically saying that rights are arbitrary and pointless. You need a better basis for rights than "because human". Luckily there is one.

I think that rights are neither arbitrary nor pointless. "Nobody has any rights" was literally "the argument I expected to see from you", you surprised me with the pigs. And if there is an answer better than "we made them up" that is not subjective, I will be glad to hear it. I have answers, but they are subjective. By the way, concerning what follows, I know you used the term "self-awareness" in the Human Rights thread. Has that changed?

Danoff's position can best be described, almost always, as "People who can understand rights have rights", with rights given to some who can't - young children - out of convenience

The question is why humans have rights and pigs don't. You dodged it before. Perhaps if you make an effort to answer it you won't be making the claims you have made above.

To paraphrase the first part: "If you can't understand rights you don't have them, but we'll give you some if we want to". If that isn't arbitrary, what is? Who or what defines "understand"?

As for the second part: I answered the question as originally phrased exactly. If you have just tuned-in we are discussing the meaning of that answer

 

[Danoff]

I think that rights are neither arbitrary nor pointless. "Nobody has any rights" was literally "the argument I expected to see from you", you surprised me with the pigs. And if there is an answer better than "we made them up" that is not subjective. I will be glad to hear it.

You don't think that answer is arbitrary, pointless, and renders human rights meaningless? Rights stem from logic, but that discussion is for a different thread.

You need to understand simple concepts like existence and perception - things we begin to understand in our first year of life - before you can understand the basis for observing the rights of others. Even to very young children the ideas come easily and logically. Rights are all about comprehension. If you violate the rights of others, or your brain stops working, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension. Pigs don't have rights because they can't observe the rights of others. If they could, they'd have rights.

 

[sammy neuman]

You don't think that answer is arbitrary, pointless, and renders human rights meaningless? Rights stem from logic, but that discussion is for a different thread.

You need to understand simple concepts like existence and perception - things we begin to understand in our first year of life - before you can understand the basis for observing the rights of others. Even to very young children the ideas come easily and logically. Rights are all about comprehension. If you violate the rights of others, or your brain stops working, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension.

I have five children. They all grasped the concept of rights very quickly ("stop that, I don't like it! Mommeeee!"), but the concept that others also have rights has to be learned, and some grasp it more quickly than others. As self-awareness develops, so does selfishness.

I understand what you are saying. Rights are self-evident. But I could say it as 'something which stems from selfishness and can be developed by education is self-evident'. To avoid arbitrary, pointless, and meaningless rights, it is necessary to either 1) invoke a higher authority ("endowed by their Creator") or 2) a Platonic Ideal sort of concept, where the Ideal Rights exist, even though we cannot see, hear, feel, or detect Them with a Geiger Counter, but we know they are there because we know they are there (self-evident). The US Declaration of Independence does both. Both choices seem subjective to me, but as I can accept the first choice, I can also accept the second choice as the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Pigs don't have rights because they can't observe the rights of others. If they could, they'd have rights.

True from your viewpoint, but we might kill them anyway. I prefer: Pigs have no rights because we don't want them to. We kill them.

Our points of view are different, and this could go on forever. If you want to have the last word, fire away.

 

[Imari]

True from your viewpoint, but we might kill them anyway. I prefer: Pigs have no rights because we don't want them to. We kill them.

If you go to war with a country, do the soldiers on the other side have rights? Do the soldiers on your side have rights?

 

[Danoff]

I have five children. They all grasped the concept of rights very quickly ("stop that, I don't like it! Mommeeee!"), but the concept that others also have rights has to be learned, and some grasp it more quickly than others. As self-awareness develops, so does selfishness.

...and they don't get a full compliment of rights until they reach age 21 in the US. They can understand enough to observe some of the rights of others at an extremely early age. Even beyond that, they can understand why rights are important at a yet earlier age. And that's a key milestone.

I understand what you are saying. Rights are self-evident. But I could say it as 'something which stems from selfishness and can be developed by education is self-evident'. To avoid arbitrary, pointless, and meaningless rights, it is necessary to either 1) invoke a higher authority ("endowed by their Creator") or 2) a Platonic Ideal sort of concept, where the Ideal Rights exist, even though we cannot see, hear, feel, or detect Them with a Geiger Counter, but we know they are there because we know they are there (self-evident). The US Declaration of Independence does both. Both choices seem subjective to me, but as I can accept the first choice, I can also accept the second choice as the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Neither.

Rights exist because logic exists. They are entirely derivable from logic alone, despite the fact that they cannot be detected with a Geiger counter.

True from your viewpoint, but we might kill them anyway.

...and we might kill people anyway. The logical consequence is that we lose our rights when we do that.

I prefer: Pigs have no rights because we don't want them to. We kill them.

What about Jews?

Our points of view are different, and this could go on forever. If you want to have the last word, fire away.

Our points of view are different, but this cannot go on forever. Since rights exist in logic, there is no real debate.

 

[sammy neuman]

If you go to war with a country, do the soldiers on the other side have rights? Do the soldiers on your side have rights?

We're going way off thread, and I'm not going to be able to devote much time to this for a while. From my point of view, war does not respect rights in the first place.
I volunteered for the US Navy. When I was sworn in, I surrendered my right to not be killed for the duration of my enlistment.

 

[Danoff]

We're going way off thread, and I'm not going to be able to devote much time to this for a while. From my point of view, war does not respect rights in the first place.
I volunteered for the US Navy. When I was sworn in, I surrendered my right to not be killed for the duration of my enlistment.

No you didn't. Please explain.

 

[Imari]

We're going way off thread, and I'm not going to be able to devote much time to this for a while. From my point of view, war does not respect rights in the first place.
I volunteered for the US Navy. When I was sworn in, I surrendered my right to not be killed for the duration of my enlistment.

Does that mean that anyone can kill you without repercussion?

An enemy soldier debatably can, provided you're in a war zone and a bunch of other conditions. I think you'd find it hard to argue that you surrendered your right to life entirely for the duration of your enlistment. You still have an expectation that you not be killed by your comrades or other citizens of your country, for example.

It's not very far off topic, either. Recognising what rights people have and when they get them is pretty central to the whole discussion, it's just that we're discussing it using other examples than a baby and a mother. Nothing wrong with that, if anything it helps to clarify the discussion by removing the "dawww, it's a baby!" element.

 

[Danoff]

I think you'd find it hard to argue that you surrendered your right to life entirely for the duration of your enlistment.

I think he'll find it hard to argue that he surrendered his right to life at all during his enlistment. Nobody was suddenly able to kill him without committing murder. Not the Navy, and not anyone else's Navy. Unless his swearing in ceremony involved murdering an innocent person, it didn't happen.

 

[sammy neuman]

I think he'll find it hard to argue that he surrendered his right to life at all during his enlistment. Nobody was suddenly able to kill him without committing murder. Not the Navy, and not anyone else's Navy. Unless his swearing in ceremony involved murdering an innocent person, it didn't happen.

Hi. I would argue no such thing. I was not sufficiently clear. I accepted the possibility that I would be killed in the line of duty as a condition of my enlistment.

 

[Danoff]

Hi. I would argue no such thing. I was not sufficiently clear. I accepted the possibility that I would be killed in the line of duty as a condition of my enlistment.

Agreed. And thank you for your service to this country.

I know it makes me seem like an ass, but this sort of thing is really important to be clear on when talking about rights. The term is used somewhat colloquially and it leads to a lot of confusion on the subject. It reminds me a bit of the use of the word "theory" in the evolution thread.

 

[Sick Lenny]

Rights exist because logic exists. They are entirely derivable from logic alone, despite the fact that they cannot be detected with a Geiger counter.

Not being thick here or even playing antagonist here, but I wonder if you could give me a sample of logic-derived rights (that is, show me the derivation process from logic)? I am genuinely interested in this explanation as I have never heard this before (and if you have already done so in this thread my apologies for not getting up to speed through all the pages). I have always understood rights as more of a (human) social contract, in that a group agrees to a set of these because they find it mutually beneficial (you don't kill me, I won't kill you, we both win). Not much different than laws, except that they are so strongly agreed upon by the group that it is deemed the untouchable status of a "right" (or if you look at it another way, the axioms of sorts from which a society is built). They are very human centered, as the rest of the universe/nature has no concern about when we should and shouldn't do things to each other.

 

[Famine]

Not being thick here or even playing antagonist here, but I wonder if you could give me a sample of logic-derived rights (that is, show me the derivation process from logic)? I am genuinely interested in this explanation as I have never heard this before (and if you have already done so in this thread my apologies for not getting up to speed through all the pages). I have always understood rights as more of a (human) social contract, in that a group agrees to a set of these because they find it mutually beneficial (you don't kill me, I won't kill you, we both win). Not much different than laws, except that they are so strongly agreed upon by the group that it is deemed the untouchable status of a "right" (or if you look at it another way, the axioms of sorts from which a society is built). They are very human centered, as the rest of the universe/nature has no concern about when we should and shouldn't do things to each other.

Human Rights thread - 55 pages to occupy a day or two

 

[Danoff]

Not being thick here or even playing antagonist here, but I wonder if you could give me a sample of logic-derived rights (that is, show me the derivation process from logic)? I am genuinely interested in this explanation as I have never heard this before (and if you have already done so in this thread my apologies for not getting up to speed through all the pages). I have always understood rights as more of a (human) social contract, in that a group agrees to a set of these because they find it mutually beneficial (you don't kill me, I won't kill you, we both win). Not much different than laws, except that they are so strongly agreed upon by the group that it is deemed the untouchable status of a "right" (or if you look at it another way, the axioms of sorts from which a society is built). They are very human centered, as the rest of the universe/nature has no concern about when we should and shouldn't do things to each other.

The human rights thread above is a great place to start. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this concept, it goes against the prevailing opinion. The toughest part to wrap your head around when it comes to rights and logic is that rights aren't any sort of universal force or protection. The universe really doesn't care what we do to each other. All rights do is inform as to the category of an action - namely whether it is rooted in a subjective value system. What we do with that information is up to us, and our actions can be understood within that same framework.

 

[Sick Lenny]

Human Rights thread - 55 pages to occupy a day or two

Ah, OK. I think I found the relevant part, and I have to say that I am in agreement with @TenEightyOne on this one. Rights, much less human rights, don't exist outside of a social construct between beings that can comprehend such ideas, they are only "logical" in that context.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make in this thread was to point out that many are hung up on medical/biological reasoning to determine when the suitable cutoff point for determining a fetus's rights which I find rather arbitrary. I fail to see the connection with biological viability to rights. We already have laws that contradict that argument as others have already posted. This question is a moral/ethical one at it's core, because as has been shown here there is never going to be a definitive point at which all agree that (biologically/medically) that blob of cells is now a "viable" human (should we have any desire to use that as the yardstick). The (continuing) advances of medical science and it's ability to keep a fetus/preemie alive outside it's "natural" growing environment muddy these waters, and leads inevitably to complications of cost/availability/class-ism.

We don't endow human rights (or protectionist laws) based on ones ability to self-sustain or comprehend the rights of others. We do just the opposite. We create MORE laws to protect those who are vulnerable (understanding there are those who disagree with this practice), including to non-humans, demonstrating our scope of intent (as a majority) determining what has rights to life. So, as a former pro-choice person (and a non-religious, science and logic educated adult of forty plus years on this rock), I have come to the current state of mind that in following this moral/ethical precedent, a fetus should be legally protected from conception. It is a growing human, that needs it's protection until it can care for itself, no different than minors who have all kinds of special laws protecting them as they are not finished developing yet until (we have currently deemed as a society) about 18 years. It may not be a physically self-sustaining, but as others have pointed out, neither are born children up to their first couple years. Left to their own devices, they would likely die. To me, the key difference is that the process has begun. The cells (if protected and cared for) will eventually become a born human (barring natural causes of termination). Lonely sperms and eggs, no matter how long you wait, and as silly/obvious as this statement sounds, are not going to do this.

To me this is the best logical place I see to draw the line. I have no problem with the rape exception, as that is, of course, a forced situation and brings in other significant issues to be considered. I also think part of this turnabout has to do with to my old fogeyness setting in (get off my lawn), as I would prefer a world where we take personal accountability in higher regard (with all things).

Edit:

The human rights thread above is a great place to start. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this concept, it goes against the prevailing opinion. The toughest part to wrap your head around when it comes to rights and logic is that rights aren't any sort of universal force or protection. The universe really doesn't care what we do to each other. All rights do is inform as to the category of an action - namely whether it is rooted in a subjective value system. What we do with that information is up to us, and our actions can be understood within that same framework.

Ironically, the toughest part for me to wrap my head around is what your point is, where you stand. I have read through a good chunk of both is and that thread and it seems that you are all over the place at times, and not very direct at explaining your point. I do not intend to insult you by saying that, just making an observation which obviously could just be my problem. It reminds me of my communication gulf with my wife, as there are times where the way she talks and explains things just doesn't make sense/logic in any way I have experienced (and she feels the exact same way about me incidentally).

Anyway, I would love to be part of these discussions, but obviously as a late-comer (by many years) to the party, I feel that my getting up to speed in more of a road block for many as yourself who have no doubt gone round till blue in the face about these things. But if it is any consolation, I am one for intelligent (logical) discussion of all ideas and find nothing taboo, you will not find me blindly clinging to any preconceived world view. I love to be challenged and presented with new ideas, which is why your statement sparked my curiosity.

 

[Famine]

To me this is the best logical place I see to draw the line. I have no problem with the rape exception, as that is, of course, a forced situation and brings in other significant issues to be considered.

Interesting.

A summation of this position would be:
Women become a lower class of person if they are pregnant, stripping them of normal rights (or 'protections under law'), unless they already had their rights (or 'protections under law') violated.

It would also suggest that if rape was acceptable under the "social construct" - and indeed it is in some societies - you'd be fine with abortion being illegal across the board.


It's fun that society can violate women at whim because there's no such thing as rights.

 

[KSaiyu]

The problem is it's inherently unequal in favour of the woman. The woman alone can decide if the foetus is a "baby" or not solely based on if it's wanted or not. We then treat the foetus as a quasi human, providing the best possible care and only violating it's right to life if the mother is in danger or she changes her mind.

Surely in a truly equal society the man would have recourse to disown the foetus before it is born, effectively creating an abortion on his responsibilities to the future child.

 

[Sick Lenny]

Interesting.

A summation of this position would be:
Women become a lower class of person if they are pregnant, stripping them of normal rights (or 'protections under law'), unless they already had their rights (or 'protections under law') violated.

It would also suggest that if rape was acceptable under the "social construct" - and indeed it is in some societies - you'd be fine with abortion being illegal across the board.


It's fun that society can violate women at whim because there's no such thing as rights.

You know we can always count on you to try to find the weak spot in anyone's argument! 👍

I didn't say women become a lower class if they are pregnant, although that is obviously what my statement means to you. This is the crux of the debate, isn't it? Who has more rights, the woman or the fetus? I used to believe like you, but now I don't. The woman made a choice, whether she intended to get pregnant or not, that is the personal accountability part. Does it suck that women have to bear the burden of pregnancy, and men do not? Of course. This is the way it is though, for better or worse. The woman (except in rape) still had a choice and still must accept the consequences, as now there is a life growing inside her. So now who is being violated, the life that did not choose to be created inside of her, or the woman who did make a conscious choice, fully aware of the consequences? I also realize this gets back to the other major block, which is the determination point of the fetus deserving human rights protection. As you can see, by my OWN logic of where that point is, we are choosing protecting a life over whatever violation a woman feels over carrying a pregnancy to term. I realize nothing I am saying is new, all arguments that have been made ad nauseam since this debate began eons ago, which just puts us in circles again. You are of the group that believes this is part of a woman's body (which I used to believe) more than an individual that deserves rights until it reaches some magical point. When I finally looked at what the criteria for that magical point is, I find nothing logically concrete except conception.

Your last two statements are strawmen, as I am saying no such thing. What other societies believe has no bearing on what I believe, not sure why you would make such an argument. My belief is that rape is a forced act, therefore not okay, so no matter what anyone else says or thinks is not going change that. So no, I would not be fine with abortion being illegal in that case.

Believing rights are a social construct is not saying they are not real or have no bearing. It is only saying that they are only as real as the society that believes in them. They are not an axiom of nature, only society.

I understand where you are coming from though, as I can see where one could feel that without some proof/logic to the idea of basic human rights, we are saying (as you are accusing me of) that rights are arbitrary and that therefore justifies violating them, after all, they are not "real". But I don't agree with that either. We have come to this point in society because we can (big brains) and have learned/enlightened ourselves from the past to see these rights as something good.

Edit: I guess in a nutshell, what I am getting from what is being said by Famine and Danoff, is that we have a conscience/ability for empathy, so therefore human rights are automatic. I think it is more like because we have that ability, we can see (contrary to our primal urges) that they are something we want to be universal, and must work on humankind to think alike.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, OK. I think I found the relevant part, and I have to say that I am in agreement with @TenEightyOne on this one. Rights, much less human rights, don't exist outside of a social construct between beings that can comprehend such ideas, they are only "logical" in that context.

Logic exists outside of comprehension. For example, "B" logically follows from the premises "A" and "if A then B". Nobody needs to exist in the universe for that to be the case. So if rights exist in logic (and they do), then rights exist independent of observation or comprehension.

We don't endow human rights

...at all.

(or protectionist laws) based on ones ability to self-sustain or comprehend the rights of others. We do just the opposite. We create MORE laws to protect those who are vulnerable (understanding there are those who disagree with this practice)

Rights are not the same as protections. Rights are logical freedom from force. Children do not have the same rights that adults enjoy. You don't have all rights unless you're a high functioning adult human. Laws "protecting" the vulnerable which are done at the expense of free adults are violations of rights. Laws "protecting" the vulnerable from themselves (like a law saying that children can't buy alcohol) are not MORE rights, but less.

So, as a former pro-choice person (and a non-religious, science and logic educated adult of forty plus years on this rock), I have come to the current state of mind that in following this moral/ethical precedent, a fetus should be legally protected from conception. It is a growing human, that needs it's protection until it can care for itself, no different than minors who have all kinds of special laws protecting them as they are not finished developing yet until (we have currently deemed as a society) about 18 years.

Minors do not have special laws protecting them that violate the rights of the adults around them. You might be mistakenly thinking of child neglect/abuse laws that compel guardians to feed, clothe, and educate those who they are guardians of, but guardianship is a voluntary role assumed by an adult, not an infringement upon their rights. Your whole line of reasoning here is unfounded and somewhat arbitrary.

To me, the key difference is that the process has begun.

The process has begun the moment the parents look into each others eyes. The key point is not what the process is, but what it is currently that we are discussing and whether that thing has rights.

Lonely sperms and eggs, no matter how long you wait, and as silly/obvious as this statement sounds, are not going to do this.

Unless they're in the same petri dish

Ironically, the toughest part for me to wrap my head around is what your point is, where you stand.

Feel free to ask specific questions, either here or in the rights thread. I'm around, and I make time for discussion like this one.

I have read through a good chunk of both is and that thread and it seems that you are all over the place at times, and not very direct at explaining your point.

I've been very consistent over the 10+ years I've been posting here, and very accurate at explaining my point, sometimes I choose accuracy over ease of understanding. Keep in mind though, that if you dig up an ancient post of mine, that time does change the way people communicate.

Anyway, I would love to be part of these discussions, but obviously as a late-comer (by many years) to the party, I feel that my getting up to speed in more of a road block for many as yourself who have no doubt gone round till blue in the face about these things. But if it is any consolation, I am one for intelligent (logical) discussion of all ideas and find nothing taboo, you will not find me blindly clinging to any preconceived world view. I love to be challenged and presented with new ideas, which is why your statement sparked my curiosity.

Yours is one of the most interesting pro-life positions to come along in a long time. Yes, several of us here at GTPlanet have been around this topic more times than we can count. But time goes by and we build up the energy for another round.

Edit: I guess in a nutshell, what I am getting from what is being said by Famine and Danoff, is that we have a conscience/ability for empathy, so therefore human rights are automatic.

That's not really representative of my position at all.

 

[Sick Lenny]

Minors do not have special laws protecting them that violate the rights of the adults around them. You might be mistakenly thinking of child neglect/abuse laws that compel guardians to feed, clothe, and educate those who they are guardians of, but guardianship is a voluntary role assumed by an adult, not an infringement upon their rights. Your whole line of reasoning here is unfounded and somewhat arbitrary.

Well, I am thinking of laws like statutory rape. They are to protect (whom we deem to be) children as they are not mature enough to reasonably consent. There are other laws that seek the same protection from adults who would take advantage of those who don't have what we deem proper maturity to legally consent.

That's not really representative of my position at all.

My apologies then, I guess I have more thread reading to do to understand what exactly it is.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I am thinking of laws like statutory rape. They are to protect (whom we deem to be) children as they are not mature enough to reasonably consent. There are other laws that seek the same protection from adults who would take advantage of those who don't have what we deem proper maturity to legally consent.

Statutory rape laws exist because children do not have the right to consent. That's a lack of rights for children.

My apologies then, I guess I have more thread reading to do to understand what exactly it is.

Or you can ask.

 

[Sick Lenny]

Statutory rape laws exist because children do not have the right to consent. That's a lack of rights for children.

Which does not contradict my point, only provides a different (and unrelated) way to express it. The law(s) are what are saying the children do not have the right to consent, it is not a universal truth that just exists and the laws are created to reflect that (which is how you seem to be expressing it). The laws are there because eventually the majority of society decided that this is an important enough thing that we need to make laws to enforce this belief.

You can say this is a lack of rights for kids, which is true, but it is still there to protect them, which is my point. We do lots of things to protect life in all it's forms, including non-human. So why not an embryo? We even go to great lengths to protect the not yet conceived non humans, a la conservation of endangered species, or even general wildlife management. So why not the unborn human? Is it a practicality thing (no shortage of humans, vs the world is running out of Black Rhinos?) Mind you, I have no delusions that all life is precious. I even believe the Earth could do with quite a few less humans, but my argument comes from being consistent with morals/values of the society (many of us) live in.

Or you can ask.

Which is what i did in my opening post to this thread, but both you and Famine directed me to do the reading/research myself so I am obliging.

 

[Danoff]

Which does not contradict my point, only provides a different (and unrelated) way to express it. The law(s) are what are saying the children do not have the right to consent, it is not a universal truth that just exists and the laws are created to reflect that (which is how you seem to be expressing it).

It is a universal truth that children cannot consent. What's not universal is the particular implementation of it. 16 years old, 18 years old, that's arbitrary law. The principle is not.

The laws are there because eventually the majority of society decided that this is an important enough thing that we need to make laws to enforce this belief.

That may be true but it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You can say this is a lack of rights for kids, which is true, but it is still there to protect them, which is my point.

It's there as a logical consequence of their development, which is my point.

We do lots of things to protect life in all it's forms, including non-human. So why not an embryo?

Because it violates the rights of an adult human? Because embryos have no logical reason to have rights? Much of what we do to protect life in all of its forms is voluntary and has nothing to do with rights. Mothers may aggressively protect their embryos, even risking their own life, that doesn't inform a discussion about rights.

a la conservation of endangered species, or even general wildlife management.

That's a violation of rights, not massive one, but one none-the-less. If there's an endangered species on my land, no one has a right to tell me I can't shoot it.

So why not the unborn human? Is it a practicality thing (no shortage of humans, vs the world is running out of Black Rhinos?)

The utilitarian viewpoint lacks all moral consideration.

Mind you, I have no delusions that all life is precious. I even believe the Earth could do with quite a few less humans, but my argument comes from being consistent with morals/values of the society (many of us) live in.

The only morals anyone must to concern themselves with is human rights. Social customs have led to some amazing historical human rights atrocities.

Which is what i did in my opening post to this thread, but both you and Famine directed me to do the reading/research myself so I am obliging.

Acknowledged. You said you've read through it, so now we discuss.

 

[LeMansAid]

It may well have been chewed over already, and maybe repeatedly, but if the right to abort is tied to the right to one's own body, what is the deal with surrogate pregnancy? Is the right still with the carrier? Or does some or all of the right sit with the parents?

I can't imagine that there would be many if any cases where one party or the other would end up wanting to terminate, but the question intrigues me none the less. Maybe one or both in the couple lose their job(s), and won't be able to afford to have a child. Pretty brutal on the carrier. Maybe the carrier gets really sick and just can't cope. Pretty brutal for the parents.

 

[Danoff]

It may well have been chewed over already, and maybe repeatedly, but if the right to abort is tied to the right to one's own body, what is the deal with surrogate pregnancy? Is the right still with the carrier? Or does some or all of the right sit with the parents?

I can't imagine that there would be many if any cases where one party or the other would end up wanting to terminate, but the question intrigues me none the less. Maybe one or both in the couple lose their job(s), and won't be able to afford to have a child. Pretty brutal on the carrier. Maybe the carrier gets really sick and just can't cope. Pretty brutal for the parents.

Contract.

 

[KSaiyu]

Contract.

In the absence of one? Or do surrogacies always require a contract.

 

[Danoff]

In the absence of one? Or do surrogacies always require a contract.

In the absence of one it's not a surrogacy, it's just a pregnancy. Surrogacy requires a contract before the embryo is even created to establish whose child it is and what happens during the pregnancy. Surrogates have all kinds of restrictions on diet, exercise, work, doctor's visits, tests. They also spell out clearly under what circumstances selective reduction is allowed (usually I think 3 or more). It's quite detailed.