Human Rights

[TexRex]

Is it possible to re-word this? Who is the "subset of the population subject to the enforcement of the state"?

Those who voted to elect a representative to pass laws to be enforced by the state. Laws enforced by the state ostensibly affect the entire population, but only a subset of those affected by the enforcement of laws are likely to have voted to elect a representative in this form of governance (subject to eligibility to vote and the specific circumstances of an election), and within a representative democracy, representatives ostensibly impose the will of those who voted to elect them upon the broader population.

Do those who vote to elect a representative not affect the violation of rights? Absent the votes to elect, a representative may not vote on legislation that violates rights, and absent that vote on legislation, a law directed at violation of rights may not be imposed.

Taking America as an example, from your previous posts it appears you hold the executive as most responsible. What is the democratic process of changing the executive?

The implication here seems to be that the only legitimate remedy for rights violations by the executive (if the executive is indeed most responsible, though it isn't so apparent to me that this is the case) is to vote such an actor out of office. Would the absence of an opportunity and/or failure to do so constitute exhaustion?

To me, if the 3 month old doesn't have a right to life, the morally just thing in a legal respect would be to notch it down as a careless mistake and nothing more.

Does one not have a right to life?

Imagine this scenario:

Why?

 

[Danoff]

Imagine this scenario:

There's a building on fire and there are three lives at stake. One is a full term newborn, another an adult mouse and the last an infirm, elderly person with advanced dementia.

You can only rescue one of them at a time.

What order do you rescue them in?

It's entirely personal preference. Even if you can determine that one of them has rights, they do not have a right to be saved by you.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Those who voted to elect a representative to pass laws to be enforced by the state. Laws enforced by the state ostensibly affect the entire population, but only a subset of those affected by the enforcement of laws are likely to have voted to elect a representative in this form of governance (subject to eligibility to vote and the specific circumstances of an election), and within a representative democracy, representatives ostensibly impose the will of those who voted to elect them upon the broader population.

Do those who vote to elect a representative not affect the violation of rights? Absent the votes to elect, a representative may not vote on legislation that violates rights, and absent that vote on legislation, a law directed at violation of rights may not be imposed.

Can such a direct link be created with such individuals? Rather, a link so concrete that it warrants physical harm as retaliation. Which begs the question - what would be the purpose of attacking that subset of the population? Is it lashing out because of their involvement in the deprivation of rights, or is it to bring about change. This is important as it's questionable if this is morally justifiable (and usually not as questionable, legally speaking)

The implication here seems to be that the only legitimate remedy for rights violations by the executive (if the executive is indeed most responsible, though it isn't so apparent to me that this is the case) is to vote such an actor out of office. Would the absence of an opportunity and/or failure to do so constitute exhaustion?

I don't know if it's limited to that.

Just thinking of an example, America puts a premium on its economy. What if those who feel aggrieved by the executive refused to contribute positevly to it, or took steps to actively harm it.

Does one not have a right to life?

I believe it has a right to life, so the punishment is appropriate. Do you disagree?

Why?

I think you're far too intelligent to respond in that way.

It's entirely personal preference. Even if you can determine that one of them has rights, they do not have a right to be saved by you.

What would be your personal preference?

 

[Danoff]

What would be your personal preference?

Again I have to ask why this line of questioning furthers the discussion. I think most people would choose the infant. We're biologically programmed to prefer the infant.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Again I have to ask why this line of questioning furthers the discussion. I think most people would choose the infant. We're biologically programmed to prefer the infant.

Goes to my point on the innate value of a human life.

I agree with you in that most would probably pick the infant first, and that it is human nature. This nature should be factored in when deciding who has a right to life, because of the much stronger association with bioethics it has in comparison to other rights.

This may seem like a woolly presupposition, but consider how you responded to using human foetuses as experimental subjects. Also, why should the law treat the death of an infant as a regulatory infraction at all? If we can terminate late stage pregnancies, should we similarly allow people to cause the demise of anyone up to the "cognitive threshold" by those responsible for their care?

 

[Danoff]

This nature should be factored in when deciding who has a right to life, because of the much stronger association with bioethics it has in comparison to other rights.

No. Our biological predispositions do not weigh on human rights. Otherwise I think rape would be legal in many places*, and murder of many kinds, and theft... basically there would be no rights. This is because our biological impulses come from natural selection, and natural selection has zero recognition of rights for others. Natural selection has curated some level of empathy, a concept of fairness, logic, and intelligence, each of which enable us to recognize human rights. But these are byproducts, not positively selected for. The only thing natural selection cares about is whether genes get propagated, and that is too often furthered by trampling rights.

You're not going to get anywhere in a discussion of rights by appealing to instinct.

This may seem like a woolly presupposition, but consider how you responded to using human foetuses as experimental subjects.

How?

Also, why should the law treat the death of an infant as a regulatory infraction at all? If we can terminate late stage pregnancies, should we similarly allow people to cause the demise of anyone up to the "cognitive threshold" by those responsible for their care?

Practicality (as I have explained many times before). We don't have a good understanding of when human beings cross various thresholds for rights. We're better at determining the other side of it, when someone demonstrates an inability. Because we're not good at it, and because birth is a "safe" place to draw the line from including beings that might have rights, it is a practical place to draw the line for a right to life. Any earlier and it is no longer practical because it protects an entity which clearly does not have rights over an entity which clearly (at least in almost all cases) does. There are edge cases that this "safe" line creates, such as the case you keep bringing up. Someone who kills their one month old who is incarcerated is potentially having their own rights violated. But it is exceedingly reasonable, for many reasons, to have such a person give up their one month old for adoption rather than killing them (or have it taken by the government). The same is true of a dog, or many other animals which may lack rights but which we may wish to treat respectfully from a regulatory standpoint.

*Indeed marital rape was legal in the US until the 1970s.

 

[TexRex]

Can such a direct link be created with such individuals?

"Created"? I don't know what that means.

The link is there. I think it may be difficult to determine if a particular individual has had a hand in the violation of rights, but such an individual who voted for a legislator involved in the passage of law that violates rights has no doubt played a role in the violation of rights.

Rather, a link so concrete that it warrants physical harm as retaliation.

It's not about retaliation. It never has been. If you're being violently sodomized without having given consent and you use force against one perpetrating said rights violation, because that's what it is, that force is defensive rather than retaliatory.

The criminal justice system ostensibly deals in retaliation for violation of rights, imposing ex post facto consequences and thereby affecting justice. Absent or apart from the involvement of such a system, retaliation is just vigilantism and vigilantism isn't just.

Which begs the question - what would be the purpose of attacking that subset of the population? Is it lashing out because of their involvement in the deprivation of rights, or is it to bring about change.

The purpose is to cease or dissuade the rights violation. Physical harm in the defense of oneself or another against a rights violation. It was my understanding that this has been established.

As rapists use force against those believed to be incapable of defending themselves--or who are believed to have no one capable of coming to their defense--against rights violations, so does the state at its behest or at the behest of those who desire rights violations by the state.

I don't know if it's limited to that.

Just thinking of an example, America puts a premium on its economy. What if those who feel aggrieved by the executive refused to contribute positevly to it, or took steps to actively harm it.

I can't wrap my head around this as a defensive act. Market force doesn't work so well against the state anyway unless there's a substantial link between private actors most affected by market force and the state.

I'm also trying to figure out how this works with the rape analogy, as rape and abortion prohibition violate the exact same fundamental human rights. So again you're being violently sodomized without having given consent and you...refuse to eat at your attacker's chip shop?

As I alluded to above, this kind of market force works better against private actors using personal wealth to lobby the state. Like the family that runs Chick-Fil-A supporting groups like Family Research Counsel that push an anti-LGBT agenda. But then I have it on good authority that such market force is actually cancel culture.



Funny (certainly not "haha" funny) thing about Family Research Council is that its lobbying arm, FRC Action, was headed up by convicted and currently incarcerated sex offender Josh Duggar, who is purported to have molested his sisters when he was a teenager and was more recently convicted on charges of possession of child sexual abuse materials. Mike "Good People Make Mistakes" Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and current sleeping pill pitcher who is known to have maintained a relationship with the Duggar family in Arkansas, ran a Chick-Fil-A support campaign...but he insists he never defended or supported Josh.

But I digress.

Apart from the use of market force to affect a withdrawal from rights violations by the state likely not having the same impact as use of physical force against those involved in perpetrating rights violations, use of market force is certainly more likely to affect those not involved in perpetrating rights violations. I don't think such a pressure campaign is necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't strike me as being particularly effective especially as a defensive act.

I believe it has a right to life, so the punishment is appropriate. Do you disagree?

I don't know what the punishment is. I have to confess that I didn't actually click your link as you've demonstrated a propensity to post links completely blind rather than making a substantive point yourself and I have better things to do than bearing burdens you're unwilling to bear yourself. Still, a punishment may be appropriate even as it may not constitute what I understand to be moral perfection.

I think you're far too intelligent to respond in that way.

[blushing] Aww, thanks.

I'd think you intelligent enough to understand that the scenario you presented isn't actually about morality, but then you've also demonstrated a propensity to engage in bad faith.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No. Our biological predispositions do not weigh on human rights. Otherwise I think rape would be legal in many places*, and murder of many kinds, and theft... basically there would be no rights. This is because our biological impulses come from natural selection, and natural selection has zero recognition of rights for others. Natural selection has curated some level of empathy, a concept of fairness, logic, and intelligence, each of which enable us to recognize human rights. But these are byproducts, not positively selected for. The only thing natural selection cares about is whether genes get propagated, and that is too often furthered by trampling rights.

The requirements to the right to life, if following your proposition, would be unethical.

The reason we don't have this legally is because of both practicality and bioethical standards.

How?

If these things are the same as mice, why shouldn't we treat them as such.

Someone who kills their one month old who is incarcerated is potentially having their own rights violated.

This is the practical and moral thing to do. The infant wasn't infringing on anyone else's rights since it was outside the body of another human. It deserved protection in a legal and moral sense.

It's not about retaliation. It never has been. If you're being violently sodomized without having given consent and you use force against one perpetrating said rights violation, because that's what it is, that force is defensive rather than retaliatory.

The criminal justice system ostensibly deals in retaliation for violation of rights, imposing ex post facto consequences and thereby affecting justice. Absent or apart from the involvement of such a system, retaliation is just vigilantism and vigilantism isn't just.

The purpose is to cease or dissuade the rights violation. Physical harm in the defense of oneself or another against a rights violation. It was my understanding that this has been established.

Then its effectiveness has to be weighed against its immediate, and not so immediate, consequences.

I can't wrap my head around this as a defensive act. Market force doesn't work so well against the state anyway unless there's a substantial link between private actors most affected by market force and the state.

I'm also trying to figure out how this works with the rape analogy, as rape and abortion prohibition violate the exact same fundamental human rights. So again you're being violently sodomized without having given consent and you...refuse to eat at your attacker's chip shop?

The difference is the separation between those responsible and the act, and the immediacy. As I said before, I'm not sure how much it warrants protection from violent consequences. Perhaps this is because of society's change in its views on violence over the years.

If we take slavery as an example, I don't see a problem with harming someone to instigate change. Arguably one of the most prominent "pro-lifers" on Twitter is Lila Rose. Even though she pushes for abortion to be illegal, and has been invited to the White House to speak under the Trump administration, I see a difference between the two scenarios. Perhaps my empathy is towards the wrong individual, and should instead focus more on those denied fundamental rights.

Do you think it's morally justified? (I know you've made the argument, but is it a personal opinion)

EDIT: After thinking about this more and running it through ChatGPT, I wonder if there would be grounds for the affected population to petition the UN to take action.

I'd think you intelligent enough to understand that the scenario you presented isn't actually about morality, but then you've also demonstrated a propensity to engage in bad faith.

It's a variation on the "do you save 10 embryos or a 5 year old" scenario, and was used to flesh out a point.

 

[Danoff]

The requirements to the right to life, if following your proposition, would be unethical.

I have no idea what this means.

The reason we don't have this legally is because of both practicality and bioethical standards.

In the US, husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until the 1970s. Are you saying this changed because of practicality and bioethical standards? I need you to elaboate.

If these things are the same as mice, why shouldn't we treat them as such.

You're conflating two things in this one sentence.

"If these things are the same as mice". You know they are not the same in all respects. The implied criteria here is "morally". "If these things are [morally] the same as mice". Would be closer to the mark. Now that we have established this criteria, let's move on to the second phrase within this setnence.

"Why shouldn't we treat them as such". This needs context. "Treat them" in what respect? It responds to me saying we might treat them differently due to instinct, biological wiring, or personal preference. None of that is a "moral" perspective. But to keep this phrase consistent with the previous, we must apply the context of morality. So "why shouldn't we treat them [morally] as such". As you can see, if you keep the context consistent across these two phrases, it no longer makes sense as a rebuttal to my previous comment.

It is important to not allow yourself to be tripped up by conversational sloppiness or sleight of hand such as this. If you allow this kind of mistake in your reasoning, we end up going around and around over nothing and the conversation does not progress. I'm happy to point it out a few times, but this kind of response is wearisome and boring. I don't like to spend the time on it.

This is the practical and moral thing to do. The infant wasn't infringing on anyone else's rights since it was outside the body of another human. It deserved protection in a legal and moral sense.

Being outside of the body of another human does not imply a lack of infringement of someone else's rights. It's not easy for me to say whether the infant was doing so, in part because infants cannot recognize or observe the rights of others in essentially all respects. They simply lack of the capacity. If an infant were to crawl onto someone else's property, they are trespassing. If an infant or toddler finds someone's gun and pull the trigger, they might even kill someone. Infants can and will completely ignore the rights of those around them, they'll stick a finger in your eye, poop on your floor, or send something expensive crashing to the ground.

There are many things that are outside of another human and behave (morally) like infants. We do not claim that most of those things deserve protection. We protect infants because we're not sure exactly when they cross the line into someone needing some protection. We know it happens, and we're not sure exactly when. We also don't really know when they'll be safe to drive, safe to emancipate themselves, safe to own a firearm, safe to vote. But we pragmatically draw lines all over childhood development and make guesswork. Sometimes we're wrong, and sometimes they never develop to that point. When that happens, we have to take correctional steps.

Edit:

The rigorous method of caring for infants would involve a contractual obligation of guardianship at birth. This sort of thing happens for adoption (not as cleanly as you might hope), but not so much for biological parents. It would make just as much sense for biological parents, and it might even clear up some moral confusion on the part of parents. When a child is born to you and you do not offer it for adoption, you are obliging yourself as its guardian. Guardianship comes with a large number of responsibilities on your part, not the least of which is not throwing the child into a wall and killing it. We should have parents literally sign a guardianship agreement when a child is born acknowledging those responsibilities instead of just assuming it. If the parent refuses, it's time to find someone who will take on this role.

Guardianship is voluntary, and it kicks the can of "rights" down the road until a clearer moment.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have no idea what this means.

From a moral perspective, the right should be given only to those who meet a certain cognitive "bar". At least that's what I infer.

What sort of things are you looking for in terms of this cognitive threshold? We could be in partial agreement as my opinion is a zygote isn't going to have a right to life even in an ectogenesis machine, but that a sufficiently gestated individual should have.

In the US, husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until the 1970s. Are you saying this changed because of practicality and bioethical standards? I need you to elaboate.

That changed (I presumed) because it violated another's rights.

We are talking about when the starting point of rights occurs.

"If these things are the same as mice". You know they are not the same in all respects. The implied criteria here is "morally". "If these things are [morally] the same as mice". Would be closer to the mark. Now that we have established this criteria, let's move on to the second phrase within this setnence.

"Why shouldn't we treat them as such". This needs context. "Treat them" in what respect? It responds to me saying we might treat them differently due to instinct, biological wiring, or personal preference. None of that is a "moral" perspective. But to keep this phrase consistent with the previous, we must apply the context of morality. So "why shouldn't we treat them [morally] as such". As you can see, if you keep the context consistent across these two phrases, it no longer makes sense as a rebuttal to my previous comment.

I think morality plays a part, which could be derived from biological instinct. I could be overestimating the importance of subjective morality.

Do you think it's immoral to treat a more developed human than a 2 week embryo as a lab mouse? When does it become immoral?

It is important to not allow yourself to be tripped up by conversational sloppiness or sleight of hand such as this. If you allow this kind of mistake in your reasoning, we end up going around and around over nothing and the conversation does not progress. I'm happy to point it out a few times, but this kind of response is wearisome and boring. I don't like to spend the time on it.

Duly noted.

Being outside of the body of another human does not imply a lack of infringement of someone else's rights.

Talking about the infringement that has a bearing on its right to life specifically - i.e. being physically attached to that person.

There are many things that are outside of another human and behave (morally) like infants. We do not claim that most of those things deserve protection. We protect infants because we're not sure exactly when they cross the line into someone needing some protection.

Should we not take capacity and potential into consideration? Is the fact that it's human immaterial? What about the principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, beneficience and non-maleficence?

 

[TexRex]

Then its effectiveness has to be weighed against its immediate, and not so immediate, consequences.

Why? That consequences may be imposed for an act does not make an act immoral. Morality is rooted in individual rights and the imposition of consequences frequently disregards individual rights.

The difference is the separation between those responsible and the act, and the immediacy.

Do you disagree with the notion that one who votes for a representative who in turn votes for a law which violates individual rights when enforced by the state is culpable to any degree in such a rights violation? Execution by the latter is very much the will of the former, however far removed from execution the former may be.

As I said before, I'm not sure how much it warrants protection from violent consequences.

You do seem to contend that it does, though.

Perhaps this is because of society's change in its views on violence over the years.

I can't imagine how views of society have any bearing, especially as there is no consistent collective position on that subject or any other. "Society" contains far too many disparate elements for any collective position.

If we take slavery as an example, I don't see a problem with harming someone to instigate change.

Slavery is very much a violation of the right to self-ownership--literally, even--and enforcement of another's ownership is likely to violate the right to bodily integrity.

Arguably one of the most prominent "pro-lifers" on Twitter is Lila Rose. Even though she pushes for abortion to be illegal, and has been invited to the White House to speak under the Trump administration, I see a difference between the two scenarios.

I'm flummoxed as to how you could. She's an advocate for state-enforced ownership of one individual (a pregnant party) by another (the fetus, or whatever one may be at any pointprior to birth). Without exception, pregnancy affects physical trauma and therefore bodily integrity, even as an individual may consent to endure that trauma. Consent is an expression of self-ownership.

Perhaps my empathy is towards the wrong individual, and should instead focus more on those denied fundamental rights.

Could be. You have advocated for the violation of such rights so that a fetus may have the opportunity to grow, even as there are no guarantees. Perhaps your apparent contention is rooted not in empathy but in self-preservation.

Do you think it's morally justified? (I know you've made the argument, but is it a personal opinion)

I don't see how it's not. I'm interested in a compelling argument against a supposed moral justification. Of course that's not to say that I'm looking to be talked out of taking particular action, as I have no such intentions.

It's a variation on the "do you save 10 embryos or a 5 year old" scenario, and was used to flesh out a point.

It's neither moral nor immoral to either save or not save any of them. None of them have a right to be saved.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why? That consequences may be imposed for an act does not make an act immoral. Morality is rooted in individual rights and the imposition of consequences frequently disregards individual rights.

Consequences for the individual harmed.

Their family.
Their friends.
Their community.

You do seem to contend that it does, though.
I can't imagine how views of society have any bearing, especially as there is no consistent collective position on that subject or any other. "Society" contains far too many disparate elements for any collective position.

Slavery is very much a violation of the right to self-ownership--literally, even--and enforcement of another's ownership is likely to violate the right to bodily integrity.

I'm flummoxed as to how you could. She's an advocate for state-enforced ownership of one individual (a pregnant party) by another (the fetus, or whatever one may be at any pointprior to birth). Without exception, pregnancy affects physical trauma and therefore bodily integrity, even as an individual may consent to endure that trauma. Consent is an expression of self-ownership.

The only thing I can think of that is logical is that we should learn from (and seek to emulate) the history of the civil rights movement, which includes the 2020 protests (that I was initially against).

Could be. You have advocated for the violation of such rights so that a fetus may have the opportunity to grow, even as there are no guarantees. Perhaps your apparent contention is rooted not in empathy but in self-preservation.

Eh.

That was more to do with experiences I've had, both in my personal and professional life.

I don't see how it's not. I'm interested in a compelling argument against a supposed moral justification. Of course that's not to say that I'm looking to be talked out of taking particular action, as I have no such intentions.

Here was ChatGPT's response when I kept giving it non-violent options that I came up with. Whether this is compelling or not is debatable:

Resorting to violence as a means to address a situation where the UN or other international bodies have failed to adequately address human rights violations is a highly contentious and complex issue. While there may be instances in history where violence has been employed in response to grave human rights abuses, it is important to approach this question with caution and adhere to ethical principles.

Violence should always be considered as a last resort, and only in cases where there is an immediate and overwhelming threat to human life and where all other peaceful means have been exhausted. Even in such situations, the decision to use violence would require careful consideration of the potential consequences, both immediate and long-term, including the potential harm to innocent individuals and the risk of perpetuating cycles of violence.

It is worth noting that violence often leads to further suffering, loss of life, and destruction. It can also undermine the legitimacy of the cause being fought for and hinder the prospects for a just and sustainable resolution. Therefore, engaging in violence should be a deeply thoughtful and informed decision, taking into account the principles of proportionality, necessity, and the potential for achieving the desired outcomes.

Instead of resorting to violence, it is crucial to explore alternative nonviolent strategies, such as sustained advocacy, peaceful protests, civil disobedience, or other forms of resistance that can effectively raise awareness, mobilize public support, and pressure governments or international bodies to take action.

It is important to note that ethical perspectives on this matter can vary, and different individuals or groups may have different beliefs and judgments regarding the use of violence in extreme circumstances. However, promoting a culture of nonviolence, respect for human life, and a commitment to peaceful means of conflict resolution is generally considered to be the most ethical approach.

What I find interesting is that even though it recognises that violence has been used in response to human rights abuses, it still defaults to "ethical principles". I'm not sure if this is a by-product of its mandate to not give information that can harm or if it is an argument for what humans should abide by.

It's neither moral nor immoral to either save or not save any of them. None of them have a right to be saved.

Does anyone have a right to be saved?

 

[Danoff]

From a moral perspective, the right should be given only to those who meet a certain cognitive "bar". At least that's what I infer.

Yes. That is why humans have a right to life and trees do not.

What sort of things are you looking for in terms of this cognitive threshold? We could be in partial agreement as my opinion is a zygote isn't going to have a right to life even in an ectogenesis machine, but that a sufficiently gestated individual should have.

The ability to recognize and adhere to someone else's corresponding right. In this case, the right to life.

That changed (I presumed) because it violated another's rights.

I'm not entirely sure why it changed, but my guess is that it changed because it violated equal protection. Here's what you actually gave as the reason for the change:

"The reason we don't have this legally is because of both practicality and bioethical standards."

I'm not sure what that means exactly.

We are talking about when the starting point of rights occurs.

Indeed. And you tried to imply that it should be at least in part driven by instinct. I gave reasons why not, and gave you examples in society to support the notion that instinct is not a fair guide. You've kinda taken us around in a circle over that so it's time to come back to the point. Instinct is not a good guide for morality.

I think morality plays a part, which could be derived from biological instinct.

See above.

Do you think it's immoral to treat a more developed human than a 2 week embryo as a lab mouse? When does it become immoral?

What is a more developed human in this case? A 3 week old embryo? No I don't think that's immoral. Lab mice are far more advanced cognitively.

Talking about the infringement that has a bearing on its right to life specifically - i.e. being physically attached to that person.

I literally mentioned manslaughter.

Should we not take capacity and potential into consideration? Is the fact that it's human immaterial?

Trying to assume the future in assigning rights is absurd. You don't know the future, so how can you rely on it to confer rights? Yes, the fact that it is human is immaterial. Many humans end up without a right to life of course, for many different kinds of reasons. But ultimately it is arbitrary to assume that rights are human-specific.

What about the principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, beneficience and non-maleficence?

What about them?

 

[HenrySwanson]

The ability to recognize and adhere to someone else's corresponding right. In this case, the right to life.

OK....but that definitively excludes newborns (and even 1 year olds). It's not even debatable.

If the law to the right to life is based purely on practicality, why can't we terminate these individuals?

I'm not entirely sure why it changed, but my guess is that it changed because it violated equal protection. Here's what you actually gave as the reason for the change:

"The reason we don't have this legally is because of both practicality and bioethical standards."

Oops, I should have been clearer.

I meant the right to life here, not rape.

What is a more developed human in this case? A 3 week old embryo? No I don't think that's immoral. Lab mice are far more advanced cognitively.

Let's say....a 2 week old infant, born at term.

Or if we're talking about the unborn, a 39 week gestational age foetus/gestateling.

I literally mentioned manslaughter.

It seems I'm being frequently misunderstood so I may need to work on my technique.

I was talking about the infringement against the pregnant person's bodily autonomy, which trumps the "right" the embryo/foetus has to life.

Indeed. And you tried to imply that it should be at least in part driven by instinct. I gave reasons why not, and gave you examples in society to support the notion that instinct is not a fair guide. You've kinda taken us around in a circle over that so it's time to come back to the point. Instinct is not a good guide for morality.

See above.

Trying to assume the future in assigning rights is absurd. You don't know the future, so how can you rely on it to confer rights? Yes, the fact that it is human is immaterial. Many humans end up without a right to life of course, for many different kinds of reasons. But ultimately it is arbitrary to assume that rights are human-specific

What about them?

You can't separate this specific human right, something that is so fundamental, from medical ethics. Think about what the consequences would be for those who are deemed to not have a right to life and you'll come back to wanting to know if it's an ethical dilemma - something avoided by general society's current moral position.

 

[Danoff]

OK....but that definitively excludes newborns (and even 1 year olds). It's not even debatable.

Agreed.

If the law to the right to life is based purely on practicality, why can't we terminate these individuals?

Practicality. You answered your own question.

Let's say....a 2 week old infant, born at term.

Or if we're talking about the unborn, a 39 week gestational age foetus/gestateling.

I'm not an expert on mouse physiology or 2 week old infant physiology, so I don't know where they stand cognitively. Further, my answer would have to depend on whether I think it is moral to treat the lab mouse in a particular respect, and there may be treatments of lab mice that I do not find moral or ethical, ostensibly because lab mice may not be expected to, or even capable of, inflicting upon you the kind of suffering that you might be able to inflict upon it.

For the most part, I'm not in a great scientific position to answer this question. It requires a lot of understanding of brain capacities of both newborns and lab mice as well as specifics for what kind of treatment we're talking about, which you have not supplied.

I'd like to understand why we're talking about this when your original argument was in regard to my comment about a single cell.

I was talking about the infringement against the pregnant person's bodily autonomy, which trumps the "right" the embryo/foetus has to life.

You missed my point - which is that that is not the only requirement for rights. There is no "trump" happening here. The embryo/fetus does not have a right to life.

You can't separate this specific human right, something that is so fundamental, from medical ethics. Think about what the consequences would be for those who are deemed to not have a right to life and you'll come back to wanting to know if it's an ethical dilemma - something avoided by general society's current moral position.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at, an example might help. General society's current moral position is very similar to mine, but to the extent that it prohibits abortion it most certainly does not sidestep ethical dilemmas, but rather it wanders straight into one.

 

[TexRex]

Consequences for the individual harmed.

Their family.
Their friends.
Their community.

Yeah, no, those would be effects more than consequences. If you need to refer to them as consequences, they would be consequences of the rights violation.

If you're being violently sodomized without having given consent, are you really going to think of how defending yourself against the rights violation may affect the family, friends, and community of the perpetrator?

One who is party to a rights violation should be thinking of the consequences, not one whose rights are being violated or anyone who may come to their aid.

The only thing I can think of that is logical is that we should learn from (and seek to emulate) the history of the civil rights movement, which includes the 2020 protests (that I was initially against).

I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other, other than the two broadly having to do with rights violations.

Eh.

That was more to do with experiences I've had, both in my personal and professional life.

Your experiences have nothing to do with others' rights. They're definitely not reasonable justificating for violating others' rights.

Here was ChatGPT's response when I kept giving it non-violent options that I came up with. Whether this is compelling or not is debatable:

What I find interesting is that even though it recognises that violence has been used in response to human rights abuses, it still defaults to "ethical principles". I'm not sure if this is a by-product of its mandate to not give information that can harm or if it is an argument for what humans should abide by.

I don't see ChatGPT as adding meaningfully to discussion, especially with regard to morality.

Additionally, I suspect you may have missed the mark with your prompt(s). What it's regurgitated seems to refer to that which has already transpired, like a singular (if one of countless) rights violation, and not an ongoing violation as by depriving a right and imposing penalties for exercise.

Does anyone have a right to be saved?

Certainly not a natural one. Such a legal right would compel action by another, thereby violating their rights.

Of course that isn't to deny rights that one does have and that one's rights may be preserved if another chooses to act.

The act of "saving" may even be a violation of one's rights. What if an individual is trying to die, especially in a manner that doesn't directly endanger others?

 

[Danoff]

Does anyone have a right to be saved?

No, but there are circumstances where one might be contractually compelled to act - such as if you're a lifeguard at a pool, or you are a child's guardian. Countless examples exist in the form of soldiers, police, firefighters, EMS, etc.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Agreed.

Practicality. You answered your own question.

You agreed that we know, conclusively, that they aren't capable of this. How is it that practicality is the factor preventing such an action if we know they can't meet such a demand? Why can't the limit be kicked further down to their first birthday?

I'm not an expert on mouse physiology or 2 week old infant physiology, so I don't know where they stand cognitively. Further, my answer would have to depend on whether I think it is moral to treat the lab mouse in a particular respect, and there may be treatments of lab mice that I do not find moral or ethical, ostensibly because lab mice may not be expected to, or even capable of, inflicting upon you the kind of suffering that you might be able to inflict upon it.

For the most part, I'm not in a great scientific position to answer this question. It requires a lot of understanding of brain capacities of both newborns and lab mice as well as specifics for what kind of treatment we're talking about, which you have not supplied.

Let's take MS as an example.

Certain cells in the immune system are hypothesised to play a critical role in the disease. Currently, mice can be used to provide a model of MS (and other "neuroinflammatory conditions) with which to study and test therapeutic agents against. These aren't ideal, and something that shows promise in treating the mice could fail in human trials.

If humans are the same as mice, or at least can be thought of if we base it only on cognitive capability, why don't we skip the middle man? Why not create farms of human foetuses/gestatelings to test on?

I'd like to understand why we're talking about this when your original argument was in regard to my comment about a single cell.

Interested in where the limit is, and to show differentiation between human vs non-human lives.

You missed my point - which is that that is not the only requirement for rights. There is no "trump" happening here. The embryo/fetus does not have a right to life.

No, I understood it.

Perhaps I should expand on where I think would be an ethical place to legally grant the right to life, and also consider it a moral transgression if that life was ended intentionally.

Given current technology it should be at birth. The individual has demonstrated their capacity to live ex-utero, even if they required intensive organ support, and shows all the signs of life of a human.

In the future, a human in an ectogenesis machine should be considered as having that right once they reach the point resuscitation wouldn't be futile (~21/22 weeks gestation).

Speaking of moral transgression, from this and previous responses:

Someone who kills their one month old who is incarcerated is potentially having their own rights violated

I deduce that it shouldn't be seen, by wider society, as a moral wrong to kill their one month old?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at, an example might help. General society's current moral position is very similar to mine, but to the extent that it prohibits abortion it most certainly does not sidestep ethical dilemmas, but rather it wanders straight into one.

Gaining it at birth, and only losing it once it can be proven there is an extremely significant impairment/total loss of cognition.

Talking about another real life patient, one of the first I came into contact with was a ~60 man who had been left bedbound after a stroke. Apart from being bedbound, however, he was doubly incontinent, unable to eat (and so had a PEG tube inserted) and was extremely aggressive towards everyone, including his son. With his significant confusion he would try to punch and bite staff, and couldn't articulate any words - only giving meaningless grunts/noises. Coming along soon after watching TWD I thought of him as the Walking Dead patient. In The Walking Dead it's considered merciful to end the life of those suffering from the disease (even, and maybe especially for, loved ones).

Would it have been morally wrong for the son to end his life?

Yeah, no, those would be effects more than consequences. If you need to refer to them as consequences, they would be consequences of the rights violation.

If you're being violently sodomized without having given consent, are you really going to think of how defending yourself against the rights violation may affect the family, friends, and community of the perpetrator?

One who is party to a rights violation should be thinking of the consequences, not one whose rights are being violated or anyone who may come to their aid.

I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other, other than the two broadly having to do with rights violations.

As you say, they are both rights violations.

Non-violent resistance when faced with such problems has been vindicated throughout history (e.g MLK and Gandhi).

Granted, this doesn't necessarily mean that using violence is itself immoral.

Your experiences have nothing to do with others' rights. They're definitely not reasonable justificating for violating others' rights.

Which is why I was persuaded to change my mind.

I did post an article in the Atlantic by a pro-choice obstetrician who articulated her thoughts (which I identified with) better than I could, but you probably didn't read it.

I don't see ChatGPT as adding meaningfully to discussion, especially with regard to morality.

Additionally, I suspect you may have missed the mark with your prompt(s). What it's regurgitated seems to refer to that which has already transpired, like a singular (if one of countless) rights violation, and not an ongoing violation as by depriving a right and imposing penalties for exercise.

I don't think it's an issue with the prompts. Even when asking more specific question it returns:

The issue of abortion access is indeed a complex and highly debated topic. While there are strong and differing opinions on this matter, it is generally agreed upon that violence or harm towards individuals is not a morally justifiable means to effect change, even in the context of advocating for reproductive rights or addressing violations of those rights.
In democratic societies like the United States, there are legal and peaceful avenues available to address concerns about abortion access. These include:

1. Legal Challenges: Activists and organizations can challenge restrictive abortion laws through the court system. This involves filing lawsuits and advocating for the protection of reproductive rights based on constitutional principles.
2. Legislative Advocacy: Engaging with elected representatives and lobbying for laws that safeguard and expand access to abortion services can be an effective strategy. This involves working to elect supportive lawmakers, mobilizing public support, and actively participating in the legislative process.
3. Grassroots Activism: Engaging in grassroots activism, such as peaceful protests, rallies, and awareness campaigns, can help raise public awareness about the importance of reproductive rights and create pressure for change.
4. Education and Dialogue: Promoting accurate and comprehensive sex education, fostering open conversations about reproductive health, and challenging misconceptions can contribute to changing attitudes and fostering support for reproductive rights.

It is important to engage in peaceful and lawful means of effecting change, respecting the principles of democracy, and upholding human rights. Violent actions can harm innocent individuals, damage the credibility of the cause being advocated for, and undermine the overall goal of achieving a just and equitable society.
It is also important to recognize that public opinion, social norms, and political dynamics can shift over time, and societal change often occurs gradually through persistent advocacy, awareness-building, and policy reform.

I don't know which sources it's using to come to the conclusion that it's "generally agreed upon that violence or harm towards individuals is not a morally justifiable means to effect change".

It did, however, talk about the Just War Theory, but when asked if it could be applied to abortion restriction it said it couldn't.

My own opinion?

Still hesitant to resort to violence....but I can understand the argument that it's justifiable.

Certainly not a natural one. Such a legal right would compel action by another, thereby violating their rights.

Of course that isn't to deny rights that one does have and that one's rights may be preserved if another chooses to act.

The act of "saving" may even be a violation of one's rights. What if an individual is trying to die, especially in a manner that doesn't directly endanger others?

No, but there are circumstances where one might be contractually compelled to act - such as if you're a lifeguard at a pool, or you are a child's guardian. Countless examples exist in the form of soldiers, police, firefighters, EMS, etc.

When ectogenesis is a reality, should medical professionals ever be compelled to act to save the life of the human?

 

[Danoff]

You agreed that we know, conclusively, that they aren't capable of this. How is it that practicality is the factor preventing such an action if we know they can't meet such a demand? Why can't the limit be kicked further down to their first birthday?

Because we don't know where to draw the line and birth is an easy and practical one to draw. The moment where you become a physically separate entity is an over-inclusive convenient time to draw the line that makes sure we're not leaving out a child that we shouldn't be leaving out. What is hard about this?

Let's take MS as an example.

Certain cells in the immune system are hypothesised to play a critical role in the disease. Currently, mice can be used to provide a model of MS (and other "neuroinflammatory conditions) with which to study and test therapeutic agents against. These aren't ideal, and something that shows promise in treating the mice could fail in human trials.

If humans are the same as mice, or at least can be thought of if we base it only on cognitive capability, why don't we skip the middle man? Why not create farms of human foetuses/gestatelings to test on?

If it's humane in mice, it should be humane in human fetuses - at least based on my understanding of the development of fetuses.

Interested in where the limit is, and to show differentiation between human vs non-human lives.

There isn't. It's all life.

No, I understood it.

Perhaps I should expand on where I think would be an ethical place to legally grant the right to life, and also consider it a moral transgression if that life was ended intentionally.

Given current technology it should be at birth.

Well then we're in violent agreement.

The individual has demonstrated their capacity to live ex-utero, even if they required intensive organ support, and shows all the signs of life of a human.

Individuals like that have the "plug pulled" regularly. So that doesn't seem like a sufficient description to establish rights.

I deduce that it shouldn't be seen, by wider society, as a moral wrong to kill their one month old?

You keep coming at this from a weird judgey place. Should it be seen as "wrong" to kill a mouse? Why would I tell someone they should be ok with mouse murder? Or tree murder for that matter? I'm talking about human rights, not what society likes or dislikes.

Gaining it at birth, and only losing it once it can be proven there is an extremely significant impairment/total loss of cognition.

Is committing murder an extremely significant impairment?

Talking about another real life patient, one of the first I came into contact with was a ~60 man who had been left bedbound after a stroke. Apart from being bedbound, however, he was doubly incontinent, unable to eat (and so had a PEG tube inserted) and was extremely aggressive towards everyone, including his son. With his significant confusion he would try to punch and bite staff, and couldn't articulate any words - only giving meaningless grunts/noises. Coming along soon after watching TWD I thought of him as the Walking Dead patient. In The Walking Dead it's considered merciful to end the life of those suffering from the disease (even, and maybe especially for, loved ones).

Would it have been morally wrong for the son to end his life?

It's hard for me to judge this from the outside. It would not be morally wrong to refuse to treat him, or to incarcerate him for assault, or to incarcerate him for lacking the mental faculty to observe the rights of others. If he were determined to be a threat to the lives of those around him, or were he determined to be doomed to death if left untreated, I guess my answer is no it's not morally wrong to end his life. But again I'm only answering this in the hopes that it furthers the discussion, it's not really right to come to a conclusion on someone's life based on a paragraph description that includes references to a TV show.

When ectogenesis is a reality, should medical professionals ever be compelled to act to save the life of the human?

"Compelled"... what does that mean? No one should be "compelled" to act to save the life of ANY human. But if your job, your contract, is to save the life of patients that come in to your hospital, yea you're contractually compelled to save their lives.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because we don't know where to draw the line and birth is an easy and practical one to draw. The moment where you become a physically separate entity is an over-inclusive convenient time to draw the line that makes sure we're not leaving out a child that we shouldn't be leaving out. What is hard about this?

I don't see why we can't move it to 1 years of age.

Your whole premise is that we should judge it, as we do other rights, based on cognition. Leaving it at birth is compatible and pragmatic with this, but so is moving it to 1 year olds.

If it's humane in mice, it should be humane in human fetuses - at least based on my understanding of the development of fetuses.

That is interesting. I admit I haven't come across anyone who thinks that would be ethical. I can follow the logic, but I thought you might recognise (like me) a difference between a human and a non-human.

Individuals like that have the "plug pulled" regularly. So that doesn't seem like a sufficient description to establish rights.

Caveat being they have no hope of ever developing cognitively speaking.

You keep coming at this from a weird judgey place. Should it be seen as "wrong" to kill a mouse? Why would I tell someone they should be ok with mouse murder? Or tree murder for that matter? I'm talking about human rights, not what society likes or dislikes.

I don't see the approach as that weird.

As we agreed, a certain amount of objective morality should be considered when creating (or changing) laws.
If society deems it as not being a wrong to kill a 1 month old, and if the law became morally perfect, what protection does that 1 month old have?

Is committing murder an extremely significant impairment?

You believe in the death penalty??

It's hard for me to judge this from the outside. It would not be morally wrong to refuse to treat him, or to incarcerate him for assault, or to incarcerate him for lacking the mental faculty to observe the rights of others. If he were determined to be a threat to the lives of those around him, or were he determined to be doomed to death if left untreated, I guess my answer is no it's not morally wrong to end his life. But again I'm only answering this in the hopes that it furthers the discussion, it's not really right to come to a conclusion on someone's life based on a paragraph description that includes references to a TV show.

Honestly, I would see it as an act of mercy to end his life. My only doubt arises from the fact that we don't know what's going on in his head. What if he's having amazing dreams most of the day? What if he does recognise his son, and his resemblance to a bedbound "walker" is him trying to communicate?

"Compelled"... what does that mean? No one should be "compelled" to act to save the life of ANY human. But if your job, your contract, is to save the life of patients that come in to your hospital, yea you're contractually compelled to save their lives.

Yeah, was talking about medical professionals looking after those in ectogenesis machines. When should they be compelled to save those lives?

 

[Danoff]

I don't see why we can't move it to 1 years of age.

Your whole premise is that we should judge it, as we do other rights, based on cognition. Leaving it at birth is compatible and pragmatic with this, but so is moving it to 1 year olds.

What good would that do? If you're the child's parents - have taken on the role of guardian, voluntarily - you don't have a right to kill it in the first place precisely because you are its contractual guardian. I suppose you're thinking why have a guardian at all? But the answer is that children require guardians all the way through early life. Guardianship must be voluntary, otherwise it is slavery. But it is pragmatic to establish guardianship for each child at any given time. If the guardian fails in its responsibilities (food, shelter, education, safety, and of course emotional support), then the guardian may be considered unfit for those responsibilities and, depending on the severity, may be incarcerated themselves for breach of contract. Breach of their (voluntary) duty as caregiver.

This is why I advocated earlier having parents sign on the dotted line right when the child is born. If you're not willing to be the child's guardian, someone else may be. This is not the only system that makes sense for raising children, but it is, in essence, the one we have (minus the formalities).

We can, and most likely should, do the same with some other animals that we want consideration given to - such as dogs.

Why can't people OTHER than the guardian kill it? It's a pseudo-property relationship. It's easier to see with a dog why you can't kill your neighbors dog even though you're not on the hook for dog abuse if you refuse to feed it. You don't have to formalize this relationship if you just give the child the right to life at birth. And I think some people consider that cleaner. It works either way.

What if no one is willing to be the child's guardian and the state refuses to institutionally take on the responsibility? Then you end up in a circumstance where it actually matters whether you move the right to life to age 1 or not. But this is not our scenario.

You believe in the death penalty??

"Believe". I don't think people have a right to life when they cannot observe the right to life.

Honestly, I would see it as an act of mercy to end his life. My only doubt arises from the fact that we don't know what's going on in his head. What if he's having amazing dreams most of the day? What if he does recognise his son, and his resemblance to a bedbound "walker" is him trying to communicate?

None of that factors in to his rights. The question is whether he can observe the rights of others. You can shoot someone who attempts to take your life, even if they can form sentences, without violating their right to life.

Yeah, was talking about medical professionals looking after those in ectogenesis machines. When should they be compelled to save those lives?

Whenever their contract stipulated. You already had this answer.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What if no one is willing to be the child's guardian and the state refuses to institutionally take on the responsibility? Then you end up in a circumstance where it actually matters whether you move the right to life to age 1 or not. But this is not our scenario.

What's stopping that in the future?

If, morally, they shouldn't have the right to life, why should the state (or anyone) be a guardian to that individual?

None of that factors in to his rights. The question is whether he can observe the rights of others. You can shoot someone who attempts to take your life, even if they can form sentences, without violating their right to life.

That would then include a lot of cognitively impaired people. I'm guessing at least 60-70% of the residents of a care home at any given time.

Whenever their contract stipulated. You already had this answer.

I don't believe I had your thoughts on when that point should be in terms of gestation.

------

Another question. Since you believe foetuses may be subjects in clinical trials, could infants similarly be used if there was no guardian?

 

[Danoff]

What's stopping that in the future?

If, morally, they shouldn't have the right to life, why should the state (or anyone) be a guardian to that individual?

Because they want to? How is this a question?

The little girl that my wife and I adopted had no right to be adopted by us. But that had nothing to do with why we adopted her.

That would then include a lot of cognitively impaired people. I'm guessing at least 60-70% of the residents of a care home at any given time.

Second childhood.

Another question. Since you believe foetuses may be subjects in clinical trials, could infants similarly be used if there was no guardian?

No. And I'm going to ignore the "if there was no guardian" part because it's a broader question than that.

1) You'd be violating your arrangement as a guardian if you did that.
2) Infants have a (pragmatic) right to life (remember?)

I guess you're asking me about some kind of dystopian society where the state does not assume or assign the role of guardian, and there's no abortion, and there are infants discarded at hospitals regularly, and nobody likes babies anymore, so there are no willing parents of these infants. You'd like to know my thoughts on the ethic of taking one of these infants and running tests on them?

Why do you want to know that? It has nothing to do with our society, and as far as I know, that circumstance is not even possible. I'm not deeply versed in exactly what age an infant is capable of doing what. Honestly, I don't know who is. There are two principles from today that I apply to this scenario that we don't live in though. Mice are used in lab tests regularly today. If it's ethical to use mice in those lab tests, and I'm not saying it is, I'm saying "if", then it is ethical to do the same thing to a human with the same cognitive capacity (or less). The second scenario is that if you're going to mess someone up by running chemicals through their body (alcohol, tobacco, heroin, etc.), you need to hope that they don't reach any threshold where the state considers them to have rights. Because if they do, you're on the hook for what you've done to them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because they want to? How is this a question?

The little girl that my wife and I adopted had no right to be adopted by us. But that had nothing to do with why we adopted her.

What I'm getting at is if no-one wants to. What if the state works out it would be cheaper to end the life rather than provide support for it.

This probably won't happen with newborn infants because of the cuteness factor, but think about....

Second childhood.

These guys.

People who have turned back into pseudo-infants with no moral right to life (according to your argument) cost billions (globally speaking, dementia works out at over a trillion in total cost to economy) to look after, and have other knock on effects at an individual and national level.

No. And I'm going to ignore the "if there was no guardian" part because it's a broader question than that.

1) You'd be violating your arrangement as a guardian if you did that.
2) Infants have a (pragmatic) right to life (remember?)

I guess you're asking me about some kind of dystopian society where the state does not assume or assign the role of guardian, and there's no abortion, and there are infants discarded at hospitals regularly, and nobody likes babies anymore, so there are no willing parents of these infants. You'd like to know my thoughts on the ethic of taking one of these infants and running tests on them?

Why do you want to know that? It has nothing to do with our society, and as far as I know, that circumstance is not even possible. I'm not deeply versed in exactly what age an infant is capable of doing what. Honestly, I don't know who is. There are two principles from today that I apply to this scenario that we don't live in though. Mice are used in lab tests regularly today. If it's ethical to use mice in those lab tests, and I'm not saying it is, I'm saying "if", then it is ethical to do the same thing to a human with the same cognitive capacity (or less). The second scenario is that if you're going to mess someone up by running chemicals through their body (alcohol, tobacco, heroin, etc.), you need to hope that they don't reach any threshold where the state considers them to have rights. Because if they do, you're on the hook for what you've done to them.

It strikes me as weird that we could call it abhorrent (dystopian, even) to use infants as a subject, but consider it acceptable to use something that may be more developed as a human only because of the fact that it hasn't been born.

I see them both as deserving of moral protection.

 

[Danoff]

What I'm getting at is if no-one wants to. What if the state works out it would be cheaper to end the life rather than provide support for it.

This probably won't happen with newborn infants because of the cuteness factor, but think about....

These guys.

People who have turned back into pseudo-infants with no moral right to life (according to your argument) cost billions (globally speaking, dementia works out at over a trillion in total cost to economy) to look after, and have other knock on effects at an individual and national level.

It happens all the time. As I'm sure you're aware. It's called "pulling the plug". I know you mean people that are more cognitively capable than that, but it encompasses that group as well.

Consider what happens when someone is not well in some mental capacity or another and breaks a law. We institutionalize that person (in the prison system) because they demonstrated an inability to observe the rights of others. If the demonstration was significant enough, that person might even be put to death. I know that people like to frame this as "justice" but really the overlap between criminal activity and mental health is one that's difficult to distinguish. If someone is guilty of certain crimes, they are by definition insane and or mentally unwell. I think this calls for a different kind of treatment of prisoners and a different kind of treatment of patients with cognitive impairment. The whole issue needs to be seen for what it is.

You keep getting hung up on the moral question, but just like with infants (and dogs) a practical approach is important. The guardianship system makes sense for children as well as seniors, and can make sense for middle-aged impaired adults as well. It is possible that some people in prison would be better served by the guardianship system.

It strikes me as weird that we could call it abhorrent (dystopian, even) to use infants as a subject, but consider it acceptable to use something that may be more developed as a human only because of the fact that it hasn't been born.

I see them both as deserving of moral protection.

The dystopian part is the part where there are a bunch of infants that nobody wants to take care of and the state does not institutionalize. That part strikes me as entirely out of bed with our current society.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think this calls for a different kind of treatment of prisoners

Could you expand?

and a different kind of treatment of patients with cognitive impairment.

I get your guardianship idea for children, but how would this work with those who become cognitively impaired?

Also, what if there's a dispute over responsibilities between the parents? Should the male parent be allowed to walk away even if the woman decides to keep the child?

The dystopian part is the part where there are a bunch of infants that nobody wants to take care of and the state does not institutionalize. That part strikes me as entirely out of bed with our current society.

I'm worried we could become more callous to suffering and look for the easiest option. This could include how we treat unborn subjects or those failed by society. In Canada, a recent poll showed how many people thought euthanasia guidelines should expand to include homelessness (28%) or poverty (27%). This would take it beyond providing it only if someone had a medical condition. Such a step may have negative ramifications for how the poor and homeless are treated.

 

[Danoff]

Could you expand?

In the US today there is a big divide between the treatment of people with "mental disorders" and "criminals", when in reality these two groups often have major overlap. This means developing a better understanding of what it takes to care for and institutionalize criminals as well as acknowledging the need for institutionalization of people with other kinds of needs. I think the latter is an area where China is well ahead of the US.

When I was in China, I toured my daughter's orphanage. It was something like a university campus, with about 6 major buildings complete with elevators, various age-based care rooms, medical facilities, sports fields, and age-based classrooms including various activity centers and teaching aids. It was a legitimate campus. It's not legal to give up your child in China - although I think adoption is a possibility. But enough children are abandoned, often with special needs, that they have these entire centers for caring for orphaned and abandoned children.

It wasn't all good. There were places in the campus where care was obviously insufficient for the kids they had there. And my daughter, who was cared for in one of their best wings, supported by donations AND detailed instruction and training from US charity, still had food security issues deeply ingrained. The first night I had her she slept in a crib clutching the bread she had held the entire day. Obviously she wasn't getting enough to eat, but she wasn't severely malnourished either. I asked what happens to kids when they get too old for this facility, and the answer was that they're transferred to a similar care facility that's for adults. I would have been interested to see that.

In the US, if a child grows up with severe needs, the parents are on the hook to provide that care. If they cannot, the child can be put up for adoption, but if this process takes a few years (the decision to place the child for adoption I mean), finding a good home can be tricky. Part of the reason is that there is a lack of infrastructure for children with special needs in the US. It's a big ask to adopt a child, with all of the responsibilities that comes with it, that has severe needs. The concern is that they'll end up with an already overburdened family. Each child is basically looking for a family that can take on an entire lifetime of caregiving, often with handwringing about what happens when the parents eventually get too old to do the job. Ultimately a wealthy benefactor is the most secure way, but not everyone can be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

Kids with severe needs also end up getting routed into a public school right along side kids without them. This leaves teachers trying to handle kids with stable homes and every advantage, who are at or ahead of their grade level, while at the same time trying to teach a child who is perhaps years behind, and requires entirely different teaching techniques. This disrupts classrooms and overburdens teachers.

What happens when these severe needs children reach adulthood and their parents ultimately are unable to care for them, or die? Some of them will become criminals, simply because they are unable to function otherwise. We wait for them to victimize someone, and then incarcerate them - where the prison system attempts (inadequately) to care for them.

We need caregiving institutions that can handle kids with severe needs. We should not be expecting the parental lottery to just leave some people with a burden that they simply cannot handle, especially in a country without guaranteed access to healthcare for all people.

Child and adult care institutions can help prevent some people from ending up in prison, can offer better care for the people that need it, and can handle some cases where someone has committed a crime not because they are capable of and intend to harm people, but because they are not capable.

Similarly, the entire structure of prisons seems to be centered around punishment. A criminal enters a prison and "pays his debt to society" (let's face it, "his" is the right pronoun here). He serves his time, and then is kicked back out into society and expected to make his way better than he did before, but now with added disadvantages compared to what he had before. The expectation is somehow that he'll feel like that punishment incentivized him to straighten himself up. No concern seems to be given to the fact that he may be unable to straighten himself up, and maybe his tour in prison actually decreases his incentive to stay out.

The goal of prison should not be be to punish, but rather to either remove some individuals from society while caring for them - because those individuals are dangerous - or help rehabilitate them so that they can enter society successfully. The reason the goal is not to punish is because we need to acknowledge that many of these people my have committed a crime not out of some sense of "evil" that needs to be judged, but because they lack some kind of care or instruction that they need to function in a healthy way. I'm not sure there should be a single prisoner who doesn't have some kind of therapist assigned to them. The idea that they can spend a few years in prison and be fixed is insane.

Homelessness ends up being the same kind of issue, often for the same reasons.

I get your guardianship idea for children, but how would this work with those who become cognitively impaired?

It exists currently for people who are cognitively impaired. It's called "Medical Guardianship".

Also, what if there's a dispute over responsibilities between the parents? Should the male parent be allowed to walk away even if the woman decides to keep the child?

Any or both biological parents should have an avenue for exiting a guardianship requirement. That might be either never signing up in the first place, or taking an off-ramp prescribed by the guardianship agreement (which may need to require a transitional period for placement).

I'm worried we could become more callous to suffering and look for the easiest option. This could include how we treat unborn subjects or those failed by society. In Canada, a recent poll showed how many people thought euthanasia guidelines should expand to include homelessness (28%) or poverty (27%). This would take it beyond providing it only if someone had a medical condition. Such a step may have negative ramifications for how the poor and homeless are treated.

I would agree with those sentiments for euthanasia. Suicide is an important human right, one of the most fundamental. I'm not sure that it is more fundamental than the right to life, but it is up there in significance. It's hard for me to rank it because I see circumstances where you have a right to life but not suicide, and I see other circumstances where you have a right to suicide but not a right to life. The former would have to be temporary though, while the latter does not.

I would absolutely not deny an otherwise healthy individual the right to suicide for basically any circumstance, including homelessness or poverty.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In the US today there is a big divide between the treatment of people with "mental disorders" and "criminals", when in reality these two groups often have major overlap. This means developing a better understanding of what it takes to care for and institutionalize criminals as well as acknowledging the need for institutionalization of people with other kinds of needs. I think the latter is an area where China is well ahead of the US.

When I was in China, I toured my daughter's orphanage. It was something like a university campus, with about 6 major buildings complete with elevators, various age-based care rooms, medical facilities, sports fields, and age-based classrooms including various activity centers and teaching aids. It was a legitimate campus. It's not legal to give up your child in China - although I think adoption is a possibility. But enough children are abandoned, often with special needs, that they have these entire centers for caring for orphaned and abandoned children.

It wasn't all good. There were places in the campus where care was obviously insufficient for the kids they had there. And my daughter, who was cared for in one of their best wings, supported by donations AND detailed instruction and training from US charity, still had food security issues deeply ingrained. The first night I had her she slept in a crib clutching the bread she had held the entire day. Obviously she wasn't getting enough to eat, but she wasn't severely malnourished either. I asked what happens to kids when they get too old for this facility, and the answer was that they're transferred to a similar care facility that's for adults. I would have been interested to see that.

In the US, if a child grows up with severe needs, the parents are on the hook to provide that care. If they cannot, the child can be put up for adoption, but if this process takes a few years (the decision to place the child for adoption I mean), finding a good home can be tricky. Part of the reason is that there is a lack of infrastructure for children with special needs in the US. It's a big ask to adopt a child, with all of the responsibilities that comes with it, that has severe needs. The concern is that they'll end up with an already overburdened family. Each child is basically looking for a family that can take on an entire lifetime of caregiving, often with handwringing about what happens when the parents eventually get too old to do the job. Ultimately a wealthy benefactor is the most secure way, but not everyone can be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

Kids with severe needs also end up getting routed into a public school right along side kids without them. This leaves teachers trying to handle kids with stable homes and every advantage, who are at or ahead of their grade level, while at the same time trying to teach a child who is perhaps years behind, and requires entirely different teaching techniques. This disrupts classrooms and overburdens teachers.

What happens when these severe needs children reach adulthood and their parents ultimately are unable to care for them, or die? Some of them will become criminals, simply because they are unable to function otherwise. We wait for them to victimize someone, and then incarcerate them - where the prison system attempts (inadequately) to care for them.

We need caregiving institutions that can handle kids with severe needs. We should not be expecting the parental lottery to just leave some people with a burden that they simply cannot handle, especially in a country without guaranteed access to healthcare for all people.

Child and adult care institutions can help prevent some people from ending up in prison, can offer better care for the people that need it, and can handle some cases where someone has committed a crime not because they are capable of and intend to harm people, but because they are not capable.

Similarly, the entire structure of prisons seems to be centered around punishment. A criminal enters a prison and "pays his debt to society" (let's face it, "his" is the right pronoun here). He serves his time, and then is kicked back out into society and expected to make his way better than he did before, but now with added disadvantages compared to what he had before. The expectation is somehow that he'll feel like that punishment incentivized him to straighten himself up. No concern seems to be given to the fact that he may be unable to straighten himself up, and maybe his tour in prison actually decreases his incentive to stay out.

The goal of prison should not be be to punish, but rather to either remove some individuals from society while caring for them - because those individuals are dangerous - or help rehabilitate them so that they can enter society successfully. The reason the goal is not to punish is because we need to acknowledge that many of these people my have committed a crime not out of some sense of "evil" that needs to be judged, but because they lack some kind of care or instruction that they need to function in a healthy way. I'm not sure there should be a single prisoner who doesn't have some kind of therapist assigned to them. The idea that they can spend a few years in prison and be fixed is insane.

I've only started this series, but you may be interested in it:

Finland's Open Prisons

Chicago is at the heart of the prison abolition movement. As abolitionists say, the movement doesn’t mean opening the prison cages right now, letting everyone out at once. Abolitionism envisions a...

pulitzercenter.org

I once visited Broadmoor hospital which is a high security unit for people with psychiatric illnesses and has had some (in)famous patients like the Yorkshire Ripper and one of the Krays. I couldn't compare it to prisons (many people mistakenly believe it is a prison because of the crimes a lot of the patients have committed), but the opportunities available to patients was amazing. If you look at a few of the sarcastic Google reviews you can see how some of the public view this, but I think the answer lies in bringing institutions (psychiatric wards, prisons and others you envisaged) up to that standard.

It exists currently for people who are cognitively impaired. It's called "Medical Guardianship".

Would that similarly guarantee them a right to life? If it does, what happens if the guardian relinquishes control to the state?

Any or both biological parents should have an avenue for exiting a guardianship requirement. That might be either never signing up in the first place, or taking an off-ramp prescribed by the guardianship agreement (which may need to require a transitional period for placement).

Could the father exit it before the child's birth? Should he be forced to pay child support?

 

[Danoff]

Would that similarly guarantee them a right to life? If it does, what happens if the guardian relinquishes control to the state?

You're kinda handwaving about with the notion of a "right to life". If someone else can determine whether you should die, you lack a right to life. The guardian's obligations do not represent your individual rights, they represent contractual rights against the guardian - and again there needs to be an exit ramp. Every good contract should be written with provisions for how the contract is exited, with penalties or ramifications spelled out for early termination of the contract. That should definitely be the case for guardianship as well. Those provisions determine what happens if the "guardian relinquishes control to the state".

What the state may or may not be obliged to do from a rights perspective would depend on the cognitive impairment. In some cases in the US, significant cognitive impairment ultimately gets you executed - because it caused you to commit some kind of capital crime.

Could the father exit it before the child's birth? Should he be forced to pay child support?

Yes. No.

Edit:

As a follow-up to this, the mother can exit before the child's birth and should not be forced to pay child support either.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What the state may or may not be obliged to do from a rights perspective would depend on the cognitive impairment. In some cases in the US, significant cognitive impairment ultimately gets you executed - because it caused you to commit some kind of capital crime.

Is it conceivable that the threshold for what's considered a significant cognitive impairment that gets you executed could change if such people had no right to life? Why should the state pay for their care and needs until their natural demise?

Yes. No.


Edit:

As a follow-up to this, the mother can exit before the child's birth and should not be forced to pay child support either.

At what stage should the contract be entered into?

What if the father promised to be in the child's life before birth but reneged on this after?