Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian
Elrond by yoru own reasoning a baby should only have rights when it can consciously decide. Thats the impression I got from your analogy. But in that case the child would be about 9 - 10 before it can decide, and thats highly unreasonable wouldn't you say?
That's highly unreasonable, I agree. What's also unreasonable is to guess that I mean something when I have given you absolutely no basis or reasoning to even entertain the possibility that I hold that opinion. On the contrary, my reasonings have thus far only implied that it is reasonable to give the fetus at least some human rights whilst it is still in the womb, after a certain point of development.
You need cognitive brain functions to be able to consciously decide. In fact, you need cognitive brain functions for a lot of things, and it is indeed developed prior to the age of 9-10. It is developed while you are a fetus, maybe even before that. Using the reasoning you applied to me is like saying:
Me: You may have human rights when you develop ability A. Having ability A gives the basis to develop abilities B, C, D, E and F, in that order.
You: So, you must have ability D to be able to have human rights?
In this context, A=cognitive abilities and the rest is all the development that can occur with ability A as its basis. Maybe you just misunderstood what I meant with cognitive functions.
What I said regarding to consciousness: it is reasonable to believe that awareness is tied to brain functions. Consciousness and awareness does not equate having the abillity to consciously decide, whatever you mean by that. It simply implies awareness.