Do Human Rights start at conception?
 

Curious to see what you all have to say, especially those in tune with their 'spirit's. When does a child have human rights? When are they recognized by the universe/God as a child? When does the spirit or soul conjoin with a child? What happens to that spirit or soul if it is aborted? Are there now millions of aborted souls in the universe?

For me it's simple - the point of conception. A part of the woman's body has joined with a part of a man's body and an essense of spirit from God to become it's own being, and begins to grow from there. So human rights begin there. Totally logical. Simple. The child is it's own entity, not just 'a part of a woman's body'. It's 3 parts - God, woman, man. And so are you, and I.

What are your beliefs?

This is a good article from Erin on the topic.


I am also pro-choice. I'm personally morally opposed to abortion, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I am pro-choice, so I believe abortion is every womans right, however if it is a couple or a partnership it should be a join decision, not just the woman's.

I also believe human rights exist once a child is born, not from conception.

Conception
 

Growth means life. Just because it's in the stomach doesn't mean it's imaginary. The choice was made way before pregnancy. The choice to gamble. I have no desire to make it law because it would cause too much bloodshed. My hope is that eventually people will let go of their egos, that say "me me me" to justify it, soon become enlightened.

Spot on Dannyboy. Me too.

Whats enlightened about bringing a baby into the world you cannot support, don't want to support or simply cannot by any means raise it to be a good member of society?

Your argument is nonsense.

To me, human rights start as soon as a child is able to breathe on his or her own. That is when the child becomes his own entity. Before that the baby is part of the mother. I really wish I could guess about when the spirit enters or leaves the body, but I can't. I do believe in reincarnation, however, so if you do abort a baby, the spirit will simply go into another one who will most likely have a better life, so no real harm is done.

What makes you assume that there is any correlation between women who have abortions and women who wouldn't be able to raise their children properly?

Nothing at all. But you seem to be applying a blanket assumption that everyone is morally wrong for choosing abortion, I was merely highlighting a situation where it would be beneficial for the mother, father and society as a whole to NOT have that baby born.

This is not the point.
 

What happens after the child is born should have nothing to do with it. The question is when does life begin. It begins when growth begins.

Your argument could be said for a baby that's already born. Just because you can't take care of it doesn't mean you can't put it up for adoption. There are thousands of people waiting to adopt newborns the supply will never meet the demand. Abortion is like saying, "I can't afford to have him, so NOBODY can."

But don't you think it's cruel to say a baby HAS to be born, even if its into less than adequate surroundings...especially if the mother or father say themselves that they can't look after it.

I think one has to do that themselves.
 

I hope one day people will decide it's not a choice they should be making, let it be born, and give it away if they have to.

So your saying if someone gets pregnant by accident, or even if they just made a mistake...then they have to go through child birth which can be traumatic, because its not fair to the baby...

Am I the only one who actually believes that Babies do not have rights until they are out of the womb? Because a lot of people seem to be all holier than thou about this subject and its a bit worrying.

Following this logic, it could also be considered cruel to allow a child to live in less than adequate surroundings. What if 6 weeks after the birth of the child the parents decide they can't look after it? Should they be allowed to end the child's life in order to prevent them from having to grow up in less than adequate surroundings?

No. They shouldn't, that is when adoption is an option.

However before birth a baby is inside a person, connected to them, like an organ. Its a part of them, not a separate entity paying rent!

Does it? Technically, the sperm grows inside of me first, so is each one of those considered life as well? If so, I'm a mass murderer on a daily basis. I believe the OP was talking about the point when a spirit is incarnated into the baby. We really have no way to determine this, however.

Nine months of discomfort...
 

It's a lot, but you can get through it and not destroy your life and you can give the baby a chance to live.

This is like saying that someone who buys a puppy by mistake (meaning they thought they wanted it, but changed their mind) should just shoot it in the head so they aren't inconvenienced by the results of their mistake.

Not a logical argument.
 

A sperm alone will never be a baby. Does it have life, yes, but you can't compare it to something that is growing into a baby.

Dannyboy:

First point: Why the hell should a woman go through nine months of pain just so she give away the end result. That's ridiculous and absurd to ask of anyone!

Second point: Did you know that a baby starts of as a cluster of cells? About 1 at first...are you saying a cell has human rights?

Somerandomguy:

Your argument is ridiculously disproportionate, don't try and make me seem like what I am trying to sell is equivocal to killing a puppy. That's just asinine.
Of course I wouldn't suggest such a thing, as a puppy is not the same as a human, dogs aren't affected so wildly by whether they are brought up for the first twenty years of their lives in a stable environment.

Why not? It has potential to grow into a baby, plus each one acts independently and survives outside of the person and are not attached. They have very short lives, but they are technically alive. Why should a fetus be any different? All it is is a fertilized egg. Technically the growth starts for the egg and the sperm way earlier, so why would it suddenly be considered growth now, when it's just a blob of tissues that look nothing like a person yet.

You are right. That comment was ridiculous. I could have picked a better analogy to make my point which is that I think people should take responsibility for their actions and decisions, and not use abortion as a way to avoid taking that responsibility. You have already addressed your view on that, though, with your response to DannyBoy.

Tell me...
 

How does a sperm alone have the potential to grow into a baby? Yes, they're alive, but their more like pollen than a baby.

I didn't say "alone". It has to potential to fertilize the egg that becomes a child. Is that better?

Isn't the important thing, when the child develops a spirit or consciousness? I think that's way more important than nitpicking over when the fetus is technically a child. I was just showing you why people wouldn't consider a blob of tissue a child yet.

Yes, if you really believe this you would be one of the few who does, and the perspective would have very little bearing on reality.

Babies are viable (can live outside the womb on their own) at something like 22-24 weeks after conception.



At 7 months the situation is this:


So saying a 7 or 8 month old baby has no rights when it is entirely viable and could survive easily on its own, at a time when only a thin layer of skin keeps it from breathing and interacting on its own in the larger outside world, is a fairly ludicrous statement.

Short answer, yes, claiming life only begins at birth is misinformed, arbitrary and uneducated.

I never said there should be a law.
 

I'm saying we shouldn't encourage abortion in any way with ads or anything else so people feel comfortable screwing around without precautions then stopping a life and not having a care in the world.

I take your point. But I didn't say that. I said human rights begin at birth. And anyway who waits 22 weeks to decide to abort? If you didn't want the baby you would abort as soon as you knew in my opinion.

Even so...I believe that you should be able to abort at any point during the pregnancy, however at later dates this should only be reserved for cases where medical complications could endanger the life of the mother or if the child should die in the womb.

That logic can also be applied to:

I was merely highlighting a situation where it would be beneficial for the mother, father and society as a whole to NOT have _________

old people
retarded babies after birth
chronically ill people
junkies

I understand the angle you are coming from, but it's a slippery slope that leads to "the final soloution", do you think we really need to try that again?

Time telepathy? (sorry, bad joke)

Maybe I am on a slippery slope, but its better than being on the plains with no where to go.