Do Human Rights start at conception?

[JMan]

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?

[Dan.Linehan]

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.

[Akashic_Librarian]

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.

[Dannyboy1]

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.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

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.

[Akashic_Librarian]

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.

[Barcs]

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.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

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

That's an important distinction too. I agree with you.

Regarding legality, the Federal government should have no say either way. It should be left up for the individual states to decide.

[Trezker]

In my opinion this is a personal question. No one other than the pregnant woman has any right to decide what morals she should follow. She should have the right to follow her own beliefs. Making laws against abortion is definitely wrong.

However, when the child is separated from the mother it has the right to live. How exactly to deal with difficult situations after this point gets trickier.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Trezker

In my opinion this is a personal question. No one other than the pregnant woman has any right to decide what morals she should follow. She should have the right to follow her own beliefs. Making laws against abortion is definitely wrong.

However, when the child is separated from the mother it has the right to live. How exactly to deal with difficult situations after this point gets trickier.

I understand your point however our culture could change over time and opinions like you've formed could change in the mass culture in the distant future.

Certainly it is illegal to kill a baby after birth according to the law and this is not a personal choice. Is there a big difference in the baby one day before she gives birth? Of course not and so this is also not a personal choice. So the question is, "When does the baby have the right to be protected by the State or gov't under law?"

Currently our mass culture sees the gap between conception and before birth as the baby still being attached to the woman's body. The idea that "its the woman's choice" is not because the baby has no rights its because the woman's right trumps the undeveloped baby's rights in our current system. The lack of development is what makes it a personal choice based upon what we view development to be. Our culture says that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby to term or told what to do with her body.

Its my prediction that when technology is more advanced and babies are able to be developed outside the mother's womb that the woman's right over her own body will no longer be an issue. At that time the culture as a whole will examine the inconvenience caused by forcing a woman to carry a baby to term will no longer be an issue. Most likely the State or Federal gov't will then say that the baby's right to live will trump the woman's right to abort.

The baby's individual rights today are at X weeks however as technology advances I think that the weeks will not go longer but instead will be shortened. Logically as technology advances so too will what we view a baby's survival rate out of the mother's womb.

Technology is advancing so quickly that I think in ten or twenty years I'll look back on this post and my prediction will come true. What do you think of my logic?

[MariaIsabel]

Originally Posted by schola

That's an important distinction too. I agree with you.

Regarding legality, the Federal government should have no say either way. It should be left up for the individual states to decide.

Why do people always say that? W It's still the government deciding, only on a different level.

[MariaIsabel]

Originally Posted by schola

That's an important distinction too. I agree with you.

Regarding legality, the Federal government should have no say either way. It should be left up for the individual states to decide.

Before Roe v Wade, it was up to the states to decide, which is why the case was brought to federal court.

I think people should look at exactly what the Roe v Wade decision said. I am not very internet savvy. I can't find that information to link to this post, but I do know that one thing everyone keeps bringing up -the viability question- is taken into account in the court's decision. You cannot get an abortion legally in the third trimester unless your life is in danger.

This is not something that I normally talk about, because I believe this is a private issue that will never be settled and usually ends in a screaming match because it juxtaposes two opposing and very strong ideas about freedom. People who are against abortion will have their personal moral reasons for being so. Likewise, people who are for abortion rights have theirs. One thing that has always intrigued me, though, is the following and I would like to ask the anti-abortion people their opinions.

Fertility clinics. Thousands of eggs are fertilized, frozen and then after a certain time, they are destroyed. Do you have a problem with that?

As well, what about the morning-after pill that keeps a fertilized egg from implanting. Is that immoral? I've always wanted to know what people thought about that.

[Lauxa]

In primitive human societies, if a baby was malformed or unwanted it would be abandoned and left to die.

In other primate societies, as well as human history, when males conquer a new territory the suckling infants are killed so the females regain their fertility sooner.

In this society, a person must reach the age of 18 before being granted full rights and responsibilities. Before this point, parents are responsible for punishing their children and can legally take actions against children that would be forbidden against an adult.

I'm not sure what the point is. Maybe just that societal norms define what we consider to be moral or immoral, that the example of nature is brutality, that it is our prosperity that enables us to even have these conversations.

[Still Growing]

I have an idea.

Why don't we create a pill that enables women who were raped or where insest occurs to take in order to stop from becoming pregnant. We'll call it the morning after pill.

We'll then allow abortions for those who wish to have one very early in the pregnancy before the embroy develops into a baby for those who believe in abortion but we'll create these adoption agencies to take the babies from mother's who don't wish to raise the child.

We can then create a system that serves everyone.

Oh wait, this is the system we have now.