Yes agree that when life begins there is a right to have it preserved. However this right isn't always an absolute right. Depending on the status of the life e.g. if you say that life begins at conception there are clearly, at least, two statuses of life - before and after birth. The right to life should then be better protected after birth, as is currently the legal situation in all countries I believe. Although if life is said to begin before birth that should be at least some protection of it.
You are wise to anticipate the wide range of ramifications that a 'true' answer might have on this topic. But you really don't need to qualify your answer here. Not to me, you don't.
I believe this is when your rights begin. You life obviously starts when you are fertilized and begin growing. I think that's when you inherit those rights when your brain develops, not fully, but enough to make the body move or process information.
Yes. Because your life truly starts when than brain switches on. That's what I am saying. Technically a seed is just halted in its life. Plant it and it begins to grow. Same for the human.
In my opinion it depends on which life you take in as life. I believe that life starts when your brain begins to become active. I think that that grants you the rights that you may receive later in life.
A child, by my opinion, has rights when the brain starts working. There are two ways I view life though. I would just say maybe when our brains are active do we truly begin life.
In your opinion, a child's life begins several months before it TRULY begins... and their rights don't begin until it can move or process information which is when their life TRULY begins.
It's a good pointed question, and it's interesting to watch as people avoid directly answering it. Someone who murders a pregnant woman can, at least in many states here in the US, be charged with double homicide regardless of what stage of development the fetus is at. So the state has already established interest in protecting the unborn child's right to life.
Since this debates scope is so narrow Try this one
Laughable isnt it? The country who declares themselves as bringers of democracy actually supports abortion and says some ridiculous excuses for it
Once Life starts, so does his rights to live begins.
Abortion is just a form of legalized murder. And the worst of its kind. If a mother kill her child so easily, what makes you think she wont do the same to strangers?
It's even more convoluted over here than that. It's the left (liberals) in our country who generally try to put a human face on everything. Tress, whales, dolphins and even mice... but they deny the real human faces on prenatal children.
It's the conservatives who are branded as un-caring, selfish, greedy bastards who only care about money.... who are the ones trying to fend for the rights of the children that the left is in denial of.
Im sorry, buy why is it okay for her to call someone a fool and focus on whether abortion is right or wrong, but not others who you automatically banned? Just wondering.
Because Chuz is a troll bans everyone that disagrees with him and doesn't even consider banning people that truly agrees with him no matter what they say.
Please reread the end of her statement then. I don't mean to be ride, it's just something I noticed. Also, others have been banned for adding their option on abortion after replying to the debate.
If you want to call her or myself a 'fool' for our views? Go right ahead. You have shown an ability to debate the issue that most of those banned did not. That's the difference.
I'm telling you that you can call me or her a fool if you want to. If that will make you feel better. The reason that she was not banned for calling anyone a fool is not because she agrees with me.... but because she LIKE YOU has demonstrated some consideration for the debate and question.
Everyone has different opinions, but my opinion is the one that everyone (including every government in the world) actually uses. Nobody counts any period of time you spend in the womb as part of your "I am __ years old" identifier.
You don't seem to be aware of the fact that some countries do exactly that.
"In Eastern Outer Mongolia, age is traditionally determined based on the number of full moons since conception for girls, and the number of new moons since birth for boys."
That says tradition. Does the government of that country currently age it's citizens differently based on sex, more to do with lunar cycles than age, and using some guesswork as to when the parents might have conceived?
Like if twins were born in a hospital in Eastern Outer Mongolia today and one was a boy and one was a girl, would they really write different ages on their birth certificates as per some moons gone by?
I mean the same wiki page says they traditionally count newborns as one year old in China... shows how much they know.
What do you think about the scientists who deal with aging and their declarations of the fact that a persons aging begins at conception?
Have you ever heard of the Mayo Clinic?
"What triggers the aging process — a process that begins at conception and progresses with each passing moment until death? In the simplest terms, aging occurs because cells are either dying faster than they are replaced or their functioning becomes altered.
Like I said on the other side: Even if we can't agree on the exact moment that a child's life begins can we at least agree that it is that moment (whenever it is) that their rights begin? Or, should begin?
(The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.)
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that a child's rights should begin when their life does. What good is a right to a person's life if it doesn't begin when the life does?
SO....
Even if we can't agree on the exact moment that a child's life begins can we at least agree that it is that moment (whenever it is) that their rights begin? Or, should begin?
Your question is a nonsense, because it would mean that you are not alive until your birth happens and after that your rights are covered already so... ?
So yes, your rights start immediately after you became a child, not before or after. So you are asking for thing that is already here....
Abortion will never be illegal in the US, if it was, then the population would be severely overcrowded. Pollution would go up, and the polar bears would lose their icecaps.
Well, (("Biologically, a child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood.") whichever rights that child has nationally,) sure.
Thanks for the clarification of your views. I am not going to challenge them in this thread. I am only trying to see if we agree that a child's rights should begin when their life does.
I'm not replying with what I believe, but rather what I've witnessed. A person has no rights until they are able to start making decisions for themselves. Children don't start making ANY decisions for themselves until they're at least toddlers, and even then it's little things. You can't have rights until you can start living by them, a child can't decide to live by any rights because parents generally do it for them.
It depends, are they able to make decisions, because I know high functioning mentally disabled.people who can and some that can't. If you can't make decisions then it's kind of moot.
I am talking about the folks who are so broken down they can no longer function as a real human being. Are you saying that they have lost their right to live?
And what about animals? Why do you protect their race when they cannot even be communicated with, much less create decisions?
I find it debatable whether a lot of people who are useless have a right to live and waste resources, and im not speaking about strictly mentally disabled people. Most animals, on the other hand, have some use to society. Transportation and food are some examples. I personally don't have an opinion one way or another, I'm just thinking of this from an opposing position.
Also, I personally never claimed to protect animals, so why you brought that up like I had confused me.
First off, I brought that animal rights argument because, as what Chuz said, why is it that animals gets to have rights but not fetuses which are human and has a higher role in the ecosystem.
Second, allow me to clarify something:
Your saying, that as long as a person is useful, then he should have rights, isnt it?
If thats so, then why are senior citizens, bed ridden folks, and insane people gets to enjoy "rights". But not the humans who carries the future with them?
I explained why. Fetuses are useless while they are in the womb, though it has possibility to change for the time that they aren't they don't have.rights based on what I've said. Animals on the other hand aren't generally useless.
Because what we're talking about is just that, talk. Just because something makes sense one way or the other does not mean it's how things are. For example, abortion isn't right to you it's still legal in a lot of areas.
You simply repeating and saying im unreasonable is not explaining why I'm wrong or debating back.
What do the amount of points I have have anything to do with this?
The codes of morality are not the same for everyone, check out what's going on in other areas of the world and you'll find their normal life distasteful for you. And the fact we disagree on something like abortion is also proof that morality is not the same for all.
alright then, since you asked for an explanation, then so be it.
First off, I said that your reasons are illogical because
1. You claim Fetuses as useless, but can change over time
2. You claim that animals "aren't generally useless"
Contradiction much?
We are all humans and we are all Fetuses once, doesnt that make Fetuses a humans as well, and must be treated as one?
You number of points prove your experiences, and dont you think its shameful to act unreasonable infront of a newbie?
The codes of morality are not the same for everyone
- There is only 1 Code of Morality and it is the golden rule
Do not do unto others what you dont want others to do to you
All the crimes that you speak to me will change over time if you give them enough criticism, (e.g slavery and gay marriage) but this single rule will never dissolve
So, to verify that I have this right and that you are not trolling.... are you saying that a child's rights do NOT or should not begin when their life does?
Also, why would you respond with something other than what you believe?
While I disagree with you banning almost everyone in the two debates you made, I saw they we're too busy focusing in what was expected of this topic instead of what you we're asking. I'm sure.many of them just misunderstood and saw your banning as an attack though.
Thankfully there were some on both sides of the debate who actually read the question and put some thought into it before they answered. The ones who didn't -know who they are and one in particular (Vermink) would have been un-banned if I could have made it happen. There's something wrong with that mod function and it has been reported.