Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
In another thread Mac recently posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights lays out the subject of rights quite well, I think. Personally I don't believe in any kind of natural rights that one has merely by existing. I consider all of them to be permissions granted (or not) by oneself or other beings, either newly or by tacit agreement, tradition etc.
Hubbard's idea in History of Man was that the being himself (thetan) joined the body around the time of birth, i.e. roughly nine months after conception, although the "genetic entity" — whatever the hell that is — connects up with the embryonic baby around conception. I'm more inclined to go along with the idea that it is the being himself that connects up around conception. There is a difference between killing off a growing body with the final "owner" attached to it and killing off one where the final "owner" has not yet appeared on the scene. But there is also a difference when that being has been involved with the process for nine seconds and when the being has been involved with it for nine months or nine years. How much of a difference? Ah, now, that is the whole point, isn't it?
Politics apart, I think it comes down to the "rights" of the mother to have control over her own life and body parts and the "rights" of the unborn child, as represented by the laws of the nation/jurisdiction concerned. The "rights" of the father to have a say in the matter don't seem to enter into it much. Since all these rights are arbitrary and often in life come down to what those in charge can get away with, the idea of a government having the best interests of a potential future citizen or subject at heart are ludicrous. Especially when those interests would conflict with those of an actual current citizen or subject.
A debate on "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and all the other options excluded from the simplistic emotive labels isn't likely to resolve on this forum, of course. But anyway....
Paul
Harsh, DC! This is an issue I keep flip-flopping on, myself. And the issue boils down to: when is a fetus/unborn baby/blob of tissue a human being with the right to life and when is it the property of the mother, to be disposed of at her discretion. You'd probably say the baby gains its right to life at birth. I'd say it happens sometime before, but I'm not sure when.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights lays out the subject of rights quite well, I think. Personally I don't believe in any kind of natural rights that one has merely by existing. I consider all of them to be permissions granted (or not) by oneself or other beings, either newly or by tacit agreement, tradition etc.
Hubbard's idea in History of Man was that the being himself (thetan) joined the body around the time of birth, i.e. roughly nine months after conception, although the "genetic entity" — whatever the hell that is — connects up with the embryonic baby around conception. I'm more inclined to go along with the idea that it is the being himself that connects up around conception. There is a difference between killing off a growing body with the final "owner" attached to it and killing off one where the final "owner" has not yet appeared on the scene. But there is also a difference when that being has been involved with the process for nine seconds and when the being has been involved with it for nine months or nine years. How much of a difference? Ah, now, that is the whole point, isn't it?
Politics apart, I think it comes down to the "rights" of the mother to have control over her own life and body parts and the "rights" of the unborn child, as represented by the laws of the nation/jurisdiction concerned. The "rights" of the father to have a say in the matter don't seem to enter into it much. Since all these rights are arbitrary and often in life come down to what those in charge can get away with, the idea of a government having the best interests of a potential future citizen or subject at heart are ludicrous. Especially when those interests would conflict with those of an actual current citizen or subject.
A debate on "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and all the other options excluded from the simplistic emotive labels isn't likely to resolve on this forum, of course. But anyway....
Paul