Infested Cats-I just couldn't let this slide.
Herewith The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.
Herewith, apparently, a nature lesson.
The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.
I have, in the past, been asked to "grasp the difference"; which request generally sets forth parameters of narrow enough scope as to exclude views at any remove from those one is requested to "differentiate" between. In this case, it presumes a conclusion which leaves unanswered the question of "When does life begin?". Infested Cats, I can't believe you have so quickly and cleanly disposed of an argument the country's greatest legal and scientific minds have yet to resolve.
The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its' host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.
Some may take issue with certain suppositions contained here; the issue of "animal rights"-it is correct that animals do not possess rights, at least not in the sense they are capable of exercising them in order to oppose the harmful intent of another animal or a human being. Humans instead concoct "rights", and attempt to exercise them for, or on behalf of, animals. Humans do this in order that animals might benefit from the human ability to offer them extraordinary protection.
A human fetus is no more capable than an animal of requesting protection, but certain of us might argue it is no less deserving of same as the mere fact of having been born does not confer survivability, but it is legally sufficient (for now, at least) to reasonably ensure an adult will render care.
The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of 'right' it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.
If this is an argument or analogy of some type, I cannot discern what it might be.
This in essence is the case for a woman's moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.
As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.
Please try again, IC.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks