Why should unborn fetuses not have human rights?
It's obvious that fetuses aren't people. They shouldn't have rights for many reasons. Lets list them here.
Answers:
crap grows inside of me... Does that deserve rights too.
I personally would start out by calling them fetus rights then...
But that's just me..
how about sperm?
and a female egg before fertilization...
we have to draw a line somewhere
They have no way to form their own opinions, meaning the parents are in charge, so if they want an abortion, they can and will and should get one.
To whatever idiot called me out:
The law is the law. Look it up.
After 21 weeks, the fetus is able to live outside the womb. They might have some complications, but they can live. Therefore, they are people.
Because they are easy to kill.
They can't fight back.
And there is Big Money in Abortion.
It is Big Business.
Many people and groups are getting very rich from Abortion.
Abortion Groups give the Democrat Party millions and millions of dollars each Election.
Okay. So you are also saying that the environment shouldn't have a right to be provided for, or cars, or alcohol, or guns.
Whatever. This is what the entire pro-choice/pro-life argument is about. Do you think the reasons on BOTH sides haven't been run into the ground yet? We all know what the other side thinks.
Hey LegalNinja...a newborn doesn't make it's own decisions either. Should we allow parents to put their babies in microwaves without repercussions?
They are not yet 18 years old.
Oh, wow, I disagree. The courts disagree too after the point of "viability."
THAT does not sound like a question Jehovah would ask.
cows have more consciousness then unborn fetus, but i dont mind a burger now and then
They don't have rights as independent people because they are not yet __independent__ people -- by any definition.
Same as minors don't have the same rights as adults.
But the abortion debate doesn't have anything to do with the rights of the unborn.
The abortion debate is solely about the rights of the mother to remain pregnant if she chooses, and to refuse to provide life support out of her body if she chooses. The same as a person has the right to refuse to give blood or refuse to donate a kidney if she chooses.
If pro-life people put their time and energy into medical research to develop artificial incubators, they could eliminate 90% of abortions. Instead, they seem much more concerned about trying to control what other people do.
Would you want your momma to think the same about you? A human fetus can grow to be nothing other than a human being. A heinous one if that human being would kill a fetus, though.
yeah at 6 weeks little fingers, little toes...little nose...it's just a choice to murder than unborn child. no rights should be afforded to that person. it's their mother's choice to murder them.
um they will become people just like you and i. what makes them less important than us? you were one a unborn fetus... and why do u say it unborn fetus, were u a born fetus? this is stupid, they have rights just like you and me end of story. from the second that the sperm hits the egg the real magic begins and thats when it becomes a human, not when it pops out
... i dunno
Thanks, soshyfyi, for endorsing the right of a woman to have an abortion before 21 weeks into the pregnancy!
A fetus is a people just not developed 100% yet. I dont understand why people ask these questions. Why would anyone oppose someone for going to jail if they beat a woman and she lost a baby. Babies can be born prematurley and survive, so if it is born at 24 weeks and on a resporator and iv's to keep it alive is it still just a fetus and so obviously not a person. Now if a woman is 24 weeks pregnant and she is assaulted and the baby dies it shouldnt be treated with the rights any child would have?
well let's see a man ejaculates millions of sperm each one is a potential baby should he be allowed to use spermacide? Does each sperm have rights to fertilize that egg?
Coragryph makes an astute observation. It is, indeed about a woman's right to choose. She can choose abstinence. She can choose contraception. She can choose to take responsibility for her actions.
Of course, if the woman (or child, come to that) is raped, it is a different matter. I happen to believe all life is sacrosanct, but if a rape victim chose to abort, I would respect her wishes.
seems like you stated a question and then reversed yourself.
So what your saying is that that sick cop who murdered his 9 month old pregant girl friend, who was due to deliver in a few weeks
SHOULDN't be charged with murdering the baby as well?
Its not so obvious that a fetus isn't a person. In fact many fetuses could survive on their own. That's why there are limits on the time a woman can get an abortion.
Go get a job, or go and get educated.
I am a Pro-Choicer!!
"It's obvious that fetuses aren't people. They shouldn't have rights for many reasons."
if that's the case, then newborn babies, who are no different than babies inside of the womb other than that theyre outside of the womb rather than in, shouldn't have rights either. someone said these babies can't form opinions, well neither can a newborn. what are the fetuses if theyre not human? tissue? even though by, what is it, 1 month that they have a heart beat? i didnt know tissue had a heart beat. the fact is, just because they baby is growing inside of the mother's body doesn't mean it's the mother's body. it's its own body, and just like you shouldnt be able to decide whether or not to kill a newborn baby, it's really not up to you to decide whether to or not to kill a baby still in the womb. use logic why dont you?
Sorry for the long post. I got inspired!
Human beings are created at conception. Conception to death is the life cycle of one human being, not a series of different beings replacing one another. Embryos and fetuses aren't inanimate objects, nor are they dead, so they must be alive. And we know they're human because when human beings mate with other human beings, they only produce human beings. So, what we have is a living human being that's just starting out its life. It can't take care of itself and it depends on its mother for habitation, food, water, and nutrients.
The fetus, like the born, goes through many developmental stages. Arguing that a fetus is less of a person at 10 weeks in gestation than at birth is like saying that an infant is less of a person than a forty-year-old adult. Human beings don't stay in one particular stage of development for very long. At some point human beings reach their physical and mental peak, only to experience a decline in both until death. Conception is the beginning and death is the end.
So many people try to point to different stages in the development of a fetus in order to justify depriving the fetus of his or her rights. For example, some say heartbeat and brainwave since the absence of both defines death. Fetuses have detectable heartbeats as early as three weeks (before many women even know they're pregnant!) and detectable brainwaves as early as six weeks. Studies have shown that the fetus begins producing the hormones to experience pain as early as ten weeks. Fetuses are also known to dodge surgical tools during abortions.
Some people think viability is the definition, as though living on one's own is the standard by which life and death should be decided. Why should that be? Coma patients on respirators aren't viable. Should we vacuum out their brains at the consent of their legal guardians? We all know human beings can exist without being self-sufficient or viable. And I shudder at the thought that innocent human beings who can't survive without certain technology or help are vulnerable to attack because they have no rights to life.
Some people argue consciousness. Why does that matter? Can I murdered when I'm asleep? Or does sleep not count because I'll presumably become conscious in a short period of time? Well, how short does the time period need to be to make the difference between rights and no rights, 'cause if all goes according to plan, fetuses will experience consciousness soon enough, too. And again, what about coma patients are unconscious? Would you ever support killing a coma patient if you knew the coma patient would wake up in 9 months? 8 months? 6 months? Ever? Because the fetus will "wake up" at some point, as well. Unless, of course, if you kill it.
Some people argue that simply being removed from the womb constitutes the initiation of human rights. Again - I don't get it. So, if you are living inside a person's property (your mother's body, your mother's home, your mother's car), you don't have any rights? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can't believe anyone proposes to deprive some human beings rights because of geography. If a person willfully trespassed onto your property, you wouldn't have the right to kill them. And by legal definition, a person's kids can't trespass on her property because she has an obligation to provide for them until she can transfer parental rights.
Also keep in mind that abortion isn't simply the removal of the fetus, it's the active killing of the fetus. A lot of pro-choice arguments (at most) justify removing the fetus and allowing the fetus to die--an act of omission--but do not justify actively killing the fetus--an act of commission.
Women don't have the right to abort in the same way that I don't have the right to murder you or anyone else. Every human being has the right to life. Nobody has the liberty to deprive another human being of his or her rights without consent. This isn't a woman's rights issue at all. This is a human rights issue.
I think we should stop differentiating between human beings. We pretend as though there's a meaningful difference between a person and a human being, as though there's some magical point in existence that morphs a human being into a person who's endowed with all these special rights. There is no scientific standard for 'person' as opposed to human being. There is scientific data on development and there are arbitrary lines that divide a pregnancy called trimesters, but there is no scientific definition of personhood versus being human. They're one in the same. Any differentiation is subjective and culturally defined. And since it's fundamentally subjective and rather emotional, what's to stop anyone from moving the line to, say, black people or Jews? Or the elderly? Or the retarded? Or the disabled? It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history, would it? If we're going to decide that some human beings just aren't people who have rights, then there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from moving the line wherever they want to justify whatever they want.
I'm going to say something radical: all human beings, regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, economic status, country or nation of origin, physical or mental disability, and age have the right to life and liberty. To deprive any human beings of these rights without his or her consent is an injustice of the highest order.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: