Man sues parents for giving birth to him w/o his consent
The guy is a member of the sect of "antinatalism" with increasing following, that claims it is morally wrong for people to procreate.
This jibes in nicely with the left's killing of babies, giving way to Muslim high level procreation who don't ask permission.
This jibes in nicely with the left's killing of babies, giving way to Muslim high level procreation who don't ask permission.
(Hope you know this is sarcasm - Crazy world getting crazier)
1. Want to live
2. Don't want to burden the world
Magistrate, if 1 is checked, dismiss the case, and register the plaintiff in the Waste of Time Database. If 2 is checked execute the plaintiff without delay.
There will have to be a "fetus whisperer" to ask the question.
Planned Parenthood is now looking for proper candidates for the position.
abort me and sell my parts and limbs for the top dollar and then ignores the fetuses request for a percentage of the deal.
https://youtu.be/6LPlHjP1DVw
But we are missing the point. He wanted the law suit to harass others for the sake of promoting his cause to eliminate all of us.
you 'believe' that human life begins before birth, then he should have been asked for his consent at the right time about such a major decision. Without proof of having that consent the parents are guilty as charged.
If- laws and court systems were to follow that belief, parents who do not trust their (unborn- they call it) children and want to avoid being sued, will know what to do. (legal or not)
Maybe it is not so bad, a new profession will spring up of (suitably licensed) psychic commmunicators who will convey the arrangement to the .er. unborn, and will present their consent. (Outreach officers to the unborn community) .
Wait a mo. suppose the state acredited psychic communicator (SAPC) fails to provide consent, what then? Life having begun at conception they say, what to do? Answer- the communicators have to start work earlier on ovo and sperm requiring a large employment increase for SAPCs to the delight of Keysian economists.
'Every Sperm is Sacred, etc' See Life of Brian by Monty Python.
I could go on but it all too much fun.
Sounds like socialism in a nutshell.
I'm not sure which version is funnier.
That is an interesting concept.
In reality I still believe the government should stay out of the issue entirely. Any taking of life however needs to be punished according to the law. We just have to figure out what we can agree on as to what life is. It'll be an issue for many years to come, keeps the politicians busy defending their prejudices and powers.
It is much more valuable for the sale of the brain and pineal gland.
It is ridicules that a woman couldn’t decide to be a mother or not up to the last minute. BTW some aborted fetuses are born alive and then killed.
The difference between birth and pre-birth is fact not "illogic". The difference is not wiped out by dismissing it as a difference regarding only the time across "split seconds". The nature of the entity is different in essentials before and after birth, regardless of the time it takes or the method.
The "gradual" development -- over (normally) 9 months -- is all pre-birth. For the entire time period it is a potential human being, not a person.
There was no Virginia legislation that would have (it did not pass) allowed "killing the child after birth" and that was not celebrated. The bill concerned third-trimester abortions, not infanticide (which is how it has been falsely hyped by activists). There was a commemoration and celebration of the NY law that also pertained to abortion, not infanticide. It changed the law allowing third-trimester abortions when the life of the woman is threatened to when the life or health of the woman is threatened.
If our "elimination may be considered" it will likely be because of gang civil war or, if "legally", because of socialized medicine rationing -- not because of protecting the rights of women from being forced to bear children they don't want or which threaten their own health and lives.
I am glad your former girl friend survived her unusual birth. She was clearly wanted.
Since there is no obvious mathematical formula that determines person-hood with any precision, it does fall into the category of philosophy, which is a bit less defined. For example, when I cut open a leather-like egg of the newborn shark in my tank and helped the newborn shark come out of the egg, it was quite obvious to me that the shark was alive and living prior to my cutting of the egg. I would apply the same courtesy to a human.
The child is a person when it is born. That does not require mathematical precision for person-hood. That the fetus is "alive" in its parasitic state before birth does not mean it is alive as a child and therefore a person.
"Therefore[?] has all the rights of a disabled person" is yet another bizarre non sequitur from those who do not understand the nature and source of rights and who treat the concept 'rights' as a floating abstraction. See Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights".
As Ayn Rand put it, ""A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
"Standing by" your own arbitrary "statement" -- asserted as if it were not "just opinion" -- that the unborn potential human being has "rights" and a woman's body is a "shared apartment" that "must be considered a shared commodity", is obscene. That dismissal of the moral right of a woman to her own body, with the demand to impose the force of government to sacrifice women to your feelings for alleged "rights" of the unborn is, as Ayn Rand put it, unspeakable.
The concept of 'rights' is a moral concept based on the facts of the nature of man as a person. See "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights". Rights are a characteristic of man by his nature. The concept cannot be arbitrarily applied to entities that do not have those characteristics on which his rights depend. Fetuses do not have those characteristics. There are no "fetus' rights" to "weigh". The concept does not pertain to fetuses.
You equivocate between "human" as an adjective -- as in 'human cells' or 'human fetus' -- versus a 'human person'. In arbitrarily insisting on "rights" of the unborn, you treat the concept 'rights' as a floating abstraction without regard to the concept's meaning in reality, emotionally attaching it to a fetus as if "rights" were 'intrinsic' to anything called "human", which is mysticism, in contrast to an objective characteristics of human persons. It is based on nothing but feelings and anti-conceptual imagery, with complete disregard for the meaning of the concept 'rights' and the facts on which it is based.
No one has to prove that a fetus does "not legally have rights as a human".
The burden of proof is on he who arbitrarily asserts it does. That can't be done because the floating concept notion of 'rights' is conceptually meaningless, divorced from referents in reality. But the policy of "rights" for the unborn does have meaning in reality: the barbaric practice of forcing women to bear children they do not want, in stark violation of their rights as real, live human beings. Metaphors about "shared apartments" do not change that stark reality.
You don't appear to have any understanding of why any of us have rights, least of all the women you demand to treat as "shared commodities" as you regard them as shared breeding stock "commodities".
The burden of proof is on he who arbitrarily asserts it does." is going to come up again, eventually, in the cases of machine intelligence and (possible) alien life. I believe you are right in principle, but I take the pragmatic approach that if you're going to abort, it's best to do it early. That's all. As for 'Standing by" your own arbitrary "statement" -- asserted as if it were not "just opinion"': Sorry, it was just an opinion. If I had meant more I would have provided supporting arguments. Again, I do like your thorough logic. Emotionally charged issues should be worked out carefully to the point where opposition parties cannot provide adequate rationale, in order to get them to see other sides.
And in practice almost all abortions are early, with very late term abortions being for reasons of health. Discoveries of pregnancy, developing health problems of either the woman or the fetus, changing life circumstances, and the time to gather information and decide do not always occur conveniently immediately after the beginning of pregnancy, and no one has a right to interfere with that.
What you need is the conceptual understanding of the basis of morality and its political corallary 'rights'.
People should watch the video (there are many available when you do a search on the web) about the development of the fetus inside the uterus.
It is a miracle of nature as the new life progresses through several stages of development.
To put an end to it is very disturbing to say the least.
However disturbed you feel about stopping the process, it is nothing in comparison with unspeakable barbarity of forcing women to bear children they don't want, sacrificing an actual human being to emotions over a potential new person.
After birth, he would start kicking and laugh his ass off if I started singing. He recognized my voice and didn't do it for anyone else. I have no reason to believe that was not the same 'human' response. He would have been no less aware at 8.5 month than at birth plus a week, if something had grabbed him and killed him. IMHO, at 9 months and for at least some time less, there is 'someone' there.
Viability is does not mean 'person' and is not the source of rights; viable means it's a potential human being not yet born, but with a good chance of surviving normally if it is born. That does not give it advanced personhood with rights. The line is drawn at birth.
There is nothing in the article "Man's Rights" about fetuses or anything about the source and nature of rights that a fetus qualifies for. You saw nothing about the concept of rights depending on "registering pain". All kinds of sub-human animals feel pain; it does not give them rights.
Rights are a moral concept based on the nature of the human person, not anything to which the word 'human' is attached, such as 'human cells'. They are not handed out for whatever someone decides is "immediately due rights" without regard to the nature and source of rights -- the facts that give rise to the concept -- and why human beings have them.
Third trimester fetuses are not "kids"; "viability", i.e., the potential to be born, does not make the concept 'rights' applicable; and we do not have rights because we can "register pain".
Did you decide to ascribe 'rights' to fetuses before or after you read about the nature and source of rights in the article "Man's Rights"?
the "potential" condition qualify him for exclusion? I think that the problem is, so far, no one has come up with an adequate unambiguous definition of Human Being.
A fetus is not "excluded" from having human rights, it does not qualify to be included. The concept of rights is based on the facts of what human beings are, and cannot be arbitrarily ascribed to other entities. Nor can the rights of the woman be wiped out because you prefer something else, emotionally tying a floating abstraction of 'rights' to a fetus and less, and giving that priority over a woman's life.
The concept of human being -- "man", philosophically -- was identified and defined by Aristotle thousands of years ago. Ayn Rand showed why and how the Enlightenment idea of natural rights applies, properly conceived. It has nothing to do with "shared apartments". Did you get those notions before or after you read Ayn Rand's "Man's Rights"?
It passed in NY.
The criterion is birth not "just minutes". That is not "splitting hairs". When you die it's significant to the undead corpse, too, not just a matter of some minutes.