Originally posted by invigorateAs I recall, viability and rights conferral are not concordant in Bbarr's framework.
Because it does not and cannot live independently of the mother. It is part of the mothers body at that stage, no more no less.
As pointed out, there are lots of circumstances where an entity is not viable but
still have rights. Bbarr's stance relies on the entity's having a mind (the capacity
for rationale, self-awareness, and to suffer) which happens before viability.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardCreatures without minds cannot suffer. Nothing can go better or worse for them from their point of view because they have no point of view. There is nothing morally wrong with kicking a stone. There is something morally wrong with kicking a dog.
Then the question arises why only creatures with minds have rights.
Is it because you feel they are inferior to us?
Originally posted by NemesioIndeed. Any number of current persons are not viable; they require constant medical attention in order to survive.
As I recall, viability and rights conferral are not concordant in Bbarr's framework.
As pointed out, there are lots of circumstances where an entity is not viable but
still have rights. Bbarr's stance relies on the entity's having a mind (the capacity
for rationale, self-awareness, and to suffer) which happens before viability.
Nemesio
Originally posted by bbarrI agree that thinks can not go better or worse for them from their point of view because they have no point of view.
Creatures without minds cannot suffer. Nothing can go better or worse for them from their point of view because they have no point of view. There is nothing morally wrong with kicking a stone. There is something morally wrong with kicking a dog.
But from MY point of view things can go for better or worse for them. They can die or they can grow up to become an adult human like myself.
Also the difference between a stone and a fetus it that the stone is not alive and will never grow into an adult human.
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYes, so? Fetuses are alive. So are viruses. Viruses don't have rights, so being alive is not sufficient for having rights. Further, fetuses who get aborted will never grow up to be an adult human, so they have that in common with stones.
I agree that thinks can not go better or worse for them from their point of view because they have no point of view.
But from MY point of view things can go for better or worse for them. They can die or they can grow up to become an adult human like myself.
Also the difference between a stone and a fetus it that the stone is not alive and will never grow into an adult human.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYes but just like the stones viruses cant turn into grown up humans and above that viruses kill humans so they cant and never will respect rights.
Yes, so? Fetuses are alive. So are viruses. Viruses don't have rights, so being alive is not sufficient for having rights. Further, fetuses who get aborted will never grow up to be an adult human, so they have that in common with stones.
Isent being alive and respecting other life enough for having the right to live in a civelized world?
Originally posted by bbarrI really dont think comparing fetuses, potential human beings, to viruses is not quite the right comparison!
Yes, so? Fetuses are alive. So are viruses. Viruses don't have rights, so being alive is not sufficient for having rights. Further, fetuses who get aborted will never grow up to be an adult human, so they have that in common with stones.
Viruses arnt alive in the same way as a fetus anyway
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIt makes no sense to say that viruses respect or fail to respect rights. Only creatures with minds can respect rights or fail to respect right. If you die of a viral infection, your rights have not been violated by the virus, becuase the virus doesn't have the capacity to recognize moral obligations like the obligation to respect the rights of another.
Yes but just like the stones viruses cant turn into grown up humans and above that viruses kill humans so they cant and never will respect rights.
Isent being alive and respecting other life enough for having the right to live in a civelized world?
Not all fetuses can turn into adult humans either, specifically, fetuses that will be aborted will not turn into adult humans. Further, I see no reason to think that the potential to turn into an adult human being is sufficient for having rights. Every sperm and egg has that potential, and I'd bet you don't hold a little funeral each time you rub one out.