|
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Hmm...that statement is a little scary to me. First off, we return to the notion of premature birth. By this definition is it then okay to abort premature babies kept alive only through incubators? Have they crossed this defined threshold of right to life even though they are kept alive artificially?
Secondly, what about children born with congenital diseases that will never be naturally viable but are kept alive, sometimes leading very normal lives, through artificial means such as drugs, dialysis or other medical means? Are these non-viable individuals void of the right to live?
Or what about adults that are diagnosed with any number of diseases from cystic fibrosis to Parkinson's disease to any number of terminal or life-altering malities? Since these inviduals are no longer in posession of natural viability is there no harm in their murder? Do they also lack the right to live since they are viable only through medical and scientific means?
I can understand the basic notion behind your definition of when a "human" gains the right to live, but I think the definition itself holds some very dire consequences. |
I'm not so sure you really do understand. An unborn, non-viable fetus is inherently dependent upon others for life. That is to say, it is one of its defining characteristics that it does not individually live. It is a fundamental and inescapable fact that at such a point in its development, the fetus - regardless of circumstance is not an independent life form.
Likewise, a prematurely born not-naturally-viable baby is by its very nature (that is to say, not circumstantially) still physiologically dependent on technological support if it is to successfully reach the point of natural viability.
Human beings, on the other hand, who are circumstantially unable to live without physiological support be it from disease, injury, et cetera are not likewise devoid of an individual right to life because it is not their natural state to exist dependently but rather, this state has been imposed upon them.
This is all assuming that you accept a human being's nature as the standard by which they ought to be assigned rights. If you have some better standard by which to dole out such rights then I assure you I'm all ears, however the wording and content of your posts indicates to me that rather than having such a standard, you believe in a "right to life" with no true standard at all. Am I wrong?
Now given that we must accept a certain degree of subjectivity in any particular standard for the allocation of such rights, and that it is not advantageous to society to prohibit abortion, does it follow for society to arbitrarily decide to prohibit abortion - or does it follow that society ought to leave the issue in the hands of the individual?
There lies solved the problem of abortion.
|
