I don't accept your premises. Your concept of rights seems to depend on two things. One is the separateness of the body from anothers. In reality, a fetus is separate. The fetus is connected to the mother only through the placenta. However, that is not a connection in the sense that your arm is connected to your body. A placenta is actually a tangle of interwoven veins. Some of these veins are the mother's and some are the child's. These serve to carry food and oxygen to the child but the child is still a separate biological entity. In reality, the mother is merely providing food and oxygen to the child. The newly born child is totally dependent on the mother or some other responsible human for food as well. Hopefully, at this point the child can supply it's own oxygen but even this is, at times, required to be provided with assistance.
The other premise is the ability to assert rights. Clearly, the newborn child cannot assert it's rights. At most it can complain, often quite loudly, when it's rights are violated but mostly the complaints are about hunger and dirty diapers. No adult has the right to food or a clean butt provided by someone else. So, given your premises, a mother is quite within her rights to dump a kid in the dumpster and walk away. Lastly, your question about the conjoined "head" is illustrative of my position. You ask ME to decide when a conjoined twin becomes a human and has rights. I'm saying that I do not know and do not have the right to make that decision either for the "internal head" or for the "host." This is why I oppose the state making the decision for the mother. I also refuse to make supporters of abortion comfortable with their position by agreeing with their position that a baby is nothing more than a piece of protoplasm before it passes through the birth canal. As I said, it is not a simple thing. The whole issue is complicated and should not be discussed in such black and white terms as Rand does. Ed$ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed, > > The day before birth, the fetus is still inside another's body. > Degrees of development or dependency have nothing to do with it. > Since "INDIVIDUAL rights" depend on having an individual body, > physical location is the relevant factor. By definition an > individual with personhood/rights can not exist inside another. > But you ask why. Because it's obviously no more possible to > physically confer or apply rights to a fetus than it is for a > fetus to exercise those rights. Ignore physical > abilities/inabilities; the location of the fetus is what makes > the concept of "fetus rights" as impossible as "fetus clothes". > That's what makes a fetus unable to hold an apple or own > property; secure protection or assert liberty or identify an act > of aggression; have legal standing or an address or a name or a > fingerprint or an identity; or MAKE A CHOICE. > > It's good that you asked to consider conjoined twins. The > situations are very close and good for comparison. Let's say > there were conjoined twins where the second "body" consisted of > nothing more than an internal head. Could the head possibly have > rights, let alone rights that supersede the rights of the host's > body - the one that can make choices and have an identity? > > ---------------------------- > > Parturition DAY? A whole 24 hours? So, the day before parturition > the fetus is a lump of protoplasm and the day after it is an > individual with rights? A day-old child is almost as completely > dependent on the mother and father, or someone, as when in the > womb. That little piece of protoplasm may be separate but it is > still dependant. > > I'm afraid you are making assertions without much (if any) > backup. Why does a "person" or "individual" come into existence > by "separating from the host"? Why is the concept of "rights" > intimately dependent on the concept of "person/personhood"? Why > is it required to have an individual body? Consider conjoined > twins. Which one has rights? Do both? Neither? > > Ed$ >
