The right to be counted as people would certainly suggest they have a right to life.
"The right to be counted as people", can mean the right to be considered to have the rights (or at least an important subset of the rights) that people are generally recognized to have. If that's what you mean that yes it would suggest a right to life.
It could also be the right to be considered a person. Which many would accept as indirectly implying a right to life.
The counting in the census is a totally different type of "to be counted". Its not about what someone is considered or rights rights they have or are considered to have, its a literal counting, as in adding up numbers (well technically many censuses involved estimation and not 100% pure counting, but that's not really a relevant point in this discussion).
How can you tell a particular class of persons that their "RIGHTS" are impractical.
I drew the distinction between issues of morals and rights and purely practical issues. That's not for any particular class of persons, but rather for all persons.
How can you say that a zygote is a human person while permitting a mother to live an unhealthy lifestyle?
First a secondary point - There in most cases there is some uncertainty about what is significantly unhealthy, or how unhealthy it is. There are some clear and extreme cases, but most will not be.
More importantly the totalitarian government that would be needed to enforce healthy lifestyles on everyone would be generally harmful, likely harmful to the child as well, at least after he or she is born. We do indeed let the mother endanger the health and safety of her two year old to a certain extent. Its nearly impossible to not do so, esp. without (but even with) a surveillance police state.
Then there is the complication that at first the woman may not even know she is pregnant, and later on other people may not.
So would it not be perfectly reasonable to tranquilize the mother and feed her (and thus her fetus) intravenously?
Even if you don't consider the rights of the mother at all (and it would be unjust not to do so), keeping the mother tranquilized is unlikely to be health for her child. |
