You are quite right and that is a very fair comment. I think, though, that the woods can safely be walked into somewhat farther.
Firstly, "life" is clearly not the issue (as you've pointed out). The sperm or the egg is every bit as much alive as any poster on this thread--(and clearly more intelligent than some, as well!).
Secondly, human DNA (in and of itself) adds nothing to the equation, except that it is irrelevant. We share most of our DNA with fruit flies and we are in no way exceptional on the basis of a chemical configuration of genes.
But all rights derive from interest. Before someone can claim a right they must put themselves in the game or be put in the game by another.
So those who decide what "rights" pertain to various creatures are those who have an interest in the matter--which devolves to those capable of thought. Unfortunately, from my perspective, any capacity for self interest accompanied by any kind of thought (rational or not) allows people of limited intelligence to participate in these questions and answers. Obviously, we have no reason to believe that there is anyone or anything more rational (or more powerful) than ourselves to give or remove "permissions", so it behooves humanity to determine what values will inform our co-existence and our interactions. At least, if a cow does happen to be more rational than us, it is clearly not able to take advantage of this in terms of the use of power/force! So we decide together...
Obviously, there is no point in discussing the rationale behind issues with those who are merely superstitious or who cannot divest themselves of false premises, so what follows is for you and others on the thread for your consideration.
So what "rights" ought we to accord one another and why??
I believe that the cherished values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are sufficiently respected that I can assert them without important opposition. The best minds have worked for centuries and our entire species have learned and benefited through thousands of years of struggle so that my assertion that these values dovetail perfectly with natural self interest is rather beyond serious discussion. So let us continue.
Obviously, creatures that think DO HAVE an interest in the matter...and their interest extends to their property--and to anything else they may value. But in no case can individual values override the primary self interest of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I say that knowing full well that we can change these permissions at any time, but I am arguing that we ought not to).
So I think (Pete Singer and a few armchair quarterbacks to the contrary) that a natural love of offspring compels the vast majority of people to (at least) accept the proposition that a human child, having made it into the world, ought to be accorded the permissions we grant to...well--human persons. And so we do.
Now, it is up to us. We can grant permissions or "rights" to fetuses if we so choose. The problem is that in the case of all three of our most fundamental values--any attempt to grant those fundamental human rights to the property of one of our self interested creatures (Mary, Betty, or Sue) permits an interest to her property to society at large as well as to the fetus which has no actual interest in the matter and therefore disavows the reasoning by which we assert human freedoms in the first place. In effect, it grants society an easement on her fundamental rights--indeed, on her BODY and MIND--as well as on her property. This would make half of us NOT human persons and therefore having only limited rights granted by whim.
Society has every right to take such a backward step (the first "right" is always force) but it has no rational grounds to divest civilized society of its fragile toe-hold on human freedom. Many are not aware of how vulnerable and how exposed (to the millions of superstitious who bring a myriad of irrational and contradictory views to the discussion based on their personal, familial, tribal, or national superstitions) we are to losing these freedoms so dearly purchased in blood. Much of the world still treats one another strictly on the basis of force--the strong and organized rule the weak and disorganized like cattle--and they grant them permissions on the basis only of THEIR (the ruler's)self interest.
As to the status of a human being after birth, we don't even touch the incidental property of the mother, as property rights are logically attached to our fundamental freedoms. How less do we have any say in her living property (whether solely a part of her body or not) which she has carried and nourished, and brought into the world of human persons.
This new Being is now a human person (because we say it is)and although it has no interest in the matter, it can be granted permissions or rights from this point forward if we wish to do so--and it would hardly do to face the wrath of several billion mothers... :-) |
