Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (81577)	10/22/2009 8:35:19 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The best interests of a dependant child are entrusted to society and more specifically to those guardians who are expected to serve and protect those interests. Inalienable rights do not exhaust the moral domain, anymore than they entitle one to act capriciously with respect to any and all endeavors without responsibility for the consequence." >>>"one would expect (as is the case after birth) that 'rights' accrue over time" In some respects they do and in others they do not. A child has the right to have support of it's well being provided for by a guardian, where as an adult has less claim to such rights and in most cases loses that right. You can even view it as a shifting to less rights of support as the child assumes more responsibility with age until there is no right to demand support. From this perspective the younger a child is the greater its rights are. And the way our laws are designed the rights are re-defined at certain age rights of passage. One key in considering children's rights comes from the concept of 'best interest of the child.' Courts use this term to make decisions and the international community recognizes it as a fundamental aspect of a child's right. The other important consideration to do with choice. Where there are rights we normally consider the right to choose the engagement of a right or the level of engagement. Inalienable right is something different, although there is some overlap. Inalienable rights are rights that are inherently right as a condition of being. Inequality of rights is an antiquated notion. We don't consider the rights of one human being to outweigh another human being's rights.

To: LLCF who wrote (81577)	10/22/2009 9:11:38 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Yes please elaborate with respect to mother and "her" fertilized egg in relation to my context:" I'm not real clear on your context. It appears there are more than two sides in this discussion. Greg and Brumar are arguing the 'if' point of view. If an entity is some developmental level of human, any level, it has rights. Something like this: (1) it is wrong to kill beings with rights, (2) fetuses are genetically human, (3) being genetically human gives you rights, therefore, (4) it is wrong to kill fetuses because they are genetically human. The conservative view. You are arguing some vantage of the liberal view, a la Mary Anne Warren, who says that "there are five different characteristics a being should have in order to be a person. The five characteristics of personhood in relation to moral worth are as follows: consciousness (ability to feel pleasure or pain), reasoning (the ability to problem-solve), self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate and lastly the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. " From the if/then perspective Greg and Brumar have made their point so I don't know what I could say on the matter. From your vantage point it becomes a little more problematic. You not only have to define person but you have to determine a legitimate point of personhood where rights are engaged. Historically we have loads of guidelines. Conception, the third trimester (when ensoulment is believed by some to take place), Exiting the vagina, first breath, some infant milestone, puberty, a particular legal age. Currently we are going with the first breath according to our legal structure. The only argument I've heard for this is, "hey it may be arbitrary but it's a common and identifiable point in every human beings life." Tim is doing his own thing. Have I missed anything?