(Untitled)

[artificialchaos]

A message board that I frequent has had an interesting topic running on the banning of smoking, and through the power of the internet and random argument structure it brought us around to smoking and pregnancy, and the "violation" of the rights of unborn children

Comments

[raistlinjones]

Assuming that rights-based speech is meaningful, of course...

I have to wonder a few things. First, does our normal morality really assume that all parties are self-sustaining? If so, should it? Bottom line - how is self-sustainability morally relevant?

What about other cases of dependency? In conjoined twins, typically one of the twins has the majority of the vital organs. The other twin, then, is dependent on the first, and is certainly not self-sustaining. Would you want to say that the dependent twin should have fewer rights as a result of this dependency?

I guess I don't really see an argument there for why things are "drastically different" when someone is born.

[artificialchaos]

I was hoping you would respond, of all people, because I can trust you for good, thoughtful reactions

[raistlinjones]

Last things first: you're probably right about the conjoined twins - it was merely there to see if your intuitions are similar about that situation

[artificialchaos]

Last things first, again: No problem. I was hoping to hear from you, maybe Darci and maybe Karun on this matter simply because I know you guys will engage it with the thoughtful rigor it needs

[avianchaos]

AC, it's Croi, from that message board you mentioned.

I just have a question concerning this argument, and seeing that FF is down at the moment, I hope you don't mind if I post here.

The big issue that you're stressing is the ability of a human/child to sustain life on its own. What about older people who need oxygen tanks to live? Or just invalids who are unable to function without strong medication, maybe mechanical support? What about those in comas? I generally mean people who are alive but unable to sustain their own lives without artificial input from the medical world. Do they have the same rights as other humans, or are their rights different as you believe fetuses should be?

[artificialchaos]

Hey Croi, nice to hear from you.

Those people you cite do not fit my criteria. Remember, my point about dependancy of the fetus is that the fetus cannot be cared for by anyone else but the mother in which it was concieved. You cannot, in essence, transplant the fetus elsewhere. It must stay where it is. In that sense, its existence is solely contigent upon that one specific mother.

In the case of the people you're referring to, elderly, invalids, people who are retarded, they can be cared for by others. The mother doesn't *have* to be the one to care for them. Their existence is dependand upon us, yes, but the general us. If they are an invalid, they can be put in a home that we establish to care for them. The fetus, prior to self-sustaining its bodily functions, cannot.