The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Libertarian Fools


Subject:  Re: Discussing individual rights and libertarian Date:  7/1/2004  1:48 PM
Author:  erikinthered100 Number:  9261 of 23810

Using that argument, an appendix or tonsils would be considered human life as well. Neither are "dead tissue" but are routinely taken out. Eggs and sperm are also not dead tissue but are wasted as a fact of life.

I beg to differ.

Eggs and sperm do not represent human life. The combination of an egg and sperm at conception produces a fetus which IS human life. I don't need my degrees in biochemistry and medicine to state this as FACT. An appendix and tonsils are PARTS of an organism whereas the fetus IS a FULL organism.

A fetus is also a "potential" human being. A person has to ask themselves if a "potential" human has equal rights to a realized human. In my opinion, the mother's rights are more important than a potential human and a potential human becomes a real human when they can live outside the body without medical assistance.

Using your logic, its impossible to make a determination when human life begins. Moreover, your definition of a "potential human being" excludes infants as well as those adults who are ventilator dependent or otherwise dependent on medical assistance.

Currently, we use the point of viability (capable of life outside the womb) as a rough guideline for the legality of abortion. I don't see this as a clear distinction between being a "potential" or "real" human being. It is a useful distinction in balancing the rights of the fetus and mother.

I understand your rationale in attempting to exclude a fetus from the definition of human life. It makes it easier to accept compromise but neverthless, it is a denial of fact. I think it is FACTUAL to distinguish between DEVELOPING human life and FULLY DEVELOPED human life. It is certainly reasonable to assign different rights depending on stages of development. We already do - even in the case of children.

Well, I should take a break.

I hope I haven't offended anybody in my discussion of this very controversial subject.


Copyright 1996-2022 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us