Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientists who take a genetic view of when life begins..fertilization of egg and sperm as well as people who still maintain religious faith.
I know of no "scientists" who take that view. Wanna point out a few of them to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
The Supreme Court ruled on fetal viability outside the womb as to when "life begins" which is further along in pregnancy. And for you that's all that matters.
And for most of history it was when the fetus "quickened in the womb." This was also the church position for centuries.
No one is asking you or forcing on you. The Supreme Court ruled and told when legally when life begins.
It begins at "x" for abortion but at "y" for homicide.
Why is that fetus treated differently ?
It's entirely arbitrary.
At some points along the 9 months of pregnancy, something that is obviously not a human being (i.e. a fertilized ovum) becomes something that obviously is a human being (i.e. a full term fetus). During much of that time it is not obviously either.
Any attempt to draw a bright line when one becomes the other is entirely arbitrary.
The premise that newborns do not have the same status as other living humans is a difficult premise to establish, since, actually, they do enjoy that same status. Legally and ethically, they are entitled the same consideration as a five-year-old or a fifty-year-old. While the authors can try to make the argument that newborns and fetuses are appreciably the same, science and the law do not agree with that argument.
The Supreme Court didn't rule that life begins at different times for different fetuses. The Supreme Court ruled on the state's interests in unborn fetuses. In the case of a mother seeking abortion, the state's interest in the fetus outweighs the mother's rights at the point when the fetus becomes viable, able to live outside the womb. In the case of a pregnant woman being murdered, the state presumes that, without the intervention of the murderer, the fetus would have reached that point of viability, and therefore the state has an interest in that fetus.
The problem with such an argument is that the state is confusing future potential with reality.
@The OP: In regards to your question, No, infanticide should not be legalized.
That said, this is why I support personhood for prenatal human beings as well--some of the arguments which are used to deny prenatal human beings personhood can also be used to deny human infants personhood.
Why should newborns have a different status from, say, a five-year-old? You're the one using SHOULD by the way, so don't chicken out now. Offer up an argument.
I don't support infanticide, but someone who does might respond to your question like this:
Because human infants are incapable of self-awareness and/or rational thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
