Does it seem ruthlessly arbitrary to define human rights by the moment a "baby" no longer depends on the mom?

Question

Would we as a society be better off acknowledging the possibility that a baby becomes a human being before it has left the womb, but agree to subjugate THEIR rights to the rights of the mom to which they are attached?

Thus we could continue to provide a legal rationalization for abortion without the ridiculous charade of pretending that human being doesn't exist until it is outside of the mother's womb.

It seems self-evident there is not some tremendous transformation from the moment part of the baby is still in the mother's womb and the moment it is completely out----why do we pretend to give that difference such tremendous legal status?

Answer 1

I think you have a point, once the development of  human Being has begun, it becomes a individual and thus is given all the rights that governements secure. And as for babies, as soon as they start growing inside a girl, they are individuals, just because its inside her, doesn't take away their rights. Imagine if we said parents have the right to kill their children, Who would deny that killing your child is murder? The abortionists would aruge that the child isnt a adult yet, therefore he isnt human. This argument is rediculous because the child is still in deveolpment. The same goes for abortion, babies are people once they start developing

Answer 2

While I think you have some merit to your idea, I would caution that legal rights for fetus would bring upon the legal system a nightmare.  It isn't arbitrary at all to make the moment of birth the moment when legal rights begin.

___Folks, if rights begin at contraception, then, US couples will have "alien" fetus, even if they never left US soil.  And if you change this, then, foreign nationals will have US citizen fetus merely by conceiving on US soil.  Lastly, in  legal sense, is the issue of "standing", which blastocell and fetus cannot have.  Ultimately, the legal "standing" of fetus would have to bre relinquished upon the most logical cohorts, which would be the mothers.  Therefore, it goes back to square one.

Answer 3

Yes, it does.  The baby is no different outside the mom than it was 5 minutes before birth.

To whimsy: the unborn already DO have rights - why do you think Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder... one for his wife, and one for their unborn son?

Answer 4

Because once a baby is able to breathe on it's own - it is no longer an "abortion", but a "birth".

Answer 5

Well I have not seen any cases claming citizenship because they got pregnant in the US although born in other country but I see how ridiculous you want this to be.

Answer 6

The irony here is that the political party that supports your cause- the GOP- has no moral qualms about waging a war for oil that results in the death of 900,000 people, many of them pregnant women.

You do a wonder job of compartmentalizing your thoughts!

To answer your question, NO.

Answer 7

What you said is 100% true.

In response to whimsey, it would be a lot less arbitrary to make the point of it having rights the moment of conception.

Answer 8

After the baby is out of the womb, its existence and physical health is no longer inextricably linked with that of its mother.

I understand your argument, but the difference between a live baby and a fetus has everything to do with the mom and not the child itself.

Answer 9

That's what the constitution says, you know, the legal basis for the whole country.  

Answer 10

Yes it is completely arbitrary and stupid to say the baby has rights after birth. What if the future holds technological breakthroughs that allow a preemie baby to survive outside the womb at very early stages?

Do we say, "nope, it takes 9 months inside the womb to get rights."

(Viability is also a ridiculous argument. We aren't viable under the sea or out in space unless we are given the proper conditions for survival. The same goes for a baby in the womb as well as outside the womb. If not given the proper conditions for survival a baby, a 2 year old and an adult will all die; they aren't "viable?" Ridiculous.)

Answer 11

Nope.  Natural born citizens have rights  not cells.

Answer 12

I think it is ruthlessly arbitrary to define a human fetus as nothing more than a bug or a parasite that needs to be eradicated.

So, yes. I agree with your question.