NationStates Jolt Archive

As an opposite of euthanasia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473762), do two individuals have the right to bring a life into this world via conception? Some argue that it is morally wrong to end a person's life when that person is incapable of making an arbitrary decision for themselves, or when they are depressed and have the potential to overcome their depression and continue living. Well, what about that little zygote? What choice does it have? It is being forced to develop into a human being and live in this world, whether it wants to or not.

Speak up and be heard!

I wondered when somebody was going to ask this question. Excellent question. I'd say "no".

Huh?

OK... so, no... no one has the right to force life on another. Everyone should stop it immediately, and anyone who has ever done it should be executed on the spot. Additionally, anyone who was ever forced to be alive against their will should be awarded $10.00 worth of sleeping pills and a plastic bag with which to correct the situation.

If we are going to be ridiculous that is.

Or, which might be easier... tie it to the age of consent. So no one has the right to force a zygote into becoming a human once the zygote has reached the age of 18 years. At that point, the zygote MUST move out of the womb, become self supporting, and go on as it pleases, either becoming a human, or not.

Theres always abortion or adoption.

Huh?

OK... so, no... no one has the right to force life on another. Everyone should stop it immediately, and anyone who has ever done it should be executed on the spot. Additionally, anyone who was ever forced to be alive against their will should be awarded $10.00 worth of sleeping pills and a plastic bag with which to correct the situation.

If we are going to be ridiculous that is.

Or, which might be easier... tie it to the age of consent. So no one has the right to force a zygote into becoming a human once the zygote has reached the age of 18 years. At that point, the zygote MUST move out of the womb, become self supporting, and go on as it pleases, either becoming a human, or not.

Or, perhaps the fully developed human should then be given the proper tools to induce his or her own death quickly and painlessly?

But, honestly, what gives one the right to force life onto another, yet forbids that forced life to destroy itself? Preservation of the species? Why should that forced life give a damn about the affairs of its two creators or their species?

Or, perhaps the fully developed human should then be given the proper tools to induce his or her own death quickly and painlessly?

But, honestly, what gives one the right to force life onto another, yet forbids that forced life to destroy itself? Preservation of the species? Why should that forced life give a damn about the affairs of its two creators or their species?

If what we are discussing here is euthanasia, or, rather, assisted suicide... well, that is a whole different issue than forcing conception on someone.

Personally, I am not opposed to assisted suicide. I think there are cases where it is warranted.

If what we are discussing here is euthanasia, or, rather, assisted suicide... well, that is a whole different issue than forcing conception on someone.

Personally, I am not opposed to assisted suicide. I think there are cases where it is warranted.

Well, I mainly want to know whether or not fellow NSers believe bringing a life into this world is justified. However, it would also be interesting to know their views on euthanasia, since it is quite the opposite of conception. What's one's logic behind supporting euthanasia and conception? Supporting euthanasia but rejecting conception? Supporting conception but rejecting euthanasia? Rejecting both? I myself support euthanasia and reject conception. By giving birth, the mother allows her child to exist but denies it the chance to not exist. Perhaps there is no right to nonexistence. Perhaps one will always exist and nonexistence doesn't exist. Ah, the possibilities are endless!

Well, I mainly want to know whether or not fellow NSers believe bringing a life into this world is justified. However, it would also be interesting to know their views on euthanasia, since it is quite the opposite of conception. What's one's logic behind supporting euthanasia and conception? Supporting euthanasia but rejecting conception? Supporting conception but rejecting euthanasia? Rejecting both? I myself support euthanasia and reject conception. By giving birth, the mother allows her child to exist but denies it the chance to not exist. Perhaps there is no right to nonexistence. Perhaps one will always exist and nonexistence doesn't exist. Ah, the possibilities are endless!

It is kind of silly. How can something that doesn't exist have any rights at all? And once it does exist, a life can choose to cease existing (granted, that is not as easy, but it can be done) but no 'rights' issue applies since before it existed... well, it didn't exist!

So this boils down to a nonsensical argument. The euthanasia argument has some sense, as it deals with a life that does exist, but before birth (or conception, if you are so inclined), there is nothing to give rights to.

For instance... let's flip the argument... as a woman, I could conceivably give birth every nine months from menarche to menopause. If I DON'T, am I unfairly denying life to the 60 or so children I might POTENTIALLY give birth to? Again, no. Those potential children do not have any rights while still in potential, since they don't exist. As it happens, I don't have any children. So should the ones I haven't had have the right to sue me?

The argument you pose is a silly one. Not that I mind silly arguments... but I just want you to realize that it IS silly.

It is kind of silly. How can something that doesn't exist have any rights at all? And once it does exist, a life can choose to cease existing (granted, that is not as easy, but it can be done) but no 'rights' issue applies since before it existed... well, it didn't exist!

So this boils down to a nonsensical argument. The euthanasia argument has some sense, as it deals with a life that does exist, but before birth (or conception, if you are so inclined), there is nothing to give rights to.

For instance... let's flip the argument... as a woman, I could conceivably give birth every nine months from menarche to menopause. If I DON'T, am I unfairly denying life to the 60 or so children I might POTENTIALLY give birth to? Again, no. Those potential children do not have any rights while still in potential, since they don't exist. As it happens, I don't have any children. So should the ones I haven't had have the right to sue me?

The argument you pose is a silly one. Not that I mind silly arguments... but I just want you to realize that it IS silly.

The fact is that you know you will be forcing life onto another being, whether it exists before conception or not. It seems you're of the belief that one does not possess any rights until they have been given life.

For instance, say you are living in an impoverished country and there is a strong possibility that any child you bear may die of starvation or of an extremely painful disease. Would you honestly choose to willingly bring a baby into that world, knowing that it will suffer? How about if you have HIV that will undoubtedly be passed along to all of your offspring? Regardless of the circumstances, you are condemning that child to die the moment you give birth, or that creature to die the moment two gametes unite.

There is a certainty that life will bring forth suffering as well as joy - should the mother and father be allowed to sentence the child to both? Should they have that right, or is it not for them to decide? Where do you draw the line, when is it irresponsible?

I contest that my questions and my argument are not silly.

...Regardless of the circumstances, you are condemning that child to die the moment you give birth, or that creature to die the moment two gametes unite.

There is a certainty that life will bring forth suffering as well as joy - should the mother and father be allowed to sentence the child to both? Should they have that right, or is it not for them to decide? Where do you draw the line, when is it irresponsible?

I contest that my questions and my argument are not silly.

EVERYTHING that lives, dies. That is part of the package. Suffering and joy too. This only applies to lives that actually exist, however. I might agree that it is irresponsible for HIV positive parents not to consider what they do, but if they decide to give birth to a child that might then be infected (but might not... there are now drugs that can prevent maternal transference of HIV), the fact that they so choose is not infringing on the child's 'right not to exist', by the simple fact that this would indicate that the non-existent child (before it was conceived) HAD rights in the first place. Which, I am arguing, it doesn't.

But if, by your apparent argument, parents do not have the right to decide to bring a child into life, then who does??? The unborn unconceived child? How the heck could that even work? You cannot give the right to exist, or any rights, to something that does not exist. The state, perhaps? Again... how would that work... people being forced to have children at certain times and denied at others?

If you are arguing that CERTAIN people (i.e. people in impoverished countries, or people who are HIV positive) don't have the right to "impose life on children", then what you are really arguing for is not the rights of the potential children as much as for the implementation of eugenics.

If what you are arguing for in terms of the rights of children leads, instead, to the right of a fetus to exist AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION, then you are arguing against abortion.

Either of those (like the euthanasia argument) has validity, but an argument for the rights of something that does not exist IS silly.

EVERYTHING that lives, dies. That is part of the package. Suffering and joy too. This only applies to lives that actually exist, however. I might agree that it is irresponsible for HIV positive parents not to consider what they do, but if they decide to give birth to a child that might then be infected (but might not... there are now drugs that can prevent maternal transference of HIV), the fact that they so choose is not infringing on the child's 'right not to exist', by the simple fact that this would indicate that the non-existent child (before it was conceived) HAD rights in the first place. Which, I am arguing, it doesn't.

But if, by your apparent argument, parents do not have the right to decide to bring a child into life, then who does??? The unborn unconceived child? How the heck could that even work? You cannot give the right to exist, or any rights, to something that does not exist. The state, perhaps? Again... how would that work... people being forced to have children at certain times and denied at others?

If you are arguing that CERTAIN people (i.e. people in impoverished countries, or people who are HIV positive) don't have the right to "impose life on children", then what you are really arguing for is not the rights of the potential children as much as for the implementation of eugenics.

If what you are arguing for in terms of the rights of children leads, instead, to the right of a fetus to exist AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION, then you are arguing against abortion.

Either of those (like the euthanasia argument) has validity, but an argument for the rights of something that does not exist IS silly.

I am arguing that no one has the right to create sentient life, as it is done without the direct consent of the future child. As there is no way to gain consent from something which does not yet exist, it is impossible to justly create said life. Furthermore, I'm of the belief that an already sentient being retains the right to end their life at any time, and to deny them that right is unjust.

I would like to hear why/when others believe they have a right to create sentient life, and also why/when it is okay to deny a sentient being the right to end their own life. One logical reason I can perceive is the right to exist, and the right to live. However, there can be no evidence that a currently nonexistent being will want to exist in the future, so the right to exist argument is based off an assumption. From that, I conclude that the proper course of action is to not act. Acting on an assumption leaves room for error, error being that the future child turns out to hate life and did not wish for it.

You know, there is legal precedent for this kind of thing.

If someone, for example, is found in a coma with no identifying papers (i.e. they can't give consent for themselves and no one else can give consent for them), then that person is kept alive.

Therefore, we can see that it is legally assumed that one wishes to be alive by defaut, so there is nothing wrong with conception from that standpoint.

I believe the question here is fundamentally flawed...
Had you not been forced to live, you wouldn't have any opinion at all on assisted suicide.
As a species, if we want to go on being, we need to 'force' people to live. However, we as a species have shown countless times that this forced life can be taken away by the possessor at any time that they deem it unnecessary to keep on going. Suicide isn't new.
And a zygote doesn't know any better. It has no opinion other than to try to be born. That IS its soul function. That zygote is not sitting in a womb, dying of some painful, horrible disease. That all gets added later.
If, when that being can reason on its own, and decide it can't live with whatever sort of life it has, then who are we to force them to continue living?

I am arguing that no one has the right to create sentient life, as it is done without the direct consent of the future child. As there is no way to gain consent from something which does not yet exist, it is impossible to justly create said life. Furthermore, I'm of the belief that an already sentient being retains the right to end their life at any time, and to deny them that right is unjust.

I would like to hear why/when others believe they have a right to create sentient life, and also why/when it is okay to deny a sentient being the right to end their own life. One logical reason I can perceive is the right to exist, and the right to live. However, there can be no evidence that a currently nonexistent being will want to exist in the future, so the right to exist argument is based off an assumption. From that, I conclude that the proper course of action is to not act. Acting on an assumption leaves room for error, error being that the future child turns out to hate life and did not wish for it.


Are you going to deny the majority of people life who enjoy it, simply because some will not?

Zygotes are under the age of 18 and therefore most of thier rights belong to thier parents.

I am arguing that no one has the right to create sentient life, as it is done without the direct consent of the future child. As there is no way to gain consent from something which does not yet exist, it is impossible to justly create said life. Furthermore, I'm of the belief that an already sentient being retains the right to end their life at any time, and to deny them that right is unjust.


I have to take this one in two parts... so, first I will deal with your first paragraph...

You are actually arguing for two points. The second is the right to suicide. That is a discussion that has merit.

The first still does not. Logically taken to its end, your argument states no one should ever have children. While that is a point that may have some valid arguments, the one you are proposing, that is based on the rights of some hypothetical non-child, is not one of them.

I think the difficulty may lie in your definition of what "rights" are. The rights of a person who is capable of reproducing to do so is one that can reasonably be argued. That would include, of necessity, the right to create sentient life. The reason this can be argued is that the persons so capable do exist, and can be demonstrated to have these rights. The reverse is not so. Unborn children do not have rights, since they do not exist.

Let's take euthanasia off the table entirely, for purposes of this discussion. You and I agree that it has merits. But it is a significantly different point from the one you are asking about, that is, the right of an unconceived child not to exist, and has no direct bearing on it.

I would like to hear why/when others believe they have a right to create sentient life, and also why/when it is okay to deny a sentient being the right to end their own life. One logical reason I can perceive is the right to exist, and the right to live. However, there can be no evidence that a currently nonexistent being will want to exist in the future, so the right to exist argument is based off an assumption. From that, I conclude that the proper course of action is to not act. Acting on an assumption leaves room for error, error being that the future child turns out to hate life and did not wish for it.

This is more of an argument for suicide. If that is where you want to go, we can discuss it, but, as I mentioned, it is a substantially different topic.

I'm going to have to agree with Upper Botswavia here... this line of thinking is rediculous.

Let's suppose first of all, that you believe that rights are 'naturally' due to people, and not a consequence of law, administered by the state. One would have to assume that rights are derived from a living organism's ability to function as it was intended, thus a right to life, a light to pursue its life as it is biologically entitled. Procreation is a big part of that biological entitlement. If there's any 'purpose' in life that is demonstrable, it is the need to pass on genetic traits through procreation.

One would have to assume that rights only exist to living things. If one has not been conceived, one cannot have any rights. Every society balances the rights of one individual over another, but one cannot seriously suppose that the rights of an individual should collide with the rights of a non-existant person.