" I am saying that a person that will become a corpse should be treated with the same rights as a corpse. "
I'm pretty sure you do have all the same rights as a corpse. You just have extra ones as well.
"You can claim that the rights of the foetus should be protected, that`s fine. But you should not claim that the foetus should get a baby`s rights because it is a baby...because it is not. Not yet."
I`ve never said a fetus should get a baby`s rights. You can`t kill a baby to save the mother and you can`t kill a baby if it was the result of a rape. I support abortions in those cases. I`ve also never once said a fetus is a baby. It isn`t. But I believe it has value and should be protected because it will be a baby. Comparing it to a "tumor" or "sperm" is insulting in my opinion.
I am 100% certain to become a corpse one day, with no action required whatsoever.
So surely, you should be treating me like a corpse now? Get the coffin ready for me.
You`re not allowed to say "that`s different", because it`s not. It`s IDENTICAL logic to what you`re using. You`re saying that a foetus that will become a baby should be treated with the same rights as a baby. I am saying that a person that will become a corpse should be treated with the same rights as a corpse.
It is the same logic, and it is FLAWED.
You can claim that the rights of the foetus should be protected, that`s fine. But you should not claim that the foetus should get a baby`s rights because it is a baby...because it is not. Not yet.
Monday, August 20, 2012 10:03:24 PM
Perhaps a thing can be intrinsically valuable while lacking a right to life. It is morally wrong, so most of us think, to inflict wanton pain on sentient creatures like dogs, cats, chickens, and so on. If I come across a wild dog, for example, then it would be wrong for me to torture that dog for hours on end. It would be wrong even if nobody cared about the dog or even knew it existed. If so, then dogs deserve at least some level of value and respect independently of what anyone thinks about them. Dogs must therefore be intrinsically valuable; and this despite the fact that dogs do not have a right to life.
So intrinsic value doesn't necessarily grant the right to life. My question is why can a thing not come to be at one time and yet become intrinsically valuable to a particular degree at another time? Why can a thing not acquire its intrinsic value after it begins to exist? I don`t see why this cannot be the case.