Right to life vs Right to Autonomy (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

These two rights are in direct conflict when dealing with abortion. Does a persons right to autonomy give the mother the right to remove her fetus using whatever means necessary, or does a fetus's right to live trump its mothers right to autonomy? This is given that the fetus has any right to live at all, so it would be easiest to think of this in terms of a late term abortion.

Most people dont take their belief in a right to autonomy to its full conclusion which would mean eliminating taxes and whatnot. How does one determain where to draw that line?

Another thing to consider is whether or nor the right to life and right to autonomy are positive or negative rights. negative or positive rights.

does one of these two rights always trump the other? if not, how does one determain when it does and does not?

 

[Loki]

The right to life trumps individual freedom........to kill.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The right to life trumps individual freedom........to kill.

Always? Does that mean if someone breaks into your house, that you don't have the right to use a gun to defend yourself?

does one of these two rights always trump the other? if not, how does one determain when it does and does not?

Generally speaking, the right to life trumps the right to autonomy, but this is very rarely in conflict between two people: how many situations are there in which you have to give up your autonomy to protect my life?

In terms of one of the few such situations, namely pregnancy, the mother's right to autonomy wins because the fetus does not have the inherent right to life until it can actually sustain that life; I don't believe one has a right one cannot actually enjoy. Once the fetus becomes clearly viable, its right to life would trump the mother's right to autonomy, though it would not trump her right to life.

 

[FallingPianos]

the fetus does not have the inherent right to life until it can actually sustain that life; I don't believe one has a right one cannot actually enjoy.

why does it make a difference if the means to sustain that life are a direct biological link to its mother or a total dependence on her? before a certain stage in development a fetus cannot survive without its direct biological link to its mother, A child cannot survive without its caretakers, the sick cannot survive without doctors, etc.

consider the poor man who requires some sort of medical treatment to live which he cannot afford to pay for. does he have the right to recieve such treatment?

 

[Voidwar]

I do not see how taxes impinge on autonomy. No-one said freedom was free.

Further, a "Right" cannot be trumped.
If it is a right, then it is inviolate.
A right that can be "trumped" is no longer a right, but becomes a privilege, which is being suspended.

 

[Voidwar]

consider the poor man who requires some sort of medical treatment to live which he cannot afford to pay for. does he have the right to recieve such treatment?

He does not have a "right" to that trained human's time, for that would be ownership.

They may choose to blow time and resources on saving the man, at a financial loss, and we call this charity, but one does not have a right to charity.

 

[FallingPianos]

I do not see how taxes impinge on autonomy.

taxes force you to either not buy something that you otherwise would have bought, or work harder in order to be able to buy it. this is a significant impediment on your freedom. in a sense, taxes force you to choose between slavory or having ones property stolen.

Further, a "Right" cannot be trumped.
If it is a right, then it is inviolate.
A right that can be "trumped" is no longer a right, but becomes a privilege, which is being suspended.

I think this is where the concept of negative and positive rights come into play. negative rights require other people to refrain from taking an action against you, while positive rights require people to take an action on your behalf. however, the two are usually in conflict which is why I normally consider what is typically called a "positive right" to be a "duty" on the acting party, not a right of the recipient.

 

[Voidwar]

taxes force you

do they really ?

one could:
get out and not participate, evade said taxes, or rebel (v).

I reckon taxes are paid voluntarily in the end, and rightly so.

 

[Voidwar]

positive rights require people to take an action on your behalf

I reject the notion of requiring the actions of others.

Require is not proper. "Require" or what, there's a throw down ?
Then it behooves one to win that fight then n there. "Requiring" is done via threats, and threatening someone to make them do what you want is slavery.

Other people's time is theirs to give on your behalf, but not yours to demand. Decent people will often give it, but it is ideologically dangerous to forget that it is a gift, not an entitlement.

 

[FallingPianos]

do they really ?

one could:
get out and not participate, evade said taxes, or rebel (v).

I reckon taxes are paid voluntarily in the end, and rightly so.

so you are saying that unless someone physically forces you to perform an action you are doing it voluntarily?

 

[Synch]

Autonomy of course. The fetus only has "right" to life after it becomes an independent living being. If it cannot survive outside of the mother in its current state then under that presumption it is still the physical property of the mother's, therefore the mother can do anything with it. If the fetus does become a living being, does the mother not have the right to not be coerced in giving her bodily nutrients to the fetus/baby?

You don't have the right to life, however nobody has the right to kill you.

consider the poor man who requires some sort of medical treatment to live which he cannot afford to pay for. does he have the right to recieve such treatment?

If treating this man means violating the rights of anyone else, such as through taxation, then no.

Our meddling with evolution...

 

[FallingPianos]

You don't have the right to life, however nobody has the right to kill you.

what is the moral difference between killing a non viable fetus, and leaving an infant to die?

 

[Synch]

what is the moral difference between killing a non viable fetus, and leaving an infant to die?

Killing the fetus is an aggressive action while leaving it alone is not. The fetus' attachment to the mother is a violation of her right to be left alone..

 

[FallingPianos]

Killing the fetus is an aggressive action while leaving it alone is not.

the person doing it knows that the end result would be exactly the same, only the infant left to die will have suffered a great deal more.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

why does it make a difference if the means to sustain that life are a direct biological link to its mother or a total dependence on her? before a certain stage in development a fetus cannot survive without its direct biological link to its mother, A child cannot survive without its caretakers, the sick cannot survive without doctors, etc.

consider the poor man who requires some sort of medical treatment to live which he cannot afford to pay for. does he have the right to recieve such treatment?

It makes a difference because that is the only time that these two rights are in conflict: the fetus has no choice but to impinge on the mother, and the mother has no choice but to allow it, or to kill the fetus. I can't think of another similar example. At the moment of viability, it becomes at least theoretically possible for the fetus to have a "choice;" we can imagine that it would choose to be born premature through C-section or induced labor rather than aborted, and so at that point, its right to life becomes tantamount.

The poor man who requires medical attention has the right to ask for such medical attention. If society is willing and able to grant it to him, he has the right to it. But if society is not willing to help him, then he has no right to it; if society is not able to help him, he also does not have the right to demand something we cannot provide.

Most importantly, no single individual is required to give that man medical assistance. Some people are required to do so because of their jobs, but they can always quit those jobs and walk away; therefore, they retain their autonomy. If they help the man, and give up their time and effort, they do it voluntarily, just as we do with taxes. We voluntarily earn money, own property, and buy goods; therefore we voluntarily pay taxes, and our autonomy is not threatened.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

what is the moral difference between killing a non viable fetus, and leaving an infant to die?

One could have given the infant to another person to care for, and it would survive. That couldn't be done with a non-viable fetus. So the fetus's life is in conflict with the mother's freedom, which makes its death sometimes morally necessary, if regrettable; the infant's death is never necessary, and so it is morally wrong.

 

[FallingPianos]

You don't have the right to life, however nobody has the right to kill you.

what is the moral difference between killing a non viable fetus, and leaving an infant to die?

One could have given the infant to another person to care for, and it would survive. That couldn't be done with a non-viable fetus. So the fetus's life is in conflict with the mother's freedom, which makes its death sometimes morally necessary, if regrettable; the infant's death is never necessary, and so it is morally wrong.

my statement was in response to someone who said that the right to life does not exist, which would imply that the infant has no right that requires the mother to do anything.

 

[FallingPianos]

what is the moral difference between killing a non viable fetus, and leaving an infant to die?

Killing the fetus is an aggressive action while leaving it alone is not. The fetus' attachment to the mother is a violation of her right to be left alone..

if leaving a baby to die is not an agressive action, does that make it ok then? what are you saying?

 

[FallingPianos]

why does it make a difference if the means to sustain that life are a direct biological link to its mother or a total dependence on her?

It makes a difference because that is the only time that these two rights are in conflict: the fetus has no choice but to impinge on the mother, and the mother has no choice but to allow it, or to kill the fetus. I can't think of another similar example. At the moment of viability, it becomes at least theoretically possible for the fetus to have a "choice;" we can imagine that it would choose to be born premature through C-section or induced labor rather than aborted, and so at that point, its right to life becomes tantamount.

and then what happens after its born? it either has to continue to impinge on its mother (or someone) for care, or die. the fact that there are people willing to adopt is a lucky circumstance, but it does not change the moral issue at its core. imagine that adoption werent possible, that if the mother didnt care for the child, no one would and it would die.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

and then what happens after its born? it either has to continue to impinge on its mother (or someone) for care, or die. the fact that there are people willing to adopt is a lucky circumstance, but it does not change the moral issue at its core. imagine that adoption werent possible, that if the mother didnt care for the child, no one would and it would die.

If there were no one who would care for the infant other than its mother, then its life would still be infringing upon her right to autonomy, and my position would change.

I do not believe people should be made slaves for the sake of children. I believe it is noble to choose to give up your freedom for a child, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do it. I suppose, then, that I should be arguing that the right to life never trumps the right to autonomy; my only reason for saying so in the case of a viable fetus was that I think after viability, the fetus should be allowed to come to term and be born and given up for adoption, since it has become more certainly capable of doing so; but that is based on the assumption that someone else would care for it after its birth. If we remove that assumption, as you have, then I would have to go back to my original position: the right to life does not trump the right to autonomy when the two are in conflict.

Effectively, I don't believe that children are more deserving of life than adults, and I think a life without freedom and without choice is not a life worth living. So I would not support a child's rights over an adult's, in any situation.

 

[blastula]

I do not believe people should be made slaves for the sake of children.

If people are made slave for the sake of children, then who are the masters? Or do you actually mean that you do not believe people should be expected to be held parentally responsible for their children?

I suppose, then, that I should be arguing that the right to life never trumps the right to autonomy...

Without life, is there autonomy?

Effectively, I don't believe that children are more deserving of life than adults

That's basically the reason behind Susan Smith's double murder of her two children when her dream of a new life with a rich man was encumbered by the burden of her children.

I think a life without freedom and without choice is not a life worth living.

Without life there would be no freedom or choice to speak of.

So I would not support a child's rights over an adult's, in any situation.

In any situation? Really? Are you suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry?

 

[tecoyah]

If people are made slave for the sake of children, then who are the masters? Or do you actually mean that you do not believe people should be expected to be held parentally responsible for their children?



Without life, is there autonomy?



That's basically the reason behind Susan Smith's double murder of her two children when her dream of a new life with a rich man was encumbered by the burden of her children.



Without life there would be no freedom or choice to speak of.



In any situation? Really? Are you suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry?

So....I take it you dont agree?

Wow....what a well thought out and pervocative series of rebuttals, fascinating.

 

[blastula]

So....I take it you dont agree?

No, I don't. Do you?

 

[FallingPianos]

I suppose, then, that I should be arguing that the right to life never trumps the right to autonomy...

Without life, is there autonomy?

no. However a fetus has no any level of autonomy that can be taken away by its death. It is incapible of making any decisions on its behalf, and physically connected to its mother.

 

[blastula]

no. However a fetus has no any level of autonomy that can be taken away by its death. It is incapible of making any decisions on its behalf, and physically connected to its mother.

Without life, there is nothing. The "However" part is meaningless without existence.

The answer is simply "no".