3 ms·
Right, but in living/walking humans, we tend to prioritise right to live over many other rights. We don't euthanise children in adverse material conditions, for
by rich_sasha 4y ago
Right, but in living/walking humans, we tend to prioritise right to live over many other rights. We don't euthanise children in adverse material conditions, for example. These get, or most people agree should get, state help, foster parenting and so on. "Let's euthanise the child" is not on any menu of interventions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- uniqueuid 4y agoThat's true, there are sudden changes in our collective evaluation of what rights a human has. There are some really plausible reasons for birth, for example, as an important turning point: - Before (and in particular during) birth, a child's life and physical well-being is immediately tied to the mother's. There is a real risk of one's sickness killing the other. - Before birth, there is no mandatory, conscious care-taking. The embryo is automatically taken care for. Afterwards, it requires a (excuse my wording as a parent) shit-ton of work to keep a kid alive, happy and successful (however you define that) - The risk of death is vastly higher for an embryo than for a child (with about 1/3 of pregnancies being unsuccessful) and decreases strongly after birth. I suspect this is one of the reasons why abortion is often intuitively seen as different from euthanasia. That said, I completely agree with your argument that it's wrong to argue as if there was a sudden point at which humans are suddenly and naturally protected but aren't before. But I think that not many advocates would argue for such a radical position.