4 ms·
An important related question is: why don’t animals have rights? I think something special happens to humans on the journey from embryo to child. Something lik
by erikpukinskis 4y ago
An important related question is: why don’t animals have rights?
I think something special happens to humans on the journey from embryo to child. Something like an awareness of their relationship to the world, that makes death more tragic.
As an aside, I think the same transition happens in many animals and their deaths can be just as tragic, although obviously nothing in U.S. law acknowledges that.
In fetuses, I don’t know when this “relationship to the world” begins, if it has really begun in earnest in the womb, or if it even has begun in earnest as a newborn.
But the problem with law is that such things must be codified.
I know “at conception” is too early, since we destroy similar creatures by accident every day. And even a sparrow has a richer concept of their relationship to the world than an embryo.
I’ll also add that “on their first day of kindergarten” is certainly far too late. By that time many of us have a very rich self concept.
“At first breath” is a clear middle ground, easy to interpret legally. It certainly seems that the “understanding of one’s relationship to the world” is greatly enriched at that moment of birth, and quite actively thereafter. And importantly, “at first breath” happens to be a moment where the child is no longer a danger to the mother. People have a right to self defense that clearly ends for the mother at that point.
All of that said, I think it’s possible some form of person is ”murdered” in some abortions. Just like some people are “murdered” in war. But there are simply limits to what can be fairly decided through the legal system.
At some point, other forms of justice take over. For me, not trying to push this on anyone, but that’s God’s justice. Many evils are punished not by the courts but by something greater, and that’s OK with me.
- DangitBobby 4y ago> why don’t animals have rights? I believe it's self-evident that there is something in our brains that causes us to mentally separate things into in-group and out-group. In other words, we evolved to be social and generous, but only tribally so. Visual and behavioral differences such as skin color and culture can be the difference between in/out-group delineation. And so it is with animals. They are so similar to us and have so many of the traits that make us "human" that it's obvious they should have certain rights, if you think about it. In fact, some animals do enjoy rights to be protected against humans, as cruel treatment of animals is ostensibly taboo in Western cultures as long as you ignore current American factory farm practices, and in the case of some protected classes of animals such as dogs, enforced by law. But the differences between humans and other animals is enough to trigger the in/out group delineation, so almost no one bothers to recognize they should have rights, let alone fight for them. Those that do fight for those rights are typically relegated to the out-group themselves. In short, it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with the primitive parts of our brains running the show.