Should unborn children have ANY rights?

The current Nadya Suleman tragedy makes me question whether reproductive rights really should be just about the mother/father/parents need to have children. Should all children not be entitled to pre-natal rights?

1) The embryo has no right to insist on being born - his mother can choose to abort him after conception and in fact in some cases in the late part of the second trimester;
2) The unborn infant can't insist that he should be entitled to two parents- which research is the best number to raise a healthy well balanced child;
3) The unborn infant doesn't have the right to insist that his parents (or at least his mother if single) should undergo mental health screening before reproducing;
4) The unborn infant doesn't have the right to complain if his mother chooses to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs prescribed or illicit;
5) The unborn infant doesn't have the right to insist that his parents should financially be able to feed him once he is born.

These are just some of the issues. Abortion has long been a focus about women's rights. At the same time men seem to have much less rights in connection with reproduction, but the child itself has NO rights whatsoever.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

Boy you are starting a thread that will never end. You will have a large group that will tell you it is not a child until it is born and so it should get the same rights as a tumor would.

Kind of late now. The Republic is going up in smoke, and we are all going to find out what it's like to die horribly, same as the babies, maybe not as horribly as they died.

Martial law, the military is preparing to invade the states, start bombing, killing, and hauling people off to torture and die.

The good guys who resisted the Zionists have been pushed out -- people like Gen. Fox Fallon. Now the only ones who are left are those like Gen. Betrayus, Zionist Satanists who are only too happy to send in the vast resources of the U.S. military to crush and kill the American people.

During Katrina American boys were willing to bang on doors and demand people hand over their defensive firearms. If American boys would do this, why not the thousands of illegal aliens and foreign mercenaries (Blackwater) and felons that the military has shown a preference for lately to fill the ranks.

The psychos get the promotions. The soldiers who answer "no" to the question "would you fire on an American citizen if ordered," are given the soft-kill vaccines and sent to the front lines in Iraq. The psycho-soldiers who say, hell, yes, I'd do it, get the raises and promotions.

The police have been federalized. How many nice cops has anybody run into lately? They treat people like we are the enemy, even refer to us as "civilians." This is the police. They will not help you solve a crime but they are ready to harass and arrest, to brutalize and tazer.

Yes, there are a few good cops left, and maybe a few American soldiers will refuse to fire on their fellow Americans. But they will still follow orders and come banging on our doors demanding our firearms and insisting we take the mandatory innoculations and to hop on the trucks to go to the camps.

Why shouldn't people be expected to have a breeding license. You need careful screening to adopt or foster a child. Even if you want to marry a foreigner the government wants you to prove you can afford this wife/husband.

Why shouldn't human breeders be expected to show that, and I am throwing things out randomly and in part tongue in cheek:

1) Your genes will be of value to the society at large. Too many poor uneducated people have huge families and their kids will become the next generation of poor and uneducated large families;
2) Prove that you are mentally stable there are too many children/people who have been abused mentally and physically by unstable parent/s;
3) Prove that you could financially support this child that you have insisted on bringing into an already overpopulated world; Especially with our current meltdown the welfare system can't afford any more mouths to feed;
4) Sign a contract with your partner that the two of you are committing to spend the next 18 years together to give this child every opportunity possible to become the best person he can be; Single mother's children are much more likely to land up in trouble with the law;
5) No breeding licenses to non-citizens. Being in a foreign country shouldn't give you the right to create citizens of that country. If you insist on breeding you need a license from your home country and then your child will be given citizenship of the country that gave you the license;
6) If you are practising why aren't you protecting? Without a breeding license you must use contraception. No accidents - no excuses. Abortion is also not contraception.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Why shouldn't people be expected to have a breeding license. You need careful screening to adopt or foster a child. Even if you want to marry a foreigner the government wants you to prove you can afford this wife/husband.

Why shouldn't human breeders be expected to show that, and I am throwing things out randomly and in part tongue in cheek:

1) Your genes will be of value to the society at large. Too many poor uneducated people have huge families and their kids will become the next generation of poor and uneducated large families;
2) Prove that you are mentally stable there are too many children/people who have been abused mentally and physically by unstable parent/s;
3) Prove that you could financially support this child that you have insisted on bringing into an already overpopulated world; Especially with our current meltdown the welfare system can't afford any more mouths to feed;
4) Sign a contract with your partner that the two of you are committing to spend the next 18 years together to give this child every opportunity possible to become the best person he can be; Single mother's children are much more likely to land up in trouble with the law;
5) No breeding licenses to non-citizens. Being in a foreign country shouldn't give you the right to create citizens of that country. If you insist on breeding you need a license from your home country and then your child will be given citizenship of the country that gave you the license;
6) If you are practising why aren't you protecting? Without a breeding license you must use contraception. No accidents - no excuses. Abortion is also not contraception.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

Oh my goodness aren't we quite the control freak today!!! You're gonna find that people will kill people if they try to tell them what to do to this degree. Did I have a child illegally????

Come and take him from me. I dare ya.

Yes they do have rights(regardless if you want to keep it or not)

I can see some people saying "no they dont have rights"because they want an abortion...But if those same people actually want to keep their child...I guarantee you they will say "they do have rights". Simple as that.

Thread over.

The answer is no.
There could be circumstances where it's better to abort than bear children.

reply to post by Common Good


Okay you say they have rights. Do you care to speculate what rights they have? They don't get to choose their parents, even whether they will live or die, they don't choose the circumstance that they will be born into, they don't get to choose their in-utero conditions, the list is endless. What rights do they have?

So I guess the thread isn't over.

Do any of us get to chose the rights of our parents? hell I am 28 years old and I still havent been able to choose who my parents are. Your life is no more valuable or rightful then the next. Yea, the embryo might not be fully developed yet, but neither is a 13 year old girl, does she have rights?

As far as octomom, I think she should be locked up, but the fact of the matter is, yea, the kids had no choice in the matter, but they still have the same rights as you or me do to the fact that it is life, and you cant measure that.Once the mother takes that birth control test and it shows blue(or whatever color it is)then that baby has rights. She took the responsibility of spreading her legs, she should be responsible of what comes out.
50 years ago, if someone said "hey, Ima shove a rod into the mom and kill the baby just cause she doesnt want it"..that person would get hung.
You know I luv ya Myna, but come on, you know how bad this all sounds?

I just have to say you cant always blame it on the mother and/or father for 'overpopulating' or 'breeding' whatever you want to call it. After i had my second child i wanted...WANTED...my tubes tied...i told my doc this and got the paper drawn up i was in his office about to sign it and then it hit him......i wasnt 21 yet...nope sorry not gonna happen!!!! he tore the paper up and put me on yet another birth control that completely screwed my 'system' up. well i got pregnant again....i find it a blessing that the doctor realized i wasnt old enough to have the surgery cause i wouldnt trade my son for anything in this world.

birth control does NOT always work..
theres an age limit (21) before you can get your tubes tied

The reason why there are no strict laws on people wanting IVF is cause theres no strict laws on people having kids the normal way....it wouldnt be fair that just cause they cant have kids the normal way and didnt pass some stupid phsyc test to make sure they are a genious first means they cant have kids.

im not for abortion....if you dont want the child...put it up for adoption....if you cant have a child..look into adoption first.

They do have rights in some circumstances,

If you want to abort then that's ok and they don't have rights,

If you accidentally injure ar kill your unborn fetus through drugs or some other form of abuse that is murder,

go figure.

In other words they don't care if a Dr. fries a baby with saline solution or scrapes the uterine wall, dismembering the developing child and scraping the placenta from its attachment on the wall of the uterus.

But you can't.

We are all insane.

Where is the outrage? Where is the uproar?

Be pro life?

OH noes!!!!!!!

What horrible human being could be , Pro life?

The scared has become profane, and the profane sacred.
Place your heart on the scale of justice.

No wonder Obama and his minions will be ever so able to take advantage of us.

I do believe most of you have let your personal belief in this matter get in the way and are missing the point here.

Isn't this about personal responsibility? It is not the fetus responsibility that you are not prepared for the chance you take of having a child when you have sex. Some seem to think its a recreational sport instead of people that are in love and are ready for ones own actions when having sex.

Go to wal-mart and see how many stupid dysfunctional ill-prepared people are baby factories. Now think about how many educated intelligent people are baby factories. The latter have one or two the former have like twelve.

"momma wants another little one to snuggle duh huh"

Then I see people say something like birth control is not 100% effective. Well then you shouldn't be screwing someone you are not prepared to do the long haul with then. Try masturbation it can be fun with enough imagination. Guess what? No one gets aborted either.

Its a pet peeve of mine to see so many irresponsible people having kids. I am a great father and never had my own and raised a crazy woman's kid and did the world a favor by having raised a boy into a good man that is caring, loving, talented and smart. I sacrificed what I wanted because I ended up loving my boy Tyler and stuck with his soulsucking mother so he would not have a second dad abandon him. He knows it too and he tells me I am his hero made it all worth it. I love that boy with all my heart.

Suck it up people we are talking about being responsible with human life. It is a privilege to bare children and the way some are wasting that gift it seems maybe it should not be a right. I get a little pissed when it comes to this subject when I see some stupid goobers with ten kids when I did the ultimate sacrifice and raised someones else's child and never had my own.

Think about how these Mal-adjusted kids out number the kids that are being raised by responsible people. You ever wonder whats wrong with the world?

I don't.

LGM out





[edit on 22-2-2009 by LoneGunMan]

You are going to catch some hellfire for this one.

I want to point this out.

Some people want to give the unborn child all these 'rights.' But the thing is, that same child, once it is born, will have virtually zero rights over his or her own body, wellbeing, and actions until he turns 18. These same people usually cringe at the idea of any kind of legislation extending rights to the child.

I think it is strange... should not those two things line up? The child and the fetus are respected as unique individuals who can think for themselves, or the child and the fetus both have no rights at all until they reach the magical legal age of rsponsibility?

It is strange to me, in many ways, at least in some idealised ways of thought, an unborn child has more rights than a person who is 17 years and 364 days old.

This is a third rail topic. I am surprised so many are afraid to touch it. Come on electricity can be fun and it doesn't always kill you.

I found a thread that is a good argument for not letting stupid people have children. They age (not grow up) to be like this.

Why are we ending torture?

Removed my own ill-mannered post.

Sorry for getting a bit angry.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by LoneGunMan]

An unborn child has no rights in my eyes until it can survive on its own ex utero. (By that extension, mind you, most human beings don't have rights until they are able to go and look after themselves, which most humans cant do until at least 4 or 5 years old).

It baffles me so many people are keen to extend to the unborn limitless rights, yet couldn't care two monkeys about the quality of life once the child is born. Some people are just no good at being parents, and abusing their children as a result. I think there should be a parenthood licence and test. Too many people breed without enough capability to provide a good quality to their offspring.

Fetus rights, eh?

The fact that there are people who think fetuses should have rights is in itself an argument for legalized abortion.

Frankly, I don't think the abortion rate is anywhere near high enough.

Though personally I favour waiting till they're about ten. Then you could identify the ones with good health and intelligence. Keep them, eliminate the rest.

Personally I favour a society in which children are removed from parental care at the age of about eleven and released into the wilderness to fend for themselves.

Adults should also be granted hunting licences on children at a moderate fee. This fee could be manipulated in order to obtain a decent attrition rate - say 85%.

The survivors would be welcomed into adult society as deserving members.

Fetus' rights? Nothing incapable of speech has any rights: merely the privileges we are willing to grant them.

Yes, PETA supporters, this means animals too.

Just imagine how it would improve the quality of conversation on ATS..

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Astyanax]

Yes, I believe even the unborn should have human rights. Even after just several months alone, the unborn baby looks humanoid. I believe the actual life starts very soon after conception.

2) The unborn infant can't insist that he should be entitled to two parents- which research is the best number to raise a healthy well balanced child;

4) The unborn infant doesn't have the right to complain if his mother chooses to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs prescribed or illicit;

5) The unborn infant doesn't have the right to insist that his parents should financially be able to feed him once he is born.

so, ummm......if something happens to mommy or daddy, do we force the parent of the child to remarry? if daddy or mommy tried to kill their partner, ummm.....do we insist that they remain together?
and as far as the drug part, I am sorry, but some of those perscription drugs that are the most dangerous to a child, are also those that are necessary to keep a person alive or functioning.....
aren't you now, trying to take the rights of the mother away from her, in favor of the child? should a few cells within the mother's body really have MORE rights than she does?
and well, good luck with the last one, there are no guarantees in live....mommy, or daddy might die, and the child might have only one parent. they might learn to hate each other, and well, decide it is better to go their separate ways. and well, look around you, economies occasionally collaspe, and then those children you could feed you find you suddenly can't!!!

) Sign a contract with your partner that the two of you are committing to spend the next 18 years together to give this child every opportunity possible to become the best person he can be; Single mother's children are much more likely to land up in trouble with the law;

again, crap happens that you cannot foresee, it's a contract that very well could be broken through no fault of the signees......I cannot predict if I will or will not die in those 18 years, or become so permantly disabled whatever, that it might be to my spouses, and kids advantage for them to dump me somewhere else....like a nursing home!

Then I see people say something like birth control is not 100% effective. Well then you shouldn't be screwing someone you are not prepared to do the long haul with then.

birth control isn't 100% effective, sorry.....
and well, are you married? have children now?? what is your reaction gonna be when you are married, have more children than you wanted now, and well.....
are you prepared to forego sex till you's become too old to reproduce when you decide you don't want anymore children?

most married people I don't think are!!