In that case, those folks also can’t coherently or meaningfully argue against being punished for those actions.
Here is a comparison of the two philosophies:
Children have rights: All children have rights. It is debatable when they begin to have rights. Some think it starts at birth. Others at some time during pregnancy. It is completely arbitrary as to when these rights begin. As to when a parent is violating a children’s rights, it is dependent upon what is “good” for the child, “good” being completely arbitrary as well. One has even admitted that anything a parent does to a child is violating her rights. The parent can only hope for the child’s forgiveness once the child reaches the age of reasoning. If the parent kills the child, then (as far as I can tell) anyone can come along and has standing to bring charges against the parent and get money out of the parent. I would assume it would just be a mad rush to see who the first person is to bring charges against the parent and take all his property. Either that, or there will apparently be some organization in the market that has so much power that it can just do whatever it wants to people it knows killed their children.
Children do not have any rights: No child has any rights until the age of reasoning. Up until that point, the parent can do whatever he wants to his children. This is no different than the argument put forth by those that believe all children have rights, because even they believe before some point in time, the child does not have any rights. As stated, some believe a child has no rights before birth. Others believe it is some time during pregnancy that a child acquires rights. But even they believe that before this point, the child has no rights. But unlike the children have rights crowd, the children do not have rights crowd does not make it a criminal act for parents to raise their children or arbitrary as to when a parent is violating a child’s rights. However, both groups agree that at some point in time, children reach an age of reasoning.
I don’t get how that follows. But whatever.
Except for the obvious editorial, that’s a fair summary. I’d make it even simpler: Some believe children do no have rights until they reach an “age of reasoning,” while others believe children already have rights because they will reach an “age of reasoning.”
Has has been pointed out, all of those also claim that at some arbitrary point in their growth children do not have rights.
There you go again with your sweeping generalization fallacies. Replace all with a small minority and you’d be more accurate. Reread the thread. In a debate, it’s important that you understand what your opponent is saying, and not simply assign the most easily refutable positions to him.
Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler?
Didn’t we go over this like 8 pages ago? DOes he really need to repeat himself or is Argumentum Ad Nauseum your only method of debating?
Yes he does, if he claims to be excluded from the generalization.
I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?
It has the potential to become one, and so it has the potential to reason and it has potential rights.
No it doesn’t.
Exactly. Stranger if your going to act in desperation just spare yourself for a better argument.
Well that’s an utterly arbitrary opinion.
No its not. It’s like saying a tire lying on the street has the potential of becoming a car. That you refuse to accept reality is your problem. Ejaculating in your shower doesn’t grant the potential of making babies pop out of your plumbing. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Think.
Because every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed in your neighborhood.
A car doesn’t have rights, so who cares? Ejaculating in the shower means that you are destroying the sperm’s potential to become a rational human being, hence you are guilty of murder.
Which begs the question, does a sperm have the potential of becoming a human? Try your best to keep these conversations from going in circles please. I hate retyping the same crap for 3+ pages as we seem to do with you.
It does as much as any other type of cell. You can take a blood sample and use it to clone me, and thus my blood has the potential to become a rational human being and has potential rights.
Only problem is that it doesn’t, Stranger. Not unless you wish to equivocate/strawman on the way potential is being used. Do you wish to keep using your fallacious garbage, or do you want to be honest? Your choice. I suggest you make it now.