The article titled Arguing From Equality: The Personhood of Human Embryos found on the EqualRightsInstitute.com website is an an emotional argument that depends on a play on words to work. It misconstrues the generally acepted meaning of equality and equal rights as they are used in the context of rights with the literal meaning of the words by ignoring the legally and morally appropriate exceptions for minor age children.
A minor child, also called a minor, is someone under the age of majority, which is defined as the age that distinguishes between childhood and adulthood in the eyes of the law.
https://www.lawdistrict.com/legal-dictionary/minor-child
Rather than making an (entirely different) argument to explain why an unborn child’s right to life is an exception to the generally accepted age related lack of capacity exception (an exception to the exception) this article avoids it altogether by misconstruing the concepts with the words, thereby preserving the literal equality=equal rights argument.
The rights related concepts of equality and equal rights is not about all rights being equal (paragraph 3) “I think that rights should be given to all people equally”. Rather it’s about eliminating unjust forms of discrimination. These two concepts are being misconstrued with the literal meaning of the words.
The generally accepted rights related meaning of equality and equal rights is based on civil rights laws: That race, ethnicity, gender, etc. are not valid reasons to deny someone’s rights. But this doesn’t include minor children because a child’s age related lack of capacity is generally accepted as a valid reason to deny their rights when appropriate.
The literal equality=equal rights argument says:
- (paragraph 3) All people should literally have equality=equal rights (paragraph 5) regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, age, economic status, physical or mental abilities, etc. (with no exception for minor children).
- (paragraph 15) An unborn child is a person.
- (paragraph 16) An unborn child has the equal right to life.
The generally accepted rights related meaning of equality and equal rights does not include minor children because they lack the age related capacity to hold or exercise some/many/most of the rights that adults enjoy. Minor children have fewer and weaker rights than adults for a good reason. And the younger a child is the fewer and weaker their rights are.
The literal “equality=equal rights” argument always includes children as equals. But the generally accepted rights related meaning of equality and equal rights does not include minor children (when appropriate). In which case your argument has a different conclusion.
- In the absence of an appropriate reason otherwise people should/do have equality/equal rights…
- A minor child is a person but their lack of age based capacity can be an appropriate reason to deny their rights.
- An unborn child doesn’t necessarily have the equal right to life.
This is an argument depends on a play on words to make it work.
What you mean to say is that rights should be given to all people equally, the generally accepted age based lack of capacity exception doesn’t apply to the right to life, therefore unborn children have the right to life. But that is another argument entirely.
(Paragraph 3) “I think when whenever a group of people’s [equal] rights are not being protected [infringed upon]” then serious injustice is taking place.” In this case the fact that minor children lack the age related capacity to safely or prudently exercise some/many/most rights would not be an acceptable reason for a parent to regulate or deny those (equal) rights even when it’s in the best interest of the child.
Imagine the chaos that would result if (paragraph 3) “all people… [did] have equal rights”, including minor children, parents, and adults. Then a parent or teacher could not legally or morally discipline a child by restricting or denying their (equal) right to liberty. A parent couldn’t ground their child and make them stay at home or in their room. A teacher could not hold them after school in detention. A parent could not require their 13 year old daughter to be home by 10pm. And the simple act of child proofing your home with little barrier gates on the doors or using a crib would be the equivalent of false arrest because it denies their equal right to liberty. And public education would become voluntary and at the discretion of even the youngest child because the state couldn’t require minors to attend school.
Imagine if a grand parent gave their grand child a loaded semi-automatic hand gun on their sixth birthday. A parent would not be able to take that gun away and store it until they were older because that would be denying or infringing on the child’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I’m confidant that you are aware of this conflation and I understand why you ignore it. Because to acknowledging it would not only undermine this argument but it would also undermine your entire “equal rights” campaign.