4 ms·

I disagree that there is a "point" at which a fetus becomes a person, no more than there is a point where a slowly accumulating pile of sand becomes a hill. Bot

I disagree that there is a "point" at which a fetus becomes a person, no more than there is a point where a slowly accumulating pile of sand becomes a hill. Both hill-ness and personhood are artificial concepts that we give meaning to, and we can define them as precisely or as nebulously as we wish. Another example is adulthood. We have chosen to define it at 18 in the US, even though we all know 25 year olds who are less mature than some 16 year olds. In some cases (heinous crimes, emancipated minors) we will legally confer some aspects of adulthood to people under 18. In other cases (smoking, drinking), we will delay the privileges of adulthood. We do this because we know that a single "point" can't account for the full complexity of the transition to adulthood. And there's nothing stopping us from treating the onset of personhood as a similarly complex issue. Which is what the Roe v Wade regime did, for the most part. "If the fetus is a life," you say, but of course it's alive, it's made of living cells. That's not even the issue really. Something being alive doesn't necessarily say anything about how we should treat it. We don't treat bacteria with respect, or mushrooms, or even most animals. So given that a fetus is alive, does that entitle it to any rights? And if so should those rights have primacy over the rights of the person who is carrying the fetus?

bko 4y ago
> So given that a fetus is alive, does that entitle it to any rights? I didn't mean to say whether the fetus is alive is the relevant question, so apologies for the confusion. It's whether the fetus is a person, in which case, yes being a person does entitle it to rights, none greater than your right to life. That takes primacy over other rights of the mother to terminate the person (assuming it is a person). It's true that there's no clear answer, but I suggest that this is the question to answer, regardless of where you fall on the debate. Some people think its "heart beat" however you define that, other think its viability outside of the womb, and I'm sure other people have different criteria. But we should look to answer this question and get to a sensible policy.
- zuminator 4y ago
  Even if we accept that a fetus is a person at stage X in its development (whether that is conception or later), that doesn't necessarily mean we will give it all the panoply of rights that we give to those residing outside the womb. In the US, citizens have certain rights (and sometimes, responsibilities) that non-citizens do not have. Are fetuses citizens? That's an easy one to answer: No, at least not by the standards of the 14th amendment, where it decrees: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
disambiguation 4y ago
> no more than there is a point where a slowly accumulating pile of sand becomes a hill. This is basically the argumentation why many treat conception as the start of life. If you can't know the exact point, then disallow people from guessing and potentially getting it wrong.
- zuminator 4y ago
  You could call that the "hidden variable" theory of life. There's a spark of life that begins somewhere, but we don't know it exactly so let's err on the side of caution. That could very well be true, but it's slightly different from my argument. I contend that there is no objective spark of life. We can call whatever we like "alive." It's just a word, one that only has meaning to the extent that we find it useful. Hence if we pick an arbitrary moment such as the start of the 3rd trimester as the beginning of life, it's not a priori correct or incorrect. It's only right or wrong to the extent that it supports or conflicts with principles that we hold more important. (E.g. I personally would hold the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person to be more important than assigning the right to life to a fetus pre brain-activity.)

bko 4y ago

> So given that a fetus is alive, does that entitle it to any rights? I didn't mean to say whether the fetus is alive is the relevant question, so apologies for the confusion. It's whether the fetus is a person, in which case, yes being a person does entitle it to rights, none greater than your right to life. That takes primacy over other rights of the mother to terminate the person (assuming it is a person). It's true that there's no clear answer, but I suggest that this is the question to answer, regardless of where you fall on the debate. Some people think its "heart beat" however you define that, other think its viability outside of the womb, and I'm sure other people have different criteria. But we should look to answer this question and get to a sensible policy.

zuminator 4y ago
Even if we accept that a fetus is a person at stage X in its development (whether that is conception or later), that doesn't necessarily mean we will give it all the panoply of rights that we give to those residing outside the womb. In the US, citizens have certain rights (and sometimes, responsibilities) that non-citizens do not have. Are fetuses citizens? That's an easy one to answer: No, at least not by the standards of the 14th amendment, where it decrees: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

disambiguation 4y ago

> no more than there is a point where a slowly accumulating pile of sand becomes a hill. This is basically the argumentation why many treat conception as the start of life. If you can't know the exact point, then disallow people from guessing and potentially getting it wrong.

zuminator 4y ago
You could call that the "hidden variable" theory of life. There's a spark of life that begins somewhere, but we don't know it exactly so let's err on the side of caution. That could very well be true, but it's slightly different from my argument. I contend that there is no objective spark of life. We can call whatever we like "alive." It's just a word, one that only has meaning to the extent that we find it useful. Hence if we pick an arbitrary moment such as the start of the 3rd trimester as the beginning of life, it's not a priori correct or incorrect. It's only right or wrong to the extent that it supports or conflicts with principles that we hold more important. (E.g. I personally would hold the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person to be more important than assigning the right to life to a fetus pre brain-activity.)