3 ms·
Everyone agrees people have rights, it’s that they disagree on what constitutes a person. Some religious people currently believe a person exists at the point o
by implements 4y ago
Everyone agrees people have rights, it’s that they disagree on what constitutes a person. Some religious people currently believe a person exists at the point of fertilisation, but they used to believe ‘ensoulment’ happened some weeks after.
One question to ponder - “Why would God give personhood to a fertilised egg that (via omniscience) he knew was fated not to be carried to term?”. If earthly life is essentially a test of moral virtue (“Here’s free-will, let’s see what you do with it”) then “eggs as persons” doesn’t really make sense - the test can’t start / a true person doesn’t exist until it has some form of effective agency.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoPlenty of non-religious people think life begins before birth.
- Thorrez 4y agoYeah I agree it's about personhood. That same argument applies to all the babies who die between being born and turning 1. It's more an argument against God than an argument against rights starting from the first moment of life. If we assume God doesn't exist, then the argument doesn't really work. If we assume God does exist, one possible rebuttal is that the purpose of life isn't to test moral virtue. For example the purpose of life could be to provide an opportunity to know, love, and glorify God. But it's just an opportunity, not the only opportunity. After death there continue to be opportunities for that, so people who die immediately after ensoulment still have an opportunity for that.