4 ms·
> I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person That's problematic right there. A child can't
by chimprich 4y ago
> I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person
That's problematic right there. A child can't survive without any support until some years after birth, and the age at which a foetus can survive with support keeps getting younger due to technical advances. At some point fully artificial wombs will be able to allow a foetus to survive outside their mother from conception.
Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable.
> My personal view is that personhood requires a mind
That seems more reasonable. Attainment of consciousness seems like a reasonable differentiator, but there's a difficulty is in establishing when that is.
- csours 4y ago> That's problematic right there. Yes. I can't completely square the circle. There's a lot of undefined area, a lot of discomfort, but I am comfortable with my level of discomfort and ignorance for now. --- I don't think a viability test or a theory of the mind is sufficient on it's own, I view them as lines of evidence. I am open to other lines of evidence. I also think that the unbroken chain of life that leads to a new baby is a miracle, whether you think of it as a divine miracle or a secular miracle.
- joombaga 4y ago> Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable. Why? This strikes me as begging the question.