No, there aren’t, and I agree it would be a consistent position…but believing it yourself is a long way from convincing everyone else.
Same answer, it will matter to some but not others.
Hurm. I think it’s fair to say that at the very least, those fetuses that are properly implanted & developmentally on the path to successful birth & functionality are humans.
The deeper question is, given such a definition of human, what “universal” human rights pertain to those as well as all other human beings. This includes not only infants but adults, the aged, persons in persistent vegetative state, persons suffering from spongiform encephalopathy, persons in horrible chronic pain, convicted murderers, & some poor schlemazel who just got bisected in a train crash & is bleeding to death.
Any appeal that boils down to, “All humans in all places deserve maximal care & preservation,” is not going to fly in my book, whether it’s a pro-life argument or a parody of one. That just doesn’t work in war, triage, policing, or humane medicine, so it fails in my estimation as a general moral rule.
It’s a self-deceiving bait & switch to come up with a set of rules on “human rights” based on non-vegetative, non-terminal, neurologically healthy, young adults; then insist on applying those rules to other phases of human existence.
Now, there may be a good moral argument for preferring not to have an abortion & not to perform an abortion without good reason. But this does not necessarily entail a full moral equivalence to children already born. In any case, the “good reason” threshold for abandoning the life of a fetus obligate to the womb is not identical to that for a child already born. And there’s little use, imo, in enforcing legal rights on a life that is unseen, when it is unclear whether it is even viable, against the mother that carries it. It’s very hard to force a woman neither to abort nor to sabotage her fetus’s long-term health.
Just the one right, eh? The right to life? And to have that life given the same respect and consideration as any other human life.
Fair enough. I (and probably Kimstu) was using the term “pro-life” to refer to those who believe that a fetus is a human entitled to the same rights as an infant. I think it follows from that belief that things like failure to control one’s diabetes which results in miscarriage should be prosecuted as reckless homicide. Or that a woman with a known increased risk of miscarriage should be legally required to stay in bed for the duration of the pregnancy, etc.
Funnily enough, I started to say, “Any appeal that boils down to, ‘All humans in all places deserve maximal care & consideration,’ is not going to fly in my book,” then replaced “consideration” with “preservation.”
How much & what kind of consideration does an embryo at 6 weeks deserve? Or, more properly, what should that consideration cause us to do? When we consider its status carefully, don’t we find that it’s not even certain to be a viable baby rather than hopelessly deformed or even a teratoma? So, should the law step in to protect a life that may not be a life? And if so, how?
Any many of those won’t go domestic even if there were plenty of children available to adopt. There are too many ‘what ifs’ in domestic adoption for a lot of people. A shortage of babies available in U.S. adoptions is a good thing.
(BTW, depends on where you are - in Minnesota there is no problem placing kids of any race, even with disabilities. However, I’ve heard tales from other parts of the country that disabled minority children are more difficult to place - even as infants).
While I felt like poking holes in the argument Kimstu made, on reflection, it’s not that different from my own feelings.
Prohibiting, with the blunt instrument of law, women from having abortions doesn’t simply & purely give us more healthy babies. Are you going to force them to take their folate? Are you going to keep them from environmental teratogens at the appropriate weeks of fetal development? Are you going to regulate their alcohol intake?
Can the love & care necessary to bear & rear a happy child ever be legislated?
The education of the populace is, at this point, more effective than trying to put an unpopular law over on the majority.
And the need for education goes in both directions. We have two factions in this country that seem to think that they have everything to lose, & that the other side is teh evil. We have too many people in this country arguing passionately about human rights (& both sides tend to appeal heavily to individual rights-above-all arguments), & drawing conclusions about medical ethics from a superficial concept of pregnancy, even though unburdened by even a junior biology major’s understanding of fetal development.
The brain dead. That’s because a brain dead body, like a fetus, is human but not a person.
Oh, yeah, I left them off the list. But true.
You quoted my response. Do you deny that there are things you could do right now to advance the cause of eradicating the sexual exploitation of children in Thailand? Donating money, lobbying for the redirection of your tax dollars? Since you’re not doing that, can I surmise, as others have in this thread (apparently you as well) regarding the pro-life position, that you don’t really hold this belief? That you don’t really oppose the sexual abuse of children in Thailand?
If you believe that would be a faulty supposition on my part, can you explain how that differs in substance from the “pro-lifers don’t really care about the lives of fetuses” argument offered up in this thread? Same point I made previously. Feel free to debate it.
It is certainly a human being, a fact beyond dispute. Do you mean something like “personhood”?
What status do you assign a person who has temporarily lost all brain function, a flat-liner who will regain his consciousness? This is a rare but actual circumstance, occurring, for example, in cases of severe hypothermia. While in the state where he has no brain activity–none whatsoever–is this entity just a large blob of tissue, without any right to live?
Well put, as usual!
No.
All fetuses? One day after conception a fetus is certainly a human being? I think not. Therein lies the rub, I suppose.
Not to be pedantic, but the day after conception, he is both a being and human. Ain’t an ostrich or a fruit fly or a toaster. And he “is.” Genetically human, and certainly a being. Again, I suspect you mean some concept like “personhood,” but a fetus is a human being. Just is.
The brain structures/data that make him/her a person are still there; just shut down. A fetus lacks those, as does someone who’s brain dead.
So, then, a being needn’t currently possess brain function to be afforded rights? You retract your assertion that this being isn’t a person?
He is a potential human being. He isn’t a human being. Just isn’t. Fruit flies and toasters and ostriches have nothing to do with it.
I don’t think that “personhood” is what I mean, but I am open to persuasion. I have never really thought about what “personhood” is, so you may be right.
I take it, then, the issue of fetal death certificates is indeed secondary to the issue of abortion?
I don’t understand your point. I never asserted that someone with a temporarily shut down brain isn’t a person; only someone who has suffered brain death, or lacks a brain capable of sustaining personhood, like a fetus.