A fetus is a person.
And even if a fetus isn’t a person, the state has a legitimate interest from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a person.
A gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied, as you keep telling us.
What - in this day and age - is the states ‘interest’ in the birthrate of its members? What is its interest in ‘protecting the life of the fetus’ - outside of protecting the life of the mother itself (per normal “protect and serve” statutes)?
If the states interest is such, then should they not be enacting laws to segregate, hospitalize and protect from “all possible things” to ensure that the pregnancy remain viable until completion?
Why from the outset of the pregnancy, from the state’s point of view?
Hey, that would be intrusive!
That’s why you are an advocate of state sponsored free pre-natal care, no doubt.
Yup.
Fortunately, western liberal states (generally) recognize competing and overriding legitimate interests.
According to some primitive religions, yes. According to any sensible definition, not so much.
If becoming a person is what is valuable, then the state should act when it is a person, and not before.
That ingot of steel will be a gun, but we don’t regulate it as such until it is one.
Uranium isn’t a bomb, but it’s sale is regulated as though it might be used that way. But this line is silly anyways. An ingot isn’t propelling itself to become a gun. A fetus is propelling itself towards being a person. Just a bad analogy.
Yay smaller government!
What exact interest would that be? Are humans an endangered species?
They have a duty to protect their population, if a fetus is a person they have a duty to protect it. If it’s only a “potential” human, it’s reasonable for the state to want it to bring it to personhood for the same reason they set immigration levels - growing economies (generally) require a growing population.
The fetus isn’t doing much. The mother is the one propelling it.
So that lump of steel is being milled and machined by the mother into a gun. But when it’s half done, it’s just a curiosity.
And uranium is dangerous, a baby isn’t. Unless accelerated to high speeds.
Huzzah for valid neutral justifications!
Not really. Mom isn’t sweating away over an anvil pounding together a baby. The cells latch on to the uterus without Mom’s knowledge. The cells divide and differentiate without Mom’s direction or effort. The fetus is basically doing it all. Mom is providing the energy and nutrition*. I don’t know how you seem to think babies develop.
*not to say that’s nothing, but making a baby is kind of fire and forget as far as the adults go.
If the mother isn’t doing much, remove the fetus and have it bootstrap itself into full-fledged Galthood.
You said the fetus wasn’t doing much. I did not say the mother wasn’t doing much - I said she’s the incubator. Who is wrong? Hint: you.
A fetus is propelling itself towards death, even more than it is towards being a person. Should we be treating it (and inevitably by extension, all persons) as though they have the rights due a corpse?
Like in a blender?
No, you’re just committed to dismissing the analogy.
You said, “An ingot isn’t propelling itself to become a gun. A fetus is propelling itself towards being a person. Just a bad analogy.” which, I think, most people would agree is nonsense.