Out of interest, let’s imagine a particular person concludes that he is the only true person in existence; all the rest of us don’t count. Is it then incumbent upon us to prove that we are persons, should we want to restrict his right to kill us if we get too annoying?
Besides, it is only a negative if phrased in the correct way. It cannot be proved that a fetus is not a person. Likewise, surely, it cannot be proved that a fetus is not a clump of cells. Since those things included in the group “not a clump of cells” include persons, the onus is therefore on those who believe they are a clump of cells to prove it, should they wish to restrict those potential rights.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I was not referring to the living, breathing (someone think of the children!) children who might have a pregnant mother and then a sibling. I was instead referring to the living, breathing children who will face direct consequences as a result of a pregnant mother whose health or life is unexpectedly endangered and her ability to care for said children is compromised due to pregnancy or complications related to labor and delivery and then another sibling.
My point was, who is more important? The living, breathing child? The blastocyst or fetus who has yet to become a child? Has the mother, because she can have children and happens to get unexpectedly sick doing so, become suddenly expendable to the point where an insentient being’s life trumps hers? That doesn’t seem fair.
Exactly. They are both cases of a person using a female’s reproductive organs without her permission. The man is a rapist; the fetus is being “pro-life.”
I was agreeing with you, just using your post as jumping off. Now that I look at it it does seem like my comments are directed at you. Sorry!
I’m not sure anyone’s equating the two directly. But yes, I can see how both are instances where a woman feels a loss of control over her own body, especially from something that could, under different circumstances, be a source of joy. After all, when people ‘spare’ rape victims unwanted pregnancies they’re acknowledging some sort of trauma.
So would a monkey fetus enjoy the same right to not be killed that a human fetus would enjoy under your worldview? And if not, why not? The two are very similar.
Oh my…is there a rash of monkey abortions I haven’t heard about?!
Seriously, though…while I do think that life has an intrinsic value, I don’t necessarily think that all forms of life have EQUAL value. I’m not, for instance, a vegetarian (and, in any case, we have to kill SOME form of life to survive). Personally, I don’t believe that any monkey’s life (born or unborn) is as valuable as a human life (born or unborn). That being said, if I were in the business of caring for monkeys, I would generally feel responsible for the fetuses, as well.
Ignoring the proving a negative bit for now I think the more important point is who has the responsibility for the proof. Anti-choice people want to restrict the freedom of others. They want to remove a measure of choice and control women should enjoy over what happens with their own bodies. In order to make the case for doing that it is absolutely incumbent on them to prove the personhood of the fetus. Not the other way around.
Maybe and maybe not but it is a helluva step in the direction of giving it rights. If it’s personhood status is established you must then consider it’s rights.
This is in reaction to some of those in the thread who assign personhood based on some threshold of mental function, self awareness or whatever. I’ve asked this in other threads, and it seems apropos. Consider a temporarily “brain dead” adult, someone who had flatlined in brain activity (this is a rare but real occurrence; severe hypothermia can produce this state, and sometimes it is induced for certain operations), but who subsequently regains his consciousness. All his memories and mental functions return. While in this flatlined state, a state during which he has zero mental activity, is this entity a “person”?
Yes, but they are not a person dependant upon another person’s body to survive. If they flatlined and their only hope of regaining consciousness was to be hooked up to another person for nine months, the law could not force anyone to volunteer to do it.
Do you agree, at least, that anyone who is a “person” has some rights? Those rights may not take precedence over another’s greater right (however we define that), but those rights still exist? Do you agree?
And you apparently do agree that the existence of mental activity is not a prerequisite for “personhood.” I agree with you on this.
This still bugged me to some extent and thinking on it more I believe that notion is rather overstated.
Lots of things use our bodies against our will. Anytime you get sick some little bacteria or virus has decided to setup shop in your body and use it for its own purposes and benefit. While no one finds this pleasant or desirable I do not think anyone would characterize it as “rape”. In the end it is just biology. It’s how we are built. Mother nature is not jumping out of a bush at you and forcibly implanting a fetus and the fetus is not willfully trying to violate you.
There is a difference. The flatlined person is already a person with everything that entails. As such they are given the benefit of the doubt about whether they will continue to be a person and the value of working towards the goal of keeping them that way.