# Pro-Lifers cannot think a fetus is a "person" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391 "2009-06-01T18:50:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/241 "2009-06-03T13:03:13Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So the people who call their fetus a “baby” are irrational? I don’t think anyone is saying that. > [@](#): > > Look, I know that to be consistent you have to believe that until the second the fetus leaves the womb it is an inconsequential lump of tissue and not a baby, but just because you need to believe that to be consistent doesn’t make it true. I didn’t see anyone say that either. Lot’s of pro-choice people feel strongly about viability and want to set limits for when an abortion is available. > [@](#): > > An unborn baby is still a baby. I’m not talking about a fertilized zygote or an embryo. But that’s what we’re talking about. Those who claim “it’s a human baby” from conception. > [@](#): > > Let’s put it in personal terms. My wife miscarried at five months. Are you saying that our baby didn’t die? That there was no baby, and we’re irrational for pretending that the lump of tissue that stopped metabolizing was our child? > > At some point, the fetus really is a baby. Pretending it isn’t a baby is irrational. There is no magic moment where fairy dust is sprinkled on the lump of tissue and it is transformed into an baby in a sparkle of rainbows. But at some point it’s fucking perverse to refuse to admit that we’re finally looking at a real baby that just happens to be inside a lady’s tummy. Being pushed out of a vagina doesn’t sprinkle the baby with rainbows either. > > It’s just as irrational to claim that birth is the magic moment that invests a lump of tissue with personhood as it is to claim that conception is that magic moment. I skimmed a lot of posts. Did someone claim that? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/242 "2009-06-03T13:12:03Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > No it isn’t inconsistent. If a police officer kills a person in the line of duty that’s not murder. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier person, that’s not murder. If a person defends themselves against a violent person, that’s not murder. > > There are many circumstances under our legal system where it is legal for a person to kill another person. We don’t declare that the violent criminal who had to be shot in self-defense wasn’t really a human being. We recognize that he was a human being, but that killing a human being was justified in that case. I think you just pointed out the logical inconsistency. We’re talking about philosophical consistency not points of legality. It used to be acceptable to beat your slave to death, or hang a black man for a crime that a white man got fined for. We changed that because it was inconsistent with equal human rights. Police have strict guide lines about when they can use deadly force. If they kill a criminal to casually they may be guilty of a crime. If they willing shoot a defenseless innocent person they are not excused. That’s how some pro-life folks represent abortions. The killing of innocent defenseless babies. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/243 "2009-06-03T13:22:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Police have strict guide lines about when they can use deadly force. If they kill a criminal to casually they may be guilty of a crime. If they willing shoot a defenseless innocent person they are not excused. That’s how some pro-life folks represent abortions. The killing of innocent defenseless babies. I have a problem with the word “innocent” as you’re using it here. The babies are innocent of any moral wrongdoing, just as the runaway train is innocent. At the same time, both the train and the baby are “guilty” of doing what they’re accused of doing. The train really is running away and threatening your life. The baby really is where it’s not wanted and infringing on someone else’s rights. I don’t think we’d say that you have to know that you’re infringing on someone’s rights in order for you to be actually doing it. That takes us back to the KKK example. Just because the KKK member doesn’t think you’re human and therefore you have no rights doesn’t make him right or make your rights immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![Flyhalf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ea5d25/32.png) [@Flyhalf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyhalf)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/244 "2009-06-03T17:42:04Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’ve heard tell of these new-fangled analogies, haven’t you? They’re all the rage. Why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it up your ass? Obviously you don’t have the balls to answer the question and that’s why you haven’t. You’re a real piece of work saying that a clump of cells takes precedence over a woman who has been raped. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by Early Out > > OK, fair enough. Then can we say that you believe that protecting the life of the unborn fetus is more important than addressing the pain of the rape victim? > > I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive, but given that choice, yes, I suppose. Thank goodness women have men like you with great big thinking brains to make their decisions for them! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/245 "2009-06-03T23:41:54Z")
> [@Flyhalf](#): > > Why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it up your ass? Obviously you don’t have the balls to answer the question and that’s why you haven’t. Stop, please! You’re frightening me. You tough guys on Internet message boards are so scary. I just pissed my pants. > [@](#): > > You’re a real piece of work saying that a clump of cells takes precedence over a woman who has been raped. Begging the question, sport. If that’s so self-evident, why is there even a debate? > [@](#): > > Thank goodness women have men like you with great big thinking brains to make their decisions for them! No need to thank me. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/246 "2009-06-03T23:49:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I understand the impact of intent but to say there’s no real crime of homicide if the woman and the state don’t believe a fertilized egg is a person seems like giving over your own sense of morality to someone else’s judgment. Either that or it’s an indication that pro-lifers entertain the real possibility that they are wrong and a fertilized egg is not a human life. State of mind is a factor only in determining is a punishment is warranted, or at least lessened. Abortion is a singular issue, complex and confusing to many. We are inundated with messages saying that it’s an undisputed right, that a fetus is merely a blob of tissue, etc. I am certain there are woman, desperate and misguided, who are certain they are doing nothing wrong. > [@](#): > > As I said, the KKK might kill Jews or blacks because they don’t consider them fully human but we wouldn’t consider it less of a crime because of what _they_ thought or how _they_ justified it. I hesitate to respond to this, because I do see your point and I do think it’s analogous, and I’m pretty sure people will not respond kindly. I think, for example, that there were countless people who owned slaves who were otherwise decent, who believed they were doing nothing wrong. But they were. Could we even get them to understand they were participants in something wrong? Would that have any meaning? I don’t know. > [@](#): > > I also find it intriguing that you claim you’re interested in doing the least harm. Lot’s of pro choice people feel the same way. We see an invasion of privacy and dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body as real harm. You also say that you’re willing to let someone go free of a crime if it helps the cause and restricts abortion. Do you think it will? Do you seriously see not being fully committed to the basic philosophy of pro-life as helping to restrict abortions? I don’t see it as a partial commitment. I see it as a practical concession. I’ll take what I can today. We’ll try for the rest later. > [@](#): > > I’m also curious about what you think causes the least harm if the pro-life movement happened to succeed in making every abortion illegal. We’d have to face the reality that they would still happen. I guess then the women and doctors would clearly be criminals regardless of what they believed wouldn’t they? Then we’d also have more children in need to deal with wouldn’t we? I hope there’s also a plan to provide for these children you insist women must have. I think there are already mechanisms–adoption, social services. I’d gladly pay more taxes for this. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/247 "2009-06-03T23:51:34Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I believe there are members of this board who are pro-life but who do not want to criminalize abortion. I do not believe that Stratocaster is one of those members. To clarify, I want abortion banned. I don’t want women put in prison for it, for the reasons noted. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/248 "2009-06-03T23:53:55Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Begging the question, sport. If that’s so self-evident, why is there even a debate? Mostly because a whole slab of people are pretending that the clump of cells is something it isn’t - due to a possibly deliberate conflation of what _is_ and what _will be_, likely due to an unprovable belief that there is a non-physical entity lurking around handling the tasks of supporting identity, cognition, and emotion that the clump of cells is physically incapable of handling. They don’t usually argue the last bit, though, instead stopping at conflating the clump of cells with a “baby” in a manner that is either borderline or outright incorrect. Generally this seems to be pulled off by being ambiguous about when the abortions under discussion are likely to occur, occasionally pulling this off via the manipulation of ambulatory goalposts - but that may just be my impression. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/249 "2009-06-03T23:57:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Mostly because a whole slab of people are pretending that the clump of cells is something it isn’t - due to a possibly deliberate conflation of what _is_ and what _will be_, likely due to an unprovable belief that there is a non-physical entity lurking around handling the tasks of supporting identity, cognition, and emotion that the clump of cells is physically incapable of handling. > > They don’t usually argue the last bit, though, instead stopping at conflating the clump of cells with a “baby” in a manner that is either borderline or outright incorrect. Generally this seems to be pulled off by being ambiguous about when the abortions under discussion are likely to occur, occasionally pulling this off via the manipulation of ambulatory goalposts - but that may just be my impression. But you’re a clump of cells too. What makes you deserving of rights? I would assert that any human entity that will gain consciousness at some point is deserving of rights, but I concede that’s axiomatic. To state that an entity without the current capacity for thought (as an example) is without rights is likewise axiomatic. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/250 "2009-06-04T00:06:25Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But you’re a clump of cells too. What makes you deserving of rights? I would assert that any human entity that will gain consciousness at some point is deserving of rights, but I concede that’s axiomatic. To state that an entity without the current capacity for thought (as an example) is without rights is likewise axiomatic. Hmm, I see an amusing caveat/loophole - a fetus that is aborted before gaining consciousness is _not_ in the set of human entities that will gain consciousness at some point, and therefore would not be due rights; therefore the two axioms could, technically, be considered equivalent for this discussion. 😃 A little more seriously, how many other ‘potentialities’ do you consider equivalent to the final state? Every person on the planet (with one supposes a few exceptions) is _potentially_ a citizen of the US. Should they all be accorded those rights? Every child will eventually be old enough to drive, and will potentially get a drivers’ liscence. Should children therefore have urestricted access to cars? Every human will eventually be a corpse. Should we bury people alive? Even putting aside the silliness, are there _any_ other examples where ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’ are regularly conflated? Or does it make more sense that, if consciousness is the deciding factor for rights, just to assign rights when consciousness has been attained (to the best of our knowledge)? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/251 "2009-06-04T00:15:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hmm, I see an amusing caveat/loophole - a fetus that is aborted before gaining consciousness is _not_ in the set of human entities that will gain consciousness at some point, and therefore would not be due rights; therefore the two axioms could, technically, be considered equivalent for this discussion. 😃 Now, now, that’s cheating. 😉 > [@](#): > > Even putting aside the silliness, are there _any_ other examples where ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’ are regularly conflated? Or does it make more sense that, if consciousness is the deciding factor for rights, just to assign rights when consciousness has been attained (to the best of our knowledge)? I don’t think so. An example I have often offered is that of someone who temporarily flatlines his brain activity. This is deliberately induced sometimes, for certain operations. Sometimes it occurs with [severe hypothermia](http://books.google.com/books?id=SJPI4HcZsV8C&pg=PA801&lpg=PA801&dq=hypothermia+brain+flatline&source=bl&ots=Q_Kfz80hvp&sig=gOXr-ar54UeAUsKOJf_xma8ZDmo&hl=en&ei=cw8nSvLUIYaJtgeiv-jgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA801,M1). However rare this is, it does occur: someone is momentarily devoid of any brain function, a much larger clump of cells, who then gains consciousness. I’d assert–again, conceding this as axiomatic–that this person is still, well, a person, deserving of rights. One couldn’t kill this entity with impunity. This “conflation” seems to create a reasonable assumption of rights, ISTM. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/252 "2009-06-04T02:50:34Z")
Re-gains conciousness. Already had it, gotten used to, temporarily interuppted by extreme circumstance. Big difference between _was, and now isn’t_ (albeit temporarily) and _never was and still isn’t._ ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/253 "2009-06-04T03:43:56Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I have a problem with the word “innocent” as you’re using it here. The babies are innocent of any moral wrongdoing, just as the runaway train is innocent. At the same time, both the train and the baby are “guilty” of doing what they’re accused of doing. The train really is running away and threatening your life. The baby really is where it’s not wanted and infringing on someone else’s rights . Um, regardless of your problem I’m using innocent correctly. “The baby” is not infringing on anyone’s rights. > [@](#): > > I don’t think we’d say that you have to know that you’re infringing on someone’s rights in order for you to be actually doing it. That takes us back to the KKK example. Just because the KKK member doesn’t think you’re human and therefore you have no rights doesn’t make him right or make your rights immaterial. You’re twisting the example. It doesn’t fit your application if I understand you. In the KKK example the black man they see as less than human would be “the baby” and it’s the pro choice crowd would be the KKK **if** the potential human is actually a person with rights. The point is that pro life folks wouldn’t expect the same punishment of those who have or provide abortions as they might a member of the KKK killing a black man or Jew or Mexican or whomever. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/254 "2009-06-04T03:49:05Z")
> [@Flyhalf](#): > > Why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it up your ass? Obviously you don’t have the balls to answer the question and that’s why you haven’t. You’re a real piece of work . . . . Back off. This is **Great Debates** ; you can pretty well expect to find opinions with which you disagree. If you need to insult someone, take it to the **BBQ Pit**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/255 "2009-06-04T04:14:08Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > State of mind is a factor only in determining is a punishment is warranted, or at least lessened. Abortion is a singular issue, complex and confusing to many. We are inundated with messages saying that it’s an undisputed right, that a fetus is merely a blob of tissue, etc. I am certain there are woman, desperate and misguided, who are certain they are doing nothing wrong. Once more, I’m perfectly aware that intent or state of mind is a factor. That’s not the issue _at all_, so there’s no need to repeat it. The point is that even if the woman having the abortion sincerely believes she is doing nothing wrong and the doctor preforming it believes he or she is doing nothing wrong, in order for the pro-life position of it’s a human life from the moment of conception, to be logically consistent, they have to think that the woman and the doctor are killers and therefore deserving of punishment, regardless of what the woman and the doctor believe about themselves. If a woman killed her infant out of depression should she go free? If a doctor euthanised a baby with birth defects should he be forgiven because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong? > [@](#): > > I hesitate to respond to this, because I do see your point and I do think it’s analogous, and I’m pretty sure people will not respond kindly. I think, for example, that there were countless people who owned slaves who were otherwise decent, who believed they were doing nothing wrong. But they were. Could we even get them to understand they were participants in something wrong? Would that have any meaning? I don’t know. Again you’re off on a tangent rather than addressing the topic of the thread. If one person in our modern society owned slaves and treated them as property that person would wind up in jail guilty of a crime regardless of whether he or she believed they were innocent and justified. The point is the logical inconsistency for pro-life advocates to claim a fertilized egg is a human being but still not advocate punishing woman who have abortions and their doctors. > [@](#): > > I don’t see it as a partial commitment. I see it as a practical concession. I’ll take what I can today. We’ll try for the rest later. Okay. But what you’ve conceded is that a potential human is not a human yet. You’ve conceded that a fertilized egg is or an early fetus is not really a baby and that means abortion is not killing a baby. After making that concession I doubt you can effectively step back later on. > [@](#): > > I think there are already mechanisms–adoption, social services. I’d gladly pay more taxes for this. fair enough ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/256 "2009-06-04T04:19:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Now, now, that’s cheating. ;)I don’t think so. An example I have often offered is that of someone who temporarily flatlines his brain activity. This is deliberately induced sometimes, for certain operations. Sometimes it occurs with [severe hypothermia](http://books.google.com/books?id=SJPI4HcZsV8C&pg=PA801&lpg=PA801&dq=hypothermia+brain+flatline&source=bl&ots=Q_Kfz80hvp&sig=gOXr-ar54UeAUsKOJf_xma8ZDmo&hl=en&ei=cw8nSvLUIYaJtgeiv-jgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA801,M1). However rare this is, it does occur: someone is momentarily devoid of any brain function, a much larger clump of cells, who then gains consciousness. I’d assert–again, conceding this as axiomatic–that this person is still, well, a person, deserving of rights. One couldn’t kill this entity with impunity. This “conflation” seems to create a reasonable assumption of rights, ISTM. Do you disagree? One couldn’t kill someone who had flat lined period, end of discussion, since they’d already be dead. So, yeah, I kinda disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/257 "2009-06-04T04:30:45Z")
Meh. Canada has no abortion law, yet our society is stable and has not descended into the casual murder of toddlers, nor are we going extinct. If Americans can’t handle a similar situation, it must be some flaw on their part. Probably too much religion. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/258 "2009-06-04T09:53:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > One couldn’t kill someone who had flat lined period, end of discussion, since they’d already be dead. So, yeah, I kinda disagree. Even if they would regain consciousness? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/259 "2009-06-04T10:02:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Once more, I’m perfectly aware that intent or state of mind is a factor. That’s not the issue _at all_, so there’s no need to repeat it. The point is that even if the woman having the abortion sincerely believes she is doing nothing wrong and the doctor preforming it believes he or she is doing nothing wrong, in order for the pro-life position of it’s a human life from the moment of conception, to be logically consistent, they have to think that the woman and the doctor are killers and therefore deserving of punishment, regardless of what the woman and the doctor believe about themselves. One can kill someone and not be a murderer. Intent, state of mind, these are all factors. You’re contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. If you believe state of mind is a factor as I described it–i.e., as something that can lessen or eliminate the need for punishment–how can you conclude that the only possible conclusion, the one and only one, for one who believes a life has been take is that the woman is a killer deserving of punishment? Makes no sense to me. > [@](#): > > If a woman killed her infant out of depression should she go free? If a doctor euthanised a baby with birth defects should he be forgiven because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong? Depends on the circumstances in total. I can’t answer based on one sentence. But those factors should at least be considered for the mother. > [@](#): > > Again you’re off on a tangent rather than addressing the topic of the thread. If one person in our modern society owned slaves and treated them as property that person would wind up in jail guilty of a crime regardless of whether he or she believed they were innocent and justified. The point is the logical inconsistency for pro-life advocates to claim a fertilized egg is a human being but still not advocate punishing woman who have abortions and their doctors. You started that tangent, didn’t you? All that KKK stuff? And I agreed with you, such circumstances could be similar with regard to a person’s state of mind and base beliefs. Isn’t that what you asked? Seriously? > [@](#): > > Okay. But what you’ve conceded is that a potential human is not a human yet. You’ve conceded that a fertilized egg is or an early fetus is not really a baby and that means abortion is not killing a baby. After making that concession I doubt you can effectively step back later on. No, I haven’t. I concede that given a choice between an abortion restriction with a rape exception and no abortion restriction at all, I’ll take the former. I don’t have my ideal choice, or I’d select that one. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391/260 "2009-06-04T10:09:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Re-gains conciousness. Already had it, gotten used to, temporarily interuppted by extreme circumstance. Big difference between _was, and now isn’t_ (albeit temporarily) and _never was and still isn’t._ Not to someone who asserts that the absence of brain function means that there are no rights. This board, as an example, abounds with such folk. Someone who can’t suffer or think or be aware of their surroundings–that entity can’t be described as a person. Why is “re-gain” an important distinction other than to permit abortions? With a permanently flatlined EEG, I’d speculate we both agree, that person is dead. Remove the life support, with grief but with a clear conscience. The fact that this person was once with brain functions carries no weight. None. What does carry weight is if he _will_ have brain function in the future. Why does that carry no weight for someone unborn? “Future brain function only counts if you once had it” seems a meaningless distinction, one that serves one purpose. It protects the rights of the adult, but still permits abortion by providing a pointless exception that ignores the very definitions of “personhood” that some people assert. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-cannot-think-a-fetus-is-a-person/498391.md?page=14)