To be clear, I’m not a human supremacist; I think humans are the only species we know about now that possessed the quality I value in humans, but if we discover that quality in an alien species or if we build AI that possesses it, I think the same values would apply.
That’s what humans are, but if we uploaded a human mind to a computer, it would no longer be a multicellular organism but it would still be valuable as a human being.
I guess what I value is sapience, which humans have but whales and chicks do not. That doesn’t mean that we should be cruel to whales or chicks (mostly because practicing cruelty causes humans to become worse people) or that we should allow them to go extinct (because of the value that whales and chicks provide to humanity, including abstract value through things like wonderment at nature).
Fetuses aren’t sapient, but they possess the capacity for sapience, and once they’re far enough along that developmental path, I think we should value the sapience they will possess; likewise, part of the reason that we should care for humans who have lost their sapience is out of respect for the sapience they had. (But when sapience is completely gone, like brain death, and when there is no hope of restoring it, I think it’s fine to pull the plug).
Reading the rest of your post, it is clear that we operate from very different first principles, but I agree with what you said about it staying a little far from the topic of the thread; if you do end up posting more about this elsewhere, please tag me.
[Please note that is a reply to Babale’s post #78, not the later one.]
These are reasonable as supplementary arguments, but fail to address what I see to be core.
A living person has a legal definition, at least in the total body of legislative and case law. An animal has rights but is not a living person. A corporation has rights but is not a living person. A fetus has rights but is not a living person.
What to do with/to a fetus is related to the question of when a fetus becomes a person but is not the same set of issues.
I recognized that you and others are actually interested in the separate question. I’m not, because both legally and morally it cannot be answered until the first question is. That’s what I’m lamenting, and what you are continuing in this answer.
It’s trying to strike a compromise between the desires of the individual and the desires of the society. The rules and laws about when life starts will come from the collective desires of the society at large. Many people in the US are very uncomfortable with abortion, and especially with late term abortions. An abortion policy of “at any time before birth” will be extremely unpopular with a subset of Americans. Even if it’s rare, it won’t matter. Such a liberal abortion policy will strongly motivate them to exert their political and legal might to ban abortion. Certainly any legal abortion policy will motivate them to some degree, but the more liberal the policy, the more motivated they will be to fight it. Having a policy which provided for the well being of a viable fetus would mean they would be less fierce in their opposition.
As to who would pay for the baby’s care, that would be the government. It would be like an extension of the Safe Harbor policies which allow for newborns to be dropped off at fire stations. If the baby dropped off has extensive health issues, it’s up to the state to pay for the care. If the state is not going to provide the option for fetus termination after viability, then it should take on the responsibility of raising it after that point. But I suppose because it’s in America, the baby would be treated as an uninsured individual and incur the associated medical expenses. It would be strapped with the cost as medical debt that they are expected to pay off at some point.
The fetus wouldn’t have full rights at the point of viability as if they were an adult. Even people don’t have full rights at birth. They are granted certain rights as they get older, such as driving, smoking, drinking, voting, etc. The fetus would be granted the basic right of existence at the point of viability.
The first question, when is a fetus entitled to legal protection, is in fact the one that cannot be meaningfully answered without first deciding when a fetus is worthy of moral consideration. The answer to what the law should be depends entirely on your moral consideration.
In my case, even though I considered a fetus that has passed viability to be a person, the legal prescription i settled on was overridden by other practical considerations, like how doctors will act in life threatening decisions. But I could not scone to that conclusion without weighing both sides of the scale.
Don’t you agree that what you should or should not consider acceptable to do to an entity depends on whether that entity is a person or not?
This is false, at least in the case of Canada, which has no restrictions, other than that medical procedures have to be done by medical professionals.
Anyway, rather than making the case in terms of what other people want, make it in terms of what you want. And, my questions above weren’t rhetorical – if a fetus is a person, what does that mean? Both in terms of rights for the pregnant person (plus: can drive in the carpool lane, minus: can be arrested for attempted murder for getting drunk) and for the fetus.
Why would the view of a fetus as a human entity deserving of some moral consideration, AKA a “person”, necessarily entail that a fetus is exactly the same as any other person and deserves identical legal status?
I think a fetus (past viability) is a person from a moral perspective; that doesn’t mean that I think the law should treat a fetus identically to every other human being. It certainly doesn’t mean that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy is forfeit, for example.
I think this is right, at least in my understanding. The questions are so intertwined that the first question EM is asking cannot be answered, really cannot even be fully considered, without at least pondering, if not fully answering, the second question.
Nope. I’m OK with abortion at any point before birth. I’m willing to compromise on end-of-2nd-trimester, but I’m OK with whatever the pregnant person chooses.
What’s the moral distinction between a 41 week old baby in the womb and a 36 week old baby in an incubator? Or should the recently pregnant parent of the 36 week old be allowed to make the same decision, as per Reply’s position above?
Plus, at 41 weeks, if the pregnant person doesn’t want to be pregnant, you can just induce birth.
And regardless of what they choose, I doubt they will be able to find a medical professional willing to perform an elective 41 week abortion.
And that means that the one who’s inside a person is not a person because…?
I don’t understand how the same exact baby is not a person if it’s in a womb and is a person if it’s in an incubator.
Because they aren’t inside a person?
The only difference between an abortion and an induced delivery at 41 weeks is whether the baby being delivered is alive; it’s not like terminating the pregnancy makes it disappear.
Is it acceptable for medical professionals to refuse to perform the 41 week abortion (as I am sure almost every single medical professional on the planet would), or would they be in effect forcing the pregnant woman to give birth by refusing to perform the abortion since if they don’t do it birth will happen on its own?
Right?!! The woman is undergoing a medical procedure either way to remove that fetus, either alive or dead. The distinctions seem completely arbitrary here.
I only know of natural persons and corporate persons in legal contexts. There are probably more, but I don’t know of any legal construct of a fetal person, with some rights and not others. Maybe DM the OP if that’s the direction they want to go.
As far as natural persons go, they come with rights, different from corporate persons’ rights. I doubt anyone would consider a fetus a corporate person, so I’m going by what I understand to be the rights of natural persons.
An adult is not allowed to give a natural person heroin against its will, for example, or endanger its life in other ways. I don’t want a pregnant person to be liable for those kinds of crimes if they, for example, ride a roller coaster later in the pregnancy than recommended resulting in a still birth.
I don’t know why you keep saying this. I think I’ve been pretty clear: I consider a fetus to be a human being deserving of rights (hereafter a “person”) after viability from a moral perspective, and believe that they deserve some level of ethical consideration accordingly. I believe that practically, encoding such protections in law will do more harm than good because it will hurt the ability of doctors to make appropriate decisions in life and death situations involving pregnant women; but that the underlying moral consideration is in fact the reason why medical professionals will refuse to perform late term elective abortions.
Nothing there implies that a fetus should be legally treated as a person. Nor do I see any other posted in this thread who has suggested that a fetus should be legally treated as a person. As best as I can tell, that’s a total strawman.
Why would we assume that? Let’s assume that the mother of the baby in the incubator deeply regrets his birth and does not want a baby.
Why does the lady who is still pregnant get to make that decision but the lady who is not does not?
If bodily autonomy is the only difference, then I agree that she can choose not to be pregnant anymore, but that doesn’t mean she gets to choose the fate of the fetus if it doesn’t actually need her to survive anymore.
If you are aware of a medical review board that’s cool with 41 week elective abortions, I’d love to hear about it, but as far as I am aware, such doctors and clinics don’t exist outside the fertile imagination of anti-abortion activists.
Right, and you can answer that question from a moral or ethical perspective, or from the perspective of what the law is, or from the perspective of what the law should be. These are all intertwined questions. You can’t address one without the others.
Because we’re specifically considering a person who wants an abortion but doesn’t want a live birth? I mean, it’s the whole setup.
Because in the one case, it’s her body. In the second, it’s not.
It’s the only one that matters.
While it’s in her, she still does. It has no claim on her. At all. That includes forcing her to engage in any medical procedure she does not want to. Or stopping her from having one she does want.
What I I do know is there are doctors who are willing to do all kinds of things, for money or ideology. Legal or not. Historically in pre-Roe USA, there have been doctors willing to perform abortions in places that didn’t allow it . You said “every single medical professional on the planet”, I disagree.