We again agreed that the moment of birth can’t be considered as the beginning of a human simply because there are children born prematurely and fully functional.
One argument for setting the demarcation point at the moment of birth, rather than some arbitrary point in the fetus’s cognitive development, is to adopt the ideology that women are not incubators; that they have moral control over their own bodies; and that so long as the fetus is inside the womb, no third party has any right to demand that the fetus be brought to term.
I don’t know whether this argument is morally compelling, but I think that it is a big mistake to ignore it completely. You can’t focus exclusively on the probability of becoming human and/or history of once having been human. You also need to consider just how much sacrifice you are demanding of a person. We don’t compel people to donate kidneys—perhaps we also shouldn’t compel them to serve as incubators.
One argument for setting the demarcation point at the moment of birth, rather than some arbitrary point in the fetus’s cognitive development, is to adopt the ideology that women are not incubators; that they have moral control over their own bodies; and that so long as the fetus is inside the womb, no third party has any right to demand that the fetus be brought to term.
Wouldn’t this argument mean that once artificial uterus’s are developed abortion should become illegal? A woman could terminate the pregnancy but would not have the right to terminate the life of the fetus.
We have to agree that a fetus is not a part of a woman’s body but a standalone organism. It’s backed up by our current knowledge of biology, I think. For example the fetus has different set of DNA.
Now, we want to save human lives, right? Can we let women decide about life and death of creatures inside their wombs even one day before the date of birth? The fetus is fully functional at the time and we should protect it just like the one day old newborn. No real difference here. That’s the reasoning suggesting we cannot chose the moment of birth as a demarcation point.
Women have rights to control their own bodies, but not other human beings, which fetuses are.
Generally speaking the argument that we should weight the potential gain of a new life vs. the parents sacrifice + the missery that unwanted child and it’s parents endure is the most meaningful I’ve found, but I’d like to focus on the part where we don’t want a human life to perish and how is the fetus case different from comatose one.
Perplexed wasn’t concerned about the moral rights of the kidney. Under your theory, why aren’t you you responsible for donating your kidney to someone who will die without it? If you’re not, then why are you responsible for hosting the placenta the fetus needs to survive?
“coma”
One argument for setting the demarcation point at the moment of birth, rather than some arbitrary point in the fetus’s cognitive development, is to adopt the ideology that women are not incubators; that they have moral control over their own bodies; and that so long as the fetus is inside the womb, no third party has any right to demand that the fetus be brought to term.
I don’t know whether this argument is morally compelling, but I think that it is a big mistake to ignore it completely. You can’t focus exclusively on the probability of becoming human and/or history of once having been human. You also need to consider just how much sacrifice you are demanding of a person. We don’t compel people to donate kidneys—perhaps we also shouldn’t compel them to serve as incubators.
Wouldn’t this argument mean that once artificial uterus’s are developed abortion should become illegal? A woman could terminate the pregnancy but would not have the right to terminate the life of the fetus.
We have to agree that a fetus is not a part of a woman’s body but a standalone organism. It’s backed up by our current knowledge of biology, I think. For example the fetus has different set of DNA.
Now, we want to save human lives, right? Can we let women decide about life and death of creatures inside their wombs even one day before the date of birth? The fetus is fully functional at the time and we should protect it just like the one day old newborn. No real difference here. That’s the reasoning suggesting we cannot chose the moment of birth as a demarcation point.
Women have rights to control their own bodies, but not other human beings, which fetuses are.
Generally speaking the argument that we should weight the potential gain of a new life vs. the parents sacrifice + the missery that unwanted child and it’s parents endure is the most meaningful I’ve found, but I’d like to focus on the part where we don’t want a human life to perish and how is the fetus case different from comatose one.
Perplexed wasn’t concerned about the moral rights of the kidney. Under your theory, why aren’t you you responsible for donating your kidney to someone who will die without it? If you’re not, then why are you responsible for hosting the placenta the fetus needs to survive?