People justify abortion by saying that fetuses are not people, and therefore don't deserve to have any moral value ascribed to them. I want to know: do people who hold that view concede that fetuses have at least some moral value?
I loved reading your answer. You're brilliant. Holy.
Well, I believe I answered that question. My problem was with your wording, not with the premise.You tried to address effect, not cause. A fetus is human and therefore deserves "moral consideration." A hockey puck is not and does not.My point being is that - unintentionally I am sure - the question was too clever by half. Get to the point: Is a fetus human? The answer to your question flows logically from the more basic question.The problem at the moment, as all the gyrations over trimesters and heartbeat laws and all the rest suggests, is that the culture is averting its gaze from the most basic question. The answer to your question then becoming problematic.
Just saw your post. Thank you for your generous compliment. Most kind.
I know what you're saying, and there is a reason for why I didn't ask the question that way. There are people who don't accept that a fetus is a person. I want to know whether those people still ascribe some value to the fetus. After all, most people will tell you a lesser animal such as a dog has value.
Well, but look at my second through fourth paragraphs to my initial answer. Ask the question and premise with those points.Yes, some people believe that a fetus is not human. However, puncture that point and you force them into a difficult moral dance. Either they must explain at what moment a fetus becomes human and what makes it so and what makes it different from the second before that moment. Alternatively, they must explain why, though human, the human fetus is not entitled to rights until a given point to be determined by others. A very difficult argument to make - and one with a very bloody history behind it.
Good point and ty for the follow :)
Thank you as well.Oh, and forgive my adding, but I happened to notice that you make a distinction between a zygote and a fetus. Please note that scientifically, empirically and philosophically that is mistaken. To repeat, a human being cannot be anything other than human from the moment of conception. A thing cannot be anything other than what it is at any point in its development. The zygote will not become a horse if it was not a horse from the start.
I agree that once you define a human as something other than "a being containing human dna" it leads you down a path with unacceptable conclusions. The reason I made that distinction back there was literally just point out that she was ignorant of what qualities a fetus has.
I don't make a philisophical distinction between the zygote and fetus. They do have different traits though.
Fair enough, and I don't mean to find fault with you. However, again, I would have gone to the more elemental question:What is the distinction between the zygote, the fetus and the baby? What are the distinguishing characteristics of each? Define them precisely scientifically and morally. At what EXACT second does one become the other and empirically at what point do rights finally inhere in that being?Yes, you are right, the zygote and the fetus and the human all have different characteristics, but that does not alter their underlying nature. No more than does the difference between a boy a baby a teenager and a man. They are just the same being at different stages in their physical, psychological and emotional development and are not thereby deprived of their humanity based on what stage they happen to be at.
You're right, and I agree with you. The reason I didn't do it that way is due to lack of brain power.
Ha! Well, best to give your respondents the benefit of the doubt. Let their responses incriminate them. That will be far more effective, if not to the respondent at least to those who read the respondent, then throwing epithets, however objectively justified those epithets may be.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Why should it have it? It’s a nonsentient lump of parasitic cells, no more worthy of moral consideration than a tumor.
Fetuses are sentient. A zygote is what you are describing. Does this change your mind? Fetuses are people, and people deserve moral consideration. That is why.
No, they are not sentient. Sentience requires the ability to perceive and feel the world around them. Science itself is still undecided when one becomes actually sentient. Again, wrong. Fetuses are human, and have not yet attained personhood. One attains personhood when they become an individual, and a fetus is not an individual since it is still literally part of the female host body.
Now the real question is, SHOULD it have consideration? And again I argue no, at least in the sense of control. In other words, it shouldn’t have any control over its host, its hosts human rights or its hosts choices. Aside from that, I don’t much care.
Why can't you be an individual if you are in someone's body? I want to isolate exactly what feature it is that precludes being an individual in that circumstance.Also, the fetus responds to auditory stimuli very early on in the womb. So when you say it can't percieve you are not right.
Because for example, I would be the individual, the progenitor. You can’t have two beings that are sharing the same body, and have only part of it claim to be individual. That’s not how it works. It reacts, correct on that note. But reaction to stimuli doesn’t make you sentient; that just makes you alive. Worms react to touch, they aren’t sentient.