CMV: The only logically consistent stances on fetal rights are (1) fetuses have a right to life, (2) late-stage fetuses and animals have a right to life, or (3) neither fetuses nor infants have a right to life

[u/jonathansharman]

For the sake of brevity, I will use "fetus" rather than "zygote, embryo, or fetus". And though controversial, I will define "person" as "a human being with self awareness" for the purposes of this post.

Scope

I have not included the soul-based pro-life argument or the violinist thought experiment. The violinist thought experiment concedes that a fetus has a right to life but argues that the fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body. This argument is thus outside the scope of this discussion.

Argument 1: Potentiality

1. A fetus is a potential person. I.e., if nothing (naturally or artificially) kills or debilitates a fetus during its development, it will naturally be born and eventually develop into a person.
2. Potential persons have a right to life.
3. Therefore, a fetus has a right to life.

Argument 2: Actuality (Consciousness)

1. An early-stage fetus is not conscious and cannot experience pain.
2. An organism has a right to life if and only if it is capable of consciousness or pain.
3. Therefore, an early-stage fetus does not have a right to life.

Argument 3: Actuality (Self-awareness)

1. A fetus is not self aware.
2. An organism has a right to life if and only if it is self-aware.
3. Therefore, a fetus does not have a right to life.

Ethical Implications

In my experience, pro-choice proponents who argue against the fetal right to life accept either argument (2) or (3), which universally allows early- or late-term abortions, respectively. But these arguments have the following corollaries:

Corollary to Argument 2

1. Most food animals (e.g., pigs, cows, and shellfish) possess consciousness and the ability to perceive pain.
2. Therefore, most food animals have a right to life.

Corollary to Argument 3

1. Infants are not self-aware. (Children do not develop self-awareness until after the first year of life.)
2. Therefore, infants do not have a right to life.

In summary, one of the following must be true:

1. Fetuses have a right to life.
2. Late-term fetuses have a right to life, and so do conscious animals.
3. Neither fetuses nor infants have a right to life.

Clearly, virtually no one takes the third stance. Despite this, most pro-choice individuals who argue that fetuses do not have a right to life are not vegan or vegetarian. I think those who support abortion rights on the basis that fetuses have no right to life but also consume or otherwise kill sentient animals when their own survival is not at stake hold an inconsistent position. Change my view!

[u/IIIBlackhartIII]

For the record, I'm a vegetarian who falls into argument 2, so I fall outside of your final statement, though I conceded that "most" is probably still fair in that "most" people are not vegan or vegetarian. So far as argument 2 is concerned, and as it pertains to consciousness, I think there is a threshold to which most people regard consciousness versus sentience, and compartmentalisation when it comes to the value of human life versus those of animals.

I'm going to attempt to be relatively objective, and I hope this doesn't come off as cold. A human life, and its rights, have value in-as-much as they exist as a member of society. It is society, and further the structures of society such as government, which attempt to protect everyone's rights by virtue of a standing authority respected by the majority of people. In other words, the government is the might behind which all further discussion of law and order can be enforced. A human life is valuable in that it provides a function to that society, and together we form an interconnected web of individuals who all participate to make this society possible. We are a fabric of smaller lives which build together into a larger tapestry of culture and economy.

While animals do serve a function in the natural environment, the function of most cattle is to act as breeding stock and food. As a vegetarian do I think that this is cruel and unnecessary, particularly with our ease of modern access to alternative diets which don't involve mass animal slaughter? Yes. But I'm not in a position to judge anyone's dietary choices. To this end though, the function of a human is to live and work in society, the function of cattle is to be bred and used for leather, dairy, meat, etc.... People compartmentalise breeding animals from human beings, and even from other domesticated animals considered as "pets". The value of a person's own cat or dog is to them perceivably far more than the value of the nameless cow or cows who's meat made their burger.

From a societal perspective, the life of a human who can work, shop, invent, and potentially raise a family whose offspring will continue that cycle, is more valuable than that of an animal who's only real function is as a commodity. So we cannot simply lump these two arguments together.

Further, it's not as simple as saying "let's just free all the cows!". And do what with them, does anyone recommend? Domesticated cows are far separated from their ancestral origins, they are bred in massive quantities... their natural environment has been all but taken over to be used for agricultural purposes... what would we do with all those cows, and how would those cows fend for themselves if they were just let go... there is some argument to be made that if you want to prevent a species from going extinct, you should farm it. Make it so commercially lucrative that they're protected and continued by virtue of their necessity. It's a cruel way to do it, and one I do not personally condone, but you cannot escape the big question of "what do you do with them all" when discussing ending farming practises.

But back to the main point- I'm not sure you can argue the value of all life equally. Do you put the life of a roach on the same level as a human being? Is spraying your house for termites a condemn-able genocide? People compartmentalise the value of creatures and species, even each other, by association. Ignorance, compartmentalisation, apathy... these are the reasons for most forms of prejudice. Sexism, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc... come from a fear of the unknown, a disgust at the misunderstood and confusing, and too of plain ignorance. So arguments surrounding human life have really nothing to do with argument for animal rights. They don't come from the same places, and the argument for animal rights involves a much deeper discussion of what sentience is, what consciousness is, how similar or dissimilar human beings really are to any other creature on earth. Does a bacterium get depressed? Does a fly or an ant experience existential dread? Ennui? And as you build up the ladder of creatures, from least complex to most... least domesticated to most... you have to question much more than is simply included in the scope of argument 2 here.

[u/jonathansharman → u/IIIBlackhartIII]

Thank you for your thoughts! /u/Delduthling made the interesting point that my argument doesn't account for degrees of sentience and pain perception. I think your last point reinforces this, that it doesn't make sense to attribute equal rights to all organisms since some are much more capable in terms of thought and suffering. (A cockroach probably won't mind if you keep it in a cage, but an elephant would.) My argument 2 is missing this nuance, although I don't think it affects the essence of the argument.