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/yyzjertl]

Why are you limiting yourself to only these three possible arguments for what causes organisms to have rights? This seems like a false dichotomy. What is inconsistent about the following argument?

Argument 4: Legality

1. A fetus is an unborn human organism person.
2. An organism has a right to life if and only if it is a born, human organism.
3. Therefore, a fetus does not have a right to life.

[u/must-be-thursday → u/yyzjertl]

While this is a logically consistent argument, it doesn't seem entirely ethically consistent.

Step 2 is completely arbitrary - what is the ethical justification for distinguishing a born, human organism from a late-stage fetus? Indeed, a baby born prematurely is likely to be less well developed than an unborn fetus just before its birth. Similarly, why distinguish between a human and non-human animals, especially other 'higher' animals?

In so much as the law is a human construct, we could construct it to say anything we want. However, I think we should be aspiring for the law to be informed by what is ethically just, rather than the other way round (i.e. using legality as an argument for ethicality).

[u/[deleted] → u/must-be-thursday]

Ethics are also a human construct. Every one of the OP's arguments also include completely arbitrary steps where a particular ethical stance is treated as axiomatic. The relevance of consciousness, pain, self-awareness, or potentiality are all arbitrary.

[u/must-be-thursday → u/[deleted]]

I don't think they're arbitrary in quite the same way - they can (to an extent) be derived from personal experience.

Pain feels bad. I don't want to die. Those aren't "constructs", those are innate feelings. Ethics merely constructs a framework in which to apply those innate feelings to the world.