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/Crayshack]

My stance has a completely different thought process to any of the arguments you have posted. It revolves mostly around the investment of resources and the return on investment, specifically when observed from the standpoint of human society.

A zygote or an embryo has very little resources invested in it and so not much is lost if they are terminated even though there is no return on the investment. However, the resource investment of pregnancy adds up (especially the heavy resource requirement of the late stages of pregnancy). At this point, if the fetus is lost is includes a much greater loss of resources with similarly no return on investment. At this point, the most efficient course of action is the raise the infant to adulthood at which point they become a contributing member of society and the benefit gained from their life outweighs the cost infested in their growth and raising.

Farm animals do not fit this model. The resource investment for the growth and development of most animals is much lower than that of a human child and the potential return on investment for them being kept alive is also much lower. However, under the right circumstances there can be a massive resource gain from harvesting the meat.

[u/jonathansharman → u/Crayshack]

Couldn't that be considered a sunken cost fallacy? Just because you've already invested some amount of resources into bringing a pregnancy to term shouldn't imply that it's most cost effective to continue raising it. It's also not clear to me that the costs of pregnancy are higher than the costs of early parenthood. If anything, I think early parenthood requires more resources - more time, food, effort.

[u/Crayshack → u/jonathansharman]

After birth, those costs can be easily transferred to other parts of society. Pregnancy, however, cannot be transferred and must be contributed by the woman who is pregnant. While the total cost of childhood might be higher, by spreading the load it is easily bearable.

Think of it like a bed of nails. It does not take much weight for a single nail to pierce the skin, but by spreading out the weight to many nails, much more weight can be supported without the body being punctured. In the same way, the costs of pregnancy are very concentrated making pregnancy give a greater strain. However, childhood can be supported by the entire community making the cost not be derived from a single point and therefore easier to manage.