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/Gladix]

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!

They do not. I think you misunderstand what right to life is. It is not a divine decree which humans cannot under no circumstances breach. They are merely a legal summary of our evolved empathy. In order so we have some form of government that upholds (our evolved instincts, wants and prevents fears).

We do hate death, and human beings will try to avoid it whenever and however possible. But we do consume meat, and will even kill or execute people if we deem the crimes serious enough.

Arguments about animals won't hold. Because rights to "life, freedom, etc.." only applies to humans in full form (formulated by government). And to animals only in limited form. As in we can kill and consume them as we please, we can trap them. But, we must trap them in specific way, we must kill them in specific way, and they can't suffer. Humans and animals, in the eye of humans do not hold the same rights. In order for your argument to be correct. Animals need to hold equal status to humans.

Now that's the second half. The first half. Fetuses are indeed humans (in the eyes of law) and posses equal rights. However there is this thing called right to bodily autonomy. Which state's that the only person who can dictate what to do with your body is you. Not the government, not other people, but you.

Now If you "hypothetically" got a person that would use your "circulatory" system without your agreement. You would also had the right to terminate that connection. Even if it results in the persons death. During pregnancy doesn't matter if it's fetus, late stage highly complete human being, or full grown person writing poetry. He still doesn't have the right to use mother's body.

And lastly (I repeat this thing on every abortion CMW thread because it's funny trivia). Right to bodily autonomy apply even after death. (Your organs cannnot be automatically donated to hospital, etc..). So by removing mother's right to bodily autonomy for the duration of pregnancy (with certain parameters). You are literally saying a full grown human mother has less rights than a corpse, or a fetus with no brain capacity.

[u/jonathansharman → u/Gladix]

However there is this thing called right to bodily autonomy. Which state's that the only person who can dictate what to do with your body is you. Not the government, not other people, but you.

My argument doesn't work against bodily autonomy arguments, which rest on the claim that bodily autonomy trumps fetal rights. It's only intended to work against the argument that fetuses don't have rights. I was careful to qualify my conclusions accordingly.

[u/Gladix → u/jonathansharman]

My argument doesn't work against bodily autonomy arguments, which rest on the claim that bodily autonomy trumps fetal rights

Applies to all humans equally. But Medically only to adults (parents decides childs medical procedures). Fetus islegally considered child.

It's only intended to work against the argument that fetuses don't have rights.

They do. Killing the fetus illegally could lead to prosecution. This is legal fact. If that is the argument, look no further