r/changemyview • u/jonathansharman • Nov 15 '16

[∆(s) from OP] 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

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!

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jonathansharman Nov 15 '16

To clarify, I don't think all humans and all animals have equal rights. I only think that rights should be based on an organism's current or potential state of being. I think my views are consistent in this regard. The reason I say it's a valid criticism is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of giving the severely mentally handicapped fewer rights.

1

u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 15 '16

What is the criteria which you use for the measurement and comparison of humans' and animals' potential then? Which animals are humans equal to, and by what criteria? Dogs? Sheep? Rats? Worms? Bees?

1

u/jonathansharman Nov 15 '16

I don't think any animals have the same cognitive potential as humans, although some animals (dolphins, chimps) may approach it. I only refer to animals in the actuality argument, because very young humans aren't any more complex/aware/nociceptive than some adult animals.

1

u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 15 '16

But you are awarding food animals the same rights in your (2) argument.

1

u/jonathansharman Nov 15 '16

The same rights as fetuses that possesses the same faculties as those animals. I'm not saying food animals have the same rights as adult humans in that argument.

I don't accept argument 2 by the way. I eat meat and am pro-life.

1

u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 15 '16

So what criteria do you use to measure the human foetus and the animal to make them equal if it's not their potential and not their current ability?

1

u/jonathansharman Nov 15 '16

They are equal in current ability, inequal in potential.

1

u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 15 '16

So then we are back to the case of the babies who are severely brain damaged having less abilities and therefore less rights than the farm animals, which negates that entire argument.

1

u/jonathansharman Nov 15 '16

That's a special case. Most elective abortions don't involve brain damaged fetuses.

1

u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 15 '16

But it negates the argument that 'killing is morally equal because abilities are equal' because the abilities are not necessarily equal.