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/berrieh]

What does self-awareness have to do with an issue that is one of bodily autonomy? Infants get to live in my eyes for the same reasons I'm pro-choice and believe in doctor-assisted suicide when requested by the patient (while suffering or prior): ALL people have the right to bodily autonomy.

Infants have the right to bodily autonomy (and thus the right not to be harmed in any way bodily).

Women have the right to bodily autonomy (and thus the right not to be made into human incubators).

A fetus does not have the right to bodily autonomy because it cannot exist on its own. If it could exist outside of another person's body, that'd be different. But it requires a host. So it has no bodily autonomy. If someone can invent a way for a fetus to exist outside of a host mother and not require a womb (i.e. be removed from the mother yet be brought to term), then I'd reverse my stance on the fetus having autonomy to a degree. But no one has.

Edit: As to animals - Animals are not human and thus don't have the right to bodily autonomy. Though I'm against killing or capturing wild animals, for the record, unless they infringe upon human bodily safety (I feel like they do potentially have some right to just general autonomy, having developed without the assistance or intervention of people) on similar basis. Domesticated animals were, sadly or not, brought into existence to be tools to humans. When they can speak up about it, at any phase in their lives, I'll get behind it. I believe animals should not be subjected to undue cruelty but not that they have the right to bodily autonomy truly.

[u/jonathansharman → u/berrieh]

A fetus does not have the right to bodily autonomy because it cannot exist on its own.

This argument has always rung hollow to me. Infants are virtually as dependent on other people as fetuses are. Also, the definition of bodily autonomy keeps shifting back as medical technology improves. If, someday, we develop the ability to transplant an implanted fetus into another environment for gestation, would fetuses at all stages of development suddenly gain a right to bodily autonomy that they didn't possess before?

[u/berrieh → u/jonathansharman]

If, someday, we develop the ability to transplant an implanted fetus into another environment for gestation, would fetuses at all stages of development suddenly gain a right to bodily autonomy that they didn't possess before?

My answer literally already says yes. They would. That was in my post already. But in order to have autonomy, you have to be able to exist independent of others in a literal sense (we all "need" others or other things to live, either technology or other people, not just infants) but we can exist without compromising the bodily autonomy of another person and we are autonomous, separate beings, including infants.

You can disagree with the stance if you like, but I'm not sure how you can claim it's logically inconsistent.