E
Elf01
Guest
Interesting - so the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.
What gives a conjoined twin more agency than a fetus?
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
Your life-or-death on-off switch is at birth. And it is still ableism to declare that someone is “not enough of a person” to avoid being killed.
L
lagerald24
Guest
Well, first of all, it is a scientific fact that the fertilized egg has all of its own, personal genetic material. This genetic code is for something, that is, a person. We all have the same genetic code that we had when we were fetuses and the same genetic code that we will have when we die. This is science.
However, some have said that the fetus, despite the fact that it possess its own genetic code, is still just a part of its mother’s body. However, let’s take an example. I’m looking at my thumb and this thumb is part of my hand. This hand is also part of my body. We can logically conclude, then, that my thumb is part of my body. In logic, this is called a transitive relation.
If we were to apply this logic to the fetus and the mother, however, we would run into some difficulties. Take the fetus’s genetic material or any of the physical characteristics of the fetus. Are these parts of the fetus parts of the mother? The fetus has two feet, and, following the logic that the fetus is part of the mother, would we say that the mother has four feet? Two of her own plus the fetus’s? No, we wouldn’t say that. Same with the genetic code. It is not the mother’s own genetic material, it is the code for a whole new person and individual.
However, some have said that the fetus, despite the fact that it possess its own genetic code, is still just a part of its mother’s body. However, let’s take an example. I’m looking at my thumb and this thumb is part of my hand. This hand is also part of my body. We can logically conclude, then, that my thumb is part of my body. In logic, this is called a transitive relation.
If we were to apply this logic to the fetus and the mother, however, we would run into some difficulties. Take the fetus’s genetic material or any of the physical characteristics of the fetus. Are these parts of the fetus parts of the mother? The fetus has two feet, and, following the logic that the fetus is part of the mother, would we say that the mother has four feet? Two of her own plus the fetus’s? No, we wouldn’t say that. Same with the genetic code. It is not the mother’s own genetic material, it is the code for a whole new person and individual.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sorry, you’ve got it wrong. It does NOT eliminate the “I’m personally opposed” position. Let’s say I’m a pious Muslim and live in the United States. I believe in multiple marriages–polygamy. But it’s illegal there–the overwhelming majority of the population thinks it’s wrong. But I can still be “personally opposed” to the law. Why not?
Last edited:
L
lagerald24
Guest
Here are some interesting quotes from famous pro-choice thinkers:
- “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you or me on the one hand and every human fetus from conception onward on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” – David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 20
- “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic –literally, without a brain.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
- “A human fetus is not a nonhuman animal; it is a stage of a human being.“ – Wayne L. Sumner, Abortion and Moral Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 10
L
lagerald24
Guest
Yeah, you can still be personally opposed to the law. But Hey! People can think anything they like and that doesn’t change reality. Objective truth, kind of important.
S
Sbee0
Guest
If I didn’t want to be convinced I wouldn’t have made the invitation.Sbee0:
There is, but you’re right. Convincing someone of something requires their cooperation in a fundamental way. If they don’t want to give it…I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t think you can convince me that there is a real and tangible difference between a human being and a human person.
Then if you’re so sure, convince me.
It’s interesting that I’m the one accused of being emotional. As the saying goes, Medice, Cura te Ipsum.
I said the personhood argument was a poor one. My reasons are a few posts up in this topic. Perhaps you missed them.
Despite this being unfortunately a complete non sequitur, thanks for the response anyway. You’re really trying to define human personhood as what and when the local or state law gives them rights to do those things? My response is: an infant is just as much a person as those turning 16, etc. Are you saying they’re not? And someone who dies in war, or a homeless person, is not always “investigated” per se. Are they not persons? A non argument unfortunately. What you can do at a certain age in the eyes of the law (which is not static, as the law is dfferent from country to country and even state to state - another reason why this is fallacious) is not really all that relevant to the concept of human personhood. Nor does it say that a human being is not a person at any stage of their live.Let me give you mine:
Progressive personhood is a reality.
If you die before your birth, typically there is no investigation into the cause of your death.
If you die after birth, someone - even if just the coroner - will have to look into it.
-But at that point, you’re still very limited on the rights you enjoy. You’re largely under the control of your guardians.
When you turn 16, it is assumed you’re mature enough to drive a car.
(clipped for space)
After that, it’s potentially downhill, I’m afraid
Personhood is absolutely a progression. This is the reality in which we find ourselves.
Ah, the classic argument about your faculties. A baby up to a few weeks has no sense about their faculties. Neither does someone in a coma. Neither does someone under anaesthesia on the operating table. I could go on and on. It’s clear as day where and why this argument falls down. The appeal to law is logically fallacious. Honestly this is a terrible argument and I don’t know why this is always a go to for pro choicers.
Sorry, still not close to convinced that there’s a difference between a human being and a human person.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
When we can be sure that the mother is a person, we err on her side.Erikaspirit16:
Should we not err on the side of not allowing something to be killed if we cannot be sure it’s not a person?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Yes, all things being equal. But they’re not equal. The mother has rights too (as vonsalza keeps pointing out), and the mother would not have an abortion just for the fun experience. She would only do it for a serious reason–economic, social, whatever.
L
lagerald24
Guest
Err on her side to do what? Stop a beating heart? Then again, that’s just my opinion to you, not reality.
L
lagerald24
Guest
All beings are equal but some are more equal than others? I think I read that somewhere… trying to remember.
L
lagerald24
Guest
But can the mother kill her toddler for these reasons? Let’s just stay on the main point: Are the unborn human beings with the unalienable right to life?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The conjoined twin in your example made their wish known.
That’s an example of agency.
The switched that gets flipped to “off” at birth is the “Mother has control of this thing inside her body switch”.
It was born. It’s no longer inside her. The consequences of pregnancy are fully realized by the woman.
It’s simply not enough of a person to dictate the bodily autonomy of the mother, who most certainly IS a person.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
To not have to put herself through pregnancy if she doesn’t want to.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
If the twin who would die was unable to make their wishes known would it be OK to separate?
S
Sbee0
Guest
So again… if no such proof exists then what’s the difference between that and the conclusion that a human being is always a human person regardless of what stage of life they are, born or unborn?Sbee0:
I just agreed with you–you can’t “prove” the moment some cells are transformed into a human being.
But there IS a scientific marker that can do so. It’s called conception.
Too bad I can’t create a table or HTML here, it would be a nice visual that can illustrate the difference between “clump of cells” and “human being” in a nice illustrative way.
Bottom line - clump of cells are just that. A clump of cells has no inherent ability whatsoever to develop into an adult human, that can feel, think, and understand. A clump of cells will always be such, with matching DNA of the mother.
After conception, there is a unique human being in the mother. Different DNA. And once that has the inherent ability to develop into an adult human. One that can grow into that adult at each stage of development. No an embryo cannot “think” the way we do at a couple of weeks, but it has the inherent and programmed ability to do so when the time comes. That’s the key. The embryo at 2 weeks is behaving exactly as they are programmed to do at that stage.
Clump of cells never will. That’s the difference.
L
lagerald24
Guest
What exactly is a pregnancy?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
“1984.” George Orwell.
L
lagerald24
Guest
Right, got it!
S
Sbee0
Guest
I don’t think the economic argument for abortion is a sound one either.Elf01:
Yes, all things being equal. But they’re not equal. The mother has rights too (as vonsalza keeps pointing out), and the mother would not have an abortion just for the fun experience. She would only do it for a serious reason–economic, social, whatever.
Consider a family whose parents both lose their jobs and fall on very hard financial times. I don’t think anyone would argue that gives them the right to kill their kids.
And the adoption option goes without saying.
- Status