Puffer Fish wrote:Why don't you talk to persons who are surviving a severe disability, and ask them if they would prefer to have been euthanised at birth, or aborted in their mother's wombs right before birth?
Because, even if I had the guts to ask something like that, one person cannot speak for all of them.
@XogGyux I'm bringing this from the other thread for tidiness.
XogGyux wrote:It kind of does. When you begin with accepting your conclusions, all your evaluations of the available data/evidence is very heavily skewed based on your biases.
Anti-vaxxers were anti-vaxers before the first reported case of myocarditis, it was a a priori conclusion (vaxxxine bad), when they saw a handful of adverse events (something that happens with any sort of medication) they now had confirmation of their biases.
Right, but you are assuming I'm having an a-priori view on the fetus' personhood. I don't.
I'm willing to read arguments against, and for, the idea. I even asked @Puffer Fish to elaborate on why are fetuses persons.
XogGyux wrote:What happened to the good old-fashion pick up a dictionary and see what it is "commonly" understood as "person".
For instance, I like wikipedia's definition:
Merriam-Western is a bit more vague, they say:
"Human, Individual"
The first half is clear, the second part is a bit more nebulous.
Both of these definitions rely heavily in the power of consciousness. You are an individual because of your personality, character, memories, etc. All of this depends on conciousness, these definitions are not compatible with an entity that has never achieved consciousness. A fetus, is not compatible with the definitions of the person given by Wikipedia/Merriam-Western Dictionary.
So for instance, would a newborn be a person to you? I'm asking because it's far from obvious a newborn would fulfill Wiki's definition of "person". Same for a comatose or someone who's in a vegetative state.
That definition seems to be incomplete, if you ask me. I mean, even leaving my own opinion aside, society doesn't regard infanticide in a particularly favorable light.
And believe it or not, I've seen philosophers claim they do not recognize the newborn as being persons. I don't think I agree, but I can understand the arguments they make and they consist on a strict application of the definition you cited from Wikipedia.
The Merriam-Webster one is vaguer and would not exclude fetuses.
XogGyux wrote:Perhaps more important... Why do you keep trying to make the point that a fetus is a person? I already told you that even if we consider it to be a person, it does not change anything whatsoever. A person should not override the bodily rights of another person. If you wanted to convince me otherwise, the first step would not be to attempt to demonstrate that fetus are people, but rather to demonstrate why a person should be able to override another's person body autonomy... then and only THEN, if you were able to make a successful argument, then you could defend your view that a fetus does in fact has personhood. At this point in time, I am convinced of neither of those points.
This is about the absurdity of all of this. We value body autonomy so much, that we can refuse our organs to be donated after our death. Essentially, a dead human being has more autonomy about their dead body than a woman about their pregnancy (under abortion ban). While at the same time, you are giving extra rights to a fetus that no other living PERSON has. I am a person and I cannot force my mother to give me her kidney, but apparently if I was a fetus I could force her to carry me on her Uterus and give birth to me? This is absurd.
Because persons supposedly have some inherent rights that are worthy of protection. I at least would agree with that view, even if there may be disagreement on what those rights are and if they are to be applied absolutely or if there's some balancing with other rights that has to be taken into account.
One of those rights a person has, is precisely bodily autonomy, but I and many others do not consider it to be an absolute right.
As for your stance on bodily autonomy being absolute, I will at least state that is not recognized as such. I provided you with examples regarding vaccination and minor organ donation. You may not, as an adult, force your mother give you her kidney, but she could have given your kidney to your brother when you were a child, at least in the US, depending on the circumstances - and your opinion would be unnecessary. Other countries may have different laws or interpretation of the law, which are of course worth considering. And I agree with you about organ donation, by the way.
As such, yes, whether a fetus is a person or not of course matters. If the fetus is a person, suddenly the right to bodily autonomy needs to be balanced against the rights of the fetus, if it is not then abortion before viability could at most be regulated to it doesn't cause the fetus pain (I'm assuming fetuses can feel pain, yes, whatever).
Abortions after viability would still fall into a different category if the fetus isn't a person, given killing the fetus is not necessarily the only way to terminate pregnancy in that case. You can even set up survival probabilities to adjust or establish the threshold, I'm open to that idea. Maybe you're right, maybe the demand should be more stringent than merely having a survival probability (with medical assistance) >0, I'd ideally try to be as lax as possible but I'm willing to consider becoming more demanding if not being demanding enough would limit others' access to healthcare services for example - I'm way more flexible because we're assuming the fetus is not a person. Again, it's all about balancing rights/interests.
XogGyux wrote:Does not necessarily has to be euthanasia. I am not aware of child euthanasia at all. My understanding is that Oregon has allowed it for adults and the requirements are quite extensive, I have had patients inquire on going to Oregon for assisted suicide and it turns out you cannot just show up and ask for a suicide pill, it does not work that way. But I digress.
I don't disagree with you here, but disconnecting this 21 weeks fetus/baby/however you want to call it would be basically a form of euthanasia.
Also, the right to end your own life is an extension of bodily autonomy so it seems a child would also lack that right when making that decision in Oregon (and many other places where euthanasia is legal).
- By paeng
- By wat0n