[AFAIK]

She’s the only person involved in her pregnancy.

I'm pretty sure there's a fetus involved.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey
If we were to grant rights to fetuses on the basis of being human would those same rights apply to embryos? What about sperm and eggs?

I guess that is why you don't class a fetus as human AFAIK. It would be a legal minepit. I suppose the reality is that you don't provide rights to the fetus per se but rather reduce the legal practices in order to protect them in other means. But I guess most people just accept that until they become formed they are merely a fetus and twenty weeks seem about right at least to give them some form of protection given that is when they become formed. But this really is a non issue in any case. The law seems about right and there isn't any appetite to change it. Not in the UK anyway.

[late]

I'm pretty sure there's a fetus involved.

A fetus isn't a person.

You don't get to rewrite science...

[AFAIK]

That sounds like a legal position rather than a scientific one @late
The consensus on when life begins and is worthy of protection has changed considerably as medical science advanced.

@B0ycey I agree that our laws have reached a reasonable compromise between the extremist positions. I'll point out that we grant all sorts of rights to animals that are nuanced and particular. Here's an analogous situation for you. France and Germany will ban the culling of male chicks and require their eggs to be destroyed before they hatch. They're able to do so due to recent technological advancements.

[late]

That sounds like a legal position rather than a scientific one @late

Not sure what you mean. Science doesn't tell us when we should give legal status.

[AFAIK]

I'm not sure why you mentioned science. Science can identify what is and isn't human. The law grants person hood status to various entities.

[late]

I'm not sure why you mentioned science. Science can identify what is and isn't human. The law grants person hood status to various entities.

Because there are a lot of pseudo-scientific arguments, and pseudo-moral arguments.

Sure science can identify the dna in a fetus as human. But it can't tell you when it becomes human. I think we're simply looking at this from a different POV, but coming to the essentially same conclusion.

[wat0n]

Oh, the fetus is still human. The question is if it's a person, and that's not a purely scientific one.

[Pants-of-dog]

For the purposes of the OP, I thought the comparison works best if we assume that the fetus has (or should have) all the rights of a person.

[snapdragon]

That’s difficult to do, POD. Good luck.

[AFAIK]

For the purposes of the OP, I thought the comparison works best if we assume that the fetus has (or should have) all the rights of a person.

People have responsibilities as well as rights. A fetus could be granted full person hood status with the same rights enjoyed by you, me and Microsoft. If it were to endanger the life of the mother it wouldn't be granted the right to stay inside her unmolested. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with those who refuse to vaccinate and feel they have the right to endanger others by continuing to use public transport, private businesses and other public spaces.

If a woman dies during childbirth should the baby face manslaughter charges? Is the lack of criminal responsibility faced by fetuses an example of unbornism?