wat0n wrote:So? In this case whoever is a person would have rights, so of course it's important to have a good definition we can agree on for completely practical reasons.
The key to this argument does not lie on personhood. A person should not be able to override the body autonomy of another. I cannot force you to give me your kidney, your blood or to be connected to me so your heart pumps me even if I would die without it. You cannot force a jehova woman to accept a blood transfusion, you cannot force a woman to eat a specific diet or to take sufficient minerals and vitamins to protect the baby. You cannot force a woman not to go skydiving while pregnant. Having a better more flashy definition of what a person is or is not is not going to bring us closer to an answer.
At what point in this video does the fetus become a child/person?
I am not offering you an alternative timeline. I am simply stating that it is biologically implausible for a fetus prior to birth to have anything that resembles consciousness or psychological individuality. For all intense and purposes, the fetus is a disconnected computer without any information in it.
The newborn might not even have anything that we can properly call consciousness until several months after birth. So most likely, nowhere in your video, is the answer. At minute 2:41 of the video, the umbilical cord is cut and the whole baby is outside. At this point in time, any sort of conflict about 2 entities sharing 1 body ceases to exist and we no longer care about the 2 entities having different interests as each entity's interest can be analyzed independently of each other. It has nothing to do with personhood, at all.
And... Check Min 1:46. Holy cow, that "hole" does not remotely resemble a vagina. WTF is wrong with people, why did the animator feel they needed to hide what a vagina looks like?
Was it truly not a person before?
Irrelevant, but no. And probably won't be a "person" for a few months either. The government will assign a birth certificate and consider it a person from legal standpoint, but this happens at birth and not in the woumb.
What's the magical thing about being outside and the umbilical cord being cut that turns it into one, given that it doesn't have the past a comatose may have?
The cutting of the umbilical cord decouples the 2 entities that used to share the mother's body. At this point in time, the interests of the baby can cattered to independently of the mother. In fact, the mother can cease to exist, die, leave the country, give the baby to adoption and this baby can still have his/her needs met. This is when the baby is no longer dependent and/or affected by anything that happens to the mother, the mother could stick her tongue to a 40000000 volt cable and asuming the baby is not physically touching the mother, the baby will be fine. It is not magic, it is just a description of what it is going.
And yes, personhood definitely has to do something with this.
I think those cases can be seen from a risk/benefit point of view, does the woman's risk compensate the few minutes, says at most, the baby will live?
It does not matter. It shouldn't be you, me, or the supreme court making that assessment. Risk/benefit analysis is based on patient wishes/values and his or her doctor's medical opinion.
If I am prescribing you a blood thinner for atrial fibrillation, I would tell you... well your chadvasc score is 2, this translate to approximately 2% risk of stroke per year. We can use a medication called apixaban to reduce this risk, but this medication will increase your risk of bleeding. You can tell me 1.- I don't mind the risk of bleeding, I am a pianist and if I get a stroke and cannot play the piano ever again I would feel as if my life is over, give me the med doctor. Alternativelly you could tell me 2.- I'd take my chances with the stroke doc, I work as a stunman, I am constantly injuring myself, if I take that med it might very well be a death centence. Risk/benefit is a PATIENT-CENTERED analysis.
Or you could also claim that, since the fetus has little prospect of living in this case, it's not a person anyway.
That is how you define personhood? your chances of dying? I cease to be a person if I am diagnosed with a deadly disease with a 90% mortality rate?
Not under the definitions of "person" I pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Well, that is not true is it?
Your quote offers several proposals to what a person can be. And a stillbirth qualifies for:
"or to belong to a kind whose members typically have them when healthy and mature (Wiggins 1980: ch. 6)."
No, but giving the baby formula won't kill it either. It's a matter of proportionality, if breastfeeding was essential for infants to live and there were no alternatives, I'm pretty sure our ethical system and laws would mandate it.
Don't be so dismissive. When we say breast milk is superior or that, there are increased risks for newborn from a drug addict mother, or a preterm from smoker... all of this translate to newborns that have increased risk of health problems and/or deaths, there are dead babies as a consequence of what their mothers ate, drank or did not take (vitamins), etc. You might miss it while swimming on a sea of healthy babies, but given the massive amounts of birth in this country, thousands of babies die due to these problems. Why be so dismissive about the deaths of actual babies when at the same time you are going above and beyond to defend these so called "rights of the unborn"? Care so much about the fetus inside the womb, but once it is poped out, don't care as much right?
But you do have the right to be supported by your parents, indeed, neglecting you can lead them to jail.
Having responsabilities is not remotely the same as having your body autonomy undermined/violated.
Furthermore, you can put the creature for adoption. You can hire a nanny to take care of him/her. You can have your husband or wife or mother take care of him/her.
Even in that case, why would pregnant women have the right to refuse things like vaccination while you or I wouldn't?
You don't have the right to refuse vaccines?
Why would it be okay for her to drink herself to oblivion yet illegal for all 18-year olds do the same?
Why are you asking me that question?
If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs.
No, there is not.
No, I'm not suggesting that. But if fetuses are persons, then your decisions don't just impact yourself.
Even if fetuses are not people. The mother's decision WILL impact the fetus. That is independently of wether you consider this fetus a person or not. Again, personhood is irrelevant. If the pregnant woman decides to abort the fetus, it will impact the fetus (BY DEFINITION) regardless of wether this fetus is considered a person or not. Not being a person, does not magically protect the fetus when aborted.
The law already forces parents to fulfill certain ethical obligations towards their children, such as supporting them. Why would this be all that different? If anything, for plenty it may be far easier or even preferable to donate blood or bone marrow than to pay child support.
I am sure most woman would be happy to pay you child support if you pop a 8lb baby out of your vagina after carrying a 9m pregnancy.
That coercion is a form of enforcement. Limiting your right to attend education may not be as harsh as fining you or even putting you in jail, but it's still a form of enforcement.
When there was a discussion about making COVID vaccination compulsory, the question doesn't just mean putting on paper "everyone shall be vaccinated for COVID". It also includes deciding on how to enforce the obligation, if for example the law decided to ban abortion but did not define how will the ban be enforced (which includes the consequences of having or performing abortions) then abortion is effectively legal and that statement is dead letter.
I am not here to discuss the minutia of how you can get around the vaccination or how this can impact your life. The fact of the matter is, vaccines are not truly compulsory in this country, nor have I ever argued in favor of a compulsory vaccination campaign. We recognize body autonomy as a society and as a matter of law.
Well, in that case she could die if she isn't treated, could her? I'd say the proportionality aspect is being fulfilled here - sure, the fetus may suffer or even die, but it's done to save her life or from grievous harm ("loss of limb").
Morphine does not save lives. Relieving your pain is not going to save your life. You can endure the appendicitis pain until surgery to protect the baby, cannot you?
I know, it's irrational and disproportionate if you think about it.
No it is not irrational. It is sad. It is something that should be avoided. It is somehting we should educate the public, mothers-to-be and pregnant women. We should encourage them, we should support them when trying to quit those substances, we should offer assistance to quit them.
Can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
And this is what the states trying to ban abortion is trying to do correct?
And yet those are recommended for treating pregnant JWs, and it seems their death rates from anemia are low all in all.
To the extent that they might be "recommended" it is because of the inability to provide the real treatment. This "recommendation" is not based on a biological plausibility of a superior outcome of this "alternative regimen" as compared to the standard of care. Let me put it this way, if you had a patient that required a transfusion, and you don't offer the transfusion and instead offer this "bloodless medicine" approach, if/when patient suffers a bad outcome (damages) you are liable for malpractice.
So your solution then is to just arbitrarily decide only one of them has any rights? Would you do that for conflicts between two adults?
Yes and yes.
They can define "life" however they want, but under Roe v Wade fetuses are not persons anyway. They cannot do much more than that as things stand now.
Personhood is irrelevant.