When does a human foetus have a right to life?

[dirtywick]

I'd argue you'd have to say "yes" if you want to be logically consistent.

Halting the growth process is different than terminating it.

The logical inconsistency is much earlier in your timeline though. The woman had an extra embryo fertilized. A person who wants to be morally consistent with opposing abortion shouldn't have fertilized an embryo they have no intention of carrying to term and shouldn't find themselves in that position.

 

[fuelair]

When the mother says so or at birth. Whichever comes first.

 

[kellyb]

When it thinks and feels, it's a "person", IMO, and should have a right to life. I don't see viability as relevant.

 

[Varanid]

TL;DR Fetuses and everything else has rights because enough people think they do.If enough people drop that belief, that right disappears.

That is a horrific thought. Surely popular opinion is not the basis for deciding such important questions.

 

[Varanid]

A foetus is a parasite. As such it has no intrinsic right to life. It is only potential life.

I have used this same argument (maybe worded a little "softer"-lol).

I would change it however, to this:

It is only a potential human. It is already alive.

Ergo, this:

When the mother decides to have it. It's nobody else's business.

Now to the real question: Why the hell are you all spelling Fetus with an "o"?

 

[KingMerv00]

Halting the growth process is different than terminating it.

Not in this case. The embryo will ultimately die in the fridge.

The logical inconsistency is much earlier in your timeline though. The woman had an extra embryo fertilized. A person who wants to be morally consistent with opposing abortion shouldn't have fertilized an embryo they have no intention of carrying to term and shouldn't find themselves in that position.

I'm not asking about how the woman feels in this scenario. I'm asking what the morally right thing to do is. Maybe she isn't morally conflicted but should be.

 

[kellyb]

That is a horrific thought. Surely popular opinion is not the basis for deciding such important questions.

I think it's both terrifying and true.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What other basis is there?

 

[Varanid]

@ Kellyb- Yup. Sucks, huh? lol.
@ Soapy Sam- Logic/Reason/Science/Facts/etc.

 

[Tricky]

When it graduates from college.

 

[dirtywick]

I'm not asking about how the woman feels in this scenario. I'm asking what the morally right thing to do is. Maybe she isn't morally conflicted but should be.

Wouldn't the woman's feeling dictate her actions though?

Either way, it's like asking which person a pacifist would kill first. She'd be morally conflicted a long time ago by creating two embryos without the intent of taking them both to term. If that doesn't bother her, then why would which embryo is implanted later?

 

[JoelKatz]

I'm not asking about how the woman feels in this scenario. I'm asking what the morally right thing to do is. Maybe she isn't morally conflicted but should be.

The morally right thing to do is not to compel a person to have something inside their body that they don't want there. We recognize this for everything else, but for some reason we have a moral blind spot for abortion. For example, we don't compel a person to donate a kidney even if another person needs it to live. That's because we recognize that any right to life you have is not a claim against another person's bodily integrity.

Somehow, we get bogged down in arguments about whether the fetus has a right to live or not. But that is of no relevance. The question is whether the mother has the right to remove the fetus, which would be the same whether the fetus were an inanimate speck of dust or an adult with full rights or anything else.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well in that case, the doctor is not liable because he has not taken on a legal duty. In the case of embryos, the duty is presumably established a conception.<snip>

Incorrect. Please let's try to stick to the theme of the OP. If an embryo could survive and develop outside the womb, why would there be any need to implant it back inside a woman's body again?

Let's say (far) in the future humans can be grown outside a woman's body. A couple of people decide to have a child in this way. Do they have a right to kill it for non-medical reasons? If so, at what point in time does their right to kill it end? For example, if the foetus is unconscious at 36 weeks, can they pull the plug?

What if the parents disagree on whether the foetus should be killed? Should survival of the foetus depend on both parents or only one of them wanting it?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The technology also exists to reset any skin cell (and not only skin) to a zygote which could be implanted and possibly grow into a human being. Should we charge some emo teenager cutting himself with mass murder? Forbid ear piecings? Or just say: "so what?"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The technology also exists to reset any skin cell (and not only skin) to a zygote which could be implanted and possibly grow into a human being. Should we charge some emo teenager cutting himself with mass murder? Forbid ear piecings? Or just say: "so what?"

That's an interesting question Hans. Perhaps you should start your own thread on that topic.

 

[KingMerv00]

Incorrect. Please let's try to stick to the theme of the OP.

Alright, alright. Yeesh.

Let's say (far) in the future humans can be grown outside a woman's body. A couple of people decide to have a child in this way. Do they have a right to kill it for non-medical reasons?

I'd say yes since the parents would have a legal responsibility to care for the child after it is born.

If so, at what point in time does their right to kill it end?

I still rely on brain development. When that is, I leave mostly to neurologists but I suppose around 6 months is fair.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That's an interesting question Hans. Perhaps you should start your own thread on that topic.

Well, no, because it's essentially the same question. If the technology existed to grow an embryo into a human outside of a woman, then it would also exist for someone to grow one of his/her skin cells into a clone of him- or herself.

If you're starting to grant an embryo rights because someone _could_ grow it in such a machine, then why not to a skin cell which is one well-understood and already proven reset away from being an embryo that can grow in such a machine?

And what if we make the machine do the reset itself, so it's not a separate step? It's, after all more trivial than the rest of such a machine. Anyway, you prick your finger on it, 9 months later a baby comes out. Skin cell goes in, baby comes out.

If even the possibility of it being viable in such a machine gives an embryo rights, then why not to a skin cell?

 

[JoelKatz]

If you're starting to grant an embryo rights because someone _could_ grow it in such a machine, then why not to a skin cell which is one well-understood and already proven reset away from being an embryo that can grow in such a machine?

Because rights don't work that way. A right to life does not obligate someone else to support you or provide you with the means to live.

If you accept, for example, that a fetus has a full right to live, the strongest conceivable argument you could make based on that is that if the fetus was viable without its mother, the mother wanted to remove it, and someone else wanted to provide for the fetus' needs at their own expense, the mother was obligated to remove the fetus in such a way that the other person could keep it alive. It's just like I can fire you from your job, even if that means you'll starve to death. But I can't lock you inside my factory if you wish to leave.

 

[BenBurch]

A "Right?" Rights are human inventions.

As such, the moment of live birth is where I would draw the line; Out of the womb and breathing air.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well, no, because it's essentially the same question.

No, it's a totally different question.

If the technology existed to grow an embryo into a human outside of a woman, then it would also exist for someone to grow one of his/her skin cells into a clone of him- or herself.

Quite possibly.

If you're starting to grant an embryo rights because someone _could_ grow it in such a machine, then why not to a skin cell which is one well-understood and already proven reset away from being an embryo that can grow in such a machine?

And what if we make the machine do the reset itself, so it's not a separate step? It's, after all more trivial than the rest of such a machine. Anyway, you prick your finger on it, 9 months later a baby comes out. Skin cell goes in, baby comes out.

If even the possibility of it being viable in such a machine gives an embryo rights, then why not to a skin cell?

Because of the nature of the interventions required are different. In the case of an embryo the technology is supporting its natural development.

In the case of a skin cell the technology is being used to change it at a fundamental level. To highlight where your reasoning is invalid it would be just as sensible to replace 'skin cell' with 'lump of coal', because the exact same reasoning could be applied: just add water and a lot of technology and it would be possible to turn a lump of coal into an embryo. Therefore why don't we give lumps of coal the right to life?

Now if you really want to discuss this I suggest you start another thread in R&P, because this isn't the thread or sub-forum for such sophistry.