[_xeah]

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb.

Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed.

[gliese1337]

It does not, because the whole point of the abortion debate is that many people don't think that there is a human body with rights in the womb. The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans; clarifying the rights of humans without specifying who counts as human is pointless for this purpose.

[_xeah]

I didn't want to start or get into a debate, but I'll bite for a second :)

I have a really hard time understanding how some can claim that a body in one location is human, but that body in another location is non-human. How should it be classified? Is it even homo sapien or a different species (or no species)? Is a baby half delivered half human?

The argument is really whether or not women have the right to kill that human body, or whether or not that human body in her womb has any rights on its own to live.

edit: spelling

[erichocean]

That's why we use the term "fetus". It's not a baby, and it's also not not human. It's in an intermediate category, which is the whole reason there is a debate at all.

IMO, both positions—the fetus is "my body" and I can do what I want with it—and—the fetus is a full human being, a person, like everyone else—are disingenuous. It's okay that a fetus be neither, and that we have special rules governing that situation. A fetus doesn't have to fit into pre-existing categories.

[_xeah]

We are all humans in some intermediate category, and to say a human of some category (like a fetus) has no claim to its right to life is pulled out thin air.

This is all word play. If you look up the etymology of the word, fetus at one time even referred to the newborn. The only thing distinguishing a fetus from a human these days is a fancy, made-up definition.

Last though, if we change the definition of fetus to mean "full human being in the womb," would it then make it morally right? It's interesting that the morality of this issue hangs on what Merriam-Webster has to say.

[erichocean]

The only thing distinguishing a fetus from a human these days is a fancy, made-up definition.

Actually, it is a physiological difference from other stages of development of the human organism: a fetus doesn't breath. It's also not a physically-independent organism, it's attached to another (adult, female) human. Those two characteristics alone are enough to distinguish a fetus from every other category of human (newborn to adult). Fetuses are also a specific age, specifically, the 9th week after fertilization extending until the time the fetus is born—whenever that is.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with placing a fetus into it's own category of what constitutes a human, just like we do already with newborns, infants, toddlers, children, pre-teens, teens, young adults, adults, middle-aged, and the elderly.

We also have different sets of laws for all of these categories. (For example, the elderly get free health care, teens can't have sex with young adults, adults, and older, and people under 21 can't drink alcohol outside the home, etc.)

There's no contradiction with deciding that a fetus is its own category, and still saying "you can't kill a fetus". But trying to win the argument by saying a fetus is a "full human being in the womb", and that's why you can't kill it, as you suggest, isn't going to fly: you can't win an argument simply by redefining the words that you use, by eliminating distinctions that do, in reality, exist, so that your own preferred morality becomes the only choice.

Actually, you seem to be endorsing "word play" by trying to deny that such a thing as a "fetus" even exists, even though literally every single person reading this comment knows what a fetus is, and knows that it's not a newborn, adult, elderly, or any other category of human you seem to want to combine it with.

That fact that everyone can distinguish a fetus from every other form of human is prima facie proof that "fetus" as a category of humanity is valid. What laws should apply to a fetus are secondary, and must be established independently, not by trying to merge it with some other category so that your preferred set of pre-existing laws apply.

-----

As an aside, efforts on the pro-life side to make human-ness the defining, end-all be-all attribute that gives an organism a "right to life" are misguided as well. We recognize numerous situations where humans do not have a "right to life". Here's a few:

- The human has committed first degree murder, and been sentenced to death in a jurisdiction that does capital punishment. That human no longer has a "right to life".

- A human is attacking another human, and is killed in self-defense. That human also does not have a "right to life".

- You're at war. Any human acting in a military fashion on the other side, who has not already surrendered, does not have a "right to life". You can (and are supposed to) kill them on sight.

(And there are more.)

So, merely being "human" does not grant an organism a right to life. It's always a contingent right, and obviously "up to the humans who create and enforce the laws", not on some universal law or morality or whatever. We take away the "right to life" of other humans whenever it seems right or necessary to do so.

Given all that, a fetus is clearly a human organism in a bit of a pickle: it can't breath, it's physically attached to the mother, for much of it's time as a fetus it's not even viable outside the womb, etc. There are clearly two humans involved whenever we are talking about a fetus, which if you'll notice in the examples earlier where a right to life does not exist, is a feature of all of them.

IMO, pro-lifers would get farther if they treated human fetuses as the separate category they actually are, and built up a case why we should curb some or all of the rights of the other human involved, in favor of the fetus. I believe such an argument can be made from first principles, not by appeal to a non-existent "right to life" that supposedly all human organisms have (even though they don't, as show above).

[_xeah]

Just wanted to say a big thanks for a very time-intensive reply, one of which will probably only be seen by me. I wish we were sitting somewhere and could chat it over, but alas we're in the comment wastelands. I'd be more than willing to email back and forth about it if you're interested.

I did want to make one clarification while trying not to be "that guy" who's always trying to get the last word. In my comment, I wasn't trying to redefine what a fetus is, but rather trying point out that the fetus is in fact a human, and humans are endued certain rights that are naturally theirs (which are apart from government laws), one of which I believe is the right to life (especially innocent humans). If this right does not exist apart from governments, but rather exists because of governments, then we really don't have a common ground on which to argue.

I was also saying that the word fetus at one point could be referred to newborns, so the definition (like with many words) has changed down through the years. Words are words, and they are only helpful for us to get to the essence of something. My question I'm trying to get to is, when we talk of a fetus, to what are we referring?

I will concede any last words to you, sir, if you wish. Thank you again! And sorry for all the parenthesis.

[BHSPitMonkey]

> The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans

That is the debate. Your statement is tautological.

[darkarmani]

> and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed.

So what about the rights of the mother to suicide? Don't those rights conflict?

[_xeah]

Though I'm not arguing for what the original commenter was arguing for, I don't think it would be a conflict in their line of thinking. I think the OP would argue for the right to suicide, but not for the right to commit suicide by head on collision with another car. It's the same idea.

Plus, we would want to be very careful with pregnant women wanting to commit suicide, because their body is going through so much stuff at the time. Those desires could very well be contrary to what the woman is really living for. A pregnant woman with suicidal desires (in OP's argument) should be seen as someone who needs assistance to live, not assistance to die.

Again, just stepping inside that thinking and not necessarily arguing for/against OP's argument.