-AHEM-: This a hypothetical question, as per an experiment on my part, out of curiosity. No room for nitpicking about its plausibility.

Quite simply, my question is this:

If the fetus is -beyond the shadow of a doubt-, proven to be a human being with full rights, does, in your opinion, the pro-choice side still have an argument?

Before this gets brushed off, there are plausible scenarios in which abortion could be possibly justified.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:43:06 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Possibly in cases where the mother will die if an abortion is not performed. So, either the child dies and the mother lives, or the mother lives and the child dies.

That is, a fetus would have exactly the same rights as the mother. Not more, and not less.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:46:11 PM by LoniJay

Human rights are an artificial concept and don't exist in a scientific sense. What do you mean, "proven"? How would that make sense?

I suppose this counts as plausibility nitpicking? But I don't see how such a question can be answered.

If a foetus was proven to be a human being - as in, like, there was an actual, fully developed person in there, somehow - that would obviously complicate matters, but obviously they'd be able to survive outside the womb anyway.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:49:53 PM by BobbyG

If the fetus is -beyond the shadow of a doubt-, proven to be a human being with full rights,

How on earth would you prove that? Human rights have no material existence, so they can't be empirically proven.

Human rights are an artificial concept and don't exist in a scientific sense. What do you mean, "proven"? How would that make sense?

Well, a fetus isn't considered human by the law, and thus doesn't get rights, and thus can be killed without legal consequence.

I wasn't saying to "prove" that human rights exist. Blame my sleep deprivation for the writing fumble.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:51:22 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Oh, so if a foetus was declared to have legal personhood, you mean?

Obviously, people in favour of abortion rights would simply be opposed to such a law.

edited 8th Feb '11 11:52:04 PM by BobbyG

Yes.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

Yes.

"Declared by the state" is a funny definition of "prove."

Anyway, people who oppose the law would disobey it.

Then Leviathan would have to eat them.

@OP: I'm pro-choice, and my position is not altered a jot.

Because even if you're right, an infant is still helpless and dependent upon its parents for everything it needs. And, having seen the kind of work it takes to raise an infant properly, I would not want a set of parents who weren't 100% committed to the process attempting to tackle it.

Don't expect my viewpoint to be shared, but whatever.

"a fetus isn't considered human by the law"

Nooo...

A fetus isn't considered a person by the law. There is a difference.

So...in essence, the OP is basically contentless. What is there to prove? Personhood isn't something empirically proven, just like human rights.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

The point is to discern if the pro-choice side has ground to stand on, if the fetus is counted as a human person.

Well, I think the crux of many pro-abortion rights arguments is that the foetus needn't and oughtn't be considered a person, so if it was the arguments would remain the same.

Would the foetus then be guilty of manslaughter if the mother died in childbirth?

^^ But that's just setting up an artificial situation with the intent of making sure that, for the other side, Failure Is the Only Option.

edited 9th Feb '11 12:34:17 AM by pagad

If we redefine the case in the following way:

If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that a new mind is fully formed at conception but exists in the mind dimension and gradually gains connection to the human it belongs to during its development, and that death of the human irrecoverably kills the mind in the mind dimension as well, what would the results be in terms of support or opposition to abortion?

we might actually get some answers in the way that I guess was intended.

But that's just setting up an artificial situation with the intent of making sure that, for the other side, Failure Is The Only Option.

I don't see why.

If you have a lifeboat, tossing out a few folk to save everyone else from sinking could be justified.

Though, I find it extremely interesting that everyone is relying solely on something as undefinable as person-hood to decide if they are pro-life or pro-choice.

It's completely ambiguous. It's not solid. Why depend on that to decide a matter of life and death?

edited 9th Feb '11 12:48:54 AM by TheMightyAnonym

I'll still be in favor of abortion even if the fetus was alive and feels pain and fear.

In this situation, it's a matter of deciding who is worth more, the mother or the unborn. For me,the much more difficult to replace mother is worth more.

Fetus? Easily replacable, just look for a straight penis. Mother? Woo boy. All the money poured into raising her, food, education, living space, experience, etc...

edited 9th Feb '11 12:55:54 AM by Signed

It's completely ambiguous. It's not solid. Why depend on that to decide a matter of life and death?

That could easily be turned around, y'know. Why force a woman to carry a foetus against her will over something so ambiguous as personhood?

a straight penis

Double Entendre intended?

...is it really a Double Entendre when I outright said penis?

And I said straight because...well, if you're a woman, good luck getting a gay guy to have sex with you. He can donate his sperm...but sex is more fun and less a hassle, no?

edited 9th Feb '11 12:57:21 AM by Signed

Yes, I knew what you meant. I just figured that statement could be read two ways.

Sorry. Bad joke, and off topic.

In this situation, it's a matter of deciding who is worth more, the mother or the unborn. For me, the much more difficult to replace mother is worth more.

Since when are any people ever replaceable?

I don't really think this can be settled by deciding who is "worth more". Lives aren't interchangeable currency.

That could easily be turned around, y'know. Why force a woman to carry a foetus against her will over something so ambiguous as personhood?

It really doesn't matter where it's angled.

"It's ambiguous" means just that: It's ambiguous. Maybe yes, maybe no. We can just never tell.

edited 9th Feb '11 1:15:21 AM by TheMightyAnonym

I don't think you're ever going to see proven that BOOM conception then immediate consciousness. You might find that point comes earlier than we currently think, but I don't think that's going to stop pro-choice folks from looking for better birth control methods, better sex education, a more healthy sexual environment, etc.

If it makes any sense, I think that policy-wise, I understand a restriction on late-term abortions due to consciousness, and I think you could make a good argument , however I think that the extremism of the anti-abortion lobby results in a sort of situation where they have to be opposed root and branch. Better to fight on the hill over late-term abortions (which are exceedingly rare in the West anyway), rather than to fight on the hill over access to birth control.

I am pro-choice not because I think fetuses are not people, but because I know that women are. Nothing new we might learn about fetuses would change that.