I have faith that we can handle this

I love how you phrased this, simply inviting people to chat. This is a perfect example of the types of posts I want to see all the time here.

My 2 cents: fetuses are humans deserving of life no matter the circumstances around their conception. If you start something you need to see it through and not just "take care of it" as if it's a moldy piece of cheese you happened upon in the fridge and no one wants. These are human lives we're talking about..💖

Technically the term fetal rights isn't precise enough, since the progression of life starting with conception is zygote, then embryo, then fetus. I don't mean to exclude the earlier developmental stages from the discussion of rights.

Basically you mean Unborn, preborn gestational humans, conception to birth individuals. So what's your take do they have any rights? During that time period.

I...don't know. I fancy myself pro-choice (cringe at loaded vernacular) because I figure it's not my place to categorically regulate the behavior of others.

It seems self-evident that life begins at conception, and in the case of humans that means human life. My participation in the discussion has been limited to pointing out the inconsistencies and limitations inherent to the current framing. I could get into that more but it's off point.

My current thinking is that if a gestational human is a person, it should be given citizenship, a ssn, be counted by the census bureau, count as a dependent for tax purposes, be eligible for life insurance, ad nauseum.

I also think any fetus capable of surviving outside of the womb would be off-limits since the reluctant mother could have labor induced and give it up for adoption.

Lastly, I'm just not sentimental about embryos. It's human life, but it can't survive independently from the mom. That makes it an extention of the mom, and therefore is there at her pleasure. A tumor is human life as well, but so what? Just my thoughts, I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do or how to think.

I'm personally against running over pedestrians on the sidewalk with my car but who am I to tell others what to do with their own cars? 😉

I mean I basically agree with you on the other points although the left accuses us of wanting to put unborn life before already born people and giving a fetus a tax exemption and SS# would be seen as extreme right. That gets into complex issues. I think just having the right to live is of the out most importance, the financial stuff might have too wait until birth, but I agree it's a person. Just as a toddler is no less a person than an adult even though they are at different points in human development, appear different and the child is dependent on other people, is no reason to end his life.

I've had interesting discussions with my dad about this issue. He set me up by asking what I thought the purpose of the law was. I said to regulate what people are allowed to do. He flatly replied "it's to protect vulnerable classes. What could be more vulnerable than a fetus?" His point is well made. My only rebuttal, weak though it is, is to assert that the rights of the mother supercede the rights of her gestating proto-human...at least in the embryonic stage.

Your dad has a good point. Laws are meant to protect not destroy.

My only response to the entire abortion argument is: when is it ever medically necessary to kill another human being to save another? I can't think of a single instance when killing a baby would save a full grown woman (or even a 10 year old if we want to bring rape into the argument)

I've heard about high risk pregnancies, but have no idea what likelihood of morbidity they present.

I apologize if this comes across as a deflection. Many women lose their lives to "back alley" abortions, much the same way many people wound up blinded or killed when the government, in an effort to discourage alcohol consumption during prohibition, began adding methanol to industrial alcohol. The intent was noble, but the result was an increased morbidity in those whose behavior the laws failed to change.

Obviously criminals aren't a protected class, but the morality of the government taking action they hope will spare some lives when they know it will also lead to the deaths of others...that seems somewhat self-defeating. I mean, if it isn't okay to kill a fetus to potentially spare the mother, is it okay to kill the incorrigible to potentially save those on the margin of self-destructive behavior?

With respect, always. Sometimes it's hard to read tone. 🙏

I can give you statistics on the lie that numerous women died from back alley abortions pre and post Roe.

I would think that pro choice advocates would be filling up headlines with obituaries of women who have died since June 2022 from illegal abortions yet here we are with zero deaths from back alley abortions I need to tend to my own children right now so will address your other points soon.

Send me statistics on deaths from illegal abortions compared to legal ones (including the unborn killed) and let's discuss further.

I searched google for "abortion safety illegal vs legal" and found a bunch of sites with figures, but who knows how reliable their data is. I'm confident that medical procedures performed in medical offices by trained professionals using properly sterilized tools have a lower chance of injuring or killing the patient than those performed in unregulated facilities by uncertified practicioners using tools of uncertain cleanliness. How much of a difference is less important than the principle of more vs less safe, at least to the not-mother. I'm also confident the survival rate for fetuses is the same in legal vs illegal clinics. (Though I do wonder if it's a non-zero figure...that would make for an awkward story.)

Would the percentage swing in relative safety between legal/illegal clinics make a difference?

I'm going to need to steal your dad's argument.

anyways, my opinion is that the rights of the mother should *not* supersede the rights of the fetus. As your dad said himself, laws are to protect vulnerable classes from those who would do them harm. By this reasoning, the fetus remains the most vulnerable and thus deserves a degree of protection should the mother wish to do the fetus harm.

I make an exception only in cases such as rape or incest, in which the mother is already part of a vulnerable group that has been taken advantage of. There becomes a point in, whenever for the health of the mother in case of the former or health of the child in case of the latter, that the suffering of the mother/future child exceeds the potential suffering of the current fetus, and thus I would have no qualms in allowing an abortion in order to end the greater suffering.

I believe that suffering and consciousness are linked, at least in terms of the capacity for suffering. An organism with a rudimentary nervous system can recognize damage to itself and likely register it as pain, but its capacity to suffer would only extend as far as the complexity of that nervous system allowed. (As a side note, I find myself far more concerned with the manner in which an organism lives than the manner in which it dies. Nature is ghastly, which means by definition it's natural for organisms to meet a gruesome, excruciating end. The real tragedy in my eyes is organisms whose entire existence is abject misery.)

With regard to fetuses, I feel it's salient to mark the (earliest) point at which consciousness enters the equation. The issue of awareness seems incredibly important when the stakes include the possibility of human suffering, particularly human suffering perpetrated unnecessarily by other humans.

Thanks for weighing in! This level of nuance is precisely what's been lacking in most versions of this conversation.

To clarify, is human life the only vulnerable class of life we're concerned about, or is non-human life a consideration as well. Obviously not regarding abortion, but deserving of protection when vulnerable.

Just for the record, not that it matters, my dad is pro-choice. Kind of a Michael Caine from The Cider House Rules kind of mentality.

If by "or is non-human life a consideration as well." is in reference to your previous statement, " A tumor is human life as well, but so what?", my argument is that, unlike a fetus, a cancer is not a newly developing human and is rather a mutation of your own cells, destined to kill you rather then become a fully-fledged self-sufficient person. But even then, at the very least, harming a tumor is an act of self-defense against your own rogue cells.

if by adding "non-human life" you refer to plants, animals, fungi, or other organisms, I would say it depends. Usually, I don't consider a single cell, unlikely to have any form of awareness, to be worth defending unless it's vanishing would upset a larger ecosystem and risk harming creatures that are far more likely to have a degree of awareness.

But I wouldn't *always* defend such "aware" creatures- If I were to, say, go vegan, A predator would still mercilessly rip apart a pig or cow with or without any sense of morals I try to instill within it. When thinking carefully about the question, my stance is that I value human life over all, with a downwards slope from there until we reach simple or non-aware organisms, with all other organisms falling somewhere along said slope.

Quite sensible. If bacteria were to be included in the sphere of protected organisms, every use of antibiotics would result in a holocaust on a scale we can't begin to comprehend. And (most) everyone has a soft spot for furry quadrupeds. Even the law prohibits cruelty to animals (livestock excluded, I would imagine, as their entire lives are often acts of cruelty).

My only question would be, is there ever a point when a developing human still amounts to an unaware cluster of undifferentiated cells, rather than as a person?

I would pinpoint the very beginning, before any proper organs, specifically structures like the nervous system, ever begin fully developing, as without at least the foundations to a nervous systems I don't believe any sort of self-awareness could materialize/manifest, or if you have religious beliefs like me, before a soul could be formed (as it's difficult to deny that there is at least *some* tie between the soul and the brain as long as your body is still alive). Another good point is when a heartbeat begins, as a heartbeat would signify the viability of the fetus.

oh, I nearly forgot to add- It is possible to argue that the mere existence of a nervous system doesn't equate to a consciousness existing. I would argue that, for a long time we as a species believed the same about many animals, and so did many horrible things to animals without remorse, only to be proven wrong later- To minimize the risk of such things happening in the future, we should treat anything that has the clear potential to have self-awareness as something that certainly has self-awareness, a fetus included.

It bugs me when people try to pretend it's not quite human or alive in order to justify abortion, when if it wasn't, then there'd be no need for them to kill it. It's just so silly. They want to kill their unborn baby for whatever reasons, that's it.

Now I don't like killing babies or whatever stage, human or otherwise, but that don't stop me from eating the killed things on my plate, or pulling weeds. And believe you me, killing weeds was a big moral dilemma for me for many years, as was killing vermin when I first moved into an apt.

Now some may find it offensive, likening a mouse to a human infant, but they're actually just missing their own point.

I absolutely agree. The last point especially resonates.

I don't doubt the life or humanness of an embro, I'm just *gulp* comfortable leaving the choice of what to do with that human life to its host. I guess you could say I wouldn't consider mandating tenant protection until around the 10th week.

I used to consider the stage at which a fetus is able to survive on its own the cutoff point, which is closer to week 24, but I'm walking that back. If fetuses have rights (which I am ethically compelled to concede they do), that unequivocally must include the right to life.

Quite frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with the stance that you take here.

"TRY TO RESPECT OTHERS HERE. SEPARATE YOUR FEELINGS FROM YOUR THOUGHTS IF YOU CAN, BUT ABOVE ALL SEPARATE OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS FROM THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. IF WE CAN TACKLE THIS SUBJECT MATTER AND RETAIN OUR CIVILITY, EVEN IF IT ULTIMATELY GETS US NOWHERE, WE WILL HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING"

These legit should be added to the TOS. They're more clear than the current rules.. so well put!

As a reflection of what I see around me, I credit (and thank) you for inspiring this. I'm much obliged that you find value in my offerings, though a measure of their credit belongs to you. 😊

What are fetal rights?

Essentially acknowledging the humanity of fetuses by extending human rights to them.

Ok well I hope I’m not offending anyone when I say that fetuses don’t need to have rights.

Eh, it's complicated. Although you certainly express a common point of view.

My thoughts on it are this: if the fetus is already dead, it should probably be removed. If the fetus is going to die immediately after leaving the womb anyway, it should probably be removed. Otherwise, it should stay where it's at. Now, sometimes there are situations in which people have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, and those are horrible situations that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. However, I do think that those situations should remain a CHOICE. I don't believe that fetuses don't deserve any rights at all, I just believe that women's rights shouldn't be overridden by the fetus's rights in any situation.

I agree 💯