LogFAQs > #883254118

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Viability works as a qualifier for personhood. Not the only criteria. This is why we sometimes assign rights to animals. It is a qualifier. In that sense, Peter Singer (one of fav living philosophers) asked, "Are animals persons?" - I think sometimes, yes.

2. Yes sentience and even intelligence does play a role in personhood.

3. See my previous response to about people in comas.

4. I should have been clear that viability is not the only qualifier. Nonetheless, I believe it does play a vital role in abortion rights when debating the "does the woman have the choice?" scenario.

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Forcing a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is literally evil, yes.

So is killing an innocent person. So assuming you have some reason for calling it evil, what is it?


Asherlee10 posted...

1. Viability works as a qualifier for personhood. Not the only criteria. This is why we sometimes assign rights to animals. It is a qualifier. In that sense, Peter Singer (one of fav living philosophers) asked, "Are animals persons?" - I think sometimes, yes.

This needs some unpacking to get a real response. What do you mean by qualifier? It's not a necessary condition for personhood, because unviable people are treated as persons (people in comas or on life support); it's not a sufficient condition for personhood, because there are some viable entities which unambiguously don't get moral considerations (basically any living non-animal thing). Are you therefore suggesting that viability might indicate whether something is a person? Then on what grounds does personhood follow from viability, and how does this relate to a foetus?

4. I should have been clear that viability is not the only qualifier. Nonetheless, I believe it does play a vital role in abortion rights when debating the "does the woman have the choice?" scenario.

I'm guess what I'm trying to ask is that, in light of what I've just said to the previous point, what is that role, and how is it being used to show that a foetus is not a person?

MysticMismagius posted...

A lot of people have argued that a woman (unless raped) shouldn't be allowed to abort her child because it was her choice to have sex and she has to be responsible for that choice, thus she must carry the child through its full term.

This isn't anybody's principal argument. The only pro-life argument is that a foetus is a human/person, and therefore has the same rights as a baby or an adult, so we shouldn't kill it. The question of responsibility, who looks after the baby --- that is a matter of pragmatics. Someone could ask "why should I have to look after the baby?" and a valid response might be "personal responsibility; you caused this situation and now have a duty to look after this baby" or "because you live comfortably enough to be able to accommodate this person into your life".
---

I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.