I'm perfectly comfortable not to try to pigeonhole fetal development into categories that can be encapsulated with language. To me, during the gradual process through which a separate sperm and egg become a born baby, the entity in question is neither an individual human being nor a bunch of human cells. If I need to discuss fetal development, I prefer to use the medically accurate terminology for each stage. Blastoma -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus etc. (even though I often have to look up the correct term for any given stage).
I feel that the only reason the question of individuality or personhood is an issue is that we've invented those words / concepts, and our language constructs demand dualism. Person vs. non-person, individual vs. non-individual, etc. Such notions have little correlation to physical reality.
I question (or flat-out disagree with, actually) the idea that if the fetus is an individual person,its rights preclude abortion. There are very few circumstances where a person is compelled to sustain the life of another, and no cases where a person is compelldd to provide their own body to do it.
Why can't this be addressed by allowing the pregnancy to be induced? As long as the woman has the option to end the pregnancy if she chooses, her rights are preserved. If it ends with a live birth, so be it.
I heard an argument a while back that clicked with me: using the point of viability as the dividing line for abortion makes absolutely no sense. In effect, it says "because the fetus no longer needs your body, you're obliged to provide your body to it." It's inherently contradictory.
I support viability as a practical deadline for a woman to make her decision. By that time, the physical damage to her body has mostly been done, and the entity has the capacity for sensation and self-awareness. Luckily, it's kind of a non-issue, since virtually all abortions occur long before this point. I see no reason to argue for a right that women don't even want, such as the right to have an abortion instead of a live birth when the bun in the oven is fully cooked.
Very difficult question. At what point during the pregnancy does the fetish become an individual? I have no idea. I believe that there is a point where this happens and I don't think its at conception but when? No idea.
As for abortion, also a difficult question. I have no problem with a woman having the choice but I wish there was a way for fathers to also have a say. I believe if the father wants the child and the mother does not the father should be allowed to offer to take the child once its born leaving the mother with no obligation. Unfortunately this would cause a lot of logistical difficulties and I see the point in giving the woman all the responsibility. I still feel for the fathers who would have chosen to keep their children, no matter how few they may be.
That doesn't leave the mother with no obligation. It obliges her to subject her body to extreme discomfort for the better part of a year, and permanent physical damage. I'm all for men looking after their born children, but you have absolutely no right to use another person's body for your own purposes against their will in any other scenario. Why would you make an exception for pregnancy?
Right. What I'm saying is that the fact that a zygote is a human life does not make it a person.
I agree. Not a person, not a non-person.
