Question to pro-choicers: what traits does a fetus need to be considered a person?

The ability to survive outside of the womb.

 

If it does have a chance of living, do you think the woman is under obligation to continue incubating it until its chances improve?

Let's say it has a 15% chance of survival if born at that ultra-premature stage, and the hospital applies the latest life-saving technology. Does the woman have to stay the course and go through with the rest of the pregnancy? Can she decide to prematurely evict the fetus at seven months, even though that carries some slight increased risk of intellectual disability?

 

7 months is hardly "ultra-premature"....

 

Babies don't get "stuffed back into the mother".

For about the hundredth time it appears you don't know what "born" means and so will go on and on with weird scenarios trying to prove some point that actually doesn't exist.


The REST of the post you NEEDED to cherry pick :


""""Why do facts bother you so much ?



Uh, duh, ya, born means "outside the woman...see, duh, if it's still inside the woman it hasn't been born...




For a logical debate you need some logic..... Where is yours? Panda bears and Star Trek episodes don't count …"""

 

It wasn't part of the same question.

I take it then you're okay with the woman evicting the fetus at 7 months, since "it will probably be okay" ?

(not talking about emergency medical reasons)

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
7 months is hardly "ultra-premature"....

Then again you'd be ASSuming way too much from the simple sentence I wrote....which is true and you were wrong, 7 months is not "ultra-premature"



I never said anything about """the woman evicting the fetus at 7 months, since "it will probably be okay" ?"""


WHERE did you see that in the post of mine you quoted? No where.

Watching too much Sci-Fi ?


Then you conveniently skipped over Post 157.....don't you like inconvenient things?

 

If you go back and look closely, you will find I didn't actually claim 7 months is ultra-premature, although I can see how you may have interpreted the paragraph that way.

 

These are YOUR words :

""""If it does have a chance of living, do you think the woman is under obligation to continue incubating it until its chances improve?

Let's say it has a 15% chance of survival if born at that ultra-premature stage, and the hospital applies the latest life-saving technology. Does the woman have to stay the course and go through with the rest of the pregnancy? Can she decide to prematurely evict the fetus at seven months, even though that carries some slight increased risk of intellectual disability?"""""



Present a clear argument instead of waffling and imagining things and there will be no problems...

 

OK, then.

Do you believe fetal rights only begin with personhood?
Do you believe personhood starts at 24 weeks?

What if it only has a 50% statistical probability of survival outside of the womb? Do you believe it's a person then?

Does the ability to survive outside of the womb give it the right not to be kicked out of the womb?
That would be very ironic...​

 

There is no such thing as "fetal rights', it has none.

Personhood with rights starts at birth....and you've been told that several dozen times.

Duh.....what do you think after being told several dozen times when personhood starts? What IS the problem?

That has nothing to do with it being a person.(see above and see the dozens of other times you had it explained to you that personhood starts at birth. What IS your problem?

It would be a bloody miracle if you ever understood that a fetus has no rights, none, zero , zip.....and YOU have never proven otherwise..

A fetus is PROTECTED by law at 23 weekass...it has NOT been given rights, it has been given PROTECTIONS..."Protections" is a different word from "rights"....that's why they're spelled differently, they have different meanings....

 

Question: What traits do Pro-Choicers need to care about a fetus?

A soul.

 

OOOHHHHhhh….what a witty insult....I'm sure Pro-Choicers throughout the world are deeply wounded.... But I'm sure it's the best you could do after that slap down in post 163.

Here's the flip side:


Question: What traits do Anti-Choicers need to care about women?

Brains, human decency, and they need to lose their fear of women.....

 

And we have ways of dealing with that. Sometimes it is called "Letting nature take its course" and always it is up to the relatives if the patient is unable to decide to make that decision as to how much intervention from medicine there should be.

Take it from someone who has worked in the medical field for a long long time. Ther ARE things worse than death

 

Wanna prove the existence of one?

 

Personhood is legal fiction

The foetus should be treated like any other being. It is up to the relatives of that person to determine the level of medical intervention. Occasionally though futile hope puts the relatives at odds with reality.

 

If there's a medical intervention that has a 99% chance of saving the patient's life, the decision won't be left up to the relatives.

(This medical intervention is called a pregnancy, perfectly normal and natural)

Your answer is kind of a non-sequitur, because it's not like the fetus only has a 50% chance of survival; that would only be if the woman didn't want it in her body.
Remember, we're not talking about trying to keep alive a fetus that a woman expelled from her body. We're talking about a fetus that's inside a woman.

Your argument goes something like "Well, it would be okay to remove life support if the fetus wasn't inside the woman, so that means it's okay to remove life support when it is inside the women."

No, the two are not the same. The fetus has a 99+% chance of survival if it stays inside the woman.

Tell me, if the fetus has a 70% statistical chance of survival, is it still okay for the mother to kick it out of the womb? (induced labor abortion)

Why would higher chance of being able to survive outside the womb mean the woman couldn't kick it out? Shouldn't it be just the reverse?

 

Nope still up to the patient themselves or thier relatives if they cannot make that decision. The sole exception is where a child is too young the state might step in on the basis that they are unable to decide for themselves but even then the outcomes and the patients wishes are taken into account

 

A fetus needs to have been birthed to be considered a person. That's already how we do it, both formally and informally. If a fetus is a person, we better start handing out SS numbers at conception, counting them in the census, and even changing the way we speak. I've never heard someone say "Here they come" when a pregnant woman is approaching. Our customs and our language largely reflect the idea that a pregnant woman is an individual, not multiple people inhabiting the same space.

Fetal personhood exists as a concept exclusively to make abortion illegal. That's it.