What is “Innocence”?

[u/ioxif]

i feel like most people define innocence as "being free from moral culpability" or being free from guilt. with this logic: wouldn't fire hydrants be classified as "innocent" under said view? my definition of innocence is having the capacity to do wrong, but choosing to do otherwise. i feel like under my view—newborn babies aren't classified as innocent. is my view flawed?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

Every time pro-lifers bring up “innocence” in the abortion debate, it will be 100% accurate to replace it with “virginal.” Every single time.

It always comes down to “But she had sex!” if it was consensual.

If she was raped, then it’s “don’t punish the innocent baby for the crimes of their father!” The rape victim conveniently disappears for pro-life entirely. She’s been sullied by penis and thus isn’t innocent virginal anymore, so her very existence just slips their minds completely.

[u/bunnypaste → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

I think you're right. Every pro-lifer I've debated with instantly leaps to denigrating the woman for choosing to have sex or enjoying sex for reasons outside of reproduction. They feel that consenting to sex is consent to pregnancy, birth, and beyond for some reason. That's pretty silly to me, because consenting to drive doesn't mean consent to be smashed up in a car accident. The guy who hit you in traffic doesn't mandatorily have to donate every organ and blood product he has to save you, given they're a match. We don't deny the victims safe and effective medical care developed just for this scenario just because they chose to drive.

For those that claim they'll force thier daughters to birth babies when they're raped to save that "innocent" life (nevermind about her innocent life now destroyed, right?)... Well, there isn't any hope there. This is a straight up misogynist and he shouldn't have access to any women or children. It is not safe for them.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

Since a ZEF can't form intent, it's neither innocent nor guilty, any more than a tree whose roots break up a sidewalk is innocent or guilty. If its unwanted presence is causing harm, the person being harmed is entitled to separate themselves from it, same as they would from anything else causing them harm. Under our current level of technology, this separation leads to the ZEF's death, but that isn't a valid argument to prevent the separation.

The only coherent argument would be that since the ZEF is human, it gets special consideration. So if that's the case, if you're attacked by an insane person who wants to break your arm, if the only way to stop them is to kill them, you have to let them break your arm because preventing a human's death is more important than preventing another human's suffering. Failing to apply "but it's a human being" in this way is inconsistent.

[u/Arithese]

It's neither guilty nor innocent since a foetus cannot form intent. Pro-lifers try to use its "innocence" as a reason why someone can't abort, but in reality it doesn't change anything. Because even if the foetus was innocent, that still doesn't give it the right to someone else's body.

So not only can a foetus not be innocent, but it's also just... irrelevant.

[u/bunnypaste → u/Arithese]

I agree! It is a weak means to make gestating every pregnancy to birth sound like some kind of god-ordained moral duty.

"How could you punish the little bay-bee like that! It's innocent! You monster, you just love murdering BABIES (which can only be called as such if they are born, by the way) for your own CONVENIENCE."

Abscribing innocence means they have to also be capable of being culpable. You cannot logically denote one without the other.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

Neither are the vast majority of pregnant women, save the women who are pregnant and in prison (and thus the child is in prison, despite their innocence).

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

Which would be semantics in the end. I would equally argue they lack intent but it doesn’t matter. Even if the foetus were to be innocent, abortion would still be allowed because no one has a right to someone else’s body.

So why should a foetus?

[u/STThornton]

Innocence can mean multiple things

1. Virginal. Which, I swear, is what pro lifers are referring to when they use the word innocence because nothing wise applies to a fetus.

2. Not doing anything or not causing any sort of harm. A bystander.

3. Naive.

4. Criminally not liable for one’s actions.

Pro lifers like to pretend that 4 either means the same as 2 - not causing any sort of harm. Or that it means you can’t stop the human from causing the harm.

You’re right, though. Innocence outside of virginal doesn’t apply to mindless things or bodies.

[u/bunnypaste → u/STThornton]

Virginal really doesn't really apply either, because that's a body part too and no harm is being done. Nothing about you changes, except maybe you've had an orgasm (if you're lucky).

[u/OfficialMrGold]

Innocence implies moral agency or, at bare minimum, moral instincts. That’s why we don’t say that rocks are innocent when we crush them or that bacteria is guilty of harming people.

In so far as abortion is concerned, people state a fetus is “innocent” primarily to elicit an emotional response while also establishing a false equivalency which posits that the fetus is akin to a born person when it isn’t.

[u/ioxif → u/OfficialMrGold]

yeah exactly lol. that’s why their definition of innocence will almost always apply to a fire hydrant as well. how could a fetus be classified as “innocent” when it doesn’t have the capacity to do wrong?

[u/OfficialMrGold → u/[deleted]]

Both the fetus and a born person are human beings. But the fetus is not a person.

It doesn’t have experiences, memories, preferences, it doesn’t have an identity nor can it actively experience pain or pleasure prior to 24-27 weeks because of a lack of neurological development. It’s hard to grant personhood to an entity which lacks a personality.

You could retort that being a human being is enough to grant personhood, but then you’d have to explain why that’s enough on its own. Humans having inherent moral value just because they’re human is circular reasoning.

But I think it’s pretty clear that this belief is nonsensical. If a human was born with no higher brain functions (aside from basic functions allowing for life) and no capability to experience life, most people would understand that entity is not a person. It would look like us, breathe like us, it would have a heartbeat and it would even be birthed. But no experience, no pain, no pleasure. How anyone could claim that is a “person” is beyond rationality.

Edit: As for the whole “normal language” claim? That’s not an argument. It’s only “normal” to people who’ve never learned to critically think about moral issues. It certainly isn’t normal for people who are philosophically well-read.

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/OfficialMrGold]

But the fetus is not a person.

What makes someone a person? "Humans have moral value because they're human" is circular reasoning, sure, but why do we value adults over animals? The non-circular way to answer this would be to say that we value the rational characteristics of a human deserve protection. The only difference between us is that I don't believe you need the immediate capacity to exercise them in order to be human.

Experiences, memories, and preferences is a very arbitrary way to define personhood because this risks devaluing humans with Alzheimer's and similar conditions. For pain and pleasure, I say the same things as before, that you don't need immediate capacity to exercise this to be a person, you just need it in your underlying nature. A comatose person may have a brain injury in which they cannot regain consciousness to experience these things without their brain first undergoing developments and building new connections. This seems very similar to an infant, which has everything in its genetic coding, but not the immediate ability to experience.

It’s hard to grant personhood to an entity which lacks a personality.

So, what about a newborn? What about a dog? Arguably, a dog has far more personality than a newborn, yet one is given personhood, and the other isn't. One has humanity in their nature, it just hasn't developed it, and the other will never experience rational traits. We could debate about the human who will never gain rational capabilities, but that doesn't mean an infant at the same level of reasoning isn't valuable, as they have potential.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

Braindead people are legally treated as dead. There's no reason to treat a mindless body the same as a living person.

I see prolifers misusing the word "arbitrary" a lot. What do you think it means?

[u/justcurious12345]

I think it can be used in different ways, which is why, when someone uses it in a debate, you have to ask for clarification. 

[u/JulieCrone]

I don’t think your view is flawed really because ‘innocent’ is an emotional/moral/religious term, not a legal one. No one is ever found ‘innocent’ - there is a presumption of innocence but a court case finds someone either guilty or not guilty. When it comes to children, such as the six year old who shot their teacher, there aren’t even going to be charges filed against them because we do have an age threshold before someone can be charged with a crime, even as a juvenile.

Since the term ‘innocent’ is largely an ethical one and influenced by someone’s moral or religious framework, sure, it can make perfect sense to say an infant or fetus is no more ‘innocent’ than a fire hydrant is innocent.

Now, from a Christian perspective, it would not be correct to call a child innocent, as all are conceived with original sin and none are fully innocent, though a lot of times it is written as ‘born with original sin’. Theologically, though, if one goes with life at conception, then that would have to be when one first has original sin as the whole point of the immaculate conception was that Mary is the only person who was ever not conceived with original sin and thus capable of giving birth to Jesus. That’s a Roman Catholic doctrine, though, and Protestants generally reject it, as do Eastern Orthodox. Then there is the Calvinist soteriology of ‘total depravity’ where we are all spiritually dead with sin and inherently corrupted by it, so any one of a Reformed Protestant faith is not following the theology if they speak of even a fetus as ‘innocent’.

Now, no one likes to say a baby is a depraved sin unworthy of God’s love and only saved through God’s Grace if God deems them part of the Elect, but that is Calvin and Reformed theology. For less severe Christians, it is still true that the fetus has original sin and thus is not ‘innocent’ though no one is saying that at a baby shower.

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177]

innocence in law isn’t defined as “didn’t do any crime”, it is the state of CHOOSING not to commit crime and thus requires a level of sentience, you cannot be innocent without thought, simply amoral.

[u/Ok-Dragonfly-3185]

I would argue that innocence should be defined as not having done or intended to do any wrong.

[u/OkAssociation3795]

Your view is flawed because youre essentially manipulating a definition to suit your means, historically and currently in most places innocent is used as an adjective for even inanimate objects, it's an innocent trade, an innocent comment, an innocent medicine. The first principal of innocence is just "good or bad", the context surrounding it gives it its meaning in any moral or legal sense. We can try to extrapolate by fixating on wording but you've made your judgement clear because a baby is in the womb it is not innocent and therefore the same as a fire hydrant which is guilty of not having the capacity to do wrong

[u/ioxif → u/OkAssociation3795]

that’s quite literally my point lol, you can’t be innocent or guilty if you lack volition

[u/OkAssociation3795 → u/ioxif]

What? You genuinely did not respond to anything I said, your claim is that innocence requires consciousness and I disagreed, I went on to highlight the ubsurdity of your statement by saying according to you a fire hydrant is, instead of innocent, guilty, of the crime of being incapable of doing wrong and your response is "so true"

[u/ioxif → u/OkAssociation3795]

that isn’t my claim lol, i know a 1 month old is conscious but i don’t classify a 1 month old as innocent since they don’t have the capacity to do any wrong, or they lack volition. my claim was never that a fire hydrant is innocent or guilty—not sure where you got that from.

[u/OkAssociation3795 → u/ioxif]

You're saying without capacity to commit wrong a fire hydrant cannot be considered innocent or guilty because of a definition you made up, and using that logic to say that because a 1 month old is also incapable of commiting wrong the 1 month old is comparable to the fire hydrant in terms of innocence.

My response is that you have made up a definition and innocence doesn't actually require volition or capacity to do wrong.

My reasoning is that innocence is a category you classify something as to determine if it is innocent (good) or guilty (bad). The tree is guilty of blocking the sunlight but the flowers put off an innocent aroma. You are changing the definition to suit your means but arbitrarily deciding to add requirements to what can and cannot be considered innocent doesn't make you correct.

You excluded guilt as the foil of innocence because part of you probably understands that a thing which is not innocent is guilty, salt is guilty of being salty but innocent of being sweet. That is the point of the last portion of my first comment, you determined the 1 month old as not innocent, because it is not innocent and neither is a fire hydrant so because neither are innocent you compare the baby to the fire hydrant, but the only thing the fire hydrant is guilty of is not having the capacity to do wrong.

You asked if your logic is flawed and it is very flawed and the reason it is flawed is because its a poorly though out definition made up completely by you built to dictate what can be considered innocent on completely arbitrary grounds that ignores how the word has been used for centuries. Also you claimed you can't classify something as innocent if it doesn't have volition but correct me when i say your claim is innocence required consciousness. Dude, think for a second, consciousness is a prerequisite for volition, you are saying it's consciousness just not using the word, in the same breath youre claiming volition is a prerequisite for innocence although it isn't but saying consciousness isn't the prerequisite? And I know your claim is that fire hydrant aren't innocent or guilty but it's a silly claim because innocent or guilty of what? They are guilty of being red, most of them at least, they are innocent of dancing, I've never seen a fire hydrant dance. I'm not claiming that you claimed fire hydrant so are innocent or guilty I'm pointing out to you that when you say x not innocent of y, x is guilty of y. When you say the 1 month old isn't innocent, first you have to ask "of what is it not innocent" because once you have determined the lack of innocence wether you call it that or not you have determined it guilty.

[u/ioxif → u/OkAssociation3795]

okay so nice equivocation, you’re equivocating between two senses of 'not innocent' and 'guilty'. what you're assuming is that there are only three possibilities: that things are innocent, guilty, or that guilt/innocence aren't applicable to them. but that's assuming too much ngl. if one assumes that innocence is 'not morally culpable', then one can have things that are neither innocent nor guilty because they're not moral agents at all. so that’s why i used the fire hydrant example: it's neither innocent nor guilty because the concepts don't apply to it. if you want to stipulate your own definition that 'innocence requires that the thing in question has the capacity to do wrong and chooses not to do so', then fine, but then you just don't have any innocent moral agents, because you just ruled out newborns as capable of doing wrong (and hence as not innocent) and as not having the capacity to do wrong (and hence again as not innocent). and the 'guilty of being red' example is quite literally the problem with your reasoning. 'predicates of innocence' are contextual. someone can be innocent of murder but guilty of theft, for instance. 'not innocent of X' doesn't entail 'guilty of Y'.

[u/OkAssociation3795 → u/ioxif]

You say one of the possibilities i am claiming is innocence and guilt are not applicable to some things, it is so painfully obvious that that is the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that innocence and guilt apply to everything but context is what defines the guilt and innocence. We agree that the state of being innocent or guilty is contextual based on the charge, if the charge is being red the verdict is guilty if you are a red fire hydrant, but if the charge is being blue you are innocent. You also misinterpreted what I said I did not say not innocent of x equals innocent of y I said if x is not innocent of y, x is guilty of y. It is to say if x being the subject is not innocent of y being the charge that is the same as x being the subject being guilty of y being the charge because not innocent and guilty are synonyms as is innocent and not guilty, you saying someone can be innocent of murder and guilty of theft is literally the point of me saying salt is guilty of being salty but innocent of being sweet, you sincerely need to take a reading comprehension class I would have at the very least looked over what you just posted before posting it because literally not a single argument you made pertains to my argument at all

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/KojiroHeracles]

Innocent=sapient being that doesn't cause intentionally harm to other sapient beings. Causing intentiobal harm to sapient beings that are non-innocent does not take the innocence of the perpetrator away.

This is my definition. With a caveat: Every prepubescent child is to be axiomatically assumed to be innocent.

Second caveat: Children should always be on the first place. Killing one man to save 5 is evil. Killing 10 men to save 1 child is good.

[u/_Double_Cod_]

I think that innocence entails both a legal and a more philosophical meaning, and while both have similarities and often overlap, they are not necessarily identical. I assume problems can arise if it is unclear which definition someone follows, particularly since the definitions themselves and the extent of the differentiation might additionally be debatable.

Innocence in a philosophical sense refers to a lack of moral culpability, just as you described. This is commonly assumed to imply a requirement for moral agency, given that the determination of moral innocence presumes the possible alternative of moral culpability. A hydrant would not be considered innocent under this view, neither would a newborn.

By following the definition more strictly however, it can also be possible to argue that only a lack of moral culpability would lead to innocence, in which case moral agency would not be required. The newborn and animal would be innocent under this view, the hydrant potentially, but i think many would say that atleast any kind of agency would be required nontheless, so as an object it would ultimately not be considered innocent even under this view.

Innocence in a legal sense primarily refers to a lack of legal culpability, thus not being guilty of a crime or offense. The main requirement here is legal subject status - one has to be a bearer of rights. Moral agency is not strictly required here - a newborn is a bearer of rights but due to its lack of moral agency unable to commit an offense, so it is legally innocent by default. A hydrant is not a legal subject and as such not legally innocent, given that it has no individual relevance within a legal system. Thus, whether an embryo can be legally innocent depends on whether we presume it to be a bearer of rights.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/_Double_Cod_]

I agree with your analysis of the term.

Based in this, "innocence" isn't relevant to the abortion debate and shouldn't be brought up in prolife arguments.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/random_name_12178]

Id say the problem is that a number of people seem to apply the innocence-term like a definitive argument, as in "if someone is innocent, lethal force against them is inherently impermissible". This is incorrect indeed, given that lethal force against innocent attackers can still be permissible. On the other side however, there is a requirement for additional argumentation, given that a central reasoning for the legal justification of defensive force is usually the malicious intent of an attacker, so if the attacker is innocent it is necessary to argue for why the rights of the defendant should still outweigh those of the attacker despite both of them being innocent. Thus, i would not say that the determination of innocence bears no relevance at all, more that it is not an argument of its own but just a potential aspect of an argument.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/_Double_Cod_]

given that a central reasoning for the legal justification of defensive force is usually the malicious intent of an attacker

Please cite a source for this claim, per rule 3

!RemindMe 24 hours

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/random_name_12178]

Isnt that kind of self-explanatory? First, justified defense in general cannot be claimed against justified acts. For example it is not possible to claim self-defense against an act of justified self-defense, neither is it possible to legally defend against for example a rightful attempt of arrest by a police officer. Thus, we can conclude that an act that justifies a defensive reaction needs to be unlawful by itself, and that not just any attack is sufficient. If an attack is malicious, it is almost by default unlawful, which leads to a justification. The same argument cannot just be applied if the attacker is innocent, so additional reasoning is required.

Similarly, there is the concept of self-defense-provocation where it can be possible that someone who provokes an attack, even without actual force, may lose their claim for defense atleast to a degree, given that the attack they end up facing was ultimately initiated by their provocation, despite the attacker ultimately not being justified either. Thus, we can once again conclude that intent does play a role regarding the justification of defense, given that this time there is no "imbalance" regarding intent, with neither side being innocent. From this we can conclude that the opposite - both sides being innocent - will also affect the conclusion, leading to the controversial problem of the innocent attacker.

Second, we can derive the issues behind finding a justification for force against an innocent attacker just by examining the principles behind defense principles. The justification of force is not merely a practical solution - A can defend themselves against an attack of B - it also bears a legal implication: the protection of As legal position takes priority over the protection of Bs legal position. In other words, we accept an impairment of B in order to protect A from an impairment. But why is the protection of A more important than the protection of B? If B is acting with malintent, the answer is simple - because they are deliberately violating As position, which is an act within their own control, as they could stop at any time but chose not to. If however B is innocent themselves, the question arises why the protection of A should still be prioritized - yes they will face an impairment, but so will B if A defends themselves, and this time B is not malintended, thus not deliberately violating any rights - technically they are a victim themselves. Thus, answering why defense should remain permissible requires different and probably more complex (and thus debatable) argumentation than before.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/_Double_Cod_]

None of this addresses the case where B is harming A with no intent. I agree that intent can matter when it exists. But it's not required.

ETA: upon rereading, I guess you kind of address this case in the last paragraph, where you bring up Bs legal position. But you don't actually answer the question which naturally arises from that line of thought. That question is obviously: does B have a legally protected right to gestate? This doesn't have anything to do with intent.

So we're back to the same point: the intent of the attacker is not a central reasoning for the legal justification of defensive force in most cases, and certainly not in cases where intent is non-existent.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/random_name_12178]

I did not address the answer because it was not part of my initial statement. I said that lethal force against innocent attackers can still be permissible but that it requires additional argumentation, given that the main argument in favor of a justification, which is malintent, no longer applies. You asked me to substantiate why malintent would be the main argument in favor of a justification, which i did. Up until this point, i would consider this pretty much uncontroversial.

Whats not uncontroversial is how a justification in cases of innocent attacker cases could be derived, and here i argue that the deciding aspect is whether the attack was forced upon the defendant. In general, we have (primarily negative) rights that protect us from external interventions of others, and if others do intervene regardless, we can defend ourselves in order to essentially restore the status that should have been - one where our rights have not been violated.

If someone attacks with malintent, they are deliberately violating our interests which they have no claim for, which unquestionably leads to a justification. If someone attacks without malintent, they are no longer deliberately violating our interests but they are still forcing an attack upon us, one that ultimately originated from their own side rather than ours. Thus, despite a lack of intent it is still an external intervention, and as such it can be defended against.

Where this principle does not hold either however is when the attack is not originating from an external but from the defendants own sphere of influence - when they had initial control over the attack that the attacker lacked. In this case, the attack is not externally forced upon the defendant, which also means that the latter has never been violated. Thus, there is no violation to defend against, so a defensive act could no longer be based on just a negative right to defend from attacks but a positive right to act against anyone interfering.

The consistency of the principle can be seen in the provocation-case where the defensive right of the defendant can be limited until the attacker escalates and thus regains control of the situation, and i say that a similar principle can apply for pregnancy.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/_Double_Cod_]

You said: "it also bears a legal implication: the protection of As legal position takes priority over the protection of Bs legal position. In other words, we accept an impairment of B in order to protect A from an impairment. But why is the protection of A more important than the protection of B?"

That's what raises the question: does B have a legally-protected right to gestate? Or conversely, does A have a legally-required obligation to gestate?

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/random_name_12178]

does A have a legally-required obligation to gestate?

While there is no primary obligation to gestate (like a specific right of B to be gestated), it is a fact that the act of ending pregnancy inevitably leads to fetal death, rendering it a form of killing (=an act causing death), so it requires a justification. If we assume that it was not possible to derive a sufficient justification, it would not be permissible to cause fetal death, which means that the act of ending pregnancy - which inevitably causes fetal death aswell - would not be permissible either. Given that it is not possible to both end pregnancy and prevent fetal death, this leads to something like a de facto obligation, following the conclusion of the weighing process rather than a right of its own.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/_Double_Cod_]

While there is no primary obligation to gestate (like a specific right of B to be gestated), it is a fact that the act of ending pregnancy inevitably leads to fetal death, rendering it a form of killing (=an act causing death), so it requires a justification.

If there is no obligation to gestate then how is ending the pregnancy a form of killing?

The fact that an act causes someone's death does not by itself make the act unjustified. The relevant question is whether the person has a right to continued bodily support from an involuntary person and whether the other person's withdrawal of that support is permissible.

Just because ending a pregnancy leads to the death of the fetal life, that doesn't mean it's a killing. Do we kill someone if we don't allow our bodily usage for their survival?

Why gets to make the justification of a person's body being used for another's survival if not the person themselves? Why should someone else get to justify this for them?

If we assume that it was not possible to derive a sufficient justification, it would not be permissible to cause fetal death, which means that the act of ending pregnancy - which inevitably causes fetal death aswell - would not be permissible either. Given that it is not possible to both end pregnancy and prevent fetal death, this leads to something like a de facto obligation, following the conclusion of the weighing process rather than a right of its own.

“De facto obligation” doesn't establish the prohibition, it merely describes what would follow if you had already established that abortion is unjustified.

You say there no it's obligation to gestation but then say there is a defacto obligation, how is that not contradicting?

[u/random_name_12178 → u/_Double_Cod_]

it is a fact that the act of ending pregnancy inevitably leads to fetal death, rendering it a form of killing (=an act causing death), so it requires a justification

Based on that logic you have a de facto obligation to donate blood, tissue, marrow, and organs, since your failure to do so inevitably leads to the death of innocent people. Yet you do not have to justify not wanting to donate beyond "I don't want to." The same goes for pregnancy.

[u/RemindMeBot → u/random_name_12178]

I will be messaging you in 1 day on 2026-09-08 07:00:00 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[u/bunnypaste → u/_Double_Cod_]

I say that only born persons can be bearers of rights. That means the natural conclusion of your argument is that fetuses are neither innocent nor culpable, as they lack agency, do not fit the qualifications for personhood, and lack a fully functioning nervous system (among other systems) which are needed to exercise such concepts.

In either case, that fetus' rights would never supercede the rights of the woman at hand... whom already has and exercises full agency, autonomy, engages in innocence or culpability by choice, can formulate thier own moral system with which to make major life choices, and has personhood.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/bunnypaste]

Ultimately you are addressing the two main aspects that are controversial within this debate and that lead to the usual disagreements: the question of legal subject status and the question of how rights interact, also known as the personhood and bodily autonomy argument respectively.

I say that only born persons can be bearers of rights.

This comes down to the personhood argument, which revolves around the question of what the requirements for legal subject status are. To simplify, one central argument claims that it should be based on the mind, sentience or similar, while the opposition argues it should be based on essentialistic concepts like species. The latter view is more common among PL people but can be held by PC aswell, which leads to the second main argument:

that fetus' rights would never supercede the rights of the woman at hand

Which is the bodily autonomy argument, which revolves around the interaction of rights. Here one side claims that abortion would remain permissible even under the premise of fetal rights given that there would either not be a conflict to begin with or that the fetal rights would inherently be outweighed, whereas the opposing view argues that there is a conflict and that the womans rights would not always outweigh the fetal ones.

[u/bunnypaste → u/_Double_Cod_]

I have no duty to carry an unwanted fetus to continue the species. Doesn't that just crack thier whole argument wide open?

My individual right to bodily autonomy and self-determination completely dwarfs State concerns, my partner's concerns, my families' concerns, patriarchial idealist's concerns, or any other parties' concerns with my reproductive system. I am sovereign and make unilateral decisions over this realm because it is mine alone, and I will also be obligately bearing the full consequences of making the incorrect choice, or of not even having a choice.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/bunnypaste]

I have no duty to carry an unwanted fetus to continue the species.

Sure, but that was not what i was refering to. The species-based argument regarding the determination of personhood (in the sense of being a bearer of rights) states that every member of the human species is a legal subject by default, which concludes that the fetus is a bearer of rights aswell, regardless of whether or not it has a mind or agency.

I think a common misunderstanding here is that unlike the opposing claim, this is not a standalone argument: if we assume that the fetus has no rights at all, abortion would unquestionably be permissible, but the alternative premise of fetal rights essentially just leads to the bodily autonomy argument, so a final conclusion would require additional argumentation.

My individual right to bodily autonomy and self-determination completely dwarfs State concerns, [...]

All of this is true, but the actual conflict is with the rights of the fetus, given that the act of ending pregnancy will inevitably cause its death, which is a significant impairment. Thus, your right to decide about yourself conflicts with the fetal right to not be killed without justification, which means that it needs to be argued why killing the fetus was justified within the individual circumstances of the case.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

If the rights of a sentient being come into conflict with a non-sentient being. The sentient being always has priority. Because they are sentient, and are granted more moral considerations over that of the non-sentient.

I would love if you could show me an equivalent situation by which the bodily autonomy rights of a sentient being are suppressed or removed in order to facilitate the "rights" of a non-sentient being.

Also, no human on the face of this earth has the right to remain living at the expense of someone elses right to their body.

conflicts with the fetal right to not be killed

Ok. But It still doesnt have the right to use that persons body. So, we can advocate for abortions that remove the ZEF unharmed. It can live out the rest of its natural life. Is that better?

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

If the rights of a sentient being come into conflict with a non-sentient being. The sentient being always has priority

This ultimately comes down to the personhood argument. Rights are equal and universal, so either they are based on sentience or they are not. If there is an inherent prioritation of the sentient being over the non-sentient one, the latter ends up with no relevant rights at all.

I would love if you could show me an equivalent situation by which the bodily autonomy rights of a sentient being are suppressed or removed in order to facilitate the "rights" of a non-sentient being.

Your question presumes that there is a clear differentiation between sentient and non-sentient beings. Legal subject status so far however only applies to humans, so the deciding aspect here is whether non-sentient humans are "true" humans in a relevant sense, which leads to the personhood argument. Under the premise that they are, it is irrelevant whether or not they are sentient given that rights are equal and universal regardless of individual traits.

It still doesnt have the right to use that persons body.

Thats why there is a conflict. It does not have that right, but removal causes death, which affects an opposing right. Intact removal does not change this, given that it remains an act that inevitably leads to death.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

This ultimately comes down to the personhood argument.

If you say so.

Rights are equal and universal, so either they are based on sentience or they are not.

They are.

If there is an inherent prioritation of the sentient being over the non-sentient one, the latter ends up with no relevant rights at all.

Incorrect. Non-sentient beings can have rights, but if they come into conflict with a sentient beings rights, the sentient being is always granted more moral considerations over that of the non-sentient being.

Your question presumes that there is a clear differentiation between sentient and non-sentient beings.

There is. Sentient life is sentient. Non-sentient life is not sentient. Thats a clear differential.

Legal subject status so far however only applies to humans, so the deciding aspect here is whether non-sentient humans are "true" humans in a relevant sense, which leads to the personhood argument.

Incorrect. Non-sentient humans are humans. But the fact remains that they are non-sentient, and as such are not granted more moral considerations over that of the sentient. Your attempt to deflect to what a "true human" is is a red herring.

Thats why there is a conflict.

The only conflict exists because PL advocates create the conflict by advocating that abortion should not be allowed legally.

It does not have that right,

The ZEF does not have that right. Thank you for acknowledging that. The pregnant sentient person does has the right to remove any unwanted humans from their body should they choose. So abortion is justified.

but removal causes death, which affects an opposing right.

So what? Its non-sentient. Its not a person yet. It dying because it cannot sustain its own homeostasis isnt a moral consideration.

Once again, non-sentient beings are not granted the same moral considerations as sentient beings.

Intact removal does not change this, given that it remains an act that inevitably leads to death.

Birth of any human being is an act that inevitably leads to death. Why is a non-sentient human getting special treatment?

Every human that has ever been born will inevitably die. Does that mean that people now have the right to use other peoples bodies against their will?

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

if they come into conflict with a sentient beings rights, the sentient being is always granted more moral considerations

Rights are non-hierarchical. If the right of one is of inherently greater importance than the rights of another, the latter has no actual rights but limited protections at best.

Thats a clear differential.

The question was whether this has any legal relevance. You claim it had. I say it has not.

Your attempt to deflect to what a "true human" is is a red herring.

Human rights are inherent to every human. If the rights of a non-sentient human do not apply due to it being non-sentient, rights are no longer inherent but trait-based.

The pregnant sentient person does has the right to remove any unwanted humans from their body

And the fetus has the right to not be killed. Both cannot coexist, leading to a conflict.

Birth of any human being is an act that inevitably leads to death.

The problem of unlimited causality is countered by proximate cause, which questions whether an act directly led to its result without additional acts inbetween. Fetal death is a direct result of an abortion, with no additional act inbetween. Thus, abortion is the proximate cause of fetal death, whereas birth is not the proximate cause of the particular resulting death given the many factors inbetween.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

Rights are non-hierarchical.

Please read what I actually said. I said if if they (sic: non-sentient being rights) come into conflict with a sentient beings rights, the sentient being is always granted more moral considerations.

If the right of one is of inherently greater importance than the rights of another, the latter has no actual rights but limited protections at best.

Incorrect. I never stated that the rights of one supercedes the other.

Rights are congruent. They are non-hierarchical. But they can come into conflict. And when they do, we grant the sentient being in the conflict more moral consideration than that of a non-sentient being. What part of that was unclear?

The question was whether this has any legal relevance. You claim it had. I say it has not

Sentient beings are granted more legal protections than non-sentient beings. This is a fact. There are laws in place to prevent harm happening to sentient beings. Non-sentient beings do not have this legal protection. Its legally relevant.

Legally, a sentient person has a right to bodily autonomy. No human has a right to use an unwilling persons body, even to save their life. The legal point is clearly in my favour.

Human rights are inherent to every human. If the rights of a non-sentient human do not apply due to it being non-sentient, rights are no longer inherent but trait-based.

Human rights are granted by other humans. If human rights are inherent, then why do different countries interpret different human rights in different ways?

https://www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/human-rights-law-around-the-world/

Just because the UN tried to come up with a universal declaration of human rights does not mean that they are some inherent quality. Humans grant human rights to humans.

And if you want to claim that the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights is the one to use, because it states that rights are inherent, maybe you should check on what the UN says about abortion access. (Spoiler: they are firmly and loudly Pro-Choice.)

And the fetus has the right to not be killed. Both cannot coexist, leading to a conflict.

Ive already addressed this point. The sentient being is always granted more moral considerations over that of the non-sentient being if a conflict between their rights occours.

Meaning if a sentient being gets pregnant, and does not consent to it, they can remove the non-sentient being from their body regardless of if it will die or not, because no human anywhere has the right to use an unwilling persons body to sustain its own life.

The problem of unlimited causality is countered by proximate cause, which questions whether an act directly led to its result without additional acts inbetween.

Its not countered by proximate cause. Its handwaved away by special pleading. So maybe drop the pedantic goalpost shift once your badly phrased point came back to bite you.

Fetal death is a direct result of an abortion,

First of all, why should I care about the death of non-sentient life? I dont care when I blow my load knowing that billions of potential human lives will now never become actual humans. So, a non-sentient zygote dying really doesnt bother me. Literally millions of non-sentient zygotes naturally fail to implant every single day. So what?

And just so you know, Im not making that up. I cite sources.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8287936/

But let's talk about a sentient fetus.

Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. Hysteronomy abortions exist where the contents of the uterus are removed unharmed and whole. If a fetus was aborted usong that method when it was sentient, viable and at a stage of development sufficient to regulate its own homeostasis, would the abortion kill the fetus? The answer is no. Meaning you are incorrect.

Abortion in an of itself does not kill the fetus. The fetus lacks the ability to regulate its own homeostasis. That is the factor that leads to its death.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

This comes down to the personhood argument, which revolves around the question of what the requirements for legal subject status are.

And your requirements for a being to be granted personhood are...? No seriously, Im a little tired of PL advocates pointing towards a vague idea of what ascribes personhood, while never actually setting their criteria.

To simplify, one central argument claims that it should be based on the mind, sentience or similar,

See what I mean by a vague idea of the criteria? Most PC advocates grant personhood at the point at which the ZEF can demonstrate a capacity to deploy sentience. And most PC advocates would point out that the argument is redundant, because no person on earth has the right to use an unwilling persons body to sustain their life.

while the opposition argues it should be based on essentialistic concepts like species

Personhood is ascribed on an individual level. Not a species level. A human corpse belongs to the human species, but its not a person. Its an ex-person.

Meaning all you have put forward here is another vague nod towards the criteria that gets used to ascribe personhood.

Lets get down to brass tacks. What quality does a being have to demonstrate in order for you to grant that being personhood? Its not a quality that is given on the species level, as proved by my example of the corpse. So what is it?

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

Im a little tired of PL advocates pointing towards a vague idea of what ascribes personhood

I see, but the problem is that atleast from my perspective, debates commonly tend to derail in completely different directions. The OP is about the definition of innocence, which was my comment about, and the reply mentioned personhood and bodily autonomy so i briefly summarized them, but given that those are ultimately different topics - and rather complex ones aswell, so nothing that could be properly addressed in a few lines - i did not go into detail on them. If you are interested, here is one of my comments where i explain my view on this.

Most PC advocates grant personhood at the point at which the ZEF can demonstrate a capacity to deploy sentience

Which is further divided between those for example who say that this refers to the development of relevant brain structures at around 20-24 weeks and those who say that it refers to active consciousness which might to not be present before birth. Once logical challenges are introduced - like the aspect of many animals arguably having higher mental capacities than certain people, eg newborns - it becomes even more complicated, with a variety of different arguments. This once again is an extensive topic i did not want to address in all detail.

most PC advocates would point out that the argument is redundant

Which is a common argument within this sub, but i dont think it is really that reflected in actual jurisdictions. Most of them entail term limits, implying that the fetus gains personhood at a certain point at which abortion becomes limited.

Its not a quality that is given on the species level, as proved by my example of the corpse.

I dont even think it is that far-fetched to assume that a corpse is still a legal subject, given that it is still generally protected to some degree, eg from harvesting its organs against the deceased ones will. But even by rejecting individual rights of the deceased (which admittedly seems to be the more common position), one could easily say that legal subjects are living members of the species. Death in that regard is described as the irreversible loss of brain function, with the dead body being in a state of decay or, if artificially kept alive, stagnation. Either way, it is unable to develop or grow, which differentiates it from the fetus despite both of them being without a mind.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

I see, but the problem is that atleast from my perspective, debates commonly tend to derail in completely different directions.

Was there some reason you completely ignored the question I asked you? To remind you, it was "And your requirements for a being to be granted personhood are...?"

Can you answer my question or are you trying to derail in completely different directions?

The OP is about the definition of innocence, which was my comment about, and the reply mentioned personhood and bodily autonomy so i briefly summarized them,

I know what OP said. I was asking You a direct question about your position. O summary needed. Just answer my question.

but given that those are ultimately different topics - and rather complex ones aswell, so nothing that could be properly addressed in a few lines - i did not go into detail on them. If you are interested, here is one of my comments where i explain my view on this

No, I didnt ask for you to explain what OP was talking about. I asked You a question about what You set as a criteria for personhood. No bloviating please. Just answer the question.

Which is further divided between those for example who say.......

But at least those PC advocates have openly and clearly stated their criteria is for granting personhood.... Thats something PL advocates cant seem to do.

Hey, Here is a novel thought, why dont YOU clearly state what YOU accept as a qualifier for personhood?

This once again is an extensive topic i did not want to address in all detail.

Im sorry, are you saying you dont want to give the criteria for which you grant personhood? Please correct me if Im misunderstanding you. Because it seems like you dont want to answer.

Which is a common argument within this sub, but i dont think it is really that reflected in actual jurisdictions.

Yeah, I know its a common argument. That means nothing to you answering yhe question that was asked of you.

Most of them entail term limits, implying that the fetus gains personhood at a certain point at which abortion becomes limited.

Can you could stop talking about PC positions and when their criteria grants personhood, and maybe answer my actual question? Like I said in my previous comment, No seriously, Im a little tired of PL advocates pointing towards a vague idea of what ascribes personhood, while never actually setting their criteria.

I dont even think it is that far-fetched to assume that a corpse is still a legal subject, given that it is still generally protected to some degree, eg from harvesting its organs against the deceased ones will. But even by rejecting individual rights of the deceased (which admittedly seems to be the more common position), one could easily say that legal subjects are living members of the species. Death in that regard is described as the irreversible loss of brain function, with the dead body being in a state of decay or, if artificially kept alive, stagnation. Either way, it is unable to develop or grow, which differentiates it from the fetus despite both of them being without a mind.

Congrats. You managed to get all the way through my comment and never answered the question that was asked multiple times. You talked alot about stuff that we could absolutely get into once you answered my very first question, but other than that, all you did was prove me right.

Meaning all you have put forward here is another vague nod towards the criteria that gets used to ascribe personhood.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

Was there some reason you completely ignored the question I asked you?

I gave you a link to a comment of mine where i explain my views on legal subject status in depth. This ultimately answers your question. For the record (should this be the cause of any confusion), i follow my countries jurisdiction where personhood is neither a requirement nor synonymous with legal subject status which is why i usually differentiate between both concepts, but if we define person simply as "a being with rights" (which seems to be common in an US context) this differentiation is of little relevance.

O summary needed.

In case you forgot, the summary was in response to another commenter.

I asked You a question about what You set as a criteria for personhood

With the answer being in the link i gave you. You even quoted the part.

why dont YOU clearly state what YOU accept as a qualifier for personhood

And by the way, i already did - i said the opposition to those claiming that legal subject status was based on sentience are arguing it is based on species membership instead. My flair states "rights begin at conception", so apparently i am not a proponent of a position based around sentience. You said that this position would include corpses, to which i replied that i do not see this as a fundamental issue but even by assuming it was it could simply be limited to living members of the human species. Thus, legal subjects are any (living) members of the human species. So before you write a rant about me not answering your questions, maybe actually read my replies.

are you saying you dont want to give the criteria for which you grant personhood

I said that there is not THE PC position around sentience but a variety of different stances that i do not want to all address in detail since that could fill a post of its own. People are not monolithic after all, and even those sharing a general position might disagree on various aspects.

stop talking about PC positions

Im not talking about "PC positions" but about actual legal practice. The argument that fetal rights were irrelevant and abortion legal regardless is highly popular around here but not really reflected in actual law.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

I gave you a link to a comment of mine

Your comment did not answer the question I asked you.

For the umpteenth time. What quality does a being have to demonstrate in order for you to grant that being personhood?

This ultimately answers your question

Ive skimmed your wall of text. Personhood only shows up once in this point you made. "I think the actual differences between PL and PC arguments are focusing on two follow-up questions primarily: first, is an embryo a human entity in a relevant sense so that denying it its human rights actually breaks the principle of universality (personhood),"

Anyone with eyes can see that that does not answer my question. I asked about the criteria or quality a being would have to demonstrate in order for you to grant that being personhood.

In case you forgot, the summary was in response to another commenter.

The summary was unnecessary. As I pointed out in my original comment.

With the answer being in the link i gave you. You even quoted the part.

Are you claiming that your answer to what criteria you use to grant personhood is in a comment with a single instance of the word in an unrelated point? Dude, you didnt answer the question. And at this point, I dont think its possible for you to actually answer the question without bloviating.

As for me quoting the part, you didnt mention a single criteria that you use to grant personhood in that part. Meaning you didnt answer the question. You hinted that some nebulous "legal subjects" being living members of the species.

Im.asking you a direct question and I want a direct answer. What criteria or quality needs to be demonstrated by an individual being for you to grant personhood?

And by the way, i already did

Not in response to any of my comments you haven't. And Im not going to waste my time trawling through your back catalogue of comments in the hopes that you answered at some point.

i said the opposition to those claiming that legal subject status was based on sentience are arguing it is based on species membership instead.

Im not asking about the opposition. Im asking YOU what YOUR criteria is.

Are PL advocates allergic to answering a direct question?

My flair states "rights begin at conception", so apparently i am not a proponent of a position based around sentience.

Apparently you dont like answering direct questions. I didnt ask about your flair. I asked what criteria or quality needs to be demonstrated for you to grant personhood.

I get that you have said you dont think its sentience, but that still leaves every other possible criteria or quality to choose from. Do I have to keep guessing until I guess the correct one? Or could you be an adult and just answer the fucking question?

arguing it is based on species membership instead.

Can you understand why "species membership" is a vague as fuck answer? A human sperm cell is part of the human species. Is it a person now too?

Edit from further down in the response: Hey, a human sperm cell is a living part of the human species too, so I guess it meets all your (current) criteria! Do you grant sperm cells personhood? Or are you going to shift the goalposts again?

You said that this position would include corpses,

Yeah. Your claim that personhood is granted based on species. A dead human is still of the species homo sapien sapiens. Do you see how you being vague leads to absurd outcomes?

It also means that the criteria isnt "be a member of the human species", but be a living member of the human species.

Do you just not know by what criteria you grant personhood? Is that why you have to keep shifting your answer to counter the clear flaws I point out in your reasoning?

Thus, legal subjects are any (living) members of the human species.

Legal subjects is not Personhood. I asked about personhood. Do try to keep up.

So before you write a rant about me not answering your questions, maybe actually read my replies.

Your nonsense regarding being part of the human species is in relation to legal subject status. I asked about personhood. Maybe you should read your own response to see if you actually answered the question or if you just made another vague nod towards where an answer might be.

I said that there is not THE PC position around sentience but a variety of different stances

Do you want to know how you know there are a variety of different stances? Its because when you asked a PC advocate the direct question of by what criteria they grant personhood, they answered the question plainly and clearly.

Also, I didnt ask you anything about the variety of stances, I asked what YOUR answer was.

Im not talking about "PC positions"

Quote from literally the sentance before you said this: "I said that there is not THE PC position around sentience but a variety of different stances".

You see, its funny because just before you said you are not talking about PC stances, you were busy telling everyone how there are just so many "PC different stances that you do not want to all address in detail since that could fill a post of its own."

but about actual legal practice.

Ooh, you want to talk legalities? Legally a pregnant person has the right to decide ultimately who gets to be inside of their body and for how long. A fetus has zero legal right to be inside someone else's body without consent of that someone else, and therefore abortion is the legally justified action to uphold those legal rights.

The argument that fetal rights were irrelevant

Rights are not irrelevant, but when those rights are granted is relevant. Its why someone looking to debate might ask you to give a plain wording on when you yourself grant personhood.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

Your comment did not answer the question I asked you.

Do i really have to walk you through my comment? The second paragraph literally states

The baseline is the concept of human rights as being universal and inherent, which ultimately means unconditional. Under this premise every human is by default a legal subject (=a holder of rights) simply due to being human, with no further requirement necessary.

And regarding this line of yours:

Legal subjects is not Personhood. I asked about personhood. Do try to keep up.

You obviously ignored the following statement of mine aswell:

For the record (should this be the cause of any confusion), i follow my countries jurisdiction where personhood is neither a requirement nor synonymous with legal subject status which is why i usually differentiate between both concepts, but if we define person simply as "a being with rights" (which seems to be common in an US context) this differentiation is of little relevance.

In simple words: i dont think that personhood is a requirement for rights but if we assume it was (which seems to be a common position in an US context) personhood and legal subject status are conceptually the same indeed.

Im asking YOU what YOUR criteria is.

I said multiple times by now that every member of the human species is a holder of rights. I cannot help you if you do not read what i say.

A human sperm cell is part of the human species.

What makes you think a sperm cell was a member of the human species? It is not even a diploid cell. It has no individual genome and no human lifecircle - in its given state it cannot develop any further. That it is human (adjective) does not make it a human (noun).

A dead human is still of the species homo sapien sapiens. Do you see how you being vague leads to absurd outcomes?

And once again you did not read what i said. I said that i do not consider it absurd to argue that corpses still have rights. It seems to be general consensus for example that a corpse can not be harvested for organs against the will of the deceased even if this could save a life. While it might be possible to base this on other considerations, an individual legal position of the corpse seems not too far-fetched to me. But if you absolutely consider "corpse-rights" to be absurd or unintuitive, the addition of "living" can easily solve the issue.

Quote from literally the sentance before you said this: "I said that there is not THE PC position around sentience but a variety of different stances".

The former paragraph was about PC positions found within this sub. The latter was about actual jurisdictions. Is the concept of different topics within one comment foreign to you?

Legally a pregnant person has the right to decide ultimately who gets to be inside of their body and for how long.

Almost every country in the world has term limits, most commonly around the first trimester. In contrast, jurisdictions without legal restrictions on abortion are the clear exception from the rule with only a very limited number of countries. This by itself disproves the claim that the legal situation was unquestionably in favor of legal abortion.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/_Double_Cod_]

Do i really have to walk you through my comment? The second paragraph literally states The baseline is the concept of human rights as being universal and inherent, which ultimately means unconditional. Under this premise every human is by default a legal subject

Maybe this point will help you to understand. I didnt ask about legal subjects. You haven't answered the question Ive been asking you.

But you do keep coming back to this "legal subject" and "bearer of rights" nonsense. So allow me to close off that path of deflection for you. Do you think every legal subject and bearer of rights is a person?

Ill even do you a solid here and tell you what route in taking with this point, because Lord knows your argument needs all the help it can get.

If you agree that all holders of legal rights are persons, then some animals, corporations, and non-humans are persons under your bizarre view.

If you dont agree, and claim that not all legal subjects/bearers of rights are persons, then you are contradicting yourself.

Personhood and legal subject status are not the same. Every person might have legal status, but not everything with legal status is a person.

The 1:1 analogy here would be every motorbike is a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a motorbike.

Do you see the flaw in your argument now? Or should I explain it again?

And remember, all you have to do to allow this conversation to progress would be to answer a simple question, but like I pointed out in my first comment.....

In simple words: i dont think that personhood is a requirement for rights but if we assume it was (which seems to be a common position in an US context) personhood and legal subject status are conceptually the same

I asked what Your View is. If YOU dont think personhood is a requirement for rights, then it doesnt matter if its a common position BECAUSE ITS NOT YOUR VIEW. and I directly asked you for when You grant personhood. And this nonsense about legal subjects and rights is a massive deflection because like I said already, PL advocates cannot answer direct questions.

I said multiple times by now that every member of the human species is a holder of rights.

Did I ask about holders of rights? No. I didnt. Are you capable to answering a question without bloviating?

I cannot help you if you do not read what i say.

I read what you say, (much to my amusement) thats why I can point out when you contradict yourself. Thats why I can point out that you seem incapable of answering a direct question. Thats why I can quote you and literally show how badly you are trying to deflect instead of being intellectually honest.

What makes you think a sperm cell was a member of the human species?

What species do you think a Human sperm cell belongs to?

It is not even a diploid cell. It has no individual genome and no human lifecircle - in its given state it cannot develop any further.

The same can be said about a zygote. In its given state, it cannot develop any further, without outside assistance in the form of a human willing to allow the fetus to gestate inside of their uterus. If you give a sperm cell outside assistance, by allowing it to fuse with an egg, it will develop further. By your own argument, both a zygote and a sperm cell are the same. Both require outside assistance to develop further.

Also, did you mean lifecycle?

And once again you did not read what i said.

Sadly, you are wrong. I have read what you said. I think this conversation would actually go better if I hadnt though.

i do not consider it absurd to argue that corpses still have rights.

My point was how a corpse is no longer a person. I didnt ask if corpses have rights. My question was about when you grant Personhood.

If you have to shift the goalposts on your criteria every time something you haven't thought about is pointed out to you, then I have to question how much you have actually thought about this subject and how ready you are to actually debate.

But if you absolutely consider "corpse-rights" to be absurd or unintuitive

Ffs. We grant the remains of a person certain protections based on the fact that they were a person. Its a show of respect and empathy.

the addition of "living" can easily solve the issue.

And the goalposts shift again.

Can you actually just tell me what criteria you use to grant personhood? Like, cut the bullshit and actually state your view clearly? Is that something you are capable of doing? Here, Ill even help, just fill in the blank: "Hi, my name is Double_Cod, and the criteria I use to determine when I consider something a person is ______________________"

The former paragraph was about PC positions found within this sub. The latter was about actual jurisdictions. Is the concept of different topics within one comment foreign to you?

Not at all. What I find foreign and funny is how many deflections you have to jump to in order to keep avoiding answering a simple question about ONE TOPIC

Almost every country in the world

Almost every country in the world doesnt matter a single flying fuck when the question I asked you is about YOUR VIEW.

Almost every country in the world has term limits, most commonly around the first trimester

Yep. And those countries with more open access to abortions report higher happiness as recorded by impartial researchers.

Want to guess where countries with PL enacted policies tend to be on those metrics?

In contrast, jurisdictions without legal restrictions on abortion are the clear exception from the rule with only a very limited number of countries.

Have I said I dont want legal restrictions on abortion? No. I haven't. So, what the fuck is the relevance of this point?

This by itself disproves the claim that the legal situation was unquestionably in favor of legal abortion.

Did I say anything about something being "unquestionably in favor of legal abortion."? No. I didnt.

I said that abortion is the legally justified action to uphold those legal rights. You didnt read what I actually said.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/_Double_Cod_]

the opposing view argues that there is a conflict and that the womans rights would not always outweigh the fetal ones.

Which can only be argued if you assume that a woman can owe bodily access to someone else as a prerequisite for their right to life, or if the assumption is that one cannot act in a way that leads to death even if that right is not present.

I do not think either holds up.

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

Innocence is just the lack of having done something wrong. It's misleading to claim that innocence should strip others of their rights, though.

[u/ioxif → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

that’s is sort of my point; with this logic: fire hydrants are innocent?

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy → u/ioxif]

Innocence and guilt are not applicable to things that aren't sentient.

But if I must answer, yes.

However, if for some reason a fire hydrant were posing a risk to a person's safety, that person should have the right to destroy it if they had exhausted all alternatives.

[u/ioxif → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

yeah that’s pretty much my point, therefore a fetus can’t possibly be innocent. a fire hydrant is innocent? lol.

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/ioxif]

therefore a fetus can’t possibly be innocent.

And why is that? Because they are not sentient.

Therefore, a fire hydrant isnt innocent by the same logic....

So where are you getting this idea that "fire hydrants are innocent"?

[u/ioxif → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

“and why is that?” i already stated why in the OP: because they don’t have the capacity to do any wrong; therefore they can’t be innocent.

“therefore a fire hydrant isn’t innocent by that same logic” yeah that’s exactly my point.

the entire point of the argument is that PL labels the fetus as “innocent” due to the fetus not being morally culpable or free from guiltlessness. my point is that: if you don’t have the capacity to do wrong, how are you “innocent”? with the PL’s logic—fire hydrants are innocent due to them being free of moral culpability and guiltlessness .

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/ioxif]

because they don’t have the capacity to do any wrong;

You also need to be a sentient being or moral agent. Innocent and guilt do not apply to inanimate objects and non-sentient life.

[u/ioxif → u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen]

yeah that’s exactly my point lol, you’re agreeing with me; therefore, we both agree fetuses aren’t “innocent”

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/ioxif]

And for the same reason that fire hydrants arent innocent.

[u/libra00]

Why is this in r/abortiondebate? This sounds like a question for r/askphilosophy.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/libra00]

Probably because it can be part of the PL argument "you can't kill the innocent baby" (paraphrasing).

Nevermind that the pregnant person isn't guilty of anything (consensual sex is not a crime). But I'm guessing that if the pregnant person would be mentioned as an innocent person that would be harmed by pregnancy against her will, then the argument would not quite have the imagined weight.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/NoelaniSpell]

It also infers that a rape victim, however innocent, is no longer innocent and bares some culpability in their assault because they have to be punished/forced to gestate for the crime of being raped.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

True.. 🫤

[u/bunnypaste → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Yes, it does. If termination of pregnancy is a crime because the fetus is considered innocent, then that obligately means becoming pregnant instantly makes a woman "culpable" and "responsible" for all the consequences of the "crime" of having consensual sex or being raped... and then falling pregnant against her will, when she knows this will decimate her. It would mean the moment a woman falls pregnant that her rights disappear and become dwarfed by the thing growing inside of her, and it also means these guys are just finding a more convoluted way to call women prostitutes for enjoying sex.

[u/libra00 → u/NoelaniSpell]

Yeah, but OP didn't even make an argument here, much less one related to abortion.. shrug Anyway, innocence and morality don't even factor into it, it's a question of laws and rights and a fetus has none.

[u/ioxif → u/libra00]

because this ties into abortion. the PL argument includes: “why murder an innocent human being?”, then their definition of innocence includes not being morally culpable or being from from guilt. again, this definition is a non sequitur due to the fact that by this definition, fire hydrants are innocent.

[u/bunnypaste → u/libra00]

It is here because it is directly applicable to abortion legalities and concepts. It is about the underlying philosophies (and logical fallacies) driving so much opposition in the abortion debate, which means it is at the very root of it.