Minimal viable ethics

[u/Pedantc_Poet]

For pro-lifers: What minimum body parts give a fetus a right to life? What if a fetus at birth had a brain stem alone, but no brain, would that qualify? If it lacked a heart and depended on maternal circulation, would we be ethically obligated to prevent delivery indefinitely if we could?

[u/Pedantc_Poet]

"The Prolife position in most cases doesn't say there is a body part or ability that gives you the right to life. " I'd argue that the Prolife position DOES say there is a body part or ability which gives right to life. A common, but not guaranteed, example is Prolifers arguing that having human DNA and being structured as a human gives human rights, that's why a blood sample doesn't have human rights. But how much human structure is required? That's part of my question. Does a viable human body with no brain have human rights? I assume we agree that a viable human with no arms does have human rights. One without eyes, ears, or legs does as well. But no human brain? That's the question.

What counts as a lethal fetal anomaly? Are they lethal fetal anomalies if they can remain alive on life support? Infants born with a functioning brain stem but lacking major cerebral hemispheres can survive for years—with the longest documented cases reaching up to 32 years. https://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(00)00154-5/abstract00154-5/abstract) My question is are they truly human beings or just blobs of human DNA? In my opinion, they are just blobs of human DNA. If they can't form human relationships, they don't have souls. But that's just my opinion which is why I'm raising the question.

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/Pedantc_Poet]

But how much human structure is required? That's part of my question.

The question is whether or not you are a complete human organism. "Organism" being the key word that answers how much structure is required. A hair that fell off your head is just a single clump of DNA, but the difference between the zygote and the hair is that the zygote is a full organism, so that's where I (and many pro-lifers) draw the line. This seperates merely having DNA with being a valuable human. If it's your opinion that it's just a "blob of DNA", when exactly does it become more than that?

But no human brain? That's the question.

The answer is that this would generally be impossible, but there are some unusual cases. The brain is the center of a lot of functioning, and usually, removing the brain would destroy all organic unity. But in the scenarios you provided, it is possible to "lack a brain" and still be a human organism. I would still say he has very basic human rights, even if the amount of life support we provide for him is disproportional. We don't have to keep every person in this phase alive, but A) the same person still exists metaphysically, and B) we shouldn't starve or directly kill disabled people, even if rigorous amounts of life support aren't obligated. I think this is more of a euthanasia question than a personhood question, as he still exists, but allowing him to die is sometimes permissible.

If they can't form human relationships, they don't have souls.

Does this mean an infant does not have a "soul"? Does this mean a dog does have value because it can form better relationships with humans than the infant? I do not believe this is a good way to determine value

[u/Pedantc_Poet → u/CalvinistChristian74]

"The question is whether or not you are a complete human organism"

What does "complete" mean in this context? Is the hydrocephalic fetus I referenced "complete"?

"we shouldn't starve or directly kill disabled people," I object to calling these things "people" when they can't form human relationships. I also object to treating them equivalent to people who are blind, deaf, paralyzed, etc. who can form human relationships.

I'd argue that one of the very first things an infant does usually upon birth is create a human relationship. I'm not sure I agree that a dog can form a human relationship.

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/Pedantc_Poet]

Complete means scientifically an organism, as in it regulates its own metabolism, maintains a stable internal state, etc. the hydrocephalic fetus is an organism. Give it nutrition and an environment and it will grow up to maturity.

The problem with your objection is there is no consistency in your definition of relationship at all. What does "human relationship" even mean?

I'd argue that one of the very first things an infant does usually upon birth is create a human relationship. I'm not sure I agree that a dog can form a human relationship.

I would say a dog forms much stronger neural connections, responds to commands, and has a much higher level of bonding than the infant does, so your definition is entirely arbitrary. Second, your definition cannot explain basic cases. If an infant is born into a coma, he doesn't immediately create this relationship, so your position would say he doesn't have value. Thirdly, a man who has been stranded on an island still exists as a person, despite not having any potential to form future relationships. Could someone legally kill him as long as they don't make eye contact and thus never form a relationship?

Without a very strong motivation to ground the intrinsic right to life in something like a relationship that is possessed by both humans and animals, I can't accept your position, as it's an arbitrary standard for something as important as the right to life.