As individuals are examples of discrete, distinct, and particular members within a group--certainly, a foetus, 7 minutes prior to being born, is a distinct and individual foetus...
At the moment of birth, the foetus becomes an individual person. Later it will become an individual corpse, and later yet--individual blades of grass and so forth. Identity as an individual person begins at birth.
7 minutes before being born the individual fetus is a fetus and an individual person. Identiy as an individual person does not begin at birth. Birth is a change of location more then it is a change in nature. I was born 6 weeks early and was less developed at the time then my youngest brother was 7 minutes (or 7 days) before his birth. If a newborn baby is a person in one place then it is a person in another.
If a RIGHT is not honoured by society, it has no practical meaning other than as an harbinger of hope, and a motivation for defence. If I can make you my slave without opposition from others, then reason has ridden out on the pony, and we might as well fire the barn.
Hope and motivation are useful. But you are correct that a right will not itself protect you. My right not to be a slave would not keep me from becomeing one if eveyone decided I should be one.
What could be more fundamental than equality of persons? The RIGHT of all people to be free--to be what they are--SEPARATE: The RIGHT to be left alone? If we do not honour this, there is nothing left for us to honour.
If you are not allowed to live it doesn't matter much if they leave your corpse alone.
If we declare that the woman is the appendage of the embryo,
Recognizeing the fetuses right to live does not make the woman an appendage of the embryo accept in the literal sense the they are both attached to each other.
The problem is, they cannot both have the RIGHT to life. They can each have the indulgence of society, but they cannot both have the RIGHT--because it involves contradiction.
They can and do both have a right to life. When there is a conflict between the rights (for example if the mother will die if she does not have an abortion), then a desision has to be made that will violate the rights of one of them. It doesn't mean the rights do not exist merely that one party will have their rights violated to protect the rights of the other. A somewhat similar situation can occur with one conjoined twins. Sometimes if one of them is not killed both will die. This happened recently in England.
Now, this is not part of my argument, but a thought: Would a wise and sensible God wastefully stitch souls into blood clots
The issue at hand was a fetus 7 minutes before birth not blood clot or even an embryo.
Tim |
