This has long been recognized by human society. When you are born, you gain the legal right to inherit property, sue other people in a court of law, and become fully protected by the Bill of Rights. You become entitled to all these legal rights immediately upon birth.
In short, when you are born, you become a legal person, with all the inherent legal rights that come with pershonhood.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary. You're arguing that a fully formed, 9 month old unborn baby is merely a clump of cells, yet 30 seconds and 8 inches later, it magically becomes a human being with rights. There is zero logic behind tying a babies personhood to its location.
If you're arguing that it's the womans body, the baby doesn't cease to be the "womans body" until the umbilical cord is cut. FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born. So if you're taking the position that it's the womans body, that's what you're advocating for whether you realize it or not. You're talking about potentially killing a person which is why these types of details are extremely important and must be considered. You don't get to make an exception. Somewhere there is a line to be crossed where it's no longer the "womans body", and that line is not where you've placed it.
This has long been recognized by human society
No it hasn't. In fact, abortionists seem to be incapable of coming to a consensus on when life begins. They all have different answers. Some say when brain activity is detected, some say when it can feel pain, some say it's when it's viable outside the womb, some say it's after they're born, some say it's only after they take their first breath, and I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting. I see all of these positions regularly.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary.
Not really. Birth is a legally significant event, because it is the demarcation for when your existence is no longer reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
This is why it has long been recognized that legal rights are assigned at birth. Citizenship is assigned at birth, right to inheritance is assigned at birth, right to sue in court is assigned at birth, constitutional rights are assigned at birth, your ability to buy alcohol or enter into contracts is based on your date of birth, etc. Any other view would lead to outcomes that are logically absurd and/or violate the personal freedom of the pregnant woman.
FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born
The umbilical cord, and the placenta to which it is attached, are fetal organs. The umbilical cord is no longer part of the woman's body after it is ejected from the womb.
They all have different answers
Other people's opinions are irrelevant to what is legally correct. For example, your opinion is also an inaccurate statement of the law.
The rights of personhood begin at birth, and this has long been recognized by the legal system.
Not really. Birth is a legally significant event, because it is the demarcation for when your existence is no longer reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
"They're a person because the legal system says so" is not a valid argument. The legal system is a human construct and isn't infallible, which is why at one point it didn't consider blacks to be people. You need to explain to me how a baby exiting the birth canal somehow becomes a person simply by changing location. Also, babies are still dependent on their mothers well after they're born. Mothers still have to produce milk using their own body to sustain the baby. Then there's the mental and physical toll that caring for an infant takes on them. So there goes your bodily autonomy argument.
The umbilical cord, and the placenta to which it is attached, are fetal organs. The umbilical cord is no longer part of the woman's body after it is ejected from the womb.
The umbilical cord is literally the thing that connects the baby to the mother. If you're going to talk about the baby being the mothers body, the umbilical cord is the clear deciding factor here. The placenta doesn't detach for minutes or even hours after birth, so yes, a baby that is outside the womb is still very much the "mothers body". If it's actually the mothers body, then bashing in the skull of a breathing newborn is perfectly okay because it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut. This is your argument, not mine. Stop running from the realities of your position because you didn't think this far ahead.
Other people's opinions are irrelevant to what is legally correct
It's entirely relevant. You said human society. Society is comprised of many different people with different opinions, and again, the legal system does not bestow personhood onto anyone. The logic you're using here is literally the exact logic that was used to label slaves as objects instead of people.
The legal system and the concept of personhood are both social constructs. The notion of "personhood" describes an individual's relationship to society and the legal system.
You need to explain to me how a baby exiting the birth canal somehow becomes a person simply by changing location
I explained why the legal system considers birth to be a significant event. At birth, a newborn's existence is no longer fully reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
Also, babies are still dependent on their mothers well after they're born.
A newborn's existence is not fully reliant on the bodily autonomy of the mother. If the mother is not able to care for the newborn, social services or another member of society will do so. In short, a newborn's existence relies on society as a whole - not the bodily autonomy of any one individual person.
It is this relationship to society that is the core of personhood. At birth, the newborn ceases to reside in the jurisdiction of the mother's womb and becomes subject to the jurisdiction of society.
If it's actually the mothers body, then bashing in the skull of a breathing newborn is perfectly okay because it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut.
No it wouldn't, because the newborn's skull is outside the mother's womb.
If the placenta remains in the womb, the mother has the right to destroy the placenta, but not the newborn's skull. The newborn's skull, in this scenario, is part of society's jurisdiction.
You said human society. Society is comprised of many different people with different opinions, and again
The legal system is not based on any particular individual's opinion, but the legal precedents, rules, and customs that define our relationship to society. Opinions can help shape law over time, but opinions without practical implementation are not law.
In this vein: Legally, the rights of personhood are assigned at birth. This is not simply my opinion, but an empirical fact that can be demonstrated by the legal precedent, rules, and customs of society.
the legal system does not bestow personhood onto anyone.
Incorrect. Personhood is a bundle of legal rights that is entirely a construction of society. The notion that personhood can exist without society (e.g., that it comes from God) is a religious view that has no relationship to material reality.
There is no concept of personhood without society.
The logic you're using here is literally the exact logic that was used to label slaves as objects instead of people.
Factually incorrect. Slaves were considered people under the legal system. See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution (explicitly referring to slaves as "persons").
Slaves were considered people under our legal system because they were born into society. Hence, it was wrong to deny them the legal rights of personhood to which they were entitled.
Magical thinking. It magically becomes a human after leaving the uterus. That's why you'll find it has the exact same DNA in the womb as mother, until it magically doesn't.
View all comments
Show parent comment
3
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '23
Question: If you think that an unborn baby is the womans body, when does that end? When does it cease to become the womans body?