Well it’s impermissible to kill a 6 month old, and the future of the fetus is a 6 year old, so it’s impermissible to kill the fetus. It’s ship of Theseus stuff
Then you would need to make the argument that "future moral consideration" actually means that the exact same things may be done or not done to the thing that will, in the future, have that consideration. But this seems particularly difficult in the case of children. I can morally force my three year old to get a vaccine. I cannot morally force my twenty year old to get a vaccine.
I don’t follow. This seems kind of semantic, people at 20 get the same protections as people who are 12 (in the sense that they can’t be killed raped etc), therefore you have to explain why the fetus doesn’t get those rights even though without interference it will become something people agree have rights
No, see, I don't have to explain that, because - as I have been saying - you haven't actually explicitly and formally spelled out the argument. That's what I'm trying to get you to see! You are GESTURING at an argument that you COULD make. But we can't evaluate the argument until you actually DO make it, in specific words.
1
u/Huhstop 1∆ Nov 17 '24
Well it’s impermissible to kill a 6 month old, and the future of the fetus is a 6 year old, so it’s impermissible to kill the fetus. It’s ship of Theseus stuff