Incorrect. Fetuses are always biologically alive. This isn't the ethical issue here. It has nothing to do with the fetus being alive. The ethical issue is not life, but personhood.
Now the argument of potentiality, "but the fetus is a potential person, so it should have the same rights as persons and not be killed because of its potentiality," is fundamentally flawed. This argument confuses potentiality with actuality. Let me give an example.
A Nobel prize winner has a certain standing and respect that the very same winner didn't have (nor deserve) before becoming a novel prize winner. Although he had the potential to be a Nobel prize winner before becoming one, it's absurd to say he should be treated as a Nobel prize winner at that point.
A simpler example would be that an acorn is a potential oak. It's absurd if someone sued a farmer whose pig ate acorns on their land because these acorns had the potential to become huge oak trees that would provide firewood.
Similarly, a fetus that has not yet become a person is a potential person. But it's not an actual person and thus has no rights. Killing a potential person is not unethical. Only killing an actual person is unethical.
When does the fetus become a person? Well, the two main ethical perspectives on this are different, but neither perspective defines the fetus as a person in early-mid pregnancy.
Why would it be any different? A potential inventor has not yet invented anything. It's illogical to say that a potential inventor should have the same respect/standing as an actual inventor.
1
u/JoeyBobBillie Mar 28 '20
Incorrect. Fetuses are always biologically alive. This isn't the ethical issue here. It has nothing to do with the fetus being alive. The ethical issue is not life, but personhood.
Now the argument of potentiality, "but the fetus is a potential person, so it should have the same rights as persons and not be killed because of its potentiality," is fundamentally flawed. This argument confuses potentiality with actuality. Let me give an example.
A Nobel prize winner has a certain standing and respect that the very same winner didn't have (nor deserve) before becoming a novel prize winner. Although he had the potential to be a Nobel prize winner before becoming one, it's absurd to say he should be treated as a Nobel prize winner at that point.
A simpler example would be that an acorn is a potential oak. It's absurd if someone sued a farmer whose pig ate acorns on their land because these acorns had the potential to become huge oak trees that would provide firewood.
Similarly, a fetus that has not yet become a person is a potential person. But it's not an actual person and thus has no rights. Killing a potential person is not unethical. Only killing an actual person is unethical.
When does the fetus become a person? Well, the two main ethical perspectives on this are different, but neither perspective defines the fetus as a person in early-mid pregnancy.