In an IRC abortion debate I saw the argument presented that human beings (by the legal definition) are, for want of a better word, “superior” to fetuses because they have the neurological equipment needed to be sentient beings, whereas fetuses do not (at least not before the 7th month of gestation).
The pro-life retort to this argument, as I understand it, is to point out that deep coma victims aren't sentient either. Therefore human beings are “superior” to them. If this is the case, then why do pro-choice supporters condemn fetuses as “inferior” due to their lack of sentience while at the same time doing everything in our power to keep the coma victims alive? Shouldn't they be regarded on precisely the same level if the logic is to be carried through properly, and without contradiction?
Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding one or several aspects of this argument and retort but it seems to me like this pro-life counter argument is fairly unassailable. Therefore, should the pro-choice camp disregard any arguments which center around sentience as being a marker for what constitutes a human person altogether?
Peace.
The pro-life retort to this argument, as I understand it, is to point out that deep coma victims aren't sentient either. Therefore human beings are “superior” to them. If this is the case, then why do pro-choice supporters condemn fetuses as “inferior” due to their lack of sentience while at the same time doing everything in our power to keep the coma victims alive? Shouldn't they be regarded on precisely the same level if the logic is to be carried through properly, and without contradiction?
Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding one or several aspects of this argument and retort but it seems to me like this pro-life counter argument is fairly unassailable. Therefore, should the pro-choice camp disregard any arguments which center around sentience as being a marker for what constitutes a human person altogether?
Peace.