Freedom from Religion Foundation makes awkward misstep

[Fau Teixeira]

a person has rights, a non person entity does not have the same rights (if it has any at all)

a non-viable fetus is a non-person entity.  therefore it does not have the same rights as a person

just as a tangent. a person doesn't have the right of survival. a person has the ability to survive, but no inherit right to survival. generally nobody has the right to end a person's survival, with a few exceptions. of course (self defense, war, death penalty) a non-viable fetus doesn't have the ability to survive

[SCFinfan]

a person has rights, a non person entity does not have the same rights (if it has any at all)

a non-viable fetus is a non-person entity.  therefore it does not have the same rights as a person

just as a tangent. a person doesn't have the right of survival. a person has the ability to survive, but no inherit right to survival. generally nobody has the right to end a person's survival, with a few exceptions. of course (self defense, war, death penalty) a non-viable fetus doesn't have the ability to survive

Do you see how you're still doing it? Arguing in a circle I mean?

Why does viability confer personhood or humanity? You haven't really answered that yet. You're just repeating yourself, without explaining yourself.

Imagine this. Imagine if I said:

"Atheists are all evil." And you said, "Why are they evil?" And I replied with "Because they're atheists." And you then said, "But why does that make them evil?" And I said, "Atheists are evil because they're atheists."

Do you see what my issue is now? I'd have to explain why atheism confers evilness on someone to answer your question.

Yes - I agree, only humans have human rights. But - why aren't nonviable fetuses humans?

[Fau Teixeira]

Yes - I agree, only humans have human rights. But - why aren't nonviable fetuses humans?

what makes a person a person ? we're getting hung up on the definition here.

a non-viable fetus is unable to survive outside of a mother by definition
if it could survive outside the mother, then it would be a viable fetus also by definition

can we agree on those ?

you're keep asking why this is... my answer to you is I don't care about why .. go ask a philosopher .. I don't care one iota about the why of it .. life is what life is ..if a mass of cells can survive on it's own it is a singular being  .. if it can't it's an extension of the mother and a non-being until such time as it can and becomes a person.

With this foundation, you can see how my position on fetal rights and abortion logically progresses.

your example also is nonsensical. evil is a value judgment applied to something an opinion. viability is not a judgement, it's a state of fact either viable or non-viable and is not an opinion.

[Spider-Dan]

Why? Why does a fetus which is not viable not have rights? Please explain to me why viability confers human nature on what was previously cells? What you're doing is not arguing, but just stating something, as if it were common-sense. Ridiculous.

Moreover, viability is a moving line. In 1973, when Roe was decided, viability was 24 weeks. Now, the most pre-mature baby ever born was born 21 weeks and 6 days after conception... meaning that babies aborted btw 21 and 24 weeks were being killed - all because of a defition that measures medical technology's capacity at a given time - not the humanity of the fetus...

I'm not sure why moving the line based on medical technology is a problem.  When was the last time you ever heard of someone dying of "natural causes"?

As I see it, from a naturalistic standpoint, the fetus would have no right to the mother's body at all, ever.  As our medical technology advances and the point at which the fetus can survive outside of the mother gets earlier, more options become available.  But I don't believe that a woman should ever be forced to carry a fetus against her will, and so whether or not a fetus is a separate life is defined entirely on whether it depends exclusively on the mother for survival.