I've been thinking about the ramifications and meaning of this ascertainment, as well as how one, let alone a legislative majority, might either validate or repudiate this idea. It occurs to me that the idea flies in the face of certain basic and amazingly simple facts.
What are some of the most basic elements all persons share, even those in Mississippi. Well, people need oxygen, water, and food. I'd venture we need love, too, but I know people who might argue that, so I'll let that one go for now. We need, with extremely insignificant exceptions, clothing, either because of cold or sunburn, mosquitoes or modesty. We do not need cars. We need a sense of purpose -- world peace, raising peas, quilting bees or saving honey bees -- or at least some area of interest, be it car mufflers or cashmere mufflers, Katy Perry or Rick Perry. We need to feel like we make some little inkspot of difference in the world. We have thoughts, dreams, anxieties and hiccups.
Does any of this apply to a fertilized egg? Just what the heck is it that makes anyone think a fertilized egg is a PERSON? If it is
I think the state should watch out. There are a lot of aspects of personhood that are not being addressed here, and most of them have budgetary ramifications.
And these are my thoughts without even beginning to address the really serious issue here: the right of every woman to decide what happens to her body.
Word, I like. If you were to continue this as an argument or thesis to defend, I would offer 2 important considerations to go with it:
ReplyDelete1) The question of whether a fetus/embryo/uterine parasite/whatever you want to call it is a human being is an analytically distinct question of whether they have a right to life. The question of which species and organisms have a right to life is a tricky one with no clear consensus. Is it wrong to kill a beautiful butterfly for no reason? What about deer or wildlife -- even if we don't kill them for food, can we kill them for fun? If not, why? If they don't have a right to life, then there seems to be no moral basis for defending their lives.
Perhaps more relevant, what about pets? Can I kill my neighbor's puppy or kitty cat? Is it worse or a problem because there is an emotional connection there? If it is, then that is an even more pressing issue for your post here, but even if a fetus isn't a person, if an organism has a stronger claim to right to life because there is an emotional attachment, then even a fetus has a very strong claim to a right to life.
That's a small sub-argument, but unless you have an answer for the issue of right to life someone could come right back to your above argument and say, so what? Fetus' aren't people but women still don't get to control their bodies because the fetus still has a right to life.
2) Once you answer the above issue and have established your initial argument as valid, you need to be comfortable defending the termination of a fetus for any reason. So say for example they develop a way (which, to an extent, actually might already exist) to detect the characteristics a fetus would have if carried to delivery. Now you have to defend the practice of terminating fetuses because, as people, they would be too short, too tall, blonde, ginger, because they would have down syndrome or fragile x or any of 100 genetic disorders. Essentially you have to be comfortable with the practice of conscious and active genetic engineering/manipulation.
Not that I would say that that is an impossible, or even necessarily a difficult position to defend, but many people balk at the idea of terminating a pregnancy because the child would be short, stupid, sick, etc.
Sorry, I guess there are 3 considerations to add:
3) You are very right to point out that defining an embryo as a person would create complex legal questions, but that does not necessarily mean that the existence of these problems would create non-sensical results (i.e. the claiming of extra welfare or tax benefits). When a similar proposition was on the Colorado ballot I remember joking with a certain friend of mine (who now resides in Vermont) about the possibility of going in cahoots on a plan just as you mentioned to freeze fertilized eggs and claim them as dependents for a tax benefit. However, when I told this story to an actual lawyer, the response was, without hesitation, "that would never work, there are already extensive legal definitions on what constitutes a dependent and those factors."
So yes there would be complications, but that doesn't mean that resolving them would dramatically alter our legal, welfare, tax, or any other system.
Sorry for the length, I liked the post though and you just got me going!