Is there any particular reason other than speciecism as to why exactly human infants should have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs? I was inspired to ask this question because a decade ago, a couple of pro-choice philosophers wrote a "thought analysis" essay wondering whether some pro-choice arguments could also be used to justify legalizing infanticide, aka "after-birth abortion":
Both cats and dogs are both viable and sentient, after all, and yet to my knowledge, one will NOT be charged with murder for killing either a cat or a dog like one will with a human infant, even though with cats and dogs there is also the option of transferring their care to someone else if they are unwanted by their current owners.
If one argues that sentience isn't enough for legal personhood and that one should also have a conscious desire to live, well, do human infants likewise meet this criteria or not? This is an anti-abortion talking point that I've sometimes seen; that if pro-choicers focus on the lack of personhood of the fetus rather than on bodily autonomy, then one would wonder whether or not human infants should actually be considered legal persons either.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on my original question here--as in, why exactly should human infants have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs? (I could have mentioned pigs here but pigs are eaten much more frequently in spite of their intelligence whereas very few people actually eat cats and dogs nowadays.) Also, what are your thoughts on that pro-choice "thought analysis" essay that I posted above here?
Both cats and dogs are both viable and sentient, after all, and yet to my knowledge, one will NOT be charged with murder for killing either a cat or a dog like one will with a human infant, even though with cats and dogs there is also the option of transferring their care to someone else if they are unwanted by their current owners.
If one argues that sentience isn't enough for legal personhood and that one should also have a conscious desire to live, well, do human infants likewise meet this criteria or not? This is an anti-abortion talking point that I've sometimes seen; that if pro-choicers focus on the lack of personhood of the fetus rather than on bodily autonomy, then one would wonder whether or not human infants should actually be considered legal persons either.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on my original question here--as in, why exactly should human infants have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs? (I could have mentioned pigs here but pigs are eaten much more frequently in spite of their intelligence whereas very few people actually eat cats and dogs nowadays.) Also, what are your thoughts on that pro-choice "thought analysis" essay that I posted above here?