"Does 'I think, therefore I am' prove that a fetus isn’t a person?" I guess it would be one way of showing (an unnecessarily indirect way, but a way that does not misunderstand the statement) that an early fetus can't be sure it exists. Then they could make a separate argument that those who don't know they exist aren't persons. In that way they could use the statement, without misunderstanding it, to try to show that a fetus isn’t a person. If they're going to MISunderstand Descartes's meaning, I would think it would be easier to misunderstand him as meaning that a fetus doesn't exist at all, than as meaning that it doesn't exist as a person -- personhood being a concept that the statement doesn't seem to refer to -- ? I've been lucky and never ran into the argument! So never had to understand where they were coming from.
I guess it would be one way of showing (an unnecessarily indirect way, but a way that does not misunderstand the statement) that an early fetus can't be sure it exists.
Then they could make a separate argument that those who don't know they exist aren't persons.
In that way they could use the statement, without misunderstanding it, to try to show that a fetus isn’t a person.
If they're going to MISunderstand Descartes's meaning, I would think it would be easier to misunderstand him as meaning that a fetus doesn't exist at all, than as meaning that it doesn't exist as a person -- personhood being a concept that the statement doesn't seem to refer to -- ?
I've been lucky and never ran into the argument! So never had to understand where they were coming from.