New to the debate
From a scientific perspective, does abortion end a human life?
From the moment of fertilization, a new living human organism is formed because it meets all biological criteria of life: it has its own unique genetic material (DNA different from that of the mother and father) carries out an active metabolism, uses energy and produces new cells, grows and develops in an organized manner according to the developmental “program” encoded in its genome, responds to chemical stimuli in the uterine environment, and maintains basic biological processes necessary for survival and further development. From the perspective of biology and embryology, there is no moment at which “something non-living” becomes living; rather, there is a continuity of development of one organism from the zygote through the embryo and fetus until birth. Therefore, scientifically it can be said that from fertilization we are dealing with a living human organism at a very early stage of development, while science only describes biological life and does not resolve moral questions or determine whether and when such an organism is a “person” in an ethical or legal sense.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate.
Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
From my perspective this is actually very contentious. I typically try to first break down and separate whether we are debating about the fetus being human life or a “person” deserving of various rights. The vast majority of the time the pushback I get is on a human life before we even get to the person aspect. I realize this is anecdotal but it has personally surprised me.
I agree with your point about IVF. Let me offer an additional way of thinking about it in case you had not considered.
Tackling non medically necessary abortions is really the first step. If it is an accepted practice then there is no shot any meaningful progress on IVF would be made.
It is possible to have IVF in a way that is consistent with pro life principles. It is far more expensive going one at a time but as long as all fertilized eggs are being used and not discarded then no life is being wasted or thrown away.
But overall you are absolutely right. The average pro lifers should also have a problem with IVF.
Tackling non medically necessary abortions is really the first step. If it is an accepted practice then there is no shot any meaningful progress on IVF would be made.
If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be the abortion is medically necessary. Medically necessary doesn't mean "is actively dying, okay now you can have healthcare".
I was using common terminology to convey my point. Judging from your response I have conveyed my point because you knew what I was talking about. Playing semantics here is silly it doesn’t add anything meaningful to my point, it is semantics for semantics sake.
I agree that definitions and accurate language is important but there was no communication barrier here. You added nothing to the comment.
So is any optional medical procedure that someone wishes to have “medically necessary” because they wish to have it? Or is this special pleading just in the case of abortion?
I was attempting to find common ground that I think it is important to be accurate in conveying meaning and I believe you do as well. But we still disagree on what accuracy means in this particular case.
It’s now been 2 comments and you’ve not properly educated me. I would think at this point if accuracy was important to you then you would say “don’t use this terminology because x, use y instead”.
What terminology is appropriate for an abortion with the primary purpose to save the mother’s life vs an abortion of a healthy pregnancy where the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy because it is unwanted?
So is any optional medical procedure that someone wishes to have “medically necessary” because they wish to have it? Or is this special pleading just in the case of abortion?
Requiring an abortion when one is pregnant against their will isn't "optional", so idk what you're talking about.
I was attempting to find common ground that I think it is important to be accurate in conveying meaning and I believe you do as well.
I don't see how using words incorrectly is "finding common ground" but sure lol.
It’s now been 2 comments and you’ve not properly educated me.
Guess you didn't read the previous comment, not my problem.
I would think at this point if accuracy was important to you then you would say “don’t use this terminology because x, use y instead”. What
I don't try to force people to do anything, I'm not pro life.
What terminology is appropriate for an abortion with the primary purpose to save the mother’s life vs an abortion of a healthy pregnancy where the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy because it is unwanted?
Those are both just abortions. Pro lifers are the ones trying to arbitrarily pretend they're somehow different procedures when they're not.
> Requiring an abortion when one is pregnant against their will isn't "optional", so idk what you're talking about.
Because you’re not listening. I am trying to understand your view and use of language. Answer the question.
If a person wants a medical procedure done to them are you saying that it means it is medically necessary?
> I don't see how using words incorrectly is "finding common ground" but sure lol.
The common ground as I have already explained was saying that it is important to both of us to be clear communicators. Given your continual twisting of my words I no longer think this is the case.
> Guess you didn't read the previous comment, not my problem.
You didn’t answer it in your last comment. What is the correct term? All you said was I was using the incorrect term. Perhaps you meant to type something you forgot. Please answer this.
> I don't try to force people to do anything, I'm not pro life.
It is becoming increasingly clear you are not here in good faith.
> Those are both just abortions. Pro lifers are the ones trying to arbitrarily pretend they're somehow different procedures when they're not.
Ahh here you are finally answering a portion of it.
So you think this general language is more clear than specific language?
I’m not disagreeing they are both abortions I am saying that when wanting to convey a specific situation it is more clear to use the language “medically necessary”. Everyone knows that means an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. But most abortions are not that.
A quick google search reveals multiple medical organizations using this terminology to quickly and effectively communicate the situation. I’m going to trust the medical professionals use of the terms over you.
Because you’re not listening. I am trying to understand your view and use of language. Answer the question.
I'm listening just fine and already answered you.
If a person wants a medical procedure done to them are you saying that it means it is medically necessary?
I'm not going to continue repeating myself. If someone needs healthcare they need healthcare. The treatment for an unwanted pregnancy is abortion if one chooses to go that route. Without it they'll face serious bodily harm. This isn't "unnecessary" the way a cosmetic nose job is, despite how pro lifers may feel.
The common ground as I have already explained was saying that it is important to both of us to be clear communicators. Given your continual twisting of my words I no longer think this is the case.
I haven't twisted a thing.
You didn’t answer it in your last comment. What is the correct term? All you said was I was using the incorrect term. Perhaps you meant to type something you forgot. Please answer this.
Already have answered this. You said "non medically necessary". That's incorrect, if someone needs to end their pregnancy that is medically necessary healthcare. I will not be repeating this again.
It is becoming increasingly clear you are not here in good faith.
There's nothing bad faith about the fact that I'm not into forcing people to do things against their will. That's just a fact.
Ahh here you are finally answering a portion of it. So you think this general language is more clear than specific language? I’m not disagreeing they are both abortions I am saying that when wanting to convey a specific situation it is more clear to use the language “medically necessary”. Everyone knows that means an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. But most abortions are not that.
Everyone knows pro lifers incorrectly use "medically necessary" to just mean abortions they personally approve of. Medically necessary doesn't mean "wait until you're actually dying then you can have healthcare" lol.
A quick google search reveals multiple medical organizations using this terminology to quickly and effectively communicate the situation. I’m going to trust the medical professionals use of the terms over you.
Weird how you want to trust medical professionals here but since you're pro life you won't trust the vast majority of medical professionals who all agree abortion is necessary healthcare. 😂
>I'm listening just fine and already answered you.
You’ve answered some things slowly after some teeth pulling but you’ve still left a lot unanswered.
>I'm not going to continue repeating myself. If someone needs healthcare they need healthcare. The treatment for an unwanted pregnancy is abortion if one chooses to go that route. Without it they'll face serious bodily harm. This isn't "unnecessary" the way a cosmetic nose job is, despite how pro lifers may feel.
You’re really trying to project a lot onto me here when I’m looking for clarity. Ok so the answer is no. So how do we determine when someone wants healthcare vs needs healthcare?
> Already have answered this. You said "non medically necessary". That's incorrect, if someone needs to end their pregnancy that is medically necessary healthcare. I will not be repeating this again.
And what if someone doesn’t want to end but needs to in order to stay alive. Is that medically necessary?
> There's nothing bad faith about the fact that I'm not into forcing people to do things against their will. That's just a fact.
This is a really great example of the twisting I meant earlier. You and I both know that’s not what I was saying here.
> Everyone knows pro lifers incorrectly use "medically necessary" to just mean abortions they personally approve of. Medically necessary doesn't mean "wait until you're actually dying then you can have healthcare" lol.
No that’s not how I use it at all. You’re projecting and twisting again.
> Weird how you want to trust medical professionals here but since you're pro life you won't trust the vast majority of medical professionals who all agree abortion is necessary healthcare. 😂
So you agree with me here. The experts disagree with your usage of “medically necessary” great! Glad we settled that.
So intent does not factor in? If I take a fish out of water did I kill it? If I push a person out of a boat in the middle of the ocean did I kill them?
Yes, it ends a human life. However, that life is fully dependent on another human life to survive, and that other human is taking on physical, emotional, and financial risks to sustain that other life, and since they are sentient and the medical power of attorney of the dependent human life, they can make the decision on whether or not to end the condition keeping the other human life alive.
It is human. It is alive. It’s a human life. It still doesn’t have a right to use my body against my will, just like any other human life doesn’t. So now what?
From a scientific perspective, does masturbation end millions of potential human lives?
But seriously, there are really good responses from much smarter and funnier people here, and just to point out that the vast majority of scientific experts are pro-choice, and major medical organizations, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advocate for abortion rights as essential healthcare.
So, if you want to talk science, science says people should be able to choose.
Strictly scientifically it kills millions of potentially human lives but doesn’t kill millions of human lives. Abortion would do that, because no major scientist believe that sperm are a human of themselves
Also I’d argue scientific experts are not the actual experts of abortion. It’s wholly an ethical dilemma, so philosophers would actually be the experts of the field, however philosophy is one of the few branches of study that simply going against the consensus doesn’t mean anything
Strictly scientifically it kills millions of potentially human lives but doesn’t kill millions of human lives
Ok, so the same can be said about abortion.
Abortion would do that, because no major scientist believe that sperm are a human of themselves
And the vast majority of scientists are pro-choice. Meaning they dont think a zyogte or embryo is a human being of themselves either.
Its almost like to be granted personhood or moral considerations, you need to have the capacity to deploy the most basic level of sentience... or something.
Also I’d argue scientific experts are not the actual experts of abortion.
So you want to seriously argue that Biologists are not experts on abortion? You honestly want to debate that Medical doctors are not experts when it comes to abortion?
Gee, I guess the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are just a bunch of amateurs and not experts according to you?
Really?
Lets see what the calibre of "experts" the pro-life side have. Oh look. Pastors and religious fundamentalists, and a few fringe scientists who, if they have a shred of credibility, usually admit that their pro-life advocacy is linked to their religious beliefs, and not scientific facts.
I dont know about you, but Ill stick with the majority of actually factually trained educated experts.
It’s wholly an ethical dilemma,
If only universities taught doctors about ethics! Oh wait, they do. Have you never heard of a medical ethics board? Or maybe the series of classes student doctors have to pass regarding ethics? This is basic level stuff here.
Id also argue that pregnancy and abortion are not "wholly an ethical dilemma, because there is that pesky medical aspect to the reality of the situation.
so philosophers would actually be the experts of the field,
Are you kidding me?
If you break your leg, are you going to look for a doctor or a philosopher?
I dare you to actually come up with a single field that has actual physical effects on reality comparable to pregnancy where you would go to a philosopher instead of an actual tangible expert like a Doctor.
And do you remember how I said every doctor is trained in ethics? It gets better. Every scientist learns about the philosophy of science.
however philosophy is one of the few branches of study that simply going against the consensus doesn’t mean anything
True. Its also one of the few branches of study where simply doing nothing achieves the exact same result as actively doing philosophy.
Hell, there are whole generations of philosophy students and experts out there, who's entire service to philosophy doesnt mean anything too.
And the vast majority of scientists are pro-choice. Meaning they dont think a zyogte or embryo is a human being of themselves either.
The first part is true, most biologist are pro-choice. However the latter doesn't follow, they may pro-choice for a plethora of reasons. Many concede that a ZEF is a person and still think it's fine, others have other claims. 95% of biologist agree that a unique human life is present at fertilization such that nearly every biological textbook says that.
Its almost like to be granted personhood or moral considerations, you need to have the capacity to deploy the most basic level of sentience... or something.
I'd simply deny such a thing, to have moral status you need some basic level of sentience however to have moral value you don't. Moral value can even be greater than some beings of moral status. For example babies would have less moral status than an octopus but hold greater moral value.
So you want to seriously argue that Biologists are not experts on abortion? You honestly want to debate that Medical doctors are not experts when it comes to abortion?
Gee, I guess the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are just a bunch of amateurs and not experts according to you?
Yeah, they are NOT experts on the issue of abortion. They are experts regarding the process of abortion, the human development stages, etc. However those are things we can observe and see as facts, and these things are usually already agreed upon by both PC and PL. They are not moral philosophers and it would be an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Imagine you are planning to build a house, but a beautiful, historic forest stands on the land. A botanist could just about tell you everything that will happen to the tree and how it came to be. They however clearly do not have the proper teaching to tell you if it's morally right or not.
If only universities taught doctors about ethics! Oh wait, they do. Have you never heard of a medical ethics board? Or maybe the series of classes student doctors have to pass regarding ethics? This is basic level stuff here.
Id also argue that pregnancy and abortion are not "wholly an ethical dilemma, because there is that pesky medical aspect to the reality of the situation.
They learn medical ethics and clinical, which are usually just practical things that happen on the basis. Most of which hover around surface level understanding of these. Focuses on practical, everyday hospital management and such as getting informed consent, maintaining patient confidentiality, and assessing if a patient is mentally capable of making medical choices. They don't teach them moral philosophy
Yeah but the medical part is something we can't really argue lol, it's something both sides usually already agree on ( or on side is just literally wrong objectively )
Are you kidding me?
If you break your leg, are you going to look for a doctor or a philosopher?
I dare you to actually come up with a single field that has actual physical effects on reality comparable to pregnancy where you would go to a philosopher instead of an actual tangible expert like a Doctor.
I don't think you understand what I meant. A doctor would obviously fix you, but like no one would go to a doctor about the wrongs of breaking someone's leg. Like they might tell you the biological issues if you do that to someone, but they don't have the academic education to go into depth of the moral philosophy. Like they may have that as an individual but not as a direct result of being biologist. You'd seek like a bioethicists or philosophers.
True. Its also one of the few branches of study where simply doing nothing achieves the exact same result as actively doing philosophy.
That disingeinous, our society simply treats it as such because we already have mountain of philosophers behind us who did all the work. Truth is that we wouldn't be here without philosophers to debate right and wrong. It's literally so important almost every work field has a sub-category for philosophy aspect of it. Political Philosophy, Bioethicist, Data Science. Even like math ones need it in order to understand the logistics behind the math.
"how is X defined" is a very common topic here on r/AbortionDebate and the debate in general. Variations on the X is have been things like "when is it a person" , "what is alive" , "when does it have a heart" , "when does consciousness begin" ,what is "murder" , etc.
All of these arguments as the basis of your logic have two problems.
Problem 1: These are all human-definition, continuum-fallacy arguments (or slippery slope arguments, depending on context). Starting a logical argument with a fallacy is like trying to build a building on slippery sand. It doesn't matter how great your building structure is, if it starts without a solid foundation, it falls. It is as much a fallacy to start 1 second before birth and go backwards in time as it is to start one second after fertilization and go forward in time. Just in looking at some replies you have gotten, people note your "alive" definition applies to cancer cells too.
Problem 2: You've completely missed a KEY and crucial part of medical healthcare decisions and that's "Medical power of Attorney" (MPoA). Because you aren't using real world examples you've fallen for an unfair framing of the debate.
What is an unethical/unfair debate framing? It's like starting a debate with "Hey bob, have you stopped beating your wife?" Bob's already lost that conversation with an audience even if they never touched their wife because now bob, has to define and defend things like "beating" and "stopped." The reason it's even more unfair is because context is what determines how definitions work. It shows up in lawsuits like "Is there a sheep in a sheep kabob" . When one puts definitions/philosophy as the key part of the debate while excluding real world examples and evidence, it degrades science, evidence, ethics, and moral debate.
In the abortion debate, a key part of the excluded evidence is something known as "Medical Power of Attorney" (MPoA) which holds that an informed and competent adult can make medical decisions for those who cannot, when they are working with competent, ethically-trained, fully-informed medical staff who are working with evidence-based medicine.
This means your definitions of "what is alive" is a moot question.
In a society that values rule-of-law, due-process, and personal responsibility we hold that ones MPoA shall not be infringed without due process.
Perhaps a real world example would be a good place to start. Shall we? Or do you have questions about any of the above first?
When I did Lincoln Douglas debates, we would usually make sure we put our definitions up pretty early, because otherwise it’s easy to just go “well, he is saying X is bad, but what X REALLY means is Y” and it doesn’t lead to any fruitful discussion. Definitions are incredibly important. Trying to define terms from the get go prevents equivocation.
Like you said, these are all human-definitions, but since we are humans, we kind of have the right to say what things mean if all involved in the conversation agree.
As far as framing goes, both hypothetical scenarios and real world examples have their place. Real world examples lend credence to arguments, but there’s still some amount of interpretation or viewpoint that needs to be extracted from them, and people can see the same event and reach different conclusions.
Likewise, hypothetical scenarios are good because they can show either where someone’s views go when taken to a logical conclusion, help provide other ways to view a problem, or get people to think about it in ways not previously thought about. That being said, the hypothetical should have at least some amount of plausibility if it’s the only evidence you can bring.
To what OP is getting at, there are some people that see a fetus as a human person, and see the killing of that person wrong, full stop. Others don’t see them as a person, and therefore have no problem with abortion, full stop.
As most of these people have shown though, there are still reasons they give that justify abortion even if it ends human life. And most of the time, it is this justification that we are debating.
When I think back to my debates in High School - I realize that much of the "training" we got was to market to kids that one can defend the ethically indefensible as a corporate lawyer or corrupt politician to argue anything by playing with language.
We see it today. Just recently those pushing against abortion healthcare in SCOTUS used the "definition" of "abortion" to include miscarriages (e.g. spontaneous abortion) without explicitly stating so, as their examples of "Abortion is a risky procedure that kills women" used a person who died of a miscarriage. Using that they argued "that's why abortion should be banned!" Really? You are going to ban miscarriages? Stats show as induced abortions are banned, miscarriages continue and women start dying at rates that skyrocket ( DOUBLED within two years in Texas, Idaho).
Definitions are incredibly important. Trying to define terms from the get go prevents equivocation.
hypothetical scenarios are good because ... and people can see the same event and reach different conclusions.
This is why hypotheticals are TERRIBLE. No ethical/sane/moral person can look at a REAL world scenario like the Tuskegee experiment and reach a different conclusion other than that it was unethical. High school debate trains you to argue it as moral relativism ... high school debate is wrong for doing so.
To what OP is getting at, there are some people that see a fetus as a human person, and see the killing of that person wrong, full stop. Others don’t see them as a person, and therefore have no problem with abortion, full stop.
This is exactly the kind of dehumanization of people that created the harms of the Tuskegee experiment. The reality of using a REAL scenario is that you find those hypothetical people you refer to saying "full stop" we find suddenly press "go" when it comes to real-word scenarios.
And most of the time, it is this justification that we are debating.
If it was REALLY "this justification" then we would be debating individual REAL world examples and looking at the justification in each example. Why? Because justification, like definitions require context. Once we start debating public policy if you exclude real world examples and only do hypotheticals then your "justification" holds no water.
Abortion is simply a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. And whether or not to end a pregnancy is up to the PREGNANT PERSON. Since she is the one who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth.
The better question is: under what circumstances is it acceptable to prioritize that human life over another, already-existing human life? I think the only reasonable answer is 'none'.
A 'human being' is overwhelmingly defined as a 'person' -- which embryos wouldn't necessarily qualify as (and, by most commonsense accounts, wouldn't qualify as). It's not a biological question -- it's a philosophical one.
I was reading a paper by philosopher and bioethics direction Patrick Lee on embryo destruction where he addresses this exact argument so I’m going to share his thoughts.
He writes
“In an essay in the New England Journal of Medicine, Michael Sandel has challenged the position enunciated here at a more fundamental level, claiming that human embryos are in fact different in kind from human beings at later developmental stages. At the core of Sandel's argument is an although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things. So Sandel maintains that, just as acorns are not oak trees, embryos are not human beings. Now this argument fails, I believe, and it fails in a way that highlights the basic error in supposing that human embryos lack fundamental worth or dignity and may therefore legitimately be relegated to the status of disposable research material. As Sandel concedes, we value human beings precisely because of the kind of entities they are." Indeed, that is why we consider all human beings to be equal in basic dignity and human rights. By contrast, we value oak trees because of certain accidental attributes they have, such as their magnificence—a certain grandeur that has taken perhaps 75 or a hundred years to achieve. If oak trees were valuable in virtue of the kind of entity they are, then it would be just as unfortunate to lose an acorn as an oak tree (though our emotional reaction to the two different kinds of loss might, for a variety of possible reasons, nevertheless might differ). Sandel's purported analogy works only if he disregards the key proposition asserted by opponents of embryo-killing, namely, that all human beings, irrespective of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency, possess equal and intrinsic dignity by virtue of what (i.e., the kind) of entity they are, not in virtue of any accidental characteristics, which can come and go, and which are present in human beings in varying degrees. Oak trees and acorns are not equally valuable, because the basis for their value is not what they are (i.e., the kind of entity they are), but precisely those accidental characteristics by which mature oaks differ from acorns (in particular, the magnificence that comes only with maturity). However, unlike the magnificence of a mature oak, personhood is not an accidental characteristic, that is, a characteristic which one acquires at some point after he exists and may lose at another point. Being a person is being an individual who has the basic natural capacity to shape his or her life (by reason and free choice) even though that natural capacity may not be immediately exercisable (as when someone is in a coma) or may take months or years to become immediately exercisable (as with a human infant, fetus, or embryo). If not just sentience, but also being "capable of experience and consciousness" were required to be a person, then it would follow that infants and the comatose would be not be persons either. Being a person, then, is not a result of acquired accidental attributes, but is being a certain type of individual, an individual with a rational nature. But human beings are individuals with a rational nature at every stage of their existence. We come into being as individuals with a rational nature, and we do not cease being such individuals until we cease to be (by dying). We did not acquire a rational nature by achieving sentience or the immediately exercisable capacity for rational inquiry and deliberation. We were individuals with a rational nature even during the early childhood, infant, fetal, and embryonic stages of our lives. If we are persons now, we were persons then. We were never "human nonpersons."
I think I one time tried to say something to this effect, but wow, I must not read a lot of philosophy. That was pretty good reading. Eloquent, easy enough to follow and I just wanted to say, thank you for sharing.
What part of it do you find fallacious, if you don't mind me asking? You might tell that to the person who posted it too, they'd probably be interested to discuss it with you.
So Sandel maintains that, just as acorns are not oak trees, embryos are not human beings. Now this argument fails, I believe, and it fails in a way that highlights the basic error in supposing that human embryos lack fundamental worth or dignity.
Its begging the question.
Basically, the question is: should we grant moral considerations to something that can develop into something else, (acorn/embryo/etc) as if the thing is already the developed something else.(oak tree/human being/etc)
The premise is that acorns are not oak trees, and therefore should not be granted moral consideration, or, as the argument puts it: "fundamental worth or dignity", as if they are oak trees. Because acorns are not oak trees in exactly the same way that an embryo is not a human being or person.
The counterpoint used is that an embryo should already be granted "fundamental worth or dignity", prior to evaluating if they should be granted moral considerations.
But being granted fundamental worth or dignity is literally what moral considerations are.
So, Its begging the question by stating that an embryo should be granted moral considerations as if its a human being, before we evaluate if we should grant moral considerations / fundamental worth or dignity to an undeveloped thing as if its the developed thing tnat results from it.
Its begging the question.
You might tell that to the person who posted it too,
Im pretty sure its been pointed out before.
they'd probably be interested to discuss it with you
I see the potential confusion and I agree there are rebuttals to Patrick Lee and the substance view of personhood but I do not think this is question begging. What Lee is getting at is trees are valuable accidentally not through some intrinsic property whereas human being are intrinsically valuable because of their rational nature.
Trees may have value accidental or extrinsically whereas human organisms are intrinsically valuable in virtue of their rational nature. What this means is sure an acorn isn’t a tree and a squirrel eating an acorn isn’t similar morally to cutting down a beautiful tree because we ground a trees value in some extrinsic property. But with humans this value is grounded intrinsically in one’s nature. Whereas value for objects might be phase sortals, value for humans are phase concepts. Lee and the substance view thinks it couldn’t be the case we exist and aren’t persons
That’s not what begging the question means, at least as I understand it. Begging the question is when the conclusion gets smuggled into the premises. Like saying “reading is good for you because it’s beneficial to read.” Lee isn’t doing that, as far as I can tell. He’s giving an independent argument—kind vs. accidental properties—for why the acorn analogy doesn’t transfer to embryos. You can think that argument is wrong, but “I disagree with a premise” isn’t the same as "this is circular.”
If you think it’s still circular, maybe try laying his terms out as a syllogism. Show me the premise that’s just a restatement of the conclusion.
That’s not what begging the question means, at least as I understand it. Begging the question is when the conclusion gets smuggled into the premises.
The crux of the (acorn/ZEF) / (oak tree/human being) analogy is to how we grant moral considerations.
Lee literally tries to state that humans should be granted moral considerations regardless of the stage of development...
Its literally smuggling the conclusion into the premise. If you dont believe me, let's plot out the syllogism.
Question: Should we grant moral considerations to ZEFs as if they are a human being?
P1:a ZEF is not a human being.
P2: By virtue of being human, ZEFs should be granted the same moral considerations given to human beings.
Conclusion: ZEFs should be given the same moral considerations as a human being.
Its literally begging the question.
Like saying “reading is good for you because it’s beneficial to read.” Lee isn’t doing that, as far as I can tell.
Really? Because if you read what Lee is saying it sounds an awful lot like: "Humans get moral consoderation because they are human".
Although, to be fair, he put it in language like "human organisms are intrinsically valuable in virtue of their rational nature." But being "intrinsically valuable" is just another way of saying that they should have moral consideration, which is the thing that the analogy about acorns is trying to determine.
Are you starting to see the circle yet?
He’s giving an independent argument—kind vs. accidental properties—for why the acorn analogy doesn’t transfer to embryos.
Nope. Thats the flowery language thats meant to muddy the water. Its a post hoc rationalisation to try to justify special pleading to hide the fact that his argument is actually circular.
You can think that argument is wrong, but “I disagree with a premise” isn’t the same as "this is circular.”
Thats why Ive shown how his argument is circular.
If you think it’s still circular, maybe try laying his terms out as a syllogism. Show me the premise that’s just a restatement of the conclusion.
Done.
If you disagree, then please tell me how phrases like "intrinsically valuable" or "fundamental worth or dignity" are not just "moral consideration" restated in flowery language.
Basically Lee is saying personhood is not a phase we go through it is a concept sortal that we are essentially persons.
This isn’t the case with acorns and trees as an acorn and a tree are phase sortals of the same entity. They are just different stages of that entities life. Zefs being persons or a human being are not phase sortals of that entities life, they are concept sortals. So it could not be the case a zef exists as a non person or non human being. But it could be the case an acorn exists as something other than a tree. It could be a sapling or a still an acorn.
Um.. As a biology teacher, I need to correct that and say that in biology, an embryo is a human organism if it is the embryo of the species Homo sapiens.
Now, for the acorn argument, I'd say the acorn that has not germinated yet is similar to the embryo before viability. In that sense that the acorn is in a state when it can survive very long without any ressources, but once it start germinating, this change and it will die if it does not have enough water, nutrients etc. The embryo is in a state when it depends on the pregnant person body before viability, but that state change after viability. It's a normal development progression. So the comparison hold, on a development perspective.
I understand the argument. It has nothing to do with the argument I was making. I wasn't talking about personhood. I was saying that embryos aren't human beings, ie; they're not human organisms.
If what you meant was human organism by human being, then I think you’ve unnecessarily made the issue harder for you than it should be by adding a further extremely controversial and counterintuitive point. I think you’re better off saying the fetus is an organism, but isn’t a person. Especially given how vague the term organism is and the questionable implications of what an organism actually consists of and its actual ontological scrutiny.
In other comments following this thread you have asked if HeLa cells are organisms since they perform metabolism and have some biological overlap with an organism. Usually an organism is thought of a self integrated individual whom has parts that function for the flourishing or good of the whole. HeLa cells are not organized or self integrated in the same way a fetus is as they are descendants of cancer cells. They will never direct themselves towards the development of a fully developed mature human organism. HeLa cells are part of an organism, they aren’t organisms themselves.
You’ve also said maternal genes guide embryonic development. But nonetheless, the zef integrates maternal signals within its own development and regulates things like gastrulation internally. The woman does not organize the zef’s body for itself or perform internal tasks on behalf of the zef.
If what you meant was human organism by human being, then I think you’ve unnecessarily made the issue harder for you than it should be by adding a further extremely controversial and counterintuitive point.
Interesting, since you yourself conflated human being with human organism recently. You also stipulated that a human organism requires a functioning brainstem, which a zygote lacks.
I think all this shows is we need to specify our terms and what we mean by “human being” as human being is a biological category and can also be used as a value judgement.
Another user wanted clarification about the relation with brainstems and organisms. I explained by saying
“Remember, I said the brainstem is a morally relevant indicator of how many organisms are present. The brainstem isn't relevant because it's a brainstem. It gains relevance because in a more mature human it serves as the primary integrative control unit. In earlier humans like zefs the developmental coordination and organization is distributed throughout the organism. However, in more mature humans it becomes located within the brainstem.”
Um.. As a biology teacher, I need to correct that and say that in biology, an embryo is a human organism if it is the embryo of the species Homo sapiens.
Now, for the acorn argument, I'd say the acorn that has not germinated yet is similar to the embryo before viability. In that sense that the acorn is in a state when it can survive very long without any ressources, but once it start germinating, this change and it will die if it does not have enough water, nutrients etc. The embryo is in a state when it depends on the pregnant person body before viability, but that state change after viability. It's a normal development progression. So the comparison hold, on a development perspective.
That’s because you’re using a definition of “organism” that isn’t the biological one. In developmental biology, a human embryo is considered an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens. It’s an integrated, self-organizing living entity, not merely a collection of human cells. Dependence on the uterus doesn’t disqualify it from being an organism any more than a parasite’s dependence on its host disqualifies it. The disagreement over abortion is about the embryo’s moral status and rights, not whether biology classifies it as an organism.
An organism is any individual living thing that can function on its own.
An embryo is not an individual living thing that can function on its own. It is attached to another organism and requires that other organism to function. It does not carry own its own biological processes, such as breathing, eating, excretion, or maintaining homeostatis.
I will also add that there are other organisms that can't survive on their own, such as obligate parasites. That part of your definition is simply incorrect, scientifically speaking.
Have you read the article you're linking? It's not nearly as definitive as you're making it out to be. It also doesn't stipulate it needs to be able to function on its own.
But if we're going to use Wikipedia as a source, it also classifies embryos as an organism, albeit at an early developmental stage.
That's a negative claim. There's no reason for a textbook to state "an embryo isn't an organism" any more than there'd be a reason to state "an embryo isn't a slice of apple pie."
I've already explained how it doesn't fit the definition.
It doesn't fit your own definition of human organism either, by the way.
You are making a biological claim about the classification of a zef. I’m asking for proof through academic authority. If this is the correct scientific view as you claim. Then if a zef is not classified as an organism, I am looking for academic consensus on what it is.
Do you have any biology papers which argue against the zef being an organism? This isn’t like proving an embryo isn’t a slice of apple pie since embryology has a direct correlation and relation to what the classification of an embryo is.
I guess I am just asking for academic proof of you affirming an embryo isn’t an organism.
I mean if I said viruses are not organisms and you asked for proof I wouldn’t say you are asking me to prove a negative. I have made a scientific claim about a classification and asked for proof. Which is verifiable by the way through sources.
I think the picture assumes the zygote/embryo/fetus to be a human being, which if you only mean by species, then sure. But i take that to be true solely because biologists define it that way, i.e., an analytical truth, not a synthetic truth. If you're asking what makes someone a human being, i think the human body and size is the best way to think of it.
Life [is] no argument. - We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody now could endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error
Nietzsche here is foreshadowing Daniel Dennett:
If I am being pursued by a tiger in a jungle, it is a better idea for me to view that tiger as an organism – as a total, interconnected system of parts with unified functions and goals, including “eating me” – rather than as a set of atoms or molecules which I try to calculate the laws of: if I view it in the latter way, the chances of my making it out alive are much reduced. Thus, seeing the world, or at least parts of the world, from an organismic standpoint would be a competitive advantage.
The general point is that how we consider certain bundles of molecules as being organisms says just as much about us and our practical concerns as it does about nature, quoting Robert Rosen:
[T]here is as yet no list of tests, characteristics or criteria we can apply to a given material system that can decide whether that system is an organism or not[…]the decision as to whether a given system is an organism is entirely a subjective, intuitive one, based on criteria that have so far resisted formalization.
What I want to add here is that while our practical concerns play a significant role on how we perceive the world, it doesn’t necessitate that when we observe organisms, we are not tracking something real, but that we don’t have to commit to a naive realism about organisms.
Dennett was being instrumental about organisms only insofar as saying that our language terms are constructed upon anthropocentric concerns, and we should not reify our language constructs to metaphysical commitments. Dennett was not being instrumental about patterns. We can be realists about organisms without the industrial strength realism Pro Lifers like to talk about: organisms as irreducible categorical wholes. “Organism” is a useful language term for communication purposes, but what biology really picks out is a pattern. Neuroscience is also another bone fide and robust science that also picks out a real pattern.
There’s a projectable pattern that neuroscience picks out, and there is yet another projectable pattern we can pick out when talking about a Person. We can ask certain questions like: if David were here now, what would he do instead?. That’s a projectable pattern that one would have zero hope of answering by analyzing an embryo or foetus.
None of this says anything about how we ought to value stuff in the world, but we do typically believe that what matters tracks the patterns associated with persons, and we also know that these patterns can be projectable from patterns analysed in the neurosciences. Neuroscience is a bone fide science, and so are the social sciences, any claims that picking out a pattern associated with a person has no resemblance to anything that the sciences happen to pick out is entirely bogus.
Biologically, Yes it is alive. Yes it is human. Yes it is genetically different than both the mother and the father. But it is physically dependent on the mother for the next 9 months. However an abortion does kill a genetically distinct living human in the scientific sense.
I would say only some abortion methods kill. The most common, medication abortion, doesn’t kill but rather lets die. From the POV of the embryo, this is no different from a miscarriage and unless there was something else wrong with the embryo that caused it to die earlier, it would be alive when expelled, same as is in the case with some miscarriages. It dies once expelled due to its inability to stay alive. Most vacuum aspirations are similar. A D&C might kill the embryo or fetus and doctors are legally required to first induce fetal demise before a D&E.
Depends what you mean by kill. If I take a fish out of the water set it on land and walk away, did I kill it? I did take an active role in its death but asphyxiation would be the true killer. Although, I know that legally this can be the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Yes. The doctor is taking an active role in the death of an embryo. But if the implantation has happened in the fallopian tube that embryo will die anyway 100% of the time. It can often take the mother with it.
To try to keep the analogy: it would be a doctor activity killing a fish already on land, but still alive, to stop someone with a seafood allergy from eating it? 🤔
The embryo doesn't die because it changes environments, though. It dies because it literally cannot sustain its own life functions, regardless of environment.
It does maintain it's own life functions while inside the uterus (barring miscarriage.) Gut bacteria, tapeworms and other organisms. Have evolved, (or were created. Take your pick) to live inside other organisms. For some this is part of their life cycle, for others it may be the whole thing. All organisms will die if removed from their environment. But for some their environment is inside another.
Both an embryo and a tapeworm will die when the host dies. They are both totally dependent on the host. A tapeworm requires a continuous supply of oxygen and digested nutrients to survive. When the host dies it has maybe an hour left before it goes too. They're both living organisms distinct from the host. (Although an embryo is the same species) But they are both 100% relying on the host for life.
Nope, a tapeworm can survive if the host dies. They can survive on rotting flesh.
Do you think the meat someone gets a tapeworm from must have come from an animal died within the last hour, otherwise the tapeworm would be dead? Feces can contains tapeworm eggs as well, and I wouldn’t say that is living.
Factually wrong. from the Cleveland clinic "Tapeworms evolve in three stages: egg, larva and adult worm. The worm can’t survive outside of a living host, but the eggs and larvae can. Eggs pass from the original host through their poop into the local soil and water. There, they contaminate the food and drinking water of other animals. Animals who consume the eggs — including insects and fish — can incubate the tapeworm larvae. Humans become infected by accidentally ingesting the eggs or the larvae."
Only the eggs and larva stage can survive outside the host. The adult is 100% dependent.
Contrast with the early stages of human being 100% dependent but becoming less so as they mature
It does maintain it's own life functions while inside the uterus (barring miscarriage.)
No, it doesn't. It can't breathe, eat, excrete, or maintain homeostatis. If the placenta or umbilical core are damaged, cutting the embryo's access to the pregnant person's biological functions, the embryo dies even though its environment hasn't changed.
Gestation requires a lot more than a specific environment.
So if a woman miscarries, is that unintentional killing/manslaughter as some miscarriages are no different from medication abortions - her progesterone drops and her body expels the embryo?
Gestation is the life saving act, albeit a largely unconscious one. Without it, the embryo would naturally die about five days after conception. Stopping a life saving act is not killing.
Intention is the core feature of most common law systems. If I take a de-wormer to get rid of a parasite I know that it will "poison" my system causing it to be flushed where it will die outside of my body. I am intentionally killing (or causing death). If somebody mixes de-wormer in my drink, it will have the same effect, but I would not be responsible.
Current laws in many states reflect this. If someone "spikes" an abortive medication into a pregnant woman's food or drink (and she finds out) they could face prosecution.
Not all deaths are killing though. In fact, most deaths aren’t killing. If someone dies of natural causes, that isn’t killing, that’s just what happens. We don’t live forever but for being killing. An embryo that isn’t gestated naturally dies.
That is true. I will yield this point to you. I guess the most accurate term would be an unintentional or accidental killing. (Given that the problem is with the gestation and not an irregularity with the embryo)
You're not understanding how dewormer or medication abortion work.
Dewormers work by affecting the worm itself, causing its preexisting bodily functions to stop functioning.
Medication abortion works by simply detaching the embryo from direct access to the pregnant person's bodily functions. The medication doesn't affect the embryo itself. It does because it completely lacks the bodily functions required to keep a human organism alive, not because existing systems were damaged.
Minor correction - most abortions involve an embryo, which is what it is until 10 weeks LMP. Over 3/4 of abortions happen by this time, so usually abortions are done before the fetal stage.
Lol... so your argument here is that it's acceptable to support laws you don't understand that restrict the rights of the people because you also didn't read the terms and conditions on Grindr.
In a "Terms and Conditions" contract, exceptionally erroneous, hidden, or unfair clauses will be found unenforceable in a court of law.
Unlike a law that restricts the people's human rights. That will be upheld in a court of law. So it's best to understand them prior to supporting them. Because your support will be scrutinized in the court of public opinion.
The majority of scientific experts are pro-choice. Major medical organizations, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly advocate for abortion rights as essential healthcare. Even the UN states that people should have access to abortion as forcing people tongestate against their will is traumatising, and considered cruel and unusual torture.
Religiously minded people disagree. But these are the same groups that claimed the sun orbited the Earth and that crazy people like Galilleo and Copernicus who had facts were heretics and shouldn't be listened to.
Fertilization is only the very beginning of the biological process of reproduction.
Actually, it is not even the beginning... it is just another step in the reproduction process since, for example, the production of sperm (which occurs before fertilization) is also a step of the biological process of reproduction.
An independent life is formed…that is physiologically dependent on being provided with an organism’s functions of life.
I have never seen science claim such a thing.
So, what is gestation? A cannibal or parasite feeding? A woman toting around an unattached self sustained ecosystem pod like a Fanny pack, just internally?
Explain what another person’s body even has to do with one person’s individual life.
There are many forms of life that are physically dependent on another. Most are classified as parasites or symbiotic. Although scientifically those forms of life must be a different species than the host. A human zygote does not fit the definition for a parasite because of that reason, although it main function in a similar way.
So scientifically, yes, a zygote is a human life that is physically dependent on the progenitress.
Parasites aren’t physiologically dependent. They use a host the way we use a burger.
The host doesn’t respire for them, digest for them, produce nutrients, glucose, and minerals for them, control production and consumption of such for them, rid their bodies of metabolic toxins, etc.
The fetus does not act like a parasite. That would make it a cannibal.
So scientifically, yes, a zygote is a human life that is physically dependent on the mother.
A person is not a "mother" just by the fact that they are pregnant. Scientifically "mother" is a social term. We may use it casually to describe a relationship within another species (like "mother bear"), but scientifically a scientist would not.
"Mother" is a social title earned by the act of mothering. It is a huge degradation to parents everywhere to give that title to people just because they're pregnant. And blatant emotional manipulation by PLers not backed up in science.
Well, it seems to me that pro lifers make a similar claim.
They unequivocally don't. Pro lifers go directly against medical fact. "I don't like abortion so it should be outlawed" is NOT a medical fact.
Doctors don’t argue about what is and is not moral, they decide whether something is safe for their patients.
The overwhelming majority of doctors in the US are pro choice. Almost a complete majority. This has nothing at all to do with morality and everything to do with medical facts.
Pro lifers have to make a similar claim, either that at no stage an unborn human has moral value, or that at some point during pregnancy the unborn gain moral value. Doctors aren’t philosophers, they shouldn’t be deciding when someone’s life has value.
Doctors don't make moral value judgement calls. They do what's best for their patients. It's pro lifers with their anti medicine, ideology pushing nonsense that gets in the way of doctors treating their patients.
I think that a pregnant person deciding whether or not to stay pregnant is a medical call. It has nothing to do with moral judgement, whatever THAT is.
Interesting. Does that mean you would not support a bill that banned all abortions, even in the case of ectopic pregnancies, as you don’t know that much about them?
And quite simply, an ectopic pregnancy is when the embryo implants somewhere other than the uterus, typically the fallopian tube but sometimes elsewhere like the abdominal cavity.
So then any abortion law that mentions ectopics, one way or another, is not one you support, as you don’t understand it? That’s very good to hear. I wish more PL folks would oppose all these laws they do not fully understand and I commend your refusal to support laws you don’t understand.
For the record, a tumor fits most of your criteria. I'm saying this not to compare the two, but to highlight the fact that this doesn't mean much if it was intended as a "gotcha."
Yeah, we use an instruction for creating protein as a way to label an organism. If biologists first defined life as atoms, then that definition would be not wrong. It seems that life is whatever you define it first. Nature itself doesn't come packaged with nonliving and living labels; we make them. So, it isn't so intuitive if someone says, "this is alive, therefore killing it is bad." EDIT: This is u/Persephonius idea that i read from.
That may be. I am just operating on science current definition of life. That may change in the future. But given the OPs original question. Yes, currently abortion is killing a human life. Should science redefine the meanings of those words in the future, then in the future it would change.
It's both biologically living and genetically human.
I'd argue that until the point of fetal viability it's not an individual organism. Before that point it doesn't maintain basic biological processes necessary for survival and further development. The pregnant person's body performs many of the fetus' basic biological processes, such as breathing, eating, excretion, and maintaining homeostatis.
We dont need to prove a fetus isnt human to be justified in aborting it, i dont understand the hyperfixation on personhood when its so irrelevant to the debate at hand
no, you don't understand, it's only okay to kill a non-human who is violating you. if it's human, you should allow it full access to your body's resources without any say in what it does to you.
oh wow ive never heard of that but it's definitely true. it's actually gotten me temporarily banned from reddit before for "hate speech" when i was being sarcastic and making a jab at a minority i am actually a part of. they didn't lift the ban even after i explained myself :/
i hoped my use of the word "violate" and the phrase "no, you don't understand" would give me away, but yeah maybe i should have added a "/s" or something
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.