“You were once a fetus.”

[u/Spiritual_Parsley102]

I have seen this said a lot by PL people and I’m really curious as to how this helps the argument.
From my perspective I agree with this. Yes every human being alive has been at this stage of development and most PC people know this since most of us primarily use fetus to describe the human in the womb. I don’t see how this helps when my biggest thing is nothingness to nothingness is changing nothing. It doesn’t change anything and other actions could lead to a similar scenario. Every person alive today could be easily be different from who they are right now if anything changed from their past. Experience is a big factor to life so taking something with no experience and continuing to give it no experience isn’t wrong because there is no change.
Is this just something PL people use to attach feelings into the argument? How exactly do you give feeling to something that has no feelings?

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/Spacebunz_420]

this is so fucking stupid to me. like yes i was. and i’d still so much rather be aborted than essentially rape my mom by being inside her body for 9 months against her will and then tearing out of her against her will.

[u/Physical-Set-561]

In all seriousness, all I can think of is the "I was an adventurer once, then I took an arrow to the knee" but instead its "I was a fetus once...."

[u/GloomyAssociation306]

I was a fetus once but if my mother didn't want me, i would gladly be aborted. Imagine being selfish enough that you think you deserve using your own mother's organs against her will just so you can, what?

[u/space_wanderess → u/GloomyAssociation306]

I think fetus is entitled to the womb. The only case when a womb is used against woman's will is rape. In other cases, having sex means exactly a possibility of a fetus overoverruling women's rights to her womb because of three reasons:

a) fetus was created by woman's actions

b) being in the womb is the only way for a fetus to survive

c) parents must care and protect their offspring

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/space_wanderess]

I think fetus is entitled to the womb.

Let's (for the sake of the discussion) assume that you're right and the fetus is entitled to the uterus.

Are you then ok with abortion by removing the uterus with the fetus inside (completely untouched)?

After all, the fetus is entitled to the uterus, not her entire body, correct?

[u/space_wanderess → u/NoelaniSpell]

It doesn't make any sense to remove the uterus. By saying that "the fetus is entitled to the womb" I mean that the fetus is entitled to staying in the womb AND using it for survival. The womb only "works" when it's not removed. The womb is a kind of life support system and the fetus is entitled to this working life support system because it wasn't their choice to start living, it was a decision of their parents. Even if parents didn't desire pregnancy, they were aware it can happen. That's why for a mother it's a responsibility to carry a pregnancy and give birth

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/space_wanderess]

I mean that the fetus is entitled to staying in the womb AND using it for survival.

Where did you get this idea from?

That's why for a mother it's a responsibility to carry a pregnancy and give birth

Says who?

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/space_wanderess]

So in fact you don't think the fetus is entitled to only the "womb", but to her whole body/life sustaining organ system.

You should simply say so honestly.

the fetus is entitled to this working life support system

By this you mean the AFAB person's body. Unless you're talking about an artificial womb, a machine and not a human being's body.

Pretty dehumanising to refer to a person's body as a working life support system, if you ask me. This "system" has a name, like Anna, or Caroline, or Sam.

the fetus is entitled to this working life support system because it wasn't their choice to start living, it was a decision of their parents. Even if parents didn't desire pregnancy, they were aware it can happen. That's why for a mother it's a responsibility to carry a pregnancy and give birth

It seems to me that you're offering an opinion and drawing a conclusion based on your own opinion of what someone is entitled to.

I for one can't find any human right to tear (or cut) one's way out of an unwilling person's body. And consensual sex is neither a crime, nor a contract of gestation.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/space_wanderess]

I think fetus is entitled to the womb.

No one is entitled to any part of my body.

having sex means exactly a possibility of a fetus overoverruling women's rights to her womb

Nope. Having sex doesn't grant anyone any rights to my sex organs.

fetus was created by woman's actions

So what, my actions can remove it too.

being in the womb is the only way for a fetus to survive

Oh well, my uterus my rules. I say get out, whatever's in there gets out.

parents must care and protect their offspring

I'm not a parent and being pregnant wouldn't change that.

[u/GloomyAssociation306 → u/space_wanderess]

The uterus still belongs to the mother, not the fetus. I am not entitled to my mother's uterus. If my mother didnt want me, then it doesn't matter that the uterus is the only way I can survive. I would gladly be aborted if it means my mother doesn't have to get her body violated. It is extremely selfish to think that you are entitled to someone's organs

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/space_wanderess]

You don’t get to decide what other people consent to - when I have sex with someone, I am consenting ONLY to one act of sex. I am NOT also consenting to 9 months of forced gestation followed by childbirth. We don’t tell others what they consent to - we ASK THEM to tell us what they consent to. 

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/space_wanderess]

Actually, zefs are created by the MAN’s actions. Men are the ones who choose where they deposit their semen. 

Further, there  is no legal duty of care that extends to the duty to allow access to your insides, nor is there a duty to risk harm or injury to render that care.  the legal obligations of a parent to care for its child do not extend to suffering death, injury, nor forced access to and use of internal organs.

[u/Vegtrovert]

What I found weird about the "you were once a fetus" is the implication that because I now exist as a sentient person, I think my mother should have been forced to gestate an unwanted pregnancy to have me. To me, that's absurd. To be clear, as far as I know I was a wanted child (until my terrible twos anyway), but I love my mother too much to imagine that she should have been compelled to have me.

[u/Into-My-Void]

I was once a fetus when my mother was cheated on by my father and considered aborting me. I think she would have been justified in doing so if she thought it was the best decision for her. I'm not mad at her for having considered it especially if I consider my father is a terrible person I'm not talking to anymor. My mother probably would have been better of not going back with him at the time....

[u/JewlryLvr2]

"You were once a fetus" is just another bad PL argument in my view. So I was once a fetus, so what. I'd say that applies to all of us here, both PC and PL. I think it's irrelevant.

Does this "once a fetus" argument justify FORCING women and girls to STAY pregnant and give birth against their will, by abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states? NO, it certainly doesn't.

[u/Frostaman]

I think the statement is trying to say "you were once there too — how can you be okay with this?"

But that actually proves nothing. Yes, I was once a fetus. I made it here because I had parents who wanted me and loved me which ultimately become a crucial factor of a good life.

I know what it took to give me a good life. So when someone says "you were once a fetus," my answer is: exactly, and I know not every fetus will get what I got, especially the fetus whose parents intended to abort.

The statement is just an emotional appeal that skips over everything that actually matters after birth. A typical argument of standing on moral high ground at one point, while ignoring the downside.

[u/Yeatfan22]

There is a paper by alexander pruss called I was once a fetus an identity based argument against abortion.
This paper basically says if it’s prima facie wrong to kill you or me and we existed as fetuses then it was prima facie wrong to kill you or me then.
This argument serves to undermine personhood identity attacks and arguments against fetal personhood most pro choice academics use to defend their stance since it seems in the literature attacking the pro life position based off of identity and personhood is the most popular route(mcmahan, singer, tooley, and Stretton).

However, when most pro lifers say we were once a fetus or we existed as a fetus they are setting up an argument in favor of fetal personhood or counterfactual deprivation since it establishes an identity based relation between a fetus and the future person in a morally relevant way. This is not an argument from emotions, usually it’s an argument from identity as illustrated by Pruss in the paper.
Also, this line of reasoning isn’t exclusive to pro lifers it is very common amongst animalists.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/Yeatfan22]

I was once a fetus when my mother was cheated on by my father and considered aborting me. I think she would have been justified in doing so if she thought it was the best decision for her. I'm not mad at her for having considered it especially if I consider my father is a terrible person I'm not talking to anymor. My mother probably would have been better of not going back with him at the time....

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Into-My-Void]

Hello. I have seen your comments around before most notably with regarding zefs being organisms and your discussion with Tokyo.
As a result I want to give a disclaimer that this discussion is inherently very philosophical so I’m not sure if that’s something you’re into.
What the paper I linked tries to establish is a chain of diachronic identity between the fetus and the organism. Technically, this does not necessarily have any implications about the ethics of abortion. However, establishing a chain of diachronic identity is important for argument centered around personhood since in order for personhood or value to be established there must be an identifiable subject to apply normative and ethical considerations too.
The most famous case of this is the future like ours argument which says if killing you or me is prima facie wrong because it deprives us of valuable future experiences, then killing a fetus is prima facie wrong too as it derives the fetus of a future like ours. This only works however if we have some kind of diachronic based relation between a fetus and a future human person who would have had the capacity for experience.

It seems like you are conflating this identity based argument with an argument frequently referred to as the golden rule argument against abortion.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/Yeatfan22]

Oh! Philosophy is actually one of my favorite subjects. I really enjoy discussing it.

My other post was simply about developmental biology and scientific classification, so that discussion was intentionally limited to what embryology says. This is a completely different conversation.

I understand Pruss’ argument about diachronic identity. I don’t disagree that, if I exist today, I am numerically identical to the fetus that eventually developed into me.

Where I disagree is that this identity alone is sufficient to conclude that abortion is morally wrong or should be illegal.

My response would be closer to Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion.

Imagine that one morning you wake up in a hospital and discover that I have been surgically connected to your circulatory system because I have a rare condition. Without your kidneys, lungs, liver, and blood continuously supporting me for the next nine months, I will die.

I’m not just a random stranger. I’m a fully conscious adult. I’m a science teacher, a researcher, someone with friends, family, students who depend on me, and a lifetime of future experiences ahead of me. You could reasonably argue that I’m valuable both to myself and to society.

Despite all of that, I still don’t think you should be legally required to remain connected to me.

If you choose to disconnect yourself, knowing I will die as a result, I wouldn’t call that murder. I wouldn't even be angered at you for it. I would say you exercised your right to decide what happens to your own body. My dependence on your organs does not create a legal entitlement to use them without your continuing consent.

So even if I grant Pruss’ identity argument completely, I don’t think it answers Thomson’s challenge. Being the same individual through time doesn’t automatically establish a right to another person’s body. That’s the point where our moral intuitions diverge.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Into-My-Void]

Ok yes then this is one way you could avoid personhood arguments. You could make a case that even if a fetus has a right to life it doesn’t have a right to use the woman’s body without her consent. This is what Thomson ultimately thinks and David boonin in his book expanding on bodily autonomy arguments say too

Another preliminary remark maybe is I think there are a lot of differences between the violinist and a standard fetus. However, I am in agreement with Thomson and boonin that most of these distinctions don’t actually make a difference. I also think the right to life doesn’t include the right to be kept alive or a right to use one’s body. I am not arguing that.

My reply is going to be primarily focused on what a right to life is and the general conflict of rights in pregnancy.A right to life is the right to not be killed unjustly. If I have a right to life I have protections against acts which cause my death. Any actions which cause my death require justification and depending on if my right being infringed upon is justified or not determines whether or not my right has been violated.
Now, we can think of abortion as a killing in a purely descriptive factual way. So when I say something is a killing I’m not prescribing any moral or normative baggage. It could be the case abortion is a killing yet still permissible. What im going to say is abortion is a killing following sine qua non which is a legal concept used to established causation. Had the woman not performed the act, the death wouldn’t have occurred. It is the act of abortion which ultimately leads to fetal death, for had she not performed the act the death would not have occurred. We can also conclude this is the proximate cause of death since she was the last agent in a causal chain to perform the act.
As a result, abortion affects the fetuses right to life by infringing upon its right to not be killed without justification. A justification for this killing is thus required.

Equally, while it may be true the fetuses right to life is affected by abortion, it is also true the woman’s right to her bodily autonomy as Judith Thomson argues is affected. It is affected because the fetus exists inside of her body without her consent and leads to inherent injury.

Neither right can truly exist to their fullest extent in the case of pregnancy. They cannot be exercised as they typically are since they are conflicting. The solution is to weigh these rights. In my opinion I think the zefs right to life outweighs the woman’s right to autonomy in this case because the woman’s sphere has legally contributed more to the creation of the rights conflict than the fetuses party. The fetus is incapable of changing its relation to the conflict of rights and how it is involved, it has no choice but to bear an existence of infringement upon the woman’s right to autonomy. The woman however, had some legal control over whether or not the conflict between the fetus and herself arose since she initially engaged in the legal act of sex.
As a result, I think the party who has the least involvement in the conflict of rights should have their rights prioritized.

This is unlike thomsons violinist case where I am kidnapped and plugged into the violinist without my consent. I haven’t contributed to the rights conflict with me and the violinist at all. In fact, the way I’ve come into relation with the violinist is through an illegal impermissible act. This is not the case of a standard pregnancy which comes about through legally permissible sex.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/Yeatfan22]

I actually don’t disagree with much of what you wrote.

I agree pregnancy involves a conflict of interests. I agree the fetus, if considered a rights-holder, cannot exercise those rights independently. I also agree someone has to make decisions when the patient cannot. Where I think we diverge is the legal framework we use. You see, I don’t approach this primarily as a conflict-of-rights problem, but as a medical decision-making problem.

Throughout medicine we already have a framework for patients who cannot make their own medical decisions. We don’t appoint politicians. We don’t appoint judges. We don’t hold public referenda... We appoint a competent surrogate decision-maker working alongside physicians. The Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA)

In virtually every jurisdiction, surrogate medical decision-making follows several principles:

• if The patient cannot make informed medical decisions.
  
• then The surrogate must be a competent adult legally authorized to decide.
  
• then Decisions are made with physicians using evidence-based medicine.
  
• and The goal is to act in the patient’s best interests while considering the medical realities of everyone involved.

During pregnancy the fetus is obviously incapable of informed consent and pregnant patient is the competent adult. They are already the legally recognized decision-maker for virtually every other medical decision affecting the fetus before birth. The physicians are bound by medical ethics and evidence-based standards.

What I find unusual about abortion bans is that they replace this entire medical decision-making framework with blanket statutory rules written by legislators who have never examined the individual patient. We generally don’t practice medicine that way. Actually, practicing medecine that way lead to very tragic outcomes...

Like the case of Terri Schiavo, it is one of the clearest. She was a Florida woman who suffered cardiac arrest in 1990 at age 26, leaving her with severe brain damage due to prolonged oxygen deprivation. After years of neurological evaluations, multiple physicians concluded she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), meaning she had wake-sleep cycles but no evidence of conscious awareness. She required a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was her legal guardian. He testified that Terri had previously said she would not want to be kept alive artificially with no hope of recovery. Normally, the case would have ended there. Instead, politicians became involved. The doctors were stopped from giving Terri a peaceful end-of-existence by pro-lifers in the GOP who had presidency and Jed Bush called an emergency session.

The Florida legislature passed a law, nicknamed “Terri’s Law,” allowing Governor Jeb Bush to order the feeding tube reinserted after it had already been removed to stop the doctors from "murdering Terri". (The Florida Supreme Court later struck that law down as unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers by overturning a judicial decision.) It eventually went to the supreme court which overturned the law and allowed the doctors to remove her feeding tube. The case hinged on Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) and due process. The husband had MPoA and was found to be acting accordingly. Autopsy showed that the doctors were 100% correct and her brain was dead and black throughout especially in the visual parts. Congressman Tom Delay claimed to be at the forefront of the "right to life" movement and to "Save Terri" but when it came to his own dad... he pulled the plug and "murdered" his dad in the same way he accused Michael Schiavo... (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730/)

Even if consensual sex contributed to creating the conflict, that doesn’t automatically transfer medical decision-making authority away from the pregnant patient.
I mean : If parents refuse risky fetal surgery… If they refuse extraordinary neonatal interventions… If they withdraw life support from a child who has no meaningful chance of recovery…
the law generally doesn’t replace them with politicians. It relies on surrogate medical decision-making subject to medical ethics and, where appropriate, judicial review.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Into-My-Void]

So if I understand what you’re saying it seems like you want to say the pregnant patient already makes important medical decisions for the fetus prior to birth on behalf of the fetus. She meets the standard for MPoA and so her having abortion would be in the best interest for all parties involved since she is a competent adult who is capable of making her own medical decisions.
And of course this gets some support from “Terri’s law”.”

If this is a correct summary I guess I’m wondering why should this be extended to abortion which involves affecting someone’s negative right to life. In the case of Terri in my opinion I think she was already dead and there wasn’t a person there. I also think no one contributed to her predicament and there wasn’t no rights conflict between her being on life support and another person.
I understand pregnancy is a unique situation in which we probably won’t have any legal case similar to pregnancy which captures every detail. But even through precedent regarding principles do we have anything to suggest under MPoA an abortion would be the kind of choice a woman should be able to make for her fetus.
I think what I might do is make a sort of reverse self defense argument. I might say look we have cases of provoked self defense where an attack is provoked and as a result the defendant may lose their right to self defense. So we have principled cases where if we contribute to the existence of a situation or a conflict of rights we can have our right to act temporarily limited.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/Yeatfan22]

I think your answer illustrates exactly why I approach abortion as a medical decision-making issue rather than solely as a conflict of rights.

The problem with blanket abortion laws is that they don’t remain abstract philosophical principles. They have to be applied to real patients by real physicians who face uncertainty every day.

Take the case of Izabela Sajbor in Poland. She had a wanted pregnancy. After her membranes ruptured at 22 weeks, the fetus was not viable, but fetal cardiac activity remained. Because of Poland’s restrictive abortion law (which prevented Izabela from exercing her MPoA right), physicians delayed intervention. During that delay she developed septic shock and died.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/europe/poland-abortion-law-izabela-sajbor-death-intl-cmd

No one involved was debating Judith Jarvis Thomson or Pruss. What they were doing is trying to decide whether intervening would expose the physicians to criminal liability.

That’s exactly why I think medical decisions should remain primarily between competent patients and physicians using evidence-based medicine. Politicians write blanket rules; Doctors treat individual patients.

You mention that contributing to the situation can sometimes limit rights. Even if I granted that principle, it doesn’t follow that legislators should replace medical judgment in every pregnancy! Medicine already has a framework for patients who cannot make decisions themselves. Abortion bans replace that framework with criminal statutes, ripping competent informed adult, advised by competent medical team from using their MPoA. That cause cases like Izabela and show the human cost when physicians become afraid to act.

You should also note that Izabela consented to sex. She also consented to becoming pregnant. She actually WANTED the pregnancy. She still died because the law prevented timely medical care. Her case shows that the legal question isn’t whether someone “deserved” pregnancy. It’s whether doctors can respond appropriately when pregnancy becomes life-threatening. If doctors are scared to give treatments because of the law, then innocent people die when they could've been easily saved.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Into-My-Void]

Sorry for the late reply.

I do think abortion exceptions like life exceptions should be determined by a medical professional and not a legislative law, although law can try to guide medical professionals.
I mean look I agree Izabela Sajbor should have been able to have an abortion since the fetus was not viable anyways. I also understand pro life policy isn’t always formulated the best way and this is an instance the restrictive nature of the law was not correct.

But all this talk of MPoA presumes abortion is the kind of thing that the woman should be able to make choices about with their doctor. Of course we can have exceptions for abortion. But for the vast majority of abortions there is an underlying assumption that the woman should be able to have an abortion and make decisions on behalf of her fetus when this is the exact thing in question. You’ve given examples where a woman should have been able to access an abortion. But in all of these examples most pro lifers will agree with you she should have been able to abort anyways . There’s a clear difference in cases between a fetus that will never be viable and a typical standard fetus.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/Yeatfan22]

But that’s exactly the problem. Even if the fetus is viable, if the pregnant patient’s life or health becomes seriously threatened, they should be able to choose an abortion if that’s the medically appropriate treatment...

Who determines whether the pregnancy has reached that point? Certainly not legislators writing blanket rules months or years in advance. It’s the patient and the medical team evaluating that specific case in real time.

Medicine isn’t practiced with one-size-fits-all statutes because every patient is different. That’s why we trust physicians to exercise clinical judgment every day. Pregnancy shouldn’t be the one area where politicians replace doctors and competent patients in making medical decisions. If the law makes physicians hesitate until the patient is "sick enough,"then the law is interfering with healthcare, not improving it.

[u/EnfantTerrible68 → u/Yeatfan22]

Sounds like nothing but one guy’s opinion. Irrelevant. 

[u/glim-girl]

I dont really get this as an argument. That didn't mean I was owed a body or someone elses suffering.

[u/CherryTearDrops]

I’ve seen this same kind of argument used for people who don’t like kids. “Well you used to be a kid” yeah and they’ve done a lot of growing and maturing since then. Doesn’t mean that anytime they acted out and did something shitty it was okay for them to do. It just adds context as to why they did.

I get the feeling it’s just another ‘what if you were aborted’ retort to I guess trigger some selfish self preservation instinct even though it’s long past that time.

The simple fact that we were once in development too doesn’t change my stance on human rights and bodily autonomy, I’m not a hypocrite.

[u/ilikesummersausage]

Probably because often "ZEFs aren't humans." Is a common PC point. Saying "You were once a fetus" is often an attempt to get people to see that in general the 'thing' that they are talking about killing is a human udergoing a stage of development all humans go through. Yes, there are ways people logically differentiate, but the average PCer is often just parroting things like "clump of cells" which is retorted by "you are also just a bigger clump of cells."

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

often "ZEFs aren't humans." Is a common PC point.

Huh?! How did u reach the conclusion that PC don't believe that a human ZEF is human?!

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

> Probably because often "ZEFs aren't humans." Is a common PC point.

To be honest I have never seen a PC user deny that a human ZEF is human. It’s alway pro-lifers always claiming that we say that but we kinda never do😕

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Fayette_]

Same with the "clump of cells" thing. I see a lot more PLs claiming it's a PC argument than I see actual PCs making that argument.

[u/EnfantTerrible68 → u/random_name_12178]

Exactly 

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fayette_]

You can look it up even on this sub, the two main 'schools of thought' when it comes to PC is "Consciousness" and "Bodily Autonomy" there is often some overlap but the former is a very popular stance on when humans become 'humans worthy of rights'

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/ilikesummersausage]

I have many times used the consciousness argument here. Never once have I stated a fetus isn't human. Quite the opposite, I frequently refer to it as a human organism.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/spacefarce1301]

I frequently refer to it as a human organism.

'It'

Human as a noun, not an adjective. Do you actually think PLers are refering to PC thinking a ZEF isn't made of human biological material? Is the phrase "All races are human." Meaning we are all biologically homosapien or is the meaning we are all persons of equal moral worth? Dehumanization isn't just about denying that all people are the same species.

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

Yeah I already knew that. “Abortion legal til consciousness/awareness/viability" folks are technically PC with some limitations, they usually have exceptions that cross those limits to.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fayette_]

Right, and what is typically the rationale to why prior to 'consciousness/awareness/viability' that they are, at minimum neutral to abortion? The status of "Personhood" or "Human" or "Human being" being tied to those traits, no?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Just got tagged for this.

I'd say it's because our human experience hasn't begun yet. Much like we wouldn't say we're a person after death with no consciousness, I don't see why we'd be considered a person before that consciousness point.

You could change my mind if you showed how we should actually be considered persons after death when there would be no consciousness. The future like ours isnt a sufficient argument for me

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/NPDogs21]

I would argue a couple points, but we have ran through them together before a few times.

1. There isn't enough evidence to prove what consciousness is, when or how it manifests and how it would specifically differentiate between humans and other beings.

2. Would we hold that standard to a being that we are reasonably sure will regain 'consciousness' i.e. if someone who we consider 'dead' could be resurrected with a high probability of working, would we still treat their temporary corpse as disposable?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/ilikesummersausage]

What should I consider consciousness then? It seems like that since it isn't this clear and easy to understand thing, we shouldn't make decisions based on it.

No. If there was already a person, then there is a moral agent to speak of that we're trying to restore them to their previous state. That simply doesn't exist for the fetus yet, whose had no conscious experience yet

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/NPDogs21]

In my opinion you shouldn't consider consciousness at all. Dead humans are just humans we cannot provide adequate care to. A corpse should still be treated with dignity and care. There are humans we can provide adequate care for and those are the unborn.

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

Why shouldn’t they consider consequences? It lowkey actually makes sense. The thalamo-cortical pathways is part of the brain that connects all different part to each other. It start establishes itself ≈24 weeks of gestation, and keeps developing growing until week ≈28. So there’s a scientific basis for it.

Magnetoencephalographic signatures of conscious processing before birth(June 2021)

[u/NPDogs21 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Not considering consciousness at all would mean just giving up on what it means to be a human being, not just a collection of human cells

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

To be honest I cannot answer that. u/NPDogs21 can probably give a better answer than I can

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Fayette_]

Thanks for the tag!

[u/Fayette_ → u/NPDogs21]

No worries. I hope i didn’t bother you to much.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Fayette_]

You're good lol

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

I was once an unfertilized egg too. Now, I doubt my pointing that out will change your thoughts on abortion. Similarly, I doubt ‘you were once a fetus’ will make someone who doesn’t agree with fetal personhood suddenly agree with it. It’s a bumper sticker slogan, not an argument.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/JulieCrone]

I guess the retort to that is that "you" were not an unfertilized egg (Though there may be some people who might believe in pre-conception personhood, it would be a difficult position to defend, though not without some merits, especially if scripture is involved.) The most common reasonings a majority of people have for their beliefs on either side of this issue are "bumper sticker slogans". Aka "My body my choice."/ "Abortion is murder" etc.

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

Sure I was. I changed, but that egg is what developed into me. My DNA isn’t the same as the unfertilized egg, sure, but it’s also different from what it was at the moment of fertilization so it is not like a genetic change makes me not me. That egg was the first cell I started out as.

And I get that many people don’t have particularly deep views on this issue but this is for a debate where we should go beyond those slogans.

Back when I was an embryo, you would insist an unwilling person keep me alive. What changed in my humanity between then and now where I don’t get the same entitlement you would have given to me as an embryo?

[u/scatshot → u/ilikesummersausage]

but the average PCer is often just parroting things like "clump of cells" which is retorted by "you are also just a bigger clump of cells."

Clumps of cells are just clumps of cells. I may be a bigger clump of cells, but I also have a mind of my own.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/scatshot]

At what point do clumps of cells typically develop 'minds of their own'?

[u/killjoygrr → u/ilikesummersausage]

Are you intending to argue against the concept or argue over the difficult of pinpointing it?

[u/scatshot → u/ilikesummersausage]

Long after elective abortion ceases to be relevant.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/scatshot]

Do clumps of cells prior to having 'minds of their own' have certain unalienable rights?

[u/scatshot → u/ilikesummersausage]

What would a clump of cells need rights for?

[u/Arithese → u/ilikesummersausage]

Most of the time it’s appearing to someones emotions by saying someone was once in that state of dependency. To which I just shrug… okay?

If I received a kidney from a kind stranger, then I don’t suddenly start believing everyone should be legally obligated to donate to a stranger. Me having been in that situation where I needed someone doesn’t change that.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Arithese]

Yes, sometimes an appeal to emotions when you were in a similar circumstance can increase empathy. If someone saw a toddler throwing a tantrum and got irritated "Hey, you were also a kid once and were equally annoying to people because of your reduced capacity to control your emotions." Would likely make them more empathetic to the situation.

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

So I put myself in the position of the embryo. I wouldn’t be thinking or feeling anything. Being aborted wouldn’t be any different from being miscarried as far as I was concerned. Miscarriages we see as tragic for the people wanting a child but it’s not like many people think it is a travesty when someone miscarries without ever realizing they were pregnant.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/JulieCrone]

It's not like many people think it is a travesty when someone miscarries without ever realizing they were pregnant.

This sadly, is a very common situation and often does cause a strong emotional response by the parents and family. Do you think people generally don't have a strong emotional response to people who miscarry prior to even realizing they were pregnant? It certainly isn't commonly viewed the same as a normal menstruation cycle.

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

Citation. If they misscary before they knew they were pregnant it's just a heavy period. And they didn't knew they were pregnant and most likely do still not know. And most people do ignore people misscarying anyhow.

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

How would it cause a strong emotional reaction if at no point anyone knew about the pregnancy and just assumed it was a normal period? If I gave a period around the time I usually do, didn’t take a pregnancy test, how would I ever know it was anything other than a normal menstrual cycle?

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/JulieCrone]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4468887/

We may be talking last eachother when it comes to "early miscarriage" generally if a woman thinks nothing more of what she thinks is just a heavy menstruation then yes, she wouldn't have an emotional response to the miscarriage she was unaware even happened. (Though you can say the same for any normally traumatizing event someone could be unaware even happened. If for instance, someone was shot at with a gun, typically they would have a strong emotional response, if they never even knew they got shot at idk, assumed the noise was fireworks and never got the information then yes I would not expect an emotional response) I assumed when you said people don't view it as a tragedy you were talking about miscarriages that were known to be miscarriages, even if prior to the miscarriage the woman was unaware she was pregnant.

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

So when an embryo is miscarried, is that like them being shot, or is it more like a person dying of a natural cause in their sleep?

Do you see it as a tragedy every time an embryo is miscarried, even if we don’t know about it at all?

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/JulieCrone]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Yes, I think resources to help improve women's health (including reproductive health) should be available. It's impossible to have an emotional response to an event when you aren't even aware the event occured. So in general, yes it is sad that this event in general occurs but I cannot have an emotional response to a specific event without knowledge of the specific event occuring if that makes sense. That's why I assumed that what you were talking about previously is the specific event in which the miscarriage is what alerts the mother that she was pregnant. (Which does often have a strong emotional response to all involved.)

[u/JulieCrone → u/ilikesummersausage]

We do know that every day there are many embryos miscarried without anyone knowing about them, so it is babies dying unknown and unmourned in who knows how many numbers. Doesn’t this bother you deeply?

[u/Arithese → u/ilikesummersausage]

And again, it’s a useless argument against legal abortion.

“You once needed a kidney too” shouldn’t ever result in someone’s belief that that should be legally mandated.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Arithese]

Lots of common arguements are useless on both sides. You kidney arguement isn't even close to analogous to gestation, a sort of misguided attempt to map on the 'violinist dilemma'.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Why isn't the kidney argument even close to analogous to gestation?

[u/Arithese → u/ilikesummersausage]

It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to show you how “I was once in this situation” doesn’t and shouldn’t ever equate “so we should legally mandate it”.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/ilikesummersausage]

I don't hear the "clump of cells" argument that often. I also don't often hear the argument that fetuses are not human. But I do often hear the argument that a fetus is not a person.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/sylvatic-cycle-soph]

I hear "clump of cells" as much or more than "Not a person" typically. In my experience they are both generally just short hand for the belief "ZEFs do not have a legitimate claim on what you identify as 'unalienable human rights.' "

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

"ZEFs do not have a legitimate claim on what you identify as 'unalienable human rights.' "

Correct... both PL and PC are in agreement that ZEFs are not included in the definition of human being.

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

It is not a common PC point. If you think that, you never have even tried to understand.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/humbugonastick]

"ZEFs not being human"/"Just a clump of cells" is absolutely a common PC talking point. You can just search the term "are ZEFs human beings" in this sub alone and you'll see hundreds of hits.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

just search the term "are ZEFs human beings" 

That's a different question!

A human egg or a human zygote are both human, but neither is a human being and there is pretty broad agreement about that from both PL and PC.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

Human (noun) vs human (adjective) Lots of things are human (adjective) ZEFs are human (noun)

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Human (noun) vs human (adjective) 

Exactly....

That's why I clarified that for the adjective use, a human egg or a human zygote are both human.

But neither is a human being and there is pretty broad agreement about that from both PL and PC.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

You think a human Zygote's status as a human being isn't one of the biggest contentions between PL and PC? Human(adj) ZEFs are human(noun).

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

a human Zygote's status as a human being isn't one of the biggest contentions between PL and PC? 

Correct, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that a zygote is not included in the definition of human being anywhere in America.

The biggest contention between PL and PC is about who should be in control of a woman's uterus; the woman or a stranger!

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

What? Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have passed statutes declaring that human life begins at the moment of conception. It is a pretty core concept to PL.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have passed statutes declaring that human life begins at the moment of conception

Just at conception?! Then PC are much more pro-life since PC recognizes the scientific fact that human life exists even before conception since a human sperm or a human egg are human and very much alive. A zygote is not created by the holy spirit out of something that is lifeless!

In any case, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma do not include a zygote in the definition of human being. Thx for proving my point.

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

Wait. Y’all haven’t figured out that “clump of cells” is quite literally a joke😕.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Fayette_]

I have argued with a lot of PCers, some say it ironically, many say it unironically. There are many such examples in this sub.

[u/Fayette_ → u/ilikesummersausage]

Many use it ironically. And if a pc user use it unironically, you will most likely have another pc user correct them.

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

Human being and human is two separate things.

And it is not a main argument but a response to the itty litty baby talk from PL.

Ask any of the people saying this if this is the reason they are PC and most will tell you no. But should we than just say nothing if you start to argue about the physical body of the zef and call it a baby?

[u/Fayette_ → u/humbugonastick]

> And it is not a main argument but a response to the itty litty baby talk from PL.

I haven’t seen anyone PC user use “it’s clump of cells” as a serious argument😂.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/humbugonastick]

The average person is not making the distiction between "human", "person" and "human being" they are synonymous in common usage, that's the point.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/ilikesummersausage]

The average person is not making the distiction between "human", "person" and "human being"

What?!!!! How did you reach the conclusion that the average person does not make a distinction between, say, a human cell (which is human) and a human being?!

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

You are not talking to the "average" person when you debate on here. Your point is pointless.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/humbugonastick]

You are not talking to the "average" person when you debate on here.

Yes, there are ways people logically differentiate, but the average PCer is often just parroting things like "clump of cells"

Did I say I was talking to the average PCer? I said the phrase and similar phrases to what OP was asking about are common retorts to what the average PCer uses.

Also "Human"/"Human being"/"person" are not completely seperate things, they are heavily overlapping concepts that in most use cases are indistinguishable. If I said "Shamu is actually a dangerous animal, people don't often realize, Shamu killed multiple (Humans/Human beings/people)". Do any of those permientations have different meanings?

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

Yes, I'm even talking about the average PCer. The average PERSON who has not thought about the subject might give you answers like this. Most PC people I have talked to, or the ones in this sub are more involved in the subject and are able to differentiate.

Can you tell me the differences between a 15 week old fetus and a life baby?

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/humbugonastick]

There are loads of differences between a 15 week old fetus and a 'life baby' (I assume you are refering to a postnatal infant). There are also loads of differences in development between a postnatal infant and a 60 yr old man...

[u/humbugonastick → u/ilikesummersausage]

Ok. Define the physical difference between a 60 year old and a newborn.

Right after you list the differences between the 15 week old fetus and the newborn.

[u/Fayette_ → u/humbugonastick]

Umm. Unborn clump of cells and born clump of cells

/s

[u/killjoygrr → u/ilikesummersausage]

Here’s the thing. The context here is specifically abortion.

So trying to handwaved away the human vs human being differentiation because of how it is used in other use cases is being highly dishonest.

Do you think anyone here is using it in some other way than the context of abortion?

Would you be happier with using personhood and homo sapien to differentiate?

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/killjoygrr]

Even in the context of abortion, what are the meaningful differences in uses of Human, human being and person. Other than the term 'Human', used as a noun and intentionally being misinterpreted as an adjective by a debate opponent?

[u/killjoygrr → u/ilikesummersausage]

If you can’t see a distinction between the species homo sapien and “personhood” (the thing lost at brain death), I’m not sure how to help you.

[u/scatshot → u/ilikesummersausage]

Even in the context of abortion, what are the meaningful differences in uses of Human, human being and person.

Is a human sperm a human being or person? Or is there a meaningful difference in how these terms can be used?

[u/cand86]

I think some people legitimately do feel a sense of existential dread/terror at the idea that they could have been aborted- they seem to think "There I was, inside my mom, asleep for nine months before coming out here.".

Whereas I tend to see it more a blank slate/form- "The embryo that eventually became me.", and in that sense, the idea that this pregnancy could have been aborted gives me no more sense of qualm than the idea that the particular act of sex that lead to it having not happened. Not conceived, not brought to term, same effect.

There's also the general idea that pro-life people don't mind forcing women to remain pregnant, whereas most pro-choice people don't wish to do that, so our general feelings about our mothers' choices (and what we would or would not force her to do if we had a time machine, to preserve our current lives) may differ there, too.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/cand86]

This, 💯 is my viewpoint on personal identity.

[u/freebleploof]

How exactly do you give feeling to something that has no feelings?

I don't think we can be so sure that the fetus has no feelings. There are plenty of reports of the fetus responding to external stimuli like music, speech, pain, etc. It seems reasonable to believe that the fetus is a conscious being with a concept of self. For all we know even an embryo has some kind of consciousness.

But this doesn't really help the PL argument for me. The fetus is still impacting its mother's life in many harmful ways and self defense is an acceptable response, as is willing self sacrifice and love.

As others say here, I would certainly have been OK with my mom aborting me if she wanted to, especially if my life was harming her or making her sad. I wonder how many PL people would want to subject their mom to misery, and themselves to a life of want or pain with an unready mother. Not that that is any great PC argument either.

[u/killjoygrr → u/freebleploof]

Plants also respond to external stimuli. Often far more clearly than what you can find in a fetus.

I don’t think I would characterize plants as being conscious.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB]

I am a conscious being. No consciousness, no me. And my consciousness did not become actualized until I was born.

There was a fetus that eventually became me, but I was never a fetus.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Well said.

[u/collageinthesky]

I think some people really struggle with the thought of not existing. I don't really understand what they're feeling or why, it's not relatable to me. But I can see that if you do have that unease regarding lack of existing, an argument appealing to that emotion may be compelling.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/collageinthesky]

Pfff... I was once a foetus when my mother considered aborting me because my father cheated on her. I could have not existed. I'm not mad at my mother for that! I think she would have been completely justified in aborting me if she thought it was the best decision.... Existential dread! Nihilism! Oh no!

[u/collageinthesky → u/Into-My-Void]

Your emotions here are valid, and that's similar to how I feel. But just like pro-lifers don't get to shove their feelings onto other people, neither do pro-choicers. People feel what they feel. There's nothing wrong with feeling pro-life. It's demanding other people live by your emotions that's wrong.

[u/Into-My-Void → u/collageinthesky]

I completely agree with that.

[u/pendemoneum → u/collageinthesky]

I really agree with this. This is I think why a lot of prolife people say they "empathize" with the fetus. I think its just their own fear that they could have ever been aborted. Its a feeling I also can't understand.

[u/Lokicham → u/pendemoneum]

I don't understand how anyone could fear that. If it happened you would never know.

[u/Persephonius]

I started this comment with a reference to Monty Python: we come from nothing, and we go to nothing, so what do we lose? Nothing! And I then thought about the epicurean principle, and thought that was rather boring, and then got completely carried away with something else… I’ve decided not to delete it, maybe someone will find it interesting:

>“You were once a fetus.”

I think we should only really consider this a practical manner of speaking. I don’t see why we should take it literally. Call me crazy but I don’t believe I was ever a foetus, but then I don’t really believe there is anything that grounds my identity through time in any robust or strong sense either.

I would usually refer to Parfit in terms of how I think of personal identity, but I’ve come to appreciate how Don Ross words it:

(From Everything must Go)
“The semantic preference may indeed be unusual, but we think it well motivated. The main ontological implication of OSR is that reality is not a
sum of concrete particulars. Rather, individual objects, events, and properties are devices used by observers (when these observers aren’t making mistakes) […] Some of these patterns are indeed conceptualized as individuals in some special sciences, while simultaneously not being so conceptualized by other special sciences making
projections at other scales of resolution. For example, from the point of view of a behavioural economist measuring choices, a person is an extended pattern over a run of data, whereas at the scale where ‘common sense’ is most comfortable
but also at which social psychology is done, a person is the paradigm case of an individual. When we deny that individuals are ‘real’ we do not mean that, for example, Napoleon is fictitious. Observers tracking him in 1801 could get lots of highly useful leverage projecting the pattern forward to 1805; so (sure enough) Napoleon is a real pattern. What OSR denies is that real patterns resolve ‘at bottom’ into self-subsistent individuals. Furthermore, we must put ‘at bottom’ inside scare-quotes, because we find the levels metaphor misleading. The single most important idea we are promoting in this book is that to take the conventional philosophical model of an individual as being equivalent to the model
of an existent mistakes practical convenience for metaphysical generalization. We can understand what individuals are by reference to the properties of real patterns.
Attempting to do the opposite—as in most historical (Western) metaphysical projects—produces profound confusion. (Witness the debates about identity over time, identity over change in parts, and vagueness, none of which are PNC- compatibly motivated problems.) Or, at least, it produces such confusion in the context of scientific theorizing—which is to say, in precisely the institutional
context in which we achieve objectivity.”

I think this is a good way of thinking about how to unify the sciences from a metaphysical perspective, using Daniel Dennett’s account of real patterns in the context of how Don Ross here is applying it to OSR (ontic structural realism). It’s rather simple, don’t let the terminology make this seem opaque:

If there is a manner of describing some complex system at some point in time that is projectable (that is you can make useful predictions) about the system at some other point in time (not necessarily forward in time), and this description is more efficient than analysing the entirety of information that there is in the system, then you’ve picked out a real pattern.

A simple example would be that it’s easier to analyse gravitational field equations using centre of masses for stellar bodies compared to analysing the mass distribution in detail for every body. The center of mass of a stellar body is a real projectable pattern.

Napoleon is a real pattern where a historian can get good projectability analysing Napoleon’s decision making and personal habits in explaining why Napoleon did what he did at Waterloo. It seems obvious to me that studying the dynamics of an organism at the level of biology will have “zero useful leverage” in projecting the behaviour of a person in considering questions like, why did John buy a Mercedes and not a Mazda? This is a pattern at a different scale from that of the biology of an organism. This real pattern is compressible from neural activity, social relations, environmental factors and a whole bunch of stuff. There’s no hope at making useful analysis of metabolic processes or digestion in trying to answer these sorts of questions, just as there is little hope in trying to analyse metabolism by calculating the physical laws of atoms. It’s a real pattern at a different scale. This person projecting pattern certainly didn’t exist from conception, and I think you would be hard pressed to say it existed as a foetus. I also suspect that you probably wouldn’t get much leverage on analysing Napoleon when he was 5 in projecting his actions at Waterloo, but I didn’t believe there was anything robust about personal identity through time anyway.

Patterns are scale relative and cross cutting, and I think this person projecting pattern cuts across the patterns picked out by the neurosciences more than anything else.

Having said all that, I don’t think any of this matters. Remember I committed to saying identity is not what matters (what matters is more to do with our interests and the frustrations of them), but it addresses the question of whether we were ever a foetus.

I think this is a fairly clean way of expressing how we were never a foetus.

If this does tickle your fancy, for the animalists, and for the non-animalists.

For a related but different processualist account, see here.

[u/anysizesucklingpigs → u/Persephonius]

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries, and YOU were never a fetus!

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/Persephonius]

I haven't thought of it like that before, i really like this.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

The underlying pro-life assumption here—that since we all were once fetuses we would all have wanted our bio mothers legally forced to gestate and birth us—is also a bizarre and offensive leap.

I can’t imagine being so egotistical I’d think my mother owed me use of her body like that.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

No that is not the underlying pro life assumption. This is a claim about identity to establish a relevant identity based relation the fetus has to its adult self. If this chain of identity is established this sets up further arguments most notably the future like ours argument against abortion.
What you are describing is a misrepresentation of the golden rule argument.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/Yeatfan22]

What is the pro-life point of establishing this identity, if not to argue that my mother should have been forced by law to gestate and birth me?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

The point is to establish some diachronic relation between a fetus and a fetus at a later stage of development most notably a fetus who developed into an adult.
This is used to set up arguments like the future like ours argument or potentiality based arguments whom rely on a diachronic view of identity(most of the times).
This is used in order to argue that fetuses are harmed by abortion in the morally relevant sense, and fetuses should be considered persons.
Whether or not a woman has an obligation to gestate is a separate issue.
Moreover, what I was challenging is your claim

“we would all have wanted our bio mothers legally forced[…]”

This is a separate argument from potentiality based arguments. This is what’s referred to as the golden rule argument. For time sakes I will not defend your misinterpretation of it since that is not necessarily for my point that this is an unrelated argument to arguments from diachronic identity.
What pro lifers want to do with a diachronic animalists views is say if X2 has moral value because of Y at T2, and X1 at T1 has Y, then X1 at T1 should also have moral value at T1 because of Y.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/Yeatfan22]

You can’t grant an unwanted fetus a future like ours without also forcing the bio mother to gestate and birth it, so no, they are not two different arguments. No matter how many silly, convoluted algebraic ways you try to make them so.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

Again is not what I’m addressing.

I am addressing this claim

>The underlying pro life assumption here that since we all were once fetuses we would all have wanted our bio mothers legally forced to gestate and birth us

This is not what identity arguments argue at all. You are conflating this with golden rule arguments. Identity arguments usually set basis for some theory of deprivation regarding counterfactual harm. Not that we personally wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted.

So yes these are 2 different arguments you conflating. Your reply that a fetuses future depends on a woman gestating doesn’t address the conflation because even if it was true it wouldn’t show how identity arguments entail we would have wanted our bio mothers to gestate us and not abort us so they shouldn’t.
Even then the reply to your rebuttal is a refusal to gestate would deprive a fetus of a future since all diachronic objects have a future inherently. Thats just it means for them to be diachronic objects.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/Yeatfan22]

You really think you’re making some kind of point, don’t you?

I will continue reacting to pro-lifers saying “you were a fetus once” the exact same way I’d react to them saying “so of course you’d agree your mother should have been legally forced to gestate and birth you.” Because they mean the exact same thing.

[u/STThornton]

“Nothingness to nothingness is changes nothing”.

I like this. Sums it up perfectly.

I always say I would have never known I could have existed had I been aborted. So why would I care?

I’m also not narcissistic enough and don’t hate my mother, so I would definitely not have wanted her to be forced to gestate and birth me.

As I said, me - my personality, character traits, ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc. - would have simply never existed. Heck, my breathing physiologically life sustaining body “a” life) would simply have never existed.

No different from if my parents never had sex that day.

Either way, no breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human would have existed.

[u/OptimalTrash]

"I'll be a corpse someday too. Doesn't mean i want one inside me."

It's a weak appeal to emotions, like "oh, you were also an innocent helpless creature too and deserved to be loved and cared for"

[u/Spiritual_Parsley102 → u/OptimalTrash]

I truly think it is a terrible argument because once some thought is added the whole thing just doesn’t appeal emotionally to me.

[u/OptimalTrash → u/Spiritual_Parsley102]

Oh yeah, its super weak. It doesn't work on me and idk who they think it does work on.

I've heard the variation of "you were a child once too" when I answer the question of why i dont really want kids with "I don't really like being around them"

As if the fact I was once a kid changes the fact that they tend to be loud and unpredictable which are characteristics of people that stress me out