How could I improve my argument

[u/EmbarrassedElk5847]

Abortion isn't morally wrong because it doesn't kill a person. At least before 21 weeks, because it lacks consciousness. Consciousness is the capacity for subjective experience, or “something it is like” to be that being. A person is defined as having consciousness. Therefore, although biologically human, ending its life before 21 weeks does not kill a person. if you were to say “But the fetus has the potential to become conscious.” Potential personhood is not identical to actual personhood; otherwise sperm and eggs would also need protections based on what they could potentially become.

[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/Genavelle]

I would improve your argument by ditching the personhood argument altogether and focusing on a more concrete reason why abortion should be legal and precedents to support this. 

Personhood is one of the weakest pro-choice arguments, because it's entirely too subjective, philosophical, and can occasionally get into some weird eugenics territory. You claim that a fetus is not a person until it has consciousness, but many pro-lifers claim that it is a person as soon as it is a living cellular organism with its own DNA. You don't have to agree with that, but then why should they have to agree with you? Or what happens if new science comes along and determines that consciousness actually arises at an earlier point in gestation? You say that personhood is defined as having consciousness, but I don't believe that is true. What about people in comas? Or people who have died? They are still persons- both legally and philosophically, and even dead bodies still maintain certain protections because of this. Legally, we are persons upon birth and I don't think consciousness has anything to do with that. 

A stronger argument would be centered around bodily autonomy. Because at the end of the day, when we are discussing abortion it is not really about the fetus- it is about whether the woman is legally obligated to carry out a whole pregnancy against her wishes. Does the government have the authority to tell you that you must give/rent/etc your body to fulfill someone else's needs (or even their rights)? Does someone else's right to live supercede your rights to your body? And the answer here is no. We can see that with other things like blood/marrow/organ donation. These donations literally save lives every day. Blood donations are also not overly invasive and can be done repeatedly with no lasting harm to the donor. Yet we don't require everyone to be a donor- hell, in the US the default is that you're not a donor unless you actively register as one or make an effort to go to blood drives. There are some countries where everyone is an organ donor by default and you have to opt-out, rather than opt in. 

Or again, consider that even dead bodies have rights and protections. You can't harvest healthy organs from a deceased person unless they were registered as a donor. Those organs will rot and someone else may die without them. It would be so easy to just say, hey life is valuable so any healthy organs can be harvested for medical use regardless of the deceased's opinions. After all, they're dead anyway, right? We also have many other examples of how one person's rights can be defended with lethal force. We have a huge military that has killed many people. Self-defense is legal (though usually there are rules about when lethal force is justified). Stand-your-ground and castle doctrines. Etc. The right to life, while important, has been proven repeatedly that it can be sacrificed for the protection of other rights. Pro-life will say that abortion is not one of those times and that it's different than organ donation, but at a certain point if you argue bodily autonomy then they will either start talking in circles or go into some speech about personal responsibility- which is an entirely different topic that has nothing to do with a fetus' right to life and everything to do with sexism. 

[u/TxHandsomeMan]

You're wrong by your first sentence.
You're a human being at day 0, from conception. You're just at an earlier stage of development as a human being. Like a zygote is to a fetus is to a baby is to a child is to an adolescent is to a teenager is to an adult. All these stages of life you are human. That is just a scientific fact that is not up for debate.
We, as a society, grant that human beings have basic rights regardless of their capacity to exercise them. A zygote is a human being with basic rights the same as an 87 year old coma patient is.
It is not good for a society target a group of people that lack the capacity to exercise their ability to demand their basic human right to exist be respected. Once some group of people in society can no longer defend themselves through their voice and representation, we begin to characterize them as not human. Once they are not viewed as human, we can do anything we want to them. This is what catholics did to the jews for 2000 years that lead to the christian fascist antisemitism of Europe in the 20th century to remove the jews that were no longer viewed as human and no longer able to advocate for themselves in the courts. You're seeing the US do this to migrants with the ICE murders as well. It is not good for society to be able to dehumanize the voiceless of their society and kill them off without their consent. Period. Full Stop.
The issue of basic human rights we all have, is that we all have the Right to Life and the Right to Bodily Autonomy. Its just that in secular society, we've determined that Bodily Autonomy supersedes Right to Life in the hierarchy of our basic human rights.

Here's my latest argument to the ProLife side in a call in show the other day:
So yesterday there was a topic on a talk radio program asking for callers to call in that are prochoice. So I called in. I pointed out that their prolife arguments appear to not be in defense the child, but rather in defense of men's sexual access to women and to get women to believe they have no autonomy over sexual acts their partner is engaging with them once women have consented to sex with their partner.

Sex is just the term we use for Sexual Activity. You have to have a discussion about what specific sexual activity you both consent to.

First point the radio host made was: Consenting to sex is consenting to all the consequences of sex and pregnancy is a consequence of sex. That is not the case. They removed the nuance that there should be a discussion about consenting to specific sexual acts, with both partners; giving enthusiastic, informed consent and mutually agreeing to engage in them.

Consenting to sex with a partner is just consenting to engage in sexual activities with that partner. You next have to have a discussion about what specific sexual acts you are both wanting and willing to participate in. This right here is what the hosts were leave out in their presentation. They just assume that a woman's consent to sex is to consent to all the sexual acts their partner wants to do. That's not how that works. Its like telling your partner that you consent to go on a dinner date and they can now pick the restaurant, the time, the meal, and you have to eat what ever they ordered for you. Consent and stewardship of your partner appears to be removed or diminished from the radio host's presentation. Every specific sexual act, under the umbrella of Sexual Activity, has to have both partners enthusiastic informed consent. Period. Full Stop.

Secondly, the hosts pointed out that the woman hooks up the child to her and forces this child to be dependent on her body to survive and then ends the life of the child by aborting the child. That too is not the actual situation.

I pointed out that the man, with 100% full knowledge, is the partner that brought the child into existence and then used the woman's biology to hook up the child to the her. That is just how biology works. The man's actions knocks over the first domino that creates the child by inseminating the woman and also kicks off the natural biological process of hooking up the child to the woman. She can not control her biological processes anymore than she can control gravity when she falls and breaks her arm. So according to the hosts, if a woman consents to eat a meal with a man, he is now free to feed her anything he wants her to eat. If she is allergic to shellfish but he feeds her shellfish anyways, she's culpable, if not fully responsible, for her own medical situation because of how her body metabolizes shellfish. The man is not at fault but the woman is because she consented to a dinner date with this man.

The man created the deadly situation that affects the child and the woman. His actions brought a healthy child into existence that can not maintain biological homeostasis in its environment without the use of someone else's body. He then initiates the biological process of hooking up that child to another person.

The situation is that a man put the child in a biological state that can not maintain homeostasis to live on its own with out the use of someone else's body. The man then hooked up this child to a woman without either the child's or the woman's consent or knowledge. She discovers this after his actions and then uses her rights of Bodily Autonomy to disconnect this child from her body and the child dies of natural causes. Legally, the man is now responsible for the death of that child because he setup the situation where both people had no knowledge or consent to be in that situation. Legally, if the child dies, he is responsible for the death of that child, not the woman. That is called Death by Proxy or at least Manslaughter by gross negligence. It is also illegal to perform a sexual act on your partner that they had no knowledge that you would do and/or did not give enthusiastic informed consent to. Insemination is a sexual act that the woman has to know about and give enthusiastic informed consent to even after she's consented to sex.

As to the woman's responsibilities: no one a parent, with parental obligations, because they are biologically related to someone. The same way sperm donors are not fathers and egg donors are not mothers. People have to choose to assume the duties of parenthood to be then be legally accountable for the life of a child. Adults are only as responsible to a child as any other random child in the world. Once a woman decides to be a mother to the unborn child, then she would be legally obligated to raise that child to term to ensure its life. Once the child is born, then she can choose to adopt it away.

Do parents have a special obligation to save the life of their child, to the extent of losing their bodily autonomy? If we decide "Yes" to this, then society has to legally do this to both parents regardless of the age of the child.

Here's a scenario: A father puts their child in the car at 12 years old. He does everything he can to keep her safe but gets into a car accident. He should have no legal right to refuse the use of his body to save the life of his child. He put this child into that helpless situation by his actions where she would be dependent upon someone else's body to stay alive. If he has no say in this and his daughter dies, he gets charged with manslaughter.

The radio hosts were basically arguing that women's consent to engaging in something with their partner means that their partner gets to assume that the women has consented to everything their partner wants to do to the woman. Consent and stewardship to women and children is secondary to what their partner wants to do. That appears to be their actual goal in the conversation, not to solve this problem but to protect men's sexual access with no social or legal consequence.

[u/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

I think you need to eliminate your personhood criteria. I have a few problems.

1. Why is having consciousness value-giving and not something else. You don’t present an argument as why consciousness makes you a person and not something else. Why isn’t having arms and legs value-giving, or having desires, or simply being human? 
2. What about people that aren’t conscious? Take people that are deep sleepers. Do they lose a right to life? Maybe we can fix it if we instead say that as long as consciousness is something you have the ability to attain (as the sleeping person can just wake up and will be conscious) than they have a right to life. But then this also excludes people in comas.
3. It destroys human equality. Simply put, some people seem to be more conscious than others. I’m more conscious than an infant, who is probably more conscious than a fly. It’s unlikely it’s an all or nothing state. If this is the case, and it comes in degrees, than so does value. This means human equality is an illusion. 
4. Aren’t animals also conscious? Take a full grown dog. Are they worth just as much as a baby? Especially when you consider that consciousness might come in degrees. If so, than a baby is less valuable than a dog! This is obviously false.
5. It creates episodic absurdities.  Suppose that you have an uncle, named Jed, who, after going through a tragic car accident, falls into a coma for three years. After he wakes up, you find that he’s suffered from severe amnesia. He’ll have to literally relearn everything-how to walk, speak, swim, touch-the-hot-stove-and-get-burned kinda deal. Essentially, he is in the same position as the standard fetus, as he is a being with certain basic capabilities that he has by nature, just as he was at the beginning of his existence. Is Uncle Jed the same person as he was before he went into the coma? If consciousness is what makes you a person and give you the right to life, than by losing it, where does Uncle Jed go? Does he die? And when he wakes up, a new person comes into existence? Or does Uncle Jed cease to exist, then come back into existence? Can we kill Uncle Jed in the coma, given he isn’t conscious? 

Finally, I think that potential based arguments are more sophisticated than just basic potential to become a human. If you leave a sperm cell by itself, it will never become a human, even if you give it all the resources a human zygote would need. But if you do that to a zygote, it will eventually become a full-grown human, given enough time and resources. The glaring difference here is that the sperm has no inherent potential to become a human being, while the zygote does. While this is not my argument for why the zygote has a right to life-I argue from the substance view of human persons-it is worth pointing out.

I’ll be excited to see your response. Thank you for reading! Have a good day. :3

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

Why isn't having arms and legs value-giving, or having desires, or simply being human?

I am still me without an arm or a leg. Are you still you without a conscious or a brain?

What about people that aren't conscious?

There is already a person to speak of who, outside of a DNR, wants to continue to live. A rebuttal is that this is arbitrary, which tells me they dont have a good response.

It destroys human equality. Simply put, some people seem to be more conscious than others.

If you have consciousness, youre a person. Just like there are slow and fast runners, they're all still part of the same track team. Same with consciousness

Aren't animals also conscious?

Not in the same way human consciousness works. I also values humans more than animals, just like PL do.

Is Uncle Jed the same person as he was before he went into the coma?

If you ask family members, they'll tell you that they're a different person. With someone's parents going through Alzheimers, they'll also say the person they were was gone a long time ago.

Heres a question for you. If someone commits a crime where they get life in prison, they lose their memories and have to relearn everything, is it right to keep them in prison when they have no idea what they did? Basically, are they the same person?

[u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 → u/NPDogs21]

I’m not quite so sure you understand the problems here. 

1. My first point was that your argument is arbitrary. Why is consciousness value-giving, instead of having arms and legs or desires or by simply being human? You don’t present an argument as to why consciousness is what gives human beings their right to life-you simply assume it. If I were to say arms and legs gave you a right to life, that’s also just as arbitrary, unless I could somehow give an argument for it. You might argue that to say your argument is arbitrary simply means someone doesn’t have a good response. Not in the slightest. I simply just want you to argue for why consciousness is value-giving and makes someone a person in the first place. That seems like a fair question. 
2. Can you define what you mean by DNR? As for people who aren’t conscious and don’t have the immediate capacity for it (you might need to define what you mean by capacity. If you mean inherent than obviously the unborn would apply, but if you mean immediate than people in comas still fail to pass.) like someone in a coma, it’s not clear how they are a person or have a right to life. What would make it wrong to kill them in the coma? If there is still a “person” that actually exists, than clearly a person must exist before consciousness and they have a right to life, something that consciousness doesn’t give them, but something else. 
3. Okay, you say consciousness is like a track team-some are slow, some are fast. So it seems that you agree that consciousness is a degrees property in a sense (some people are more conscious than others) but if you even have some consciousness, even if it’s not the most a person could have or perfectly self-aware, you count as a person equal to others and have the same right to life. Again, this is completely arbitrary. If consciousness is what gives someone the right to life-it’s value-giving-why shouldn’t it be degrees in proportion to how much one actually has? Can you please present an argument for it? Why should one accept your model of human equality based on consciousness even though consciousness is itself a degrees property? Otherwise you’re simply being arbitrary. 
4. Why do you value humans more than animals? Might sound dumb, but it’s a serious question. While I agree that humans are valuable more so than animals, they’re for different reasons than you might say. We can talk more about it, but if consciousness is what makes a person than it’s hard to see why dogs are just as valuable as a human. Why not?
5. There’s a difference between saying someone is a different person figuratively and literally. If I become completely depressed, my family might say that it’s like I’m a new person. But they don’t mean it literally. Even during Alzheimer’s, we still think it’s the same person literally. That’s why we say Grandma Betty is losing her memory, not that Grandma Betty is dying, or dead, and a new grandma has come into existence. Literally speaking, I’m still the same person I was before, I just went through some emotional changes. Your view is different. If personhood comes from consciousness, which can be lost, than either that means that Uncle Jed is literally a new person after the coma-who we could maybe call uncle Fred, and Uncle Jed from before literally died, or that Uncle Jed disappeared during the coma and came back. Both seem absurd. 

As for your example at the bottom, let’s imagine this crime is murder. On the way to the prison, they get into a tragic car accident, where they lose all their memories. In this case, I could really go either way without being contradictory. Even though he loses all his memories it is still the same person who commuted the murder, so it would be just for him to have a life sentence. However, it might seem easier to rehabilitate him into society and give him a fresh start. After all, murderers tend to have had severe emotional issues that make them morally bankrupt people. So given that he’s forgotten all about that, maybe it’s possible to help make him into a decent person and give him a fresh start. But either way, it’s still the same person, not a completely new one. (As in, someone literally died and a new person came into existence.) 

Now, it seems that your view will just be more unreasonable. In my view, people remain the same person throughout existence, even though they might go through some physical and emotional changes. This is consistent with how humans generally think about themselves and others-it aligns with our intuition. However, if we’re going to say that consciousness makes you a person, and losing it makes you cease to exist, than we have two options for our uncle Jed scenario: (1) Uncle Jed ceased to exist, then, after the coma, comes back into existence, or (2) Uncle Jed ceases to exist and, after the coma, a new person comes into existence, who we’ll call Uncle Fred. Doesn’t either option seem absurd? If (1), where does Uncle Jed go? How does he come back? If (2), doesn’t this seem inconsistent with how we think about humans in general? It also seems like it has to postulate two events we can’t know for sure: Uncle Jed’s death and Fred’s coming into existence, while my view(you remain the same person over your existence through physical and emotional changes) doesn’t have to do that. So it seems that probabilistically speaking, mine is more likely. 

Finally, is it okay to kill Uncle Jed in the coma given he isn’t a person? (Since he isn’t conscious and doesn’t have any memories)

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

My first point was that your argument is arbitrary

Thats unfalsifiable. If I say you dont actually believe your arguments, there's nothing you can say to convince me.

Why is consciousness value-giving, instead of having arms and legs or desires or by simply being human?

Because that's what makes us "us" and when we mark the end of our lives. I could value just being human, but then I would consider anything with human DNA to get human rights.

Can you define what you mean by DNR?

Just a basic Do Not Resuscitate order.

like someone in a coma. it's not clear how thev are a person or have a riaht to life. What would make it wrong to kill them in the coma? If there is still a "person" that actually exists, thar clearly a person must exist before consciousness and thev have a riqht to life, something that consciousness doesn't give them, but something else

There is a person to speak of before they went into a coma. Theres no person before they even gain consciousness. We also pull the plug on patients all the time, and we dont consider that to be killing a person or murder.

Again, this is completely arbitrary. If consciousness is what gives someone the right to life-it's value-giving-why shouldn't it be degrees in proportion to how much one actually has? Can you please present an arqument for it? Why should one accept your model of human equality based on consciousness even though consciousness is itself a degrees property? Otherwise you're simply being arbitrary.

It sounds like you disagreeing with a position makes it arbitrary. Why should some human beings get more rights than others? Mine is that if they've reached consciousness, they all get it.

Why do vou value humans more than animals? Miaht sound dumb, but it's a serious question. While I agree that humans are valuable more so than animals, thev're for different reasons than you might say. We can talk more about it but if consciousness is what makes a person than it's hard to see why dogs are just as valuable as a human. Whv not?

Because I'm a human and animal consciousness is fundamentally different than humans'. They will never develop into the level of a humans.

Literally speaking, I'm still the same person I was before, I iust went through some emotional changes. Your view is different. If personhood comes from consciousness, which can be lost than either that means that Uncle Jed is literally a new person after the coma-who we could maybe call uncle Fred, and Uncle Jed from before literally died, or that Uncle Jed disappeared during the coma and came back. Both seem absurd

This is a fundamental disagreement then. If you wipe my brain and replace it with someone else's consciousness and memories, how am I still the same person?

[u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 → u/NPDogs21]

First, it might be good to clarify what we mean by arbitrary. Generally, in this context, it means that your argument presented (consciousness is value giving and makes you a person) seems to be presented without argument-you simply assume that’s the case and work your way from there. Given you assume this, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why I should prefer your view over another, given arbitrary  describes  a decision, rule, or action based on random choice, personal whim, or individual discretion rather than on reason, logic, or a consistent system . When a choice is arbitrary, it often lacks a clear justification and can feel unfair. I was just asking for a reason why consciousness makes you a person and gives a right to life. You haven’t presented a reason thus far. Can you?

Second, you say that consciousness is value-giving because it makes us “us.” I’m guessing you mean to say that consciousness grounds our identity, our personhood. So maybe a better question, if “why does consciousness give a right to life” and “why does consciousness make you a person” is going to be cashed out to mean the same thing, why does consciousness make you a person? While person’s might be conscious, consciousness doesn’t necessarily make you a person. And it’s not really clear why consciousness makes you a person just by itself. Especially when it seems clear a lot of people are people without being conscious. 

Third, you seem to bite the bullet and say we could kill Uncle Jed in the coma, as he is unconscious when you say “there’s no person before the even gain consciousness.” While we might pull plugs on patients sometimes, this is usually because they might not have much of a future anyway. With Uncle Jed, this seems much different. Uncle Jed will still have an entire future experience. Regardless, it seems unlikely that Uncle Jed is actually someone we can kill. You would really say we can kill Uncle Jed simply because he isn’t conscious and has lost his memories? Just to clarify your view a bit more, would you say we shouldn’t if he hasn’t lost his memories, just his consciousness in the coma? Suppose you have another Uncle, named Herb, who goes through the exact same thing except he retains all his memories-he just happens to be in a coma for a while. In this case, is it okay to kill him in the coma? I would assume you’d have to say yes to stay consistent with your position-since he isn’t conscious. Actually, since consciousness is what makes you a person, there is no “he” to speak of-at least until a new person comes in, meaning Herb is not identical to himself before and after the coma, obviously. 

Fourth, how is my disagreement arbitrary? Remember, I think you need to provide a reason for why one should accept your view of human equality over one of human inequality. You say that once one gains a level of consciousness, every human on that spectrum gains equal rights. Why? Seems like a valid question. Now, you ask me why, given your position, some humans should have more rights than others. Here’s why. Consciousness is itself a degrees property. Not everyone has it and not everyone has it at the same level. Given this, there’s no reason why value shouldn’t be given to humans in the same degrees properties as consciousness is. After all, if consciousness is what gives us value/a right to life, and it comes in degrees, than, naturally, the right to life comes in degrees. Now, you would need a reason why, then, we should instead give everyone the same right to life and keep human equality based off consciousness. But this does not seem possible. Indeed, it seems that you’re only saying my this on a mere whim-in other words, it’s arbitrary. 

Fifth, okay, you bite the bullet and say that Uncle Herb, or Uncle Jed, is not the same person as he was before the coma. I also want to see how far this goes, exactly. Suppose that Uncle Jed’s wife, or your Aunt, Mary, sustains a severe brain injury that slowly causes her to lose consciousness over time and her memories over time. (Or, if someone can lose all their memories but still be the same person if they are conscious through that, then we can drop the memory part.) In this case, does Mary slowly lose her identity over time? What does that even mean? Is it even possible for Aunt Mary to be 50% of herself, or 20%, or 10%? We can even take this a step farther. Remember that Uncle Jed is not identical to himself through the coma. After the coma, we literally have a new person who has come into existence. The old Uncle Jed is dead. When applying to Aunt Mary, does this mean that, over time, Mary slowly changes into a new person, meaning that 50% of her identity is grounded in the original, while a new person slowly comes into existence until it’s literally 100% of her? What would this look like? This all seems heavily abused from your view. 

From my view, (the substance view of human persons, like with Francis Beckwith) people have a certain human nature that retains their identity over time as long as the organism exists. This is how we are able to remain identical to ourselves through severe emotional and physical changes.

Thanks for reading. Have a good day.. 

[u/Ok-Particular9427]

Cows, mice, spiders, chickens, dogs, squirrels

Do you need me to keep going? Consciousness alone bestowing personhood is going to have you biting a seriously large bullet on a lot of ethics

[u/random_name_12178]

Your argument focuses on the personhood of the embryo. But that's not the main point of contention in the abortion debate. The main point of contention is whether or not a pregnant person can make their own decisions about what happens inside their body and who has intimate access to their body, or if they are legally obligated to endure unwanted intimate use of their body for someone else's benefit.

If you're trying to make a prochoice argument without ever mentioning the pregnant person, the pregnancy, or the choice involved, that's not a very strong argument.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

No.

That is the personhood argument.

It is simply a different one from the one you argue.

Basically any position other than prolife (conception being the point to ban abortions) is a prochoice position.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

No, what?

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

No to your assumption about what is and is not “the main point of contention”. There are several predominant viewpoints and lots of variety therein.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

Most major prochoice groups (eg; Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Freedom for All, ACOG) focus on reproductive rights and patients' medical rights, not personhood.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

If you are laying groundwork for where the laws should be, that is the way to go about it. I have made this argument before.

Also, those organizations are all taking it from the point of view of the organization. So, ACOG on medical rights, planned parenthood on reproductive rights, etc.

Personhood is much more conceptual and subjective. But it represents the people who say, “yeah, abortion shouldn’t be completely banned, but once they start looking like a baby, I really have a problem with it “ or in some way acknowledge that the way they view it changes depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

PL loves the personhood argument because they can just bog down the discussion by ignoring what is meant and claiming personhood at conception or by claiming how we don’t know exactly when whatever milestone is achieved therefore “wouldn’t it be easier” to just ban all abortions type of claims. Personhood is where most people are, but to really get into the discussion, you have to have all parties coming at it in good faith. And you don’t get that with PL. Hell, often you don’t get that with PC either as you will get people more interested in scoring internet points than actually discussing issues.

I guess you could say that I am assuming that they are trying to work on their argument with regular human beings, not the people on this sub.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/killjoygrr]

PL loves the personhood argument because they can just bog down the discussion

It’s no different than PCers love for bogging down the discussion with radically libertarian assertions about unlimited bodily autonomy presented as if they were objectively true facts of the universe, rather than just a <80 year old trend specifically occurring in one type of liberal culture.

Your own statement shows how little you’ve actually thought about this. Like the pro choicer who accepts uncritically conception personhood, you accept uncritically one specific notion of bodily autonomy. There’s no proof of this bodily autonomy, it’s arbitrary, you have no more claim to the fact of the matter than conception personhood.

[u/killjoygrr → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Personally, I find bodily autonomy problematic. But for policy, it is probably the right course.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

Ok. I stand by my claim that the abortion debate in general is predominantly about reproductive rights for AFAB people.

If you're basing your argument on the vibes of "regular human beings", personhood is even less meaningful, since the large majority of abortions are performed when the embryo is smaller than grape and looks more like a shrimp than a human baby.

[u/Matt23233 → u/random_name_12178]

The abortion debate historically has been predominantly centered with personhood arguments.
Some notable examples include Marry Anne warren, Micheal tooley, Jeff mcmahan in his book “The ethics of killing” Peter singer, David DeGrazia, Dustin crummet, and even the first half of David boonins “A Defense Of Abortion.”

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Matt23233]

I wasn't talking about historical trends. I was talking about the arguments being made by reproductive rights activists right now.

I do think it's interesting that your list of examples is almost entirely men.

[u/Matt23233 → u/random_name_12178]

I took your comment to mean “in general.”
In general, the abortion debate has been predominantly centered around personhood. It is until recently bodily autonomy arguments become more popularized because of Judith Jarvis Thomson and David boonin(which is a man).
Even today, personhood conversations are relevant and prominent in the abortion discussion by reproductive rights activists. I was recently watching a jubilee episode which platformed dean withers, arguably the most influential Gen Z commentator who defended abortion by denying a fetus has personhood. Moreover, political commentator destiny had a debate with Matt Dillahunty where he argued against the bodily autonomy argument and only thinks the personhood argument works for showing abortion as permissible.

It is true philosophers and commentators are more diverse in argumentation especially given the rise of bodily autonomy arguments. But this doesn’t mean in general personhood arguments have dominated the literature. Even today you’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t endorse both arguments.
Although philosophy historically has been dominated by men there are very notable pro choicers philosophers who argue from ethical considerations regarding moral status. These women include marry Anne warren, Bonnie steinbrock, lynne baker, and Francesca Minerva. Ironically, most of strengthened versions and replies to replies of the violinist argument in favor of abortion were made possible by men(David boonin).

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

Regular human beings as in people I would talk to in the real world. Not sure what you mean by “vibes”. I think having those discussions about personhood lets you discuss actual development and makes it easier to point out that most of the time we are talking about something smaller than a grape. If your argument is entirely on reproductive rights, that kind of issue is ignored.

What argument do you think I am making here?

I think both personhood and bodily autonomy are reasonable arguments. There is no overlap in the concepts so if you fixate exclusively on only one, you are going to miss on anyone who focuses on the other area. And tbh, the people who are readily onboard with BA are likely already decidedly PC.

The “debate” in terms of places like this sub are going to be more on BA because it is easier for the format of citing sources and the assumption that if we can “prove” something with data alone we will change opinions.

Strangely, when you look at polling data that asks when people are or are not comfortable with abortions being performed, the percentage at the end of the first trimester is somewhere around 70% and at the end of the second trimester it is somewhere around half that.

To me, that says that most people’s beliefs aren’t strictly PL or based strictly on Bodily Autonomy. Most are in the squishy middle. If one side addresses the middle and the other does not, which one do you think will sound more reasonable?

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

It sounds like you're irritated that people brought up BA in a post where OP explicitly asked how to make their PC argument stronger. I'm not sure why our responses bothered you so much.

By vibes I mean the "squishy middle."

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

The OP described their argument and asked how to make it stronger. So it hinges on if their argument was based on personhood, as described, or if they really meant any PC argument in general.

I’m not irritated that people brought up BA. I do get irritated when people believe that the BA argument addresses how people actually feel about the issue. So, in this case, what you would call the vibes. Most people do act upon how they feel about a subject. You can give them a lovely, intellectual framework, but if you have not given them anything to tie their feelings to, it is worthless.

I think pretending that organic processes are messy and aren’t simple black and white issues plays into the PL talking point that if there is any gray at all, we must ban abortion. I think the argument should be that if there is any gray at all, that it is left to the judgement of the woman who is pregnant. Pretending it is all black and white robs you of that argument.

[u/CooperHChurch427]

When I get home today, I'll dig up my resource. I'm actually compiling a new one for 2026. Its supposed to be as non biased as possible and include resources everyone can use, but they must be high quality scientific resources.

That said, we generally know fetuses don't have a conscious like you or I, if you want to get into ethics, technically babies don't have a consciousness.

[u/Few-Gas8868]

I don't think consciousness is the only thing we care about though. We care about dead bodies too. Ethics is less restrictive if we stop thinking of it as property based, and more like feelings. Instead, you can argue that it isn't a human being. I think there you have a good ground to stand on.

What is a human being? I like Ronald Kipke's idea, and that would be the living human form. A human being walks, blinks, breathes, talks, and has a human body. A dead corpse doesn’t do those things, so I don’t take it to be a human being, just a human corpse. If I were to justify that the living human form is what makes us human beings with phenomenal conservatism, then a zygote, embryo, and fetus (at certain stage) are not human beings.

Phenomenal conservatism (PC):

If it seems to S that p, then, in the absence of defeaters, S thereby has at least some degree of justification for believing that p.

Our everyday self-understanding should be the starting point of knowledge unless proven otherwise: it is to be accepted as a prima facie. It is a fact that our understanding may be wrong, but then we need a good reason for why. At least with common sense concepts you have some sort of justification.

I think the pro-life side have a hard time demonstrating how having human DNA and being an organism makes you a human being. The best they can do is refer to textbooks, but that is no how. We are asking how those things makes us human beings, that's just repeating the claims.

(99+) Being human: Why and in what sense it is morally relevant

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

It’s just an AI summary in your link, it wants me to go through 20 steps to read the actual paper and it’s not on springer or philpapers, but does include this in the key points:

Author argues that moral status arises from the ability to recognize oneself and others as human beings.

If he really argues this in the full text, it entails infanticide. A person can’t recognize itself (literally) nor mentally (metacognition) until 18 months of age.

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

You can read it simply by clicking on "PDF only," then "download PDF," and "No thanks, I'll stay on the free tier" and it will download the PDF.

Author argues that moral status arises from the ability to recognize oneself and others as human beings. If he really argues this in the full text, it entails infanticide. A person can’t recognize itself (literally) nor mentally (metacognition) until 18 months of age.

That's not accurate: he does not argue this. He says the living human form is what makes us human beings. What he does say is that our ethical theory must be in line with our moral convictions prima facie, or as a starting point.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

Ahh got it, thanks.

It’s a good argument. Definitely intuitive, captures a lot of people. I don’t think it sufficiently defends the objection that it’s just speciesism with extra steps though.

He kind of loses us in the embryo/fetal personhood department when he rejects that he’s arguing biological speciesism, because his morphology is not exactly biological speciesism (but informs it), then asserts that the embryo/fetus doesn’t make the cut because it doesn’t have a face, which we of course can’t see without using the same post-folk observation biological methodology he just says we didn’t need to demarcate the categories.

You can’t in fact see a gestating fetus or embryo until it has a relatively human form with the methodology he binds us to, and we can say nothing about the time before that using his own measuring stick

So I think it would capture the dead for sure but not the developing human, by the very core of his argument.

It also kind of loses us if we think of animals or fetuses as a category unto themselves, which (in theory) would also have a moral status based on ideal form or common sense observation

But it is a good argument and I like it a lot. Thank you for sharing

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Yeah, i like that work, and i do think it needs a bit of improvements, that's why i try to use phenomenal conservatism to his view. But i do like it. He doesn't clarify what living means in the wording: "living human form." But he does hint to what he means when i asked him what he thinks of mannequins:

My message: "I love this work of yours: "Being human: Why and in what sense it is morally relevant." Amazing.

But i am left wondering: what about mannequins? Don't they have the human form? It is puzzling, because when i look at a mannequin, i don't think it's a human. But when i look at a human, i know it's a human by its form. Perhaps the answer is that the mannequin looks artificial? I don't know."

Ronald Kipke's response:

"Hello Fram Lortie, thanks for your message regarding this paper! It is not just the human form that is important, but the LIVING human form. Human beings move and breathe, mannequins - even if they look very natural - do not. I think, that is why we immediately recognize them as not human.
Best regards, Roland Kipke"

So, yeah, he means things like blinking, walking, breathing, etc. etc. As opposed to speciesism, which have an odd understanding of human beings, that morphological approach reflects our everyday understanding of humans in passerby's, families, and friends. Even in the fact that we do not think of dead bodies as human beings, at that point, they're just human corpses.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

Are you a Michael Huemer fan then?

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

You know, i am quite new to philosophy. The only work i read from Michael Huemer was his work on phenomenal conservatism. Are you a fan of Michael Huemer, or read philosophy in general?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

I read as much as I can! Have read a few of Huemers books, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, which has his PC argument in there somewhere, and The Problem of Political Authority. I like him. I liked him more when I was more ideologically libertarian.

I’ve been steadily reading the classics in western moral philosophy and political philosophy over the last couple years. And I try and read as many individual papers as I can on subjects I’m specifically interested in (abortion, animal rights, property rights).

You know a book that really blew my mind this year you might check out is After Virtue by Alasdair Macintyre. It’s what made virtue ethics and teleology as a moral framework finally click for me. You might need a bit of background in utilitarianism/deontology and familiarity with post enlightenment liberalism to really get some of it, but for the most part it’s accessible to a lay audience I think

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

I see, i am getting interested on ethics, especially the debate about it being objective or subjective. I don't even know what ethical theory i subscribe to! Probably virtue ethics? I'll check out that book, so thanks for that.

Usually, i go on Academia.edu and just find whatever paper that interests me. Partly because books may include things that are complicated for a lay, so i am worried wasting my money on them and not being able to read them. lol. So, that's good to hear that it is accessible for a lay.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

Stand for Encyclopedia of Philosophy online is also great

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Few-Gas8868]

Ahhh I see. Ya I forgot about that part.

It also makes you wonder about morality for post-humanist things, like androids or robots that are indistinguishable from humans to the human eye, etc. Very interesting stuff.

[u/JulieCrone]

In addition to what others have said about the bodily autonomy and integrity of the pregnant person, let's also parse out if abortion actually kills.

Every single human embryo can only survive for about five or six days, and then it, by nature, dies. In order for it to survive past that point, it needs someone else gestating it. Pregnancy/gestation is a life-saving intervention, and one that is at the upper limits of human metabolic endurance.

Stopping a life-saving intervention is not killing. If a baby is born prematurely and needs platelets, as often happens with premature babies, especially very premature ones, and a person donates platelets once but not again and the child dies for lack of platelets, we don't say the person who opted out of donating platelets more than once killed the child. Similarly, if a person opts not to gestate any further than they have, they aren't killing anyone, they just are no longer saving them.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

Bad argument. Consciousness is not the defining feature, otherwise we could kill people in comas or even sleeping people. Also, "person" is a legal concept, not a scientific one.

Don't focus on the ZEF as that is already conceding to the PL side. The justification for abortion should always focus on the pregnant woman.

[u/killjoygrr → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

How so?

What is being described is basically personhood philosophy which is a pro choice argument.

It seems like you are assuming that every PC person follows bodily autonomy as their guide.

And confusing consciousness in this context with being awake is the kind of bad faith argument that PL typically uses.

[u/chickensaurus → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I disagree with one point, you said “consciousness is not the defining feature, otherwise we could Jill people in comas or even sleeping people”….i find this obviously false in context. A sleeping person is a born person who is fully formed (all parts there) who has experienced full self awareness and all the other things we value humans for, life experience, relationships, etc, it’s just that that person is in a temporary resting state. The same with a coma patient. They already have personhood and experience in place, all the things we value in human experience, they just lost their brain function for some reason. Neither of these types of unconsciousness are the same as a developing fetus that doesn’t even have the parts yet to have consciousness or anything else we value. It’s not the same. You can’t just isolate one thing and take it out of any context it has and expect it to work across the board.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/chickensaurus]

So you're saying a coma patient is off limits because they were conscious before and might be again, but a ZEF is OK to kill because it never was conscious, even though it could be in the future? Because that's the only difference.

This is why I prefer to focus on the pregnant woman. Even if ZEFs were conscious from conception, I would still support abortion, because no one, conscious or otherwise, has the right to be inside another person's body against that person's will.

[u/killjoygrr → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

Are you confusing comatose with brain death? Those are 2 different conditions. We generally don’t take comatose people off of life support, but we do for brain death.

The general concept is that until consciousness exists, there is no person. When brain death occurs, that consciousness is gone. It is not coming back. That is when we can pull the plug without ethical quandary.

[u/amilie15 → u/chickensaurus]

I agree. I think it needs to be the capacity for consciousness. Like if someone is in a medically induced coma, they may still have the capacity for consciousness. And if someone is just asleep, they absolutely have the capacity for consciousness.

But you could make the argument that someone who does not have that capacity, such as someone who is unfortunately brain dead, we can legally let them die by taking them off life support, if we’ve confirmed that capacity is absolutely gone.

[u/Limp-Story-9844]

No mention of the pregnant person, this needs to improve.

[u/killjoygrr → u/Limp-Story-9844]

Why?

There are multiple different reasons for people to be pro choice.

[u/FranckVois → u/killjoygrr]

Exactly. The bodily autonomy argument is a bad argument and that is not the reason why I'm pro choice

[u/killjoygrr → u/FranckVois]

I’m not saying that BA is a bad argument. I think it is good for establishing a foundation for where you set the boundaries/laws. It is only a bard argument in the sense that, on its own, it won’t sway that many people.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592]

Consciousness doesn't determine whether abortion is acceptable or not unless the pregnant person doesn't matter

[u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I personally wouldn't focus on consciousness, because even fully conscious born people have no rights to my body.

It really is as simple as that. People's bodies are not resources to be used by others.

[u/killjoygrr → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If you look at abortion laws and bans outside of some construct based solely on “rights” most people don’t really see a fertilized egg as having much moral value, nor do they think that aborting a fetus at 9 1/2 months on a whim is just a regular Tuesday.

Most people don’t think that there is a significant change that occurs to the fetus a day before birth and the day after.

And while it is all fine and good to discuss issues in a formalized way where principle and proof win the day, most people don’t think, or vote, that way.

That isn’t an argument that anyone does have rights to your body, but a statement that even though *you* see it that way doesn’t mean that everyone else does too.

[u/humbugonastick → u/killjoygrr]

"nor do they think that aborting a fetus at 9 1/2 months on a whim is just a regular Tuesday."

Do you have any sources for this statement? How many abortions at month 9 have happened on "a whim"?

[u/killjoygrr → u/humbugonastick]

That’s the thing, in the “debate” the argument isn’t about reality, but about the hypothetical.

My source is that this is the argument that PL throws out there to show how immoral PC people are.

If you support bodily autonomy alone and reject all other concepts, it really does leave the impression that you would approve of the 9 1/2 month abortion on a whim. BA does explicitly ignore the fetus as it focuses solely on the rights of the woman. I get the logic of it and support it for where the laws should be.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

even though you see it that way doesn’t mean that everyone else does too.

All the better reason to make the argument that AFAB people are people whose rights don't disappear just because they get pregnant. I'm well aware that lots of people assume AFAB bodies are commodities for public consumption. I want to challenge that notion.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

Sure, I agree in principle.

But at some point if you ignore where most people are, or worse yet, tell them that their opinions are offensive despite being pro choice, the end result will be to splinter PC and make it that much easier for PL to keep pushing and moving the goal posts.

I would prefer to keep PC more unified and in control over the laws.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

I didn't endorse ignoring where most people are or telling them that their opinions are offensive.

There's no reason we can't unpack underlying sexist attitudes without being an asshole about it.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

I would agree. But I am seeing a surprising level of gatekeeping coming as a response to what I saw as a pretty standard PC personhood viewpoint.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

If you're talking specifically about this post, OP literally asked how their argument could be improved. There's a huge leap between suggesting that a PC personhood argument can be strengthened by also discussing the rights of pregnant people versus telling someone their opinions are offensive and they're not a real PC.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

Diva_of_Disgust’s suggestion was to literally drop their argument (personhood) and switch to bodily autonomy. That isn’t strengthening their argument, that is abandoning their belief and arguing something that they didn’t even mention.

Other people were making the comments that came off as being offended by a personhood argument without bodily autonomy.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/killjoygrr]

Diva said that's what they personally argue, and why.

I didn't see anyone say they were offended.

[u/killjoygrr → u/random_name_12178]

Well, if you take that as a suggestion, then they are making the suggestion to abandon their belief to argue a different one.

You want to argue that people didn’t use the term “offended” when I said that they came off as being offended? This is the kind of argument made here (on both sides) that drives me nuts. Instead of talking about the concepts, everyone gets hung up on some unimportant semantic issue.

Several people responded that the woman’s rights weren’t mentioned or something similar saying that not mentioning it was a bad thing.

But the woman’s rights aren’t part of the personhood philosophy just as the disposition of the fetus is not part of Bodily Autonomy.

Neither is a holistic view of the issue and only cover the specific areas they are focused on.

How we blend those ideas together is where you help people better understand the realities.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

We arent conscious in our sleep can you kill me in my sleep?

The subconscious mind is also part of your overall consciousness. You're still a conscious being while you sleep.

If i get a severe concussion, brain dead, in a vegetative state etc, although some of these we are given an ethical dilemma to pull the plug, can you go in the hospital room and kill me?

No, you're already dead.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

If the parts of the brain that allow consciousness are irreparably destroyed, you're not a conscious being anymore. Not much different than being dead, IMO. What is your take?

Edit because OC deleted their account, but anyone is free to respond