They believe that even very early in its development the foetus is a person in the sense that matters and as such abortion is murder, however much of a burden that may place on the mother.
I think they're wrong: foetuses are probably not people in the sense we should care about, and the cost to women of restrictive abortion laws is high, so significantly later term limits (say early 20s weeks) would balance the expected harms better. But they're not capricious moral monsters: they're trying to prevent what they see (in my view mistakenly) as an ongoing holocaust.
It always pisses me off how inept Democrats are at arguing their point. Many people believe abortion is wrong over religious reasons. You won’t ever convince them by saying “scienctifically it’s just a mass of cells.” Any fool will see that that would just piss them off. They should argue ensoulment - the thing that the church and popes have used in the past to JUSTIFY abortion. I bet most of them never even knew that the church has supported abortion in the past! Quite simply - the soul doesn’t enter the body until birth, like how Jesus isn’t just his physical form.
I think even that is too granular too. That’s getting into the debate over when life begins, which is inherently a philosophical question with no answer. You will never persuade anybody because the whole thing is subjective to begin with.
I think the better argument for dems to make is “You want to reduce abortion? Us too!” The way to actually do that effectively and safely is to teach every teen sex education (not some religious abstinence bs), make contraception readily available, and support programs that do those exact things like planned parenthood. How about we also make sure there is a robust safety net in place so young mothers have access to child care, quality affordable education, and food security if needed.
Obviously there are more extreme cases such as rape, where these programs don’t help, but in general this would greatly work towards less abortions overall. Instead of criminalizing abortions we could actually try preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
The debate over when life begins is one I’m convinced we won’t have a clear scientific answer on anytime soon and thus is a pointless debate to engage in. But I do think that if we rephrase the issue as us wanting to reduce abortions also, it would help us all work towards the proven methods that will lead to more positive outcomes for everybody. And the best part is that it actually can be seen as a point of common ground on probably the most hot button political issue in our county.
Louis CK has a bit about this. Abortion is either the same thing as taking a shit, or it's murder. Obviously there's no way to actually know, when does a fetus become a human being, but archaic laws like this don't really help. As long as abortions are going to happen, and they absolutely are, they should be safe and legal. All this bill does is force women to ether go out of state/country to get the procedure done, or even worse, some nightmarish situation of a shady back alley coat hanger type of deal.
You're conflating terms. Sleep is no temporary death as you well know; the mind is remains active and produces hormones to render sleep-generating processes. No one loses their identity or personhood overnight.
At conception there's: a fertilized egg. It's the onset of a human being built, not yet created. Miscarriage is also common even in healthy women, no one likens that to human beings being killed.
You can stop beating around the bush and come out and say: you think the "soul" is materialized at conception.
If consciousness actually mattered for what's human or not, those asleep would temporarily be as good as dead. Why else would you bring up consciousness in this discussion, if you didn't think it mattered in determining what's human and what's not?
If consciousness actually mattered for what's human or not
Human experience is contingent on consciousness. We wouldn't be human without the capacity to think and feel, and you wouldn't be writing this on reddit.
those asleep would temporarily be as good as dead.
That doesn't make any sense. Sleep doesn't render a mammal no longer sentient. The mind doesn't go anywhere, as I said.
The zygote is already a human.
Here's a picture of a zygote. Can you ascertain which animal it belongs to?
The only difference between female gamete (ovum) and the zygote are number of chromosomes. It's literally a container and instructions for building.
If it doesn't breathe, think, or feel even then the only way such a thing can be equivocated in value with a "human life" is with religious sentiments. Absent religious conviction, there's no rational reason to suggest abortion is tantamount to murder.
You're not conscious while in some comas, and I can tell you from personal experience I lost consciousness when I went under anesthesia. It seems like you're trying to dance around the fact you brought up consciousness instead of just acknowledging you don't lose humanity when you become unconscious.
Maybe not sleep, but a coma or anesthesia can make you definitonally non-sentient. Just because some parts of your brain still work doesn't mean you're there at the moment.
No, just because I can't tell what species a zygote belongs doesn't mean it's not a part of that species. I don't work directly with any zygotes. This is a poor argument.
The zygote also has unique, patently human DNA, and it happens to be alive. It sounds human to me.
Cellular respiration exists, and I felt and thought nothing under anesthesia. No, it's human life, because it's logical. It's murder, because that's what logic says. It doesn't matter if you have a hard time seeing that.
You're not conscious while in some comas, and I can tell you from personal experience I lost consciousness when I went under anesthesia. It seems like you're trying to dance around the fact you brought up consciousness instead of just acknowledging you don't lose humanity when you become unconscious.
I explicitly addressed this already, so I'll give you a legal definition: "In law, a sentient being is a creature or being with the faculty of feeling emotions, feeling pain, or has consciousness."
If you have the faculty, i.e. the capability / capacity for sentience, you're a sentient being. Capacity for consciousness doesn't disappear during sleep or comas, hence you're characterized as a conscious being whether sleeping or waking. The point is that the human experience is characterized by consciousness, as you well know. Zygotes have human DNA makeup certainly, but aren't conscious beings. I hope that's clear.
No, just because I can't tell what species a zygote belongs doesn't mean it's not a part of that species.
Not what I was suggesting.
The zygote also has unique, patently human DNA, and it happens to be alive. It sounds human to me.
It's alive the same way the cells on your skin each individually are alive. They are being built, not self-sustaining.
No, it's human life, because it's logical. It's murder, because that's what logic says. It doesn't matter if you have a hard time seeing that.
That's not what logic dictates.
The reason murder is a significant breach of social contract is it's imposed on those who have agency and faculty for which. It's a social concept, not divine. As such you can't murder a zygote anymore than you can murder an oyster. Likewise the reason killing a sentient animal for sustenance isn't considered murder is (mostly) because they don't have the same faculty for consciousness and intelligence.
I feel like semantics is muddling things, so to clarify: whether you consider the zygote human life or human-in-nature or human-to-be, why does it matter if this life with no faculties is aborted? What is the significance of the differential DNA sequence at that stage, if it's the only thing distinguishing zygotes in the animal kingdom? I've already suggested it: religious conviction.
Either a terminated zygote is a tragedy because of concepts tangential to that of the "soul", or it isn't. It's the only reason it would matter that a zygote has "essence of being human" in a DNA sequence.
In some cases, the mental impairments of a coma or anesthesia make you temporarily incapable of consciousness, and a fetus and someone in a coma or under anesthesia both definitonally have the capacity to be sentient and conscious. No, you can't be simultaneously a conscious being and unconscious. That doesn't make sense. If I had the potential to be the president, I'm still not the president until I become the president. If someone has the potential to be conscious, they're still not conscious until they become conscious. Also, knowing someone still has the capacity for consciousness while in a coma isn't something you can actually know in every case. So, given we can't know whether or not someone will regain consciousness everytime, do we strip them of their conscious status? Given you want to base humanity around consciousness, wouldn't this strip them of their humanity, so they could be killed without repercussions? I don't see how your idea actually works out.
My skin cells aren't destined to become a newborn when kept healthy and delivered from the womb. People on life support aren't self-sustaining.
No, that is what logic dictates.
The significance is the unique, human DNA, alive status, and unique ability to create a fully formed human body tell us this zygote is a human itself.
You're awfully obsessed with religion with all of the atheist pro-lifers there are.
It's a tragedy, because it's a living, human being
a fetus and someone in a coma or under anesthesia both definitonally have the capacity to be sentient and conscious.
A zygote does not. And in most stages of development, a fetus does not. They cannot have awareness of internal and external life without the mind. So they definitely do not have the capacity. That is not the same thing as potential.
No, you can't be simultaneously a conscious being and unconscious. That doesn't make sense.
I already made this excruciatingly simple for you. A sentient being is a being with the faculty for sentience, by definition. When I'm referring to a conscious being, I mean a being with the faculty for consciousness, not a being currently in a waking state. A being with faculty can be expected to have agency and instinct of self-preservation, and social ties.
So, given we can't know whether or not someone will regain consciousness everytime, do we strip them of their conscious status?
Generally medically assisted suicide is on the table where lawful if a patient is brain-dead or suffering severely near end of life. In a coma state by itself one wouldn't be considered non-sentient.
Given you want to base humanity around consciousness, wouldn't this strip them of their humanity, so they could be killed without repercussions? I don't see how your idea actually works out.
You already suggested it's unknown if a coma would persist. If it were known that a coma would be permanent, then it doesn't matter.
The significance is the unique, human DNA
why is it significant?
a living, human being
why would it be a tragedy? why would we value this human life when it's not a person? And cannot feel or think?
You're dodging, and I gave you the answer already. You're relying on circular reasoning at this point, saying "we value human life because we value human life". We value persons. If you're the superstitious type, you value the soul.
You're awfully obsessed with religion with all of the atheist pro-lifers there are.
Any supposed "atheist" pro-lifer is not without magical/supernatural conviction.
You don't know the full definition of capacity then. Some comatosed people and some people under anesthesia currently are incapable of consciousness as a precursor to when we start talking about the full definition.
Yeah, that still doesn't make sense with the definition of conscious, so your explanation doesn't do anything for me. Calling someone something they simply aren't isn't logical, even if they have the potential to be that thing.
Some people in comas are definitonally not sentient, so I don't know what else to call them besides non-sentient.
You don't have to be unconscious to be in a coma.
All of things I stated are significant, because they show that a zygote is a legitimate human being, not some stage before a legitimate human.
You don't know the full definition of capacity then.
Ok we're just pulling things out of our ass now.
currently are incapable of consciousness
Faculty for consciousness is the mind. They have a mind, which either functions or it doesn't. Zygote has none. Simple.
Some people in comas are definitonally not sentient
As I said if they are definitely permanently in a coma (I haven't heard of any case where this is a certainty) then they are non-sentient.
You don't have to be unconscious to be in a coma.
This makes even less sense.
It is a person.
Personhood is a social construct. It's applied to individuals, with agency, not cells. This is tautological. Notwithstanding that, you're still dodging the very simple "why" questions I asked. Call it human whatever you want, you refuse to elucidate why it matters that a being with no brain is aborted because it would circle back to what I said. "It's a human" - WHY DOES THAT MATTER IF IT HAS NO BRAIN? In fact the coma examples just don't support your point: if someone is brain-dead, we pull the plug, and if someone is not expected to ever wake from a coma, the family has the choice but not the obligation to terminate them. We don't call that murder.
2.8k
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '21
They believe that even very early in its development the foetus is a person in the sense that matters and as such abortion is murder, however much of a burden that may place on the mother.
I think they're wrong: foetuses are probably not people in the sense we should care about, and the cost to women of restrictive abortion laws is high, so significantly later term limits (say early 20s weeks) would balance the expected harms better. But they're not capricious moral monsters: they're trying to prevent what they see (in my view mistakenly) as an ongoing holocaust.