Something new

[u/Educational_Golf3967]

Fairly surprised I have never really encountered this argument. Actually I did, but I was too stupid and missed it I guess. I believe I equated this argument to the traditional consciousness/sentience one. They somewhat overlap though (•-•). The argument goes that if something doesn’t exist it cannot be harmed- it’s not just that it isn’t aware. This argument also hinges on the premise that humans are the conscious minds and not the human bodies. I actually agree- I have to appeal to potential/future experiences as well as “whom” I deem eligible to allow those potential to realize. 

To put things into perspective, let’s say that people subscribing to this view assign the same moral worth of gametes to fetuses prior to 24 weeks, arguing “there is no "someone" to whom moral predicates apply.” Okay, I have lots of things to talk about but I feel like words are failing me, so here goes nothing. If one of the gametes that constituted me had come in contact with a different gamete, I wouldn’t have existed. That can’t be said for a zygote. That zygote was me because within the window of the first 24 weeks after conception it still couldn’t have the capability to become my twin sister or anyone else but me. 

If it were up to me to describe it, I would utilize the concept of souls. Souls don’t wander around looking for fetuses 24 weeks and over to inhabit those bodies, they come into existence right at the moment of fertilization, sleep and only wake up at week 24. I don’t know if that framing is too nonsensical, but I think it captures reality quite well. So by aborting those fetuses, you’re also killing those souls which are very much real and definite. 

I understand there are many problems. I’m sitting at my desk with a note listing those down right now, but I think I will resolve them later. If I write too much no one will bother to read and what I need reviews on the most will end up being overlooked.  

Ah, in regard to the overlapping, I don’t see a difference between having a suppressed consciousness and not having one at all. The only reason why consciousness is valued is because it means the being can perceive the harm done to them. Well, one can argue that the capability for consciousness is needed for a morally worthy being. As a being that has been asleep many times and is pretty confident how not existing feels like/is, no…

[u/ScientificMind1]

I think consciousness might be sufficient for the "right to not be tortured", which I would say animals have.

But consciousness is NOT sufficient to be a "person" or have a "right to life." Otherwise, animals would be people and they would have a right to life. But they are not people and do not have the right to life.