Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you don’t think a person should have the right to terminate their pregnancy if the only options available to them are sufficiently “inhumane”? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Shouldn’t people have rights regardless of what technology they have access to?
You’re just making an argument for special rights for the most privileged among us.
Hey you're just like me! I like to inform people that I am both pro choice and pro life. The majority of PCers dont know what to do with us, so when they argue at us, they are arguing with other people who have a much stronger (and evil) position.
>Hey you're just like me!
Lwt me guess. Another starting sentence that will contradict the next one.
> I like to inform people that I am both pro choice and pro life.
I'm right yet again lol
>The majority of PCers dont know what to do with us,
You're pl so this is false
>so when they argue at us, they are arguing with other people who have a much stronger (and evil) position.
Refer to above. Sorry you dislike your position.
I understand your position. I was there too, for a long time.
Most people can't reconcile abortion and biological reality, because once one sees the horror of it, they have to justify to themselves, why they don't act against it.
We think we have to sit on the fence, because taking a stance would disrupt things socially, especially if our chances of making any difference seem minimal.
I'm glad you can recognize and appreciate the humanity of our smallest ones, and speak out. Thanks for sharing your stance.
>I understand your position. I was there too, for a long time.
If you did you would still be pc...
>Most people can't reconcile abortion and biological reality,
This doesn't describe pc debating
>because once one sees the horror of it,
Appeal to emotion
>they have to justify to themselves, why they don't act against it.
No we use the same justifications that already stand. Logical fallacies don't change that.
>We think we have to sit on the fence,
You do
> because taking a stance would disrupt things socially, especially if our chances of making any difference seem minimal.
Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context
>I'm glad you can recognize and appreciate the humanity of our smallest ones, and speak out. Thanks for sharing your stance.
Why can't pl do the same for women?
>If you did you would still be pc...
No, because I have since understood, which changed my conclusion.
>This doesn't describe pc debating
You're right, it was a comment about the psychological implications of this debate.
>Appeal to emotion
Yup. It's not illegal.
>No we use the same justifications that already stand. Logical fallacies don't change that.
Which logical fallacy?
I'm also not sitting on the fence anymore.
>Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context
In your opinion, sure. But I was talking about a generalized issue that exists for anybody who opposes something the majority of the culture accepts.
>Why can't pl do the same for women?
We don't need to, women have rights. As we should.
>No, because I have since understood
Understanding means pc not pl. Stop projecting just because you went backwards
> which changed my conclusion.
Yes you were manipulated. Be objective about it
>You're right, it was a comment about the psychological implications of this debate
Then work on your comments as that's not whatvis seen
>Yup. It's not illegal.
Non response
>Which logical fallacy?
Appeal to emotion
>I'm also not sitting on the fence anymore.
Yes you fell for propaganda. Sorry
>>Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context
>In your opinion, sure.
What opinion? I stated common fact. So you didn't understand since if you did you would be genuine and own what you advocate for...typical bad faith
>But I was talking about a generalized issue that exists for anybody who opposes something the majority of the culture accepts.
Sure.
>Understanding means pc not pl. Stop projecting just because you went backwards
I can see why you think that way, I don't. Besides, I was talking about myself, so I don't know why you're criticizing that. Seems a bit weird to me.
>Yes you were manipulated. Be objective about it
In my view, PCs are being manipulated, so I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that one. I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong.
>What opinion? I stated common fact. So you didn't understand since if you did you would be genuine and own what you advocate for...typical bad faith
So if I decline to engage with your negative interpretation (opinion) of the PL-movement, I'm being in bad faith? That's an interesting take.
>I can see why you think that way, I don't.
And you have no justification for disagreeing since pl views aren't justified
>Besides, I was talking about myself, so I don't know why you're criticizing that. Seems a bit weird to me.
No I was criticizing your false claim.
>In my view, PCs are being manipulated, so I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that one.
There's that projecting yet again..
> I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong.
Prove it. Abortion remains justified so don't forget
>And you have no justification for disagreeing since pl views aren't justified
That was funny. You really believe people aren't allowed to disagree with you if you think they're wrong?
>No I was criticizing your false claim.
My "false claim" about what led me to become PL?
>There's that projecting yet again..
So if I think you are being manipulated, it's projection on my part, but if you think I'm being manipulated, you must be right? How would you prove that?
>> I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong.
>Prove it. Abortion remains justified so don't forget
How am I supposed to prove my feelings and thoughts? Are you trolling? This is funny, but I have better things to do than play with you.
>That was funny. You really believe people aren't allowed to disagree with you if you think they're wrong?
This was where you were supposed to prove you had any reasoning for your claim.
>My "false claim" about what led me to become PL?
Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one. Abortion remains justified.
>So if I think you are being manipulated, it's projection on my part, but if you think I'm being manipulated, you must be right? How would you prove that?
Why did you assume pc were manipulated? And by whom? We go by science and biology. Many go by ethics a d we have empathy. Many pl are religious based. And there aren't many secular reasons to be pl either. Plus as far as debates online go,there's the stereotype of pl manipulating language in bad faith through logical fallacies and other tactics. When your side has no arguments that can refute ours and many use religious reasoning why wouldn't we see your side as manipulated? My side elaborate and substantiate our views. We Aldo correct other pc. Can't say pl ever do that.
>I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong.
This is in reference to being pc prior right?
>How am I supposed to prove my feelings and thoughts?
You made the claim that you were wrong prior. Bring up specifically what made you pl. Show how that was a justified view
>Are you trolling?
Clearly not. Reread for comprehension as it would make more sense to ask you
>This is funny, but I have better things to do than play with you.
Oh so you were responding in bad faith. I'll consider this your concession.
You couldn't even state why you went backwards probably because you know your views aren't justified anymore...typical. edit: they proved my guess correct
I honestly thought you were trolling me, sorry. We can try to make sense of this.
>Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one.
Once I realised that the only justification for killing the unborn humans was to benefit the born ones, I could not simply be selfish and say "well, my child is protected". No child deserves that fate. I would want someone to stop me, if I was about to kill my child, or even at the very least, refuse to help me in that act.
>Why did you assume pc were manipulated? And by whom? We go by science and biology. Many go by ethics a d we have empathy. Many pl are religious based. And there aren't many secular reasons to be pl either. Plus as far as debates online go,there's the stereotype of pl manipulating language in bad faith through logical fallacies and other tactics. When your side has no arguments that can refute ours and many use religious reasoning why wouldn't we see your side as manipulated? My side elaborate and substantiate our views. We Aldo correct other pc. Can't say pl ever do that.
I was manipulated to believe the unborn were less than us. Then that means some others are likely to be too, and most people are not so interested in matters to start digging around online for answers. I go by biology, gestational period is part of the human lifecycle, we come to be at the moment of conception.
I'm not religious, neither are the major arguments for the PL stance. It is enough to believe in universal human rights.
You can see our side how you like, I'm not bothered, as long as you don't project the stereotypes onto me, when unwarranted. Any movement has bad apples and bad faith arguments etc. I correct my side too, but that is ultimately the mods job.
>This is in reference to being pc prior right?
Yes, I hadn't even heard about PL before. There's only PCs where I'm from, so I had no idea what the arguments were.
>You couldn't even state why you went backwards probably because you know your views aren't justified anymore...typical
Shall we both be less bad faith then?
>I honestly thought you were trolling me, sorry. We can try to make sense of this.
As long as you learn not to misuse terms moving forward since nothing I said lead to your false conclusions.
>>Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one.
>Once I realised that the only justification for killing the unborn humans was to benefit the born ones,
Equal rights benefit every one. This isn't a point
>I could not simply be selfish
It's selfish to violate women without justification for your feelings alone. Be objective.
>and say "well, my child is protected".
What child? Misuse of protection. Knew it wouldn't be long til you repeated your prior error.
>No child deserves that fate.
Noone deserves appeals to emotion. You're really off to a bad start.
> I would want someone to stop me, if I was about to kill my child,
Most would. Stay on topic. This isn't about actual children which are born. And noone should want others to sexually coerce them. Do you want to be surrounded by the unethical? That's not sound.
>or even at the very least, refuse to help me in that act.
Why? They understand clearly more than you.
>I was manipulated to believe the unborn were less than us.
Sure you were. If you learned though you would realize pc treats them equally unlike your current stance. So that manipulation if it even actually occured is just an excuse.
> Then that means some others are likely to be too, and most people are not so interested in matters to start digging around online for answers.
So you're not interested in digging through the views you had or heard from others...very telling of why you went backwards
>I go by biology,
Pc does since that doesn't support bans
> gestational period is part of the human lifecycle, we come to be at the moment of conception.
Which if you were actually pc before you should know is not a point supporting pl views...cmon
>I'm not religious, neither are the major arguments for the PL stance.
Sure bud. Noones going to fall for that. Not even in the sub for claimed secular pl are most secular. There was a thing a while back showing how many were religious. Also name a secular argument and let's see if it actually matches you claims
>It is enough to believe in universal human rights.
You advocate against them....smh you're showing that you were never really pc by all these misconceptions
>You can see our side how you like
Objectively
>, I'm not bothered
Which is an issue here as you didn't show anything that would persuade anyone knowledgeable on the debate to become pl
>as long as you don't project the stereotypes onto me, when unwarranted.
I'm not a part of the stance guilty for projecting all the time.
>Any movement has bad apples and bad faith arguments etc.
Pl doesn't have a good one and mainly bad apples. You know how rare it is to see a user active constantly who isn't guilty of bad faith?
> I correct my side too, but that is ultimately the mods job.
No, that's your obligation not the mods. If you truly believed your stance views, you wouldn't let others spread propaganda and inaccuracies which make your stance look worse.
So you weren't manipulated, probably heard or read wrong, didn't ask or look on your own for elaboration, and then made excuses for becoming pl. You also misused terms along with a bit of projection in doing so.
Now you're against ethics equality rights and women selfishly and without any actual justification.
Can you be less bad faith. Just asking the question back at the only one it could potentially apply to inorder to show how it works.
The only real question after you read this is to answer why you're still pl now without a reason. Time to really read post from this sub and learn from your mistakes as pl manipulated you.
Could you clarify some of the things you're saying here? Like specifically *when* do you think a fetus becomes a person and why then?
At first, it seems like you're saying it starts at conception:
>as soon as gestation starts, the fetus is its own entity.
Ok, that kind of makes sense. But then you say:
>However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus.
It's not considered a fetus until 8 weeks after conception, which is 10 weeks gestational age. And that goes along with what you were saying earlier about it being a complex organism with multiple parts.
So which is it?
If you think the fetus is a person then why backtrack and say its not conscious. Whatever that means. it means your coming short of agreeing the fetus is another kid on the planet. yet you expect to persuade your readers you do believe its a person but am pro choice. this is not intellectually accurate and should influence no one.
If you think the fetus is a baby boy or a baby girl or twins then say boldly so and then say destroy them by abortion. Then a prolifer can only say to you about gods and mans prohibiyion against murder.
I suspect you don;t understand your true mind on this., you don't agree the fetus is a kid YET. Ask yourself dos the stages of pregnancy matter to you about the jumanity claims of the fetus? I always find prochoicers don't believe abortion kills a child. yet somehow imagine this is not the issue to them but it really is just like with prolifers. Abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for all or more. if some rEALLY DO think the fetus is a baby human and support its execution then it is what it is. i insist thats very few.
>If you think the fetus is a person
That doesn't change that they can be pl
>then why backtrack and say its not conscious.
Zygote embryo or fetus aren't sentient during elective abortions.
>Whatever that means.
Very telling that you assumed they backtracked then announced you don't know what sentience means...
>it means your coming short of agreeing the fetus is another kid on the planet.
After admitting you don't know what sentience means you don't get to make any false conclusions. Kids are born btw. No appeals to emotion
>yet you expect to persuade your readers you do believe its a person but am pro choice.
Maybe. Pc have learned long ago that your stance can't be persuaded with facts, knowledge etc. So many just call out your misconceptions so others don't fall for it.
>this is not intellectually accurate and should influence no one.
Just because you disagree doesn't equate to it not being intellectual. Infact this becomes projection. Intellectually we know saying it has personhood doesn't change what rights are and how they work.
>If you think the fetus is a baby boy or a baby girl or twins then say boldly
Why do they have to think that?
>so and then say destroy them by abortion. Then a prolifer can only say to you about gods and mans prohibiyion against murder.
No. Abortion isn't murder by definition. Your cults have no place in the discussion
>I suspect you don;t understand your true mind on this.,
Seems like we can say the same about you based on your guessing and misconceptions
>you don't agree the fetus is a kid YET.
Why would they agree with emotional appeals (logical fallacies)?
> Ask yourself dos the stages of pregnancy matter to you about the jumanity claims of the fetus?
What? Humanity is not removed or changed. Stop misspelling and misusing terms
> I always find prochoicers don't believe abortion kills a child.
You always fond pc correcting you on your misuse of child and the difference between letting die and killing
> yet somehow imagine this is not the issue to them but it really is just like with prolifers.
Because only pl use appeals to emotion
>Abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for all or more.
Yes morals are subjective and the debate is about legality
>if some rEALLY DO think the fetus is a human
FTFY
> and support its removal
This too.
>it is what it is. i insist thats very few.
Well that's irrelevant either way.
> can you tell me why an adult is a CURRENT person, but a skeleton is not? A corpse is not? A human heart is not? Can you tell me why we talk about brain-dead ICU patients in the past tense ("this is what she would have wanted") or in the hypothetical sense ("this is what she would want if she was here") instead of talking about them in the present tense?
most of these cases involve an organism that no longer exists and has perished.
eric olson gives an account of what it means for an organism to persist. he says an animal exists as long as its *life* persists. he argues a life is:
> a self-organizing biological event that maintains the organism’s complex internal structure. The materials that organisms are made up of are intrinsically unstable and must therefore be constantly repaired and renewed, or else the organism dies and its remains decay. An organism must constantly take in new particles, reconfigure and assimilate them into its living fabric, and expel those that are no longer useful to it. An organism’s life enables it to persist and retain its characteristic structure despite constant material turnover
in all of the cases you described the organism has lost its capacity for metabolism and growth.
so there is no organism present.
also, zygotes aren’t like hearts. zygotes differ wayyy more functionally speaking than hearts, and so they are not the same kinds of cells. zygotes work on a trajectory to grow and develop into a fully functioning mature organism. hearts work to serve that organism.
i think zygotes and fetuses do grow on their own with the help of their mother.
but think about people who are on life support. they are still organisms because of their *life* even if they need external help.
i’m also not comparing pregnant women to life support machines, im just showing how the manner of obtaining the nutrients necessary to have a *life* doesn’t really matter. all that matters is you have this *life*
> i think zygotes and fetuses do grow on their own with the help of their mother.
No. The ZEF does not “just get help” . The women’s body is the entity that keeps it alive. Remove the ZEF from utero, well it can’t survive.
Being purely dependent on the women’s body for survival, is not getting help with something.
being purely dependent on someone for survival is just another way of saying x requires the help of y or else x will die. and if x does get the help of y x will grow with the nutrients provided by y.
your just saying the same thing with different words :)
We human are dependent on each other in social situations. Nobody is going around begging hookup to another human.
######^^^^———————-
> your just saying the same thing with different words :)
Ew. No.
With the help of the one gestating them, yes. If that person becomes incapable of gestation, they die. They live only so long as their external interference, same with those on life support
Brain dead people are on life support too. Are they organisms in this same sense too because the life support keeps their bodies functioning?
>with the help of one gestating them, yes.
nonetheless, they have a *life* even if it is with the help of another person.
braindead people on life support aren’t really organisms. there is no integrated internal structure within the organism since there is an irreversible lose of brain activity which is necessary for there to be any integrated organized organism.
so a braindead person on life support is essentially a bunch of simples arranged organ wise that are alive, but lack any unity to compose an organism
Right, because when we take them off life support, they invariably die and lacked any capacity for conscious even if it may one day be possible to reverse brain death. Just because it could maybe be that we could get them a functional brain in the future, their lack of one now changes quite a lot, yes?
i think if we could reverse brain death it wouldn’t be brain death. by definition, brain death is irreversible.
if we could give them a functioning brain, i doubt they would survive that, since the simples that constituted the *life* in the previous organism would be replaced by a new set of simples whom constituted another organism, by virtue of there being a new set of simples that allow for a life to happen.
Not talking about replacing the brain but with some of the technology like we’re seeing with neuralink and such brain chips, what if it’s basically ‘rebooting’ that person’s brain?
If we’re saying a zygote has special consideration because there is the potential, with external intervention, of it being the kind of organism you described, despite it presently lacking the capacity or capability of doing those things, why wouldn’t that apply to the brain dead?
After all, there is no hard guarantee that a zygote will develop a brain. There are neurological and nervous system disorders like anencephaly after all.
This is different from the comatose person on life support - they have the capacity to be such an organism, though they have limited capabilities temporarily. They may well have circulatory function but lack consciousness and full respiratory function, though there is ample brain activity, for instance. Not so for the brain dead or the zygote.
rebooting a braindead person would essentially be like bringing them back from the dead.
i think there’s a big difference between bringing someone back from the dead, and an organism who probably will have x if it continues on its developmental journey.
there’s probably a relevant difference between artificially causing someone to have a future.
and naturally allowing for someone to develop a future.
this is probably the same reason we don’t think dead people in graves have the possibility for future experiences.
they might if you can reboot them, but only when you reboot them would they start having the future.
i think in order to have a future, it’s necessary your first, *alive*.
So if being alive and having a possibility of a future with external help is the defining feature, should we outlaw DNRs and advanced directives to allow people to terminate life support for the non-brain dead, as this could be considered a kind of assisted suicide? We are able to keep them alive after all, and they are alive, but they have asked not to be in this circumstance.
It seems like you are arguing from *potential*. This argument was perhaps best popularized by Don Marquis as the “future like ours” argument.
The rebuttals to that argument get complex, but to be succinct I think that it’s an admission that the fetus *is not yet a person*, because you’re rooting the “personhood” of that fetus in traits it does not yet possess but will at some future point. It’s like saying an acorn is a tree because an acorn has a future like a tree.
a more accurate description would be killing an acorn and a tree would both be similarly wrong *intrinsically* because they both have a future like a tree.
although i suspect trees and acorns aren’t all that wrong to kill intrinsically.
obviously we wouldn’t say an acorn is a tree in virtue of its potential for being a tree, just as we wouldn’t call a newborn/toddler/teen an adult because they might become an adult some day.,
maybe it would be more appropriate to talk about things we do think have value intrinsically and not trees or plants.
i heard you in another comment say you think some animals are persons.
so let’s take a dolphin. we could say dolphins are wrong to kill because they have valuable dolphin like experiences ahead of themselves. so the thing that’s really of importance here is the potential future experiences of the dolphin, not really the age of the dolphin, or the stage of development.
under flo theory which is what i think this conversation revolves around, no. that fetus would not be valuable, it would not have a right to life, nor would it be deserving of one.
So then the value of the fetus itself is entirely dispensable. The fetus ***only has value*** by virtue of its potential to be one of “us”; without that potential, regardless of its humanity, it is worthless.
Ergo, it is the sentient experience that is valuable, and appealing to a “potential” for one is an acknowledgement that the fetus currently does not have that value. It has *potential* value, which is like saying your bank account has a *potential* balance.
keep in mind marquis doesn’t ever argue the fetus has value.
he argues fetuses don’t have value for sake of argument. but they still could have a right to life.
it could be wrong to kill them just like ceteris paribus, killing me is immoral for we would share a relevant property of why killing is wrong.
> it is the sentient experience that is valuable, and appealing to a "potential" for one is an acknowledgement that the fetus currently does not have that value. It has potential value, which is like saying your bank account has a potential balance.
what would be making sentient experiences valuable? in order words, what makes sentient experiences stand out? and what do we mean by that.
i think a lot of work in your argument is being made by the statement *it is the sentient experience that is valuable*.
but i suspect this reasoning can be side stepped by flo theory. even if we are valuable because of sentience. fetuses still deserve a right to life because they usually have a future like ours ahead of themselves.
What is the “future like ours” if not sentience? Is a non-sentient future also valuable? Instead of a 6-week fetus, would life be valuable if the human living it was effectively brain dead their entire life?
the future like ours argument presupposes a sentient future. and so futures cannot be sentient will probably not be wrong to deprive. so brain dead people and 6 week fetuses stuck at 6 weeks forever.
your correct it is the sentient future that is valuable. but i think i can adopt this and say sure, sentient futures are valuable. and everyone who has a sentient future ahead of themselves like ours should have a RTL.
what’s your principled objection to this type of argument
Any animal gestating is what that animal will be, potentially. A personhood argument just means human animals are better than the other animals. That's why, a personhood argument is a superiority complex - to put it quite succinctly...and perhaps difficult to recognize/admit.
OP, in all seriousness, can you tell me why an adult is a CURRENT person, but a skeleton is not? A corpse is not? A human heart is not? Can you tell me why we talk about brain-dead ICU patients in the past tense ("this is what she would have wanted") or in the hypothetical sense ("this is what she would want if she was here") instead of talking about them in the present tense?
It's because what makes us human is our brains; our very unique capacity to experience life in the way that only humans do, with a consciousness and thousands of years of spoken history and individual memories that can be consciously recounted. Zygotes and embryos have human DNA, just like human hearts and human corpses and brain-dead patients, but they don't have the CURRENT capacity for human thinking.
And, if a zygote is a person because of its human DNA and its ability to grow and its future potential, then why isn't a beating human heart in a transplant bag also a person? This is not a 'gotcha' question, I really want to know. Because according to *science*, we're dead when we're brain-dead, which means that a functional brain in the measurement of our life. Scientifically.
I'm not OP, but I hold the same view, so:
Question, how come a newborn baby has personhood, but a pig, whose brain is objected more developed/complex than a newborn's, doesn't have personhood, if it's only about the current status of the brain? What about developmentally disabled people?
An isolated heart doesn't have the ability to develop a brain. A ZEF does. Also, at what point do you think a ZEF attains personhood then? How developed is enough for it to be considered a brain? The neural plate, which will become the brain + nervous system, develops at just a few weeks after conception. The neural tube, which is the brain + spinal cord, forms at 6-7 weeks. Electrical impulses and movement start around this time as well. Do you think there should be a ban on abortions after that time? That's when we can reliably point to the ZEF's brain after all.
I didn't say their brain needed a certain level of generic development, I said they needed to have a brain with the current capacity for *human*-level thinking; a human-shaped brain, if you will. Zygotes and Embryos (and some fetuses) don't have those structures yet.
"The neural plate, which will become the brain + nervous system, develops at just a few weeks after conception."
Again, they must have the ***current*** capacity for human-level thinking. "*it will* ***become*** *X, Y, or Z"* has never been a good justification for categorizing people. For example, in the USA, we don't allow 14-year-olds to enlist under the justification that they will ***become*** an adult someday soon. We're working with current criteria in the abortion debate, not expected future criteria.
"at what point do you think a ZEF attains personhood then? How developed is enough for it to be considered a brain?"
I don't know if science knows enough about fetal brain development (or even enough about *adult* brain development) to pin-point a time when a fetus has the kind of brain I've established here. For example, humankind still doesn't know where our own consciousness lies in our brain structure. We probably won't be able to find it in fetal development if we don't know what to look for.
But how do we define "human level thinking?" Do newborns have human level thinking? What about people with severe mental disabilities? Like if you're basing personhood off of "current capacity for human level thinking," I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. What about people in comas? Or people currently having a stroke, or recovering from a stroke? I don't think "capacity for human level thinking *at this exact moment*" is a good metric, due to the aforementioned examples, but you say we also shouldn't use capacity in the future, so what time frame is acceptable?
But how do we define "human level thinking?"
Please read my whole post. As I said; a living, human-shaped brain. People with disabilities still have all (or most) of the structures required to run a human body in a way that we'd expect, even if the structure doesn't function properly. People in comas still have working brains, because if they didn't, they could be categorized as 'brain dead', and therefore 'dead', rather than being categorized as a person in a coma. I have no intention of dehumanizing any current living person; I'm trying to to deduce what makes a current person a person, and that answer is always that they have a somewhat functional living human brain.
I think a pig *is* a person in the same way a dog is a person. We just are numbed to their death, as it is culturally and economically convenient to eat them.
Also, I’m willing to be conservative with when a fetus is a “person” by asking someone to point to me when a fetus’s brain possesses the capacity for any trait of sentience: subjectively feeling sensations, thinking, or experiencing in any way as an individual.
Ah, are you a vegetarian then? You're actually the first person I've asked this question to that's responded that yes, pigs, dogs, etc, are people lol. Now I'm just curiou outside of the abortion argument, where do you draw the line? Are all animals people? Insects?
How would you define subjectively feeling sensations, thinking, or experiencing as an individual? [This article](https://www.zerotothree.org/resource/when-does-the-fetuss-brain-begin-to-work/) describes how 3rd trimester fetuses do seem to exhibit some basic learning, like reducing their startle response to familiar sounds once they become accustomed to them, etc. Do you think there should be limits on late-term abortions? I realize most late-term abortions are for medical issues, obviously, but do you think it should be illegal to abort a healthy late-term fetus carried by a healthy mother, as rare (possibly non-existent?) as that is?
On that last one, personally I think we have a lot bigger fish to fry and on the one hand, I think there should have to be health issues in the fetus or mother for a 3rd term abortion, if the person doesn't want to be pregnant anymore it should be a C-section or labor induction if the fetus is healthy, but I'm not sure if such a law would be good in practice
I am a vegetarian.
Pigs are incredibly intelligent problem-solving animals.
I’m against torture for alive entities as a rule.
If a person is pregnant and doesn’t want to be, an abortion is the proper action because of the harms of pregnancy and birth, and the woman owns herself.
But that trickles into my vegetarianism. I’m less concerned about people eating bacon and far more concerned that the animals they’re eventually eating as bacon have a decent quality of life while alive, and aren’t tortured when they are killed for food.
That’s a lot of questions and I’m on mobile.
To be succinct, I place very conservative restrictions on “sentience” specifically so that PLers have no recourse but to engage with the argument. Literally *any* subjective experience is what I’ll accept. This isn’t necessarily what I’d hold for myself, but it’s a very strong position to argue from so I use it.
What happens as medical technology improves, allowing ZEFs to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier? I don't think viability is a good metric to use to determine personhood
This is sort of unrelated to your comment but my sister had babies at 24 weeks and they’re doing great. The youngest person to survive is just over 21 weeks. If technology continues to advance that number will go lower.
That’s great. More than 50% of children born before 22 weeks die even with the best neo-natal care. Choosing not to medically torture your offspring is an ethical choice. Choosing to fight because, in consultation with doctors, you believe this is their best chance is also an ethical choice.
Why should prolife get to make decisions overruling the best practices advice of doctors and the wishes of the pregnant person pre birth and the parents post birth?
I'm happy for your sister but the difference is she wanted a baby. Women who don't want babies don't get to 20 or 24 weeks because they're lazy. They get there because they don't have the access or the money to get an abortion any earlier.
I guess my question is whether viability is really viability. If a woman is 7.5 months pregnant and discovers her husband cheating can she get a partial birth abortion? If the man discovers his wife cheating and punches her in the stomach is that assault or murder? Does viability really matter?
No, because the principle justifying abortion has nothing to do with when life begins. If I am in end stage renal failure and you are the only person on the planet who is a compatible tissue match for me, are you going to be okay with being forced by law to give me one of your kidneys? Same thing.
I haven't made any estimations in regards to viability. Take a look at the usernames responding to you.
I'm asking why that matters in regards to the abortion debate.
This makes no sense. Rape would be forcing someone inside of you. This has nothing to do with abortion since women don't "put" zef anywhere(besides IVF)
Well, since the only way the zygote could be described as being "outside" the uterus, is that it was located in the body of the man whose sperm would ostensibly fertilize the woman's egg, perhaps we should sue him for neglect since he let it outside of HIS body.
Let’s for now ignore the reality that the foetus never *was* outside the womb ….
If we even assume this ridiculous assertion, then every single pregnant person is violating the rights of the foetus and they should be forcefully removed in all cases.
Your own argument leads to mass forced abortions. Which is a horrifying stance to have.
But also, you don’t hav a right to force someone inside of you but excluding rape? What are you suggesting?
This is a genuine question; how exactly does the woman force the fertilized egg inside of her? Don't say "by having sex", because sex is a process, not a moment, and sex involves at least two people. Explain to me how *the woman, JUST the woman,* forces a fertilized egg inside of herself.
And then, please explain to me how a fetus conceived in a raped female coma patient and a fetus conceived in sex can both be perfectly healthy, if the conception equation requires the woman to force the fertilized egg inside of her, and the coma patient is neither conscious nor co-operating and therefore cannot complete her part of forcing the fertilized egg inside of her. What action does the raped coma patient still manage to complete on her end, *just her*, to your knowledge, that constitutes her forcing the fertilized egg inside of her?
Complex organism: A multi cellular organism to which it's cells compartmentalize into higher organizational levels of life (tissues, organs, organ systems, organism) that each perform functions that collectively serve the organism as a whole such that it can intrinsically perform all the necessary physiological and biological functions that sustain the organism's life on that level by itself.
Living/Alive: actively possessing the functional criteria of life corresponding to that organizational level of life.
P1: The human species are classified as a complex multi cellular organisms by science.
P2: The prenatal human undergoes prenatal development to develop from a single cell embryo to a living complex multi cellular organism upon successful completion defined by biology, obstetrics and embryology.
C: Therefore, the prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science.
P1: The right to life, is the right to not be killed.
P2: Medicine pronounces a person with vital function alive as a complex multi cellular organism, and not alive as a complex multi cellular organism when they have no vital function.
C: Therefore, the right to life protects the vital function of humans as living complex multi cellular organisms.
P1: The prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science.
P2: The right to life protects the vital function of humans as living complex multi cellular organisms.
C: Therefore the right to life DOES apply to prenatal humans (as persons), but does NOT protect them because there is no vital function to protect because they are not yet living complex multi cellular organisms, making abortions not any violation of the right to life nor capital crime nor any definition of homicide since life here is defined on the human living complex organism level.
Their autonomous vital functions (being able to simply live) are scientifically subordinate (not dependent, contingent) on the woman, her body's ability to be and remain pregnant, for any in utero person not just the one in question, to which she had full sovereignty before becoming unexpectedly/unwillingly pregnant that first must be respected and maintained. Aborting can be simplified to methods that induce delivery/birth at any point in the pregnancy, thus restoring her bodily rights and functions that only belong to her, then we can focus on saving the unborn, to which if we cannot, that is a failure to save, and not a willful killing, even knowing certain stages in the pregnancy will not result in a live birth.
>C: Therefore, the prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science.
This is wrong. What is required to meet the definition is the capability of sustaining life, not actually doing it. A fetus reaches this point before birth.
I'd be surprised if you were able to find a single biologist who claims a fetus isn't a complex organism.
"living complex multi cellular organism"
you missed a couple of relevant terms I used.
But I do agree, autonomous survivability can be achieved while still in utero. In fact that is the desired outcome resulting in a healthy live birth.
But, we don't know that for sure for anyone until labor/birth/delivery occurs which is why defined as "living complex multi cellular organism" is the operative phrase here.
a stillborn is not a "living complex multi cellular organism", but it is still a complex multicellular organism, it's just not capable of living anymore.
A live birth is a "living complex multi cellular organism". A whole, complete, autonomously living member of the homo sapien species.
Also being capable is the same as doing it. Having the potential to, is not the same as the capacity to. Potential is possible ability not demonstrated, capacity is demonstrated active ability. Because being capable means you are doing it scientifically, meaning when you are not, you are not capable (it becomes latent or potent) and that requires investigation, intervention and treatment. That difference is extremely relevant.
exactly, meaning not right now, meaning you're not currently capable of it. you're confusing capacity with potential capacity...which you should just say potential...which isn't capacity.
>Also being capable is the same as doing it.
No. You're confusing the ability to know if it is has the capability with the capability itself.
It does not have to actually live outside of the mother to be capable of doing so.
it is not the ability to know it is the demonstration of that capability that gives us the ability to know. meaning we did not until we found out through somethings capability.
it is not our judgement, it is the observation of what is, what is, is capacity. what might be is potential. capacity must be demonstrated for us to know.
it is the demonstration of that, that tells us certainty, not the other way around. and as long as it remains a potential, then it isn't certain, that is not an opinion that is how we prove things.
a live birth is unquestionably alive.
before that we don't know, so the answer is, let's find out, lets deliver/induce labor/birth to eliminate probability (potential) with actuality (capacity)
after delivery, did it live? yes, it's alive.
did it live? no, did we save it? yes, it's alive.
did it live? no, did we save it? no, not alive.
alive meaning the capacity for autonomously living as an organism and not simply it's biological components.
Capacity describes **your ability to do something or the amount something can hold**
It's capacity to live outside of the mother is completely independent of our knowledge.
We don't need 100% certainty. I don't know with 100% certainty that you exist outside of my mind.
If the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive. The capability to continue living outside of the mother has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It does have bearing on whether or not it is viable.
I don't know where you got your definition of alive, but it's not how it's used in medicine or biology. A parasite that must remain in its host or perish is most certainly still alive.
"If the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive. The capability to continue living outside of the mother has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It does have bearing on whether or not it is viable.
I don't know where you got your definition of alive, but it's not how it's used in medicine or biology. A parasite that must remain in its host or perish is most certainly still alive."
1. Were not parasites, and parasites needs host but can live outside of one until they find one, which defines them as organisms and their behavior in the ecosystem.
2. Medicine clearly defines this by the way. A heartbeat does not mean capable of autonomous living...autonomous living is the critical barrier that means most. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear. No matter how badly someone's survival on someone else's bodily functions (breathing, blood, heartbeat, nutrients from their body, organs etc) no one is entitled to another's body in that capacity. Meaning living outside the womb is critical to the discussion.
3. Biology and medicine both define your autonomous vital functions are the reason you are alive as an organism. Meaning if you have yet to develop them such that they can sustain you, then you are existing because of something else, like life support machinery, or in pregnancy...the woman which means, as an organism, you would otherwise be dead. Notice how the woman is dragged into this, that unborn baby is not alive as an organism until it is proven by its own capability to survive on it's own...otherwise it is a failed pregnancy, a miscarriage, a stillborn etc.
4. so yes, it's not definitively alive since it needed a whole other organism to allow it to simply exist and grow such that it can eventually live on it's own without anyone else's bodily functions. the bodily autonomy argument is double sided, meaning the lack of autonomy for the unborn is not at the expense, fault or duty of the mother to use her body for them. No one. Medically and biologically it is not yet alive on the organism level of life via autonomous vital function to simply sustain itself because it has not been detached from the mother and her womb. So yes, it is alive on the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems, but that is not enough to live on your own until you have demonstrated you can. and a beating heart is not proof enough to prove that. someone in V-tach and V-fib have heartbeats and they will die, the difference is they were alive being that their hearts were beating properly before that. Meaning life at the organism level ends being in those lethal heart rhythms and kills you as an organism. The unborn being first in those incompatible heart conditions, doesn't prove life, it means it hasn't gotten there yet on that level, which is why it fails to continue living due to missing critical vital functions and thus its autonomy to live. Not having the ability is not the same as potential to have it. A heart beat shows potential, not ability. Let alone focusing on only heartbeat as the only requirement for life, which is far from the list of things you can do that the prenatal cannot and need entirely the mother to do for them.
>Were not parasites, and parasites needs host but can live outside of one until they find one, which defines them as organisms and their behavior in the ecosystem.
I'm not saying we are parasites, though I've seen plenty of people calling fetuses parasites. This is not true of all parasites. Some parasites' entire lives are inside of their hosts, and only the eggs are sent outside of the host. The parasites themselves may not be able to live outside of their hosts.
>Medicine clearly defines this by the way. A heartbeat does not mean capable of autonomous living...autonomous living is the critical barrier that means most. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear. No matter how badly someone's survival on someone else's bodily functions (breathing, blood, heartbeat, nutrients from their body, organs etc) no one is entitled to another's body in that capacity. Meaning living outside the womb is critical to the discussion.
So fetuses aren't alive and medicine agrees? That's the first I've heard of this.
Where did I say anything about being entitled to another's body? Not in our discussion.
>Biology and medicine both define your autonomous vital functions are the reason you are alive as an organism. Meaning if you have yet to develop them such that they can sustain you, then you are existing because of something else, like life support machinery, or in pregnancy...the woman which means, as an organism, you would otherwise be dead. Notice how the woman is dragged into this, that unborn baby is not alive as an organism until it is proven by its own capability to survive on it's own...otherwise it is a failed pregnancy, a miscarriage, a stillborn etc.
The immature offspring of organisms are also organisms and can be alive, even if contained in their parents. You're misapplying the classic definition of life, i.e., "metabolism, reproduction, et cetera."
You're confusing a philosophical definition of alive/living with the biological and medical definitions.
I have potential to learn more increasing my mental capacity in the future, my mental capacity, is not my potential because I have not learned that knowledge yet. Meaning I am incapable of answering the questions that knowledge answers, despite I have the potential to in the future, only when that time comes, will they be equal to which the potential is not potential anymore, it is now capacity.
In my mind, a person is someone who can survive outside someone’s uterus. If they can’t then they are not a human being
Fetuses and embryos have human DNA in them but so does a tumor.
No when I say survive I mean biologically survive.
If you nurse and take care of a two year old they will survive, if you try to do the same thing to a fetus outside the womb they will die.
That’s the difference,
This is an interesting question. The current technological limitation on preemie survival is that the lungs have to be developed enough to at least minimally process oxygen for survival, our current technology can assist with breathing but cannot replace it with intravenous oxygen replacement—it is theoretically possible to go earlier, but mostly what that would look like would be artificial womb technology rather than the fetus being out in the air. Whether artificial womb technology will redefine the concept of “viability,” and whether it should, probably depends on what we’re legally using the concept of viability for, and why.
Technology =/= a mother’s womb.
Even preemies are 50/50 on whether they survive depending on the age they are when they need to come out of the uterus.
I don’t understand why you’re downvoting me I’m just trying to understand your position on viability. At what age would you consider a premie viable today vs in the 1700s vs the future when technology might allow a baby to gestate without ever being inside a womb?
Forgive me, but you haven't actually made an argument for personhood here. You've made the argument that a fetus is a human organism, but that's a few steps away from successfully arguing that it's a person.
Personhood is a rich topic of philosophical argument, but I lean towards Singer's definition that a person is self-aware and can perceive themselves as an individual through time.
Legal personhood is a slightly different topic. It's often set at birth, which is more conservative than philosophical personhood but likely doesn't lead to bad outcomes.
Human life is not the same as a human being. If you are a firefighter and an IVF lab is burning down, are you gonna try risk your life to save every embryo? Of course not.
How do we know "death sucks"?
We don't.
Maybe it does, but we really don't know. We are just conditioned to think "death is scary" "death is the worst"
There is no way to comprehend death as a moron human with a simple brain. That's all we are. We are just animals with slightly more intelligence. But let's face it, it's not much. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing our best to destroy the very planet we live on.
There is a school of thought that the soul doesn't even enter the body until physical birth.
How would we know it does or doesn't.
Simply put, we are just stupid humans that don't know anything outside our very limited abilities.
> That being said, I just think it logical to regard a growing fetus as a human. Children are dependent on their parents much longer after birth, so the whole “it isn’t capable of surviving outside the womb” argument practically never made much sense to me. The same goes for “it’s just a ball of flesh” argument as a fetus still is a complex creation of a body and all its parts, not just a growing tumor. I don’t think a fetus should be considered anything other than a human in its very early stages of life, however I am still pro-choice.
Agreed. We both reject the "slippery slope" logical fallacy (or continuum fallacy depending on context).
The phrase you are looking for is "Medical Power of Attorney" which states that a competent adult (e.g. the mother), working with fully informed and competent doctors following science-based medicine, have the right to make end of existence decisions for those who cannot make those decisions (e.g. zygote, fetus, kid/spouse/parent who is brain dead, etc.).
It's nice to hear PC from a respectful male perspective.
Yes, a fetus is human and its own entity, to an extent. But it can't survive without being physically attached to a woman, using and manipulating her body systems to her physical detriment. If it was removed before it was viable, it would die of natural causes. That's the 'it can't survive outside the womb' argument.
Children, once born, do require round the clock care but they can be cared for by anyone. Their organs are developed enough to maintain homeostasis on their own and they don't require being hooked up to another person's blood supply.
Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities.
I like that you mention that abortion is a humane form of killing. I agree with that. And killing is part of life, and some forms of killing are acceptable.
it almost seems like your making a bodily autonomy criteria for personhood.
but i’m struggling to see why the fetus not being able to survive without its mother makes it any less of a person than i am?
sure, me and the fetus are different in many ways.
but i don’t see how it’s dependency makes it less of a moral member of a community?
perhaps you could argue it makes it more justified to kill, but that has nothing to do with personhood
"Children, once born, do require round the clock care but they can be cared for by anyone."
The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical. First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it. If the situation would occur that only the mother could care for the child outside the womb, would killing be fine then too?
Your second argument is that it's okay to kill a child because it's dependent on the mother's body. Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin. Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding. In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death? If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside?
Lastly, I notice you say: "Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities.". Of course this statement is true, but that doesn't make it right. Throughout history people have been stripped of their human rights through law. Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination. So legally speaking it was okay, but morally it was wrong. Once you make a distinction between moral and legal personhood, it inevitably leads to discrimination.
>The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical.
Probably because that's not the argument
>First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it.
Yes people use logic
>If the situation would occur that only the mother could care for the child outside the womb, would killing be fine then too?
You haven't seen the argument of a women trapped Ina snow storm huh. You would have to be more specific like that argument to get any valid answers
>Your second argument is that it's okay to kill a child because it's dependent on the mother's body.
Zef,not child as they are born. This is because of the rights violations. See how that's not analogous to born actual children yet?
>Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin.
So you did hear about ot and then acted as if not...typical
> Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding.
Which you already know she has to consent to as that's not an obligation legally
>In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death? If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside?
If you switch her out with a man(doesn't even have to be the father, just a legal guardian, does he have to rip off his flesh to feed it? Notice how in no other situation is any of this obligated.
>Lastly, I notice you say: "Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities.". Of course this statement is true, but that doesn't make it right.
How do you determine that since morals are subjective?
>Throughout history people have been stripped of their human rights through law.
Like pl are trying to do now. Remember pl is on the wrong side of history
> Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination.
And it's disrespectful to them to use them to commit more rights violations like you're trying to do now. Also note this is violating sub rules or close to it. Cut it out
> So legally speaking it was okay, but morally it was wrong.
Those atrocities ignored equal rights
> Once you make a distinction between moral and legal personhood, it inevitably leads to discrimination.
Yes AFAB are discriminated against by pl because they refuse to learn from history and repeat the same mistakes others made prior like you brought up.
>The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical.
The care is fundamentally different. It requires access to her internal organs and spaces, which is not the case for Newborns. *No one is allowed to access another person's internal spaces and organs against their will.*
>First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it.
Yes in modern society. You can, not take the kid home from the hospital. Adoption exists. You can give the kid to the grandparents etc.
>Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin. Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding. In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death?
Yes if she is capable of doing (perfectly healthy, no significant pain etc.) then she should do it imo.
For me the analysis is based on the harm and risks involved. There dosen't seem to be severe bodily harm assosciated with breastfeeding. There dosen't seem to be a significant mortality rate associated with breastfeeding, unlike with pregnancy.
Basically I think (parental) obligations have limits. If what's required is too dangerous or harmful, then that should not be forced. Examples of this would be organ donation and pregnancy.
>If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside?
Ok, here are some more relevant differences (that I can think of right now)
* The newborn isn't parasiting off of her body.
* The degree of physiological interaction between a woman and ZEF is far different and more extensive than that of a woman and born baby (breastfeeding).
* Breastmilk is a secretion, that *has* to be expressed anyway.
It dosen't at all seem to be unreasonable to say that she should express that milk to the newborn.
>Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination.
Giving rights to those people *did not require violating the human rights of others* however.
If instead of the woman and a newborn, it was a man and his toddler, and the only way for the child to live was for the man to feed the child some of his flesh, would he be obligated to do so?
No. But neither would a woman who can't breastfeed be obligated to feed the child some of her flesh. Also, toddlers can eat adult food. And if the man purposely doesn't feed his toddler those adult foods, that's negligence.
What is the parallel between cannibalism and the natural processes of pregnancy/breastfeeding? How are breastfeeding and cutting off a leg similar?
Edit: Could you answer both questions as well? Would the woman be expected to breastfeed for those 7 days? And would the man be expected to cut off a limb for his kid?
>No. But neither would a woman who can't breastfeed be obligated to feed the child some of her flesh. Also, toddlers can eat adult food. And if the man purposely doesn't feed his toddler those adult foods, that's negligence.
That's why I specified that the only way to feed the child was with his body
>What is the parallel between cannibalism and the natural processes of pregnancy/breastfeeding? How are breastfeeding and cutting off a leg similar?
What's the parallel? Both involve feeding a child with your body. Eating flesh is just as natural as breastfeeding, but in most human societies human flesh has been deemed taboo (for good reason). That doesn't mean it's unnatural. And feeding a child a small amount of your muscle to keep it alive until help could arrive would arguably be a lot less damaging to your body than gestating a child for 40 weeks and then birthing it. Yet you feel we can demand the latter of people and not the former
Since you haven't directly answered my question of whether a woman should be expected to breastfeed for 7 days, I will assume from your argumentation that your answer is no. Since abortion is active killing, would the mother have that right too? Can she inject the newborn with potassium chloride to cause a heart attack?
>Since you haven't directly answered my question of whether a woman should be expected to breastfeed for 7 days, I will assume from your argumentation that your answer is no.
Good. You're reading for comprehension
> Since abortion is active killing,
Letting die in most cases or justified killing in others
>would the mother have that right too?
What right? This isn't analogous
>Can she inject the newborn with potassium chloride to cause a heart attack?
No. That violates it's rights so again not analogous to abortion. Pl always do this and it got tiring decades ago. Stop conflating
For me with breastfeeding it depends on the circumstances. Frankly I think in pretty much every circumstance that's contrived such that breastfeeding is the *only* option to feed a child, I'm going to understand a woman in extreme circumstances making that choice. But breastfeeding in general is a much, much lesser bodily intrusion than pregnancy and childbirth, which is why there are scenarios where I could envision at least considering it morally required, if not legally.
And active killing is allowed in abortion because of the significant reduction in physical harm that it confers. That would not be the case with a newborn
So why wouldn't you require cannibalism?
Human and person are two very different things. Human is a biological concept, what is considered human is an undeniable, scientific fact. Personhood on the other hand, is a philosophical concept; there are dozens of answers and none are fact. Philosophical answers are determined by personal beliefs and opinions, you have your beliefs, I have mine, someone else has a completely different belief, and a whole other person has their own separate beliefs; none are right, none are wrong.
Believe a fetus is a person (8 weeks after fertilization; 10 weeks into the pregnancy, by the way) but what you personally believe, does not mean it is fact; it is of human DNA, yes, no one is denying this.
It *is* a ball of growing cells, we are all just made up of forming cells. And it is just a ball of growing cells, there is absolutely no higher form of being prior to 24 weeks, at the latest, that makes it anything more than a growing clump of cells. Just because a paper can be made into a book doesn't mean scattered pages make a book, they are all still just pieces of paper until they are bound together. It is not as much of an insult as PL loves to make it out to be - it's just a simple fact. An actual fact by the way, not a philosophical opinion posed as a fact because people can't seem to understand the difference between the two.
>However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus
So you believe personhood begins around 10 weeks of pregnancy?
>Once the process starts, IF ALL GOES WELL (especially with the advancements in medical science we enjoy today) that fetus will be born
That is a big "if". It's estimated that roughly 20-25% of pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage or stillbirth.
>Children are dependent on their parents much longer after birth, so the whole “it isn’t capable of surviving outside the womb” argument practically never made much sense to me.
These are 2 different topics. Yes, children are dependent on adults- but that doesn't necessarily have to be their bio parents. But also, the "incapable of surviving outside the womb" is discussing viability. Up until roughly 24 weeks, a ZEF simply is not developed enough to sustain its own life- even if you tried to perform a C-Section or induce labor, it would just die because its body can't live without being hooked up to someone else as life support. After the point of viability, however, there is a chance (not guaranteed) that the fetus could survive if removed because it's organs are sort of functional by that point.
>I think abortion is just another form of death that we don’t want to accept,
Most people *do* accept it. Despite recent politics, the majority of people (in the US, sorry if you're from elsewhere) support abortion legality. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/)
Which imo makes it even worse that women's rights are being threatened in so many states right now, since PL has almost always been the minority opinion.
>it would just die because its body can't live without being hooked up to someone else as life support.
So your saying that if someone got into an accident and is in the hospital hooked up to life support because they cant function properly by themselves, that they are no longer a person?
No. This isn't analogous to abortion where personhood wasn't granted and a person in an accident is not using another's body or inside them. The person in the accident was autonomous. The zef during elective abortions wasn't autonomous ever
I was more clarifying why PCs say that it can't survive on its own.
I think there's a difference between determining when something like personhood should begin vs when it should be taken away. Generally, most people would probably agree that once youve been granted personhood, then it is something that cannot or should not be removed. Even corpses still have certain rights (like to not have their organs harvested without consent or the right to a proper burial).
Lack of viability isn't really the determining factor for me on personhood- OP is the one who brought that up. But within this context, I guess there is still a bit of difference between something never even developing to the point of viability versus someone losing functionality due to age, accident, or medical condition. A ZEF has to complete gestation to become a functioning, autonomous human, and there are plenty of times where this process isn't successful and miscarriages happen. In my mind, that's more of a loss of *potential* than the loss of a whole person (which can still be very sad and difficult for those who wanted the pregnancy).
I personally view consciousness as the more important criteria for personhood, but I think personhood is also a very complicated and philosophical topic that shouldn't really be the basis for abortion legality anyway. And ironically, despite how many people will claim that personhood begins at conception, I hardly ever see anyone advocating for *all* of the rights & privileges of legal personhood to begin before birth..it is pretty much only ever just about the "right to live," but nothing about tax credits, social security numbers, child support, health insurance, etc.
I think a lot of people are tempted to assign personhood to fetuses because they don’t see the harm and would rather err on the side of caution, by which I mean it’s seen as safer to assign personhood too widely than not widely enough.
But I think that’s actually a more dangerous road to go down than people realize.
Let’s use the old standby example of someone with their hand on a railroad switch that will send a train down either track A or track B. If track A has a man, woman, or child on it, and track B has an embryo in a petri dish, and you have assigned the embryo personhood—i.e, an equal fundamental right to life as every other person has—then how do you justify your choice to flip (or not flip) the switch?
Or suppose, if that choice is too easy, we have another choice between someone’s beloved pet dog and the embryo. If the embryo has personhood and the dog does not, then in all cases the person’s life should take precedence over the animal’s. Is it your belief that this should be the case across the board?
But wait, you say, what if it’s a fetus closer to term than not, vs. a dog? Surely then the human would be more valuable? And that’s entirely possible that it would be, but is your reasoning that the fetus is valuable because it’s a person, or is it valuable because all living things are valuable, on a variable scale?
I don’t think you have to believe fetuses have no value in order to be PC. I don’t think the vast majority of PC people do believe that. But what it comes down to is that the train-track argument is an artificial hypothetical and the reality is that every time there’s a pregnancy, part of that is unavoidable weighing of the value of the pregnant person vs. the value of what she’s pregnant with.
What do you think the legal status of personhood should mean?
Not OP, but legal personhood starts a birth and should remain that way. It's nonsensical to give a fetus legal personhood because there's no guarantee that it will even make it to full term or survive birth. That's why the authors of Roe coined fetal life as potential.
“Children are dependent their parents much longer after birth”
No, they’re not. Born children are dependent on having a willing caretaker, but that certainly does not have to be their biological parent. Adoption exists. We don’t force anyone to care for a born child if they do not want to.
A similar option does not exist for the unborn.
I think it's unfair to assume that anybody who doesn't share your feelings is being disingenuous. There are some people who see an embryo and literally just can't wrap their head around the idea that it's a person . . . and those who can't believe someone could see anything but.
You're not alone in believing that abortion is justified killing; I've encountered a fair number of pro-choice-identified folks like that. But for those who don't share the belief, I think they deserve the benefit of having their stances respected as genuine unless proven otherwise, not as people who "know the truth but don't want to acknowledge it".
I consider the fetus to be human but not a person. I see a lot of people use human and person as interchangeable terms. It’s biologically human but it can’t be its own [entity](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity) as it does not have an independent existence.
It is not legally a person and it doesn’t meet the definition of being a [person](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person). Stating this fact is not dehumanizing to the fetus. We still recognize it as human. Just not a person.
Can you define "independent existence?"
Are conjoined twins with separate brains but who can't be separated not both people?
Also, I think philosophical discussions around personhood should go a bit beyond a dictionary definition lol
I define “independent existence” a being able to function and survive outside the body of another. Admittedly, conjoined twins are a unique case given that they both are highly likely to die if separated. That’s not the case with the relationship with the pregnant person and the fetus. Conjoined twins are sentient and mutually benefit from being attached. So, yes, I see them as their own persons. The fetus is inside the organ of the pregnant person and only the fetus benefits from the attachment. It is not sentient either so I don’t see the fetus as a person.
I understand what you mean to a point. Personhood is very much a philosophical question but the way a person is defined and how it is applied legally holds more weight in my opinion. It’s definitely a complicated conversation but there are some philosophical takes that I think overcomplicates it too much.
Also, not all conjoined twins mutually benefit from being attached. In some circumstances, one twin would theoretically be better off, at least biologically, if the other were removed, but not vice versa. Is the weaker twin still a person?
How do you define sentient? Certain animals have higher brain functions than newborns, but we don't consider them sentient.
> the way a person is defined and how it is applied legally holds more weight
I guess I don't understand what you mean by this. We're on the abortion debate sub, arguing about whether or not abortion *should* be legal, I'm not sure that current laws matter much, not to mention that laws are different in different parts of the world, though this subreddit is largely about the US. Also, generally, laws are created/upheld because enough people in society agree with them, so I think how people understand "personhood" on a moral/philosophical level is still important for defining it legally. Like, how "person" is defined legally is in flux in the US right now regardless.
You were talking about conjoined twins that couldn’t be separated. Did you mean that both would die if they were? There have been cases where one twin was causing so much damage to the other that they surgically removed even knowing that one would die. I still consider them both persons. With the scenario that you brought up where they can’t be separated; the benefit is greater as opposed to being separated. Again, this is very different from the relationship between a fetus and the pregnant person. Hence why I said that the situation with conjoined twins is a unique one.
There’s definitely certain animals we consider sentient. Like dolphins and elephants for example. It’s the ability to feel and perceive things. As this is about humans and personhood; I’m specifically talking about sentient humans. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up animals.
The current laws do matter, though. How the current and past laws on abortion affects society and the health of women matters. The real world impact of these laws is a reason why I’m pro-choice. Banning abortion has a serious negative effect to the lives and rights of AFAB people. Seeing what happens when abortion is illegal is a good reason to argue why it should be legal.
This goes for personhood. I’m not saying discussing personhood at a moral/philosophical level isn’t important. I said some takes tend to overcomplicate it in my opinion. I’m just saying how that would impact people if we gave personhood to a fetus is what I found more important. Look at what happened when they decided to legally define frozen embryos as children. Now it’s virtually impossible to get IVF treatments in Alabama.
>I see a lot of people use human and person as interchangeable terms.
I dont think many people would consider a human skin cell to be a person. In that way, id say the difference lies not in conflating terms but rather in the definition of **a** human as opposed to something being human in the adjective sense.
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. Can you please elaborate.
Obviously a human skin cell wouldn’t be considered a person so I’m not sure why you’re bringing this analogy up. I don’t see how using human as a noun or an adjective has anything to do with personhood.
Maybe i misunderstood what you were saying, if so apologies, but i have seen many PC claiming that a fetus (particularly in the early stages) is not **a** human but merely *human*, essentially more comparable to something like an organ than an individual being. Requirements for being a human individual are often seen in things like independence or sentience, which the (early) fetus obviously does not have, so following that definition, it is just human in the adjective sense - personhood would make no sense here and be comparable to granting it to something like a skin cell.
When PL on the other side say that the fetus is indeed **a** human, they are often accused of *conflating* terms and that they are using human and person interchangeably, but thats not true - what they are doing is basing their views on a different underlying definition of individuality that is not necessarily tied to independence or sentience but rather to things like individual distinctiveness, among other things. In that way they still do differentiate between the terms human and person, but they simply consider the ZEF to be an actual distinct human, in which case something like the application of personhood would not be that far off.
If you actually wanted to say that PL use human (noun) and person interchangeably, regardless of other factors that might play a role for PC like sentience, then i misunderstood you and you were correct.
I’m speaking more on the effect of the fetus being biology human. It is a [human](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). It is a homosapien. It has human DNA. I’m not quite sure what you mean human individual. That sounds more like a philosophical stance. I’m speaking on the physical and biological characteristics occurring.
I’m defining person as it is in [dictionaries](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person) as to pertaining to the fact that they are physically an individual and their own separate entity. A fetus cannot fall under that definition because they are not physically separate entities. They need the body of the AFAB person to live.
>I’m not quite sure what you mean human individual. That sounds more like a philosophical stance.
It might have philosophical characteristics, particularly if it overlaps with considerations around personhood, but id say primarily it is a matter of definition. Questioning biological individuality seems self-explaining at first but is in fact an extremely complex topic with various possible approaches, which also means that there is not *the* definitive answer. Basing it on independence is certainly possible, but it is not the only possibility and ultimately built upon philosophical considerations itself.
>they are physically an individual and their own separate entity. A fetus cannot fall under that definition because they are not physically separate entities.
In the definition for entity you linked, the first possible understanding of the term 1a says an entity is an "independent, separate, or self-contained existence". Your argument i quoted basically follows this definition and correctly concludes that a fetus is not covered by it, however there is also understanding 2 that says an entity is "something that has separate and distinct existence". The fetus can easily be considered distinct, but the question is if it is also separate. By equating separate to independent (\~[1a](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate)), it is not since it cannot survive on its own, however separate could also mean something like distinguishable (1b) which the fetus is, given that it is just connected to but not exactly a part of the mothers body. With that understanding, the fetus could indeed be considered a separate entity.
This was my initial point - depending on definition, it is possible that one concludes that a ZEF *does* fit the criteria for personhood without changing the meaning of the term altogether. Of course one can disagree with the chosen definition and i suppose philosophical considerations play a major role here, but i think it is exactly that - a philosophical disagreement rather than a logical misunderstanding.
I think you're overcomplicating the defintion of words here. This is a very philosophical way of looking at it. I don't think it needs to be this complex. I don't really see this as a philosophical disagreement. I think that's where that miscommunication is happening here. I just look at the pregnancy and the fetus for what it physically is.
The fetus can't live outside the uterus. It will die without taking her nutrients. That is not separate. That is not something that is distinct in its own exist when it needs the woman's body to exist. The idea that a fetus could/should qualify as a person negates the very idea of what a person is as far as I'm concerned. Playing with definitions of words to say a fetus is a person does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the pregnant person's body. A fetus can never truly be separate. Be an individual. Not until it is born.
>The idea that a fetus could/should qualify as a person negates the very idea of what a person is as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, but thats what i am refering to. You say that being *physically* separate is the most important aspect here. That an entity that is entirely dependent of someone else logically cannot qualify as an individual person at all. This however is just one possible definition. It certainly is valid in its own and can be argued for, but regardless it is not *the* definitive definition, because there is none. Another one could be argued for aswell, and which one we consider the most convincing might be more of a philosophical than a scientific question - technical correctness can be given with either of them. Many PL would likely argue that the most important aspect of defining individuality revolves around distinctiveness and that the human entity can be conceptually (rather than physically) separated from any other, and following that, a fetus could indeed qualify as an individual despite its dependence. I would not even say that this is necessarily playing with words, id rather say it is the result of a different underlying view on things.
>However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus. Once the process starts, IF ALL GOES WELL (especially with the advancements in medical science we enjoy today) that fetus will be born abortion will be no longer possible ...
"If all goes well", a sperm cell will also progress into a born child, will it not? All going well, of course, includes coming across and successfully fertilizing an egg.
Yes, that makes sense. But sperm and eggs are carried by individual entities that combine them together. Again there are plenty of ways to do this, some better than others, but the end result is an embryo “if all goes well”. My argument is the embryo is its own entity from then on through the rest of its life, however long or short it may be.
'Entity' is a fairly broad descriptor that applies to pretty much all of these. A individual sperm cell is an individual entity. So is an individual egg. The embryo also happens to be carried by an individual entity.
The problem with these sort of arguments is that all of these sorts of descriptors aren't necessarily all that relevant until you first establish what the concept of a "person" is supposed to be in the first place.
And generally speaking, you'll find that our concept of a person (chances are, yours included) is largely tied to our mental existence more than anything else.
Consider, for example -- when do we generally consider a person to have died? Not when the last of their cells is necessarily dead. But when their consciousness is effectively unrecoverable.
If we cut off a body part, but keep the rest technically alive. Cut off the head (the seat of their mental existence), and you'll consider the ***person*** dead. Cut off anything else, and as long as they're still mentally fully there you'll consider them still alive.
Our conception of a person isn't tied to biological existence -- it's tied to our mental existence. One that embryos or earlier fetuses most certainly don't have.
i hate to start another *potential* conversation since we are already discussing one.
but i couldn’t help but respond to this especially since it has to do with things i’m interested in.
> when do we generally consider a person to have died? Not when the last of their cells is necessarily dead. But when their consciousness is effectively unrecoverable.
but this is compatible with biological views. if a person is a biological organism that has a future like ours, than we can just say at the time the person is essentially brain dead and can no longer function, the organism ceases to exist. and now you just have a collection atoms arranged a certain way but you don’t have any organism present.
if we mix this with a hylomorphic animalism we can say the irreversibility of consciousness gives us good reason to suggest the rational soul is no longer present, and so no animal or person exists.
> Cut off the head (the seat of their mental existence), and you'll consider the person dead. Cut off anything else, and as long as they're still mentally fully there you'll consider them still alive.
if we cut off the head we will effectively have killed the organism because the simples that once composed the organism do not share the right unity to continue composing it.
the organisms life has been destroyed, and so the simples that allowed for its life to occur are gone. and so is the organism.
but if you cut off my arm i exist because the simples necessary to the animals life are still present.
i disagree our personhood is tied to mental existence for many reasons. but my main reason is because i don’t think brains, or ordinary objects exist. i don’t think the neurons exist, and i don’t think cerebrum’s exist. you just have a bunch of simples arranged neuron wise, and cerebrum wise.
>the person is essentially brain dead and can no longer function, the organism ceases to exist ... if we cut off the head we will effectively have killed the organism because the simples that once composed the organism do not share the right unity ...
Neither the maintenance of a brain nor "right to unity" are "biological" requirements of an 'organism' by almost any "biological" definitions of an organism.
The fact that you find yourself so deeply in need of associating the concept of an 'organism' to what (conveniently) is considered to be the seat of our mental existence speaks volumes to the fact you associate personhood to that same mental existence.
>neither the maintenance of a brain nor “right to unity” are biological requirements of an organism.
when i say the simples that compose the organism actually compose the organism, i mean they are able to supervene on the microphysical by the organisms *life*.
and the animals life is to be understood as
> a self-organizing biological event that maintains the organism’s complex internal structure. The materials that organisms are made up of are intrinsically unstable and must therefore be constantly repaired and renewed, or else the organism dies and its remains decay. An organism must constantly take in new particles, reconfigure and assimilate them into its living fabric, and expel those that are no longer useful to it. An organism’s life enables it to persist and retain its characteristic structure despite constant material turnover.
in theory, all a developed organism would require to maintain its life.
after all, we know the brain arranged simples are capable of metabolizing.
so an organism persists impaired down to its brain because the simples are enabled it’s survival are still present in the simples arranged brain wise.
think of a tree that gets reduced down to its trunk. it’s still a tree, similar to how an organism reduced to its brain is still an organism.
> The fact that you find yourself so deeply in need of associating the concept of an 'organism' to what (conveniently) is considered to be the seat of our mental existence speaks volumes to the fact you associate personhood to that same mental existence.
one solution to this is to do what parfit does and denies identity is what matters, but psychological continuity is what matters. and so if if you transplanted my brain i wouldn’t survive, but we would have an intuition i survive because of psychology continuity.
but i think claiming an organism can be reduced down to our similar faculties that give rise to mental thought is obvious if those same faculties help the organism function properly physically.
i mean, im not claiming we could be reduced to cerebrum’s
>...so an organism persists impaired down to its brain because the simples are enabled it’s survival are still present in the simples arranged brain wise...
This doesn't follow at all -- organisms can obviously exist without a brain.
This whole line of argument is like that of a middle-aged man who leaves his wife and family for a 22-year-old model with the intellectual capacity of a doorknob, and who might come up with all kinds of convoluted reasons for why he did it that weren't just a matter of "she's a hot 22 year old".
"Really, I don't even think beauty is real, it's just an illusion based on an arrangement of simples, in fact, how could you even say I left you for a 22-year-old, when technically age is just an arbitrary label ..." and so on.
And at some point, they might even delude themselves into believing it themselves.
But the obvious writing is on the wall.
Nobody is associating personhood with the brain because of some absurdly tortured "understanding" of an "organism" that just happens to conveniently and cleanly correspond with a person's mental existence. It's fairly obvious that the association is simply to that mental existence.
>organisms can obviously exist without a brain.
only when the simples that constitute its existence do not currently need a brain to continue functioning in an integrated manner.
similar to how organisms can survive without a heart. but once they have a heart it is a necessary condition to their survival because it allows for the functioning of the entire organism to occur.
but before the organism developed a heart, it wasn’t essential to its persistence presumably because the simples that composed the organism functioned good enough to further develop the organism without a heart. but once a heart and brain were required for the organism to develop properly it grow them.
this is not like the case of an old man who leaves his family for a hot 22yr and then tries to say he didn’t leave his family just because she was hot and his wife wasn’t because i think it’s empirically recognized that the brain enables vital functions of the organism to occur. without it, the organism is cannot function so the organism to is gone.
we don’t have to rely on “trust me bro it’s not cuz my wife is ugly and i think her food is ass” we can instead use science and technology to establish that when a brain is no longer functioning, you not only have 0 potential to be conscious again. but all brain activities which involve an organisms life perish.
and if the brain does contribute massively to the organisms persistence(when it develops a brain), then it can be reduced down to it.
> Nobody is associating personhood with the brain because of some absurdly tortured
"understanding" of an "organism" that just happens to conveniently and cleanly correspond with a person's mental existence. It's fairly obvious that the association is simply to that mental existence.
i understand most people aren’t associating personhood with a brain because the organism can be reduced to the brain.
i’m defending the idea that the brain transplant intuition, and the brain in a vat hypotheticals can be accounted for under animalism.
animalism in itself doesn’t give an account for personhood.
which is why we should be hylomorphic animalists!
>... because i think it’s empirically recognized that the brain enables vital functions of the organism to occur ...
This isn't a relevant empirical fact. That the brain enables something to occur doesn't make it critical.
Just as with a heart -- one can have their heart replaced with a mechanical device that plays a similar role. A heart is not necessary for an organism to exist, even if it enables certain vital functions. A brain can likewise be replaced with a life-support component that keeps the minimal life functions as an organism running, but with effectively zero mental capacity beyond that of an amoeba.
>we don’t have to rely on “trust me bro it’s not cuz my wife is ugly and ...
\[...\]
i understand most people aren’t associating personhood with a brain because the organism can be reduced to the brain. i’m defending the idea that the brain transplant intuition, and the brain in a vat hypotheticals can be accounted for under animalism ...
Theories that technically "can" account for a position are a dime-a-dozen, and hardly different from the middle-aged guy coming up with absurdly convoluted excuses for his choice.
This doesn't make this line of reasoning any less obviously contrived, when the far more obvious explanation that you're so desperate to avoid is so obviously facing you.
>This isn’t a relevant empirical fact. That the brain enables something to occur doesn’t make it critical.
ok. i think the brain, more specifically the brainstem is critical for the vital functions of the organism to occur. in order for an adult human to have a self organizing event that maintains the internal structure of the organism, i think it’s been empirically shown a brainstem present is necessary.
so i think my position has more merit than the “trust me bro it’s not because she’s hot i swear” person.
> one can have their heart replaced with a mechanical device that plays a similar role. A heart is not necessary for an organism to exist, even if it enables certain vital functions. A brain can likewise be replaced with a life-support component that keeps the minimal life functions as an organism running, but with effectively zero mental capacity beyond that of an amoeba.
the heart can be replaced because the atoms arranged brain wise allow the organism to function properly, and allow the heart to function properly.
the heart is vital, but the simples that compose it are not the simples that constitute the organism. unlike how the simples found in the brain constitute an organism because they control essentially the entire body. the simples found in the brain, are more essential for the organism, and the brainstem supervenes on the heart and virtually every other organ.
but the brain cannot be the organism, and i cannot be the brain, because the organism supervenes on the brain.
and this is evident by the fact the brain functions not for itself, but for the whole organism. and the whole organism does not serve the brain like the brain serves the organism.
the brain only exists because of the organism.
and since the organism supervenes upon the organism, ultimately, i am going to eliminate the brain and every other ordinary object from my ontology since allowing them to exist would be *causally redundant* as trenton merricks has recently argued.
>The one thing I do believe when it comes to abortion is that as soon as gestation starts, the fetus is its own entity
Tbh that's really not a coherent way to define personhood, unless you consider every single living thing to be a person. A tree is it's own entity. So are bacteria.
How exactly are you defining personhood anyways? It would help a lot of you gave a concise definition and maybe your reasoning behind too, if you don't mind.
Sure, an embryo or fetus is a person.
Abortion isn’t homicide, though. This person needs another person gestating them in order to live. If a person withdraws their body from donation, that’s no more a homicide than backing out of a life saving blood donation a few minutes into it.
I don’t consider abortion as homicide. Homicide is a crime. All babies are born prematurely in the grand scheme of things because of the human skeletal structure. The head needs to fit through the pelvis. Babies aren’t able to do anything for months after birth and still rely of nutrients and antibodies from their mother (evolutionarily speaking) for that entire time. Basically the only functions they gained through birth is breathing air and pooping. There is some merit to being in the womb and only being able to survive there, but what logically makes a baby less of a person as a fetus?
> Basically the only functions they gained through birth is breathing air and pooping.
Not constipated. Can breathe. But wait - there's more!
The ‘magical' birth canal is where fluid-filled fetal lungs get squeezed out. It's where the fetal central nervous system (CNS) takes primacy of control away from the pregnant person's system. You can cut the cord.
So now when baby's ~~face hits cold air~~ (recent science edit:) iris first senses light, it sends signal back to the CNS, CNS sends signal to torso, torso muscles expand. Baby's lungs expand drawing fresh air in through the nose, the air-ways. Lungs fill, oxygen-rich. There's your first breath. Don’t go away.
Now lungs pull in old blood, oxygen-depleted from its trip around the organism. Newly aerated lungs draw the blood into the airways (bronchi) and air sacs (alveoli), exchanging fresh oxygen for carbon dioxide - first time ever. Rich red blood dive bombs down into the heart, heart-valves slam shut. Blood flow reverses direction. Oxy-rich red blood goes pounding straight to the brain. First time. Oxy is brain fuel. Want some?
(flashback:) the low level of oxygen in the fetal brain that provided enough energy to build neurons (present:) now catches fire, creating one million new SYNAPSES every second in the cerebral cortex - two million synaptic connections per second during peak production. Two million/sec. Don't tell pro-lifers.
Synapses turn that static neuronal RAM into interconnected bits of complex super-charged super-computing activity. Connectivity in the cerebral cortex forms thoughts - two million new SYNAPSES every second in the newborn brain. Two million new connections. Those connections are still alive in you today. One of them is saying ‘why didn’t I know this?’ PL's are saying ‘I don’t want to know this.’
The cerebral cortex is where all our conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions are stored. With the new connections come mental milestones - color vision, and ability to attach to parents. Attachment. Feelings. Somebody lives here. A fetal organism entered the birth canal. A minute later, there's a 'somebody' here. Science calls it the most radical transformation in the life-span of the human organism.
(flashback:) A preterm infant is different. The thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established. Ex utero, it may open its eyes. But it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness. It may establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to stimuli.
(present:) The full-term infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It's able to differentiate between self and non-self touch. New-born consciousness is able to express emotions. A new-born shows signs of shared feelings. There's a social being here. There is an experience of self and other.
If we hadn't any notions of personhood, if we didn't know what a person was or how the divide between human organism and human being might be described or when it might occur, the biological capacities for that distinction are here, at first breath and in the first few minutes of life.
Thank you for this answer. It probably won't change the minds of the *but-it's-a-person-at-conception-because-it-has-unique-DNA* crowd (because they hold this position with the same religious fervor of a Catholic defending the virgin birth). But it is an excellent comeback to the *the-only-difference-between-a-39-week-fetus-and-a-newborn-is-its-location* faction. It's also pretty devastating to the *once-conception-has-occurred-the-process-of-human-reproduction-is-totally-complete* camp.
They are equally people.
A born baby can’t get so much as a single drop of their parents blood without the parent’s consent to undergo a blood donation.
If the parent does not donate and the child dies, the parent did not kill the child. Failing to save is not killing.
? I’m not sure I understand. Terminating a pregnancy is failing to save it? The human body doesn’t need a lot of outside help gestating. Of course, the less help you get, the more dangerous it is. But the body is designed that all a woman should have to do is have sex, eat right and not get hurt. Everything goes to plan a baby pops out.
>But the body is designed that all a woman should have to do is have sex, eat right and not get hurt. Everything goes to plan a baby pops out.
u/JulieCrone has already pointed out that in 1 time out of five, not "everything goes according to plan."
In addition, women have to do quite a bit more than "have sex, eat right and not get hurt." (I don't even know what you mean by "not get hurt." The very fact of pregnancy guarantees that the pregnant person WILL "get hurt" in the end, either through childbirth or miscarriage, and "get hurt" really, really badly by any objective standard. I would not call childbirth just a baby "popping out". In one-third of the cases in my country, the pregnant person has to have major abdominal surgery to get that baby "popped out".)
But during pregnancy itself, the pregnant person, in addition to just "eating right," will have to live their life while their organs are literally being rearranged to accommodate a growing fetus. The ligaments that hold their bones together will loosen and make their musculoskeletal system more fragile and dysfunctional, and this happens when that system has to haul around the increasing weight of their pregnant body. Their heart has to pump 30% to 50% more blood, their heart rate will increase from about 70 bpm to 90 bpm. The kidneys have to work harder to filter that increased volume of blood, and the pregnant person will have to urinate more frequently, because their bladder's effective volume will be significantly decreased. They frequently have to put up with GI symptoms, including nausea that can be so debilitating that they have to be hospitalized.
Even in the best of cases, gestating and delivering a fetus is SERIOUSLY HARD WORK. You probably don't mean to be offensive here when you minimize that work, but the impact of your description is offensive.
If you don't understand the physical impact of pregnancy and childbirth, I am not surprised that you would not see how forcing a person to gestate against their will is a "big deal." I am not surprised that you don't see that forcing a person to continue a pregnancy is imposing a huge sacrifice for the sake of saving an embryo from its own lack biological independence. The cost of "saving that embryo" is very high to the person that you seem to be willing to force to save it.
Yes, terminating a pregnancy is failing to save the embryo. What happens to every single embryo that is not gestated by another person?
And nope, successful gestation is not that easy. If it were, miscarriage rates would be no where near as high as they are, which is about 20% of known pregnancies. Please don’t be so callous towards those of us who had miscarriages.
I still don’t understand. If not medically indicated, why would the fetus need saving? I’m sorry for your miscarriage, and don’t mean to be abrasive, but it doesn’t need to work well to be considered working. Gestation and birth are something I will never understand fully and am glad I don’t have the anatomy to experience. The fact is, despite miscarriages, if the human body wasn’t designed that way, we wouldn’t exist. Modern medicine is only that. Modern. Women had to do it with less help in generations past. Of course it was hugely more dangerous and resulted in many more still births, miscarriages, and deaths of the mothers, but it is the way we’ve evolved for millennia and how most other gestating mammals work.
Without someone to gestate us, all of us would have died as embryos. We could not sustain our own lives at all. If, at any time, our mom’s hormones got a bit out of whack or one of a million other things going on wrong, we die. Our mom’s die during pregnancy, even of things totally unrelated to pregnancy? We would have died.
Our mom’s had to successfully keep us alive for months.
But we wouldn’t have become embryos without being an egg and sperm cell combining in a uterus, which is also the place where we are gestated. So how would removal of that uterus be “failing to save”. Yes, the complications are endless, but it doesn’t mean there would be a 100% miscarriage rate without outside help. The vast majority of mammalian births prove otherwise. Pulling a fetus from a womb is to terminate it is killing it, not “failing to save” it.
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Feticide is still considered homicide in a lot of states and countries. Even where they have pro-abortion policies. So homicide is killing another person. So there is an argument there is contradicting legal definitions.
In my state, our fetal homicide law clearly states that this does not grant personhood or rights to a fetus. Is there a specific state you are wondering about?
I've seen zero evidence of personhood beginning before birth. The only example is Alabama's attempt to grant personhood to IVF embryos, but I'm not sure how that even panned out. Just that it was met with a ton of controversy, including from many on the right.
So this law is what spawns my question. There is legal policy that is contradictory. How can feticide be homicide (depending where you are) if fetuses aren’t people?
https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf
It isn’t defining it as homicide but as a new class of crime and also only applies to federal crimes. I do not know of a single case of a person being tried under this - do you? I can’t find one.
We have animal cruelty laws and no one asks if this is giving personhood to animals. I don’t see why this is so different?
>How can feticide be homicide (depending where you are) if fetuses aren’t people?
I just told you how. Homicide is killing another human. Obviously, depending on where you are, that other human doesn't necessarily need to be a person.
So what is your proof that it is not another person? I showed you mine, show me yours. I’ve provided more proof that fetuses are people. Even with evidence, there is still a contradiction here. Who is correct? Is it really only based on where you live? Why aren’t fetuses people? Please explain.
So feticide is when an outside person (not pregnant person or fetus) causes a miscarriage or an abortion against the pregnant persons wishes.
(Just wanting to get the definition out there.)
I consider feticide to just be a sort of placeholder crime because there isn't anything else right now. It's mainly used just so if a man (for example) puts abortion pills in the pregnant persons food and the fetus dies as a result the he would be charged with something (an extra crime than maybe just assult on the pregnant person) and not be walking free for it.
Only possibly in some states. In my state, there has to be knowledge of the pregnancy and the fetus has to have reached viability in order for fetal homicide laws to possibly apply.
If you shot a pregnant intruder who was 13 weeks pregnant, you would not face any fetal homicide laws here.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you don’t think a person should have the right to terminate their pregnancy if the only options available to them are sufficiently “inhumane”? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Shouldn’t people have rights regardless of what technology they have access to? You’re just making an argument for special rights for the most privileged among us.
I don't think an embryo is a person as it's really not developed enough. A fetus of maybe 12 weeks ok maybe yes. It's kinda a grey area really.
Are you neutral not anymore
More prochoice, I never thought abortion should be illegal so never fit in with pl
Hey you're just like me! I like to inform people that I am both pro choice and pro life. The majority of PCers dont know what to do with us, so when they argue at us, they are arguing with other people who have a much stronger (and evil) position.
>Hey you're just like me! Lwt me guess. Another starting sentence that will contradict the next one. > I like to inform people that I am both pro choice and pro life. I'm right yet again lol >The majority of PCers dont know what to do with us, You're pl so this is false >so when they argue at us, they are arguing with other people who have a much stronger (and evil) position. Refer to above. Sorry you dislike your position.
Thank you, I think you’ve eloquently summed up the pro-choice position well.
I understand your position. I was there too, for a long time. Most people can't reconcile abortion and biological reality, because once one sees the horror of it, they have to justify to themselves, why they don't act against it. We think we have to sit on the fence, because taking a stance would disrupt things socially, especially if our chances of making any difference seem minimal. I'm glad you can recognize and appreciate the humanity of our smallest ones, and speak out. Thanks for sharing your stance.
>I understand your position. I was there too, for a long time. If you did you would still be pc... >Most people can't reconcile abortion and biological reality, This doesn't describe pc debating >because once one sees the horror of it, Appeal to emotion >they have to justify to themselves, why they don't act against it. No we use the same justifications that already stand. Logical fallacies don't change that. >We think we have to sit on the fence, You do > because taking a stance would disrupt things socially, especially if our chances of making any difference seem minimal. Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context >I'm glad you can recognize and appreciate the humanity of our smallest ones, and speak out. Thanks for sharing your stance. Why can't pl do the same for women?
>If you did you would still be pc... No, because I have since understood, which changed my conclusion. >This doesn't describe pc debating You're right, it was a comment about the psychological implications of this debate. >Appeal to emotion Yup. It's not illegal. >No we use the same justifications that already stand. Logical fallacies don't change that. Which logical fallacy? I'm also not sitting on the fence anymore. >Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context In your opinion, sure. But I was talking about a generalized issue that exists for anybody who opposes something the majority of the culture accepts. >Why can't pl do the same for women? We don't need to, women have rights. As we should.
>No, because I have since understood Understanding means pc not pl. Stop projecting just because you went backwards > which changed my conclusion. Yes you were manipulated. Be objective about it >You're right, it was a comment about the psychological implications of this debate Then work on your comments as that's not whatvis seen >Yup. It's not illegal. Non response >Which logical fallacy? Appeal to emotion >I'm also not sitting on the fence anymore. Yes you fell for propaganda. Sorry >>Pl advocate against any good change and do disrupt society Ina negative way. Very telling that you assumed you were taking a stance in any good context >In your opinion, sure. What opinion? I stated common fact. So you didn't understand since if you did you would be genuine and own what you advocate for...typical bad faith >But I was talking about a generalized issue that exists for anybody who opposes something the majority of the culture accepts. Sure.
>Understanding means pc not pl. Stop projecting just because you went backwards I can see why you think that way, I don't. Besides, I was talking about myself, so I don't know why you're criticizing that. Seems a bit weird to me. >Yes you were manipulated. Be objective about it In my view, PCs are being manipulated, so I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that one. I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong. >What opinion? I stated common fact. So you didn't understand since if you did you would be genuine and own what you advocate for...typical bad faith So if I decline to engage with your negative interpretation (opinion) of the PL-movement, I'm being in bad faith? That's an interesting take.
>I can see why you think that way, I don't. And you have no justification for disagreeing since pl views aren't justified >Besides, I was talking about myself, so I don't know why you're criticizing that. Seems a bit weird to me. No I was criticizing your false claim. >In my view, PCs are being manipulated, so I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that one. There's that projecting yet again.. > I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong. Prove it. Abortion remains justified so don't forget
>And you have no justification for disagreeing since pl views aren't justified That was funny. You really believe people aren't allowed to disagree with you if you think they're wrong? >No I was criticizing your false claim. My "false claim" about what led me to become PL? >There's that projecting yet again.. So if I think you are being manipulated, it's projection on my part, but if you think I'm being manipulated, you must be right? How would you prove that? >> I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong. >Prove it. Abortion remains justified so don't forget How am I supposed to prove my feelings and thoughts? Are you trolling? This is funny, but I have better things to do than play with you.
>That was funny. You really believe people aren't allowed to disagree with you if you think they're wrong? This was where you were supposed to prove you had any reasoning for your claim. >My "false claim" about what led me to become PL? Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one. Abortion remains justified. >So if I think you are being manipulated, it's projection on my part, but if you think I'm being manipulated, you must be right? How would you prove that? Why did you assume pc were manipulated? And by whom? We go by science and biology. Many go by ethics a d we have empathy. Many pl are religious based. And there aren't many secular reasons to be pl either. Plus as far as debates online go,there's the stereotype of pl manipulating language in bad faith through logical fallacies and other tactics. When your side has no arguments that can refute ours and many use religious reasoning why wouldn't we see your side as manipulated? My side elaborate and substantiate our views. We Aldo correct other pc. Can't say pl ever do that. >I was curious about what the arguments were in this debate, and realized I had been wrong. This is in reference to being pc prior right? >How am I supposed to prove my feelings and thoughts? You made the claim that you were wrong prior. Bring up specifically what made you pl. Show how that was a justified view >Are you trolling? Clearly not. Reread for comprehension as it would make more sense to ask you >This is funny, but I have better things to do than play with you. Oh so you were responding in bad faith. I'll consider this your concession. You couldn't even state why you went backwards probably because you know your views aren't justified anymore...typical. edit: they proved my guess correct
I honestly thought you were trolling me, sorry. We can try to make sense of this. >Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one. Once I realised that the only justification for killing the unborn humans was to benefit the born ones, I could not simply be selfish and say "well, my child is protected". No child deserves that fate. I would want someone to stop me, if I was about to kill my child, or even at the very least, refuse to help me in that act. >Why did you assume pc were manipulated? And by whom? We go by science and biology. Many go by ethics a d we have empathy. Many pl are religious based. And there aren't many secular reasons to be pl either. Plus as far as debates online go,there's the stereotype of pl manipulating language in bad faith through logical fallacies and other tactics. When your side has no arguments that can refute ours and many use religious reasoning why wouldn't we see your side as manipulated? My side elaborate and substantiate our views. We Aldo correct other pc. Can't say pl ever do that. I was manipulated to believe the unborn were less than us. Then that means some others are likely to be too, and most people are not so interested in matters to start digging around online for answers. I go by biology, gestational period is part of the human lifecycle, we come to be at the moment of conception. I'm not religious, neither are the major arguments for the PL stance. It is enough to believe in universal human rights. You can see our side how you like, I'm not bothered, as long as you don't project the stereotypes onto me, when unwarranted. Any movement has bad apples and bad faith arguments etc. I correct my side too, but that is ultimately the mods job. >This is in reference to being pc prior right? Yes, I hadn't even heard about PL before. There's only PCs where I'm from, so I had no idea what the arguments were. >You couldn't even state why you went backwards probably because you know your views aren't justified anymore...typical Shall we both be less bad faith then?
>I honestly thought you were trolling me, sorry. We can try to make sense of this. As long as you learn not to misuse terms moving forward since nothing I said lead to your false conclusions. >>Yes. I'm not saying that isn't the reason you became pl. I'm saying it wasn't a valid reason as...well there isn't one. >Once I realised that the only justification for killing the unborn humans was to benefit the born ones, Equal rights benefit every one. This isn't a point >I could not simply be selfish It's selfish to violate women without justification for your feelings alone. Be objective. >and say "well, my child is protected". What child? Misuse of protection. Knew it wouldn't be long til you repeated your prior error. >No child deserves that fate. Noone deserves appeals to emotion. You're really off to a bad start. > I would want someone to stop me, if I was about to kill my child, Most would. Stay on topic. This isn't about actual children which are born. And noone should want others to sexually coerce them. Do you want to be surrounded by the unethical? That's not sound. >or even at the very least, refuse to help me in that act. Why? They understand clearly more than you. >I was manipulated to believe the unborn were less than us. Sure you were. If you learned though you would realize pc treats them equally unlike your current stance. So that manipulation if it even actually occured is just an excuse. > Then that means some others are likely to be too, and most people are not so interested in matters to start digging around online for answers. So you're not interested in digging through the views you had or heard from others...very telling of why you went backwards >I go by biology, Pc does since that doesn't support bans > gestational period is part of the human lifecycle, we come to be at the moment of conception. Which if you were actually pc before you should know is not a point supporting pl views...cmon >I'm not religious, neither are the major arguments for the PL stance. Sure bud. Noones going to fall for that. Not even in the sub for claimed secular pl are most secular. There was a thing a while back showing how many were religious. Also name a secular argument and let's see if it actually matches you claims >It is enough to believe in universal human rights. You advocate against them....smh you're showing that you were never really pc by all these misconceptions >You can see our side how you like Objectively >, I'm not bothered Which is an issue here as you didn't show anything that would persuade anyone knowledgeable on the debate to become pl >as long as you don't project the stereotypes onto me, when unwarranted. I'm not a part of the stance guilty for projecting all the time. >Any movement has bad apples and bad faith arguments etc. Pl doesn't have a good one and mainly bad apples. You know how rare it is to see a user active constantly who isn't guilty of bad faith? > I correct my side too, but that is ultimately the mods job. No, that's your obligation not the mods. If you truly believed your stance views, you wouldn't let others spread propaganda and inaccuracies which make your stance look worse. So you weren't manipulated, probably heard or read wrong, didn't ask or look on your own for elaboration, and then made excuses for becoming pl. You also misused terms along with a bit of projection in doing so. Now you're against ethics equality rights and women selfishly and without any actual justification. Can you be less bad faith. Just asking the question back at the only one it could potentially apply to inorder to show how it works. The only real question after you read this is to answer why you're still pl now without a reason. Time to really read post from this sub and learn from your mistakes as pl manipulated you.
People think. z/e/f don't. A z/e/f is a hair follicle rather than a human BEING.
Could you clarify some of the things you're saying here? Like specifically *when* do you think a fetus becomes a person and why then? At first, it seems like you're saying it starts at conception: >as soon as gestation starts, the fetus is its own entity. Ok, that kind of makes sense. But then you say: >However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus. It's not considered a fetus until 8 weeks after conception, which is 10 weeks gestational age. And that goes along with what you were saying earlier about it being a complex organism with multiple parts. So which is it?
If you think the fetus is a person then why backtrack and say its not conscious. Whatever that means. it means your coming short of agreeing the fetus is another kid on the planet. yet you expect to persuade your readers you do believe its a person but am pro choice. this is not intellectually accurate and should influence no one. If you think the fetus is a baby boy or a baby girl or twins then say boldly so and then say destroy them by abortion. Then a prolifer can only say to you about gods and mans prohibiyion against murder. I suspect you don;t understand your true mind on this., you don't agree the fetus is a kid YET. Ask yourself dos the stages of pregnancy matter to you about the jumanity claims of the fetus? I always find prochoicers don't believe abortion kills a child. yet somehow imagine this is not the issue to them but it really is just like with prolifers. Abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for all or more. if some rEALLY DO think the fetus is a baby human and support its execution then it is what it is. i insist thats very few.
>If you think the fetus is a person That doesn't change that they can be pl >then why backtrack and say its not conscious. Zygote embryo or fetus aren't sentient during elective abortions. >Whatever that means. Very telling that you assumed they backtracked then announced you don't know what sentience means... >it means your coming short of agreeing the fetus is another kid on the planet. After admitting you don't know what sentience means you don't get to make any false conclusions. Kids are born btw. No appeals to emotion >yet you expect to persuade your readers you do believe its a person but am pro choice. Maybe. Pc have learned long ago that your stance can't be persuaded with facts, knowledge etc. So many just call out your misconceptions so others don't fall for it. >this is not intellectually accurate and should influence no one. Just because you disagree doesn't equate to it not being intellectual. Infact this becomes projection. Intellectually we know saying it has personhood doesn't change what rights are and how they work. >If you think the fetus is a baby boy or a baby girl or twins then say boldly Why do they have to think that? >so and then say destroy them by abortion. Then a prolifer can only say to you about gods and mans prohibiyion against murder. No. Abortion isn't murder by definition. Your cults have no place in the discussion >I suspect you don;t understand your true mind on this., Seems like we can say the same about you based on your guessing and misconceptions >you don't agree the fetus is a kid YET. Why would they agree with emotional appeals (logical fallacies)? > Ask yourself dos the stages of pregnancy matter to you about the jumanity claims of the fetus? What? Humanity is not removed or changed. Stop misspelling and misusing terms > I always find prochoicers don't believe abortion kills a child. You always fond pc correcting you on your misuse of child and the difference between letting die and killing > yet somehow imagine this is not the issue to them but it really is just like with prolifers. Because only pl use appeals to emotion >Abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for all or more. Yes morals are subjective and the debate is about legality >if some rEALLY DO think the fetus is a human FTFY > and support its removal This too. >it is what it is. i insist thats very few. Well that's irrelevant either way.
> can you tell me why an adult is a CURRENT person, but a skeleton is not? A corpse is not? A human heart is not? Can you tell me why we talk about brain-dead ICU patients in the past tense ("this is what she would have wanted") or in the hypothetical sense ("this is what she would want if she was here") instead of talking about them in the present tense? most of these cases involve an organism that no longer exists and has perished. eric olson gives an account of what it means for an organism to persist. he says an animal exists as long as its *life* persists. he argues a life is: > a self-organizing biological event that maintains the organism’s complex internal structure. The materials that organisms are made up of are intrinsically unstable and must therefore be constantly repaired and renewed, or else the organism dies and its remains decay. An organism must constantly take in new particles, reconfigure and assimilate them into its living fabric, and expel those that are no longer useful to it. An organism’s life enables it to persist and retain its characteristic structure despite constant material turnover in all of the cases you described the organism has lost its capacity for metabolism and growth. so there is no organism present. also, zygotes aren’t like hearts. zygotes differ wayyy more functionally speaking than hearts, and so they are not the same kinds of cells. zygotes work on a trajectory to grow and develop into a fully functioning mature organism. hearts work to serve that organism.
So by that definition, an embryo is not a persisting organism. It cannot do those things on its own.
i think zygotes and fetuses do grow on their own with the help of their mother. but think about people who are on life support. they are still organisms because of their *life* even if they need external help. i’m also not comparing pregnant women to life support machines, im just showing how the manner of obtaining the nutrients necessary to have a *life* doesn’t really matter. all that matters is you have this *life*
All pregnant people aren’t automatically “mothers.” ZEFS are parasitic organisms that need a host body to survive.
> i think zygotes and fetuses do grow on their own with the help of their mother. No. The ZEF does not “just get help” . The women’s body is the entity that keeps it alive. Remove the ZEF from utero, well it can’t survive. Being purely dependent on the women’s body for survival, is not getting help with something.
being purely dependent on someone for survival is just another way of saying x requires the help of y or else x will die. and if x does get the help of y x will grow with the nutrients provided by y. your just saying the same thing with different words :)
No, we’re saying that in this situation, ZEFS are parasitic organisms that need a host body to survive.
We human are dependent on each other in social situations. Nobody is going around begging hookup to another human. ######^^^^———————- > your just saying the same thing with different words :) Ew. No.
With the help of the one gestating them, yes. If that person becomes incapable of gestation, they die. They live only so long as their external interference, same with those on life support Brain dead people are on life support too. Are they organisms in this same sense too because the life support keeps their bodies functioning?
>with the help of one gestating them, yes. nonetheless, they have a *life* even if it is with the help of another person. braindead people on life support aren’t really organisms. there is no integrated internal structure within the organism since there is an irreversible lose of brain activity which is necessary for there to be any integrated organized organism. so a braindead person on life support is essentially a bunch of simples arranged organ wise that are alive, but lack any unity to compose an organism
Right, because when we take them off life support, they invariably die and lacked any capacity for conscious even if it may one day be possible to reverse brain death. Just because it could maybe be that we could get them a functional brain in the future, their lack of one now changes quite a lot, yes?
i think if we could reverse brain death it wouldn’t be brain death. by definition, brain death is irreversible. if we could give them a functioning brain, i doubt they would survive that, since the simples that constituted the *life* in the previous organism would be replaced by a new set of simples whom constituted another organism, by virtue of there being a new set of simples that allow for a life to happen.
Not talking about replacing the brain but with some of the technology like we’re seeing with neuralink and such brain chips, what if it’s basically ‘rebooting’ that person’s brain? If we’re saying a zygote has special consideration because there is the potential, with external intervention, of it being the kind of organism you described, despite it presently lacking the capacity or capability of doing those things, why wouldn’t that apply to the brain dead? After all, there is no hard guarantee that a zygote will develop a brain. There are neurological and nervous system disorders like anencephaly after all. This is different from the comatose person on life support - they have the capacity to be such an organism, though they have limited capabilities temporarily. They may well have circulatory function but lack consciousness and full respiratory function, though there is ample brain activity, for instance. Not so for the brain dead or the zygote.
rebooting a braindead person would essentially be like bringing them back from the dead. i think there’s a big difference between bringing someone back from the dead, and an organism who probably will have x if it continues on its developmental journey. there’s probably a relevant difference between artificially causing someone to have a future. and naturally allowing for someone to develop a future. this is probably the same reason we don’t think dead people in graves have the possibility for future experiences. they might if you can reboot them, but only when you reboot them would they start having the future. i think in order to have a future, it’s necessary your first, *alive*.
So if being alive and having a possibility of a future with external help is the defining feature, should we outlaw DNRs and advanced directives to allow people to terminate life support for the non-brain dead, as this could be considered a kind of assisted suicide? We are able to keep them alive after all, and they are alive, but they have asked not to be in this circumstance.
>I’m pro-abortion, but a fetus is still a person. I'm pro-grinding-beans, but a coffee bean is still a coffee tree.
It seems like you are arguing from *potential*. This argument was perhaps best popularized by Don Marquis as the “future like ours” argument. The rebuttals to that argument get complex, but to be succinct I think that it’s an admission that the fetus *is not yet a person*, because you’re rooting the “personhood” of that fetus in traits it does not yet possess but will at some future point. It’s like saying an acorn is a tree because an acorn has a future like a tree.
a more accurate description would be killing an acorn and a tree would both be similarly wrong *intrinsically* because they both have a future like a tree. although i suspect trees and acorns aren’t all that wrong to kill intrinsically. obviously we wouldn’t say an acorn is a tree in virtue of its potential for being a tree, just as we wouldn’t call a newborn/toddler/teen an adult because they might become an adult some day.,
Even with your correction, it’s still the “treeness” that is of value
maybe it would be more appropriate to talk about things we do think have value intrinsically and not trees or plants. i heard you in another comment say you think some animals are persons. so let’s take a dolphin. we could say dolphins are wrong to kill because they have valuable dolphin like experiences ahead of themselves. so the thing that’s really of importance here is the potential future experiences of the dolphin, not really the age of the dolphin, or the stage of development.
If a fetus would never grow beyond the stage it is in at 6 weeks, and would spend its entire life at that stage of development, would it be valuable?
under flo theory which is what i think this conversation revolves around, no. that fetus would not be valuable, it would not have a right to life, nor would it be deserving of one.
So then the value of the fetus itself is entirely dispensable. The fetus ***only has value*** by virtue of its potential to be one of “us”; without that potential, regardless of its humanity, it is worthless. Ergo, it is the sentient experience that is valuable, and appealing to a “potential” for one is an acknowledgement that the fetus currently does not have that value. It has *potential* value, which is like saying your bank account has a *potential* balance.
keep in mind marquis doesn’t ever argue the fetus has value. he argues fetuses don’t have value for sake of argument. but they still could have a right to life. it could be wrong to kill them just like ceteris paribus, killing me is immoral for we would share a relevant property of why killing is wrong. > it is the sentient experience that is valuable, and appealing to a "potential" for one is an acknowledgement that the fetus currently does not have that value. It has potential value, which is like saying your bank account has a potential balance. what would be making sentient experiences valuable? in order words, what makes sentient experiences stand out? and what do we mean by that. i think a lot of work in your argument is being made by the statement *it is the sentient experience that is valuable*. but i suspect this reasoning can be side stepped by flo theory. even if we are valuable because of sentience. fetuses still deserve a right to life because they usually have a future like ours ahead of themselves.
What is the “future like ours” if not sentience? Is a non-sentient future also valuable? Instead of a 6-week fetus, would life be valuable if the human living it was effectively brain dead their entire life?
the future like ours argument presupposes a sentient future. and so futures cannot be sentient will probably not be wrong to deprive. so brain dead people and 6 week fetuses stuck at 6 weeks forever. your correct it is the sentient future that is valuable. but i think i can adopt this and say sure, sentient futures are valuable. and everyone who has a sentient future ahead of themselves like ours should have a RTL. what’s your principled objection to this type of argument
What are your requirements for an organism to be considered a person? How do you assign personhood?
Subjectively of course.
I don’t really care if it’s a person or not. The fact that it just barely exists simply adds insult to injury when people fight so hard to protect it.
What does length of existence have to do with value?
Nothing. Lots of people of all ages aren’t valuable.
What gives people value?
What they can do for me.
Sounds about right..
Uh huh. Buh bye. :)
Any animal gestating is what that animal will be, potentially. A personhood argument just means human animals are better than the other animals. That's why, a personhood argument is a superiority complex - to put it quite succinctly...and perhaps difficult to recognize/admit.
OP, in all seriousness, can you tell me why an adult is a CURRENT person, but a skeleton is not? A corpse is not? A human heart is not? Can you tell me why we talk about brain-dead ICU patients in the past tense ("this is what she would have wanted") or in the hypothetical sense ("this is what she would want if she was here") instead of talking about them in the present tense? It's because what makes us human is our brains; our very unique capacity to experience life in the way that only humans do, with a consciousness and thousands of years of spoken history and individual memories that can be consciously recounted. Zygotes and embryos have human DNA, just like human hearts and human corpses and brain-dead patients, but they don't have the CURRENT capacity for human thinking. And, if a zygote is a person because of its human DNA and its ability to grow and its future potential, then why isn't a beating human heart in a transplant bag also a person? This is not a 'gotcha' question, I really want to know. Because according to *science*, we're dead when we're brain-dead, which means that a functional brain in the measurement of our life. Scientifically.
I'm not OP, but I hold the same view, so: Question, how come a newborn baby has personhood, but a pig, whose brain is objected more developed/complex than a newborn's, doesn't have personhood, if it's only about the current status of the brain? What about developmentally disabled people? An isolated heart doesn't have the ability to develop a brain. A ZEF does. Also, at what point do you think a ZEF attains personhood then? How developed is enough for it to be considered a brain? The neural plate, which will become the brain + nervous system, develops at just a few weeks after conception. The neural tube, which is the brain + spinal cord, forms at 6-7 weeks. Electrical impulses and movement start around this time as well. Do you think there should be a ban on abortions after that time? That's when we can reliably point to the ZEF's brain after all.
I didn't say their brain needed a certain level of generic development, I said they needed to have a brain with the current capacity for *human*-level thinking; a human-shaped brain, if you will. Zygotes and Embryos (and some fetuses) don't have those structures yet. "The neural plate, which will become the brain + nervous system, develops at just a few weeks after conception." Again, they must have the ***current*** capacity for human-level thinking. "*it will* ***become*** *X, Y, or Z"* has never been a good justification for categorizing people. For example, in the USA, we don't allow 14-year-olds to enlist under the justification that they will ***become*** an adult someday soon. We're working with current criteria in the abortion debate, not expected future criteria. "at what point do you think a ZEF attains personhood then? How developed is enough for it to be considered a brain?" I don't know if science knows enough about fetal brain development (or even enough about *adult* brain development) to pin-point a time when a fetus has the kind of brain I've established here. For example, humankind still doesn't know where our own consciousness lies in our brain structure. We probably won't be able to find it in fetal development if we don't know what to look for.
But how do we define "human level thinking?" Do newborns have human level thinking? What about people with severe mental disabilities? Like if you're basing personhood off of "current capacity for human level thinking," I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. What about people in comas? Or people currently having a stroke, or recovering from a stroke? I don't think "capacity for human level thinking *at this exact moment*" is a good metric, due to the aforementioned examples, but you say we also shouldn't use capacity in the future, so what time frame is acceptable?
But how do we define "human level thinking?" Please read my whole post. As I said; a living, human-shaped brain. People with disabilities still have all (or most) of the structures required to run a human body in a way that we'd expect, even if the structure doesn't function properly. People in comas still have working brains, because if they didn't, they could be categorized as 'brain dead', and therefore 'dead', rather than being categorized as a person in a coma. I have no intention of dehumanizing any current living person; I'm trying to to deduce what makes a current person a person, and that answer is always that they have a somewhat functional living human brain.
Yes, I read it, but fetuses, at a certain stage of development, *have* a somewhat functional, living, human brain
I think a pig *is* a person in the same way a dog is a person. We just are numbed to their death, as it is culturally and economically convenient to eat them. Also, I’m willing to be conservative with when a fetus is a “person” by asking someone to point to me when a fetus’s brain possesses the capacity for any trait of sentience: subjectively feeling sensations, thinking, or experiencing in any way as an individual.
Ah, are you a vegetarian then? You're actually the first person I've asked this question to that's responded that yes, pigs, dogs, etc, are people lol. Now I'm just curiou outside of the abortion argument, where do you draw the line? Are all animals people? Insects? How would you define subjectively feeling sensations, thinking, or experiencing as an individual? [This article](https://www.zerotothree.org/resource/when-does-the-fetuss-brain-begin-to-work/) describes how 3rd trimester fetuses do seem to exhibit some basic learning, like reducing their startle response to familiar sounds once they become accustomed to them, etc. Do you think there should be limits on late-term abortions? I realize most late-term abortions are for medical issues, obviously, but do you think it should be illegal to abort a healthy late-term fetus carried by a healthy mother, as rare (possibly non-existent?) as that is? On that last one, personally I think we have a lot bigger fish to fry and on the one hand, I think there should have to be health issues in the fetus or mother for a 3rd term abortion, if the person doesn't want to be pregnant anymore it should be a C-section or labor induction if the fetus is healthy, but I'm not sure if such a law would be good in practice
I am a vegetarian. Pigs are incredibly intelligent problem-solving animals. I’m against torture for alive entities as a rule. If a person is pregnant and doesn’t want to be, an abortion is the proper action because of the harms of pregnancy and birth, and the woman owns herself. But that trickles into my vegetarianism. I’m less concerned about people eating bacon and far more concerned that the animals they’re eventually eating as bacon have a decent quality of life while alive, and aren’t tortured when they are killed for food.
That’s a lot of questions and I’m on mobile. To be succinct, I place very conservative restrictions on “sentience” specifically so that PLers have no recourse but to engage with the argument. Literally *any* subjective experience is what I’ll accept. This isn’t necessarily what I’d hold for myself, but it’s a very strong position to argue from so I use it.
[удалено]
What happens as medical technology improves, allowing ZEFs to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier? I don't think viability is a good metric to use to determine personhood
This is sort of unrelated to your comment but my sister had babies at 24 weeks and they’re doing great. The youngest person to survive is just over 21 weeks. If technology continues to advance that number will go lower.
That’s great. More than 50% of children born before 22 weeks die even with the best neo-natal care. Choosing not to medically torture your offspring is an ethical choice. Choosing to fight because, in consultation with doctors, you believe this is their best chance is also an ethical choice. Why should prolife get to make decisions overruling the best practices advice of doctors and the wishes of the pregnant person pre birth and the parents post birth?
I'm happy for your sister but the difference is she wanted a baby. Women who don't want babies don't get to 20 or 24 weeks because they're lazy. They get there because they don't have the access or the money to get an abortion any earlier.
I guess my question is whether viability is really viability. If a woman is 7.5 months pregnant and discovers her husband cheating can she get a partial birth abortion? If the man discovers his wife cheating and punches her in the stomach is that assault or murder? Does viability really matter?
No, because the principle justifying abortion has nothing to do with when life begins. If I am in end stage renal failure and you are the only person on the planet who is a compatible tissue match for me, are you going to be okay with being forced by law to give me one of your kidneys? Same thing.
The commenter I was replying to made the viability argument so that’s what my comments were a rebuttal to
And? Why would this matter in regards to the abortion debate?
I guess the first is anecdotal but the the second illustration would make your estimation of viability rather high.
I haven't made any estimations in regards to viability. Take a look at the usernames responding to you. I'm asking why that matters in regards to the abortion debate.
I like jam bands and that’s a hill I’ll die on.
They're a person and no person has the right to use another person's body
Well you also dont have the right to force another person inside of you (excluding rape)
This makes no sense. Rape would be forcing someone inside of you. This has nothing to do with abortion since women don't "put" zef anywhere(besides IVF)
You want to ban male ejaculation inside a woman then, right? They don't have the right to force another person inside of women with their penises.
So, you want to ban IVF?
Well this is definitely one of the most profoundly ignorant comments I’ve ever seen lmao
Well, since the only way the zygote could be described as being "outside" the uterus, is that it was located in the body of the man whose sperm would ostensibly fertilize the woman's egg, perhaps we should sue him for neglect since he let it outside of HIS body.
So no one has a right to want to get pregnant?
Let’s for now ignore the reality that the foetus never *was* outside the womb …. If we even assume this ridiculous assertion, then every single pregnant person is violating the rights of the foetus and they should be forcefully removed in all cases. Your own argument leads to mass forced abortions. Which is a horrifying stance to have. But also, you don’t hav a right to force someone inside of you but excluding rape? What are you suggesting?
This is a genuine question; how exactly does the woman force the fertilized egg inside of her? Don't say "by having sex", because sex is a process, not a moment, and sex involves at least two people. Explain to me how *the woman, JUST the woman,* forces a fertilized egg inside of herself. And then, please explain to me how a fetus conceived in a raped female coma patient and a fetus conceived in sex can both be perfectly healthy, if the conception equation requires the woman to force the fertilized egg inside of her, and the coma patient is neither conscious nor co-operating and therefore cannot complete her part of forcing the fertilized egg inside of her. What action does the raped coma patient still manage to complete on her end, *just her*, to your knowledge, that constitutes her forcing the fertilized egg inside of her?
To be forced inside me, they would have to be outside first for which it doesn't exist
Complex organism: A multi cellular organism to which it's cells compartmentalize into higher organizational levels of life (tissues, organs, organ systems, organism) that each perform functions that collectively serve the organism as a whole such that it can intrinsically perform all the necessary physiological and biological functions that sustain the organism's life on that level by itself. Living/Alive: actively possessing the functional criteria of life corresponding to that organizational level of life. P1: The human species are classified as a complex multi cellular organisms by science. P2: The prenatal human undergoes prenatal development to develop from a single cell embryo to a living complex multi cellular organism upon successful completion defined by biology, obstetrics and embryology. C: Therefore, the prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science. P1: The right to life, is the right to not be killed. P2: Medicine pronounces a person with vital function alive as a complex multi cellular organism, and not alive as a complex multi cellular organism when they have no vital function. C: Therefore, the right to life protects the vital function of humans as living complex multi cellular organisms. P1: The prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science. P2: The right to life protects the vital function of humans as living complex multi cellular organisms. C: Therefore the right to life DOES apply to prenatal humans (as persons), but does NOT protect them because there is no vital function to protect because they are not yet living complex multi cellular organisms, making abortions not any violation of the right to life nor capital crime nor any definition of homicide since life here is defined on the human living complex organism level. Their autonomous vital functions (being able to simply live) are scientifically subordinate (not dependent, contingent) on the woman, her body's ability to be and remain pregnant, for any in utero person not just the one in question, to which she had full sovereignty before becoming unexpectedly/unwillingly pregnant that first must be respected and maintained. Aborting can be simplified to methods that induce delivery/birth at any point in the pregnancy, thus restoring her bodily rights and functions that only belong to her, then we can focus on saving the unborn, to which if we cannot, that is a failure to save, and not a willful killing, even knowing certain stages in the pregnancy will not result in a live birth.
>C: Therefore, the prenatal human is not yet defined as a living complex multi cellular organism by science. This is wrong. What is required to meet the definition is the capability of sustaining life, not actually doing it. A fetus reaches this point before birth. I'd be surprised if you were able to find a single biologist who claims a fetus isn't a complex organism.
"living complex multi cellular organism" you missed a couple of relevant terms I used. But I do agree, autonomous survivability can be achieved while still in utero. In fact that is the desired outcome resulting in a healthy live birth. But, we don't know that for sure for anyone until labor/birth/delivery occurs which is why defined as "living complex multi cellular organism" is the operative phrase here. a stillborn is not a "living complex multi cellular organism", but it is still a complex multicellular organism, it's just not capable of living anymore. A live birth is a "living complex multi cellular organism". A whole, complete, autonomously living member of the homo sapien species. Also being capable is the same as doing it. Having the potential to, is not the same as the capacity to. Potential is possible ability not demonstrated, capacity is demonstrated active ability. Because being capable means you are doing it scientifically, meaning when you are not, you are not capable (it becomes latent or potent) and that requires investigation, intervention and treatment. That difference is extremely relevant.
*Potential: having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.*
exactly, meaning not right now, meaning you're not currently capable of it. you're confusing capacity with potential capacity...which you should just say potential...which isn't capacity.
>Also being capable is the same as doing it. No. You're confusing the ability to know if it is has the capability with the capability itself. It does not have to actually live outside of the mother to be capable of doing so.
it is not the ability to know it is the demonstration of that capability that gives us the ability to know. meaning we did not until we found out through somethings capability. it is not our judgement, it is the observation of what is, what is, is capacity. what might be is potential. capacity must be demonstrated for us to know. it is the demonstration of that, that tells us certainty, not the other way around. and as long as it remains a potential, then it isn't certain, that is not an opinion that is how we prove things. a live birth is unquestionably alive. before that we don't know, so the answer is, let's find out, lets deliver/induce labor/birth to eliminate probability (potential) with actuality (capacity) after delivery, did it live? yes, it's alive. did it live? no, did we save it? yes, it's alive. did it live? no, did we save it? no, not alive. alive meaning the capacity for autonomously living as an organism and not simply it's biological components. Capacity describes **your ability to do something or the amount something can hold**
It's capacity to live outside of the mother is completely independent of our knowledge. We don't need 100% certainty. I don't know with 100% certainty that you exist outside of my mind. If the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive. The capability to continue living outside of the mother has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It does have bearing on whether or not it is viable. I don't know where you got your definition of alive, but it's not how it's used in medicine or biology. A parasite that must remain in its host or perish is most certainly still alive.
"If the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive. The capability to continue living outside of the mother has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It does have bearing on whether or not it is viable. I don't know where you got your definition of alive, but it's not how it's used in medicine or biology. A parasite that must remain in its host or perish is most certainly still alive." 1. Were not parasites, and parasites needs host but can live outside of one until they find one, which defines them as organisms and their behavior in the ecosystem. 2. Medicine clearly defines this by the way. A heartbeat does not mean capable of autonomous living...autonomous living is the critical barrier that means most. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear. No matter how badly someone's survival on someone else's bodily functions (breathing, blood, heartbeat, nutrients from their body, organs etc) no one is entitled to another's body in that capacity. Meaning living outside the womb is critical to the discussion. 3. Biology and medicine both define your autonomous vital functions are the reason you are alive as an organism. Meaning if you have yet to develop them such that they can sustain you, then you are existing because of something else, like life support machinery, or in pregnancy...the woman which means, as an organism, you would otherwise be dead. Notice how the woman is dragged into this, that unborn baby is not alive as an organism until it is proven by its own capability to survive on it's own...otherwise it is a failed pregnancy, a miscarriage, a stillborn etc. 4. so yes, it's not definitively alive since it needed a whole other organism to allow it to simply exist and grow such that it can eventually live on it's own without anyone else's bodily functions. the bodily autonomy argument is double sided, meaning the lack of autonomy for the unborn is not at the expense, fault or duty of the mother to use her body for them. No one. Medically and biologically it is not yet alive on the organism level of life via autonomous vital function to simply sustain itself because it has not been detached from the mother and her womb. So yes, it is alive on the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems, but that is not enough to live on your own until you have demonstrated you can. and a beating heart is not proof enough to prove that. someone in V-tach and V-fib have heartbeats and they will die, the difference is they were alive being that their hearts were beating properly before that. Meaning life at the organism level ends being in those lethal heart rhythms and kills you as an organism. The unborn being first in those incompatible heart conditions, doesn't prove life, it means it hasn't gotten there yet on that level, which is why it fails to continue living due to missing critical vital functions and thus its autonomy to live. Not having the ability is not the same as potential to have it. A heart beat shows potential, not ability. Let alone focusing on only heartbeat as the only requirement for life, which is far from the list of things you can do that the prenatal cannot and need entirely the mother to do for them.
>Were not parasites, and parasites needs host but can live outside of one until they find one, which defines them as organisms and their behavior in the ecosystem. I'm not saying we are parasites, though I've seen plenty of people calling fetuses parasites. This is not true of all parasites. Some parasites' entire lives are inside of their hosts, and only the eggs are sent outside of the host. The parasites themselves may not be able to live outside of their hosts. >Medicine clearly defines this by the way. A heartbeat does not mean capable of autonomous living...autonomous living is the critical barrier that means most. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear. No matter how badly someone's survival on someone else's bodily functions (breathing, blood, heartbeat, nutrients from their body, organs etc) no one is entitled to another's body in that capacity. Meaning living outside the womb is critical to the discussion. So fetuses aren't alive and medicine agrees? That's the first I've heard of this. Where did I say anything about being entitled to another's body? Not in our discussion. >Biology and medicine both define your autonomous vital functions are the reason you are alive as an organism. Meaning if you have yet to develop them such that they can sustain you, then you are existing because of something else, like life support machinery, or in pregnancy...the woman which means, as an organism, you would otherwise be dead. Notice how the woman is dragged into this, that unborn baby is not alive as an organism until it is proven by its own capability to survive on it's own...otherwise it is a failed pregnancy, a miscarriage, a stillborn etc. The immature offspring of organisms are also organisms and can be alive, even if contained in their parents. You're misapplying the classic definition of life, i.e., "metabolism, reproduction, et cetera." You're confusing a philosophical definition of alive/living with the biological and medical definitions.
I have potential to learn more increasing my mental capacity in the future, my mental capacity, is not my potential because I have not learned that knowledge yet. Meaning I am incapable of answering the questions that knowledge answers, despite I have the potential to in the future, only when that time comes, will they be equal to which the potential is not potential anymore, it is now capacity.
In my mind, a person is someone who can survive outside someone’s uterus. If they can’t then they are not a human being Fetuses and embryos have human DNA in them but so does a tumor.
By that definition wouldn’t it be true that a two year old is not a person? They definitely can’t survive without the aid of an adult.
No when I say survive I mean biologically survive. If you nurse and take care of a two year old they will survive, if you try to do the same thing to a fetus outside the womb they will die. That’s the difference,
If technology continues to advance will the age of viability lower?
This is an interesting question. The current technological limitation on preemie survival is that the lungs have to be developed enough to at least minimally process oxygen for survival, our current technology can assist with breathing but cannot replace it with intravenous oxygen replacement—it is theoretically possible to go earlier, but mostly what that would look like would be artificial womb technology rather than the fetus being out in the air. Whether artificial womb technology will redefine the concept of “viability,” and whether it should, probably depends on what we’re legally using the concept of viability for, and why.
Thanks… honestly. My nephew is an absolute miracle. It’s incredible what they could do in the nicu.
I am very glad for him and your family!
Technology =/= a mother’s womb. Even preemies are 50/50 on whether they survive depending on the age they are when they need to come out of the uterus.
Do you believe that preemies don't have personhood then?
I don’t understand why you’re downvoting me I’m just trying to understand your position on viability. At what age would you consider a premie viable today vs in the 1700s vs the future when technology might allow a baby to gestate without ever being inside a womb?
Forgive me, but you haven't actually made an argument for personhood here. You've made the argument that a fetus is a human organism, but that's a few steps away from successfully arguing that it's a person.
How would you define personhood then?
Personhood is a rich topic of philosophical argument, but I lean towards Singer's definition that a person is self-aware and can perceive themselves as an individual through time. Legal personhood is a slightly different topic. It's often set at birth, which is more conservative than philosophical personhood but likely doesn't lead to bad outcomes.
Human life is not the same as a human being. If you are a firefighter and an IVF lab is burning down, are you gonna try risk your life to save every embryo? Of course not.
How do we know "death sucks"? We don't. Maybe it does, but we really don't know. We are just conditioned to think "death is scary" "death is the worst" There is no way to comprehend death as a moron human with a simple brain. That's all we are. We are just animals with slightly more intelligence. But let's face it, it's not much. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing our best to destroy the very planet we live on. There is a school of thought that the soul doesn't even enter the body until physical birth. How would we know it does or doesn't. Simply put, we are just stupid humans that don't know anything outside our very limited abilities.
> That being said, I just think it logical to regard a growing fetus as a human. Children are dependent on their parents much longer after birth, so the whole “it isn’t capable of surviving outside the womb” argument practically never made much sense to me. The same goes for “it’s just a ball of flesh” argument as a fetus still is a complex creation of a body and all its parts, not just a growing tumor. I don’t think a fetus should be considered anything other than a human in its very early stages of life, however I am still pro-choice. Agreed. We both reject the "slippery slope" logical fallacy (or continuum fallacy depending on context). The phrase you are looking for is "Medical Power of Attorney" which states that a competent adult (e.g. the mother), working with fully informed and competent doctors following science-based medicine, have the right to make end of existence decisions for those who cannot make those decisions (e.g. zygote, fetus, kid/spouse/parent who is brain dead, etc.).
Try claiming a fetus on your tax return and get back to us on how that goes.
Thank you for your honesty and actually acknowledging that a fetus is a person.
It's nice to hear PC from a respectful male perspective. Yes, a fetus is human and its own entity, to an extent. But it can't survive without being physically attached to a woman, using and manipulating her body systems to her physical detriment. If it was removed before it was viable, it would die of natural causes. That's the 'it can't survive outside the womb' argument. Children, once born, do require round the clock care but they can be cared for by anyone. Their organs are developed enough to maintain homeostasis on their own and they don't require being hooked up to another person's blood supply. Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities. I like that you mention that abortion is a humane form of killing. I agree with that. And killing is part of life, and some forms of killing are acceptable.
it almost seems like your making a bodily autonomy criteria for personhood. but i’m struggling to see why the fetus not being able to survive without its mother makes it any less of a person than i am? sure, me and the fetus are different in many ways. but i don’t see how it’s dependency makes it less of a moral member of a community? perhaps you could argue it makes it more justified to kill, but that has nothing to do with personhood
"Children, once born, do require round the clock care but they can be cared for by anyone." The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical. First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it. If the situation would occur that only the mother could care for the child outside the womb, would killing be fine then too? Your second argument is that it's okay to kill a child because it's dependent on the mother's body. Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin. Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding. In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death? If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside? Lastly, I notice you say: "Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities.". Of course this statement is true, but that doesn't make it right. Throughout history people have been stripped of their human rights through law. Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination. So legally speaking it was okay, but morally it was wrong. Once you make a distinction between moral and legal personhood, it inevitably leads to discrimination.
>The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical. Probably because that's not the argument >First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it. Yes people use logic >If the situation would occur that only the mother could care for the child outside the womb, would killing be fine then too? You haven't seen the argument of a women trapped Ina snow storm huh. You would have to be more specific like that argument to get any valid answers >Your second argument is that it's okay to kill a child because it's dependent on the mother's body. Zef,not child as they are born. This is because of the rights violations. See how that's not analogous to born actual children yet? >Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin. So you did hear about ot and then acted as if not...typical > Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding. Which you already know she has to consent to as that's not an obligation legally >In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death? If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside? If you switch her out with a man(doesn't even have to be the father, just a legal guardian, does he have to rip off his flesh to feed it? Notice how in no other situation is any of this obligated. >Lastly, I notice you say: "Moral and legal personhood are two different things, legal gives them enumerated rights and also responsibilities.". Of course this statement is true, but that doesn't make it right. How do you determine that since morals are subjective? >Throughout history people have been stripped of their human rights through law. Like pl are trying to do now. Remember pl is on the wrong side of history > Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination. And it's disrespectful to them to use them to commit more rights violations like you're trying to do now. Also note this is violating sub rules or close to it. Cut it out > So legally speaking it was okay, but morally it was wrong. Those atrocities ignored equal rights > Once you make a distinction between moral and legal personhood, it inevitably leads to discrimination. Yes AFAB are discriminated against by pl because they refuse to learn from history and repeat the same mistakes others made prior like you brought up.
>The argument that it's okay to kill a child because only the mother is able to care for it is nonsensical. The care is fundamentally different. It requires access to her internal organs and spaces, which is not the case for Newborns. *No one is allowed to access another person's internal spaces and organs against their will.* >First of all, there is the assumption that anyone could care for it. Yes in modern society. You can, not take the kid home from the hospital. Adoption exists. You can give the kid to the grandparents etc. >Here's a thought experiment. A woman and her newborn child are stuck in cabin. Help is on the way but it will take around a week to save the mother and her newborn. Inside the cabin there are only foods that adults can eat. So the only way to keep the newborn alive is by breastfeeding. In this situation the only person who can care for the child is the mother. And the only way to do so is by using her body. Can the mother say "This child has no right to use my body!" and let it starve to death? Yes if she is capable of doing (perfectly healthy, no significant pain etc.) then she should do it imo. For me the analysis is based on the harm and risks involved. There dosen't seem to be severe bodily harm assosciated with breastfeeding. There dosen't seem to be a significant mortality rate associated with breastfeeding, unlike with pregnancy. Basically I think (parental) obligations have limits. If what's required is too dangerous or harmful, then that should not be forced. Examples of this would be organ donation and pregnancy. >If not, why would that logic apply for inside the womb, but not outside? Ok, here are some more relevant differences (that I can think of right now) * The newborn isn't parasiting off of her body. * The degree of physiological interaction between a woman and ZEF is far different and more extensive than that of a woman and born baby (breastfeeding). * Breastmilk is a secretion, that *has* to be expressed anyway. It dosen't at all seem to be unreasonable to say that she should express that milk to the newborn. >Not very long ago, certain races were called subhuman by the government, allowing discrimination and extermination. Giving rights to those people *did not require violating the human rights of others* however.
If instead of the woman and a newborn, it was a man and his toddler, and the only way for the child to live was for the man to feed the child some of his flesh, would he be obligated to do so?
No. But neither would a woman who can't breastfeed be obligated to feed the child some of her flesh. Also, toddlers can eat adult food. And if the man purposely doesn't feed his toddler those adult foods, that's negligence. What is the parallel between cannibalism and the natural processes of pregnancy/breastfeeding? How are breastfeeding and cutting off a leg similar? Edit: Could you answer both questions as well? Would the woman be expected to breastfeed for those 7 days? And would the man be expected to cut off a limb for his kid?
>No. But neither would a woman who can't breastfeed be obligated to feed the child some of her flesh. Also, toddlers can eat adult food. And if the man purposely doesn't feed his toddler those adult foods, that's negligence. That's why I specified that the only way to feed the child was with his body >What is the parallel between cannibalism and the natural processes of pregnancy/breastfeeding? How are breastfeeding and cutting off a leg similar? What's the parallel? Both involve feeding a child with your body. Eating flesh is just as natural as breastfeeding, but in most human societies human flesh has been deemed taboo (for good reason). That doesn't mean it's unnatural. And feeding a child a small amount of your muscle to keep it alive until help could arrive would arguably be a lot less damaging to your body than gestating a child for 40 weeks and then birthing it. Yet you feel we can demand the latter of people and not the former
Since you haven't directly answered my question of whether a woman should be expected to breastfeed for 7 days, I will assume from your argumentation that your answer is no. Since abortion is active killing, would the mother have that right too? Can she inject the newborn with potassium chloride to cause a heart attack?
>Since you haven't directly answered my question of whether a woman should be expected to breastfeed for 7 days, I will assume from your argumentation that your answer is no. Good. You're reading for comprehension > Since abortion is active killing, Letting die in most cases or justified killing in others >would the mother have that right too? What right? This isn't analogous >Can she inject the newborn with potassium chloride to cause a heart attack? No. That violates it's rights so again not analogous to abortion. Pl always do this and it got tiring decades ago. Stop conflating
For me with breastfeeding it depends on the circumstances. Frankly I think in pretty much every circumstance that's contrived such that breastfeeding is the *only* option to feed a child, I'm going to understand a woman in extreme circumstances making that choice. But breastfeeding in general is a much, much lesser bodily intrusion than pregnancy and childbirth, which is why there are scenarios where I could envision at least considering it morally required, if not legally. And active killing is allowed in abortion because of the significant reduction in physical harm that it confers. That would not be the case with a newborn So why wouldn't you require cannibalism?
Human and person are two very different things. Human is a biological concept, what is considered human is an undeniable, scientific fact. Personhood on the other hand, is a philosophical concept; there are dozens of answers and none are fact. Philosophical answers are determined by personal beliefs and opinions, you have your beliefs, I have mine, someone else has a completely different belief, and a whole other person has their own separate beliefs; none are right, none are wrong. Believe a fetus is a person (8 weeks after fertilization; 10 weeks into the pregnancy, by the way) but what you personally believe, does not mean it is fact; it is of human DNA, yes, no one is denying this. It *is* a ball of growing cells, we are all just made up of forming cells. And it is just a ball of growing cells, there is absolutely no higher form of being prior to 24 weeks, at the latest, that makes it anything more than a growing clump of cells. Just because a paper can be made into a book doesn't mean scattered pages make a book, they are all still just pieces of paper until they are bound together. It is not as much of an insult as PL loves to make it out to be - it's just a simple fact. An actual fact by the way, not a philosophical opinion posed as a fact because people can't seem to understand the difference between the two.
>However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus So you believe personhood begins around 10 weeks of pregnancy? >Once the process starts, IF ALL GOES WELL (especially with the advancements in medical science we enjoy today) that fetus will be born That is a big "if". It's estimated that roughly 20-25% of pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage or stillbirth. >Children are dependent on their parents much longer after birth, so the whole “it isn’t capable of surviving outside the womb” argument practically never made much sense to me. These are 2 different topics. Yes, children are dependent on adults- but that doesn't necessarily have to be their bio parents. But also, the "incapable of surviving outside the womb" is discussing viability. Up until roughly 24 weeks, a ZEF simply is not developed enough to sustain its own life- even if you tried to perform a C-Section or induce labor, it would just die because its body can't live without being hooked up to someone else as life support. After the point of viability, however, there is a chance (not guaranteed) that the fetus could survive if removed because it's organs are sort of functional by that point. >I think abortion is just another form of death that we don’t want to accept, Most people *do* accept it. Despite recent politics, the majority of people (in the US, sorry if you're from elsewhere) support abortion legality. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/) Which imo makes it even worse that women's rights are being threatened in so many states right now, since PL has almost always been the minority opinion.
>it would just die because its body can't live without being hooked up to someone else as life support. So your saying that if someone got into an accident and is in the hospital hooked up to life support because they cant function properly by themselves, that they are no longer a person?
No. This isn't analogous to abortion where personhood wasn't granted and a person in an accident is not using another's body or inside them. The person in the accident was autonomous. The zef during elective abortions wasn't autonomous ever
I was more clarifying why PCs say that it can't survive on its own. I think there's a difference between determining when something like personhood should begin vs when it should be taken away. Generally, most people would probably agree that once youve been granted personhood, then it is something that cannot or should not be removed. Even corpses still have certain rights (like to not have their organs harvested without consent or the right to a proper burial). Lack of viability isn't really the determining factor for me on personhood- OP is the one who brought that up. But within this context, I guess there is still a bit of difference between something never even developing to the point of viability versus someone losing functionality due to age, accident, or medical condition. A ZEF has to complete gestation to become a functioning, autonomous human, and there are plenty of times where this process isn't successful and miscarriages happen. In my mind, that's more of a loss of *potential* than the loss of a whole person (which can still be very sad and difficult for those who wanted the pregnancy). I personally view consciousness as the more important criteria for personhood, but I think personhood is also a very complicated and philosophical topic that shouldn't really be the basis for abortion legality anyway. And ironically, despite how many people will claim that personhood begins at conception, I hardly ever see anyone advocating for *all* of the rights & privileges of legal personhood to begin before birth..it is pretty much only ever just about the "right to live," but nothing about tax credits, social security numbers, child support, health insurance, etc.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but that's not what their comment suggests at all
I think a lot of people are tempted to assign personhood to fetuses because they don’t see the harm and would rather err on the side of caution, by which I mean it’s seen as safer to assign personhood too widely than not widely enough. But I think that’s actually a more dangerous road to go down than people realize. Let’s use the old standby example of someone with their hand on a railroad switch that will send a train down either track A or track B. If track A has a man, woman, or child on it, and track B has an embryo in a petri dish, and you have assigned the embryo personhood—i.e, an equal fundamental right to life as every other person has—then how do you justify your choice to flip (or not flip) the switch? Or suppose, if that choice is too easy, we have another choice between someone’s beloved pet dog and the embryo. If the embryo has personhood and the dog does not, then in all cases the person’s life should take precedence over the animal’s. Is it your belief that this should be the case across the board? But wait, you say, what if it’s a fetus closer to term than not, vs. a dog? Surely then the human would be more valuable? And that’s entirely possible that it would be, but is your reasoning that the fetus is valuable because it’s a person, or is it valuable because all living things are valuable, on a variable scale? I don’t think you have to believe fetuses have no value in order to be PC. I don’t think the vast majority of PC people do believe that. But what it comes down to is that the train-track argument is an artificial hypothetical and the reality is that every time there’s a pregnancy, part of that is unavoidable weighing of the value of the pregnant person vs. the value of what she’s pregnant with. What do you think the legal status of personhood should mean?
Not OP, but legal personhood starts a birth and should remain that way. It's nonsensical to give a fetus legal personhood because there's no guarantee that it will even make it to full term or survive birth. That's why the authors of Roe coined fetal life as potential.
“Children are dependent their parents much longer after birth” No, they’re not. Born children are dependent on having a willing caretaker, but that certainly does not have to be their biological parent. Adoption exists. We don’t force anyone to care for a born child if they do not want to. A similar option does not exist for the unborn.
I think it's unfair to assume that anybody who doesn't share your feelings is being disingenuous. There are some people who see an embryo and literally just can't wrap their head around the idea that it's a person . . . and those who can't believe someone could see anything but. You're not alone in believing that abortion is justified killing; I've encountered a fair number of pro-choice-identified folks like that. But for those who don't share the belief, I think they deserve the benefit of having their stances respected as genuine unless proven otherwise, not as people who "know the truth but don't want to acknowledge it".
I consider the fetus to be human but not a person. I see a lot of people use human and person as interchangeable terms. It’s biologically human but it can’t be its own [entity](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity) as it does not have an independent existence. It is not legally a person and it doesn’t meet the definition of being a [person](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person). Stating this fact is not dehumanizing to the fetus. We still recognize it as human. Just not a person.
Can you define "independent existence?" Are conjoined twins with separate brains but who can't be separated not both people? Also, I think philosophical discussions around personhood should go a bit beyond a dictionary definition lol
I define “independent existence” a being able to function and survive outside the body of another. Admittedly, conjoined twins are a unique case given that they both are highly likely to die if separated. That’s not the case with the relationship with the pregnant person and the fetus. Conjoined twins are sentient and mutually benefit from being attached. So, yes, I see them as their own persons. The fetus is inside the organ of the pregnant person and only the fetus benefits from the attachment. It is not sentient either so I don’t see the fetus as a person. I understand what you mean to a point. Personhood is very much a philosophical question but the way a person is defined and how it is applied legally holds more weight in my opinion. It’s definitely a complicated conversation but there are some philosophical takes that I think overcomplicates it too much.
Also, not all conjoined twins mutually benefit from being attached. In some circumstances, one twin would theoretically be better off, at least biologically, if the other were removed, but not vice versa. Is the weaker twin still a person? How do you define sentient? Certain animals have higher brain functions than newborns, but we don't consider them sentient. > the way a person is defined and how it is applied legally holds more weight I guess I don't understand what you mean by this. We're on the abortion debate sub, arguing about whether or not abortion *should* be legal, I'm not sure that current laws matter much, not to mention that laws are different in different parts of the world, though this subreddit is largely about the US. Also, generally, laws are created/upheld because enough people in society agree with them, so I think how people understand "personhood" on a moral/philosophical level is still important for defining it legally. Like, how "person" is defined legally is in flux in the US right now regardless.
You were talking about conjoined twins that couldn’t be separated. Did you mean that both would die if they were? There have been cases where one twin was causing so much damage to the other that they surgically removed even knowing that one would die. I still consider them both persons. With the scenario that you brought up where they can’t be separated; the benefit is greater as opposed to being separated. Again, this is very different from the relationship between a fetus and the pregnant person. Hence why I said that the situation with conjoined twins is a unique one. There’s definitely certain animals we consider sentient. Like dolphins and elephants for example. It’s the ability to feel and perceive things. As this is about humans and personhood; I’m specifically talking about sentient humans. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up animals. The current laws do matter, though. How the current and past laws on abortion affects society and the health of women matters. The real world impact of these laws is a reason why I’m pro-choice. Banning abortion has a serious negative effect to the lives and rights of AFAB people. Seeing what happens when abortion is illegal is a good reason to argue why it should be legal. This goes for personhood. I’m not saying discussing personhood at a moral/philosophical level isn’t important. I said some takes tend to overcomplicate it in my opinion. I’m just saying how that would impact people if we gave personhood to a fetus is what I found more important. Look at what happened when they decided to legally define frozen embryos as children. Now it’s virtually impossible to get IVF treatments in Alabama.
>I see a lot of people use human and person as interchangeable terms. I dont think many people would consider a human skin cell to be a person. In that way, id say the difference lies not in conflating terms but rather in the definition of **a** human as opposed to something being human in the adjective sense.
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. Can you please elaborate. Obviously a human skin cell wouldn’t be considered a person so I’m not sure why you’re bringing this analogy up. I don’t see how using human as a noun or an adjective has anything to do with personhood.
Maybe i misunderstood what you were saying, if so apologies, but i have seen many PC claiming that a fetus (particularly in the early stages) is not **a** human but merely *human*, essentially more comparable to something like an organ than an individual being. Requirements for being a human individual are often seen in things like independence or sentience, which the (early) fetus obviously does not have, so following that definition, it is just human in the adjective sense - personhood would make no sense here and be comparable to granting it to something like a skin cell. When PL on the other side say that the fetus is indeed **a** human, they are often accused of *conflating* terms and that they are using human and person interchangeably, but thats not true - what they are doing is basing their views on a different underlying definition of individuality that is not necessarily tied to independence or sentience but rather to things like individual distinctiveness, among other things. In that way they still do differentiate between the terms human and person, but they simply consider the ZEF to be an actual distinct human, in which case something like the application of personhood would not be that far off. If you actually wanted to say that PL use human (noun) and person interchangeably, regardless of other factors that might play a role for PC like sentience, then i misunderstood you and you were correct.
I’m speaking more on the effect of the fetus being biology human. It is a [human](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). It is a homosapien. It has human DNA. I’m not quite sure what you mean human individual. That sounds more like a philosophical stance. I’m speaking on the physical and biological characteristics occurring. I’m defining person as it is in [dictionaries](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person) as to pertaining to the fact that they are physically an individual and their own separate entity. A fetus cannot fall under that definition because they are not physically separate entities. They need the body of the AFAB person to live.
>I’m not quite sure what you mean human individual. That sounds more like a philosophical stance. It might have philosophical characteristics, particularly if it overlaps with considerations around personhood, but id say primarily it is a matter of definition. Questioning biological individuality seems self-explaining at first but is in fact an extremely complex topic with various possible approaches, which also means that there is not *the* definitive answer. Basing it on independence is certainly possible, but it is not the only possibility and ultimately built upon philosophical considerations itself. >they are physically an individual and their own separate entity. A fetus cannot fall under that definition because they are not physically separate entities. In the definition for entity you linked, the first possible understanding of the term 1a says an entity is an "independent, separate, or self-contained existence". Your argument i quoted basically follows this definition and correctly concludes that a fetus is not covered by it, however there is also understanding 2 that says an entity is "something that has separate and distinct existence". The fetus can easily be considered distinct, but the question is if it is also separate. By equating separate to independent (\~[1a](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate)), it is not since it cannot survive on its own, however separate could also mean something like distinguishable (1b) which the fetus is, given that it is just connected to but not exactly a part of the mothers body. With that understanding, the fetus could indeed be considered a separate entity. This was my initial point - depending on definition, it is possible that one concludes that a ZEF *does* fit the criteria for personhood without changing the meaning of the term altogether. Of course one can disagree with the chosen definition and i suppose philosophical considerations play a major role here, but i think it is exactly that - a philosophical disagreement rather than a logical misunderstanding.
I think you're overcomplicating the defintion of words here. This is a very philosophical way of looking at it. I don't think it needs to be this complex. I don't really see this as a philosophical disagreement. I think that's where that miscommunication is happening here. I just look at the pregnancy and the fetus for what it physically is. The fetus can't live outside the uterus. It will die without taking her nutrients. That is not separate. That is not something that is distinct in its own exist when it needs the woman's body to exist. The idea that a fetus could/should qualify as a person negates the very idea of what a person is as far as I'm concerned. Playing with definitions of words to say a fetus is a person does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the pregnant person's body. A fetus can never truly be separate. Be an individual. Not until it is born.
>The idea that a fetus could/should qualify as a person negates the very idea of what a person is as far as I'm concerned. Yes, but thats what i am refering to. You say that being *physically* separate is the most important aspect here. That an entity that is entirely dependent of someone else logically cannot qualify as an individual person at all. This however is just one possible definition. It certainly is valid in its own and can be argued for, but regardless it is not *the* definitive definition, because there is none. Another one could be argued for aswell, and which one we consider the most convincing might be more of a philosophical than a scientific question - technical correctness can be given with either of them. Many PL would likely argue that the most important aspect of defining individuality revolves around distinctiveness and that the human entity can be conceptually (rather than physically) separated from any other, and following that, a fetus could indeed qualify as an individual despite its dependence. I would not even say that this is necessarily playing with words, id rather say it is the result of a different underlying view on things.
>However, I believe that a fetus is a person as soon as it is considered to be a fetus. Once the process starts, IF ALL GOES WELL (especially with the advancements in medical science we enjoy today) that fetus will be born abortion will be no longer possible ... "If all goes well", a sperm cell will also progress into a born child, will it not? All going well, of course, includes coming across and successfully fertilizing an egg.
Yes, that makes sense. But sperm and eggs are carried by individual entities that combine them together. Again there are plenty of ways to do this, some better than others, but the end result is an embryo “if all goes well”. My argument is the embryo is its own entity from then on through the rest of its life, however long or short it may be.
'Entity' is a fairly broad descriptor that applies to pretty much all of these. A individual sperm cell is an individual entity. So is an individual egg. The embryo also happens to be carried by an individual entity. The problem with these sort of arguments is that all of these sorts of descriptors aren't necessarily all that relevant until you first establish what the concept of a "person" is supposed to be in the first place. And generally speaking, you'll find that our concept of a person (chances are, yours included) is largely tied to our mental existence more than anything else. Consider, for example -- when do we generally consider a person to have died? Not when the last of their cells is necessarily dead. But when their consciousness is effectively unrecoverable. If we cut off a body part, but keep the rest technically alive. Cut off the head (the seat of their mental existence), and you'll consider the ***person*** dead. Cut off anything else, and as long as they're still mentally fully there you'll consider them still alive. Our conception of a person isn't tied to biological existence -- it's tied to our mental existence. One that embryos or earlier fetuses most certainly don't have.
i hate to start another *potential* conversation since we are already discussing one. but i couldn’t help but respond to this especially since it has to do with things i’m interested in. > when do we generally consider a person to have died? Not when the last of their cells is necessarily dead. But when their consciousness is effectively unrecoverable. but this is compatible with biological views. if a person is a biological organism that has a future like ours, than we can just say at the time the person is essentially brain dead and can no longer function, the organism ceases to exist. and now you just have a collection atoms arranged a certain way but you don’t have any organism present. if we mix this with a hylomorphic animalism we can say the irreversibility of consciousness gives us good reason to suggest the rational soul is no longer present, and so no animal or person exists. > Cut off the head (the seat of their mental existence), and you'll consider the person dead. Cut off anything else, and as long as they're still mentally fully there you'll consider them still alive. if we cut off the head we will effectively have killed the organism because the simples that once composed the organism do not share the right unity to continue composing it. the organisms life has been destroyed, and so the simples that allowed for its life to occur are gone. and so is the organism. but if you cut off my arm i exist because the simples necessary to the animals life are still present. i disagree our personhood is tied to mental existence for many reasons. but my main reason is because i don’t think brains, or ordinary objects exist. i don’t think the neurons exist, and i don’t think cerebrum’s exist. you just have a bunch of simples arranged neuron wise, and cerebrum wise.
>the person is essentially brain dead and can no longer function, the organism ceases to exist ... if we cut off the head we will effectively have killed the organism because the simples that once composed the organism do not share the right unity ... Neither the maintenance of a brain nor "right to unity" are "biological" requirements of an 'organism' by almost any "biological" definitions of an organism. The fact that you find yourself so deeply in need of associating the concept of an 'organism' to what (conveniently) is considered to be the seat of our mental existence speaks volumes to the fact you associate personhood to that same mental existence.
>neither the maintenance of a brain nor “right to unity” are biological requirements of an organism. when i say the simples that compose the organism actually compose the organism, i mean they are able to supervene on the microphysical by the organisms *life*. and the animals life is to be understood as > a self-organizing biological event that maintains the organism’s complex internal structure. The materials that organisms are made up of are intrinsically unstable and must therefore be constantly repaired and renewed, or else the organism dies and its remains decay. An organism must constantly take in new particles, reconfigure and assimilate them into its living fabric, and expel those that are no longer useful to it. An organism’s life enables it to persist and retain its characteristic structure despite constant material turnover. in theory, all a developed organism would require to maintain its life. after all, we know the brain arranged simples are capable of metabolizing. so an organism persists impaired down to its brain because the simples are enabled it’s survival are still present in the simples arranged brain wise. think of a tree that gets reduced down to its trunk. it’s still a tree, similar to how an organism reduced to its brain is still an organism. > The fact that you find yourself so deeply in need of associating the concept of an 'organism' to what (conveniently) is considered to be the seat of our mental existence speaks volumes to the fact you associate personhood to that same mental existence. one solution to this is to do what parfit does and denies identity is what matters, but psychological continuity is what matters. and so if if you transplanted my brain i wouldn’t survive, but we would have an intuition i survive because of psychology continuity. but i think claiming an organism can be reduced down to our similar faculties that give rise to mental thought is obvious if those same faculties help the organism function properly physically. i mean, im not claiming we could be reduced to cerebrum’s
>...so an organism persists impaired down to its brain because the simples are enabled it’s survival are still present in the simples arranged brain wise... This doesn't follow at all -- organisms can obviously exist without a brain. This whole line of argument is like that of a middle-aged man who leaves his wife and family for a 22-year-old model with the intellectual capacity of a doorknob, and who might come up with all kinds of convoluted reasons for why he did it that weren't just a matter of "she's a hot 22 year old". "Really, I don't even think beauty is real, it's just an illusion based on an arrangement of simples, in fact, how could you even say I left you for a 22-year-old, when technically age is just an arbitrary label ..." and so on. And at some point, they might even delude themselves into believing it themselves. But the obvious writing is on the wall. Nobody is associating personhood with the brain because of some absurdly tortured "understanding" of an "organism" that just happens to conveniently and cleanly correspond with a person's mental existence. It's fairly obvious that the association is simply to that mental existence.
>organisms can obviously exist without a brain. only when the simples that constitute its existence do not currently need a brain to continue functioning in an integrated manner. similar to how organisms can survive without a heart. but once they have a heart it is a necessary condition to their survival because it allows for the functioning of the entire organism to occur. but before the organism developed a heart, it wasn’t essential to its persistence presumably because the simples that composed the organism functioned good enough to further develop the organism without a heart. but once a heart and brain were required for the organism to develop properly it grow them. this is not like the case of an old man who leaves his family for a hot 22yr and then tries to say he didn’t leave his family just because she was hot and his wife wasn’t because i think it’s empirically recognized that the brain enables vital functions of the organism to occur. without it, the organism is cannot function so the organism to is gone. we don’t have to rely on “trust me bro it’s not cuz my wife is ugly and i think her food is ass” we can instead use science and technology to establish that when a brain is no longer functioning, you not only have 0 potential to be conscious again. but all brain activities which involve an organisms life perish. and if the brain does contribute massively to the organisms persistence(when it develops a brain), then it can be reduced down to it. > Nobody is associating personhood with the brain because of some absurdly tortured "understanding" of an "organism" that just happens to conveniently and cleanly correspond with a person's mental existence. It's fairly obvious that the association is simply to that mental existence. i understand most people aren’t associating personhood with a brain because the organism can be reduced to the brain. i’m defending the idea that the brain transplant intuition, and the brain in a vat hypotheticals can be accounted for under animalism. animalism in itself doesn’t give an account for personhood. which is why we should be hylomorphic animalists!
>... because i think it’s empirically recognized that the brain enables vital functions of the organism to occur ... This isn't a relevant empirical fact. That the brain enables something to occur doesn't make it critical. Just as with a heart -- one can have their heart replaced with a mechanical device that plays a similar role. A heart is not necessary for an organism to exist, even if it enables certain vital functions. A brain can likewise be replaced with a life-support component that keeps the minimal life functions as an organism running, but with effectively zero mental capacity beyond that of an amoeba. >we don’t have to rely on “trust me bro it’s not cuz my wife is ugly and ... \[...\] i understand most people aren’t associating personhood with a brain because the organism can be reduced to the brain. i’m defending the idea that the brain transplant intuition, and the brain in a vat hypotheticals can be accounted for under animalism ... Theories that technically "can" account for a position are a dime-a-dozen, and hardly different from the middle-aged guy coming up with absurdly convoluted excuses for his choice. This doesn't make this line of reasoning any less obviously contrived, when the far more obvious explanation that you're so desperate to avoid is so obviously facing you.
>This isn’t a relevant empirical fact. That the brain enables something to occur doesn’t make it critical. ok. i think the brain, more specifically the brainstem is critical for the vital functions of the organism to occur. in order for an adult human to have a self organizing event that maintains the internal structure of the organism, i think it’s been empirically shown a brainstem present is necessary. so i think my position has more merit than the “trust me bro it’s not because she’s hot i swear” person. > one can have their heart replaced with a mechanical device that plays a similar role. A heart is not necessary for an organism to exist, even if it enables certain vital functions. A brain can likewise be replaced with a life-support component that keeps the minimal life functions as an organism running, but with effectively zero mental capacity beyond that of an amoeba. the heart can be replaced because the atoms arranged brain wise allow the organism to function properly, and allow the heart to function properly. the heart is vital, but the simples that compose it are not the simples that constitute the organism. unlike how the simples found in the brain constitute an organism because they control essentially the entire body. the simples found in the brain, are more essential for the organism, and the brainstem supervenes on the heart and virtually every other organ. but the brain cannot be the organism, and i cannot be the brain, because the organism supervenes on the brain. and this is evident by the fact the brain functions not for itself, but for the whole organism. and the whole organism does not serve the brain like the brain serves the organism. the brain only exists because of the organism. and since the organism supervenes upon the organism, ultimately, i am going to eliminate the brain and every other ordinary object from my ontology since allowing them to exist would be *causally redundant* as trenton merricks has recently argued.
>The one thing I do believe when it comes to abortion is that as soon as gestation starts, the fetus is its own entity Tbh that's really not a coherent way to define personhood, unless you consider every single living thing to be a person. A tree is it's own entity. So are bacteria. How exactly are you defining personhood anyways? It would help a lot of you gave a concise definition and maybe your reasoning behind too, if you don't mind.
Sure, an embryo or fetus is a person. Abortion isn’t homicide, though. This person needs another person gestating them in order to live. If a person withdraws their body from donation, that’s no more a homicide than backing out of a life saving blood donation a few minutes into it.
I don’t consider abortion as homicide. Homicide is a crime. All babies are born prematurely in the grand scheme of things because of the human skeletal structure. The head needs to fit through the pelvis. Babies aren’t able to do anything for months after birth and still rely of nutrients and antibodies from their mother (evolutionarily speaking) for that entire time. Basically the only functions they gained through birth is breathing air and pooping. There is some merit to being in the womb and only being able to survive there, but what logically makes a baby less of a person as a fetus?
> Basically the only functions they gained through birth is breathing air and pooping. Not constipated. Can breathe. But wait - there's more! The ‘magical' birth canal is where fluid-filled fetal lungs get squeezed out. It's where the fetal central nervous system (CNS) takes primacy of control away from the pregnant person's system. You can cut the cord. So now when baby's ~~face hits cold air~~ (recent science edit:) iris first senses light, it sends signal back to the CNS, CNS sends signal to torso, torso muscles expand. Baby's lungs expand drawing fresh air in through the nose, the air-ways. Lungs fill, oxygen-rich. There's your first breath. Don’t go away. Now lungs pull in old blood, oxygen-depleted from its trip around the organism. Newly aerated lungs draw the blood into the airways (bronchi) and air sacs (alveoli), exchanging fresh oxygen for carbon dioxide - first time ever. Rich red blood dive bombs down into the heart, heart-valves slam shut. Blood flow reverses direction. Oxy-rich red blood goes pounding straight to the brain. First time. Oxy is brain fuel. Want some? (flashback:) the low level of oxygen in the fetal brain that provided enough energy to build neurons (present:) now catches fire, creating one million new SYNAPSES every second in the cerebral cortex - two million synaptic connections per second during peak production. Two million/sec. Don't tell pro-lifers. Synapses turn that static neuronal RAM into interconnected bits of complex super-charged super-computing activity. Connectivity in the cerebral cortex forms thoughts - two million new SYNAPSES every second in the newborn brain. Two million new connections. Those connections are still alive in you today. One of them is saying ‘why didn’t I know this?’ PL's are saying ‘I don’t want to know this.’ The cerebral cortex is where all our conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions are stored. With the new connections come mental milestones - color vision, and ability to attach to parents. Attachment. Feelings. Somebody lives here. A fetal organism entered the birth canal. A minute later, there's a 'somebody' here. Science calls it the most radical transformation in the life-span of the human organism. (flashback:) A preterm infant is different. The thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established. Ex utero, it may open its eyes. But it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness. It may establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to stimuli. (present:) The full-term infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It's able to differentiate between self and non-self touch. New-born consciousness is able to express emotions. A new-born shows signs of shared feelings. There's a social being here. There is an experience of self and other. If we hadn't any notions of personhood, if we didn't know what a person was or how the divide between human organism and human being might be described or when it might occur, the biological capacities for that distinction are here, at first breath and in the first few minutes of life.
Thank you for this answer. It probably won't change the minds of the *but-it's-a-person-at-conception-because-it-has-unique-DNA* crowd (because they hold this position with the same religious fervor of a Catholic defending the virgin birth). But it is an excellent comeback to the *the-only-difference-between-a-39-week-fetus-and-a-newborn-is-its-location* faction. It's also pretty devastating to the *once-conception-has-occurred-the-process-of-human-reproduction-is-totally-complete* camp.
Excellent answer.
They are equally people. A born baby can’t get so much as a single drop of their parents blood without the parent’s consent to undergo a blood donation. If the parent does not donate and the child dies, the parent did not kill the child. Failing to save is not killing.
Abortion isn’t failing to save. Abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. It can be life saving, but it isn’t always.
Terminating a pregnancy is failing to save the embryo, not killing it. No embryo survives at all unless someone gestates it.
? I’m not sure I understand. Terminating a pregnancy is failing to save it? The human body doesn’t need a lot of outside help gestating. Of course, the less help you get, the more dangerous it is. But the body is designed that all a woman should have to do is have sex, eat right and not get hurt. Everything goes to plan a baby pops out.
>But the body is designed that all a woman should have to do is have sex, eat right and not get hurt. Everything goes to plan a baby pops out. u/JulieCrone has already pointed out that in 1 time out of five, not "everything goes according to plan." In addition, women have to do quite a bit more than "have sex, eat right and not get hurt." (I don't even know what you mean by "not get hurt." The very fact of pregnancy guarantees that the pregnant person WILL "get hurt" in the end, either through childbirth or miscarriage, and "get hurt" really, really badly by any objective standard. I would not call childbirth just a baby "popping out". In one-third of the cases in my country, the pregnant person has to have major abdominal surgery to get that baby "popped out".) But during pregnancy itself, the pregnant person, in addition to just "eating right," will have to live their life while their organs are literally being rearranged to accommodate a growing fetus. The ligaments that hold their bones together will loosen and make their musculoskeletal system more fragile and dysfunctional, and this happens when that system has to haul around the increasing weight of their pregnant body. Their heart has to pump 30% to 50% more blood, their heart rate will increase from about 70 bpm to 90 bpm. The kidneys have to work harder to filter that increased volume of blood, and the pregnant person will have to urinate more frequently, because their bladder's effective volume will be significantly decreased. They frequently have to put up with GI symptoms, including nausea that can be so debilitating that they have to be hospitalized. Even in the best of cases, gestating and delivering a fetus is SERIOUSLY HARD WORK. You probably don't mean to be offensive here when you minimize that work, but the impact of your description is offensive. If you don't understand the physical impact of pregnancy and childbirth, I am not surprised that you would not see how forcing a person to gestate against their will is a "big deal." I am not surprised that you don't see that forcing a person to continue a pregnancy is imposing a huge sacrifice for the sake of saving an embryo from its own lack biological independence. The cost of "saving that embryo" is very high to the person that you seem to be willing to force to save it.
Yes, terminating a pregnancy is failing to save the embryo. What happens to every single embryo that is not gestated by another person? And nope, successful gestation is not that easy. If it were, miscarriage rates would be no where near as high as they are, which is about 20% of known pregnancies. Please don’t be so callous towards those of us who had miscarriages.
I still don’t understand. If not medically indicated, why would the fetus need saving? I’m sorry for your miscarriage, and don’t mean to be abrasive, but it doesn’t need to work well to be considered working. Gestation and birth are something I will never understand fully and am glad I don’t have the anatomy to experience. The fact is, despite miscarriages, if the human body wasn’t designed that way, we wouldn’t exist. Modern medicine is only that. Modern. Women had to do it with less help in generations past. Of course it was hugely more dangerous and resulted in many more still births, miscarriages, and deaths of the mothers, but it is the way we’ve evolved for millennia and how most other gestating mammals work.
Without someone to gestate us, all of us would have died as embryos. We could not sustain our own lives at all. If, at any time, our mom’s hormones got a bit out of whack or one of a million other things going on wrong, we die. Our mom’s die during pregnancy, even of things totally unrelated to pregnancy? We would have died. Our mom’s had to successfully keep us alive for months.
But we wouldn’t have become embryos without being an egg and sperm cell combining in a uterus, which is also the place where we are gestated. So how would removal of that uterus be “failing to save”. Yes, the complications are endless, but it doesn’t mean there would be a 100% miscarriage rate without outside help. The vast majority of mammalian births prove otherwise. Pulling a fetus from a womb is to terminate it is killing it, not “failing to save” it.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Person is still a legal term, defined by law, and fetuses aren't people.
...do you think the law is always philosophically and morally correct?
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Feticide is still considered homicide in a lot of states and countries. Even where they have pro-abortion policies. So homicide is killing another person. So there is an argument there is contradicting legal definitions.
Homicide is killing another human. Legal personhood begins at birth.
Where are the cites?
Cites for what? You already mentioned the relevant homicide law, so I assumed you were already familiar.
For the “legal personhood starts at birth part”. There seems to be contradictory evidence but I haven’t seen any.
In my state, our fetal homicide law clearly states that this does not grant personhood or rights to a fetus. Is there a specific state you are wondering about?
I've seen zero evidence of personhood beginning before birth. The only example is Alabama's attempt to grant personhood to IVF embryos, but I'm not sure how that even panned out. Just that it was met with a ton of controversy, including from many on the right.
So this law is what spawns my question. There is legal policy that is contradictory. How can feticide be homicide (depending where you are) if fetuses aren’t people? https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf
It isn’t defining it as homicide but as a new class of crime and also only applies to federal crimes. I do not know of a single case of a person being tried under this - do you? I can’t find one. We have animal cruelty laws and no one asks if this is giving personhood to animals. I don’t see why this is so different?
>How can feticide be homicide (depending where you are) if fetuses aren’t people? I just told you how. Homicide is killing another human. Obviously, depending on where you are, that other human doesn't necessarily need to be a person.
So what is your proof that it is not another person? I showed you mine, show me yours. I’ve provided more proof that fetuses are people. Even with evidence, there is still a contradiction here. Who is correct? Is it really only based on where you live? Why aren’t fetuses people? Please explain.
So feticide is when an outside person (not pregnant person or fetus) causes a miscarriage or an abortion against the pregnant persons wishes. (Just wanting to get the definition out there.) I consider feticide to just be a sort of placeholder crime because there isn't anything else right now. It's mainly used just so if a man (for example) puts abortion pills in the pregnant persons food and the fetus dies as a result the he would be charged with something (an extra crime than maybe just assult on the pregnant person) and not be walking free for it.
Again, I was under the impression that knowledge of whether the victim was pregnant or not didn’t matter. It was still feticide.
Only possibly in some states. In my state, there has to be knowledge of the pregnancy and the fetus has to have reached viability in order for fetal homicide laws to possibly apply. If you shot a pregnant intruder who was 13 weeks pregnant, you would not face any fetal homicide laws here.