Exactly. People forget this is the contending fact. If anything we should be talking about the argument from two different angles separately: and angle assuming that the life starts at conception, and then an angle assuming that the life starts somewhere else, i.e. end of first trimester.
Edit: by this I mean when human life starts. Even less complex cells than the ones that make up our body are defined as life. When the issue of abortion arises it’s about when the human life starts. What do we define it as? Consciousness? Where does consciousness start? It’s a pretty complicated thing to define and talk about.
Edit2:
If I may add my 2 cents... I’m pro choice but I can understand pro life sentiment.
It’s only natural that for people for whom life is precious and valuable, or for people for whom the consequences are not directly affective (men, women who don’t have sex until they want to conceive, etc.), they would be pro choice.
I think life is one of the cheapest things there is, it’s damn well everywhere and we have way too many people in this world. I also am an educated and ambitious woman pursuing a career and a degree with no plans of having children take me away from that any time soon, but like any other member of our hypersexual society, I enjoy sex. And I should be able to, and I’m not irresponsible about it but it is very easy for me to understand a pro choice point of view because it is what would be most valuable to me if I ever were to need it. And it aligns with my view of the world, which right now revolves around achieving my own goals and happiness.
Edit3:
Ik I said life is cheap, but I wanna clarify that I still think life is important and merits respect in the perspective of being alive. Life is very important, especially in the context of our universe (it might be cheap on Earth, but it is rare in our universe). I’m not a pessimist either, I think life has beauty. But when life starts to become so damn important that the moment two cells come together inside me people scream “thats a human don’t you dare kill it, in fact you have no say in it” I think we might be giving human life wayyy too much credit for what it is. It’s not that desperately important people. Especially when we don’t treat other life forms with even a half of the respect we treat a wad of cells at the very second of conception.
More specifically, do we consider a fetus to be a human being whose rights, such as they are, take priority over the rights of the woman carrying the fetus to term?
This is basically where my biggest point lies and why I am pro choice. I decide to place value more on the already integrated member of society and their potential to continue to hold a good life over a fetus which, if we’re only contending abortion before the first trimester (like most pro choice people argue) doesn’t even have a guarantee that it will actually become a person (i.e. fetus deformities, miscarriages, etc.), and whose potential is muuuch less tangible than the potential of the woman having the abortion.
It’s all on what we decide to value, and what we give value to.
Edit:
It’s only natural that for people for whom life is precious and valuable, or for people for whom the consequences are not directly affective (men, women who don’t have sex until they want to conceive, etc.), they would be pro choice.
I think life is one of the cheapest things there is, it’s damn well everywhere and we have way too many people in this world. I also am an educated and ambitious woman pursuing a career and a degree with no plans of having children take me away from that any time soon, but like any other member of our hypersexual society, I enjoy sex. And I should be able to, and I’m not irresponsible about it but it is very easy for me to understand a pro choice point of view because it is what would be most valuable to me if I ever were to need it.
That seems like a pretty honest and logically consistent viewpoint, which would probably be much more understandable to someone who doesn't necessarily agree with your conclusion.
I'm just curious, how would your opinion differ after the first trimester has passed?
After the first trimester I do believe it gets a bit more complicated. Basically I know for a fact consciousness does not develop before the first trimester and that’s why I’m so sure about that part. Basically my cutoff is at the beginning of consciousness and similarity to an actual infant human. That’s what matters the most to me. It’s the consciousness of the being, because once it is conscious it has the ability to suffer.
I give value to a life by the compassion I have towards its ability to suffer. I don’t remember shit before I was born and therefore I could’ve given less than no shits whether I was born or not. There’s no suffering towards the fetus in an abortion, because it is not even conscious of the reality that is suffering. But there is plenty of suffering in the life of the parents who have to sacrifice their goals and savings to raise this kid.
Same goes with animals, of course I feel worse for a dying cow than I do for a dying starfish. It’s only natural. Not only because I factually know that cows suffer more because they are more conscious, but even just also because there are more traits that cows share with humans that makes it able for me to experience and see their ability to suffer (having eyes, is an example)
That’s why a fetus with no consciousness whatsoever, no ability to suffer, and that doesn’t resemble a human has less value to me than parents who do have the ability to suffer and struggle because they are already conscious.
Thats just how I see it. Im not saying it’s a perfect point of view, nor unflawed, there’s plenty of ways people could stretch my arguments to extremes and complicate it. Like, what do we do about brain dead people then, they’re by all means not conscious, do we rescind their rights at that moment? So there’s definitely ways to stretch it. But this point of view is what I feel most comfortable supporting because it’s based on my personal wisdom and experience of the world.
As croz5q said, life is well defined by some very specific characteristics that a biologist could enumerate. But a tumor is also alive, yet those aren't subjects of law. That's us to come to a collective decision over.
A tumor is alive but it's not an organism. A human gamete (haploid sperm or egg cell) is alive but it's not an organism. A zygote (human diploid cell) is alive and it is an organism (it's also taxonomically a human), but it's not a person. (IMO).
The part about it being a person is what can be debated since that's a moral or legal question, everything else is not really debatable because there is broad scientific consensus on that topic.
Oh I see what your getting at. Yes and no. It is still up for debate what is considered alive in general by scientific standards. IIRC, viruses dont fit the characteristics but many think they should be considered alive.
But you're right, most of that doesnt matter for the purposes of abortion. It's less of when its "alive" and more of when does a fetus/group of cells become a person.
Well, you yourself are bringing the importance of the difference between personhood and life but then using language “apply to all living humans, or only to those who are also considered legal persons” The argument isn’t about the rights of “all living humans” vs the rights of “living humans who also have to meet the conditions of legal persons”. The argument is the rights of “what I define as a person, even if it’s at the stage of two cells” vs the rights of “a person who has what I define as a wad of cells that will later become a human growing inside”.
Just because a cell is alive that doesn’t make it a living human. Or do we grant rights to the cells shaving off our bodies every day and think of murder when we shower them off? It’s not even about being considered a “legal person” like you say, it’s about the literal definition of what we want to consider a human person in the very essence of being human, and a human life worth protecting.
I guess there are some who will assume that rights must be attached to personhood (rather than humanity) and therefore try and argue that personhood begins at conception or something. (I think personhood develops during infancy) Either way I see the question of personhood as a distraction. I stick with the simpler statement that it's wrong to kill innocent human beings.
Just because a cell is alive that doesn’t make it a living human.
That's for sure. The cells that comprise my body are parts of a human being, not tiny human being themselves. The same doesn't go for the unborn. Unlike a sperm or a skin cell, the unborn is a living, genetically distinct and bodily whole human organism.
At what moment does it become bodily whole? I’m asking genuinely what your personal definition is because for part of the first trimester the “unborn” that you’re talking about is basically a collection of cells, and not the “bodily whole human organism” you are so set in describing. Genetic distinction is true for any cell and any living organism, so I still don’t see your point shining through that argument either.
It's bodily whole from the moment it comes into being. All that means is that the zygote/embryo/fetus/etc is not a part of a larger organism. It is itself an entire organism.
Pointing out that it's a mass of cells doesnt mean anything really. You and I are masses of cells.
As far as being genetically distinct: that is -genetically distinct from the mother, or from some body of of which it is only a part (unlike a skin cell).
What about when the unborn has it's own distinct human DNA separate from it's mother and fathers DNA, is growing, and is already set to be a xx or xy aka conception. Or is humanity based on level of brain or physical development, or the ability to exist without anyones help? Because then only those who are perfectly healthy and adults would qualify as human right? It's interesting to think about.
I agree that the argument of not seeing a fetus as a human due to, for example, lack of consciousness, gets super complicated, especially if we want to talk then about the rights of say, brain dead people and the like. And its also complicated when you argue that the rights of a capable member of society should have more value than the “potential” of a collection of cells to turn into a fully functional person.
But I look at it this way, infancy isn’t truly something we find effective or that we look at and say “wow, how great is it that for part of our lives we’re completely vulnerable, dependent, and fragile!”, infancy is just necessary. But truly and deep down our society places more value on its members that are functional and contribute something, even if it’s little things. We “put up” with infancy and the vulnerability and dependability of growing potential humans, but should we really value it more than the potential of an already functional member of society who can have more kids in the future? Especially in a world that is overpopulated and in the brink of ecological break down?
Life is cheap on Earth. It’s one of the most abundant things in our planet, and even so, it should be important. Life is very important, especially in the context of our universe (it might be cheap on Earth, but it is rare in our universe). But when it starts to become so damn important that the moment two cells come together people scream “thats a human don’t kill it” I think we might be giving human life way too much credit for what it is. It’s not that desperately important. Especially when we don’t treat other life forms with even a half of the respect we treat a wad of cells at the second of conception.
I think deciding if humans are valuable or not is an important question to answer because either answer shapes two incredibly different worldviews, one where humans are expendable and one where all humans should have human rights. Talking about an overpopulation is understandable but if something is broken, ending the thriving life of a human (it's a growing thing with it's own distinct human dna) seems like a poor solution. Having a "if things get back lets kill" as a mentality doesn't seem like it'll actually help the problems going on in the wider world. Still, I think the main question that should be answered is: Do all humans deserve human rights or do only some and what are the qualifiers for being human besides being alive and having distinct human dna?
I would start with consciousness but that would bring a controversial point of view that brain dead people are basically not qualifiers... which I’m not sure I want to pursue.
I value a life by the compassion I have towards its ability to suffer. I don’t remember shit before I was born and therefore I could’ve given less than no shits whether I was born or not. There’s no suffering towards the fetus in an abortion, because it is not even conscious of the reality that is suffering. But there is plenty of suffering in the life of the parents who have to sacrifice their goals and savings to raise this kid.
Same goes with animals, of course I feel worse for a dying cow than I do for a dying starfish. It’s only natural.
Thats just how I see it. Im not saying it’s a perfect point of view, nor unflawed, but it’s what I feel most comfortable supporting.
If the suffering of parents is a deciding factor, shouldn't a parent be able to end the life of a dependent child (newborn til ?) to end their suffering? Young children can not take care of themselves. Or what about the elderly or infirm or differently-abled too, if they cause others suffering financially or by altering others goals in life should they also be able to be "terminated"? I appreciate your thoughtful responses btw.
Unborn do feel pain, they are not given any pain killers and procedures either burn them alive or tear them apart piece by piece. I will link a few of the procedures used if you're curious to see what happens in abortions as described by a doctor who has done hundreds of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THDmys8z30 .
There is another argument, in fact the one that persuades me: Regardless of when you think life begins, the long arm of the government should not enter a woman’s womb. She is the sole arbiter of what happens inside her.
It doesn’t matter if I believe when life begins (which I personally feel is at viability) it only matters that I have no say what happens inside her body. I have no right to force her to term, I have no right to force her to abort. She is the sole arbiter.
When life begins is irrelevant. At what point is the fetus considered to have rights and be a person is closer to the subject.
Sure, but the argument the other side gives is that the fetus is also its own person at some point, and it also has rights.
The woman performing an abortion after that point (If she is not in danger) would basically be like stopping to care for an elder that is your responsibility. So basically leaving them for dead or even murdering them. Prolifers argue that you take on this responsibility the moment you decide to take the chance on fertilizing the egg.
Problem is that the baby doesn't have an advocate as a vixtim. If it's full term and fully viable and she decides to terminate in this scenario, it's 100% a person at this point and she just committed murder. That's part of why this line is so important to the discussion.
and angle assuming that the life starts at conception, and then an angle assuming that the life starts somewhere else, i.e. end of first trimester.
You forget the third angle, the angle where it makes no difference what arbitrary definition we give to the start of life, and where no thing whether alive or not has the right to parasitize a human being.
That assumes the human being starts at conception. It’s not an angle any different from the first angle I mentioned. A collection of cells on its way to becoming a human with barely any human characteristics yet, which is during the first trimester, is not a human being to some people, to act like it is is to overlook an entire side of the argument without even giving a good argument in return.
I’m not even concerned about angles like that. Life has beauty, and it is cheap here on Earth yet rare in the universe. But when life becomes so important that two cells right at the second of conception suddenly have more rights than I do we might be giving human life more credit than it deserves, especially since we’re so damn overpopulated. And especially when we don’t even treat other organisms in this world with even a half of the respect we give two measly cells at conception. Life and reproduction is not magical, it’s not that big a deal, it’s a natural progression of biological processes that don’t stop or suddenly become unavailable if one suddenly decided to terminate the process early.
Hold up. Are you arguing pro life or pro choice? I think there’s a huge misunderstanding here. Because I’m not really disagreeing with you. When I talk about the definition of when a human being starts and how it depends for people I’m just saying that it’s a part of the argument that should be considered and sometimes causes the biggest differences in opinion.
In my case, I don’t care whether you call it a human being at the moment of conception, or not. For the first trimester, that thing growing inside you is first of all, not developed, not particular, and not that damn important.
Life has some beauty, but whether it does or not is kinda subjective. I find life beautiful because it is a manifestation of the universe as finally becoming conscious but that’s just my own opinion and not really relevant to this argument, I still put it out there because when I make my pro choice argument people think I just give no value to life, and I do, just not as much as some people do. As I said, life is cheap and honestly not that important to merit having me give up my comfortable life for a couple of cells. To have people say at the second of conception, where it’s merely a collection of cells, “You can’t get rid of it that’s a human, in fact you have no right to decide for yourself what to do with it” is ridiculous in my opinion, life is not that fucking important nor hard to conceive lmfao
I think we are in agreement on the basics, but you are stating irrelevancies. You are saying that it is a piece of the argument, I'm saying it has nothing to do with the OPs argument, and it shouldn't have anything to do with anyone's argument. And I agree with the OPs argument 100%. Nobody has the right to use another person's body. The point at which you define a foetus as being alive or not is entirely irrelevant.
Life has some beauty
Entirely irrelevant, life also has the ultimate ugliness, there is noting uglier than some forms of life. Subjective, but something that I think most of us can agree on. A fly whose biggest claim to fame is growing in the eye of children, and blinding them is beautiful, said nobody except the insane.
133
u/PrettysureBushdid911 Sep 11 '18 edited Sep 11 '18
Exactly. People forget this is the contending fact. If anything we should be talking about the argument from two different angles separately: and angle assuming that the life starts at conception, and then an angle assuming that the life starts somewhere else, i.e. end of first trimester.
Edit: by this I mean when human life starts. Even less complex cells than the ones that make up our body are defined as life. When the issue of abortion arises it’s about when the human life starts. What do we define it as? Consciousness? Where does consciousness start? It’s a pretty complicated thing to define and talk about.
Edit2:
If I may add my 2 cents... I’m pro choice but I can understand pro life sentiment.
It’s only natural that for people for whom life is precious and valuable, or for people for whom the consequences are not directly affective (men, women who don’t have sex until they want to conceive, etc.), they would be pro choice.
I think life is one of the cheapest things there is, it’s damn well everywhere and we have way too many people in this world. I also am an educated and ambitious woman pursuing a career and a degree with no plans of having children take me away from that any time soon, but like any other member of our hypersexual society, I enjoy sex. And I should be able to, and I’m not irresponsible about it but it is very easy for me to understand a pro choice point of view because it is what would be most valuable to me if I ever were to need it. And it aligns with my view of the world, which right now revolves around achieving my own goals and happiness.
Edit3:
Ik I said life is cheap, but I wanna clarify that I still think life is important and merits respect in the perspective of being alive. Life is very important, especially in the context of our universe (it might be cheap on Earth, but it is rare in our universe). I’m not a pessimist either, I think life has beauty. But when life starts to become so damn important that the moment two cells come together inside me people scream “thats a human don’t you dare kill it, in fact you have no say in it” I think we might be giving human life wayyy too much credit for what it is. It’s not that desperately important people. Especially when we don’t treat other life forms with even a half of the respect we treat a wad of cells at the very second of conception.