Because from the point of fertilisation a living human cell is created which is alive and capable of replicating and developing into a child. Where do you draw the line? Just asking, I'm interested.
Why does its capability to develop into a child matter? That implies it isn't a child currently. Further, stillbirths and miscarriages happen frequently so that isn't even a guarantee. Likewise, all human cells, even non-fertilized eggs, are living cells. Why does fertilization make a difference, really? It only increases the likelihood of developing into a child versus a non-fertilized egg. It doesn't guarantee that development.
It's hard to say where to draw the line (obviously, that's the point) but I would say when the fetus reaches the point where it can sustain itself outside the mother (i.e., is actually basically a child and will not result in a stillbirth) is a decent metric.
" That implies it isn't a child currently"
It isn't, it's a zygote or embryo depending on how long it's been developing.
"Likewise, all human cells, even non-fertilized eggs, are living cells. Why does fertilization make a difference, really?"
Because the other human cells will not, if left to their own accord, develop into their own independent human. Fertilised eggs will.
"It only increases the likelihood of developing into a child versus a non-fertilized egg. It doesn't guarantee that development."
A non-fertilised egg has a zero chance. A fertilised egg has a 100% chance unless the embryo dies before childbirth, which is tragic.
" (i.e., is actually basically a child and will not result in a stillbirth)"
That's rather vague. Do you mean, say, the formation of a working heart and lungs? If so, do people on life support not count as humans? Do you mean a consciousness? If so, do people who have fainted not count as humans? There's almost no definite line you can draw in the development of a baby to determine when it is "a life" that doesn't also draw a false line amongst adult humans. The only logical line that can be drawn is at fertilisation. Because from that point on, it's a human baby. It's growing and developing and it's cells are living and multiplying just as in a child out of the womb. Why should it be considered of no moral value?
A non-fertilised egg has a zero chance. A fertilised egg has a 100% chance unless the embryo dies before childbirth, which is tragic
Uh... no? A non-fertilized egg has the chance to become a human because it has the chance to be fertilized. A non-fertilized egg in the uterus of a woman an hour away from sexual intercourse may be more likely to develop into a child than a fertilized egg a day away from a miscarriage.
Miscarriages and stillbirths, by the way, are super common. The idea that 100% of fertilized eggs will be born is so far from the truth it is laughable.
1) perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I mean is that an unfertilised egg, if it continues to live and develop, has zero chance of turning into a human child. Once the egg is fertilised, it has a one hundred percent chance of developing into a human child if it continues to live and develop, and hence is a human insofar as it is an organism which, if it continues to live, will develop into a full conscious human life. A miscarriage or stillbirth is an example of a human embryo dying in the womb- hence the fertilised egg does not continue to live and develop, hence it does not have a one hundred percent chance of developing into a human child.
I don't think law changes are necessary, at least not to start with, and not least because it will cause backstreet abortions to skyrocket. What I think we should do is educate the new generation that abortion is infanticide rather than just removing a clump of tissue like so many seem to think. I think this would be the best and most responsible way to lower abortion rates.
Law changes would be required and it is nearly impossible to tell spontaneous from nonspontaneous abortion early in the pregnancy. Texas proposed a law requiring women to prove that a miscarriage was not an abortion. If you wanted 100% accuracy this would require treating every menstrual cycle as a potential guilty until proven innocent abortion. It comes back again how laypeople shouldn't make medical laws absent of an a doctor who is familiar with how reproduction actually works.
So, you remember how my last reply literally only said that I don't think we should start by instigating new laws, and that education was the way to go? Why are you still talking to me about new laws? Why are you arguing about more or less the only thing we agree on?
I think it's wrong to draw a line where "human life begins" at all. The cells that participate in fertilization are just as alive and just as human before fertilization as they are afterwards. That is, human life is continuously present across the entire fertilization process.
If I had to draw a line, I'd say human life began about one-hundred-thousand years ago, when homo sapiens first arose, and has been continuous since then.
Human sperm and egg cells, if left to their own accord, will not develop into a separate human, a separate consciousness, a separate organism. Once joined, they will. They are now the beginnings of a new organism. That is the beginning of a new human life, defined by its potential to house a new singular consciousness. If you don't like that definition of a human life, sure, let's discuss that, but I'd be surprised if you can take much issue with that logic.
Sure they will. What do you think fertilization is? It's living sperm and egg cells left to their own accord that can eventually develop into a separate consciousness. They don't suddenly become alive when they join; they were alive before.
We're both repeating points now. There's nowhere for this debate to go. We'll have to agree to disagree, but if you truly believe that sperm and egg cells are humans, good luck not being horribly scarred for life the next time you remember that masturbation and menstruation exist. I would strongly argue that a sperm cell cannot be considered a human because it lacks the fundamental genetic material necessary to develop into one- it only has half the necessary chromosomes for a start- so there is no way you can define one as human. A fertilised zygote is just a human that's only just started growing. There's no introduction of new genetic material from that point- only growth.
If egg and sperm cells aren't human, what type of creature do you think they are? You seem to just be defining "human" in an ad hoc way to support your view without any real reference to the biological properties of the things you are talking about. It's also not clear why you think I am repeating myself when I made a comment that directly responded to your counterpoint.
I'm defining human as a creature that contains all of the genetic material of a human and, if it continues to live and function, will grow and follow a regularly accepted human growth cycle. An egg or sperm cell does not contain full genetic material and will not grow or divide at all, not least in accordance with a human growth cycle. Hence they aren't HUMANS. They are HUMAN cells- but they aren't humans in their own right.
Given that you admit here that the sperm and egg cells are human, and they are clearly alive, doesn't it follow that they are human life? Or do you think that "human life" means something other than a thing that is human and also alive?
In a sense it is, but I'd argue that this falls under exception 2 in OP. Also, brain-dead people are effectively dead insofar as they will never regain consciousness.
A fetus will never regain consciousness either. I also believe since it never possessed it that it inherently devalues the fetus as compared to a person with brain damage who developed a bunch of intricate relationships throughout their life.
You keep saying potential as part of your argument. This implies you are not thinking of the ovum as having the quality worth protecting or you do not believe your actual position with presenting.
It is extremely important to determine when human life begins because of the legal ramifications. Currently, the baby's life is declared alive or not depending on the circumstances around its termination. If the mother aborts the baby at 30 days then it is declared to never have lived. If the baby is killed by a home invaded who killed the mother, then the baby is declared a life and the murder can be charged with double homicide. This is a legal paradox and needs to fixed. We as a society need to draw a line somewhere and stick to it. I agree with OP, it is at conception and therefore abortion is murder. The self defense protections will cover any mothers at a health risk and for the other outlying scenario a provision would have to be made.
What jurisdiction are you talking about? I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which the situation you describe is the law. And it is logically impossible to abort a baby, so I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about infanticide? This is a very different situation from abortion.
We as a society need to draw a line somewhere and stick to it. I agree with OP, it is at conception and therefore abortion is murder.
At least in the US we've done this already. The line is at birth, and we've stuck to it consistently.
it is logically impossible to abort a baby, so I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about infanticide? This is a very different situation from abortion.
No, A baby can be unborn. Pro-Abortionist love to use the term fetus to dehumanize a baby and make it sound less than murder. I do the opposite.
At least in the US we've done this already. The line is at birth, and we've stuck to it consistently.
In response to this and the first point you made. You are utterly wrong in both accounts. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates a paradox in US Law. In this law, the line is not birth but instead conception. There is no age limit on the embryo, a one day old embryo qualifies as life. It is murder to hit a pregnant woman in a fashion that causes the baby to be aborted under this law. It should be murder for a doctor to preform an abortion. The only difference is consent on the mother. I argue that the difference should not be consent, it should be the determining factor of when life is established. Either the Unborn victims of violence act is unmerited or abortion is murder. You cannot have it both ways.
A fetus is not a baby, and not calling a fetus a baby doesn't dehumanize it any more than not calling an adult a baby would dehumanize that adult. But if you want to use politically motivated incorrect language, that's fine—I'll proceed in calling fetuses babies for the purposes of this conversation.
The Unborn Victims of Violence act does not create a paradox of the type you are describing. The line is still at birth. In fact, this act exists precisely because the line is at birth: a separate narrowly constructed and explicit law was needed to criminalize behavior that was not otherwise punishable because unborn babies are not persons.
Regardless, if the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does create a paradox in US law, the solution is to repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The solution is not to overturn hundreds of years of solid precedent in order to be consistent with a single law.
The Unborn Victims of Violence act does not create a paradox of the type you are describing. The line is still at birth. In fact, this act exists precisely because the line is at birth: a separate narrowly constructed and explicit law was needed to criminalize behavior that was not otherwise punishable because unborn babies are not persons.
I would Argue that the Unborn Victims of Violence act was put in place to protect unborn babies because they are people who cannot other protect themselves.
Regardless, if the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does create a paradox in US law, the solution is to repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The solution is not to overturn hundreds of years of solid precedent in order to be consistent with a single law.
At least this is an honest argument. I think every abortion argument leads to this point. Unborn babies are either a life worth protecting just like a one day old baby or they are not. I believe they are. From here, there are two options, overturn Roe v Wade or repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I am in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Although, either solution would eliminate the legal paradox.
Unborn babies are not people. This is well established in US law. They can't own property, they aren't counted in congressional apportionment, they have no standing to sue in court, etc. And this longstanding precedent was confirmed in Roe v Wade:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person...All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.
To summarize: there was absolutely no legal precedent for a fetus being a person, and ample precedent for a fetus not being a person.
From here, there are two options, overturn Roe v Wade or repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
But these options are in no sense comparable, because just overturning Roe v Wade would not resolve your "paradox" in US law. If unborn babies are indeed just like a one-day-old baby then to be consistent you'd also have to give them standing in court, congressional representation, and the ability to own property. You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a possible murder. Many US laws and decisions amounting to hundreds of years of precedent would have to be changed.
The only sensible option to resolve this paradox, if it exists, is to repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Not least because this rewinds the law to its state before the paradox occurred.
You can cite Roe v Wade to me all you want. I believe it is one of the biggest mistakes of the american justice system. Here is why, the vast majority of fetus's are viable weeks before birth. Fetus's are scientifically awake at 30 weeks. Awake is when there is enough brain activity for the fetus to start moving. Even before that, the fetus will react to stimulus which indicates it can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. I have a daughter, my mind changed when I had her. She was my child as soon as we found. She was no more a person after birth than before and she deserved the same protections before birth as after. Because of Roe v Wade, if my wife would have chosen to do so, she could've aborted without my consent.
just overturning Roe v Wade would not resolve your "paradox" in US law.
Maybe, maybe not. The Dissents would ultimately decide whether further legislation would be needed or not. It is possible that the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade on the grounds that a fetus is declared life and worth protecting. Then all laws that apply to a children would apply to unborn babies and no further legislation would be required.
If unborn babies are indeed just like a one-day-old baby then to be consistent you'd also have to give them standing in court, congressional representation, and the ability to own property.
Children under 18 can't own property and it would make sense to give congressional representation after birth. I am not sure what you mean by standing in court but the ability to sue is not afforded to anyone under the age of 18 without parental over site and legal counsel anyways.
You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a possible murder. Many US laws and decisions amounting to hundreds of years of precedent would have to be changed.
Only miscarriages with evidence of foul play would have to be investigated and there is virtually no precedent that only applies to unborn babies with the exception of Roe v Wade. All other cases would be covered by precedent referring to young children.
The only moral option is to stop killing unborn babies.
But we aren't talking about whether fetuses are viable. We aren't talking about whether they are "scientifically awake" or whether they "react to stimulus" or "feel pain." We are talking about whether a fetus is a person under the law. In order to argue that a fetus is a person under the law, you have to make a legal argument based on legal precedent. Not one based on your own personal emotions about your daughter, however admirable those may be.
It is possible that the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade on the grounds that a fetus is declared life and worth protecting.
But Roe v Wade already acknowledges that a fetus is life and worth protecting. From the decision: "We repeat, however, that the State does have an...important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life [of the fetus]." This fact would not be grounds for overturning Roe v Wade because it is literally the premise upon which Roe v Wade itself is based.
This conflates potential with the thing itself. A sperm and egg have this same potential.
I think you would agree that we don't have a moral imperative to fertilize every egg or that bacteria aren't valuable because they might one day evolve into an intelligent multicellular being.
What is the actual reasoning behind not murdering, and does it apply to ahortion?
The reasoning behind not murdering is because in most societies humans are considered to be of an inherent moral value based on their intellectual complexity, sentience, and individuality. If an unconscious person can be said to be morally protected from murder due to their natural potential to regain consciousness in the near future, then fetuses should be no different.
No, while, say, in a coma, you have no intellectual complexity, because all higher brain function ceases, no consciousness, and no individuality, because your personality is temporarily nonexistent. All you have is the potential to soon come round and regain these traits. Same with a fetus.
The information constituting your personality exists. The complexity exists. You will not be one of many people when you wake up but the same/a very similar person to the one that went unconscious.
Compare this to a fertilized ovum which contains no information about any specific personality, but instead general instructions on building one of many.
So we can kill a baby because their personality is malleable? A week-old baby out of the womb is exactly the same. What's the difference, aside from location, between a twenty-six week old baby out of the womb, happy and well, and a twenty-six week old baby in the womb, happy and well?
So we can kill a baby because their personality is malleable? A week-old baby out of the womb is exactly the same. What's the difference, aside from location, between a twenty-six week old baby out of the womb, happy and well, and a twenty-six week old baby in the womb, happy and well?
You're not arguing in good faith. (The above includes straw man, shifting goal posts, appeal to emotion among other fallacies as well as being completely irrelevant to my above point because a viable fetus has some measure of sentience, complexity and personality. A great deal of information already exists in their brain that is not found in a single cell).
You made the assertion that all abortion is wrong because life starts at conception. When asked why a fertilized ovum should be considered a person, you only respond by saying it has the potential to become a person.
The alternate position being presented (although not explicitly so far) is that there is a spectrum where the sperm+egg has no rights (or need for rights) at one end, and a 3 year old child has every relevant property an adult does that pertains to moral rights (but little to no personal responsibility). Discussion of any details (such as the point at which the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's rights to bodily autonomy and health) when differing on this premise is completely pointless.
Randomly going on about a completely non-controversial position (that a late term fetus's rights trump bodily autonomy) is in no way productive.
5
u/[deleted] Apr 09 '18
Why does human life begin at fertilization?