You must log in or register to comment.

Thirdwhirly t1_j420a9q wrote

The issue is that this is not a science-based thing; it’s philosophy. Either the woman has bodily autonomy, or the potential child does. There’s no way of reconciling them both, and, even in medical terms, “resembling a human” wouldn’t be what makes them “a living person”—it would be higher brain function.


tomvorlostriddle t1_j4bs4dv wrote

Of course there is. A 6 year old has bodily autonomy.

Yet I'm not forced to donate organs to save them.


pumpkinking-1901 t1_j4p71r9 wrote

Defining a reasonable external agent perhaps?

For example a pharmacy can pierce your ear, but they can't look off your leg. So there's a big difference in degree of bodily autonomy even when it's all your own body.

When a child gets their autonomy they still aren't cogent. Even a young child needs help to stay alive. That places a demand on many other persons autonomy to assist them.

If we defined abortion on grounds of sensory faculties. Would killing a sleeping person be wrong? A blind deaf quadriplegic or severely affected leper would also not meet that criteria for 'resembling a person'

I stand with the vegan crowd and say defining killing is a dangerous game. I'd rather just not do it and rather that it was never done at all.


AngelicDevilz t1_j48wm8q wrote

a fetus is a human. Fetus is just a life stage like toddler, infant, elderly, teenager..

Read a biology book


Thirdwhirly t1_j48y5ih wrote

Thank you for making my point. Cool.


AngelicDevilz t1_j48yweu wrote

You said resembling a human. It's not that at all. There ARE human. Living and Human.


Sad-Hunt1141 t1_j49e694 wrote

A human corpse can have living and working biological functions. Would you attribute moral consideration to a corpse?


AngelicDevilz t1_j49evsn wrote

Most people do. That's why desecration of a corpse is a crime.

But I apply it to living humans, like teenagers and fetuses.


Sad-Hunt1141 t1_j49n33t wrote

Many people attribute sentimental value to a corpse, but not moral value. Most societies don't give corpses moral rights the same way moral rights are given to people.

The broader point I am making is that when you say you value "life", I don't think you really value a thing that is biologically living. Because if you really did value "life" for personhood, you would apply it to a corpse that still has living biological functions. However (correct me if I'm wrong), your reply implied that you don't value corpses. If that's the case, why do you value the living biological functions of fetuses and teenagers, but not the living biological functions of corpses?


AngelicDevilz t1_j49nd81 wrote

Corpses are not alive. Are you talking about bacteria inside a corpse? I don't understand.


Sad-Hunt1141 t1_j49oh0w wrote

Do you value a brain-dead human on ventilation the same way you value a teenager?


AngelicDevilz t1_j49rodd wrote

There is a guy I don't like, a guy most people hate because he is a theif, scam artist, etc. A few months back he finally screwed over the wrong person and was jumped by two guys. He got hit in the head with a blunt object and then punched and his head slammed into the pavement hard. He was taken to a hospital and after a few days declared braindead. They reached out to his family and his mother was suppose to come see him the next day and they were going to pull the plug. His few friends spread the word that night thinking someone might actually be sad about it.

Well when I heard the news I was esctastic that the piece of shit was dead. A group of us in the same circle were celebrating. This dude had stolen from or mugged almost everyone in our social circle at some point so we drank shots to his karma catching up to him.

Skip forward a few months to last week. This guy walks up to me and says he remembers me but not my name. I had to do a double take, it was the very same piece of shit only instead of being a huge hulk of a man he was now skin and bones. He had a hole in his head and a hair piece that covered it. He feigned having no memory from before his attack but I told him to stay the hell away from me even if he is special needs now or whatever.

The point is though he was alive and well. I asked a friend that actually was friends with him what the deal was. Apparently his sister flipped out when their mother explained about the plan to come say goodbye and pull the plug. She convinced her mom not to do it and so the plug was not pulled despite him being braindead. Three days later he started recovering and showing brain activity again and then woke up.

So i have to say thay are just as valued as if a piece of shit with very negative karma can recover from being braindead in a coma I guess anyone has a shot if the plug isn't pulled.

We just don't understand the brain well enough yet to really understand it.

So even with a fetus we just don't know enough about the brain to be 100% on consciousness or lack of if that's what you are getting at. Even before there is any brain they are still a living human. If we grew brainless humans in labs for donor organs, kept alive just to take parts from as they live alone in a tube people would be outraged and sickened, even without a brain.

I know atheists against abortion like myself are rare but I believe it wrong. I'll stick to human and alive as my red line for when executing the innocent is wrong


Sad-Hunt1141 t1_j49wvzk wrote

First, that was a pretty amusing story, so thank you for taking the time to write that.

I'll just say these few things:

In the case of the guy in your story, he certainly is an anomaly. The doctor probably mislabeled him as brain-dead. People who are descriptively brain-dead, by definition, can't come back to consciousness. Without the brain being able to be supplied with blood and oxygen, the rest of the body just can't work.

>So even with a fetus we just don't know enough about the brain to be 100% on consciousness or lack of if that's what you are getting at.

This is where I was getting at. Consciousness/sentience seems to be the foundation for how we value humans. We may not have perfect knowledge of the brain, but we do know quite a bit. A priori wise, we can deduce that zygotes probably don't have brains and 8 month old fetuses probably do. Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that the brain develops the capacity for consciousness at around 6 months.

>If we grew brainless humans in labs for donor organs, kept alive just to take parts from as they live alone in a tube people would be outraged and sickened, even without a brain.

I can understand that people would be sickened/outraged by this thought experiment. However, arguably moral conclusions shouldn't stem directly from our intuition about things. In the past, many people intuitively thought slavery was acceptable, but those intuitions don't justify the conclusion.


AngelicDevilz t1_j49xieo wrote

We will have to agree to disagree. Even without conciousness (which we cannot be sure of either way) I still think it's wrong. People spend hours unconscious every night, doesn't make it okay to murder them in their sleep.


Sad-Hunt1141 t1_j4a8upg wrote

The argument against that would be that the value is on the capacity of consciousness and that sleeping people can be brought back to a state of consciousness. But yeah, we could debate this for hours.


Senior-Garden-6369 t1_j4kfoai wrote

Could you say then that the brain dead corpse has no capacity of consciousness therefore shouldn't be valued. However the fetus does have a capacity for consciousness therefore should be valued?


One-With-Many-Things t1_j41tmsu wrote

I feel like there are even more needed terms, namely a distinction between when a group of cells become a potential human.

literally nothing -> literally a handful of cells indistinguishable from other cells in the body -> multicellular tissues beginning to differentiate from other cells/resembling a human


GapingFleshwound t1_j41un2t wrote

“This would lead to some absurd consequences – if the state has an interest in protecting potential persons, then they would have an interest in banning products like contraceptives or procedures like vasectomies. But surely, at least for now, this is not what the Court suggests.”

This is where I stopped reading. How absolutely moronic. There’s an obvious difference between aborting potential and preventing potential. That the author just calls this an “absurdity” without any recognition of that material difference undermines his entire analysis.


Vainti t1_j43axpc wrote

What is the salient ethical difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy?

Either way pro life activists should stop using the phrase “potential person” (or “potential life”) to mean specifically a fetus. Because sperm and eggs would be potential persons by definition. He’s not a moron for knowing the correct definition of “potential”.


GapingFleshwound t1_j43efly wrote

Because a sperm left unmolested will not become a person. A fetus left unmolested will. Should be pretty straightforward. I don’t see the logical basis for your objection. A fetus is a complete potential person. A sperm is not.

And I’m staunchly pro-choice. But this is a philosophical conversation and our politics have no place in it.


Vainti t1_j43j3l9 wrote

You say this like unmolested is a common or coherent term in moral philosophy. What is the difference in the consequences between ending the potential before vs after fertilization? If you prefer to articulate it in terms of virtue ethics or deontological reasoning, that’s fine, but don’t just tell me the obvious empirical difference between two objects and pretend you’ve made a point about their value.

Also this has nothing to do with politics. In English “potential” has nothing to do with the level of molestation required to achieve said potential. You wouldn’t say a person can only have potential in something if they could achieve it without having to practice. Nor would you say that a business venture lacks potential because it requires adaptability.


MoonageDayscream t1_j44at7h wrote

Lol at unmolested. What the truth is that a fertilized egg must "molest" a host to achieve anything. Leave it in a petri dish and see what happens, I'll wait.


GapingFleshwound t1_j44clag wrote



Cbassman96 t1_j4ctvyn wrote

“Lol” to the fact that your logic is inferior, and you chose to stick your head in the sand instead of adjusting your POV or presenting a novel counter argument.


GapingFleshwound t1_j4cwoys wrote

Yes my logic is inferior because you say so. Just like a fetus “molests” it’s mother because the lass above says so.

You have no idea how ridiculous you are. I spent years avoiding people like this in University just to find them online populating spaces that could otherwise be productive.

None of you have any intent or ability to argue honestly which is why I just “lol” and move on. Because it’s a pointless exercise in frustration with the online narcissists.


AngelicDevilz t1_j48wbvr wrote

A fetus is a living human according to accepted biology.

A sperm isnt even human


Vainti t1_j48y4nq wrote

No, biologists would classify both as human. Both are “of or belong to the genus homo”. Human sperm, fertilized human embryos, and human feces are all considered human in a sense. But that also isn’t relevant in any moral framework. What you’re probably trying to say is that a fetus is a “person”. Which would be an entity deserving of a right to life. That’s not a biology question and not the easiest thing to justify.


AngelicDevilz t1_j48zb7t wrote

No. I never said person for a reason.

Show me a source claiming a sperm is a human.

Show me one saying human feces is human.

You cannot because you made it up.

I can show sources that state a fetus is both human and alive.


Vainti t1_j490z73 wrote

Human as an adjective refers to of or belonging to the genus homo. Which is generally applied to anything containing human dna. But you kind of ignored the bit about wether something is human being irrelevant to moral philosophy. Neither is wether things are alive. Although sperm is arguably alive anyway. You need to ground this in some kind of relevant consequence. What harm is done in abortion that isn’t done with abstinence?


AngelicDevilz t1_j491voo wrote

Death. The ending of life. Murder.

None of that happens with bc or rubbers.

And sperm are not alive, to be alive you have to be able to reproduce at some point, sperm can never reproduce no matter how old they get.

Poop isn't human. Look up the genus homo and see if there is a homo turd listed there. A homo sperm. There is not.

And if something is human or not matters quite a bit in many philosophies.


pumpkinking-1901 t1_j4p8zt2 wrote

We have no issue applying this logic to drugs that would cause birth defects.

But legally no one cares if you kill it.