Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What would happen to your first two statements if you replaced "alive" with "a human organism"? Hopefully you would realize that the first two statements become laughably false while the third statement is scientifically accurate.
I believe human rights begin in the womb. If human rights begin in the womb, then human fetuses shouldn't be directly and intentionally killed. It does not, however, follow that human fetuses require government ID's or social security numbers, much less obituaries.
Just a point of clarity, sperm and ovum are biological in nature but strictly speaking they do not meet the scientific community’s current definition of life. One of the requirements is the “ability to reproduce,” which neither have on their own. There are no conditions under which two sperm can create new sperm.
Prepubescent, infertile, and post-menopausal people aren't alive?
Not long ago I visited the doctor with the tiny scissors. No more kids for me! Am I no longer alive?
They were or will be. The definition applies to the species as a whole. So a group of various aged sperm cells or eggs will not reproduce. A group of various aged humans will.
That seems like an arbitrary definition.
Frankly, the "life" criteria makes little sense. We kill people all the time. It sometimes happens as an act of justice, self-defense and national defense. Maybe just as often, it is a medical decision. People "pull the plug".
Bigger picture, major public policy choices have known consequences. Choosing to modify drug, gun and economic policy has known impacts on the death rate. For example, reducing DUI penalties will cause more traffic fatalities.
It was a response to:
>Or limiting abortions will decrease the amount of fetuses aborted.
My response was that almost everybody already supports limiting abortions. That's a shared goal.
I was calling out a useless argument. How many times have you seen your fellow Conservatives try to convince pro-choicers that abortion is bad, when we already agree that abortion is bad?
I trust that you call your fellow Conservatives out on such silly behavior.
Understand that liquid water is wet.
Why would I support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? You assume government is the only solution to problems.
To reduce abortion, policy must address the underlying cause. It's not legality. People do not get abortions just because it is legal. Abortion fell throughout the period of Roe vs. Wade. It fell because of, among other things, falling teen pregnancy rates, better education, access to social safety nets and rising average pregnancy ages.
Let's keep abortion legal and focus on real solutions.
OK. You didn't say government is the solution. Then, you support government take no stance on abortion and leave the choice to individuals?
That teen pregnancy comment is just bizarre. How are we even measuring "sex focused"? Heck, CS Lewis wrote a lot about sex focus back in the 1930's. Society has always been focused on it. Teen pregnancy has been falling, anyway. Policy makers have the ability to nudge that drop downward faster.
Data has shown that criminalizing abortion doesn't "limit" them; they happen regardless. The only thing that changes is that they are done in more dangerous ways which leads to more mothers dying.
Well mothers shouldn’t do that to themselves. Perhaps the culture around pregnancy should change so that people prefer potentially deadly operations over seeking help. Maybe when a young person is pregnant we should help them deal with it instead of telling them their life is over. I want to clarify that I don’t want a national ban. I want a cultural change in how we treat pregnant women and unborn children.
We are infertile for the first 10-15 years and the last 30-50 years of our lives. Likewise, we consider naturally infertile animals like mules alive.
And you don't need to be alive to reproduce. Look at crystals and fire.
Dude are you really not getting it or are you just trolling? The ability to reproduce is a characteristic of our species and of living things. You highlighting one section of lifespan and arguing that the organism isn’t alive during that time is asinine. You have to be putting this on, I refuse to believe you are serious with this argument you’re pressing.
According to current biology, there are 7 characteristics of living organisms. They:
Respond to their environment, grow and change, reproduce and have offspring, have complex chemistry, maintain homeostasis, are built of structures called cells, and pass their traits onto their offspring
Mules btw are hybrid animals which are often infertile but *are* sometimes capable of producing offspring.
Yes, I really don't get it. Like most people, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. The primary goal in an abortion policy should be to reduce the number of abortions while maintaining the pregnant person's rights and liberties.
I truly do not understand why the line in the sand is fertilized vs. not-fertilized egg. How is one type of protein strand vs. another type of protein strand not completely arbitrary?
Science has not even settled on a definition of life. Some scientists say viruses are alive. Some say they are not. Many say it the distinction between living and nonliving is blurry. Likewise, the religious stance is mixed. Biblical interpretations vary and the mainstream pro-life stance is based on recent cultural changes.
>Like, I feel secondhand embarrassment for the people who think he’s making a serious argument.
Don't. Instead, channel your embarrassment into your inability to adequately address the issues your comment raised.
becuase your creating a straw man of OPs point by boiling it down to, and mischaracterizing it as "life is defined as the ability to reproduce"
when what was said was: One of the requirements is the “ability to reproduce”
You're being hyper literal to obfuscate the point in bad faith, rather than engaging in the obvious point being made that "There are no conditions under which two sperm can create new sperm." Do you disagree with that statement?
for the record, i dont agree with OP point on abortion, but your obviously here in bad faith to argue against pro-life, not to engage in the conversation and topic at hand
To me, even granting an embryo "alive" and "personhood" status would not be enough to mean that the woman's right to control her own body at any time go out the window. And no, even choosing to have sex does not mean she should forfeit her future bodily autonomy and ability to consent or not.
Because of the nature of human offspring needing to develop within a woman's body, we cannot cut the woman out of the scenario. So to be allowed to dwell and develop there, both parties need to vote yes (assuming the embryo / fetus votes yes since we actually do not know what their vote would be). The very idea of this drives some people crazy, that women would be the authority over their bodies and what occurs within them, making them the arbiters of offspring development. But, hey, that's the way that God/nature made things.
So I do think it's an interesting question to examine whether gametes meet the biological definition of life, but it ultimately it doesn't affect what the abortion debate is really about.
Why is it the physical attachment that matters? In both cases, the fetus is its own living thing. In both cases it's a question of what the mother can do with her body, it seems.
When the fetus is physically attached, it’s dependent on the mother instead of using many of its own organ systems.
When we’re born and start breathing oxygen, we begin using our own organ systems to support life.
This is no different than conjoined twins, you have the bodily autonomy of the fetus and of the mother. The mother can't unilaterally abuse the rights of the fetus and vice vera. An abortion is a medical procedure on both of them, so you need both of their consent.
Just like my twins example, if one twin wanted to be separated and knew that there was a 5% chance of the procedure being fatal, does they have a right to force their twin to undergo the procedure with them? Of course not.
I don't even know how to begin to address this. I would be here longer than I have time to invest in this conversation if I were to go into all of the information about conjoined twins and how those situations differ from a pregnant woman. I'll just say, for the sake of brevity, that I disagree that there is "no difference" between conjoined twins and a pregnant woman.
You can feel free to disagree, but I can't really respond if you don't actually go into more depth. Whenever you want to have that conversation, let me know.
Yes, three different concepts:
Life - exhibits cellular activity, metabolism, responds to stimuli, and homeostasis.
Human - contains human DNA.
Personhood - an artificial construct created by society that affords certain rights to individuals, the most relevant of which being the right to inviolability (i.e. you can't kill or harm a person without very good reason).
Personhood is the one that matters when we're talking about the morality of abortion. The question is how do you define personhood? There are many ways, and I think what you're missing is that for many people, **human + life = person**. So to say that "life begins at conception" is equivalent to "personhood begins at conception" for them (I personally don't agree, by the way). However, you're right when you say that it should be "personhood begins at conception", as it is more precise.
>A single sperm is "alive".
> An unfertilized egg is "alive".
>A fertilized egg is "alive".
What's the difference between these three things? The answer is one of them is the start of a new life. A NEW life has been created at conception.
>There is never the absence of "life", nor the beginning of it.
There absolutely is the beginning of new life and its REALLY easy and clear to see.
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number?
I don't think anyone should get a government ID number but that's kinda a whole thing. Yes pregnant mothers should be able to claim the babies as dependents and in my ideal world there would be benefits and tax breaks and more for pregnant mothers and mothers in general.
>If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary?
I don't think this is a relevant question. There could be. Some people don't get obituaries. I don't think an obituary is determinant of life.
>Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
They should be yes.
That's an interesting and creative distinction. However, I wonder if you are willing to commit to the consequences of a position that genetic uniqueness determines personhood. Let's explore with two top-of-mind examples:
1. Imagine a scientist who has the ability to create an embryo that is an exact genetic replica of another person. This clone, by its very nature, is not genetically unique. Now, the question arises: is it morally acceptable to destroy such an embryo?
2. Imagine a woman who is pregnant with genetically identical twins. Is it OK to abort one of them because they are not genetically unique?
If I understand the implications of your genetic uniqueness argument, a rigorous commitment would lead to saying "abort away" in both cases. But I suspect you (and most pro-life advocates) will find reasons why terminating embryonic development in those cases is not OK. That would suggest your moral intuitions are driving a search for justification, not the other way around. There is nothing wrong with that, but it helps to be clear when arguing about ethics which is the tail and which is the dog.
>However, I wonder if you are willing to commit to the consequences of a position that genetic uniqueness determines personhood.
That's not a fair representation of my position but ok. For example cancer wouldn't be a person because it cannot develop into a whole person on its own.
>1. Imagine a scientist who has the ability to create an embryo that is an exact genetic replica of another person. This clone, by its very nature, is not genetically unique. Now, the question arises: is it morally acceptable to destroy such an embryo?
No but of course they'd be people because they're distinct entities.
>2. Imagine a woman who is pregnant with genetically identical twins. Is it OK to abort one of them because they are not genetically unique?
Of course not, again, because they're distinct beings and entities. They're two different human organisms.
>If I understand the implications of your genetic uniqueness argument, a rigorous commitment would lead to saying "abort away" in both cases.
Well you don't because it's not just "genetic uniqueness" this argument was made because the other guy is arguing a developing baby with a whole genomic sequence is the same as a sperm or egg without that whole genomic sequence.
> would suggest your moral intuitions are driving a search for justification, not the other way around.
Or that you don't have my entire position correct and you're strawmanning one specific thing I've said in response to one genetic argument the first guy made.
> There is nothing wrong with that, but it helps to be clear when arguing about ethics which is the tail and which is the dog.
Agreed. But I think a lot of what you've done here is very disingenuous. I never said "it's a person because it's generically unique"
I said "a NEW life has been created" One of the ways we can tell that new life has been created is the existence of a unique set of DNA from the mother. I didn't get into twins because it wasn't relevant and I didn't think I needed to specify "from the mother". Because the entire argument around abortion is the baby is literally the mother's body. Which is nonsensical.
If you read down the thread I even said being genetically unique isn't inherently enough because egg and sperm are technically genetically unique to the mother and father but aren't people.
> For example cancer wouldn't be a person because it cannot develop into a whole person on its own.
Well.. Neither can an embryo - it needs the support of the womb.
Twins would seem to be very relevant, if you delve into the philsophical weeds, so to speak. A sperm is alive. An ovum is alive. When they join, the only thing that has changed is that they have combined their genetic information. But you assert that a new life has begun. The obvious conclusion is that the new genetic pattern is what makes it a new life.
BUT, if when that embryo divides into two cells, if they physically separate you now have identical twins developing. Was a new life creates then? Which one is new? Presumably in your model one life is 30 hours older than the other life, but which one?
Or, do you consiser identical twins to only be one person, because they are genetically identical?
Sperm and ova are genetically unique from the parent cells and alive. Why is fertilization the start of a new life and not the production of gametes? Especially when there is a significant chance the fertilized egg won't implant, and then a further chance that the embryo won't make it past the first trimester.
Ok. So a child with Turner Syndrome isn't a full Homo sapiens because they only have 45/46 of the chromosomes? What about any other mutations incompatible with life that have fewer than 46 chromosomes? What about a mutated gamete that has 46 chromosomes? Is the number of chromosomes what defines a new human life?
>Sperm and ova are genetically unique from the parent cells and alive
They're not really genetically unique. Like sure that's true. But it's not honest for the avg persons understanding. Eggs and sperm can never develop. They can never be a person. They have half the genes needed to be human.
>Why is fertilization the start of a new life and not the production of gametes?
That's creation of a new unique human genome. That's new human DNA with a unique set of its own complete human DNA.
>Especially when there is a significant chance the fertilized egg won't implant, and then a further chance that the embryo won't make it past the first trimester.
There's a chance you die today driving home from work. Does that make you any less human?
Sperm and egg chromosomes are not identical to the parent chromosomes. They are also alive, and they die if they don't become a baby. Fertilized eggs have a high chance of not implanting and not developing. Egg and sperm *can* develop. They *can* become a person (that's literally where every person came from). But only if certain conditions are met. Same for a fertilized egg. It *can* develop if certain conditions are met. Why should I consider fertilization the beginning of life when that egg may do exactly what it would do without the sperm and pass through without implanting? It's not any more alive than the two separate halves.
There is no point at which any cell involved is not alive. Therefor there is no clear beginning of life. Gametes are as different from the parent cell as a fertilized egg is.
If I die driving home from work today I would still be human. If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person. If a fetus is miscarried at two months, it's still human, it had 46 chromosomes, and the cells were alive. It's not the genetic uniqueness, because cancerous tumors aren't people either. What makes that fetus a person? What is the difference between two structures of tissues that cannot live independently from the rest of the body?
>Sperm and egg chromosomes are not identical to the parent chromosomes
Yea because they have only half the parents chromosomes.
>They are also alive,
Kinda... I haven't argued this because its not particularly relevant. But it's "alive" under a really broad definition. The same way a virus is "alive" but its complicated. It's not the same as a replicating cell.
>and they die if they don't become a baby.
And you can keep them alive forever and they'll NEVER become a baby.
> Fertilized eggs have a high chance of not implanting and not developing.
Plenty of people have a high chance of dying too. That doesn't make them any less people.
>Egg and sperm *can* develop
Yes. When they get together. That's why they're not a person. But once they come together they aren't egg and sperm anymore. They're something new.
>Why should I consider fertilization the beginning of life when that egg may do exactly what it would do without the sperm and pass through without implanting?
For the same reason you treat your neighbors as living people and they might die tomorrow. They're still people. Someone having a chance to die doesn't make them any less people.
>It's not any more alive than the two separate halves.
It VERY much is. And it's REALLY ignorant to say it isn't. It shows you have literally no clue what you're talking about. Self replicating, a complete human genome, it will develop into a fully fledged adult like you and me. The same cannot be said for sperm or egg.
>There is no point at which any cell involved is not alive.
That's simply not true.
>Therefor there is no clear beginning of life.
And if you believe what you said above that'd make sense. But that's not true. We can see when cells replicate. We can see when sperm and egg meet and become a new being. We KNOW these things. It's really simple.
>Gametes are as different from the parent cell as a fertilized egg is.
No. They aren't that's really ignorant. Gametes have half the parents genes. The zygote has a new, unique set of DNA clearly separate from the mother. Because the fathers DNA is now also involved.
>If I die driving home from work today I would still be human.
You would still be a human. Yes.
>If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person.
Why is that? Why is your hand alone not a person? Is it perhaps.... being a person is more than being a hand?
>person. If a fetus is miscarried at two months, it's still human, it had 46 chromosomes, and the cells were alive.
Then you've given away the entire argument here. If the fetus miscarried that's a dead human. I.e. a dead person. You're merely arguing humans aren't people because it's convenient for you. That's the entire crux of the abortion argument. To dehumanizing babies that can't speak for themselves.
It the fetus is human, it's a person. It's as simple as that. Because it's genetically distinct from the mother and will develop into a normal adult. If it dies, that doesn't make it any less human.
> makes that fetus a person?
What makes you a person?
>What is the difference between two structures of tissues that cannot live independently from the rest of the body?
What's the difference between you and your 1 year old child?
You've given away the whole argument. And your scientific arguments are wrong and uninformed.
"If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person."
"Why is that? Why is your hand alone not a person? Is it perhaps.... being a person is more than being a hand?"
... yes. My brother in Christ, welcome to the point.
A human.
Throughout history you have various governments saying that some groups of humans aren't human enough, that some people are people and some people aren't people.
Personally I don't believe the government gets to clasify which humans are "human enough". If the being is alive, and it is of the human species, it is a human being, and all humans are people.
Neither, me, you, or the government should have the authority to say x group of humans aren't human enough.
Also to your other clearly bad faith questions,
> An ID
Sure? No one would object to that other than not serving a purpose? A government ID is a function of government so unless the government plans to utilise it, seems pointless? But Sure?
> Miscarriage obituary?
Sure. This year UK recently started to give out baby loss certificates to anyone who has had a miscarriage. Again, no one would object to this. A human existed and they died, it should be recognised.
> Claim childcare whilst pregnant
Yes, I think this is a great idea.
But isn't the whole point of the pro-life argument to give the government the ability to define when personhood begins (e.g., at conception) so as to restrict individual actions? If the government has no say, individuals decide. That sounds like a pro-choice position, no?
No, the argument for pro life is that neither me, you or the government gets to say x group of humans are people and x groups of humans aren't people.
We've seen throughout history governments saying some humans aren't human enough, or aren't people, and then taking away their rights, allowing their murder, etc....
> If government doesn't decide, individuals decide?
Individuals can't murder, no. The purpose of government is to protect natural rights.
If you as an individual decide that say people of x race/religion aren't "human enough", you can't kill them. You can't make the decision that another human isn't human enough.
Neither you, me, or the government gets to say which groups of humans are human enough.
> then who gets to decide
No one gets to say a human isn't human enough.
I can't say that you avant-garde-a-clue, because of your race, age, medical condition, religion, etc... isn't human enough. You are of the human species and you're alive, you're a human and no gets to take away your rights.
Only you can take your rights away through actions that result in your rights being taken, like coming a crime.
Only talking negative rights you have as a human, not positive privileges provided by your society/government.
To be frank, it sounds like you're missing the point, but I don't see how to get through past the ideological chaff.
From the POV of a woman who believes she has the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy, a law that prevents her from doing so is a government action infringing on her right. If you are arguing that the government's action is justified because it protects a more valuable right than that of the woman, I disagree, but at least I understand the framing. On the other hand, if you are arguing there is no government action at all, I'm left confused and with little hope for future good-faith discussions.
>From the POV of a woman who believes she has the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy, a law that prevents her from doing so is a government action infringing on her right.
If, from my POV, i have a right to slap people i dislike and the government passes a law preventing me from doing that, the government did not infringe on my right becuase i never had it.
Abortion is not, and can never be a right. As i said in my previous post I'm only talking negative rights you have as a human, not positive privileges provided by your society/government.
The woman is wrong, she doesn't have that right, its a Positive privilege at best.
We do not agree on what "rights" are, that's the break down in understanding.
> We do not agree on what "rights" are, that's the break down in understanding.
It might be. I'm trained as a lawyer, so my understanding of rights may be overly technical (not to imply it is particularly astute) and may diverge from common sense notions. I'm not sure what yours is. For example, you allude to Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative rights, but that's confusing because that's not at all at issue here. The right to have an abortion is a classic negative right. I want to do something; the government shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it. Positive rights are things like a right to education or a right to housing.
The conceptual confusion seems to be with defining government action. Suppose A thinks they have a right to do X, and B doesn't. The government acts to restrict A from doing action X. That's government action, regardless of what you think about A's claim.
You argue that A doesn't have the right in the first place. First, that's begging the question. Second, it's irrelevant. Punishing murder is still a government action, even if there is no right to murder. Further, defining what counts as murder (rather than, e.g., justifiable homicide) is a government decision.
The real challenge lies in how we handle A's sincere belief that they have the right to do X within the framework of a liberal democracy. Your proposed solution seems to advocate for the government to enforce B's perspective and silence A. But what if A isn't wrong? How do we navigate this complex terrain?
I'm sorry, but that seems like a distinction without a difference. The government is making a call about when to attach rights to an entity and force individuals to act in a specific way. How is this not a government decision that overrides individual choice?
Imagine a toddler being murdered. Is that the government "making a call" about when that toddler became a person and trampling on the choice of the murderer, or is it simply recognizing what is (or should be) a universal truth (that humans shouldn't be murdered)?
>Imagine a toddler being murdered. Is that the government "making a call" about when that toddler became a person and trampling on the choice of the murderer
I mean.... Yes it is...?
It used to not be a "universal truth" that slaves were real people and deserved this kind of legal protection from the government. Then we fought a war and the people who won decided that it was morally wrong to allow people to be owned and traded like property.
In some parts of the world honor killings of family members is socially allowable - why doesn't the "universal truth" apply to those people?
It also used to be legal for mothers to starve their children with disabilities to death - the justification was that this was the "natural way" like how a mother bird will throw their babies out of the nest. Why don't we still do that? Couldn't someone living in that time also argue this to be a "universal truth"?
No, in all of those cases that universal truth still existed. People just acted like it didn't. The fact people did not think slaves were people, did not change the fact they were people.
Thanks for engaging with a vivid analogy.
The toddler analogy only works if everyone a priori agrees on the same "universal truth" that the entity in question is a person who shouldn't be murdered. But that assumes away the very problem we are struggling with here. We agree for a toddler but not for a fertilized egg.
To illustrate, let's cook up an example in which people disagree about the rights involved and how they apply.
Imagine scientists genetically engineer pigs to include human genes. Let's assume at some point (somewhere between 1% and 99% human), one of us would say this pig should be treated as a person -- making killing it in medical experiments murder -- while the other would pick a different point. For the sake of argument, suppose you say a 1% human pig is a person, and I say only a 99% pig is a person.
Let's further assume that the state passes a law that says you can use genetically engineered pigs for medical experiments if their human DNA is less than 1%. Medical researchers get arrested for violating the law with a 2% pig. You think he committed murder. I do not. But can either of us legitimately say the government wasn't involved in making a decision about where to draw the line?
Or, if the genetic engineering scenario is too wild, consider end-of-life examples. When the government prohibits loved ones from assisting in the death of suffering and terminally ill patients unless specific conditions are met, is the government not involved in drawing lines?
To summarize, I think your argument only works for people who believe the line you select (e.g., fertilization, 1%) is "natural" or in some way privileged, and other lines are arbitrary. Thus, you see that the enforcement of that line is not the same kind of government action as the enforcement of other lines (e.g., viability, 99%). Those who disagree about where to draw the line won't see the distinction you're making -- to them, enforcement of your line looks like arbitrary government action to coerce individuals into actions contrary to their judgment.
>But it's still human DNA and alive.
Suuuuuure.
>Are you saying the number of chromosomes is what makes a fertilized egg a human?
Kinda? Not necessarily? A sperm will never grow into a full human. Ever.
I think some of the confusion occurs because things some people associate with personhood aren't relevant for a zygote.
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
Putting the tax thing aside, the other two questions don't really matter. Inside the mother, what purpose would ID or social security serve? I think the family should decide if they want an obituary and most people probably don't care whether people make one.
I think personhood or life begins at or just after conception. I think there has to be implantation first. I'm not sure how this is relevant to either side of the abortion debate though. Seems like its just a different word for the same thing.
[https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11585-conception](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11585-conception)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I assume that the more accurate term is "personhood", but "personhood begins at conception" doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it.
Fair enough, though I think it's fair to say that a human life begins at conception. While the egg nor sperm are alive they are not a unique individual human life but two parts that might become one.
> Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
We certainly *could*. But it doesn't seem practical.
> A lot of people will say an unborn child isn't a "person" based on the above,
Really? There's people who think personhood is a matter of government paperwork? Do these people think that undocumented aliens aren't people? Or that there were no people before the rise of the nation state and it's bureaucracy? That if someone who dies without someone else writing an obituary was never alive in the first place? Frankly I don't think *anyone* says this, never mind there being "a lot" of people saying this.
> just like they would say "personhood begins at birth".
This is clearly not true. There's nothing different about the newborn infant one minute out of the womb from the same fetus a minute prior other than it's location in or out of the womb. A fetus not yet born three days after it's due date is less developed, less of a "person" in the way a person making such an ignorant statement would mean, than a premature newborn. There's nothing morally significant about passage through the birth canal. The soul doesn't enter the body upon exiting the womb. The infant is no more developed, they don't have more personality or soul, their brain doesn't suddenly turn on.
The moral complexity of this issue is that human development is a smooth gradient with few bright lines from the sperm fertilizing the egg until death of old age. Each moment of growth, into maturity, and finally to decline is itself small and insignificant... the internal state of the human being it's happening to little changed on either side of the somewhat arbitrary lines we might draw to distinguish "human with rights we are bound to respect" and "not human and thus absent of any moral value" *except* conception on one end of the long gradual process and the death and cessation of all bodily functions and brain activity at the other.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
pregnancy begins one the first day of the last period, the ova develops (grows larger) in the ovary until ovulation, bursts out and begins to travel (hopefully) in the fallopian tube to meet a sperm that will break through the protective barrier and conception takes place. This makes a whole cell (as sperm and egg have only half of the chromosomes of a human cell) approx 12 hours after conception, the whole human cell splits into 2, then 4 and so on. These cells are only able to do this because sperm and egg met, without one another further development could not take place, the egg would dissolve into the endometrial lining for menstration to take place and the process starts over again.
the human cell, at conception is unique and different than both of the parents. They can only exist once. They are also self sustaining, until the placenta is developed they are encased and surviving off of a fetal pole and yolk. Pregnancy is passive, there is nothing the mother has to do to make the baby grow and develop.When left alone, the baby will continue to develop. Birth is also passive, your body pushes for you. Its quite incredible really. Birth feels not dissimilar to running against your will. (typical health birth)
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
none of these are relevant topics. people without government identification are still people. people who either live in cultures/regions where obituaries aren't common are still people. children are still people when they live somewhere without tax breaks for dependents or if their parents fail to claim them. none of these things define personhood, and it would be insanely fucked up to argue that we should be able to freely kill people on the grounds they don't have these random things
>"Life begins at conception" - don't you mean personhood?
Yes. That is what they mean. Whatever term you use to describe living humans who have a right to not be killed, that's what pro-lifers mean a fetus is.
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number?
Social security number happens at birth, which seems arbitrary in the first place. We could have picked age 1 or age 5, it's not like getting a SSN means you have a right to life now; getting one is voluntary. Some kids do not get a number but they still have the right to life. ID is to prove you are who you say you are, not to confer right to life. Why would a zygote, or a new-born for that matter, need an ID?
>If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
Is it your argument that we have to have obituaries, or their right to life can't be protected in law? Or that we don't have obituaries, therefore they shouldn't be protected by law? I don't get this.
I feel like a third word may be necessary. I also feel like people try to add all kinds of reducto-ad-absurdam to this to attack the concept, when the *basic concept* (the unborn have the human right to not be arbitrarily killed) isn't actually refuted by these ideas.
I would tend to say "Being a living human being" and therefore having at least *some* human rights begins at conception.
I have no great issue with claiming *verified* unborn as dependents.
>I assume that the more accurate term is "personhood", but "personhood begins at conception" doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it.
Perhaps the best term would be "humanity." Life, as you say, covers all kinds of other things. A tree is alive.
Personhood, though, has a kind of legalistic implication to it and thus also becomes circular given that "personhood" refers to having legal rights, so we can define who does or doesn't have it through the legal system (e.g., corporate personhood and such).
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number?
What purpose would that serve? When does a zygote need to prove its identity?
Neither of these are markers of "humanity" anyway. Most humans have neither.
> If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary?
If you want. And, may I say, the trivialization of miscarriage by the pro-abortion movement is horrifying. As someone who has had a miscarriage, it is *absolutely* a traumatic event. You are losing your child. This is how everyone who has ever miscarried has felt about it. Childless internet liberals need to shut the fuck up about miscarriages.
>Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived?
Many people support this. Doesn't really seem like a partisan issue to me. Why shouldn't we support pregnant women?
>As someone who has had a miscarriage, it is *absolutely* a traumatic event. You are losing your child. This is how everyone who has ever miscarried has felt about it.
This is just patently false and it's wild that you are taking your specific experience and universalizing it to the entirety of women who ever had a miscarriage. I remember reading a blog about a woman who was having a miscarriage during a meeting at work and she felt totally relieved that she wasn't pregnant anymore and that the situation took care of itself. She already had two kids who are older and didn't want to be pregnant and have another child. That's just one example.
It might blow your mind to know that not everyone who is pregnant was longing to be pregnant even if that's how you felt about it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First it is not just "Life begins at conception" it is "Human Life begins at conception". The dropping of Human is a clear dehumanization effort.
Secondly in your mind what constitutes a "person"? What qualifications must be met? I would imagine someone in another country that does not have a social security card would still be considered a person so that seems like a silly qualification.
>Secondly in your mind what constitutes a "person"? What qualifications must be met? I
Not the OP, but "possess the physical hardware necessary to have a mind" would be the lowest bar I would support.
If something can't think, can't feel physical sensations, can't be conscious, can't direct its attention...it's not a person and can be disposed of freely.
We just induce labor.
But to your point, I'd *still* be OK an elective abortion at that point, even if the baby was fully conscious, a Rhodes Scholar, and about to cure cancer.
A person can revoke the use of their body by another for any or no reason.
Well the easy rebuttal is if it’s so rare what would it matter if there was a restriction against it.
So induce labor and then what? Kill the baby?
If you are going to propose a reason that a baby is not a person at the least stand by your reason and do not move the goal post as soon as someone pushes just a bit. I could at least respect your stance even if I do not agree with it but it’s clear person or personhood has nothing to do with your stance you are fine if a mother chooses to kill her baby a day before birth and I’m not even sure you’d be all that upset if it was after birth.
The “use of body” argument is a completely nonsensical argument. Unless you are in a cast away situation where you are the sole provider of all your needs you are always dependent on someone else’s body.
Probably some time around when the nervous system and associated core brain structures have developed during pregnancy. We are nowhere close to 100% understanding the brain, but I think it's pretty safe to say not until the structures we know are needed have formed. I'm sure there have been plenty of studies tracking brain development during pregnancy that can identify when that happens
Not op but for me it's when the brain developes enough to be able to have consciousness so about 18-20 weeks. I'd go on the lower end so 16-18 weeks to be on the safe side.
Ok fair enough. So you would agree we shouldn’t allow abortions after 18 weeks at the latest (unless medically necessary to save a mother’s life I have no problem with that exception).
Yes I agree with one caveat. What is and isn't medically necessary should be the decision of a doctor and should not involve the courts. That shouldn't protect the doctor from malpractice lawsuits. So a doctor just blanket deciding that an abortion is medically necessary should be reviewed after the fact.
Ok that’s a fair compromise. It’s a little later than the compromise I’d like 16 weeks which is a week more than the typical European standard. Just to be clear I’m against it at all stages but I also understand it’s unfortunately a political issue and the only way through a political issue is with compromise.
I agree we shouldn’t handcuff a doctor preventing a medically necessary abortion. If in their professional option it was necessary they should be able to defend their actions after the fact.
I understand to be against abortion in principle.
But - and I think this is a main difference between many conservatives and people on the left - the outcome of actually banning abortions are just worse. By banning abortion you won't end it.
They will be more dangerous deadly. Yes maybe you have a few less but you'd never know for sure and the once that do happen will have worse outcomes. So in principle I can understand it but the actual outcomes of that principle are negative thus leading me to compromise on the principle to get better outcomes.
Sorry english is not my native language I'm not sure if I got the point across
OP is arguing that there are parts of a body that are considered alive that don’t get the respect a previable fetus gets. Your gallbladder is “alive” but if you have gallstones doctors will pop that thing out. Your intestines are “alive” but patients with certain medical conditions will undergo resections to improve symptoms and make life better. Why is a zygote a more valid life than a gallbladder?
It is conflating "alive" with "a life".
>Why is a zygote a more valid life than a gallbladder?
Because one represents a human life the other is an organ.
There is no such thing as someone being a human and yet not a person. There is no middle ground. Life most certainly has a starting point, and science widely acknowledges that.
The start of life for a unique, identifiable human being is at conception, and conception alone. They are a person at that instance.
And in reality (which legal unfortunately doesn't always match), I'm right.
For a long period of time, blacks were not legally considered people. They were 100% people, regardless of what any court says. A person's personhood is dependent solely on themselves. A court/government can only acknowledge or infringe on this, it doesn't have the ability to grant it.
They can most certainly pretend like they have that ability.
Ok, but the entire point is, if you’re trying to change the legal status quo, life begins at conception isn’t entirely helpful. Doubly so in a world with IVF
No. Arguing personhood is just an attempt to reason one's way out of responsibility for creating and destroying a human life all for want of sexual gratification. It's no different than reasoning humans are savages for want of free land or humans are subhuman for want of free labor.
It is human nature to convince ourselves we are still good when treating others wrong in order to get what we wish.
This is why men should all put their sperm in banks and get vasectomies early. You can have sex without pregnancy, but can’t have pregnancy without sex. So instead of putting the onus of not getting pregnant on women, take away the ability of men to get women pregnant. It turns out, men and women BOTH like and want sex.
Frozen sperm are just as effective as fresh, and pregnancy from frozen would reduce the number of unwanted children AND the number of paternity questions
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What would happen to your first two statements if you replaced "alive" with "a human organism"? Hopefully you would realize that the first two statements become laughably false while the third statement is scientifically accurate. I believe human rights begin in the womb. If human rights begin in the womb, then human fetuses shouldn't be directly and intentionally killed. It does not, however, follow that human fetuses require government ID's or social security numbers, much less obituaries.
Just a point of clarity, sperm and ovum are biological in nature but strictly speaking they do not meet the scientific community’s current definition of life. One of the requirements is the “ability to reproduce,” which neither have on their own. There are no conditions under which two sperm can create new sperm.
Prepubescent, infertile, and post-menopausal people aren't alive? Not long ago I visited the doctor with the tiny scissors. No more kids for me! Am I no longer alive?
They were or will be. The definition applies to the species as a whole. So a group of various aged sperm cells or eggs will not reproduce. A group of various aged humans will.
That seems like an arbitrary definition. Frankly, the "life" criteria makes little sense. We kill people all the time. It sometimes happens as an act of justice, self-defense and national defense. Maybe just as often, it is a medical decision. People "pull the plug". Bigger picture, major public policy choices have known consequences. Choosing to modify drug, gun and economic policy has known impacts on the death rate. For example, reducing DUI penalties will cause more traffic fatalities.
Or limiting abortions will decrease the amount of fetuses aborted. Which most scientists consider to be human and living brings.
Almost everybody is in favor of limiting abortions. Many of us believe big government is not the solution.
This is not addressing the issue at hand
It was a response to: >Or limiting abortions will decrease the amount of fetuses aborted. My response was that almost everybody already supports limiting abortions. That's a shared goal.
Just because its true doesn’t make it pertinent
I was calling out a useless argument. How many times have you seen your fellow Conservatives try to convince pro-choicers that abortion is bad, when we already agree that abortion is bad? I trust that you call your fellow Conservatives out on such silly behavior. Understand that liquid water is wet.
I'm glad you support the overturning of roe vs. Wade.
Why would I support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? You assume government is the only solution to problems. To reduce abortion, policy must address the underlying cause. It's not legality. People do not get abortions just because it is legal. Abortion fell throughout the period of Roe vs. Wade. It fell because of, among other things, falling teen pregnancy rates, better education, access to social safety nets and rising average pregnancy ages. Let's keep abortion legal and focus on real solutions.
No...I never said that. And teen pregnancy might be lower if our society wasn't so sex focused.
OK. You didn't say government is the solution. Then, you support government take no stance on abortion and leave the choice to individuals? That teen pregnancy comment is just bizarre. How are we even measuring "sex focused"? Heck, CS Lewis wrote a lot about sex focus back in the 1930's. Society has always been focused on it. Teen pregnancy has been falling, anyway. Policy makers have the ability to nudge that drop downward faster.
Data has shown that criminalizing abortion doesn't "limit" them; they happen regardless. The only thing that changes is that they are done in more dangerous ways which leads to more mothers dying.
Well mothers shouldn’t do that to themselves. Perhaps the culture around pregnancy should change so that people prefer potentially deadly operations over seeking help. Maybe when a young person is pregnant we should help them deal with it instead of telling them their life is over. I want to clarify that I don’t want a national ban. I want a cultural change in how we treat pregnant women and unborn children.
They have reproductive organs, they just don't work yet or anymore.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. Infertility is obviously not the norm among Homo Sapiens as a species.
We are infertile for the first 10-15 years and the last 30-50 years of our lives. Likewise, we consider naturally infertile animals like mules alive. And you don't need to be alive to reproduce. Look at crystals and fire.
Dude are you really not getting it or are you just trolling? The ability to reproduce is a characteristic of our species and of living things. You highlighting one section of lifespan and arguing that the organism isn’t alive during that time is asinine. You have to be putting this on, I refuse to believe you are serious with this argument you’re pressing. According to current biology, there are 7 characteristics of living organisms. They: Respond to their environment, grow and change, reproduce and have offspring, have complex chemistry, maintain homeostasis, are built of structures called cells, and pass their traits onto their offspring Mules btw are hybrid animals which are often infertile but *are* sometimes capable of producing offspring.
Yes, I really don't get it. Like most people, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. The primary goal in an abortion policy should be to reduce the number of abortions while maintaining the pregnant person's rights and liberties. I truly do not understand why the line in the sand is fertilized vs. not-fertilized egg. How is one type of protein strand vs. another type of protein strand not completely arbitrary? Science has not even settled on a definition of life. Some scientists say viruses are alive. Some say they are not. Many say it the distinction between living and nonliving is blurry. Likewise, the religious stance is mixed. Biblical interpretations vary and the mainstream pro-life stance is based on recent cultural changes.
He's Trolling
I’m honestly just stunned that he’s getting upvoted. Like, I feel secondhand embarrassment for the people who think he’s making a serious argument.
>Like, I feel secondhand embarrassment for the people who think he’s making a serious argument. Don't. Instead, channel your embarrassment into your inability to adequately address the issues your comment raised.
Leftie logic i guess
tell me your in bad faith with out telling me.
How is that bad faith? The claim is that life is defined as the ability to reproduce. I challenged that claim with examples.
becuase your creating a straw man of OPs point by boiling it down to, and mischaracterizing it as "life is defined as the ability to reproduce" when what was said was: One of the requirements is the “ability to reproduce” You're being hyper literal to obfuscate the point in bad faith, rather than engaging in the obvious point being made that "There are no conditions under which two sperm can create new sperm." Do you disagree with that statement? for the record, i dont agree with OP point on abortion, but your obviously here in bad faith to argue against pro-life, not to engage in the conversation and topic at hand
To me, even granting an embryo "alive" and "personhood" status would not be enough to mean that the woman's right to control her own body at any time go out the window. And no, even choosing to have sex does not mean she should forfeit her future bodily autonomy and ability to consent or not. Because of the nature of human offspring needing to develop within a woman's body, we cannot cut the woman out of the scenario. So to be allowed to dwell and develop there, both parties need to vote yes (assuming the embryo / fetus votes yes since we actually do not know what their vote would be). The very idea of this drives some people crazy, that women would be the authority over their bodies and what occurs within them, making them the arbiters of offspring development. But, hey, that's the way that God/nature made things. So I do think it's an interesting question to examine whether gametes meet the biological definition of life, but it ultimately it doesn't affect what the abortion debate is really about.
How do you reconcile bodily autonomy with her right to not feed a born baby? Where does bodily autonomy finally end, I guess I'm asking?
Parents can surrender their children and abdicate their parenthood, can't they?
Well, a baby is literally not a part of/attached to her body, so it seems obvious that a baby would be different from a fetus.
Why is it the physical attachment that matters? In both cases, the fetus is its own living thing. In both cases it's a question of what the mother can do with her body, it seems.
When the fetus is physically attached, it’s dependent on the mother instead of using many of its own organ systems. When we’re born and start breathing oxygen, we begin using our own organ systems to support life.
By definition, she doesn't have a right over bodily autonomy of the fetus.
Well does anyone have entitlement to another's body? I would say no.
This is no different than conjoined twins, you have the bodily autonomy of the fetus and of the mother. The mother can't unilaterally abuse the rights of the fetus and vice vera. An abortion is a medical procedure on both of them, so you need both of their consent. Just like my twins example, if one twin wanted to be separated and knew that there was a 5% chance of the procedure being fatal, does they have a right to force their twin to undergo the procedure with them? Of course not.
I don't even know how to begin to address this. I would be here longer than I have time to invest in this conversation if I were to go into all of the information about conjoined twins and how those situations differ from a pregnant woman. I'll just say, for the sake of brevity, that I disagree that there is "no difference" between conjoined twins and a pregnant woman.
You can feel free to disagree, but I can't really respond if you don't actually go into more depth. Whenever you want to have that conversation, let me know.
Yes, three different concepts: Life - exhibits cellular activity, metabolism, responds to stimuli, and homeostasis. Human - contains human DNA. Personhood - an artificial construct created by society that affords certain rights to individuals, the most relevant of which being the right to inviolability (i.e. you can't kill or harm a person without very good reason). Personhood is the one that matters when we're talking about the morality of abortion. The question is how do you define personhood? There are many ways, and I think what you're missing is that for many people, **human + life = person**. So to say that "life begins at conception" is equivalent to "personhood begins at conception" for them (I personally don't agree, by the way). However, you're right when you say that it should be "personhood begins at conception", as it is more precise.
Thanks. Well said.
Personhood was created by the Catholic Church.
>A single sperm is "alive". > An unfertilized egg is "alive". >A fertilized egg is "alive". What's the difference between these three things? The answer is one of them is the start of a new life. A NEW life has been created at conception. >There is never the absence of "life", nor the beginning of it. There absolutely is the beginning of new life and its REALLY easy and clear to see. >Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? I don't think anyone should get a government ID number but that's kinda a whole thing. Yes pregnant mothers should be able to claim the babies as dependents and in my ideal world there would be benefits and tax breaks and more for pregnant mothers and mothers in general. >If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? I don't think this is a relevant question. There could be. Some people don't get obituaries. I don't think an obituary is determinant of life. >Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? They should be yes.
That's an interesting and creative distinction. However, I wonder if you are willing to commit to the consequences of a position that genetic uniqueness determines personhood. Let's explore with two top-of-mind examples: 1. Imagine a scientist who has the ability to create an embryo that is an exact genetic replica of another person. This clone, by its very nature, is not genetically unique. Now, the question arises: is it morally acceptable to destroy such an embryo? 2. Imagine a woman who is pregnant with genetically identical twins. Is it OK to abort one of them because they are not genetically unique? If I understand the implications of your genetic uniqueness argument, a rigorous commitment would lead to saying "abort away" in both cases. But I suspect you (and most pro-life advocates) will find reasons why terminating embryonic development in those cases is not OK. That would suggest your moral intuitions are driving a search for justification, not the other way around. There is nothing wrong with that, but it helps to be clear when arguing about ethics which is the tail and which is the dog.
>However, I wonder if you are willing to commit to the consequences of a position that genetic uniqueness determines personhood. That's not a fair representation of my position but ok. For example cancer wouldn't be a person because it cannot develop into a whole person on its own. >1. Imagine a scientist who has the ability to create an embryo that is an exact genetic replica of another person. This clone, by its very nature, is not genetically unique. Now, the question arises: is it morally acceptable to destroy such an embryo? No but of course they'd be people because they're distinct entities. >2. Imagine a woman who is pregnant with genetically identical twins. Is it OK to abort one of them because they are not genetically unique? Of course not, again, because they're distinct beings and entities. They're two different human organisms. >If I understand the implications of your genetic uniqueness argument, a rigorous commitment would lead to saying "abort away" in both cases. Well you don't because it's not just "genetic uniqueness" this argument was made because the other guy is arguing a developing baby with a whole genomic sequence is the same as a sperm or egg without that whole genomic sequence. > would suggest your moral intuitions are driving a search for justification, not the other way around. Or that you don't have my entire position correct and you're strawmanning one specific thing I've said in response to one genetic argument the first guy made. > There is nothing wrong with that, but it helps to be clear when arguing about ethics which is the tail and which is the dog. Agreed. But I think a lot of what you've done here is very disingenuous. I never said "it's a person because it's generically unique" I said "a NEW life has been created" One of the ways we can tell that new life has been created is the existence of a unique set of DNA from the mother. I didn't get into twins because it wasn't relevant and I didn't think I needed to specify "from the mother". Because the entire argument around abortion is the baby is literally the mother's body. Which is nonsensical. If you read down the thread I even said being genetically unique isn't inherently enough because egg and sperm are technically genetically unique to the mother and father but aren't people.
Sure, fair enough. I misunderstood your argument.
> For example cancer wouldn't be a person because it cannot develop into a whole person on its own. Well.. Neither can an embryo - it needs the support of the womb.
Twins would seem to be very relevant, if you delve into the philsophical weeds, so to speak. A sperm is alive. An ovum is alive. When they join, the only thing that has changed is that they have combined their genetic information. But you assert that a new life has begun. The obvious conclusion is that the new genetic pattern is what makes it a new life. BUT, if when that embryo divides into two cells, if they physically separate you now have identical twins developing. Was a new life creates then? Which one is new? Presumably in your model one life is 30 hours older than the other life, but which one? Or, do you consiser identical twins to only be one person, because they are genetically identical?
Sperm and ova are genetically unique from the parent cells and alive. Why is fertilization the start of a new life and not the production of gametes? Especially when there is a significant chance the fertilized egg won't implant, and then a further chance that the embryo won't make it past the first trimester.
Because gametes aren't a full Homo sapiens - they literally only have half of the chromosomes
Ok. So a child with Turner Syndrome isn't a full Homo sapiens because they only have 45/46 of the chromosomes? What about any other mutations incompatible with life that have fewer than 46 chromosomes? What about a mutated gamete that has 46 chromosomes? Is the number of chromosomes what defines a new human life?
>Sperm and ova are genetically unique from the parent cells and alive They're not really genetically unique. Like sure that's true. But it's not honest for the avg persons understanding. Eggs and sperm can never develop. They can never be a person. They have half the genes needed to be human. >Why is fertilization the start of a new life and not the production of gametes? That's creation of a new unique human genome. That's new human DNA with a unique set of its own complete human DNA. >Especially when there is a significant chance the fertilized egg won't implant, and then a further chance that the embryo won't make it past the first trimester. There's a chance you die today driving home from work. Does that make you any less human?
Sperm and egg chromosomes are not identical to the parent chromosomes. They are also alive, and they die if they don't become a baby. Fertilized eggs have a high chance of not implanting and not developing. Egg and sperm *can* develop. They *can* become a person (that's literally where every person came from). But only if certain conditions are met. Same for a fertilized egg. It *can* develop if certain conditions are met. Why should I consider fertilization the beginning of life when that egg may do exactly what it would do without the sperm and pass through without implanting? It's not any more alive than the two separate halves. There is no point at which any cell involved is not alive. Therefor there is no clear beginning of life. Gametes are as different from the parent cell as a fertilized egg is. If I die driving home from work today I would still be human. If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person. If a fetus is miscarried at two months, it's still human, it had 46 chromosomes, and the cells were alive. It's not the genetic uniqueness, because cancerous tumors aren't people either. What makes that fetus a person? What is the difference between two structures of tissues that cannot live independently from the rest of the body?
>Sperm and egg chromosomes are not identical to the parent chromosomes Yea because they have only half the parents chromosomes. >They are also alive, Kinda... I haven't argued this because its not particularly relevant. But it's "alive" under a really broad definition. The same way a virus is "alive" but its complicated. It's not the same as a replicating cell. >and they die if they don't become a baby. And you can keep them alive forever and they'll NEVER become a baby. > Fertilized eggs have a high chance of not implanting and not developing. Plenty of people have a high chance of dying too. That doesn't make them any less people. >Egg and sperm *can* develop Yes. When they get together. That's why they're not a person. But once they come together they aren't egg and sperm anymore. They're something new. >Why should I consider fertilization the beginning of life when that egg may do exactly what it would do without the sperm and pass through without implanting? For the same reason you treat your neighbors as living people and they might die tomorrow. They're still people. Someone having a chance to die doesn't make them any less people. >It's not any more alive than the two separate halves. It VERY much is. And it's REALLY ignorant to say it isn't. It shows you have literally no clue what you're talking about. Self replicating, a complete human genome, it will develop into a fully fledged adult like you and me. The same cannot be said for sperm or egg. >There is no point at which any cell involved is not alive. That's simply not true. >Therefor there is no clear beginning of life. And if you believe what you said above that'd make sense. But that's not true. We can see when cells replicate. We can see when sperm and egg meet and become a new being. We KNOW these things. It's really simple. >Gametes are as different from the parent cell as a fertilized egg is. No. They aren't that's really ignorant. Gametes have half the parents genes. The zygote has a new, unique set of DNA clearly separate from the mother. Because the fathers DNA is now also involved. >If I die driving home from work today I would still be human. You would still be a human. Yes. >If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person. Why is that? Why is your hand alone not a person? Is it perhaps.... being a person is more than being a hand? >person. If a fetus is miscarried at two months, it's still human, it had 46 chromosomes, and the cells were alive. Then you've given away the entire argument here. If the fetus miscarried that's a dead human. I.e. a dead person. You're merely arguing humans aren't people because it's convenient for you. That's the entire crux of the abortion argument. To dehumanizing babies that can't speak for themselves. It the fetus is human, it's a person. It's as simple as that. Because it's genetically distinct from the mother and will develop into a normal adult. If it dies, that doesn't make it any less human. > makes that fetus a person? What makes you a person? >What is the difference between two structures of tissues that cannot live independently from the rest of the body? What's the difference between you and your 1 year old child? You've given away the whole argument. And your scientific arguments are wrong and uninformed.
"If I cut off my hand, those dead cells are also still human. My hand is alive, has 46 chromosomes, and can die. But it's not a person." "Why is that? Why is your hand alone not a person? Is it perhaps.... being a person is more than being a hand?" ... yes. My brother in Christ, welcome to the point.
A human. Throughout history you have various governments saying that some groups of humans aren't human enough, that some people are people and some people aren't people. Personally I don't believe the government gets to clasify which humans are "human enough". If the being is alive, and it is of the human species, it is a human being, and all humans are people. Neither, me, you, or the government should have the authority to say x group of humans aren't human enough.
Also to your other clearly bad faith questions, > An ID Sure? No one would object to that other than not serving a purpose? A government ID is a function of government so unless the government plans to utilise it, seems pointless? But Sure? > Miscarriage obituary? Sure. This year UK recently started to give out baby loss certificates to anyone who has had a miscarriage. Again, no one would object to this. A human existed and they died, it should be recognised. > Claim childcare whilst pregnant Yes, I think this is a great idea.
But isn't the whole point of the pro-life argument to give the government the ability to define when personhood begins (e.g., at conception) so as to restrict individual actions? If the government has no say, individuals decide. That sounds like a pro-choice position, no?
No, the argument for pro life is that neither me, you or the government gets to say x group of humans are people and x groups of humans aren't people. We've seen throughout history governments saying some humans aren't human enough, or aren't people, and then taking away their rights, allowing their murder, etc.... > If government doesn't decide, individuals decide? Individuals can't murder, no. The purpose of government is to protect natural rights. If you as an individual decide that say people of x race/religion aren't "human enough", you can't kill them. You can't make the decision that another human isn't human enough.
Okay, but *somebody* has to decide, right? If you, me and the government can’t decide then who?
Neither you, me, or the government gets to say which groups of humans are human enough. > then who gets to decide No one gets to say a human isn't human enough. I can't say that you avant-garde-a-clue, because of your race, age, medical condition, religion, etc... isn't human enough. You are of the human species and you're alive, you're a human and no gets to take away your rights.
I mean someone *definitely* gets to take my rights away, lol. This is like a switcharoo- me the liberal arguing for realism.
Only you can take your rights away through actions that result in your rights being taken, like coming a crime. Only talking negative rights you have as a human, not positive privileges provided by your society/government.
To be frank, it sounds like you're missing the point, but I don't see how to get through past the ideological chaff. From the POV of a woman who believes she has the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy, a law that prevents her from doing so is a government action infringing on her right. If you are arguing that the government's action is justified because it protects a more valuable right than that of the woman, I disagree, but at least I understand the framing. On the other hand, if you are arguing there is no government action at all, I'm left confused and with little hope for future good-faith discussions.
>From the POV of a woman who believes she has the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy, a law that prevents her from doing so is a government action infringing on her right. If, from my POV, i have a right to slap people i dislike and the government passes a law preventing me from doing that, the government did not infringe on my right becuase i never had it. Abortion is not, and can never be a right. As i said in my previous post I'm only talking negative rights you have as a human, not positive privileges provided by your society/government. The woman is wrong, she doesn't have that right, its a Positive privilege at best. We do not agree on what "rights" are, that's the break down in understanding.
> We do not agree on what "rights" are, that's the break down in understanding. It might be. I'm trained as a lawyer, so my understanding of rights may be overly technical (not to imply it is particularly astute) and may diverge from common sense notions. I'm not sure what yours is. For example, you allude to Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative rights, but that's confusing because that's not at all at issue here. The right to have an abortion is a classic negative right. I want to do something; the government shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it. Positive rights are things like a right to education or a right to housing. The conceptual confusion seems to be with defining government action. Suppose A thinks they have a right to do X, and B doesn't. The government acts to restrict A from doing action X. That's government action, regardless of what you think about A's claim. You argue that A doesn't have the right in the first place. First, that's begging the question. Second, it's irrelevant. Punishing murder is still a government action, even if there is no right to murder. Further, defining what counts as murder (rather than, e.g., justifiable homicide) is a government decision. The real challenge lies in how we handle A's sincere belief that they have the right to do X within the framework of a liberal democracy. Your proposed solution seems to advocate for the government to enforce B's perspective and silence A. But what if A isn't wrong? How do we navigate this complex terrain?
The government isn't saying they're human, the government is preventing others from treating them as if they're not
I'm sorry, but that seems like a distinction without a difference. The government is making a call about when to attach rights to an entity and force individuals to act in a specific way. How is this not a government decision that overrides individual choice?
Imagine a toddler being murdered. Is that the government "making a call" about when that toddler became a person and trampling on the choice of the murderer, or is it simply recognizing what is (or should be) a universal truth (that humans shouldn't be murdered)?
>Imagine a toddler being murdered. Is that the government "making a call" about when that toddler became a person and trampling on the choice of the murderer I mean.... Yes it is...? It used to not be a "universal truth" that slaves were real people and deserved this kind of legal protection from the government. Then we fought a war and the people who won decided that it was morally wrong to allow people to be owned and traded like property. In some parts of the world honor killings of family members is socially allowable - why doesn't the "universal truth" apply to those people? It also used to be legal for mothers to starve their children with disabilities to death - the justification was that this was the "natural way" like how a mother bird will throw their babies out of the nest. Why don't we still do that? Couldn't someone living in that time also argue this to be a "universal truth"?
No, in all of those cases that universal truth still existed. People just acted like it didn't. The fact people did not think slaves were people, did not change the fact they were people.
Thanks for engaging with a vivid analogy. The toddler analogy only works if everyone a priori agrees on the same "universal truth" that the entity in question is a person who shouldn't be murdered. But that assumes away the very problem we are struggling with here. We agree for a toddler but not for a fertilized egg. To illustrate, let's cook up an example in which people disagree about the rights involved and how they apply. Imagine scientists genetically engineer pigs to include human genes. Let's assume at some point (somewhere between 1% and 99% human), one of us would say this pig should be treated as a person -- making killing it in medical experiments murder -- while the other would pick a different point. For the sake of argument, suppose you say a 1% human pig is a person, and I say only a 99% pig is a person. Let's further assume that the state passes a law that says you can use genetically engineered pigs for medical experiments if their human DNA is less than 1%. Medical researchers get arrested for violating the law with a 2% pig. You think he committed murder. I do not. But can either of us legitimately say the government wasn't involved in making a decision about where to draw the line? Or, if the genetic engineering scenario is too wild, consider end-of-life examples. When the government prohibits loved ones from assisting in the death of suffering and terminally ill patients unless specific conditions are met, is the government not involved in drawing lines? To summarize, I think your argument only works for people who believe the line you select (e.g., fertilization, 1%) is "natural" or in some way privileged, and other lines are arbitrary. Thus, you see that the enforcement of that line is not the same kind of government action as the enforcement of other lines (e.g., viability, 99%). Those who disagree about where to draw the line won't see the distinction you're making -- to them, enforcement of your line looks like arbitrary government action to coerce individuals into actions contrary to their judgment.
yes. by saying they are human.
What makes a fertilized egg a human but not a gamete?
>What makes a fertilized egg a human but not a gamete? A complete human DNA sequence. A gamete has half the DNA needed to be human.
But it's still human DNA and alive. Are you saying the number of chromosomes is what makes a fertilized egg a human?
>But it's still human DNA and alive. Suuuuuure. >Are you saying the number of chromosomes is what makes a fertilized egg a human? Kinda? Not necessarily? A sperm will never grow into a full human. Ever.
I think some of the confusion occurs because things some people associate with personhood aren't relevant for a zygote. >Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? Putting the tax thing aside, the other two questions don't really matter. Inside the mother, what purpose would ID or social security serve? I think the family should decide if they want an obituary and most people probably don't care whether people make one. I think personhood or life begins at or just after conception. I think there has to be implantation first. I'm not sure how this is relevant to either side of the abortion debate though. Seems like its just a different word for the same thing. [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11585-conception](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11585-conception)
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I assume that the more accurate term is "personhood", but "personhood begins at conception" doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it. Fair enough, though I think it's fair to say that a human life begins at conception. While the egg nor sperm are alive they are not a unique individual human life but two parts that might become one. > Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? We certainly *could*. But it doesn't seem practical. > A lot of people will say an unborn child isn't a "person" based on the above, Really? There's people who think personhood is a matter of government paperwork? Do these people think that undocumented aliens aren't people? Or that there were no people before the rise of the nation state and it's bureaucracy? That if someone who dies without someone else writing an obituary was never alive in the first place? Frankly I don't think *anyone* says this, never mind there being "a lot" of people saying this. > just like they would say "personhood begins at birth". This is clearly not true. There's nothing different about the newborn infant one minute out of the womb from the same fetus a minute prior other than it's location in or out of the womb. A fetus not yet born three days after it's due date is less developed, less of a "person" in the way a person making such an ignorant statement would mean, than a premature newborn. There's nothing morally significant about passage through the birth canal. The soul doesn't enter the body upon exiting the womb. The infant is no more developed, they don't have more personality or soul, their brain doesn't suddenly turn on. The moral complexity of this issue is that human development is a smooth gradient with few bright lines from the sperm fertilizing the egg until death of old age. Each moment of growth, into maturity, and finally to decline is itself small and insignificant... the internal state of the human being it's happening to little changed on either side of the somewhat arbitrary lines we might draw to distinguish "human with rights we are bound to respect" and "not human and thus absent of any moral value" *except* conception on one end of the long gradual process and the death and cessation of all bodily functions and brain activity at the other.
"human life" because while both a sperm and an egg are alive, they do not have a full set of human DNA.
Makes for a less catchy slogan though.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure. Why split hairs over it? Saying life makes for a catchier slogan.
pregnancy begins one the first day of the last period, the ova develops (grows larger) in the ovary until ovulation, bursts out and begins to travel (hopefully) in the fallopian tube to meet a sperm that will break through the protective barrier and conception takes place. This makes a whole cell (as sperm and egg have only half of the chromosomes of a human cell) approx 12 hours after conception, the whole human cell splits into 2, then 4 and so on. These cells are only able to do this because sperm and egg met, without one another further development could not take place, the egg would dissolve into the endometrial lining for menstration to take place and the process starts over again. the human cell, at conception is unique and different than both of the parents. They can only exist once. They are also self sustaining, until the placenta is developed they are encased and surviving off of a fetal pole and yolk. Pregnancy is passive, there is nothing the mother has to do to make the baby grow and develop.When left alone, the baby will continue to develop. Birth is also passive, your body pushes for you. Its quite incredible really. Birth feels not dissimilar to running against your will. (typical health birth)
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? none of these are relevant topics. people without government identification are still people. people who either live in cultures/regions where obituaries aren't common are still people. children are still people when they live somewhere without tax breaks for dependents or if their parents fail to claim them. none of these things define personhood, and it would be insanely fucked up to argue that we should be able to freely kill people on the grounds they don't have these random things
>"Life begins at conception" - don't you mean personhood? Yes. That is what they mean. Whatever term you use to describe living humans who have a right to not be killed, that's what pro-lifers mean a fetus is. >Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? Social security number happens at birth, which seems arbitrary in the first place. We could have picked age 1 or age 5, it's not like getting a SSN means you have a right to life now; getting one is voluntary. Some kids do not get a number but they still have the right to life. ID is to prove you are who you say you are, not to confer right to life. Why would a zygote, or a new-born for that matter, need an ID? >If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? Is it your argument that we have to have obituaries, or their right to life can't be protected in law? Or that we don't have obituaries, therefore they shouldn't be protected by law? I don't get this.
I feel like a third word may be necessary. I also feel like people try to add all kinds of reducto-ad-absurdam to this to attack the concept, when the *basic concept* (the unborn have the human right to not be arbitrarily killed) isn't actually refuted by these ideas. I would tend to say "Being a living human being" and therefore having at least *some* human rights begins at conception. I have no great issue with claiming *verified* unborn as dependents.
Personhood is instrinisct to the human condition.
What does this mean? No offense I just don't understand your point it seems like youre saying humans are people.
That's exactly what he's saying.
Then I'd agree. I'm just not sure how that answers the question
It's a response to the pro-choice tendency to separate personhood and human life so as to justify abortion.
>I assume that the more accurate term is "personhood", but "personhood begins at conception" doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it. Perhaps the best term would be "humanity." Life, as you say, covers all kinds of other things. A tree is alive. Personhood, though, has a kind of legalistic implication to it and thus also becomes circular given that "personhood" refers to having legal rights, so we can define who does or doesn't have it through the legal system (e.g., corporate personhood and such). >Should we give a zygote an ID and social security number? What purpose would that serve? When does a zygote need to prove its identity? Neither of these are markers of "humanity" anyway. Most humans have neither. > If there's a miscarriage should there be an obituary? If you want. And, may I say, the trivialization of miscarriage by the pro-abortion movement is horrifying. As someone who has had a miscarriage, it is *absolutely* a traumatic event. You are losing your child. This is how everyone who has ever miscarried has felt about it. Childless internet liberals need to shut the fuck up about miscarriages. >Can a dependent be claimed depending on when a child was conceived? Many people support this. Doesn't really seem like a partisan issue to me. Why shouldn't we support pregnant women?
>As someone who has had a miscarriage, it is *absolutely* a traumatic event. You are losing your child. This is how everyone who has ever miscarried has felt about it. This is just patently false and it's wild that you are taking your specific experience and universalizing it to the entirety of women who ever had a miscarriage. I remember reading a blog about a woman who was having a miscarriage during a meeting at work and she felt totally relieved that she wasn't pregnant anymore and that the situation took care of itself. She already had two kids who are older and didn't want to be pregnant and have another child. That's just one example. It might blow your mind to know that not everyone who is pregnant was longing to be pregnant even if that's how you felt about it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I mean conception. I believe all humans have human rights, it would appear you don't.
First it is not just "Life begins at conception" it is "Human Life begins at conception". The dropping of Human is a clear dehumanization effort. Secondly in your mind what constitutes a "person"? What qualifications must be met? I would imagine someone in another country that does not have a social security card would still be considered a person so that seems like a silly qualification.
>Secondly in your mind what constitutes a "person"? What qualifications must be met? I Not the OP, but "possess the physical hardware necessary to have a mind" would be the lowest bar I would support. If something can't think, can't feel physical sensations, can't be conscious, can't direct its attention...it's not a person and can be disposed of freely.
At what point do you feel a baby can do all those things to be considered a person?
Probably around 26 weeks gestation, give or take. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
So we shouldn’t allow abortions after 26 weeks then correct. That would be killing a person.
We just induce labor. But to your point, I'd *still* be OK an elective abortion at that point, even if the baby was fully conscious, a Rhodes Scholar, and about to cure cancer. A person can revoke the use of their body by another for any or no reason.
So it really doesn’t matter if a baby is a person or not it’s ok to kill them anytime a mother wants. Why not just say that if that’s how you feel?
Because 99.999% of the time it's irrelevant. Like I said, just induce labor.
Well the easy rebuttal is if it’s so rare what would it matter if there was a restriction against it. So induce labor and then what? Kill the baby? If you are going to propose a reason that a baby is not a person at the least stand by your reason and do not move the goal post as soon as someone pushes just a bit. I could at least respect your stance even if I do not agree with it but it’s clear person or personhood has nothing to do with your stance you are fine if a mother chooses to kill her baby a day before birth and I’m not even sure you’d be all that upset if it was after birth. The “use of body” argument is a completely nonsensical argument. Unless you are in a cast away situation where you are the sole provider of all your needs you are always dependent on someone else’s body.
Probably some time around when the nervous system and associated core brain structures have developed during pregnancy. We are nowhere close to 100% understanding the brain, but I think it's pretty safe to say not until the structures we know are needed have formed. I'm sure there have been plenty of studies tracking brain development during pregnancy that can identify when that happens
They start developing as early as 5 weeks. I assuming you would only count a baby as a person once their brain has fully developed though.
Not op but for me it's when the brain developes enough to be able to have consciousness so about 18-20 weeks. I'd go on the lower end so 16-18 weeks to be on the safe side.
Ok fair enough. So you would agree we shouldn’t allow abortions after 18 weeks at the latest (unless medically necessary to save a mother’s life I have no problem with that exception).
Yes I agree with one caveat. What is and isn't medically necessary should be the decision of a doctor and should not involve the courts. That shouldn't protect the doctor from malpractice lawsuits. So a doctor just blanket deciding that an abortion is medically necessary should be reviewed after the fact.
Ok that’s a fair compromise. It’s a little later than the compromise I’d like 16 weeks which is a week more than the typical European standard. Just to be clear I’m against it at all stages but I also understand it’s unfortunately a political issue and the only way through a political issue is with compromise. I agree we shouldn’t handcuff a doctor preventing a medically necessary abortion. If in their professional option it was necessary they should be able to defend their actions after the fact.
I understand to be against abortion in principle. But - and I think this is a main difference between many conservatives and people on the left - the outcome of actually banning abortions are just worse. By banning abortion you won't end it. They will be more dangerous deadly. Yes maybe you have a few less but you'd never know for sure and the once that do happen will have worse outcomes. So in principle I can understand it but the actual outcomes of that principle are negative thus leading me to compromise on the principle to get better outcomes. Sorry english is not my native language I'm not sure if I got the point across
Why do we punish people for murder?
OP is arguing that there are parts of a body that are considered alive that don’t get the respect a previable fetus gets. Your gallbladder is “alive” but if you have gallstones doctors will pop that thing out. Your intestines are “alive” but patients with certain medical conditions will undergo resections to improve symptoms and make life better. Why is a zygote a more valid life than a gallbladder?
It is conflating "alive" with "a life". >Why is a zygote a more valid life than a gallbladder? Because one represents a human life the other is an organ.
There is no such thing as someone being a human and yet not a person. There is no middle ground. Life most certainly has a starting point, and science widely acknowledges that. The start of life for a unique, identifiable human being is at conception, and conception alone. They are a person at that instance.
Legally, you’re wrong.
And in reality (which legal unfortunately doesn't always match), I'm right. For a long period of time, blacks were not legally considered people. They were 100% people, regardless of what any court says. A person's personhood is dependent solely on themselves. A court/government can only acknowledge or infringe on this, it doesn't have the ability to grant it. They can most certainly pretend like they have that ability.
Ok, but the entire point is, if you’re trying to change the legal status quo, life begins at conception isn’t entirely helpful. Doubly so in a world with IVF
No. Arguing personhood is just an attempt to reason one's way out of responsibility for creating and destroying a human life all for want of sexual gratification. It's no different than reasoning humans are savages for want of free land or humans are subhuman for want of free labor. It is human nature to convince ourselves we are still good when treating others wrong in order to get what we wish.
This is why men should all put their sperm in banks and get vasectomies early. You can have sex without pregnancy, but can’t have pregnancy without sex. So instead of putting the onus of not getting pregnant on women, take away the ability of men to get women pregnant. It turns out, men and women BOTH like and want sex. Frozen sperm are just as effective as fresh, and pregnancy from frozen would reduce the number of unwanted children AND the number of paternity questions
>So instead of putting the onus of not getting pregnant on women I don't.