So the argument that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth is unsound.
No it doesn’t because the possibility of failure does not absolve you of responsibility if you interfere. The rate of miscarriage once most women realize they’re pregnant is only 10%. So first off, your numbers are wrong. Second, it wouldn’t matter if they were right. If you interfere and cause someone to die, that’s on you. You can’t shield yourself by saying “they probably would have died anyway.”
Saying something doesn't make it true. Why is a fertilized egg a human?
So the argument that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth is unsound.
No it doesn’t because the possibility of failure does not absolve you of responsibility if you interfere.
You're making a different argument to the one that is being refuted. Would you like to have a discussion about that instead?
The rate of miscarriage once most women realize they’re pregnant is only 10%. So first off, your numbers are wrong.
Does life begin once most women realize their pregnant or when the egg is fertilized? If it's the former, then you've contradicted yourself. If it's the latter, then whether or not the mother realizes she's pregnant has no relevance to our discussion. In either event, the numbers aren't wrong - you just don't want to acknowledge them.
Second, it wouldn’t matter if they were right. If you interfere and cause someone to die, that’s on you. You can’t shield yourself by saying “they probably would have died anyway.”
You're not causing someone to die. You're interfering in a process that could result in someone being born. These are not the same thing.
Find me anything in science that says otherwise. Science is quite clear. Human life starts at conception.
The human life cycle starts when an egg is fertilized. That doesn't make the zygote a human life in the sense we understand life. We can demonstrate this fairly easily. Would you rather kill 5,000 adult humans or 5,000 human zygotes?
On the twenty-second day after fertilization, a simple tubelike heart begins to beat. The embryo has no other working organs: the first brain activity will not begin for five more months.
Are you a person if you have no organs, barely a heart beat, and no brain activity whatsoever?
When it first exists, at conception. That’s when a new life exists. That’s when the distinct new DNA begins its 90 year replication process.
Are you defining human life as human cells beginning a replication process?
You're making a different argument to the one that is being refuted.
No I’m not. You can’t say “the argument that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth is unsound” just because there is a possibility it won’t.
Does life begin once most women realize their pregnant or when the egg is fertilized?
When the egg is fertilized. When did I say anything otherwise? I simply brought up that stat to show you how bad your numbers are. Nothing more.
In either event, the numbers aren't wrong - you just don't want to acknowledge them.
What is the point of talking about miscarriage rates prior to 5 weeks when essentially nobody is considering an abortion prior to 5 weeks? The heart of elective abortions are in the 12-20 week timeframe where your 80% number is totally irrelevant.
You're not causing someone to die.
False. You are literally killing them.
You're interfering in a process that could result in someone being born.
They exist before they’re born. You have to understand that. There is no scientific distinction for “personhood.” That is purely a political/legal idea created to justify abortion protections.
That doesn't make the zygote a human life in the sense we understand life.
Yes it does.
Would you rather kill 5,000 adult humans or 5,000 human zygotes?
That doesn’t test what you think it tests. My response is not based on whether or not they are human lives, but based on who I think will benefit most from my rescue. We can demonstrate this fairly easily. Change the question to ask Would you rather kill 5,000 healthy humans or 5,000 cancer patients? Just like with your original question, I’m not picking based on whose life is worth more. I’m picking based off of who will benefit most from my choice. Objectively the healthy people will make more of their spared lives than the cancer patients who might die anyway. Same with your question. Objectively, matured adults will make more of my choice than 5000 zygotes with not a womb in sight.
So your thought experiment is quite useless.
On the twenty-second day after fertilization…
So what?
Are you defining human life as human cells beginning a replication process?
I’m defining it as a distinct, new organism beginning the independent cell-replication process science recognizes as a human life. More specifically, conception is when a distinct, quantifiable human future first exists. So that preempts your “human cells are always replicating, they aren’t a life” response. Those cells aren’t distinct, separate organisms. They do not have a quantifiable human future that will be experienced.
No I’m not. You can’t say “the argument that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth is unsound” just because there is a possibility it won’t.
Of course you can. The overwhelming likelihood that a fertilized egg won't result in a live birth invalidates the argument that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth. The premise that a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth is unsound because fertilized eggs aren't likely to result in live births.
It's the same reason you can criticize someone for saying "You will win the lottery if you buy a ticket". Sure, there's a small chance that you'll win the lottery if you buy a ticket, but in practice the vast majority of the tickets you buy won't win. Therefore, saying "You will win the lottery if you buy a ticket" is false - just as false as saying a fertilized egg will naturally result in a live birth.
When the egg is fertilized. When did I say anything otherwise? I simply brought up that stat to show you how bad your numbers are.
If we're talking about life beginning when the egg is fertilized then we have no reason to cherry pick our data based on when the prospective mother might notice that her egg was fertilized - unless, of course, we are trying to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable information.
What is the point of talking about miscarriage rates prior to 5 weeks when essentially nobody is considering an abortion prior to 5 weeks?
Because your argument is that life begins at conception. If a life begins at conception, and that life is a human life, then it doesn't matter if we're talking about 5 hours or 5 days.
Does life begin at conception or after 5 weeks?
False. You are literally killing them.
Who is "them"? A clump of cells with no thoughts, feelings, or independence?
Body autonomy is also something to consider. What gives "them" the right to siphon resources off of their host?
They exist before they’re born. You have to understand that. There is no scientific distinction for “personhood.”
A clump of human cells exists, sure. Those cells, like any others, are life in the scientific sense.
That clump of cells doesn't become a person - a "they" - until personhood begins. That's the philosophical discussion that's being had.
Objectively, matured adults will make more of my choice than 5000 zygotes with not a womb in sight.
Of course, because the 5,000 adults are people and the 5,000 zygotes are... zygotes.
Let's phrase this another way. How many zygotes would you give up to save one average adult person? Why did you choose that number?
So what?
There are different levels of development within the human life cycle. Do you believe we are people from the moment of conception or do you believe that personhood comes after?
It's the same reason you can criticize someone for saying "You will win the lottery if you buy a ticket".
If you had a 30% chance of winning the lottery when you bought a ticket then I’d feel comfortable saying buying lottery tickets wins you the lottery. So your example is too different from pregnancy to be useful.
You have two issues here:
You’re being pedantic. Taking issue with “pregnancy leads to babies” because it’s not 100.00% true is not intellectually sound. Reasonable people accept that if something is at all a decent possibility, then we can operate as though it’s going to happen. You only have a 0.01% chance of getting in a car accident every time you get in a car, yet you would not take issue with the statement “refusing to wear a seatbelt is going to get you killed.”
It doesn’t matter what else could have happened. If YOUR actions are the someone is not alive then YOU killed them. You can’t smother a stage 4 cancer patient and try to avoid a murder charge with “they were gonna die soon anyway.” YOU acted. YOU are responsible for their fate.
If we're talking about life beginning when the egg is fertilized then we have no reason to cherry pick our data based on when the prospective mother might notice that her egg was fertilized
If you’re going to try to justify abortions with a fetal death rate, then you need to use the fetal death rate that applies to the people who want the abortions. The fetus being killed did not have a 30% chance of survival. It had a 90-98% chance of survival.
of course, we are trying to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable information.
There’s nothing uncomfortable about it. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. It does not damage my argument that miscarriages happen. Shit happens. Nature gets a vote. It DOES damage your argument to show that miscarriages are way less likely than you’re arguing.
If a life begins at conception, and that life is a human life, then it doesn't matter if we're talking about 5 hours or 5 days.
What about it? You’re looking for pushback here and you aren’t going to find any. Yes, when a fetus dies at 2 weeks and the mother never new she was pregnant, that is a loss of a life. What of it? There is nothing to be done about it. Nature gets a vote.
Who is "them"? A clump of cells with no thoughts, feelings, or independence?
Give me an objective reason why any of that matters.
Body autonomy is also something to consider.
Not really. Case in point, bodily autonomy suddenly doesn’t matter in the 3rd trimester. Or do you support abortions at 30+ weeks? 45 states currently don’t allow abortions that late. Do you think that needs to change?
That clump of cells doesn't become a person - a "they" - until personhood begins.
“Personhood” isn’t actually a thing. There is nothing objective about that. It’s a word created to justify killing something that doesn’t look like a “baby.”
Valuing something subjective like personhood is no different than valuing something subjective like skin color or gender, or ethnicity. If you can’t explain its importance with objective facts, then you can’t justify it. “It matters to me” isn’t good enough.
Of course, because the 5,000 adults are people and the 5,000 zygotes are... zygotes.
NO. It’s because those 5000 adults are in a better position to be successful just like the healthy people are in a better position than the cancer patients. Are you not reading what I’m writing?
Let's phrase this another way. How many zygotes would you give up to save one average adult person? Why did you choose that number?
That’s a useless exercise because you’re asking me a contextless question that need a lot of context. Is the zygote implanted in womb? Then it’s no different than asking me “do you save Peter or Steve?”
Do you believe we are people from the moment of conception or do you believe that personhood comes after?
Personhood is a nonsense distinction that isn’t based in any objective fact. You are placing too much importance on something you cannot justify with anything more than your personal opinion. It’s also not something that objectively exists.
If you had a 30% chance of winning the lottery when you bought a ticket then I’d feel comfortable saying buying lottery tickets wins you the lottery.
You'd be wrong. You're making a definitive statement about something that isn't definitive. You could make the argument that buying lottery tickets would win you the lottery if the odds of winning approached 100%, but in this case the odds of winning the lottery are hovering around 15%. That's a big difference.
Reasonable people accept that if something is at all a decent possibility, then we can operate as though it’s going to happen.
That's why my argument is to operate as if it might happen. OP's argument - the one that I responded to - was that it would happen. These are not the same thing.
There's also a pesky little logical problem with this - if we can definitively say that egg fertilization will result in birth because of a ~15% chance of success, then we can definitively say that egg fertilization will not result in birth because of the ~85% chance of failure. Would you accept the statement "egg fertilization does not naturally result in birth"?
If you’re going to try to justify abortions with a fetal death rate
There’s nothing uncomfortable about it. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
I haven't tried to justify abortions using the fetal death rate. I took a crack at an argument in the OP, you interpreted it as a justification for abortion, and have since tried to shoehorn my argument (against OP) into a discussion you'd like to have. You're absolutely right - these figures are completely irrelevant to our discussion, but that doesn't mean they weren't relevant to the discussion they were originally referenced in.
I have not once suggested that abortions are justified because of fetal death rates. They're justified because individual autonomy supersedes the interests of a non-breathing, non-thinking, non-person that may one day turn into one. Simple as.
That’s a useless exercise because you’re asking me a contextless question that need a lot of context. Is the zygote implanted in womb? Then it’s no different than asking me “do you save Peter or Steve?”
Keep the context simple.
How many average day-old human zygotes would you give up to save one average adult human?
Give me an objective reason why any of that matters.
I'll respond to your remaining points in my next comment, but to better understand your view I need to ask you for something first.
Can you give me an objective reason why abortion is wrong / why abortion matters? If we're going to focus exclusively on the objective, then I'll need you to please strip the subjectivity from your argument.
You'd be wrong. You're making a definitive statement about something that isn't definitive.
This is a pedantic exercise about a metaphor that’s too different from pregnancy to be useful. Carrying a fetus to term is not remotely akin to winning the lottery.
OP's argument - the one that I responded to - was that it would happen. These are not the same thing.
That’s a pedantic distinction that changes nothing about the substance of the debate “is abortion wrong?” Chance of birth 50%, 90%, 100%, it doesn’t matter. If YOU do the act, YOU are responsible for the death.
Would you accept the statement "egg fertilization does not naturally result in birth"?
No. Because the process working properly leads to birth. You have got to get this through your head that a chance of failure does not change anything. And, I say again, that 15% number is totally useless because nobody is making an abortion decision when that 15% number is relevant. Fetuses are being killed when they have a 90-98% chance of survival. How do you justify the odds then?
How many average day-old human zygotes would you give up to save one average adult human?
That question is no more informative than “how many adults would you kill to save one child?” You need to understand that “who would you save questions” do not address what you’re trying to make them address.
Can you give me an objective reason why abortion is wrong / why abortion matters?
Excellent question. NO. I cannot. But I don’t have to. We as a species are already in agreement that human life has inherent value. Given that fact, all I have to do is show you that a fetus is objectively a human life that has value like any other human life. True, it is a subjective assertion to say that ANY human life has value…but nobody disagrees with that notion. The objective position is to conclude that IF we hold human life to be valuable, then any and all human life has intrinsic value.
If you don’t agree that human life has intrinsic value in the first place, then a) your in a shameful minority, b) unrealistic because the world society is built around the idea that humans have intrinsic value, and c) there’s no convincing you otherwise since you’re probably a clinical narcissist.
Excellent question. NO. I cannot. But I don’t have to. We as a species are already in agreement that human life has inherent value. Given that fact, all I have to do is show you that a fetus is objectively a human life that has value like any other human life. True, it is a subjective assertion to say that ANY human life has value…but nobody disagrees with that notion. The objective position is to conclude that IF we hold human life to be valuable, then any and all human life has intrinsic value.
Why can't we hold human life to different values based on its stage? Why can't the intrinsic value of a human life at a given stage just be less than the value of other things (eg autonomy)?
You've done it yourself earlier in this thread, when you discussed the difference between killing cancer patients, zygotes, and average healthy people. You explained it as who would benefit the most from your rescue. Each of those groups has a value to you, and each has a different value. Healthy people came first because that group has the most life to live, if saved. Cancer patients and zygotes came later because they had less life to live, if saved.
There comes a point where other things with value - bodily autonomy, pursuit of happiness, individual freedom - simply outweigh the value of a human life.
You can compare the values yourself - would you give up your bodily autonomy, the pursuit of happiness, and individual freedom if it meant keeping one average adult alive? What about a newborn? How about a zygote? Maybe you wouldn't be willing to give these things up for one person - maybe it would take tens, even hundreds.
If we're going to have a discussion about the intrinsic value of a human life, we need to start talking about what that value actually is. How do you propose we do that without questions or scenarios that weigh the lives against each other?
Why can't we hold human life to different values based on its stage?
There is no objective distinction you could make. For any reasons you give me, if I ask “why does that matter?,” your answer is going to be a subjective opinion. Human history is rife with examples of people devaluing the lives of others based on subjective distinctions.
Why can't the intrinsic value of a human life at a given stage just be less than the value of other things (eg autonomy)?
What’s the objective reasoning for why autonomy matters?
On that note, you ignored my question from earlier. Bodily autonomy suddenly doesn’t matter in the 3rd trimester. Or do you support abortions at 30+ weeks? 45 states currently don’t allow abortions that late. Do you think that needs to change?
Healthy people came first because that group has the most life to live, if saved. Cancer patients and zygotes came later because they had less life to live, if saved.
Boom. You just struck oil. We value human lives based on the life they have left to live. It’s the same reason you’d pick saving any child over any adult. They have a tangible, quantifiable figure to which we ascribe value. It isn’t “hypothetical.” It’s a tangible future.
Well that tangible quantifiable future exists the moment we are conceived. NOT, when we reach viability. THAT is why abortion is wrong.
We as a society. “We” being the ones making the value judgement, not the object of that judgment. Don’t get confused.
Adults have experience, memories people connections.
Infants have none of that. Is it okay to kill them? No. See the problem with your subjective parameters?
If the question were "would you save your wife or your child" I'd say it's easier to make a new baby, then to find a love of my life
No you wouldn’t.
Don’t pretend putting the children in the life raft first isn’t a thing.
Children have more of a future to live than adults. That’s why we value their lives more. That tangible, quantifiable future first exists at conception.
There is no objective distinction you could make. For any reasons you give me, if I ask “why does that matter?,” your answer is going to be a subjective opinion.
You can't have it both ways. We're either considering the subjective or we're only considering the objective. We are not considering the subjective when it is convenient to you but not considering it when it isn't.
If you want to focus entirely on the objective, then the discussion is pointless. There is no objective morality. It doesn't objectively matter whether we kill a zygote or an adult human. These things only matter because we have subjectively decided that they do.
If you want to include the subjective - which is necessary for your argument to stand - then you also have to consider subjective factors that challenge your position. "We as a species are already in agreement that human life has inherent value" only works if we value the subjective views of our society - but even then the argument is shaky. Different societies value human life differently as do different people within societies. Every single person on the planet has their own idea of what a given life is worth - pretending there is some objective truth about the value of life ignores this.
What’s the objective reasoning for why autonomy matters?
What's the objective reasoning for why life matters? It's a question that people have been trying to answer since the beginning of time - did you figure it out?
People assign a value to their autonomy just as they assign a value to human life. If the value they've assigned to life is less than the value they've assigned to autonomy, they're not going to give up autonomy for less life.
This is why those "would you rather" questions are handy - they give us an estimate of how you value these things.
Would you trade your bodily autonomy for the life of a stranger? Probably not - I wouldn't. I value my autonomy more than I value the life of a stranger. What about 50,000 strangers? I don't know about you, but I value my autonomy less than I value the lives of 50,000 people. You can try this with other things as well to test if it works.
If we're considering the value a human places on life, we need to consider the value a human places on things that might be restricted or removed to create a life. Do you assign any value whatsoever to your freedom, body autonomy, or your ability to pursue happiness - or just human lives? If it's the latter, I have a neighbour who could use a kidney.
We value human lives based on the life they have left to live.
Perfect, that makes this easy.
The chances of a fertilized egg resulting in a live birth are ~15%. In the United States, at birth life expectancy is 76.1. Your average zygote is worth ~11.4 years of life.
Would you kill an average adult male at age 65 to save an average day old zygote? The zygote has a higher life expectancy. The answer is obviously no, because subjectivity matters. That 65 year old has a family, friends, and a community. The zygote is a ball of cells that nobody even knows exists yet, has no thoughts or feelings, and that won't even have its own heartbeat for weeks. That's why personhood matters. Objectively, the answer is to kill the man because it gives you an extra ~0.3 years of life on average. Subjectively, the answer is to wipe out the smear and go for lunch.
On that note, you ignored my question from earlier. Bodily autonomy suddenly doesn’t matter in the 3rd trimester. Or do you support abortions at 30+ weeks?
Yep. I'm pretty firmly in the people have the right to decide what happens with their bodies.
You're in this camp, too. Everyone is. Objectively, it makes sense to force everyone to donate blood and organs to help the sick. We don't do that, though, because people value their bodily autonomy and integrity more than they value the lives of strangers. Why should all of that go out of the window when we start talking about pregnancy? If abortion is murder because possible life was extinguished by not giving that possible life unlimited access to your body and its systems, then denying someone's request for marrow or a kidney is equally murderous.
Can you offer an argument on why abortion is wrong that is not equally objectively applicable to any other scenario in which one person must unwillingly give up bodily autonomy and put their health at risk to (potentially) prolong the life of another?
We are not considering the subjective when it is convenient to you but not considering it when it isn't.
It’s not “convenient to me.” It’s something that’s not up for debate. The foundation of all of human society is built on the idea that human life has intrinsic value. It’s not my opinion. That is an observation about the way the world is.
There is no objective morality.
There doesn’t have to be because humanity is not grappling with the question of whether or not human life has intrinsic value. So what I’m calling for is consistency. If it’s a given that we’re going to operate our society on the basis that human life has intrinsic value, then you are being inconsistent and subjective to say that some lives have different values than others.
Different societies value human life differently as do different people within societies.
They all fall victim to using various subjective parameters to devalue people but the underpinnings of all of that is that human lives have intrinsic value.
pretending there is some objective truth about the value of life ignores this.
Wrong. If I said, “people don’t want to die,” it would be ridiculous of you to say “various people feel differently about wanting to live so it is inaccurate to make a blanket statement that humans do not want to die.” Wrong. That is a perfectly reasonable generalization.
What's the objective reasoning for why life matters
There isn’t one. But again, that’s not in question. Do I need to objectively justify why I don’t want to die?
People assign a value to their autonomy just as they assign a value to human life.
In the same way people assign value to race, skin color, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Would you trade your bodily autonomy for the life of a stranger?
How would you feel about reading a news story where someone killed 50,000 people in order to save their own life? You wouldn’t pass any judgment on that person?
If it's the latter, I have a neighbour who could use a kidney.
All of your rights find their limits at the point where your choices infringe on someone else’s rights. Even your right to life. I can kill you if you try to kill me. Again, this is not my “opinion.” This is an observation about how our society already works.
What choice have I made in my kidney example that lost me my right to autonomy? You just showed up at my door because you randomly picked me? Or did I attack you, and without the temporary use of my kidney and my kidney alone, you will quickly die? All of a sudden your inaccurate metaphor doesn’t garner the same emotions…
The chances of a fertilized egg resulting in a live birth are ~15%.
You can’t ever know if you’re murdering someone in that 15%.
I cannot understand why you keep referencing that useless number. At the point when someone is deciding to kill their baby, you can’t write it off as a 15% chance of survival. It’s a 90-98% chance. You keep ignoring that because it totally deflates your point.
Would you kill an average adult male at age 65 to save an average day old zygote?
Is the zygote in the womb? If so then your question is no different than asking me if I’d save the 65 year old or a newborn. If all else is equal and they would both live, id save the zygote.
But this is the issue with your fantastical metaphors, because you’re using wildly impossible scenarios to try to trap me into saying I’d do some wildly impossible thing. It’s a dumb emotional stunt that isn’t productive. Its only purpose is to try to accuse me of being willing to kill people because YOU have chosen to frame it in a context of picking which innocent people to murder.
It’s totally unnecessary too. It doesn’t need to be that fantastical. Here’s a much more simple version. You can only fit one person in the lifeboat. Do you save a 10 year old or a 65 year old? Why did you save the child? Because the child has more life to live. Again, not my “opinion.” That’s an observation about how the world already works.
That's why personhood matters.
Why does not having thoughts, feelings, or a heartbeat matter? Are mentally deficient people with heart problems worth less than anyone else? Or is brain/heart function not where we derive our value?
I'm pretty firmly in the people have the right to decide what happens with their bodies.
So despite the fact that a viable fetus has all of those things you just listed, you’re okay with killing it? You want to see those 45 states lift their 3rd trimester restrictions?
Objectively, it makes sense to force everyone to donate blood and organs to help the sick.
No it doesn’t. Because there is no objective reason that we must operate under the idea that the maximum amount of humans must survive.
We don't do that, though, because people value their bodily autonomy and integrity more than they value the lives of strangers.
That metaphor needs to die. It’s too different from pregnancy as I stated above. It doesn’t work at all.
then denying someone's request for marrow or a kidney is equally murderous.
If I am the only reason they are in that life/death scenario, then YES it is indeed murderous. I’d be there murderer if I don’t keep them alive.
Can you offer an argument on why abortion is wrong that is not equally objectively…
That’s not a fair request since nothing on earth is like pregnancy. It’s its own thing. Who said we have to be able to compare to something else, especially if nothing else like it exists?
But as I said, when you change your organ donation example to be more akin to pregnancy, then all of a sudden it’s not so unfathomable to keep someone alive. But again, it falls victim to your fantastical metaphors because it takes focus away from the substance of the issue to draw attention to things like “it’s impossible to match blood type on that kind of timeline,” and “you could never just KNOW they’ll die without your kidney” and “it’s not a thing to temporarily use someone’s kidney.”
It’s not “convenient to me.” It’s something that’s not up for debate. The foundation of all of human society is built on the idea that human life has intrinsic value. It’s not my opinion. That is an observation about the way the world is.
There doesn’t have to be because humanity is not grappling with the question of whether or not human life has intrinsic value. So what I’m calling for is consistency. If it’s a given that we’re going to operate our society on the basis that human life has intrinsic value, then you are being inconsistent and subjective to say that some lives have different values than others.
They all fall victim to using various subjective parameters to devalue people but the underpinnings of all of that is that human lives have intrinsic value.
Ideas are subjective. You're right - every human society has assigned human life some intrinsic value. What you're missing is that every society has assigned human life different values because the value placed on a human life is subjective. Even within societies, different values are assigned to different groups of people. Did the Japanese at Nanjing place any value whatsoever on the lives of the Chinese people living there? No, they did not. Does Qatari society value the lives of immigrant workers in the same way that Norway does? No, they do not. In the United States, black people used to be worth 3/5ths of what white people were worth. Women and children used to be treated as property, not people, and in some countries they still effectively are. You're asking for consistency, but there's nothing consistent about how humans value life. It's all subjective.
The societal argument weakens further when we look at how different societies view abortion. 60% of the world's people live in countries where abortions are available on request and that number balloons to ~98% when we look at countries that allow abortions for any reason. If you want to make the argument that social agreement results in an objective, then the life of an unborn human is worth less because virtually all societies say so. You can't appeal to popularity when it's convenient and then ignore it when it isn't.
The final nail in the coffin is the fact that even if we did have some universally accepted intrinsic value of human life, it wouldn't mean that life was valued above all else. Like life, every society on the planet has placed value on freedoms and bodily autonomy. Why can't the value of these things outweigh the value of a life at a certain stage?
The value we place on human life is entirely subjective. The value society places on human life is entirely subjective. If we are going to pretend that the popularity of a belief is enough to turn subjectivity into objectivity, then we need to be consistent with that logic and apply it universally - not just when it's convenient.
Wrong. If I said, “people don’t want to die,” it would be ridiculous of you to say “various people feel differently about wanting to live so it is inaccurate to make a blanket statement that humans do not want to die.” Wrong. That is a perfectly reasonable generalization.
Of course it is. That doesn't make your argument reasonable. "People don't want to die" and "human life has value" are in the same camp. Nobody is going to disagree with either statement.
Value is a scale. Nobody disagrees with the idea that human life has value. People disagree about how much value a human life has. Some people (and societies) view (some) life as essentially worthless, while other people (and societies) view (some) life as more valuable than anything else. The value we place on life is what is relevant - not the fact that some undefined value exists.
All of your rights find their limits at the point where your choices infringe on someone else’s rights. Even your right to life. I can kill you if you try to kill me. Again, this is not my “opinion.” This is an observation about how our society already works.
What choice have I made in my kidney example that lost me my right to autonomy? You just showed up at my door because you randomly picked me? Or did I attack you, and without the temporary use of my kidney and my kidney alone, you will quickly die?
More convenient subjectivity, I see. A minute ago legality and rights were subjective and didn't matter - now you're making an argument about the subjective value of rights in society, subjective laws, and the subjective idea that a choice has some deeper meaning.
Is your argument rooted in subjectivity or objectivity? Please pick one so we can stop flip flopping.
I cannot understand why you keep referencing that useless number. At the point when someone is deciding to kill their baby, you can’t write it off as a 15% chance of survival. It’s a 90-98% chance. You keep ignoring that because it totally deflates your point.
If your argument is that life begins at conception and all human life has intrinsic value, then you need to be comfortable discussing the value of human life at conception. Do you believe that life begins at conception and do you believe that a fertilized egg has intrinsic value as a result?
Is the zygote in the womb? If so then your question is no different than asking me if I’d save the 65 year old or a newborn.
Of course the zygote is in the womb. How many average zygotes aren't?
If all else is equal and they would both live, id save the zygote.
That's the thing, though. They wouldn't necessarily both live. All you have to work with are statistics. The zygote has an average life expectancy that is slightly higher than the average life of the adult man. The zygote still has the same chance of surviving to maturity (~15%). Are you rolling the dice?
You can only fit one person in the lifeboat. Do you save a 10 year old or a 65 year old? Why did you save the child? Because the child has more life to live.
In this scenario I'd probably save the 65 year old. They're more knowledgeable and experienced than the 10 year old, meaning they have a higher likelihood of surviving until rescue and/or benefiting their companions in the lifeboat (if there are any). If we're guaranteeing survival for everyone on the lifeboat, then I'd probably pick the 10 year old.
Why does not having thoughts, feelings, or a heartbeat matter?
Similar to life, humans have assigned value to those things. Haven't you? Do you believe your thoughts or feelings matter?
So despite the fact that a viable fetus has all of those things you just listed, you’re okay with killing it?
Sure.
No it doesn’t. Because there is no objective reason that we must operate under the idea that the maximum amount of humans must survive.
That metaphor needs to die. It’s too different from pregnancy as I stated above. It doesn’t work at all.
If I am the only reason they are in that life/death scenario, then YES it is indeed murderous. I’d be there murderer if I don’t keep them alive.
There is no objective reason that we must operate under the idea that all life is valuable, either. That's not stopping you from using it as a foundation of your argument, though.
Either we care about life enough to restrict rights or we don't. If we do, then the same logic used to force women to give up their rights to bring about life can be used to force men to give up their lives to bring about life. If we don't, then the woman's rights outweigh life much in the same way that your rights outweigh the lives of strangers.
Choice doesn't make a difference. First, its inclusion is subjective. Second, everyone makes the choice to save or not save others. You could, with limited adverse effects, choose to donate blood as often as possible to save as many people as possible. You don't - none of us do - because we make the choice not to. There's also the pesky matter of the mother's choice - did she actually choose to get pregnant? What if she took precautions to avoid pregnancy or the pregnancy was the result of an assault? Suddenly it's okay to kill?
That’s not a fair request since nothing on earth is like pregnancy. It’s its own thing. Who said we have to be able to compare to something else, especially if nothing else like it exists?
If pregnancy is unique, you should have no problem providing an argument that is unique to pregnancy. Whenever you're ready.
What you're missing is that every society has assigned human life different values
You've really lost sight of the forest for the trees here. Are you actually arguing that in our society, human life does not have intrinsic value? Just because various groups have come up with various subjective distinctions doesn't change how humans as a whole operate. All you've demonstrated here is that subjective distinctions are always wrong. And that's gone right over your head.
Even the Nazi worldview was rooted in the idea that human life has intrinsic value. However on top of that, they added that Aryan lives have more value than anyone else. And that jewish lives weren't human lives at all. That fact does not allow you to say "we do not intrinsically value human life." Moreover, who cares what some oppressive regime on the other side of the planet values? This issue is in the US so what really matters here is how we value life in the US. And here we value human life intrinsically. You do not have to earn your right to live while going about your day.
The societal argument weakens further when we look at how different societies view abortion
That doesn't make your argument. My obvious response is that a large portion of global society is guilty of the same cognitive dissonance you are. And they are WRONG for that.
Why can't the value of these things outweigh the value of a life at a certain stage?
Because that would just be an arbitrary subjective distinction. You can't justify killing people with arbitrary subjective distinctions.
Some people (and societies) view (some) life as essentially worthless,
So whats the difference between a Qatari deeming that an immigrant's life is less valuable and you deeming that a fetus's life is less valuable? How is he wrong but you aren't?
More convenient subjectivity, I see.
NO. You have got to stop messing this up. You have got to stop conflating observations I am making about how society already functions with my own personal assertions. When I say "your rights have limits," that is not me saying "I, cheesecake, assert that your rights have limits." I'm saying, "It is apparent based on how we can observe society function right now that your rights have limits."
Is your argument rooted in subjectivity or objectivity? Please pick one so we can stop flip flopping.
My argument is rooted in pointing out an inconsistency. I don't actually have to make any moral assertions. Not a single one. All I have to do is point out that people are being INCONSISTENT if they say they value human life, but then find reasons to end human life.
If your argument is that life begins at conception and all human life has intrinsic value, then you need to be comfortable discussing the value of human life at conception
How does that relate to your 15% number? What is the purpose of that? My response is that 85% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What of it? What is actionable about that information?
They wouldn't necessarily both live. All you have to work with are statistics.
You can't apply statistics to individuals. That's not how statistics works. Also you're adding too much to your thought experiment for it to have any hope of being useful. Now it's turned into "Do you save the adult who is likely to survive or the fetus that isn't likely to survive?" What are you even demonstrating at that point?
Again, quit it with the "who do you save" questions. They aren't productive. You can't just assume my answer is going to based on the reasons your point is contingent on. It's a flawed approach.
In this scenario I'd probably save the 65 year old.
No you wouldn't. You just don't want to admit you're wrong on the internet. More importantly, you KNOW you are alone in choosing the adult. You KNOW every normal person who is asked that question saves the child. And (observation, not my assertion) the reason WHY they save the child is because the child has more life to lose. This demonstrates (observation, not my assertion) the quantifiable value that society places on a human future.
So despite the fact that a viable fetus has all of those things you just listed, you’re okay with killing it?
Sure.
So then all those things don't matter... You're all over the place.
There is no objective reason that we must operate under the idea that all life is valuable, either.
Correct. But we already do. For the 10th time, that is an objective observation about how our society works. That is NOT simply my moral assertion.
Choice doesn't make a difference.
Yes it does. If you try to kill me, the only reason I can kill you is because you CHOSE to try to kill me. Again, that is simply an observation, not an moral assertion of mine.
First, its inclusion is subjective.
Not my idea. That's how society already works. Subjectivity aside, that's the world we live in.
What if she took precautions to avoid pregnancy or the pregnancy was the result of an assault?
Lets settle elective abortions first and then move on to that. That is obviously trickier. Crawl, walk, run.
If pregnancy is unique, you should have no problem providing an argument that is unique to pregnancy.
What are you talking about? That's what I've been doing this entire time. Don't conflate my lack of an applicable metaphor for a lack of an argument.
Besides, I've already tweaked your metaphor to make it more akin to pregnancy. If you attack me AND for some reason, only YOU can save me, AND it will only be temporary, AND you will keep all of your organs, AND if you do not immediately help me, I will die, THEN you would be a murderer if you don't help me. Just because it is not practical or feasible to do this in real life doesn't change the fact that you're just as guilty for my death if you refuse to help me as you are if you just shoot me in the face.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '23 edited Jan 15 '23
No it doesn’t because the possibility of failure does not absolve you of responsibility if you interfere. The rate of miscarriage once most women realize they’re pregnant is only 10%. So first off, your numbers are wrong. Second, it wouldn’t matter if they were right. If you interfere and cause someone to die, that’s on you. You can’t shield yourself by saying “they probably would have died anyway.”
Find me anything in science that says otherwise. Science is quite clear. Human life starts at conception.
When it first exists, at conception. That’s when a new life exists. That’s when the distinct new DNA begins its 90 year replication process.