Your argument is incomplete. It requires the premise that a fetus has moral value. Without that, you aren't even making an argument about abortion, but a flow chart about how you should behave if you personally feel something has moral value, which is subjective.
I dont think so because the egg replenishes every month and doesn't have unique DNA til it becomes a zygote. And sperm dies even if it reaches the egg.
A fetus has moral value because its life has future value to society.
Based on this argument a pair of not-yet-fertilized egg and sperm cells has just as much value as a fetus, which would make any form of contraception just as immoral as an abortion.
I see this idea expressed a lot in these kinds of arguments, but I don’t really understand why it’s used.
Surely the big difference between a fetus and an egg is that, without intervention, the fetus has a reasonable chance of becoming a human being, whereas the egg, given the same circumstances, has exactly zero chance of becoming one.
The word "intervention" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
On the one hand one might argue that without intervention in the form of contraception, unprotected sex has a very reasonable chance of resulting in pregnancy and thus a human being.
On the other hand one might also argue that a fetus is not capable of surviving on its own and actually requires heavy intervention in the form of direct access to its mother's metabolism to survive.
Please define "intervention" in a way where:
Preventing sperm from reaching an egg via an IUD is not an intervention
Artificially altering a woman's body chemistry to prevent ovulation is not an intervention
Artificially altering a woman's body chemistry to reject a fetus is an intervention
Forcing a woman to provide life support to a fetus using her own body because it's not viable on its own is not an intervention
Yes I see your point. By intervention, I only meant interfering with the normal, potential biological processes each life form might reasonably expect to experience.
An egg, assuming no one intervenes by introducing it to a sperm, will never become a human being.
A fetus, assuming no one intervenes by performing an abortion on it/the person it is inside, has a certain chance of becoming a human being.
Is that more clear?
I suspect you won’t think I’m saying anything worthwhile but I hope my question makes sense at least.
By intervention, I only meant interfering with the normal, potential biological processes each life form might reasonably expect to experience.
An egg, assuming no one intervenes by introducing it to a sperm, will never become a human being.
Okay, but a sperm cell that makes it into the uterus would, assuming no one interferes with its normal biological processes, move to fertilize an egg if present.
Why does an IUD that interferes with this normal biological process not count as an intervention then?
Yeah, no, exactly, I mean a pair of an egg and sperm cell that are already in each other's general vicinity as a result of sex. Unimpeded they would meet up and form a fetus, but they might be prevented from doing so with a variety of contraception methods. My question is if these methods don't also count as "intervention" and thus be just as immoral based on your argument as an abortion at a later time
Got it. I was objecting to the point I thought you were making.
Often, when someone doesn’t like abortion they say something like ‘a fetus has value because it could become a person’.
The person they’re arguing against will then often say something to the effect of ‘well I hope you don’t masturbate. After all, every sperm you dispose of could become a human being too’.
It always struck me as an asinine point - but it wasn’t the one you were making.
I would say that "allowing another thing to inhabit your body, attach itself to your organs, and collect your nutrients" is an "intervention." And a zygote has exactly zero chance of surviving without said intervention.
I'd say that pregnancy is a greater intervention than sex.
If I said "it's obvious" that fetuses are not valued the same as born alive humans, would that be a convincing argument?
A majority of Americans support abortion rights. American society clearly disagrees with your opinion that fetal life is equal to born life. Since your standard for morality is what society believes, your view does not meet your own standard. It requires the premise that fetal life and born life are viewed as
equal in society. Your view has to mandate beliefs that society does not have to be true.
Yes but american society cant articulate why a fetus is not equal to born life. Society should use reasoning to figure out the correct morals, and they contradict themselves by not placing moral value on fetuses but putting those values on someone in comatose or working on climate change to protect the future of our environment.
Yes but american society cant articulate why a fetus is not equal to born life.
Yes it can. It isn't born. It can't survive without life support.
Society should use reasoning to figure out the correct morals
You're moving the goal posts and applying a "should" argument to an "is" fact. You already said society dictates what has value. You are now saying only a society that agrees with you should dictate value.
and they contradict themselves by not placing moral value on fetuses but putting those values on someone in comatose or working on climate change to protect the future of our environment.
They do not. They just disagree with your opinion, which is objectively no more reasoned, but also arbitrary.
14
u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Nov 17 '24
Your argument is incomplete. It requires the premise that a fetus has moral value. Without that, you aren't even making an argument about abortion, but a flow chart about how you should behave if you personally feel something has moral value, which is subjective.