History of Abortion in the U.S.A.

NxNW said:

Embryos don't have will, because they don't have the capacity for thought.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make them any less deserving of life though. If it did, a family member could justify killing an unconscious relative (knowing they'd fully well regain consciousness with a little time passing).

98cwitr said:

Doesn't make them any less deserving of life though. If it did, a family member could justify killing an unconscious relative (knowing they'd fully well regain consciousness with a little time passing).

Click to expand...

But the key difference is that your unconscious relative has had a conscious experience in the past and the underlying assumption is that this person would like to continue that experience after regaining consciousness.

An embryo doesn't have any consciousness and therefore nothing of value will be lost.

Skreeper said:

An embryo doesn't have any consciousness and therefore nothing of value will be lost.

Click to expand...

That logic doesn't play out for me because you're snapshotting "value" in time. You and I were embryos once too, so are you suggesting that we at one point in our existence had no value, whereas we now do?

And also wondering where, to an atheist (of which I once was for 25 years), the value of life comes from? What is the source of that value?

98cwitr said:

That logic doesn't play out for me because you're snapshotting "value" in time. You and I were embryos once too, so are you suggesting that we at one point in our existence had no value, whereas we now do?

Click to expand...

I value consciousness. Life without it means nothing to me, that's also why when a person is declared brain dead we don't artificially keep the body alive just because it's a "life".

When we declare a person dead when consciousness is permanently lost then I don't understand why we wouldn't use the same criteria for the beginning of life. Which means the beginning of consciousness.

98cwitr said:

And also wondering where, to an atheist (of which I once was for 25 years), the value of life comes from? What is the source of that value?

Click to expand...

Not interested in having this discussion with a theist. In my experience it never leads to anything.

For the sake of argument just accept that I generally do value life and move on.

98cwitr said:

Science says life begins at conception.

Click to expand...

Is that true for identical twins?

98cwitr said:

Doesn't make them any less deserving of life though. If it did, a family member could justify killing an unconscious relative (knowing they'd fully well regain consciousness with a little time passing).

Click to expand...

An unconscious relative is a human being that has been born and is considered a citizen and has experienced thought and sensory input, unlike an embryo.

Skreeper said:

You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of emotionally charged language.

You want us to agree with you that we should ban abortion? Focus on facts and arguments that are logically sound.

Click to expand...

Skreeper said:

But the key difference is that your unconscious relative has had a conscious experience in the past and the underlying assumption is that this person would like to continue that experience after regaining consciousness.

An embryo doesn't have any consciousness and therefore nothing of value will be lost.

Click to expand...

These two posts form an interesting contrast.

98cwitr said:

That logic doesn't play out for me because you're snapshotting "value" in time. You and I were embryos once too, so are you suggesting that we at one point in our existence had no value, whereas we now do?

Click to expand...

It's not about value; it's about status as a human being, and embryos lack that status.

NxNW said:

It's not about value; it's about status as a human being, and embryos lack that status.

Click to expand...

What makes a human embryo not human? They have human tissue and human DNA.

98cwitr said:

What makes a human embryo not human? They have human tissue and human DNA.

Click to expand...

Human tissue and a human being are two different things.

NxNW said:

It's not about value; it's about status as a human being, and embryos lack that status.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It is a human being, what it is not is a person. That is the distinction that the law makes.

98cwitr said:

What makes a human embryo not human? They have human tissue and human DNA.

Click to expand...

NxNW said:

Human tissue and a human being are two different things.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

I disagree. It is a human being, what it is not is a person. That is the distinction that the law makes.

Click to expand...

And that is why this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one.

RDKirk said:

And that is why this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one.

Click to expand...

I agree with that much!

Aldebaran said:

Not much different than how black people were human but not really persons back in the day. Now a human being in the womb is considered to be a "non-person" and therefore ok to be killed and sucked out of the womb in pieces. And they say the slippery slope idea is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense. Black people are considered human and persons now, so there's no slippery slope progression.

Aldebaran said:

Not much different than how black people were human but not really persons back in the day. Now a human being in the womb is considered to be a "non-person" and therefore ok to be killed and sucked out of the womb in pieces. And they say the slippery slope idea is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Much like how anyone whom is brain dead is not considered a person and can be allowed to die. Your continued attempts to conflate this with slavery is not helping your arguments.

Strathos said:

These two posts form an interesting contrast.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate please? I do not know what you mean.

Aldebaran said:

History recap: Slaves weren't considered to be as much of persons as white people. Got it? It allowed them to be treated worse as a result.

Today: Those still in the womb are considered to not be persons at all. It allows for them to be killed with no consequence.

Click to expand...

OK. You let us know when you convince a majority of Americans that a single cell is a person.