Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
mister_monster | 17 hours ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 There is a possibility that humans die by accident, from disease, we don't say that that means we can't objectively call them human or that because of this fact it is OK to kill them. Same with one developing in the womb. Nobody holds anyone responsible for an accident happening to somebody unless it's the result of negligence. I don't see any inconsistency here whatsoever.

By "uninterrupted" I mean deliberately interrupted.

> It doesn't live inside of another organism

This is irrelevant. Living inside another person is part of our natural life cycle. It's part of the nature of the human being, just as a butterfly spends time in a cocoon.

All the other details that you say make a baby human are the same as my examples earlier, it talks, it walks, they aren't the reason we call it a human. A baby on a feeding tube is still a human. If you use these as the criteria then of course it's going to be murky to you. Find the fundamental differentiator, not a list of most-of-the-time criteria with tons of corner cases and caveats and you'll see my point.

> If you don't think a baby's humanity is different than that of an unborn one and you think that that belief is objective, then how is a sperm or an egg not an unborn baby even before they meet?

I've told you already, the criteria that is most objective is, at what point in development does it occur that, if the process is not *deliberately* interrupted, more than likely it will result in a baby. That's the point you can call it a person. This precludes sperm, eggs, even fertilized embryos, most of which go unnoticed.
▲ ▼
au9913 | 17 hours ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 None of what your saying is objective fact. Again, I don't think abortion is wrong, but defining it at the moment of fertilization is not objective because personhood is not a scientific fact, it's subjective philosophy. 

And your point about uninterrupted process, is basically just a short hand for viability. Which has changing goalposts every decade. 

You dismissed my point about living inside of another organism because of circular logic btw
▲ ▼
mister_monster | 16 hours ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 > None of what your saying is objective fact. Again, I don't think abortion is wrong, but defining it at the moment of fertilization is not objective because personhood is not a scientific fact, it's subjective philosophy. 

I do thing abortion is wrong. I did not define personhood as the moment of fertilization.

The goal of subjective philosophy is to get closer to objective reality, saying that can never be achieved means saying that philosophy and morality are irrelevant. We can just define person hood however we want, throw pur hands up and say "welp, subjective!" and treat whoever we want however we want. That is obviously not our goal here. We are trying to find that place where it's immoral to snuff the zygote. I say, that place is when it's probably not going to spontaneously snuff itself.

> And your point about uninterrupted process, is basically just a short hand for viability. Which has changing goalposts every decade. 

No, it's not. "Moment of viability" is the point when the fetus could survive on it's own outside the womb. This is of course constantly changing with medical technology, and the moving goalposts are not just that, but things like "detectable heartbeat", "can it feel pain" etc, not just with viability, and usually by pro abortion people. I'm not talking about any of that, I'm talking simply, if left undisturbed, does this thing become a baby by itself. An egg, no. A sperm, no. A fertilized embryo, also no. So when? That's the answer to this question, "is it murder to stop the process of development?" Because that's what we are doing, we are trying to find an objective point when it does, you're saying it doesn't exist, but then you can objectively tell me that smothering a newborn is murder, I would guess you think that aborting the day before the due date is murder, those are objective facts, but at what point does it become murder, you say there's no objective measure of that. I'm saying that's not true, and not only that but that it is absurd, if you can claim that killing a human at any age is murder objectively then you can pinpoint when in the life cycle that becomes the case, and further I'm offering a coherent argument for a specific moment, a specific part of the process, not reliant on time or any of that, reasoning why I think that, if your only argument is "no that can't be it because there isn't one" youre arguing with the wind.

>You dismissed my point about living inside of another organism because of circular logic btw

Living inside another organism is part of our natural life cycle. To say it isn't a human being in that part of the life cycle is the actual inconsistent thing here. Humans are dependent as babies on their mothers for survival for quite a while, so should the mother be able to just not feed it? See, that's entirely inconsistent. As organisms, we live inside our mothers for a while. We are still organisms, and a specific type of organism, a human being.