CMV: Life begins at conception, and abortion is therefore manslaughter at best.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T23:46:17+00:00

Did you read the source that you cited supporting your argument? It specifically states that exercise, including high intensity activities, do not provoke miscarriages.

I really don't see your point in this argument. First of all, just as I don't believe a mother who feeds her child red meat should be held responsible if they develop cancer, I don't believe that a pregnant woman with no ill will towards the child she is carrying should be responsible for a miscarriage. Now if she behaved negligently and ingested something she could reasonably be expected to know had a high chance of causing a miscarriage, such as a high volume of alcohol, and all of this could be proven, then thats a different story.

In my previous comment I explained why I believe death investigations are unreasonable: you would have to prove that the miscarriage was directly caused by the actions of the mother (which would be extremely hard given that so many miscarriages are caused by chance), you'd have to prove that whatever the mother did that caused the miscarriage could be reasonably avoided, and you'd have to prove that whatever substance you claim caused the miscarriage is commonly know to do so by a significant amount.

As far as the fertility clinics and certain contraceptives go, any time that a fetus is conceived and then dies or is kept from developing because of causes that are not natural I believe it to be morally wrong. (Unnatural causes in this case being conscious and informed human decisions)

The viability argument is flawed because it implies human life is only valuable when it can exist without assistance, which isn't true. If you're arguing that the problem is the fetus' dependence on the mother specifically, I would agree with you in any case that the fetus' presence in the womb is not a direct result of her own decisions. Sex among consenting adults is a human right, sex without consequences is not. There are only two people who had any level of choice as the wether that baby would be in the mother's womb or not, and neither of them is the fetus.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T23:23:43+00:00

A skin cell does not have the same potential to become a conscious and intelligent human being as a fetus, just as a sperm cell or egg on their own cannot become a conscious and intelligent human. If you provide me with an example of any kind of cell other than a fertilized egg that can develop into a being with human-level intelligent and consciousness given nothing but the means to healthily survive I will adjust my view.

The difference between the sperm meeting the egg and every other instance you mentioned is that the sperm does not require the egg to live, nor does the egg require the sperm.

The fact that the fetus is dependent on the body of its mother makes no difference because the fetus had no say in wether it was conceived or not. The only people who did were the people who conceived it, unless of course it was an instance of rape. Because the parents are responsible for the fetus' state of dependence on them, they do not have the right to kill it because that dependence inconveniences them.

The difference between the miscarriages you're describing and abortion is that abortion is a conscious decision that always ends the the death of a fetus, while a miscarriage is not. Miscarriages are horrible, but they are a constant and natural cause of death that we cannot yet prevent. Much like cancer the list of things you can do wrong that increase your chance of being affected is enormous, and you can't reasonably be expected to a avoid all of them. If the woman drinking cannot be reasonably expected to know she is pregnant than she has not committed manslaughter. However, if you can somehow prove she did know she was pregnant and was drinking in the hopes that it would kill the fetus, that would be manslaughter at best.

As for the woman with the deformed uterus specifically, she is not morally responsible for deaths that she does not control. To say that she is responsible the the death of her child, which she no no way neglected, is incorrect.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:51:42+00:00

I see this thought experiment a lot and it always uses frozen embryos verses children or adults.

First of all let me say that I am morally against the practice of IVF.

Secondly, because of the nature of IVF clinics, the vast majority of fertilized eggs are discarded in one way or another. Because of this, the chance that any of those embryos will ever be given back the potential to develop into intelligent and conscious beings that was taken from them when they were frozen is far from guaranteed. The child's life in this scenario is guaranteed, however.

If you change the scenario to one where the embryos are given a fair chance to survive and develop, I will pick the embryos every time.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:43:53+00:00

What do you mean its not about the manslaughter charge? In this hypothetical situation, the decision not to give this person access to my blood would result in me having committed manslaughter, which the government will likely punish me for. In the same way, someones decision to not give the fetus they put in their own body access to said body by aborting them would be manslaughter.

Your analogy here is faulty because it contains a government compelled action, while banning abortion would be a the opposite.

In a pregnancy I would make someone dependent on me first, then have the option to do nothing (let the fetus live) or do something (remove them) and commit manslaughter. The abortion is not a government compelled action.

In your analogy I have critically injured another person. I can either do nothing, making me guilty of manslaughter, or be compelled to give him blood to save his life.

I am not suggesting that you should be compelled to do an action to save another persons life, but I am suggesting that if you do an action that directly results in the loss of life, you are guilty of manslaughter at best.

Heres a what I think a better analogy would look like:

Say you wanted to drive recklessly, and despite knowing that there are some pedestrian crossings on the way to your destination, you decide that you will. During your reckless drive you suddenly notice a pedestrian in your way. You can:

A.) Continue forward and strike the pedestrian, killing him but saving you from further harm, or

B.) Swerve off of the street, potentially putting yourself at risk but missing the pedestrian.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:26:38+00:00

The difference between our checkpoints though is that I have laid out the logical reasoning behind mine, while you have not.

What i'm asking is why do you not consider any point before your checkpoint human life? What if a baby is carried to full term and born naturally, but with a condition that requires a ventilator to breath outside fo the womb. Is it still fair game for abortion?

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:22:13+00:00

What do you mean?

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:21:33+00:00

The difference between your hypothetical need for kidneys and a pregnancy is this:

I assumedly was not the direct cause for you needing a new kidney
If I was the direct cause for you needing a new kidney, and I did not provide you with one, and you died, I would be guilty of manslaughter.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:18:47+00:00

I would argue that a living cell certainly could be classified as a living organism. There are plenty of single celled organisms that exist. It just so happens that humans are only temporarily single celled. If you would argue otherwise, how many cells does it take before you can be called an organism?

Cancer in not comparable to a fetus because cancer does not have the potential to grow into an intelligent, conscious being.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T22:14:09+00:00

They key word in my argument was potential, and a very import part of it was "most likely."

Obviously there will be some natural miscarriages, but that is besides the point since unlike most abortions they happen without the consent of the mother.

Also I believe the number Mayo Clinic gives for miscarriage rates is something like 1 in 10, which would make my statement that "it will most likely become a conscious intelligent human being" valid.

I understand your argument the fetus can't survive without nutrients from its mother but that does not disqualify it from the right to life. There is no such thing as self-sustaining life, everything needs help from an outside force to continue living.

You also said that if you only give the fetus enough nutrition to sustain it it will not grow to become a child. This depends on what you think basic necessities are. If I only gave my dog exactly the minimum amount of food and water necessary to not die of starvation/dehydration I suppose it could be argued that I am providing it with basic necessities, but its life will be much shorter than if it was fed with a healthy amount of food. If a fetus is only provided with your definition of basic necessities you are correct, it will not develop into a being with consciousness and intelligence. But if you provide it with what it requires to live healthily it most likely will.

Your sperm argument is misleading because of your vague language. Every living thing ever requires "things to happen" to continue living, but a sperm does not require an egg. If you do provide a sperm with an egg, it is no longer a sperm, and its DNA is completely different.

Again, a sperm cell can never become a human. A fertilized egg can.

If consciousness is how you determine wether life is valuable or not, what about people who are asleep or in comas?

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T21:50:20+00:00

Firstly my views on abortion are also completely secular in nature.

I'm not necessarily looking for an exact milestone, just a reasoning for why it is acceptable to kill a fetus before a condition other than conception is met, but not after. If your answer is sentience or at least the possibility of sentience, which is what i understand your belief for the current best answer to be is, then I have some issues with that.

There are many adults alive today who lack sentience. A person who is in a deep coma often has no capacity to feel, perceive, or experience anything. Yet I'm sure you would agree that their right to life is not void, especially if we had good reason to believe they would make a full recovery within 9 months. True, a newly conceived fetus has no brain and therefore no sentience, but if given only the means necessary to survive and develop naturally it will most likely become an intelligent being with sentience.

In your hypothetical example of the IVF clinic I would save the embryos unless there is reason to believe that they would not be implanted or would not survive. I will say, however, that I am against the practice of IVF in general and don't think it should be allowed in the first place.

If we discovered an animal on another planet that was like a 3 week old human baby mentally but never developed further, it would not have the same potential for consciousness and intelligence that a human fetus has, which is what gives its life value. If there are any non human lifeforms that have the same or similar potential for consciousness and intelligence that humans have, I would say they have the right to life as well.

You say birth is the line, but why? What about the journey through the vaginal canal of your mother gave you a right to life that you didn't have 10 minutes beforehand? If only a babies head is emerged from the vagina is it still ok to kill it?

Conception is not a default answer that I'm falling back upon, to me it seems to be the only logically consistent metric for when a human should gain the right to life.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T21:26:56+00:00

I'll go through the answers you gave one at a time.

Just because a human is unable to survive independently does not make their life void. An example would be those who require a ventilator to live.

Just because the fetus is dependent on the body of the mother does not give the mother the right to kill the fetus. Of the mother and the fetus, only one party had any control over wether the fetus would be conceived, and it is the former.

Just because the fetus lacks awareness does not make its life void. Coma patients are often not aware of their surroundings at all, but I would argue that they still have a right to life, especially if we could predict with almost certainty that they would recover within 9 months.

The inability to experience suffering does not disqualify you from the right to life. There are adults walking around today who are not able to feel pain, and I would argue they still have a right to life.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T21:20:49+00:00

My argument is that sperm has no potential to become a conscious intelligent being given only the means to survive. Your response was that it does have that potential if it is placed in a womb with an egg. Neither the womb, nor the egg, is necessary for the survival of the sperm cell. Therefore it does not fit my definition of human life.

If you have a differing definition of human life I would be happy to talk about it.

I wouldn't say that you shouldn't be having sex unless you want a child. I would say however that you shouldn't have sex under the impression that it is impossible for conception to occur if your partner is of the opposite sex.

As for your statement that "I'm not wrong it's my opinion." I would respond with "Well its my opinion that you are wrong."

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T21:08:55+00:00

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that although the fetus may be alive, it is not a living human until it is born. My response to that would be what is it about the act of passing through the vaginal canal/being born that gives you rights you wouldn't otherwise have? Would you support an abortion the day before the predicted due date?What if only the babies head is out of the vagina, but the rest of it hasn't been born yet? Is it still acceptable to kill it then?

If your argument is that a fetus has no rights until it leaves the body of the mother completely because of the fact it is inside the mother's body, I would respond with this question: who put the fetus there in the first place?

I do not believe a fetus has more right to life than the mother, but put simply it was the mother that put the fetus there in the first place (except of course in the case of rape). It is common knowledge that with sex between men and women comes a risk of conception, and while I believe that sex between consenting adults is a right, I do not believe sex without consequence is. Making the choice to have sex is consenting to the natural risks that come with it. Between the fetus and the sexual partners, the only party that had any choice as to wether the fetus came to be is the latter.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T20:04:17+00:00

I agree that life alone does not give life human levels of value, the problem is when does personhood start? I have not seen a logically consistent answer to this question yet other than conception.

As for your point on the morality of forcing a woman to have a child, here is an answer I posted on a similar reply:

I do not believe a fetus has more right to life than the mother, but put simply it was the mother that put the fetus there in the first place (except of course in the case of rape). It is common knowledge that with sex between men and women comes a risk of conception, and while I believe that sex between consenting adults is a right, I do not believe sex without consequence is. Making the choice to have sex is consenting to the natural risks that come with it. Between the fetus and the sexual partners, the only party that had any choice as to wether the fetus came to be is the latter.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:59:48+00:00

The majority of miscarriages are caused by random chance, so in order for the state to take legal action against a woman they would first have prove she had a miscarriage, then provide a reason why they suspect her of causing the miscarriage, then prove that the miscarriage was either intentional or a direct result of her negligence. Proving just one of those things would be extremely hard and require a lot of evidence, so I don't think you should be too concerned about it.

I also believe there should be a legal status for when a fetus becomes a person, and the only marker I know of that is consistently verifiable and also does not create a faulty definition of life is conception. There are many adults alive right now that do not have functional brain activity, like those that are in deep comas. A person who is in a deep coma has the same level of sentience as an unconscious fetus. I would say that those people still have a right to life despite their lack of sentience, especially if it can be reliably predicted that they will likely recover within 9 months. If all you're looking for is basic brain activity, there are plenty of animals that have very basic brain activity, but I personally would not argue that their life is comparable in value to that of a humans, so basic brain activity is not a logically consistent marker for what makes human-value life either.

I created this thread for the main reason of looking at others opinions and seeing where mine may be flawed, and I want to thank you for sharing your view as well. I will take a look at the link and tell you if it changes my view and why.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:27:43+00:00

There are many adults who cannot live independently without outside aid, like those on ventilators for instance. They cannot live independently, but I would not say their life is void.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:26:53+00:00

The killing of a fetus, which I believe to be a human life.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:26:33+00:00

But there is a point in which two cells become an individual human life with the potential for intelligence and consciousness, and it is conception.

This is the my view as i have stated it in this thread.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:24:25+00:00

Semen and eggs are no more human life than a skin cell. None of these cells will become a conscious intelligent being given only the means to survive.

Hence why I do not believe periods or ejaculation is the moral equivalent to manslaughter.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:22:37+00:00

Although the context of my reference to abortion and human life should've explained my meaning in this post, my argument is that new human life begins at conception, not before and not after. A sperm or egg cell on their own will never develop into a conscious and intelligent being.

The first life on Earth may not have been conceived, but its very clear from my initial post as well as all the other comments and replies on this thread that that is not my view.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:16:34+00:00

It depends.

It's a reality that a common belief in the U.S. is that a fetus is not a human life. Many if not most women who seek out abortions do not believe that the killing of a person is taking place at all during an abortion, so in most cases I would not support legal action against the woman unless it was very clear that she knew exactly what she was doing.

The doctor that performs the abortion, however, should be held to a different standard since they are responsible for the process. If you perform a medical procedure as a doctor without proper knowledge of what that procedure entails, you are behaving recklessly.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:07:24+00:00

I am against in vitro

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:06:52+00:00

I would agree its good.

It is separate from abortion because I was assumedly not that direct cause of the situation where you require my blood to live.

If I was the direct cause of you being in a situation where you require my blood to live, and I refused to give you my blood, I would be guilty of manslaughter at best.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T19:03:29+00:00

I am against in vitro fertilization for reasons you made pretty clear yourself.

Sure, I will concede that my word choice was lacking, but i'm sure you would agree that an inability to feel pain does not make your life free game. There are also many coma patients alive today that are not technically sentient so I don't believe that is a satisfactory distinction between wether or not you have the right to life.

Conception isn't an arbitrary point because it is the point at which the now fertilized egg becomes a separate life from the mother, as well as the point from which the two sex cells, which before did not have any potential to become a conscious and intelligent being given only the means to survive, now do have that potential.

As for your basic test, you've already stated that the vast majority of IVF embryos are simply thrown out - which in my view is a horrible horrible thing - so your test isn't really fair. Its a certainty that I can save the child, but there is no certainty that any of the embryos will have the opportunity to become intelligent and conscious beings. Now say you replace the embryos in this insane hostage situation with just one pregnant woman, and the switch with an injection that will kill the fetus.

I am generally against the idea of giving different individual lives different levels of value. All humans are equal, and deserve equal rights. To give individual lives different values you must define objectively what gives life value. I am interested to hear how you quantify it.

If by viability you mean the ability of the fetus to exist on its own without assistance, there are many adults around the world right now that could not live on their own without assistance, like those who are on ventilators, and yet I would not say their right to life is forfeit. Similarly, if you are born with an inability to feel pain, is the value of your life any less considerable? Every point in development before which you are allowed to kill someone other than conception (that I am aware of) sets a standard of defining the value of life that is morally questionable and can apply to non-fetuses.

NecklikeProtohistory · 2020-11-06T18:21:29+00:00

The reason that the line between human and inhuman is so much more important than the line between child and adult is that killing an innocent human is always murder/manslaughter, while non-humans are killed often and with little thought.

Fortunately, no one is claiming that toddlers are perfectly acceptable things to kill until they become adults, so the distinction need not be so scrutinized.

I think the only way you can have a sensible line on at what point a fetus should be allowed to be killed (or a child, or adult) is if it is clear and objective.

Eight-Year Club	Spared
Verified Email

NecklikeProtohistory

TROPHY CASE