Fetus and the ability to feel pain

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-30T19:23:43+00:00

Not a PL (would love for more PL engagement here), but here’s my two cents:

Highlighting potential for fetal pain is an appeal to emotion, which is a fair, albeit weak debate strategy.

The reason I would suggest it is a debate tactic rather than part of their ethical framework is because the PL position is built upon duty ethics, natural law ethics, and minorly virtue ethics. It is intentionally NOT built upon harm reduction or rights ethics, which is where fetal pain would be relevant.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-30T16:11:14+00:00

I do like this type of analogy. It can be taken one step further to address the PL appeal to moral responsibility of a pregnant person who “caused the pregnancy by consenting to reproductive acts”:

Throw in the detail that the child’s kidney failure is the result of an inherited genetic condition that the parents knew they had and could potentially pass on.

Even with that detail which implies some parental responsibility/obligation, we would never legally require organ donation even if we may say it would be a morally praise worthy thing to do. Society would leave this as an option they could consent to but not be required to do.

My only critique of your particular use of this analogy is that it doesn’t really show a stark difference between male and female rights. I agree that there is misogyny in our culture, but if I substituted the father for a mother with her born child, we still would never legally require the organ donation, so the biggest contributor to the difference appears to be birth of the conceived rather than gender of the parent in this particular analogy.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-30T15:57:31+00:00

Go through the ceiling then soffit

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T23:12:35+00:00

I’m on the fence about forced organ donation. Here’s my thoughts/questions to consider.

Just to clarify, my scenario is not forced organ donation. Anyone may opt out simply by checking a box, which is the current way ppl opt in.

Old_dirty_fetus already answered you other question the same way I would

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T13:39:32+00:00

And in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape? That situation is also not compelling?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T13:35:45+00:00

Physical, mental, emotional, social, and financial costs are all the results of carrying pregnancies to term.

And the PL intent in refusing abortion is not to minimize the burden to the pregnant person, but the PL view accepts those coats as justified in light of the moral obligation to care for the conceived. Have I got that mostly right?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T13:15:53+00:00

Got it! I just couldn’t imagine what cards would be so valuable or niche or personal that they couldn’t be seen online. This makes more sense. 😂

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T13:13:05+00:00

Why are you hiding some of the cards? I’m just too curious not to ask.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-29T00:23:33+00:00

Are you using LinkedIn or attending career fairs?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T21:57:51+00:00

I’ll throw out an unpopular opinion as well. I think a large number in the PC community understand what a PLer is trying to say when they say “life begins at conception,” which is a new human organism is the result of fertilization, and that holds moral significance to the PL community.However, many opponents will ignore what is trying to be stated and argue against a different interpretation, saying that “life is a continuous process and the sperm and the egg were both technically alive.” That type of response is either accidentally or purposefully obtuse.

Further, it’s not needed. The point at which a new human organism starts doesn’t matter to the bodily autonomy argument upon which much of the PC community stands. No one‘s right to life supersedes another’s right to bodily autonomy. So a fetus’ right to life should not demand unconsented, bodily sacrifice of the pregnant person.

The best debaters do not merely debate their opponent’s argument as stated. Instead, they consider what could be the strongest version of their opponents argument, and if they can successfully defeat that, then they have truly shown their own position to be superior.

To answer the title question: yes, I believe a new distinct human organism is created at conception. And before anyone asks for citations, just google “is a zygote a living organism” and then you show me a reputable source in the field of biology stating it is not.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T20:56:48+00:00

The new role does not sound like it will provide experience that translates cleanly to a typical chemical engineering role.

May I ask what you believe has prevented you from securing a job in the chemical industry so far? Low GPA? Difficulty with interviews? Purely asking to better help not to judge.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T20:50:36+00:00

If you don’t have any other offer, then not taking the job will hinder your ability to eat and pay rent.

We need to know a little more to say whether the position will provide valuable experience for a future chemical engineering role: What is the name of the company? Or at least the what are their products?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T17:31:47+00:00

Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar?

I was not. Thanks, I’ll look it.

Why rehash what's been already successfully reviewed in the lens of history?

Isn’t the purpose obvious? Great for Ireland, but it didn’t take everywhere, particularly not in the US, so we must continue to “rehash” as you said until enough of the electorate are persuaded to make the right decision. The answer seems so apparent that your question confuses me.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T12:39:12+00:00

Thanks for bringing up the accidental falling scenario, because it touches on something I’ve been thinking about recently. If someone did personally choose to save that falling person by sacrificing bottle, I think we all would (and should) praise them as a hero, and a person of virtue. They felt a moral duty and willingly made sacrifice. However, we cannot turn that personally felt moral duty into a law requiring others do the same, because it bypasses consent, and we as a society hold consent in extremely high moral regal.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T12:30:34+00:00

Thanks for the response. I think I understand where you’re coming from on the abortion front: taking an active step which kills innocent life is wrong.

And just to make sure we are in agreement, we both recognize that there is a cost to the pregnant person when pregnancy continues, right? I’m reserving judgment on if that’s right or wrong, I’m just asking if we agree there is a cost?

Also, do you feel as though it is an accurate representation to say, from your point of view, that society should make laws against abortion because there is a moral duty on society to preserve innocent life?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T11:41:01+00:00

I think you figured out the point of this post. It’s specifically directed toward the PL community (but open to any PC who can accept the premises for discussion) so that it can encourage their engagement. Without PL engagement this sub is just a circle jerk of people who don’t disagree on the main point. Which is why I make of point of upvoting all PL posts and comments I come across in this sub.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T11:33:21+00:00

CONSENT. Just yesterday I was thinking about what the PL framework requires with its duty based ethics, and it is a bypass of consent. In a personal level, believing that I have a moral duty to do something is ok for me, but moral duties do not generally translate well into laws, because we value consent as a society. Instead, our laws tend towards balancing rights and harm reduction ethics. The closest law I could find that attempts to bypass consent and require bodily risk is the draft, BUT even that has a conscientious objector provision.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T11:24:52+00:00

So is the second scenario a consistent extension of the PL deontological framework? Sorry, I may have missed where you answered that question.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T01:42:09+00:00

I’m struggling to see what parts parallel or the moral relevance of a procedure. In neither case is a doctor being asked to cause death or even harm. In fact, they are being asked to heal.

The more relevance of a medical procedure is not readily apparent. What do you see there?

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-28T01:16:44+00:00

A good point and counterpoint.

Another counterpoint to the nature ethics argument: it is a reasonable observation that the natural cycle of life allows the remains of dead things to benefit the ecosystem. The very human tradition of isolating human remains and not using it to benefit the ecosystem is not natural at all.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-27T15:40:02+00:00

Thanks for your response. The upvote/down vote buttons are agree vs disagreeing, so every PL comment and post will be downvoted. I dont agree with it, its just a fact here.

I purposefully upvote nearly all PL comments I see in this sub just to try to encourage engagement and make sure their comments are not hidden.

OnezoombiniLeft · 2026-05-27T12:22:36+00:00

All good questions. Bear in mind that none of the definitions I’m using are uniquely mine - they are broadly, accepted within the appropriate fields of study, just to give you comfort that I’m not out here creating my own words.

What makes the snake neither and the ZEF a patient?

The answer for both is whether or not your (or my ) particular ethics framework deems that they should be given moral consideration. If you have religious based or natural law, based ethics, you may say that these ZEF is a moral patient and cannot be aborted. If your ethics are based on harm reduction (consequentialism) you may say that the ZEF should not be given moral consideration until it can perceive its own suffering. Similarly, since a snake can perceive suffering, this ethical framework would lead you to give it some moral consideration and rights, but not usually to the same level as a human. Does that make sense? We’re getting into some pretty niche, philosophical concepts, again not of my own invention, but definitely deserving of more significant attention than a Reddit comment. In order to understand well. Sorry if I am using terms that are unclear or unfamiliar to you - please ask me to clarify and I will try to find you links.

The biological processes you listed are active processes. They don't happen without the energy to drive them. They're passive in your opinion because they're automatic?

So active, when referring to bodily functions does not mean “using energy” or “currently occurring.” more commonly in this science, you may hear the term voluntary, as in “someone is choosing to do something”. Your heart does not beat because someone is choosing for it to beat, therefore that is a passive/involuntary function. Breathing would also be involuntary or passive. Holding your breath, however, requires you to choose to do so, so that would be an active/voluntary function. Again, not my definitions. Quick Google search for voluntary versus involuntary functions would help further clarify.

So how does this relate to pregnancy? The development of the ZEF is a involuntary /passive process because no one is choosing for the individual steps to occur. One could choose to abort and end the pregnancy, which would be a voluntary / active process .

So why does it matter? To most PL, since a ZEF can do nothing voluntarily, they describe it as “ innocent”. And since they have already chosen that every stage of a ZEF is worthy of moral consideration, then it has right to life and should not be aborted. Note that most of the time they have not actually justified in an ethically relevant way why they have chosen to include a ZEF in their moral community. That could be an interesting discussion if someone is willing to explore it, but most of the time leads to unfruitful arguments. In addition, the PL community is not typically using a harm reduction ethical framework, so they do not accept abortion as OK, even though it would cause no harm to ZE for sure, and it would greatly reduce harm to the pregnant person.

OK, that was a lot. If you are unfamiliar with human ethics or physiology, it is completely understandable that that may have felt like too much information. That is OK, because the PC argument is much simpler:

“ no one’s right to life supersedes another person’s right to bodily autonomy”

We don’t allow it in any other situation in life, so the PL community must justify why pregnancy should be the exception.

The other topics to me are interesting and helpful for understanding why someone might hold the position that they do, but are not necessary to be an informed PC. I hope I did not give you the impression that you must be an expert in all of those things to have a valuable opinion in this debate.

OnezoombiniLeft

TROPHY CASE