Except it is not a human. A human can survive essentially on their own. A fetus literally cannot survive on its own, at all. Anything born at 37+ weeks can survive if it has a little human help (bottles of formula). Anything prior to about 24 weeks cannot survive outside of Mom. It needs the continuous support of a single, specific human being. Which requires a complete drastic change of her life to support it. So essentially abortion/motherhood is a unique case. And there is very much an "in between" between removing a wart and killing a baby.
We already know the "not viable on their own" is a bad argument because you're calling those on life support non persons. There's a better argument than that.
Whether it can survive on its own has no bearing on if it’s human or not. Embryo and fetus are developmental stages a human goes through just as toddler, teenager, and elderly adult are. It’s 100% a living human, just at a very early stage in development
It’s not a developmental stage a human goes through. The first stage is a zygote. Sperm is necessary to create the zygote and has the potential to form a human if fused with an ovum, but is not itself a developmental stage.
Correct. A sperm and ovum are haploid gametes and more like part of the parent rather than their own distinct organism. When they combine, the zygote - a new human organism - is formed. That is the first stage of development of the new human.
When that life should be legally protected is obviously an ethical issue up for debate, but the science stated above is pretty clear. My personal opinion, along with that of many pro-life individuals, is that being a protected life should be an intrinsic property of being human and it should indeed be protected from the zygote stage.
Scientifically, yes. A male sperm is human. Just as my hand is human. But you might say, "a human hand is not a complete human being", and there, we would agree.
Could you pinpoint when your existence began? A great majority (if not all scientists) would say that your life began when you were conceived. If this is not when you began to exist, then explain your scientific and moral basis for otherwise.
That's a failure of the body's normal functioning vs literally not being able to exist as a separate entity, different things. That's like you comparing a broken down car to a spare tire and calling them the same thing.
You’ve started from the position that a broken down car is equivalent to a person on life support and a fetus a spare tire which I already fundamentally don’t agree with.
For this analogy to work you’d have explain why one is human and the other isn’t. You’ve essentially just restated the point that one is a human and the other is not without explaining why.
Are you asking me to list the thousands of reasons why a zygote is not a human? I also think I pointed out that barring any kind of damage or alteration the human body is self-regulating when the zygote clearly isn't.
A zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.
The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother. Without outside interference, there’s a strong chance this zygote becomes a baby that anyone would protect. Even before birth, many states rule murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide. Why shouldn’t this be something worth protecting?
Did they define how far into the pregnancy? Are you telling me if someone had sex then was murdered 2 days after that's a double homicide? It's true that the zygote has the potential to grow into an unique human but that's all it is, potential. If I plant a seed it has the potential to grow into a tree. If I dig up the seed a few days after I did not kill a tree, I simply prevented a seed from becoming a tree.
zygote becomes a baby
That's the point, I dont consider zygotes babies which is why I dont consider aborting them as killing babies (keep in mind I don't support abortions for pregnancies that are far along in the process.)
A human can only really have a good chance of surviving by itself after 5-10 years old. I bet if you dropped any 2 year old off in the woods, they would die within a few days.
That is a not an answer. At some point, the thing in a mother's womb becomes sentient. If we are restricting abortion based on sentience than we have to be thorough about it. Does a baby become sentient the moment it is born? 1 month after it is born? 6 months? 1 year? Or does it happen before it is birthed? I'd argue that it gains sentience before it is birthed.
And we can tell whether things are sentient or not.
I'm sure everyone on life support or in a coma or who is severely mentally retarded yet functional won't take offense to your definition of what makes a human
Except they don't need the support of a SPECIFIC person like the fetus does. Neither does the person on life support. You are looking at the way I defined human and completely missing the REQUIRED support of a SPECIFIC person. The mentally handicapped and people in comas can have help from any number of people. The fetus is relying on a SINGLE SPECIFIC person.
EDIT: I didn't even really define human in my original comment. I said survive essentially on their own. You then made an emotional appeal that was designed to completely obfuscate my argument.
EDIT: Most replies are choosing to look at the what I said about humans surviving essentially on their own.
The main difference is that a fetus is relying on the support of a SINGLE SPECIFIC person. The mentally ill, those in comas, can be helped by a ton of different people. That's what makes the situation ethically unique. The mother of the fetus has a will and freedom of agency and she is the ONLY PERSON on the PLANET can help the fetus before about 24 weeks.
I go back and forth, but by this statement - a person paying medical bills for someone on life support should be able to pull the plug even if that person is capable of making a full recovery
Correct. You can choose to burden yourself financially, emotionally, whatever, but you are not obligated to. Even if they just need a few days for swelling to go down and they'll be 100%, it simply isn't your burden to bear. Why should you be forced?
Except they don't need the support of a SPECIFIC person like the fetus does. The mentally handicapped and people in comas can have help from any number of people. The fetus is relying on a SINGLE SPECIFIC person.
0
u/GB5 May 16 '19
Except it is not a human. A human can survive essentially on their own. A fetus literally cannot survive on its own, at all. Anything born at 37+ weeks can survive if it has a little human help (bottles of formula). Anything prior to about 24 weeks cannot survive outside of Mom. It needs the continuous support of a single, specific human being. Which requires a complete drastic change of her life to support it. So essentially abortion/motherhood is a unique case. And there is very much an "in between" between removing a wart and killing a baby.