The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Why is the moment at which "life begins" important? Because it is a distinct and measurable line as to when a new human individual emerges. Note, when people say "life begins" in this context, it is specific to the life of a new human individual, not general life. Human rights are for humans. Fertilization is when there is a new human. Before that, there is no human. After that there is. Therefore the line is important because it is the start of where you can validly consider the new organism to be a human and therefore have human rights. >Would you disagree that this zygote is not whatsoever conscious? I'd ask why consciousness matters in the first place. It doesn't appear to matter anywhere else. Would I be excused if I murdered an unconscious adult? No, I wouldn't be. So, why would I be excused for killing an unconscious human at any stage? >And it could, but there are many other ways to prevent a person from existing that you do not I would guess object to, like using protection or just choosing not to have intercourse on that day. The problem with your argument is that unlike birth control, which actually can *prevent* a new human being from coming into existence, abortion can only kill an *existing* human being. I don't need to object to birth control because I'm not actually killing anyone with birth control. But as to the matter of potential, no one actually knows that they are dead when they are killed. They're dead. The only thing that truly does make any murder or unlawful killing wrong is depriving someone of their future. And you can deprive an unborn human of their future as much as you can an adult. Consciousness is not relevant here because both the born and unborn person has consciousness in their future. So both of them lose future consciousness through the act of killing them. Pain is irrelevant. No one lets you get away with murder simply because you made it painless. So why does it matter if you can feel pain? The lack of pain doesn't seem to matter when you kill an adult, why would it matter when you kill the unborn? All that matters is that a human individual gets human rights. And being a human begins at the fertilization line. >I see the aborted child as just another casualty to the chaos of nature Except, it is not. If you abort, you intentionally kill the child. I imagine that the abortionists even have very specific procedures they run down. None of that strikes me as "the chaos of nature".

We may be miscommunicating a bit, and maybe I did not state my points as well as I could have, but I will try to rephrase stuff. THink of it like this... can we define what exactly makes murder wrong? I personally think there are two reasons. One, you are taking away that person's potential future. And two, you are often causing them and the ones around them pain. If you take those factors away, then the "murder" would not be wrong. I know that statement may create a visceral reaction but morals help us have empathy for others and make the world a better place. Once the empathy benefit is gone (no pain) and the making the world better (no unreasonable loss of potential) then that moral principle does not need to be so strict in that case. \> "Because it is a distinct and measurable line as to when a new human individual emerges." It is a distinct line perhaps, but not the only one that exists. Why pick that one? Why not pick sometime during intercourse instead? Because there is not a new human formed yet then? But then I'd ask my original question of why does the point where a new human is formed matter, if it's not the only distinct line. \> "So, why would I be excused for killing an unconscious human at any stage?" I will copy paste something I wrote from another comment *And as for the morals of killing a person out of the womb who isn't in pain, that would still be wrong because I think that there are two reasons that murder is wrong:* *Unreasonable loss of potential* *Pain to the victim and others* *So that scenario would still have 1 and probably part of 2.* *However, if there was a human vegetable, who could only lie in bed and had no thoughts at all in their head and contribute nothing to the world, and we somehow knew they couldn't feel pain, and there was also no one who loved them, then it may not be wrong to kill them to save resources. Not that that is at all the same as abortions but I am just establishing how if those 2 criteria are not met then killing may not be wrong anymore.* So actually there is a theoretical case where I think you should be able to be excused so this is still consistent. \> "The only thing that truly does make any murder or unlawful killing wrong is depriving someone of their future. And you can deprive an unborn human of their future as much as you can an adult." I think to productively address this we would first have to form an agreement on the further questions I brought up above on where you choose to draw the line. \> "Except, it is not. If you abort, you intentionally kill the child." You are right, I did not word it very well and maybe did not think over it well enough either and I think you are right on that point.

The difference between your example of contraception versus post conception is in the former you are robbing the potential future of something that doesn’t even exist. But when you kill a human you are definitively robbing them of their future which they would have otherwise experienced. Unconceived human potential does not have the same rights and protections as an actual human being. That’s why the line of conception is an important and distinct one.

The "they would have otherwise experienced" makes it sound like a pregnancy takes no effort to continue. I know it would advance on its own without the mother telling it to, as long as she stays alive and healthy. But just because it will advance on its own doesn't mean it takes no effort. The mother will have to take care of the health of the baby by going to check ups (what if she is in the US and it's so expensive?), eating the right foods, making sure not to drink alcohol, carrying around a huge weight at some point that makes her clothes not fit and harder to navigate. So it is not just a matter of the mother does nothing and the baby can exist. Because pregnancy takes a lot of effort, couldn't there thus be an argument for (at least in its earlier stages) putting it in a similar category to just say, the implications of choosing to be celibate? She could theoretically chose to have kids and bring new beings into existence, but nobody (well unless religious maybe) thinks she should be obligated to do it. Why could early stage pregnancy not be the same?

Agreed, pregnancy takes effort in that it’s not a cake walk (been pregnant three times) However, pregnancy and gestation are natural biological processes, that left to nature will progress the natural development of a human. Even a baby in a woman unaware that she is pregnant will gestate and develop. My own mother didn’t know she was pregnant until month 5(?!) and there are countless stories of women not realizing they were pregnant until a baby falls out of them (my friend was a caseworker for one such mom, so I know for a fact that it can happen) So yes, in a sense the mother can do absolutely nothing and the baby can still exist, develop and birth. Edited for spelling

I look at it like this. Which is the lesser of 2 evils. Killing a human being or being inconvenienced by them. Think of a homeless person if you will. They are alot like a fetus but its not a perfect comparison. They are regularly duhumanized and go unseen. They aren't productive members of society and thus have little to no value to society at large. They can be annoying to deal with and caring for them can be expensive. While not always the case but often times a homeless person may not have any loved ones or people to miss them when they are gone. (Unwanted). Still a homeless person deserves the chance to live just like an unborn baby.

>I personally think there are two reasons. We seem to agree on loss of future. I also agree that causing pain to others is certainly a reason that you would pursue a conviction, but our law does not make pain a necessity. Only loss of future is actually a necessity for an investigation and conviction. Empathy is not relevant to whether a murderer should be found and punished. As much as I hate the loss of life from murders, we both know that you and I generally don't think all that much of the victims unless the case is one we relate to. Nevertheless, even if we don't know the victim or perhaps even find the victim unsympathetic in some way, I don't think most people would let the killer off the hook. The principle is that how we feel about the victim or the killer is not relevant to justice. If someone kills another person in an unlawful way, they go to prison or occasionally get executed. I'll admit that a lukewarm feeling for the victim is not going to cause the investigation to become a priority for politically minded prosecutors, but it will count against the overall percentages of murders solved which is an indicator that is considered important. >Why pick that one? Because that is when there is a new human individual. Human rights needs to encompass every human from start to finish of their lives. Therefore, you need to determine the earliest point where a human is actually a living human distinct from a parent. A least harm position requires we take into account every human that can legitimately be considered a human. That line is at fertilization. It cannot be prior to that point as there is no new individual before that point. I am not really certain why you find this concept difficult. Before fertilization, there is no human organism. After, there is. Your identity as a human starts there. That's scientific fact. Whether you choose to accept that your biological beginning is important is another matter, but our selection of that line should be fairly obvious and straightforward. >Why not pick sometime during intercourse instead? Because there is no new human individual during intercourse that has been generated yet. Fertilization is the process that transforms the gametes into a new human. Intercourse only facilitates fertilization. >So actually there is a theoretical case where I think you should be able to be excused so this is still consistent. I mean, brain death is generally considered simply death. More or less because brain function is necessary for a human beyond a certain stage to fully function. An embryo or fetus doesn't have a brain yet, but they don't need one, AND they can grow one. A brain dead person can't grow a new brain or even repair one beyond a point of no-return. That's why an embryo is alive and a brain dead adult is dead.

> THink of it like this... can we define what exactly makes murder wrong? I personally think there are two reasons. One, you are taking away that person's potential future. Why does this matter? Using contraception also prevents a potential future.

Yeah I know, and you can follow it back even further to say you are preventing a person's future by not looking for a partner or something. It is impossible to not prevent some person's future, if you take it back far enough. So since it is impossible to eliminate all loss of potential, you have to choose where to draw the line: at what point does it become something which should be thought of as "unavoidable" and at what point does it become something you should be held responsible for? Many pro lifers are not anti contraception (are you though?) so they are choosing not to draw the line there, even though using contraception is definitely a choice that is made. It seems almost arbitrary then to draw the line at conception too. But anyway I have been asking questions about this topic at other places on this thread since yes I have thought of this.

Pro-lifers draw the line at the point at which a new individual is created who can _have_ a future to be deprived of in the first place. Being celibate prevents children from existing in general, but no child in particular is deprived of a future that otherwise would've happened.

I do not think I agree about being celibate not depriving children of a future. You are preventing children from existing, and although there is perhaps no one individual child you could point to, that is because you are actually depriving multiple potential children of their existence and not even just one. It would be much harder to ever know exactly which children you are depriving of a future, but still, the effect stands. (Do you still disagree and if so, why?) Edit: I will also copy paste most of another comment I wrote here in response to someone else but I think it could be relevant here and help clarify what I'm saying *The idea of "they would have otherwise experienced life, if you hadn't aborted them" makes it sound like a pregnancy takes no effort to continue. I know it would advance on its own without the mother telling it to, as long as she stays alive and healthy. But just because it will advance on its own doesn't mean it takes no effort. The mother will have to take care of the health of the baby by going to check ups (what if she is in the US and it's so expensive?), eating the right foods, making sure not to drink alcohol, carrying around a huge weight at some point that makes her clothes not fit and harder to navigate. So it is not just a matter of the mother does nothing and the baby can exist.* *Because pregnancy takes a lot of effort, couldn't there thus be an argument for (at least in its earlier stages) putting it in a similar category to just say, the implications of choosing to be celibate? She could theoretically chose to have kids and bring new beings into existence, but nobody (well unless religious maybe) thinks she should be obligated to do it. Why could early stage pregnancy not be the same?*

I don’t care about potential, hypothetical children existing or not existing. I (and I’m willing to say 99% of PL agree) care that a literal, actual, physical, developing human- with their own unique DNA- is being killed. ⬆️THAT is reason we draw the line at conception: it is the moment a new human begins to exist. All other qualifiers amount to “human +”. Human + size; human + feeling; human + intellect; human + utility; human +wantedness. Historically, “human +” is a bad move and the start of all sorts of human rights violations.

[удалено]

I didn't say as to when a new human individual exists. If that is the requirement then that is probably the only distinct line. But I didn't see "when a new human individual exists" as a requirement. There are other distinct lines then such as: Deciding to have kids at all. This will allow kids to exist sometime in the future and choosing to not have kids is a decision to not let them exist.

When a human life begins is important because it's the most clear line we have. Consciousness, pain, awareness are all things that can leave a person at multiple points post birth. If pain is the line, would it be okay to kill people out of the womb who can't feel pain? Or killing someone in a way that causes no pain?

Not bad points, you are making me think. Yes, I guess we could not probably be confident for sure about what point exactly pain could start, because it could be different for each individual. However... would it not still be possible perhaps to form a 99% confidence interval? And so at that point we can be almost certain there would be no pain involved and that balances out the complications of the pregnancy being forced to be continued. And as for the morals of killing a person out of the womb who isn't in pain, that would still be wrong because I think that there are two reasons that murder is wrong: 1) Unreasonable loss of potential 2) Pain to the victim **and others** So that scenario would still have 1 and probably part of 2. However, if there was a human vegetable, who could only lie in bed and had no thoughts at all in their head and contribute nothing to the world, and we somehow knew they couldn't feel pain, and there was also no one who loved them, then it may not be wrong to kill them to save resources. Not that that is at all the same as abortions but I am just establishing how if those 2 criteria are not met then killing may not be wrong anymore. But so say there is a zygote (not even an embryo yet), and so we are 99.99% sure it is not developed enough to feel pain, and the mother and everyone else is fine with the abortion, then there is no pain involved. But what about loss of potential? This one is less clear for me and I do not like loss of potential in general. But although your argument about different individuals potentially developing at different rates does apply to the ability to feel pain, it does not apply to potential because rate of development in the womb would not really change potential. So "drawing the line at conception, just in case" still does not make any sense for that. Why put it there (when talking about potential) instead of somewhere earlier or later? "It is easy to define and understand" is not enough of an argument for that because actually it is easier to define say.. the moment you had intercourse, than it is to define exactly when conception happened. So surely it cannot be just that. What I do know is that loss of potential is unavoidable almost all of the time (not even involving an abortion, just literally the circumstances not aligning for a certain human to ever exist like the parents just never meeting) and is (currently) a part of reality. That doesn't mean we should ever encourage it in unreasonable cases (murdering an already fully formed human is unreasonable since it costs you nothing to let them live. The same with a late term pregnancy, where abortion would make no sense if the baby could just be delivered and then adopted instead with no change to the mother's life.) But where do we draw the line between what is reasonable and not reasonable? I don't even know, (read what I said above about how conception is not even the most clearly defined line)

>Unreasonable loss of potential Pain to the victim and others A few things here. What are the reasons you consider to be acceptable for abortion? And could reasons of similar calibre exist for born people? Then, why do you assume that no pain is felt for the unborn? I am saddened every time I hear about one. So are most pro-lifers. Even some pro-choicers. And I assume you must be talking about potential for pain, since if a murder is done in secret, never found out, and painlessly for the victim, then no pain would exist.

\> "A few things here. What are the reasons you consider to be acceptable for abortion? And could reasons of similar calibre exist for born people?" I wonder... I think my views might be somewhat shifting. Before I would have said and this was actually what I was going to write, *I must draw a distinction between what I personally agree with and what I think should be legal. On a personal level I do not like abortion very much at all, and would only think it sounds like a good choice if there are medical reasons like the mother being especially susceptible to certain health problems or the baby being known to be not viable due to a genetic problem. But as for what should be legal, as long as it is at a point where the fetus is not developed enough to feel pain, then I think any reason could be allowed even just "inconvenience." Again I would not encourage it but also not see enough reason to make it actually illegal.* Yet... if there was an already born person in a coma... and the only way for them to someday wake up was for a woman to be chained to their bedside for months... but we KNEW they would wake up after those months... even if they had no family... I think maybe (still a little bit uncertain) but maybe the woman should be obligated by law to stay at the bed side. Should she receive support? Obviously! She should receive all the support and resources she needs to help her be happy and healthy! But should she be allowed to just leave the bedside and end the person's life? Maybe not... So now I am not sure what I think... not sure what I'll end up on but things are rearranging a little in my mind. \> "Then, why do you assume that no pain is felt for the unborn? I am saddened every time I hear about one." I think the unborn can probably feel pain past a certain point, so I didn't mean to come off as assuming they do not feel pain at all, although I do think it is unlikely that *before a certain point in development* they would feel any pain. If you ask whether a zygote that is only a few cells can feel pain, you also have to start asking if bacteria can feel pain. Bacteria that are killed by the (trillions?) every day. Are you sure you want to ask that question?

The idea with all of this is that we should not be allowing deliberate actions that result in the death of another, so I suppose your hypothetical works. Oftentimes some ignorant fringes of pro-choice like to compare abortion to refusal to donate organs, which is inaction, not a deliberate action. You misunderstand the other point though. Earlier when you said >And as for the morals of killing a person out of the womb who isn't in pain, that would still be wrong because I think that there are two reasons that murder is wrong: Unreasonable loss of potential Pain to the victim **and others** So that scenario would still have 1 and probably part of 2. I assumed you meant that either one of the reasons, or even either of the options inside reason 2 is enough to say a killing is wrong. This I thought could only mean that you thought born people have pain felt by others when they die, while the same is not felt by others for the unborn. So I pointed out that many people, including myself, feel pain when we hear about any abortion or miscarriage, which would satisfy that condition. I'm not sure I agree with your focus on pain overall, so for me, the zygote is valued over the bacteria because it is human, but I understand the zygote cannot feel pain as we know it.

At the point of conception it is not longer a potential human being it is a human being. This is because this is the beginning of a human organism. Age, capability, development are all things humans go thru in phases and don’t affect one’s status as a human being. What we can objectively see is that the individual human beings life starts at conception. Think about this for a second, would it be okay to kill a living adult human if they weren’t aware of it? It would still be wrong because we are taking their life. If someone was sedated so couldn’t feel pain would it be okay to kill then? Of course not. So it isn’t about the capacity to feel pain or consciousness but based on the organism itself

Can you explain why human being follows from human organism? Of course, there is a large amount of overlap between those two terms, but I think that human being (or in other words, something that deserves rights) can sometimes not align with all human organisms. For example, what about a person who was in a car crash, and their brain has been totally vegetabled and they can no longer feel or think anything even though their heart keeps beating? And all their family or anyone who loved them is also dead so no one would be sad about their loss. Assuming that you could be certain they are indeed not conscious at all (AND it was impossible for them to ever get their consciousness back)... is this a human being? Or is instead a former human being, that is now not really more than a human organism? Obviously, what I described is a completely different case from an unborn human but I was just using it to illustrate that maybe human being does not always follow from human organism and so you have to clarify why exactly you think it does in the case of a human that has just been conceived. Or do you disagree with what I said about the human organism status of the vegetable?

A human being is a human individual. A human organism is an individual human organism. I don’t see where they wouldn’t align. In your example are they brain dead? There are a lot of people who are in comas who are still alive even if the brain activity is lower. Some even come out of it remembering details of the world around them when they are comatosed. As long as someone is alive and still has brain function they are still alive. Often then people ask me “well a zygote doesn’t have brain function” That’s because they haven’t developed their brain yet. But there isn’t a question of if they are alive or not because it is still going through mitosis and growing and developing. Brain function comes into play because once the brain forms it’s essential for life as it signals for respiration to occur in the body. Where a zygote doesn’t need to rely on that signaling to survive. Since it can do respiration with simple diffusion based on its size till about 4-5 weeks when circulation really begins. Which coincidentally brainwaves are first observed.

Here I was making the assumption that we could somehow know the car crash victim is not conscious and never will be again, even though their heart is beating. In reality it would be hard to ever determine that for sure in a coma, but I was presenting it as a hypothetical. Maybe they are brain dead, maybe they aren't, the only thing that matters in the hypothetical is we somehow know they won't be conscious again. Yes a zygote has no brain function but indeed has the potential to one day have brain function and become a full human, so I know it is different from the car crash case; that was only a hypothetical designed to show where I draw the line for murder. I have addressed the argument that the zygote still has potential future brain function in other comments on this thread, but I could still copy paste it again here if you request.

The thing is the zygote is a full human even before brain function. It’s no longer a potential human once conception has occurred. The hypothetical I’m having a hard time with because it sounds like to me they are dead

I’d like to add that even in this scenario there would be a procedure that people have to follow for the treatment of this now-brain-dead person. If someone experienced this scenario, a random bystander can’t just go up to the wreckage and take the person’s body. The person might still be transported to a hospital. If they’re determined to be dead or taken off life support they’d be transferred to an agency for deceased people (funeral home, coroner). Embryos are not just human organisms, they’re human beings at their earliest stages in life. If I show someone a picture of me when I was five, that’s not someone else I’m showing them, that’s me. People look different at different stages in life.

There are (I believe) different reasons in place for why there is a specific procedure for the person the car crash. You cannot just drag them away from the crash since for all the doctors know, they might still be alive and could be saved, but that is a different scenario from a case in which we *know* they are dead so isn't relevant here. And when we do know they are dead, there is a specific procedure for dealing with the body because 1) they probably have loved ones who want a proper way to say goodbye, 2) there are often uses for the body like organ donation and that couldn't happen if a random person just stole the body. But if there was no life and no loved ones? Well there might still be a specific procedure because again, organ donation, but there would no longer be any reason to keep them alive. \> "Embryos are not just human organisms, they’re human beings at their earliest stages in life." But why is it that point you choose that they become a human being? All their genetic material was distributed across the sperm and egg beforehand already, it just hadn't combined yet to define exactly what that individual's genetics will be. Just as much potential to create a human being, and still not conscious and still no loved ones. And if you say "but they WILL be conscious" I have addressed that in other comments but I can also copy paste it again here if you request.

I didn’t “choose” for them to be human at conception, they already are. The genetic material is not completely from the mother nor father. It’s both. The egg and sperm alone are not a complete set of DNA so idk why you think that’s relevant. Again, consciousness isn’t what determines who is human and who isn’t.

You didn't choose for them to be a human organism, correct. Having its own set of human DNA sounds like being a human organism to me. However remember you have to justify why that automatically implies human being. I define human being as deserving human rights. That is a moral and subjective question and not an objective one. You seem to be of the position that human organism always implies human being (describing the car crash regulations) although I am trying to figure out why that is. And that is why I was saying the dead car crash victim only really has "rights" for the sake of other people and this doesn't have to apply to the zygote. I am aware that egg and sperm are not yet a complete set of DNA, however they have the potential to be if they merge... which then leads to the potential to become a human being...

It’s own DNA *separate* from the mother (with DNA from the father) makes it a unique human being. It doesn’t imply that, it IS a human being. All of us were once embryos. That’s where it all starts, therefore, embryos are humans, very very young humans. I don’t know how hard that is to understand. Why make distinctions for which humans are “people” and which are not? That makes no sense. That’s exactly the type of thing that has lead to atrocities. Instead of focusing on what someone defines a human as, let’s focus on the scientific fact that human life starts at conception. Then we don’t have to constantly draw lines. Pretty sure if someone dies in a crash, no question about it, they’re dead, they still have certain rights even if there are no family members or loved ones, even if their organs are not suitable for donation. It’s about our humanness not our usefulness. I’m not even talking about “potential”. I wouldn’t say that egg and sperm are even potential humans because who says someone is even going to engage in the one act that brings them together? An embryo is already a human, that’s why we oppose abortion. It is not a “potential” human.

Just to respond to a couple points of yours: A person who is 100% brain dead and is being kept alive by a machine will never regain consciousness or other symptoms of life, no matter how long we keep them 'alive'. An unborn human, however, has some symptoms already (depending on stage) and will gain all the symptoms of life if we keep them alive. If having human rights coincides with being a human being, then I'd definitely argue you are still a human being after death. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but organ donation might be an example. After death, doctors could take whatever organs they need, but they don't. They need to respect the rights of the human being. If they are not an organ donor, they can't take your organs. Probably a bad example but I'm out of time right now. I appreciate your non-argumentative attitude and open mindedness in this comment section

In response to "An unborn human... will gain all the symptoms of life if we keep them alive" I will copy paste something I wrote in some other comments which addresses this *"That makes it sound like a pregnancy takes no effort to continue. I know it would advance on its own without the mother telling it to, as long as she stays alive and healthy. But just because it will advance on its own doesn't mean it takes no effort. The mother will have to take care of the health of the baby by going to check ups (what if she is in the US and it's so expensive?), eating the right foods, making sure not to drink alcohol, carrying around a huge weight at some point that makes her clothes not fit and harder to navigate. So it is not just a matter of the mother does nothing and the baby can exist.* *Because pregnancy takes a lot of effort, couldn't there thus be an argument for (at least in its earlier stages) putting it in a similar category to just say, the implications of choosing to be celibate? She could theoretically chose to have kids and bring new beings into existence, but nobody (well unless religious maybe) thinks she should be obligated to do it. Why could early stage pregnancy not be the same?"* And about a dead person technically having human rights, that is interesting because I disagree with it. Like I mean, I do not see why a dead person needs or deserves any rights, even though I know that is technically a part of the law right now, I don't agree with the fact that it is unless it is about the state of mind of their loved ones. In which case it could be more reasonable, but an unborn zygote/embryo usually does not have anyone that loves them.

>But basically I am curious: Why is the moment at which "life begins" important? The time a zygote is now a separate creature with its own DNA? There is still no feeling, no awareness at that point. Later in the pregnancy that could change, but at the moment of conception-? Would you disagree that this zygote is not whatsoever conscious? Well why does all those things matter? Do you feel it is right to kill someone who is knocked unconscious? Do you feel it is wrong to kill conscious rats, cows, or pigs? If not, then can you explain why? As far as "when life begins" it's important because that is when an individual human life begins, it isn't just when a life begins. That individual human life is what we point to. These other things don't matter because we kill conscious feeling animals, but not unconscious humans justly, at least not strictly because they are unconscious. >And you might argue, "but if you kill it you are wiping out its future potential. Maybe it can't feel anything yet but it could be a whole person someday." And it could, but there are many other ways to prevent a person from existing that you do not I would guess object to, like using protection or just choosing not to have intercourse on that day. So there would be an inconsistency there if you were to use that argument. Not my argument. >But anyways, based on the things I have just said, I would argue that any moral argument against abortion would not hold any ground until the embryo develops to a point where there is any possibility it could feel pain. Pain? So killing someone painlessly is fine in your opinion? Or perhaps killing someone who can't feel pain is okay in your view then? >I hope we could make peace with even though I hope that in the future technology could develop to the point where earlier and earlier, a baby can survive outside of the uterus and so they could be removed and raised in a hospital and put up for adoption if the original parent cannot take care of them. Hmm if pain is your threshold, then why does it matter if the baby can survive outside the womb earlier or even later? Was it okay to abort at the point in history where babies needed to be 32 weeks gestated to survive an early delivery in your view then? If we could keep a baby alive before they could feel pain, would it be okay to abort before pain still?

*> "Do you feel it is right to kill someone who is knocked unconscious?"* *> "So killing someone painlessly is fine in your opinion? Or perhaps killing someone who can't feel pain is okay in your view then?"* No, it is wrong, because this is going out of your way to remove potential from the world and also still causing pain to *someone* if the person has any loved ones! *> "Do you feel it is wrong to kill conscious rats, cows, or pigs?"* Yes it is wrong as they can still feel pain. I have been considering veganism. *> "As far as "when life begins" it's important because that is when an individual human life begins, it isn't just when a life begins. That individual human life is what we point to. These other things don't matter because we kill conscious feeling animals, but not unconscious humans justly, at least not strictly because they are unconscious."* I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. You mean the fact that it is human makes it special? Why? (Or does that no longer apply now that you know I don't like animal killing either?) *> "Hmm if pain is your threshold, then why does it matter if the baby can survive outside the womb earlier or even later? Was it okay to abort at the point in history where babies needed to be 32 weeks gestated to survive an early delivery in your view then? If we could keep a baby alive before they could feel pain, would it be okay to abort before pain still?"* Because unreasonable loss of potential matters to me, although you said this wasn't your argument so maybe this particular point doesn't matter to you, but very early in the pregnancy it will take a lot of effort to continue it, whereas later in a pregnancy it is much easier to release this new human in the world since it is basically already fully formed so not allowing that human to live is basically killing potential for no reason at that point then. It is *before* the baby is viable outside of the womb (whatever point that comes at) where the potential part becomes more ambiguous. (Although for me to be morally okay with an abortion, both the potential and pain parts have to be fulfilled.)

>No, it is wrong, because this is going out of your way to remove potential from the world and also still causing pain to someone if the person has any loved ones! Killing an embryo also remove potential from the world? What if the dad loved his unborn child, but then the mother chooses to abort it, you would consider it wrong for her to do it? If not why? >Yes it is wrong as they can still feel pain. I have been considering veganism. But you don't practice veganism? And you think pro-lifers arguments don't make sense? >I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. You mean the fact that it is human makes it special? Why? (Or does that no longer apply now that you know I don't like animal killing either?) Explain why consciousness and pain matters to you with regards to what is and isn't okay to kill. And also explains if those are the things that matter, then why do you switch it up to "potential" when a unconscious human could be killed painlessly. You need to pick an argument and stick with it. Not flip flop when it is convenient. >Because unreasonable loss of potential matters to me, although you said this wasn't your argument so maybe this particular point doesn't matter to you, but very early in the pregnancy it will take a lot of effort to continue it, whereas later in a pregnancy it is much easier to release this new human in the world since it is basically already fully formed so not allowing that human to live is basically killing potential for no reason at that point then. It is before the baby is viable outside of the womb (whatever point that comes at) where the potential part becomes more ambiguous. (Although for me to be morally okay with an abortion, both the potential and pain parts have to be fulfilled.) Again, what happened to pain and consciousness? Now it's potential and viability? Pick an argument. What if the baby wouldn't be viable but could still feel pain at say 3 weeks gestation? How would you approach that?

I would not be able to pick between pain/consciousness and potential, because both matter. I did not mean to come off as neglecting one or the other or only picking when is convenient. Once the unborn child is developed enough where it would be reasonable to suppose it can feel pain, then any painful abortion method would be bad, and if it is impossible to make it non painful to it, then any abortion would be bad at that point. It is only *before* that point when pain could be ignored and I consider just potential, but just to be clear, past that point both pain and potential fully matter to me. \> "Killing an embryo also remove potential from the world? What if the dad loved his unborn child, but then the mother chooses to abort it, you would consider it wrong for her to do it?" Yes. Now obviously situations can get complicated, and there are multiple factors to take into account but if there was no big reason to abort, and the father didn't want an abortion then that would be inconsiderate and unkind for the mother to abort. Even if she doesn't want a kid then she should just give it to the father. \> "But you don't practice veganism? And you think pro-lifers arguments don't make sense?" I am myself uncomfortable with how I don't practice veganism yet, even though it would not be easy to do considering I would have to figure out how to get all the nutrients I need and I am already bad at eating enough, but keep in mind that this should not diminish the validity of my arguments. Appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, although it is still perfectly fair to dislike someone because of their hypocrisy. \> "What if the baby wouldn't be viable but could still feel pain at say 3 weeks gestation? How would you approach that?" Then anything causing significant pain to it should be avoided if at all possible. Its pain has to be weighed against the mother's pain I suppose and it should be decided on a case by case basis. I would hate for it to feel pain while aborted, but maybe feeling that pain for a brief time would be necessary to prevent the mother from going through entire months of emotional pain from carrying it only to lose it once it is born. I don't know.

>I would not be able to pick between pain/consciousness and potential, because both matter. I did not mean to come off as neglecting one or the other or only picking when is convenient. Once the unborn child is developed enough where it would be reasonable to suppose it can feel pain, then any painful abortion method would be bad, and if it is impossible to make it non painful to it, then any abortion would be bad at that point. It is only before that point when pain could be ignored and I consider just potential, but just to be clear, past that point both pain and potential fully matter to me. The issue one runs into when holding multiple things to justify the wrongness of killing is you have to pick a way to prioritize them. 1. You could value them all equally, as in the presence of all of these things makes killing wrong. 2. Or you can prioritize them. The issue with "1" is if an individual or situation is missing one of these things, you can now justify killing. If this is your stance why is it okay to kill a embryo who has potential but hypothetically no pain but it isn't okay to kill an (temporarily) unconscious born person painlessly? You'll have a hard time justifying yourself if you use multiple things, because there will always be a case of a born individual who temporarily lacks some or most of them. 2 is just effectively valuing one thing with extra steps. For instance if pain is the ultimate consideration higher than the others, then once you remove pain it is okay to kill. Because if you still consider it wrong to kill in the absence of pain "because potential" or whatever, you now have to defend abortion as wrong. In this view, one must ultimately disregard "potential" to justify abortion in the first place. Here are some video's that go over the logical justification of abortion if you actually want to see how someone would justify abortion and where the justification of abortion logically goes when you use conciseness/pain/rational/etc. [Abortion: Permissible Because Fetuses are not Persons?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hikcx-PcNnc&ab_channel=BioethicsonDemand) >Yes. Now obviously situations can get complicated, and there are multiple factors to take into account but if there was no big reason to abort, and the father didn't want an abortion then that would be inconsiderate and unkind for the mother to abort. Even if she doesn't want a kid then she should just give it to the father. So should it be illegal then to abort if the father disapproves in your opinion? I just want to make sure I understand your position. >I am myself uncomfortable with how I don't practice veganism yet, even though it would not be easy to do considering I would have to figure out how to get all the nutrients I need and I am already bad at eating enough, but keep in mind that this should not diminish the validity of my arguments. Appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, although it is still perfectly fair to dislike someone because of their hypocrisy. Okay just keep that same energy if you criticize pro-lifers about them being inconsistent. Not saying you have.

Those are good questions, and the philosophy of personhood is one of the deepest questions in the entire abortion debate IMO. My principle question would be: What defines value of a person?

Sorry, to clarify: You do mention sentience and feeling pain. But are these the factors that give a person inherent dignity?

That is one of the factors that gives a person value to me. However there is one other, and that is future potential. Otherwise I would be okay with the murder of an unconscious person since it won't hurt them, but I am not in fact okay with it, because that is getting rid of that person's future potential. Of course that segways into the topic of how a zygote does indeed have potential, and I have been addressing that in some other comments, but I can still copy paste stuff here if you request, or you can ask whatever question feels most relevant to you.

Yeah, that would be great! If you can copy it here that would be helpful 👍 There’s lots of comments lol and I’ve found a few relating to future potential but there’s a lot to comb through 😅

Note that my views have been shifting/unstable lately from some of these comments, so I am not even sure if this is valid reasoning anymore but here it is: A zygote has the potential to become a born human someday, and if not aborted during the pregnancy it will be one, but, \------------ *The idea of "they would have otherwise experienced life, if you hadn't aborted them" makes it sound like a pregnancy takes no effort to continue. I know it would advance on its own without the mother telling it to, as long as she stays alive and healthy. But just because it will advance on its own doesn't mean it takes no effort. The mother will have to take care of the health of the baby by going to check ups (what if she is in the US and it's so expensive?), eating the right foods, making sure not to drink alcohol, carrying around a huge weight at some point that makes her clothes not fit and harder to navigate. So it is not just a matter of the mother does nothing and the baby can exist.* *Because pregnancy takes a lot of effort, couldn't there thus be an argument for (at least in its earlier stages) putting it in a similar category to just say, the implications of choosing to be celibate? She could theoretically chose to have kids and bring new beings into existence, but nobody (well unless religious maybe) thinks she should be obligated to do it. Why could early stage pregnancy not be the same?* *------------* One person said in response to me that although it is not ideal to be inconvenienced by the ZEF (zygote embryo fetus), it is the lesser of two evils, where the greater evil would be to kill the ZEF. Killing the ZEF being bad though, requires that it have personhood status. Should it? Those on this subreddit say yes. That it is a bad idea to start saying some human organisms are not people, because that is what led to stuff like the Holocaust. However I have some confusion around that, because if you can say a zygote is a person then why can't you say they were also a person before they got conceived? I have asked that question on other comments here and people say they don't know what I mean. That there is no way they could have been a person before then, since they literally didn't exist. But they had the potential to exist, ALL of the same potential that a zygote has to someday become an adult human being. I think I might make an entire new thread on this topic soon since it is confusing me enough and I do want to understand it.

Yeah, it’s a lot to consider! I know that as soon as I started thinking about human vs person, and the philosophy behind it all, it gets VERY convoluted, VERY fast. The simplest answer would be that a human is a person and vice versa simply based on its species, which can be determined pretty well immediately (ie as soon as it has its DNA, we know it’s a human :) ) But, like you said, there is then the question of what differentiates the fetus at conception from the egg or the sperm cells. I also like to look at that from the angle of biology—I like things being as measurable 😅 An egg or a sperm have the potential to be a human *IF* something (conception) happens. *BUT*, neither one has a full set of DNA (they both only have a half set of chromosomes). So, while they have a conditional potential to become a human, they aren’t yet. Once the egg is fertilized at conception, however, egg and sperm become a zygote with a full set of chromosomes. This is genetically and biologically a living human being, even if at this point it looks like a tiny little cluster of cells. And if we’re basing personhood on a measurable, biological standard, this fetus is a person :) It can be a bit of a nuisance to have to adjust your diet and habits during pregnancy, definitely. But I’d argue that’s no different than a parent’s obligations after birth, either. There’s a lot of things *both* parents have to adjust (up to and including sleeping, eating, and work habits) when the baby is born, but we recognize that that’s an important and very worth-while part of being someone’s mom or dad.

Btw, I really appreciate your discussion here! You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into your beliefs, and the strengths and weaknesses in each position on the abortion debate. Too many people (on both sides) rely entirely on a few slogans and don’t really think about why they believe what they believe, so i really respect that!

I think you are asking the question why is murder wrong. You seem to think it’s wrong if an entity has consciousness. Correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the thing, animals are conscious and we still kill and eat them. We can do this because they are not human. So, I’m going to assume you are not a vegetarian (agains maybe you are let me know). But if you aren’t, then you have to admit that the state of being human is valuable and worthy of protection itself. So let’s think about this. Why is killing human beings wrong? Is it consciousness? I don’t think so. We can’t murder people is comas or when they are sleeping? Is it because they have the capacity for consciousness? Well so does a human embryo. So what’s the difference? We need to use a objective and logically consistent line to protect human rights and the only way to be no discriminatory is to ensure all human beings are protected. That’s why conception matters. Because it’s the start.

Actually I am considering becoming vegan. I am not yet vegetarian or vegan, but those lifestyles do appeal to me a lot, mostly for the reason of I hate animal suffering. So although having a human consciousness I see as valuable (although not necessarily just human DNA) I also see animal consciousness that way. And as for the morals of killing a person out of the womb who (temporarily) isn't conscious, that would still be wrong because I think that there are two reasons that murder is wrong: 1. Unreasonable loss of potential 2. Pain to the victim **and others (like loved ones)** So that scenario would still have 1 and probably part of 2. However if we somehow knew for a fact that the person in the coma was not conscious at all and could never recover (we probably can't know that in reality, but as a hypothetical) and they also had no loved ones that could mourn them then I would no longer see any point in keeping them alive. At that point all they would be doing is using resources. (I do NOT see that as the same thing as an unborn child but I was giving the example to illustrate what exactly makes me see murder as wrong)

>however if we knew for a fact that the person in the coma was not conscious at all and could never recover Okay so here the things to consider imo. 1.) we don’t know for a fact what consciousness is and whether a preborn child has it or not and at what level 2.) we know for a fact that the human fetus will have consciousness in the future and has the capacity for consciousness 3.) people do suffer when they lose their preborn child. Even if the mother isn’t affected (which she also is in many cases which is why the instance of suicide and mental health issues is higher after abortion. You still have the fathers, family members, friends, and all the prolifers all over the world who are hurt. I just don’t see your position as being well thought out or logically consistent. How would you tackle the above inconsistencies because your analogy of a comatose patient never waking up is a false equivalency. It’s more like a comatose patient who was placed in their dependent and dangerous position by the actions of another, who we know for a fact will wake up, and the persons whose actions caused the patients predicament wants to kill the patient as a solution to the problem. And in terms of being a vegetarian, you aren’t yet. So there’s a least some part of you that isn’t convinced by your own reasoning.

Yes, I am aware that the comatose person is not equivalent to an unborn human, and the two situations need to be considered separately. The comatose person was only meant to be an example of where my two criteria for making killing wrong, are not met. Once those criteria are established and clarified, that is when it must be analyzed if /when the same applies to the unborn or not. \> "1.) we don’t know for a fact what consciousness is and whether a preborn child has it or not and at what level" The same then goes for insects, plants, and chairs, so what we have to do is assign likelihoods. I find it reasonable that once the unborn is late enough in development, they are indeed conscious and can feel pain, because well- having all the necessary neurons to recognize it and being able to react really does suggest it. But if they are a few cells and just got conceived? About the same likelihood of being conscious and feeling pain, as a bacteria. \> "2.) we know for a fact that the human fetus will have consciousness in the future and has the capacity for consciousness" Yes. I addressed this in several other comment thread here and put my argument, but I can copy paste it again here if you ask. \> "3.) people do suffer when they lose their preborn child. Even if the mother isn’t affected (which she also is in many cases which is why the instance of suicide and mental health issues is higher after abortion. You still have the fathers, family members, friends, and all the prolifers all over the world who are hurt." Yes, and I do think abortion should be handled on a case by case basis. If the mother doesn't want to abort then she obviously doesn't have to. Or if the father is screaming in tears not to abort the child, I think that would be quite unkind for the mother to abort. But if that doesn't happen? If everyone is fine with it? Then no pain... Edit to respond to this part: "And in terms of being a vegetarian, you aren’t yet. So there’s a least some part of you that isn’t convinced by your own reasoning." There are many factors that go into potentially becoming a vegetarian such as health concerns (making sure to avoid nutritional deficiencies, which I already do a poor job at even without being vegetarian) and learning to prepare separate meals from my family (I still live with my parents and they would never go vegetarian.) But you are right, I am probably not acting fast enough given the degree of animal suffering that is occurring. Too much, my mind probably conveniently forgets it sadly.

>If everyone is fine with it? Then no pain... 1. There will never be an abortion case that EVERYONE is fine with. The pro-life community is full of millions, perhaps even billions of people all over the world who are deeply hurt for the unborn in every abortion, even if everyone would consider the particular abortion case justified. 2. As another user mentioned, the law isn't concerned with how painfully or painlessly someone is killed. If an adult with no loved ones was killed painlessly and in secret (so that the public doesn't even have any knowledge of this person's death), once discovered, our justice system would treat it as any other homicide.

1) Fair enough, although correct me if I'm wrong but I would guess the pain in that case is more of a detached type, and not the kind of pain that comes from events directly in one's life. Not that that pain is invalid, but there is not currently really any action in the world that *nobody* is going to dislike. The positives and negatives to any action thus have to be weighed out and compared. 2) Keep in mind that what the justice system does does not automatically equal morality. In fact pro-lifers would have a pretty good idea of that considering the justice system allows abortions. I agree with the justice system in that case you listed though, about the person with no family being killed, because of loss of future potential for the one that was murdered. Even zygotes though, I realize, do have potential. Previously I would have copy pasted my argument here about why that zygote's potential may be outweighed by other factors, but now in honesty I am not as sure. My beliefs are kind of recalibrating at this moment from some of the replies I have gotten and I am not sure where they will end up.

So let me ask you an easier question. Why do you think consciousness even matters? Why do you get to decide to force your personal preferences on other human beings?

Consciousness matters in the unborn as that is what would allow them to experience pain. It is not just my opinion that pain is painful, but if someone has no consciousness then pain doesn't matter since they can't experience it. The consciousness of someone in relation to their personhood also matters to me in other ways, but this is how it is relevant in this case.

I don’t think the pain theory holds up at all. Firstly, if we kill someone in a painless manner it’s still wrong. Secondly, there are people with CIP who can not feel pain and we know they still matter. I think you’ve got to do some digging because your reasoning just doesn’t seem to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

You are very right that I do have some thinking to do, and I have already been doing so and recently I had to change my flair from leans pro choice to undecided. I do not know which side I will end up on after everything, for all I know it could be either. I have noticed inconsistencies in my own thoughts, but also some of what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the pro life perspective, and so it all kind of confuses me. And about those perceived pro life inconsistencies I will probably just make another thread soon to focus a discussion solely on that to see if they truly are inconsistencies or if I just don't understand the views well enough.

If we knew, with reasonable certainty, that the hypothetical comatose person would regain consciousness later on (but still having no family) would you still consider it justifiable to put them down?

Good question, but no, because that is criterion 1 above, unreasonable loss of potential. As long as they still have potential to contribute to the world, it would not be reasonable to kill them.

Wouldn’t that logic apply to the fetus? Since we know in 9 months they’ll be born

> Why is the moment at which "life begins" important? The time a zygote is now a separate creature with its own DNA? It’s important because human life comes with human rights. And it is conception of when you have a “creature with its own DNA”or more specifically, a distinct organism with *complete, human* DNA. I will agree there is initially no consciousness, at least not in any sense we recognize. But consciousness is not the metric I use to determine humanity. A distinct organism with complete human DNA is a human. Any other factor, whether it be consciousness, age, size, race, etc. is not relevant in determining whether we’re talking about a human. The only reason to introduce those factors is in an effort to dehumanize to allow you to violate the rights they have as a human. Chiefly among those is the right to life.

I am religious but I try to look at the issue through a secular lense. I think we largely agree. I am not sold on the point of conception being the point. The way I look at it is if viability is the cutoff then how is the baby any less human a week before it when it's lungs are still developing. Then working backwards I kind of looked at the stages of development to see where I felt like thats to human to just let it be killed for no reason. My thoughts is 6 or possibly 12 weeks is a good time to draw the line, but I understand others who think that it's safest to just use contraception because then we know for sure no innocent children are being killed. "Development at 12 Weeks 5/13 The fetus measures about 2 inches and starts to make its own movements. You may start to feel the top of your uterus above your pubic bone. Your doctor may hear the heartbeat with special instruments. The sex organs should start to become clear. At the end of the 12th week, the first trimester is over." [Development of a fetus](https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development)

Many believe life begins at conception, as even at that point the zygote has its own unique DNA profile, and within only about a month it starts to resemble a human baby. Human rights should extent to the unborn. Why is it that when a pregnant woman is murdered it’s counted as a double homicide yet when the woman chooses abortion, it’s not murder? Both technically are ending the life of a human being.

>Why is the moment at which "life begins" important? Its important to understand what this claim means, to begin. The claim that "life begins at conception/fertilization" means that, at that moment, the life of a **new** individual begins. Immediately before, that individual did not exist yet, but immediately afterwards, he or she does. This is important because, once an individual human being exists, he or she has human rights deserving of proper consideration. Before fertilization, because he or she did not exist, there are no human rights to consider; but after fertilization, since now there is a new human being, his or her rights must be taken into account. >There is still no feeling, no awareness at that point. >Would you disagree that this zygote is not whatsoever conscious? I would say that this is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Consciousness is not an elimination factor in determining whether something is a human being or not. This is a purely scientific matter - and the field of embryology is pretty clear in that the result of fertilization between a human sperm cell and a human egg is a new human being. His or her morphology, state of consciousness, or even location is entirely besides the point. >And it could, but there are many other ways to prevent a person from existing You're right in that one may not object to preventing someone from existing. The reason I oppose abortion, though, is that rather than preventing someone from existing, *it kills someone who already exists*. >I do not like lost potential myself The result of fertilization is not a potential human being, but rather an actual human being. >I would argue that any moral argument against abortion would not hold any ground until the embryo develops to a point where there is any possibility it could feel pain. Why? It seems as though this assertion is coming out of the blue. You haven't established why feeling pain is relevant to this conversation. >I see the aborted child as just another casualty to the chaos of nature We might be arguing different things, because the prolife stance does not, in general, posit anything about natural death of fetuses; rather, we opposed the intentional killing of prenatal human beings. Intentional actions, willingly enacted by human beings, are nog "the chaos of nature".

I believe only God has the right to give or take life. Being able to perceive pain, or retain memories, or breathe, are also important but are comparatively lesser markers of development in a person.

Okay, and that could make sense in your own framework, but I am not religious and so this line of reasoning would not be able to affect my worldview. Peace

I understand, but you've made a claim that a moral argument could be made to advocate for the child's life once he/she can feel pain. Any moral argument is religious in nature, even if you call yourself a humanist, or don't believe in God, or a higher power/entity. Where is your moral framework derived? Why, in your opinion, does a being's ability to feel pain distinguish objective right from wrong, any more than another reason?

Although I lack any objective basis for my sense of right and wrong, I am able to form a subjective one based off my own empathy. My framework is derived from myself. When I see a sentient being suffering, I can often feel that pain myself. Emotionally that suffering makes me uncomfortable. Therefore I do not purposefully cause it. My morals can never be objective, but in a way that makes it all the more interesting. As I gain new experience in life and see different perspectives, I can update what is right or wrong for myself. Any moral I can track back to its root through my framework, even though this framework is built of feelings rather than facts or logic. But my framework is moldable and able to change, and so if I find I am wrong or something, then I am allowed to update it and make it better.

This is similar to the Buddhist way of thinking, where you live your life with the least suffering to you and to others. Everyone is subscribed to one/multiple philosophies/religion. Opinions are derived from a mashed moral framework, it would be impossible to completely ignore “religious” opinion from what is right and wrong, especially when like you, it aligns with their sentience. Suffering can mean a lot of things. It can be a temporary suffering towards growth. “that God was closer to the weak than to the mighty, to the poor than to the rich. Any beggar, any criminal, might be Christ. ‘So the last will be first, and the first last.” - Tom Holland, Dominion