At the point of conception all you are is a small group of cells that are forming something. There is no brain, there is no heart, there is no anything that would be described as human other than the DNA. At some point during the endless splitting of those cells a heart is created to push blood around the body that has developed, a body I might add looks entirely the same no matter what species you’re looking at at this stage. And then, sometime long after that, a brain emerges but it’s nothing like what we have when we’re born. The human brain of a baby takes a long time to form. The question of “At what point does Life Begin?”, is not “At what point is something alive?”, it’s “At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?”
Anti-abortion groups are not pro-life as they like to claim. For one, more than a few of them are pro death penalty. And for two, they don’t actually care about children who are born because more than half of them actively work towards taking assistance away from single mothers and children and adoption services and Foster Care programs. Even if all they do is vote for the wrong party, they are guilty of this.
Tbh, “At what point does life begin?” is a pointless question and a false equivalence.
A removed appendix or a removed cancer are clearly human life too. They clearly live, and still there is no moral panic about “killing” someone’s appendix or cancer.
The actual question here is “At what point is a human a legally protected being?” or “At what point does it make sense that legal protections cover a human being?”
Claiming that the question is “At what point does life begin?” is a purposely wrong question that is used to shift the discussion from the actual question. Because life begins as sperm and egg cells, but legally protecting these would be completely crazy. But if we are talking about “At what point does life begin?” instead of about “At what point is the embryo human enough to warrant human-level protections?” the story rapidly changes.
I always thought of the question as “at what point is it a human being”. I think we could both agree that a cut of arm is living tissue and not a human being. From this point of view, the original question stand in my opinion (and could somewhat be equated to yours).
That is a much more valid question than “at what point does life begin”, and that’s pretty much the same point as “at what point is it a being covered by the legal protections of human rights?”
Yeah, I felt the same when I wrote it. I agree with what someone else said though, these movements are often not about life but about control over women.
Yeah, that’s the really infuriating part. While some people might argue in good faith on the pro-life side, a lot of them don’t.
A common scenario:
A woman who is not ready, equipped and/or willing to have a child gets pregnant and wants to abort.
She ends up not doing it (due to laws and/or social pressure) and has the kid.
Turns out, she’s not ready, equipped and/or willing to raise the child, and the child ends up neglected in some form.
Society turns on the woman telling her she’s a bad mother.
If it was actually an honest pro-life movement, the pro-lifing wouldn’t end with the birth of the child. Instead, then the movement should step in and be pro-free-school-lunch, pro-free-education, pro-free-child-care and so on.
But no, it’s all like “You gave birth to this child, so screw you, it’s your own fault, your own responsibility.”
I really liked your first paragraph. I can’t argue with you regarding the second because I’m not USAian and thus live in completley different socio-political landscape.
At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?
This is intelectually stimulating position. But this same line of thought can be traced further into extremes such as eugenics and scientific racism. Because of these historical aberrations that stem from this same principle, I reject this position and thus adopt position that life begins at conception. And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
Instead of trying to define a point where something is a human based on how much it has developed, because of the associated risks and historical failings, your standpoint is that life begins at conception.
At the point of conception all you are is a small group of cells that are forming something. There is no brain, there is no heart, there is no anything that would be described as human other than the DNA. At some point during the endless splitting of those cells a heart is created to push blood around the body that has developed, a body I might add looks entirely the same no matter what species you’re looking at at this stage. And then, sometime long after that, a brain emerges but it’s nothing like what we have when we’re born. The human brain of a baby takes a long time to form. The question of “At what point does Life Begin?”, is not “At what point is something alive?”, it’s “At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?”
Anti-abortion groups are not pro-life as they like to claim. For one, more than a few of them are pro death penalty. And for two, they don’t actually care about children who are born because more than half of them actively work towards taking assistance away from single mothers and children and adoption services and Foster Care programs. Even if all they do is vote for the wrong party, they are guilty of this.
Tbh, “At what point does life begin?” is a pointless question and a false equivalence.
A removed appendix or a removed cancer are clearly human life too. They clearly live, and still there is no moral panic about “killing” someone’s appendix or cancer.
The actual question here is “At what point is a human a legally protected being?” or “At what point does it make sense that legal protections cover a human being?”
Claiming that the question is “At what point does life begin?” is a purposely wrong question that is used to shift the discussion from the actual question. Because life begins as sperm and egg cells, but legally protecting these would be completely crazy. But if we are talking about “At what point does life begin?” instead of about “At what point is the embryo human enough to warrant human-level protections?” the story rapidly changes.
I always thought of the question as “at what point is it a human being”. I think we could both agree that a cut of arm is living tissue and not a human being. From this point of view, the original question stand in my opinion (and could somewhat be equated to yours).
That is a much more valid question than “at what point does life begin”, and that’s pretty much the same point as “at what point is it a being covered by the legal protections of human rights?”
Yeah, I felt the same when I wrote it. I agree with what someone else said though, these movements are often not about life but about control over women.
Yeah, that’s the really infuriating part. While some people might argue in good faith on the pro-life side, a lot of them don’t.
A common scenario:
If it was actually an honest pro-life movement, the pro-lifing wouldn’t end with the birth of the child. Instead, then the movement should step in and be pro-free-school-lunch, pro-free-education, pro-free-child-care and so on.
But no, it’s all like “You gave birth to this child, so screw you, it’s your own fault, your own responsibility.”
Cue running to an anti-abortion with a ball of human hair and screaming, “BEHOLD, A MAN!”
I really liked your first paragraph. I can’t argue with you regarding the second because I’m not USAian and thus live in completley different socio-political landscape.
This is intelectually stimulating position. But this same line of thought can be traced further into extremes such as eugenics and scientific racism. Because of these historical aberrations that stem from this same principle, I reject this position and thus adopt position that life begins at conception. And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
By that logic, cancer treatments should be illegal.
I do not find much logic in your reply. But fear not, to me you are still human! Have a great day!
Cancer is made of a living human cells growing to its own means. Killing it is killing a human by your logic.
Instead of trying to define a point where something is a human based on how much it has developed, because of the associated risks and historical failings, your standpoint is that life begins at conception.
Did I understand correctly?
Correct
👍
People who eat meat and eggs already make this distinction. You want to get rough and stupid? Then let’s get rough and stupid.
I’m not particularly interested in debate. However, I am down for getting rough and stupid with the right person.