mydepressiospresso

[mydepressiospresso]

I really dislike how quick the conversation shifted to the "responsibility" argument or as I like to call it "you should have known better, slut".

@pinapplewalls

The core issue in the abortion debate always circles back to the idea of that "value" OP wanted clarification on earlier - whether and why an unborn baby / fetus has the same moral value as a born baby / growing human.

I am not answering the questions in order, since I would repeat myself often.

------------------------------------------------------

"Do you think humans deserve rights? It might sound like a dumb or condescending question, but saying that the fetus is human but doesn't deserve the right to live means that inherently, humans don't have the right to live."

You seem to argue: If a fetus is biologically human, and we deny it the right to life, then we're admitting that 'being human' isn't enough to guarantee rights, correct?

To this, I’d say that the term “human rights” is somewhat misleading, because rights are not granted simply for being biologically human — they’re typically tied to personhood. A brain-dead adult is still biologically human, but often no longer considered a “person” in the moral or legal sense. So, not all humans are rights-holders, at least not automatically or equally.

So a fetus is biologically human from conception — it's alive and genetically distinct — but biological life does not equal moral or legal personhood. If being alive and human were enough, we’d have to assign rights to sperm, skin cells, or microbes, which are all alive and human in some sense.

The real question is about personhood, which you also mentioned:

“Another question: Do you have to be human to have the right to live, or do you need to have personhood to live?”

[And sorry I just have to vent this: This question right there should be asked at the beginning to any abortion debate, because it's the foundation everything else rests on. All these other arguments of bodily autonomy (while incredibly important) won't ever convince someone who believes that a fetus is already a person with full moral rights. Because if the answer to the personhood question is "yes" most pro-choice arguments fall apart in their view. Like what do you mean the selfish "should have known better pregnant lady" doesn't want to help the poor innocent child stay alive? Only 9 months and a little strain on the body is all it costs - after that she can throw it into adoption! Problem solv- child saved :)]

Since I argued before that human rights are usually understood as a question of personhood, I'll now get into that.

Some argue value begins at conception, because life starts and has the potential for full personhood - and that is (for them) enough to assign value. Some would say sperm and egg have potential too, but we don't mourn a lost sperm. At this point, people usually respond that fertilization — the moment the egg and sperm fuse — is fundamentally different, because that’s when a new, genetically unique human organism starts. Fair enough. But even then, that zygote is the outcome of a genetic lottery — one in which millions of other sperm lost. We don’t assign moral value to the “losing” sperm, so why do we suddenly assign full moral status to the “winner” the moment it succeeds? We don't mourn the ones who lost the race. So, in short: Potential alone is a shaky basis for assigning personhood — especially when we don’t treat other forms of potential in nearly the same moral way.

Others say moral value increases as the fetus gains traits like sentience, consciousness, pain perception or if it's viable to survive outside the womb. This “feeling pain" argument, is often used by those who feel that the capacity to suffer marks the threshold for moral consideration — in much the same way that many vegans argue animal suffering should matter morally. So if it's only about feeling pain and wanting to minimize it, kind of hypocritical. (I am not vegan either just saying that argument is no good).

Some believe value only begins at birth - when the baby becomes an individual interacting with the environment - personhood and moral worth develop gradually with it gaining seld-awareness, memory, and personality over time.

Personally, I adopt this principle: I know people get very excited and attached when they find out they are pregnant (if its wanted) and because of that excitement already view it as their child who they will buy cute onesies for, yearn for their first words, teach them their first steps, baby shoes, bedtime stories - all the small, beautiful hopes and expectations that will totally work out for how the parents want it to. And I respect that. I’d never call it a fetus if the parents want it. It would be dismissive to the meaning the parents already attach to it, even though I personally can't see the heartwarming "potential" that some people seem to hold very high.

“What is the difference between an unborn baby developing and a born baby? ... Dependency on other humans does not mean they can be killed.”

There is a difference between a one-year-old (who does not need to be inside the mother's body and use it to survive) and a fetus who does. A one-year-old has social presence, legal identity, and does not rely on another body to survive. A fetus is physiologically invasive in a way that no other human is — which is why autonomy is such a central argument on the pro-choice side.

And between the day before birth and the birthday itself? The main difference is the location -> meaning exactly the dependency on another person's body is gone. Of course, it is true that born babies / infants are still dependent on the environment for survival, but that isn't necessarily the mother's problem alone (but that's again another topic with responsibility)

“Even if they are underdeveloped. You could compare a one year old to, say, a teenager. That one year old understands a lot less. That one year old can't survive long without their mother. That one year old is way less developed. Does that make the one year old any less deserving of the right to live?"

“What makes the unborn baby less valuable? What makes them not a person?”

Quick Trolley problem: The pitcher is throwing an 8-month-old fetus in an artificial womb, a newborn (christian) baby and a 4-year-old child. You can only save one from being hit by the atheist batter - who will you save?

Most people, I’d wager, would instinctively save the 4-year-old, but why? Likely because we see that the child has greater self-awareness, has existing relationships, memories, preferences, a personality, .... Which is a very strong hint how we value life depend on developed traits, not just biology and the potential to develop such traits.

So arguably, value is something we grow into. People don't just evaluate life in terms of having life, but what kind of life has been or could be lived. Like, let's consider another pitcher:

This time he is throwing a 4-year-old (who has just begun forming memories, relationships, a personality) and a 90-year-old (who has had a full life). Who would you save? I'd save the child - but not because the elderly person ins't valuable, but because the child has more of life ahead, more development to undergo.

This child already is "someone" and are in the process of developing themselves. For a unborn baby/ fetus I would not consider the "life ahead". A fetus is still in the process of becoming someone (and depending on your philosophical views, may not yet have an identity to lose - only a heartbeat - only an electric buzz - are these mechanical functions of an developing organism enough to count as a huge loss?).

Not to out myself as a philo-nerd but have you heard McMahans quote "The badness of death depends partly on whether there was a self to lose?". I think that's spot on. For me, potential life is never morally equal to actualized life.

If we'd take the teenager vs. 1-year old I would say it gets fuzzy. Majority would maybe ? probably ? still chose the 1-year old over the teen because well they already got a good 16 years - that's more than peasants did in their lifetime - let's give the 1-year old a chance at life. And now we would actually be at a trolley problem (with real people).

“(Also, I'd encourage you to look up what actual abortions look like if you haven't already. Although it's graphic, it's extremely eye-opening.)”

That's an emotional appeal to shock people by the procedure or get disgusted - so I will only say: understanding the procedure is important, but graphic content is emotionally manipulative.

I wouldn’t like it if vegans stood beside me waving slaughterhouse footage while I’m eating my (salmon) steak — and while that kind of emotional blackmail has actually worked on me before (for one week) it didn’t resolve the moral debate around meat (for me). It just overwhelmed me emotionally for a time.

And the same applies here: moral clarity doesn’t come from looking away in horror or caving; it comes from examining the ethical principles behind our actions. Emotional reactions can be valid — but they don’t, by themselves, settle the question of moral right or wrong for the person asking those questions.

“Also, im not sure what you mean about the right to live questions. If you could explain it a bit.”

I don't entirely know what they meant by that either, but my interpretation is that it is about someone's right to life does not override another person's right to bodily autonomy. Even if your kidney could save someone’s life, you are not legally required to give it — because you have a right to decide what happens to your own body, even if someone else dies without your help.

I always think it's funny when other pro-choicers lead with that because in an ideal world I would say that this should be a case were bodily autonomy should be reconsidered - perhaps we should be willing to donate organs or sustain (already lived) life whenever possible. Not doing so would be unethical.

But in practice, rights over one’s own body have to remain absolute. Otherwise, no bodily autonomy is safe. Especially considering the loopholes that would be abused. That's why I am only saying it should be reconsidered in a perfect world where you can always 100% safely remove the organ and are 100% sure that the donor can live on without any discomfort, etc.

And since I mentioned "legality" somewhere in passing. I am aware that laws do not equal morality (as some pointed to the "slavery" argument). Similarly, I don’t assume that because abortion is legal, it’s automatically moral.

I do believe it is moral — because for me, the question of personhood of the unborn baby / fetus is a resounding no. Potential life is not morally equal to actualized life.

And that's why people — even those who oppose abortion — often make nuanced decisions when asked to rank who they'd save or what counts as a tragedy.

This isn’t about denying humanity. It’s about understanding that value is not a switch flipped at conception, but something we grow into.

"I don't support abortion, I support the right to get an abortion"

"I don't support murder, I support the right for someone to murder"