The abortion debate and 'life begins at conception'

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,574
9,262
136
Many pro-choice proponents regard the 'life begins at conception' argument to be a red herring (as they consider it to be missing the point) and choose to focus on bodily autonomy of living, breathing human beings, which I think is a valid argument, but I can't help but think that pro-lifers will consider this to be ignoring arguments that pro-choicers disagree with.

IMO if you want to change peoples' minds on a topic like abortion, the best tactic is to dismantle their own argument.

With regard to 'life begins at conception', pro-lifers tend to like it a lot because it's an absolutist technicality that they can hinge their entire argument on. My counter-argument is this:

Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?

My logic being that if one considers human beings to be fundamentally different from other life forms and so therefore deserving of extra rights, the basis for their argument has to be based on the intellectual merits of the human condition. Logically you can't grant a clump of cells human rights because biologically speaking there are billions of lifeforms on this planet that are capable of the same feat. Nor do we grant children the rights of an adult because they don't have the mental capacity of an adult, but they do get some rights. A foetus at most stages of development is not even capable of breathing unaided.

Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?
[devils advocate]
Yes, because the Human has a soul, that God gave to us that makes us special. It has nothing to do with intelligence, or even species. If God had given souls to cows, I would be against cow murder.
[/devils advocate]

You are acting like they are arguing in good faith. They are not. At best they are arguing from a strong emotional belief (at worst they are authoritarians that are intentionally using it to divide and control us). That belief is not based on reason, and therefore is not open to being reasoned with. It is pure emotion. Their entire argument every time boils down to 'It makes me sad, and I'm willing remove your freedom so that I don't feel sad.'
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?

Have you talked to highly religious folks at all? The entirety of christian religion rigidly enforces authority top down. God has authority over men, men have authority over land/animals, bishops/priests have authority over their "flock", parents have authority over children, and men have authority over women. Every actor in christianity is supposed to obey those above him and rule over those below. It is a highly authoritarian structure.

As to your specific question, they'll just point you to Gen 1:26-28 which explicitly states that man was created in god's image and is therefore special compared to everything else:
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,574
9,262
136
<pro-lifer mentions God>

There are quite a few responses to that, such as the number of times God is "documented" committing genocide, or Numbers 5:11-31, or "well my God says abortion is perfectly fine, so does my imaginary friend", or:


I don't think I've encountered any people leading with a religious argument re abortion (PS: I'm not saying they don't exist!). I'd say chances are most pro-lifers have been indoctrinated with religious beliefs at some point that they semi-consciously take over into their opinions regarding real-life issues and so it impairs their ability to think logically. As for your "arguing in good faith" point, I agree that many people don't argue in good faith and would rather ghost an online discussion than concede the point, but I'd rather assume they're on the level until they've proven otherwise, and also assuming that say every pro-lifer will argue dishonestly is a good way to shut down discussion entirely.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
Alito in his ruling said he was protecting. Even he knows fetuses are not people

"potential life"
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Juiblex

Banned
Sep 26, 2016
500
252
136
Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.

If they found a single cell of a fetus on the planet Mars, NASA would proclaim they found life on Mars. A single living cell is LIFE...

Stop being retarded.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zinfamous

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
[devils advocate]
Yes, because the Human has a soul, that God gave to us that makes us special. It has nothing to do with intelligence, or even species. If God had given souls to cows, I would be against cow murder.
[/devils advocate]

You are acting like they are arguing in good faith. They are not. At best they are arguing from a strong emotional belief (at worst they are authoritarians that are intentionally using it to divide and control us). That belief is not based on reason, and therefore is not open to being reasoned with. It is pure emotion. Their entire argument every time boils down to 'It makes me sad, and I'm willing remove your freedom so that I don't feel sad.'

If your only devils advocate argument involves God and emotions, youve already lost.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
If they found a single cell of a fetus on the planet Mars, NASA would proclaim they found life on Mars. A single living cell is LIFE...

Stop being retarded.

Except in the case of humans, upon conception, its not a single cell. Its a unique strand of 46 chromosomes independent of the mother and father. Pro-abortion people think because that embryo is dependent on the mother (or host) until birth is irrelevant.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,574
9,262
136
If they found a single cell of a fetus on the planet Mars, NASA would proclaim they found life on Mars. A single living cell is LIFE...

Stop being retarded.

I did not say that a clump of cells is not alive. I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged your mistake and apologise for the baseless insult.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,054
12,239
136
If they found a single cell of a fetus on the planet Mars, NASA would proclaim they found life on Mars. A single living cell is LIFE...

Stop being retarded.
Irrelevant, we have a whole slew of scenarios where we think it's fine to terminate a human life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,201
28,216
136
We need to stop going down this "when does life begin" rabbit hole. It is irrelevant. A person has the right to decide who gets to use their body and how. It's why we can't be forced to donate blood or organs to save lives. It's why we can't harvest organs from dead people without their express written consent.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,278
5,053
136
Many pro-choice proponents regard the 'life begins at conception' argument to be a red herring (as they consider it to be missing the point) and choose to focus on bodily autonomy of living, breathing human beings, which I think is a valid argument, but I can't help but think that pro-lifers will consider this to be ignoring arguments that pro-choicers disagree with.

IMO if you want to change peoples' minds on a topic like abortion, the best tactic is to dismantle their own argument.

With regard to 'life begins at conception', pro-lifers tend to like it a lot because it's an absolutist technicality that they can hinge their entire argument on. My counter-argument is this:

Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?

My logic being that if one considers human beings to be fundamentally different from other life forms and so therefore deserving of extra rights, the basis for their argument has to be based on the intellectual merits of the human condition. Logically you can't grant a clump of cells human rights because biologically speaking there are billions of lifeforms on this planet that are capable of the same feat. Nor do we grant children the rights of an adult because they don't have the mental capacity of an adult, but they do get some rights. A foetus at most stages of development is not even capable of breathing unaided.

Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.
That life starts at conception is beyond doubt. Those cells are alive. All the rest of the argument is convenience/cost opposed to belief.
There is no solution that will be acceptable to everyone, and changing anyone's mind is near impossible. I know a few that would be willing to die to stop abortion, and a few that wouldn't feel all that bad about pulling the trigger for them.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,574
9,262
136
That life starts at conception is beyond doubt. Those cells are alive. All the rest of the argument is convenience/cost opposed to belief.
There is no solution that will be acceptable to everyone, and changing anyone's mind is near impossible. I know a few that would be willing to die to stop abortion, and a few that wouldn't feel all that bad about pulling the trigger for them.

Right now I'm wondering how many people here, including you, didn't read the OP.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,326
10,230
136
That life starts at conception is beyond doubt. Those cells are alive. All the rest of the argument is convenience/cost opposed to belief.
There is no solution that will be acceptable to everyone, and changing anyone's mind is near impossible. I know a few that would be willing to die to stop abortion, and a few that wouldn't feel all that bad about pulling the trigger for them.
So not really pro life after all. Thanks for the info.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
There is a lot conflation going on.

Mixing up a form of human life (fertilized egg)
Embryo - a form of human life
Fetus - a more formed version of human life. Potential to become a person

This is where the Roe compromise comes in. At 23 weeks some fetuses might live outside the womb and are given a chance to become a person.

The youngest survived fetus is 21 weeks so we have it about right.

Also a woman isn't even pregnant until the fertilized egg implants so no way that could be a person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,385
1,011
126
Pro autonomy/ rights and pro gun ban

This is not about logic, it is about power and exercising it onto those who have different beliefs than yourself. The exact opposite of a liberal democracy.

fify. if people were really pro rights/autonomy both this and the recent gun bill would be negatives. what is obvious is that the government has gone too far on many fronts, but loves to keep us fighting about this crap while they keep making all of us more dependent and consolidating power and wealth at the top. anything for those ends, and keeping us throwing mud at each other keeps us from realizing what we are loosing.

i'm 100% pro choice. in fact, 100% pro autonomy and rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,665
136
My religion says wasting sperm is murder. I have 100B dollars and 40 years of patience to buy a court that will make you go to prison for jerking off.

Sorry if you don't like democracy or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
That life starts at conception is beyond doubt. Those cells are alive. All the rest of the argument is convenience/cost opposed to belief.
There is no solution that will be acceptable to everyone, and changing anyone's mind is near impossible. I know a few that would be willing to die to stop abortion, and a few that wouldn't feel all that bad about pulling the trigger for them.

By that logic sperms are living people. So are eggs. Both are living cells


The reality is Between 40-50% of all pregnancies end in abortion(miscarriage). About Half of those women don’t even know they are pregnant.

Life most certainly does not start at conception when 40-50% of conceived embryos are not viable and end up aborted naturally(or in the case of missed abortions, through the medication abortion or a D&C).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,476
7,878
136
By that logic sperms are living people. So are eggs. Both are living cells


The reality is Between 40-50% of all pregnancies end in abortion(miscarriage). About Half of those women don’t even know they are pregnant.

Life most certainly does not start at conception when 40-50% of conceived embryos are not viable and end up aborted naturally(or in the case of missed abortions, through the medication abortion or a D&C).

I thought it was higher than that? Maybe that's been updated recently ... maybe I'm thinking of the % of fertilizations that don't result in pregnancy.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
I'm going to plagiarize myself from another post.

Both the sperm and egg are live cells before they combine at "conception". If we're going to be worried about "life", then we're going to need a lot more surveillance as to watch everyone and prevent the intentional destruction of life by men who masturbate. But let's say we're just going to ignore that, since it would only affect men and clearly wouldn't result in what "pro-lifers" actually want.

Fertilization of the egg doesn't result in a single stand of DNA from biological parents immediately - the formation of a diploid cell doesn't occur for 12 hours or so, so even 11 hours after "fertilization" or "conception", there are still two individual single strands of DNA. There is literally no unique individual human at "conception". That is the science, never mind some people's feelings.

And even when there is a diploid cell approximately 12 hours after fertilization, the zygote/embryo is just hanging out in the fallopian tubes for a couple of days after fertilization. If it implants there, it will not survive and it can possibly kill the mother. So, even a few days after fertilization, that "life" isn't guaranteed to proceed safely for anyone.

After a few days, that clump of cells might implant itself into the uterine lining. Might. It may not. Most likely, the woman wouldn't even know that the event almost occurred. To say that a human life just ended because the embryo failed to implant is hilariously stupid. There isn't one fucking human being mourning the millions of embryos that pass right on through womens' uteri without implantation. Why? Because no one fucking knows if and when it is happening. Full fucking stop on that one.

And even if the embryo implants, it could be miscarried for a thousand different reasons that don't include a human-induced abortion. Anyone who thinks that the woman should be held accountable for that is a ridiculous piece of shit. If a woman's immune system successfully fights the implanted embryo, even during the first two weeks there's a good chance that NO ONE EVENS KNOWS IT HAPPENED.

So, to be clear, anyone who thinks that there is a unique human at "fertilization" or "conception" is absolutely incorrect. Scientifically. You're fucking wrong.

And until the fetus becomes viable on it's own outside of the woman's body, it isn't a unique human being that should be protected by laws. If states want to pass laws protecting a fetus upon universally agreed upon viability, that's fine, but at that point the woman is still sovereign over her own body and if credibly endangered by a continued pregnancy, should have the absolute right to terminate.

Additionally, the STATE that passes a law protecting the fetus should pay for any and all expenses related to that fetus, which means paying 100% of everything involved in keeping the woman alive, whether it's rent, food, health care, etc. You break a woman's right to choose, you buy that woman whatever is remotely related to her remaining pregnant. If your law doesn't do that, then it isn't a law designed to protect a fetus, it's a law designed to control a woman and take away her basic human rights over her own body.