So, you’d be ok with me pouring weed killer all over your freshly planted vegetable garden? Because there’s no green beans or sweet corn, there are no flowers, no buds, not even sprouts. It’s just undeveloped seeds being killed, not vegetables, so its not harming anything, right? I’m pretty sure you’d have me arrested for vandalism, for destroying what you would’ve eventually gotten from your garden.
Or maybe you would be ok with me burning your lottery ticket the night before the big drawing. It wasnt a winning ticket at that point, and was just a worthless piece of paper. So you’d have nothing to be angry about, even when those numbers do end up being drawn…
From the moment of conception, that [whatever you want to call it] represents a new human life, it’s a human seed that has been planted. No matter how much is has or hasnt developed at any given point.
So, you’d be ok with me pouring weed killer all over your freshly planted vegetable garden? Because there’s no green beans or sweet corn, there are no flowers, no buds, not even sprouts. It’s just undeveloped seeds being killed, not vegetables, so its not harming anything, right? I’m pretty sure you’d have me arrested for vandalism, for destroying what you would’ve eventually gotten from your garden.
Or maybe you would be ok with me burning your lottery ticket the night before the big drawing. It wasnt a winning ticket at that point, and was just a worthless piece of paper. So you’d have nothing to be angry about, even when those numbers do end up being drawn…
From the moment of conception, that [whatever you want to call it] represents a new human life, it’s a human seed that has been planted. No matter how much is has or hasnt developed at any given point.
I would certainly be OK with you doing either of those things to YOUR OWN garden or lottery ticket, since that would be your choice to make for yourself.
I’m not sure where you think I am advocating that someone other than the mother should be able to make the decision to terminate their own pregnancy.
I’m not. I’m illustrating how you place value on an item, based on what that item represents/will become rather than based on what it is right now. Your entire argument is that this fetus hasnt developed enough to be considered anything but a worthless appendage and thus can be disposed of as trash, yet you imply you do in fact value an equally undeveloped vegetable seed for what it will become. Why would you consider the value of the ear of corn that seed represents to be more valid than the value of the human life that fetus represents?
Of course you arent. But you are advocating that someone other than the baby be able to make the decision to terminate the baby’s life.
I’m not. I’m illustrating how you place value on an item, based on what that item represents/will become rather than based on what it is right now. Your entire argument is that this fetus hasnt developed enough to be considered anything but a worthless appendage and thus can be disposed of as trash, yet you imply you do in fact value an equally undeveloped vegetable seed for what it will become. Why would you consider the value of the ear of corn that seed represents to be more valid than the value of the human life that fetus represents?
That isn’t what your question illustrates, though, because you’re asking if I’m OK with you trespassing and destroying my property, without my consent.
You can destroy your own un-grown vegetable garden all you want. You can shred your own lottery tickets, to your heart’s content.
But you can’t make that decision for somebody else. And, in return, they can’t make it for you.
Of course you arent. But you are advocating that someone other than the baby be able to make the decision to terminate the baby’s life.
In the early-stage example, where a brain hasn’t developed yet, it isn’t a “baby”, yet, and realistically, it doesn’t have any opinion, whatsoever, on the matter.
So you place less value on your undeveloped vegetable garden than you do on your 2 year old vegetable garden. That’s understandable. But you do place some value on your undeveloped vegetable garden, don’t you? Why? If you can see why you do, you can see why pro-lifers do the same for zygotes.
Choosing any in-utero time period to start placing value is an arbitrary distinction. Choosing to do it at conception removes that arbitrary distinction and uses a perfectly natural distinction - the moment a new life is created. The only other perfectly natural distinction is the moment of birth, and I think we can all understand why choosing that point in time is much to late.
Your whole argument is that an abortion isnt destroying anything. So how could I be destroying anything of yours, when it’s similarly just a worthless seed? The point is not about who makes the decision, but if the decision is appropriate at all. You are valuing the vegetable seed, but are fine with callously trashing the human “seed”.
Exactly. It isnt about convincing anyone of anything, this is all about addressing the comment that “it doesnt make any sense”. It does make sense, and is a position that should make sense to everyone regardless of your own personal beliefs. Unless you are, as owenscott said, trying to remain willfully ignorant so as to not risk your beliefs being challenged.
But you do place some value on your undeveloped vegetable garden, don’t you? Why? If you can see why you do, you can see why pro-lifers do the same for zygotes.
I find it hilarious that a pro-life argument is attempting to appeal to emotion through the example of a vegetable garden, in any stage of development.
I’m not saying, anywhere, that I place “no value” on a zygote – but I am saying, quite clearly, i hope, that a zygote does not have the same value as a fully developed and already-in-the-world human life.
Your whole argument is that an abortion isnt destroying anything. So how could I be destroying anything of yours, when it’s similarly just a worthless seed? The point is not about who makes the decision, but if the decision is appropriate at all. You are valuing the vegetable seed, but are fine with callously trashing the human “seed”.
No, that is not the argument, at all. A zygote isn’t “worthless”, but it definitely does not have “equivalent worth” to a living 2 year old. Not even remotely.
And who makes the decision to terminate that zygote absolutely matters. Just like it matters who decides to tear up the garden in that silly example.
You shouldn’t get to decide for somebody else, in either case.
You guys seem to act like pro-choice people want to force people to have abortions against their will, or that going around and punching random pregnant women in the belly is being advocated for.
EDIT: with that last line, are you about the break into song that “every sperm is sacred”?
Choosing any in-utero time period to start placing value is an arbitrary distinction. Choosing to do it at conception removes that arbitrary distinction and uses a perfectly natural distinction - the moment a new life is created. The only other perfectly natural distinction is the moment of birth, and I think we can all understand why choosing that point in time is much to late.
That is a completely inadequate point of distinction, though, because the zygote hasn’t implanted yet, at conception (and a great many fresh zygotes will not do so successfully).
Though I guess it is worth clarifying, if you are in the camp that thinks IUDs are equivalent to having an abortion, since they work by preventing implantation.
And others find it hilarious that you see more value in protecting a vegetable seed than in protecting a newly conceived human life.
And as far as abortions are concerned, it’s an irrelevant distinction. Be it at fertilization or implantation, no one is deciding on the appropriateness of an abortion at this stage because no one is aware that there even is a pregnancy that could be aborted.
Before posting, I actually went back and re-wrote what I was originally going to say because I caught that you never said that a zygote has no value. So, we’re back to square one.
Pick an arbitrary time during development
Pick the beginning
Pick the end
If a zygote does not have the same value, then no one has the same value. Can I assume that you think the State should not stop people from committing suicide?
If a zygote does not have the same value, then no one has the same value. Can I assume that you think the State should not stop people from committing suicide?
You are not drawing a logical conclusion from that statement.
All in-the-world, living, humans can potentially “have the same value” (in the context of morality) without a zygote having the same value as a fetus, or a fetus having the same value as an already-born person. Nobody gets to go around murdering other people without consequence. But an adult should be allowed to make those decisions about their own body and whether they wish to keep living in it. That says nothing at all about the “relative worth” of two adults, or an adult and a child.
So I have no issue with old people (or otherwise terminal people) deciding that they have “had enough”. The only real excuse for state intervention there should be making sure that nobody is being taken advantage of in the process of their decision, with respect to doctors or organizations that might facilitate the act.
To be quite direct on that issue, I had to deal with my dad’s death a few years back, and he had a DNR when he had to go into a nursing facility. An important feature being, if you don’t have one, they’ll keep you hydrated intravenously, so you can’t just stop drinking water when you decide you are ready to go.
Do you believe the state should intervene to keep people alive whether they want to be, or not?
How come we don’t see pro-choice people in the streets trying to stop police and doctors from locking up suicidal people against their will?
Go ask them. I have no idea.
You insist there is a huge difference between a zygote and a fetus, but you are equating suicide with a DNR?
I was pointing out that a DNR prevents at least one very straightforward form of suicide, which is simply ceasing to drink water. (i.e. the form of death-by-choice most accessible to someone in a skilled-nursing facility)
I’m not a legal expert on DNRs, but choosing to dehydrate yourself doesn’t quite seem the same as having a cardiac arrest.
If you are in a nursing home without a DNR, and you stop eating and drinking, then they will forcibly keep you hydrated (intravenous fluids) and nourished (feeding tube).
EDIT: actually – to better clarify – the fluids/feeding-tube are sort of a “rider” to the overall DNR, that you have to separately and explicitly clarify ahead of time.
My mistake in how I remembered all of that working, when my dad had to go into a facility.
Yes. I spent a significant amount of time at my job for 8 years doing exactly that.
I don’t personally believe that all suicides are equal, in that there are certainly many temporarily distressed people that “need help” and will come through, if given a chance.
But I heartily disagree with anyone that thinks keeping terminally ill people alive against their will is appropriate or compassionate.
You are focusing on the wrong part. How does having a DNR allow you to kill yourself?
EDIT: So you can have a “don’t stop me from starving myself” rider to your DNR. I guess that’s something
So, suicide panels to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Who should sit on them? Should physically healthy people with severe mental illness be allowed to kill themselves too? That’s not a hypothetical. It’s definitely a thing in Europe.
Side note: Do you find it weird that we are way more protective of adult life than much of Europe, but way less protective of fetal life than much of Europe?
Because the people that protest aren’t mostly pro-choice, they are mostly pro-abortion.
So, suicide panels to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Who should sit on them? Should physically healthy people with severe mental illness be allowed to kill themselves too? That’s not a hypothetical. It’s definitely a thing in Europe.
They don’t decide “who gets to live”. That is simply not the right language to frame that in, at all.
If anything, they are deciding who they will compel to live, in those cases.
