Actually, I assume something like that could fall under a rape exception, which I think Terr believes in.
Circular reasoning. An embryo is not a “moral subject” because it cannot be harmed. And it cannot be harmed because it is not a “moral subject”. Or, in other words, you define “moral subject” in a way that would allow you to kill the embryo.
No, because the pinkie is not a human in your hypothetical until it is harvested and cloned. Something needs to be done (harvesting and cloning) to make it one. On the other hand, ONCE it is harvested and cloned, yes, killing it would be murder.
No, I don’t. Rape exception is utterly illogical. If you think it is not ok to kill a baby, why would it become ok if it was conceived in a rape? Is it guilty of something somehow?
Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of your “mother’s life” exception. Apologies.
I am repeatedly getting accused of weaseling here but I still have not seen an answer to my question of why it should be the moment of fertilisation that starts human life.
**nate **has professed that this was “logical” but has not said why it would be. And **Terr **has several times called the fertilized egg “a human life” but has not really said why. Why is the unfertilized egg not “a human life”? It can - given the right conditions - grow into a human being too. Is fertilization really more than one of several steps during the creation of human life? What makes this step different?
Oddly enough I agree with you here. The rape exception makes no sense to me either.
Why not give us your precise definition of “human life”? It might save time.
More precisely - an implanted fertilized egg. Why it is “a human life”? Because you have to take an action to prevent it from becoming a human being. If you leave it alone, unless it is naturally aborted (and that cannot be prevented), it will become one.
It’ll also become a corpse. And/or a human adult. Why aren’t we treating it as either of those things?
My view on abortion is probably considered somewhat radical. I believe that every human being (of sound mind) has the right to decide who and what gets to go into their body, who and what gets to stay inside their body, and who and what must exit and/or be removed from their body, at all times and for any reason. It doesn’t matter how the object or person got inside their body, and it doesn’t matter who it is, if it’s a person – if the ‘host’ person decides they must leave, then they must leave or be removed by force. So in my view it doesn’t matter what the moral status of the fetus is – whether it’s a clump of cells or a human being, if the mother wants it out it must get out or be removed.
I’ll note that my view says nothing about what happens once the person/cells are removed from the ‘host’ person (mother). If a woman wants to end her pregnancy, and once her pregnancy is ended there is a living fetus/baby/person on the operating table, then in my view the doctor has the same obligation to this person/baby/fetus as they would to any other; and the former host/mother has no more right to do harm than they would to any other person/baby/fetus outside of their body.
This is tied to my view about bodily autonomy – that the law (or other people) should not and must not infringe on someone’s right to full and complete control over their own body, which includes who and what gets to go inside and stay inside. And that this full control over one’s own body necessarily overrides the right to bodily autonomy of anyone (whether a rapist or a baby) inside their body.
Ah, implantation not fertilization. Ok, for our debate one is probably as good as the other (even though **nate **and the Roman Catholic church would disagree).
I can see your point. You have to take action to purposefully prevent an implanted egg from growing into a child. No denying that. But would it not be fair to say that you have to take action during sexual intercourse to prevent the fertilization of an egg? Yes, there is the possibility that the fertilization does not happen through natural causes (and like a miscarriage that cannot be prevented). But to be sure you have to interfere. My point is that the *potential *is already there during intercourse. So if an interference with the potential would be equal to a killing, contraception would meet that criterion, don’t you think?
I will answer that as soon as you answer to my hypothetical that you weaseled out of answering.
Oddly, or maybe not, your definition states that the fetus (or implanted fertilized egg) is NOT a human being. I don’t see how it make any sense to define “human life” as something separate and distinct from “human being”.
For the purpose of the discussion, I define the two as separate, with “human being” as someone that can function independent of the mother. Just so I can make a linguistic distinction. There is no real distinction.
That’s fine. You are defining a human life/human being as anything that has the potential, if not interfered with, to become an actual person.
However, let’s be clear that yours in not the one, objectively provable, correct definition. For me, I see nothing wrong with interfering with something that has not acquired the actual attributes of human beings-- in particular a brain that is functioning on some sort of human level. And I’ll freely admit that my definition is not the one, objectively provable, correct definition either.
We start with different, unprovable axioms, and so it’s unsurprising that we come to different conclusions.
That is, of course, the nature of conceptual definitions. No science experiment is ever going to tell us where life begins.
All we can really do is test whether your definition comports with your other principles. So defining life as anything that will become a human without natural randomness or human interference is an internally coherent definition. But it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny based on the other principles likely held by Terr. Sperm ejaculated into a fertile vagina will become a human without natural randomness or human interference–the only difference is the magnitude of the rate of miscarriage vs. the magnitude of non-insemination.
If I am getting you right you are asking me what I would do, if it were a known fact that life continues during phases of brain death. Is that right? In that case I would not be able to keep up my definition of what life is, since it obviously does not require a functioning brain to continue. I would not support the termination of such life just as well as I do not support the termination of life in reality.
Sperm without the egg is not the entity that is a human. Neither is the egg without the sperm. Only combined it becomes that entity. That is, (according to my principles, if that’s what you want to discuss), a human is, by definition, one entity. Not many/several separate ones.
So - if I understand you correctly, if someone, tomorrow, invents a way to terminate all brain activity in an adult human being, temporarily, then revive the brain after some period of time, you would become fully anti-abortion?
And that makes sense to you?