What if life does begin at conception?

There is a thread in the environment section saying we have to act as if AGW is real even if it's not proven because "what if" it is real. The general consensus among true believers is this is an excellent argument and we just can't take the chance and must act as if AGW is real whether we fully believe it or not. So I'll ask the same question here. What if life does begin at conception? Can we really take a chance that we are destroying a human life for the convenience of the mother. I'll be interested to see if some of the people that accepted this agument for AGW think it's a valid argument against abortion.

 

The cells were "alive" before conception. We should immediately outlaw BJs!

 

It's not like this "what if" question hasn't been covered extensively in ethical literature. Please see Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" (one of the most famous essays in applied ethics ever published - cited over 1900 times and a discipline standard found in virtually every Intro to Ethics textbook). Her claim is quite simple: the right to life does not give one the right to use another to achieve that right. Now if one is not inclined to follow Thomson's libertarian rights argument (and many abortion rights advocates are in this camp) - the alternative response is to claim that being human is not, in and of itself, morally significant, but rather what matters is having morally significant characteristics: in other words, being a person (moral personhood thus includes characteristics such as consciousness, intentionality, etc.). This latter approach invites the question as to what makes killing wrong. And then the professional debate is up and running over personhood and the moral permissibility of killing (see Don Marquis, Mary Anne Warren, Michael Tooley, Bonnie Steinbock, Jeff McMahan, etc.)

 

Long way to avoid answering the question in the OP but you are not alone. All pro abortion people seem to be avoiding this question as I suspected would happen when you link it to what if AGW is real. Probably because most of them also believe in AGW

 

I'll put you on the if it's true abortion should be outlawed list

 

Then you can't be pro-life and anti-AGW ... if you want to use your logic, then millions of pregnant mothers are put at risk by the long term effects of climate change. Which would mean that climate change believers are more pro-life than you are.

 

Well this is interesting and just what I expected. Someone who in another thread believes "what if it's true" is a valid argument to argue for AGW now comes out rejecting "what if it's true" argument presented for "what if it's true" life begins at conception.

 

I never said that life doesn't begin at conception. I said that nature and the mother make decisions on whether that life becomes viable outside the womb or is carried to term.

You really do make a lot of asinine assumptions, don't you.

 

Abortion laws failed long before the internet, abortion drugs, and pee sticks. Outlawing abortion is nothing more than a warm feeling combined with blissful ignorance.

 

Another question:

 

That would be idiotic, given what was posted, but you do you...

 

Wait..what? I literally gave you two specific types of argument in defense of abortion (with references) to the question of "what if life begins at conception?" These have been around for nearly half a century:

1. The libertarian argument for bodily autonomy: If life begins at conception, it has the same right to life as everyone else. The right to life does not entail the right to use another to secure that right. Hence, a person's right to life does not give them the right to use another person's body against their will even to save their own life. Therefore, the fetus does not have a right to use a woman's body against her will. Abortion is morally permissible.

2. The personhood argument for the moral permissibility of abortion: If life begins at conception, it is a human being. However, being biologically human is not morally significant - being a person is. What makes killing someone wrong is to infringe on specific characteristics that are morally significant: consciousness, intentionality, etc.). Hence, even if a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a human being (and almost all professional ethicists say it is), it would not be wrong to abort it (since it lacks the necessary characteristics to be considered a person). Abortion is morally permissible.

 

But it's not ok to kill people who are unconscious.

The question is, what exactly does it mean to be "capable of consciousness"?

 

Nobody believes that except the most radical Libertarian Ayn Rand type supporters.

The majority of Abortion supporters are from the same crowd that wants to put everyone in bondage to create "rights" for someone else.

I could start another whole thread on this topic.

At least you recognize there is an inconsistency.
I applaud you, not many pro-choicers would have been willing to concede this.

 

Spermatoza is living, eggs are living. Life has begun before conception. Life is changing when the egg becomes fertilized.
Some humans can eat fertilized eggs of chickens or ducks.

 

I had a Denver Chicken at IHOP for lunch.

Oh, wait...

 

Adorno said: ↑
Her claim is quite simple: the right to life does not give one the right to use another to achieve that right.

So if someone needs a new heart they can force you to give them yours?..and you're happy with that?

They aren't any "abortion supporters " but there are people who know that women have as much rights as anyone else and fight to keep them.

Who do these people you erroneously refer to as "abortion supporters" want to put in bondage ?

That sounds more like Anti-Choicers who want to put women in bondage...

 

Cool and I'll put you in the life begins at conception side of the debate on abortion. Never would have guessed you were on that team. I assumed anyone who thought that would be against very early abortion.

 

All of which has nothing to do with the OP

 

Like I said, you make a lot of asinine assumptions.

Mother Nature (or God, if you go that way) has absolutely no problem with early termination of pregnancies. It happens thousands of times each day. 50% of all fertilized eggs never make it past the 20th week. I see no difference in miscarriage and abortion up to that time. Whether it's an unconscious decision by the mother or a conscious one - the result for the fetus or embryo is exactly the same. Termination of life.

 

Interesting arguments but they dont answer the question. They instead give theories and opinions on when life matters.
Having said that I'll put you in the column of life begins at conception but that life doesn't matter. Really this is enlightening to me. All I've seen before is pro abortion people claiming life doesn't begin until birth verses anti abortion people saying life begins at conception with a third group saying life begins somewhere inbetween. Now there suddenly seems to be a new and previously silent group saying yes, life does begin at conception but doesn't matter and is disposable until it takes it's first breath.

 

What was my assinine assumption. You pretty clearly said life begins at conception.

 

*sigh*. You specifically said, "I ASSUMED anyone that thought that would be against very early abortion ...". As I said, you make a lot of asinine assumptions.

 

Mother nature or God also kills thousands of adults per day. Your point is?

 

Personally I don't think the assumption that anyone who thinks life begins at conception as you do would be against destroying that life. It seems a logical assumption to me but I'll respect your opinion on this for what it is.