4 ms·

The problem is we've already gotten too philosophical. Nobody has any prepubescent moral instincts about fertilized human eggs. Nobody has any empathy for ferti

The problem is we've already gotten too philosophical. Nobody has any prepubescent moral instincts about fertilized human eggs. Nobody has any empathy for fertilized human eggs. Deciding that an ethically-burdensome life begins at egg fertilization is ridiculously modern, arbitrary, and, to use your phrase, "too philosophical". It isn't a threshold born of compassion, like mid-term or late-term abortion laws are in some people's minds. It's a threshold decided on by dispassionate intellectuals because it seemed kind of parsimonious if you squinted at it just right, and then adopted by politicians and partisans because it seemed like the best they were going to get on the road to their real goal, which is criminalizing birth control. Is there somebody out there I could read who argues that the ethical responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term begins at the moment of egg fertilization, who doesn't also personally believe that extramarital sex and/or birth control are sinful? I am genuinely interested in being proven wrong about my characterization of people who argue for fertilized-egg-morality. I have questions for them, like "how far into the egg must the sperm penetrate before it becomes an ethically significant entity?" and "do documented cases of parthenogenesis in humans indicate that all eggs are ethically significant entities as well?"

anon291 4y ago
> The problem is we've already gotten too philosophical. Nobody has any prepubescent moral instincts about fertilized human eggs. Nobody has any empathy for fertilized human eggs Sorry, I vehemently disagree. I remember my parents explaining abortion to me as a child, and I thought it was pretty barbaric. My parents are less 'pro-life' than I am. > criminalizing birth control. Personally, I don't use birth control, because I think it's too dangerous. > Is there somebody out there I could read who argues that the ethical responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term begins at the moment of egg fertilization, Sure. Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. There are entire secular organizations. Actually 12% of all pro-lifers have no religious affiliation: https://secularprolife.org/2019/07/the-religious-diversity-of-pro-life/ https://secularprolife.org/2019/07/the-religious-diversity-o... There are even leftist orgs who engage in 'direct action', like pro-life Antifa: https://paaunow.org/ https://paaunow.org/. Not my cup of tea, since I typically disagree with leftist approaches to argumentation, even though we'd agree in this case. Here's their manifesto (https://paaunow.org/stances https://paaunow.org/stances). They don't believe extramarital sex is wrong in a moral sense. Honestly, most of the pro-life movement is not Catholic. Most evangelical and Protestant churches believe BC is fine. Many evangelical churches are okay with extra marital sex.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  > Sorry, I vehemently disagree. I remember my parents explaining abortion to me as a child, and I thought it was pretty barbaric. My parents are less 'pro-life' than I am. I'm not saying children aren't inclined to be repulsed by abortion, I'm saying they wouldn't empathize with a fertilized embryo any more than they'd empathize with a sperm cell. In fact they're probably a lot more likely to empathize with the sperm cell since it's moving around. > Personally, I don't use birth control, because I think it's too dangerous. I don't think I understand this. > Sure. Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. Thank you for this, it was interesting hearing his perspective. I really dislike his perspective, but it's interesting to hear anyway; it's the sort of example I was looking for. What I dislike is how totally definitional his position seems. We musn't destroy fertilized embryos because they are humans, and they are humans because... we are defining humans to be fertilized embryos and beyond? Why not ask the question in the first place: Why is it wrong to kill? If it's because of the lost potential life that would have been lived had the killing not occurred, then we must outlaw all forms of birth control. If it's because of the termination of the neurological functions of a human or human-like brain, then there's nothing wrong with destroying embryos. But what is the ethical argument for the cutoff being fertilization? "Potential life" clearly does not work; potential lives are prevented all the time. "Imminent life" doesn't work either; sperm on their way to an egg are imminent life until they hit latex. The moment when "the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte" is very interesting, but so are many other stages that precede it and follow it. I don't see why that stage strikes an ethical chord except in the minds of people who can't separate arbitrary term definition from reality. What if we defined sexual intercourse this way? Let's find the biological moment where sexual intercourse has technically occurred, and rest our moral judgement on that biological definition. So, for example, rape with a condom is a whole separate class of crime, because sexual intercourse never occurred. Nevermind that the real impact to thinking, feeling people is almost totally disconnected from that specific biological definition we've picked. In addition to my questions from the previous comment, here's another thing I'd ask Christopher Hitchens (if he were still alive) or those who agree with him on this subject: Is it wrong to have sex with a woman born with a condition that allows her eggs to be fertilized, but leaves no chance for them to ever implant, thereby invariably killing one or two fertilized "humans" every month she has sex? Or, in abstract terms: Is it really the fertilized embryo entity that we care about? Or is it in fact the imminent life? And if it is the imminent life, then why is pulling out okay (or is it)?

anon291 4y ago

> The problem is we've already gotten too philosophical. Nobody has any prepubescent moral instincts about fertilized human eggs. Nobody has any empathy for fertilized human eggs Sorry, I vehemently disagree. I remember my parents explaining abortion to me as a child, and I thought it was pretty barbaric. My parents are less 'pro-life' than I am. > criminalizing birth control. Personally, I don't use birth control, because I think it's too dangerous. > Is there somebody out there I could read who argues that the ethical responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term begins at the moment of egg fertilization, Sure. Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. There are entire secular organizations. Actually 12% of all pro-lifers have no religious affiliation: https://secularprolife.org/2019/07/the-religious-diversity-of-pro-life/ https://secularprolife.org/2019/07/the-religious-diversity-o... There are even leftist orgs who engage in 'direct action', like pro-life Antifa: https://paaunow.org/ https://paaunow.org/. Not my cup of tea, since I typically disagree with leftist approaches to argumentation, even though we'd agree in this case. Here's their manifesto (https://paaunow.org/stances https://paaunow.org/stances). They don't believe extramarital sex is wrong in a moral sense. Honestly, most of the pro-life movement is not Catholic. Most evangelical and Protestant churches believe BC is fine. Many evangelical churches are okay with extra marital sex.

rcoveson 4y ago
> Sorry, I vehemently disagree. I remember my parents explaining abortion to me as a child, and I thought it was pretty barbaric. My parents are less 'pro-life' than I am. I'm not saying children aren't inclined to be repulsed by abortion, I'm saying they wouldn't empathize with a fertilized embryo any more than they'd empathize with a sperm cell. In fact they're probably a lot more likely to empathize with the sperm cell since it's moving around. > Personally, I don't use birth control, because I think it's too dangerous. I don't think I understand this. > Sure. Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. Thank you for this, it was interesting hearing his perspective. I really dislike his perspective, but it's interesting to hear anyway; it's the sort of example I was looking for. What I dislike is how totally definitional his position seems. We musn't destroy fertilized embryos because they are humans, and they are humans because... we are defining humans to be fertilized embryos and beyond? Why not ask the question in the first place: Why is it wrong to kill? If it's because of the lost potential life that would have been lived had the killing not occurred, then we must outlaw all forms of birth control. If it's because of the termination of the neurological functions of a human or human-like brain, then there's nothing wrong with destroying embryos. But what is the ethical argument for the cutoff being fertilization? "Potential life" clearly does not work; potential lives are prevented all the time. "Imminent life" doesn't work either; sperm on their way to an egg are imminent life until they hit latex. The moment when "the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte" is very interesting, but so are many other stages that precede it and follow it. I don't see why that stage strikes an ethical chord except in the minds of people who can't separate arbitrary term definition from reality. What if we defined sexual intercourse this way? Let's find the biological moment where sexual intercourse has technically occurred, and rest our moral judgement on that biological definition. So, for example, rape with a condom is a whole separate class of crime, because sexual intercourse never occurred. Nevermind that the real impact to thinking, feeling people is almost totally disconnected from that specific biological definition we've picked. In addition to my questions from the previous comment, here's another thing I'd ask Christopher Hitchens (if he were still alive) or those who agree with him on this subject: Is it wrong to have sex with a woman born with a condition that allows her eggs to be fertilized, but leaves no chance for them to ever implant, thereby invariably killing one or two fertilized "humans" every month she has sex? Or, in abstract terms: Is it really the fertilized embryo entity that we care about? Or is it in fact the imminent life? And if it is the imminent life, then why is pulling out okay (or is it)?