4 ms·

Murder only applies to sentient beings. Abortion almost never kills anything more complicated than a frog, and for the exceptions, it's always due to medical co

Murder only applies to sentient beings. Abortion almost never kills anything more complicated than a frog, and for the exceptions, it's always due to medical complications. Sure, it has "potential", but I could "potentially" be a billionaire one day, and it still wouldn't make sense to tax me like Zuckerberg right now.

leereeves 4y ago
A few holes in that argument, for the sake of intellectual honesty: > Murder only applies to sentient beings. Even if we accept that definition, it's not limited to "currently sentient". It is also murder to kill someone whose brain isn't functioning right now but who is likely to regain "sentience". > Abortion almost never kills anything more complicated than a frog The difference between a human being and a frog is in the DNA, and it's there from day 1. Not everything can be judged by external appearance. > Sure, it has "potential", but I could "potentially" be a billionaire one day This potential is more like the potential that you might live to be a senior citizen, not the remote chance that you might be a billionaire. (And of course this is downvoted by people who can't stand real discussion of the topic.)
- KingMob 4y ago
  > Even if we accept that definition, it's not limited to "currently sentient". It is also murder to kill someone whose brain isn't functioning right now but who is likely to regain "sentience". Interesting, but this has holes, too. After all, at a certain point in a coma, we conclude that euthanasia may be ethical, even if they might still wake up. > The difference between a human being and a frog is in the DNA, and it's there from day 1. Not everything can be judged by external appearance. DNA is a blueprint for an organism, not an actual organism. If DNA alone was relevant, we'd have to revive the sin of onanism. The complexity of the actual fetus is what's relevant, not DNA. (Side note: DNA overlaps more than you'd think, actually. Frogs and humans share 90% DNA. It's even higher for common warm-blooded livestock we routinely kill and eat.) > This potential is more like the potential that you might live to be a senior citizen, not the remote chance that you might be a billionaire. Irrelevant. I could have swapped billionaire with millionaire (or thousand-aire), and the point remains that we don't tax people based on their hypothetical future tax bracket. > (And of course this is downvoted by people who can't stand real discussion of the topic.) Well, I didn't downvote you, but I find the endless refusal to concede the biology of early fetuses means they're not human yet kind of tiring. At least the pro-choice faction concedes that late-stage abortion, when the fetus is practically human, should only be reserved for medical danger and unviability.

leereeves 4y ago

A few holes in that argument, for the sake of intellectual honesty: > Murder only applies to sentient beings. Even if we accept that definition, it's not limited to "currently sentient". It is also murder to kill someone whose brain isn't functioning right now but who is likely to regain "sentience". > Abortion almost never kills anything more complicated than a frog The difference between a human being and a frog is in the DNA, and it's there from day 1. Not everything can be judged by external appearance. > Sure, it has "potential", but I could "potentially" be a billionaire one day This potential is more like the potential that you might live to be a senior citizen, not the remote chance that you might be a billionaire. (And of course this is downvoted by people who can't stand real discussion of the topic.)

KingMob 4y ago
> Even if we accept that definition, it's not limited to "currently sentient". It is also murder to kill someone whose brain isn't functioning right now but who is likely to regain "sentience". Interesting, but this has holes, too. After all, at a certain point in a coma, we conclude that euthanasia may be ethical, even if they might still wake up. > The difference between a human being and a frog is in the DNA, and it's there from day 1. Not everything can be judged by external appearance. DNA is a blueprint for an organism, not an actual organism. If DNA alone was relevant, we'd have to revive the sin of onanism. The complexity of the actual fetus is what's relevant, not DNA. (Side note: DNA overlaps more than you'd think, actually. Frogs and humans share 90% DNA. It's even higher for common warm-blooded livestock we routinely kill and eat.) > This potential is more like the potential that you might live to be a senior citizen, not the remote chance that you might be a billionaire. Irrelevant. I could have swapped billionaire with millionaire (or thousand-aire), and the point remains that we don't tax people based on their hypothetical future tax bracket. > (And of course this is downvoted by people who can't stand real discussion of the topic.) Well, I didn't downvote you, but I find the endless refusal to concede the biology of early fetuses means they're not human yet kind of tiring. At least the pro-choice faction concedes that late-stage abortion, when the fetus is practically human, should only be reserved for medical danger and unviability.