The Abortion Debate

I deeply hope that this will be a great exercise for the both of us, And will have an exciting and respectful dialogue. I would like to address the objections you posted in your previous argument 1. A zygote/fetus is life sure, But this life does not differ from plants and bacteria despite the fact that it could potentially become a human. Potentially being the key word here. First you said that it doesn't differ from plants and bacteria. I am going to take this objection as that it doesn't differ in person-hood between plants and bacteria, Which are clearly not persons. If not please correct me, But I will answer this objection after answering the second part of your counter-argument. You said that a zygote could potentially become a human. I would like to refer to my opening statement my distinctions between a human cell and a human organism. The zygote differs in behavior from any other human cell, Organizing and constructing its own body with purpose I said, Making it a human organism or human being. This is paraphrasing from the article I listed. Link to article again: . https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ This is consensus is for the proposition of a fetus being a human being, Not potentially human. Now as for the similarities between plants and bacteria and a zygote, This is only due to the appearances (similar of a bacterium) of a zygote, And the development. Appearances certainly don't determine person-hood, So I will move on to level of development. If development determines person-hood, What level of development would you say determines person-hood? Is it at the point of sentience or sometime else? I would like to hear your thoughts, But I don't see why level of development would matter in terms of person-hood. Now for the answer to your second objection 2. Despite the zygote having distinctive characteristics, It is not at all equatable to a viable, Living sentient human being. We have already agreed that the zygote is alive, And I have already answered why it is a human being, So I will focus this counter-argument on the words viable and sentient. Now, A human being's viability is not a determinant of person-hood. Let me explain. If you want to view person-hood as static (a word I am going to use for arguments' sake) or strictly having person-hood or not, Then if some human being is not viable it is not a person. This has a big problem. On this view if someone falls into a coma and lose their viability they lose their person-hood and no longer deserve our moral consideration because having lost their person-hood they don't have membership in our moral community. Then if they wake up they gain their person-hood again, Which doesn"t make sense. Regarding sentience I am going to take this in the same terms that Peter Singer does: the ability to feel pleasure and pain, Which would rule out any fetus younger than at least 28 weeks. In response to this I offer the following thought experiment: Sent-Anni On the planet of Neo there are a people called the Sent-Anni These are aliens that look quite similar to human beings but they have one major difference. After reaching the age of sixty, Their ability to feel pleasure and pain completely diminishes. If you cut them they feel nothing and if you make a joke they can't laugh. The government requires by law those of the age of sixty or over to be delivered into their custody. They are either 1. Executed humanely in order to harvest their organs and save the lives of patients who need organ transplants. Or 2. Brought to an arena where they fight to the death in an extremely popular gladiator event, Where all profits are used to fund the building of various homeless shelters, And the spread of reliable government well-fare programs. Not trying to sound too negative in this experiment but the question remains. Did the government do anything wrong? This thought experiment is merely meant to illustrate that person-hood is not derived from sentience. It doesn't matter whether or not you can feel pleasure or pain in order to be deserving of moral consideration. Thanks again for participating, Back to you. Here is the works cited for the article I mention, Just in order to not plagiarize. Condic, Maureen. "A Scientific View of When Life Begins. " Charlotte Lozier Institute, Lozier Institute, 11 June 2014, Lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/.