abortion early in the pregnancy can be rationally justified, but morality is eye of beholder

i guarantee the arguments i will be making will be new to almost everyone, and probably hard to digest at times. that's the nature of philosophy. a little due to my not explaining well enough at times, i concede. i don't think it's okay. abortion. it's reasonable to be against it. but i think it's reasonable to think it's okay early in the pregnancy. to argue that it's not a human person. of course it's human type and not a pig. but, a redblood cell is also human. also, red blood cells have DNA but are not human persons. to the counter contention that your red blood cell doesn't grow into a person. consider this example, my snowman argument. you have a snowman. if you have a snowball that you're gonna use to get to that snowman before he exists, the snowball obviously isn't a snowman. if you have a cell, like a block, and start building, the cell isn't necessarily a human person either. true, the cell in your arm isn't going to grow into a person, but, the analogy can still exist as it's similar enough to make the point-the initial cell is like a block and not the final product. so when does a block set become the set? it's a gray question. when does the cell become a person? it's gray, too. simply asking the question of when it becomes a human isn't answering the question. bottomline. on one side you have human red blood cells, on the other ameoba type organisms. the eariest human cell is similar and different than both. you can't say for sure it's one way or the other. as to other arguments, which make it reasonable to be against abortion but that can be reasonably refuted. true, the early cell is: unique (no other DNA like this) an separate (its own entity. important cause twins have the same DNA) DNA. also, organisms can be single celled but that does not mean they are merely cells. like an ameoba is an organism. so the early cell could be an organism. the question is whether the early cell is rightly called an organism. some text books say it is, others don't say anything. a distinguishing feature of amoebas and cells early on is amoebas don't grow into greater beings. so, early cells in pregnancy are unique in that they do grow into greater beings. it doesn't prove they're not organisms, but it proves something unique abhout their nature. would you consider smashing to acorn to be the same as having killed an acorn tree? or eating an egg as killing a chicken? it's reasonable if you do, but this usually, and i think rightly so, is a point/argument in favor of prochoice early on. smashing an acorn i don't think is necessarily the same as killing an acorn tree. (aside from the literal fact that you're not killing it in tree form) the unique set of DNA stuff is an interesting biological idea that you might think since it's unque it's a person, but it's simply not necessarily the case. i'd put it more in favor of saying it's a person but not definite. saying it's growing into a person isn't enough, cause potential life isn't necessarily human life. you have to argue all the stuff i've been arguing. ethically, should we simply defer to human life such that not deferring would be irrational? *i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose.* (most "choose" arguments are very lacking but i think this one is not so much) no one knows, so who should decide? should the government? why not the individual? of coruse, the government could decide a point it thinks it's a person cleary, but that's not necessarily the early organism/cell. give the person the dignity to decide themself, respect it. *it's often the moral thing to do to defer to allowing others the freedom to do something* here's it's unclar whether it's hurting another but the principle still is here and needs weighed. at a certain point, it clearly is a human and it's unreasonable to think otheriwse. at a certain point it's reasonbly not a human, clearly reasonably not. so we have to take the cell v. the baby, and the points of uncertainty in between should be deferred to be baby. (if we as a government will choose a point, this is how i'd do it. i guess i'd pick the moment heartbeats forms, with roof for error on the side of person, cause i think that's when the first substaintial thing happens to the embryo. whatever is the first substanital thing, if i'm mistaken.) i'm not by saying all this saying that we can kill people on life support. they're not reasonably diputued to be human life. could there be a point when it's unclear, like when machines start taking over a body? i think so, because machines can make a person function when they are clearly dead (this creeps out family of the dead if they see it; they do it for saving organs etc sometimes), and if you start using machines one by one on a person, their heart and brainwaives (the things that make them clinically alive or not) can be usurped by machines and later they're vital signs would be working again. would it be wrong to kill them when not working? i guess you could argue that it wouldn't be, that life was not in them then, but how are you sure? it's a gray area. like this is a gray area, shouldn't whether the early cell is human be gray too? yes it should. reasonable to think either way. and if all the person is is machines and a beating heart, are theyu alive? it's uncelar. and in a way the machine argument goes beyond the idea that the early cells are in questionable form, and shows that the mother cuold be like a machine on a lifeless body. how do i define person? that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point. i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree. also some biological functions of the early cells. early cells split. i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. of course, a person could split, but. it just does not seem like something God would do. yes, i'm using a faith standard here. it could go either way, but just saying. in that vein, i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion. granted, it could just be something God would do to naturally weed out bad cells. but still, just doesn't seem like something God would allow. not to get into soul arguments, which are separate from these observations. now, i don't think it's unreasonable to simply insist we defer to life, and by that to say i'm wrong and that it's not reasonable to think it's okay. but, i simply disagree and think it's a reasonable position to have.