Why I Am Pro-Life

[fr0d0]

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.

This first line breaks the scientific observation: that a zygote is a human life.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Hey teg

The first line breaks the scientific observation though: that a zygote is a human life.

That's irrelevant because this argument doesn't rely on whether something is human or not. The argument doesn't assume " if it's human, it has a right to life." The argument effectively states that if it's not self aware and if it can't desire "continued existence", then it doesn't have a right to life. You can apply this argument to any number of things.

See:

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No plant has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No plant has a right to life.

or

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No computer has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No computer has a right to life.

or

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No rock has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No rock has a right to life.

[fr0d0]

It's a good argument for veganism sure

Yeh I appreciate it sets it's own conditions.

[pocaracas]

Oh... boy.... every 2~3 months, this thing breaks lose again!
Why not share my POV with the younglings?...
Abortion, not a pleasant practice, I think we all can agree as much...

A necessary practice for some, even if it's not entirely and truly necessary.... at least, it's necessary for the maintenance of the status quo... mainly for the potential mother.

Not every potential mother has the correct mindset to become a mother.... some of these do become mothers, nonetheless, and are crappy ones.

Mostly as teenagers, but also as early adults, all of us do stupid things. Often, we are very aware of the danger of a given situation, but do it all the same... and then you may get in trouble. Some troubles are relatively easy to shake off, others not so much.
A pregnancy is one such trouble, which has life altering consequences which usually last for the remainder of the mother's (and father's) lifetime.

To me, it seems a bit harsh to condemn people to this lifetime sentence, for something stupid that they did, in a moment of idiocy.... or sheer bad luck (condoms break, pills can go haywire, etc...).
So, if the person (the potential mother) feels that her socioeconomic situation is not suitable for an unplanned child, I think she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.
Of course, within some limits.
A woman, usually becomes fully aware of her pregnancy 2 to 3 weeks after the sexual act that lead to conception. Until the fetus develops a brain and nerves to feel pain, it should be a simple matter of disposing of that clump of cells, with no worries as to hurting that being. This stage is reached somewhere between week 12 and 20... after the last period (because that's how doctors count), which means, that women can spend 10 weeks knowing they're pregnant, before a termination can lead to pain felt by the fetus. I think that is the best window to carry it out.
10 weeks is more than enough time for the person to think about her life and make a decision about it.

After that, you're probably in serious doubt, so you keep it.

Then you have the problem of illegal abortion. By offering women with a legal time window to perform the abortion, you are making sure these women who choose to do it actually do it in a hospital, or clinic, where they should have proper medical attention and counseling.
If it is illegal, many of these women will do it clandestinely... which is not ideal and many (a low percentage, but much higher than the alternative) end up with complications requiring extra medical attention.... and a potential problem with the law.

Now, I like to put myself in other people's shoes and try to think like them... who are the parties with a say in this?
- The potential mother, the woman => She has an unplanned and undesired pregnancy, it will force her to change a lot of thing in her life and cancel some she had planned. Under these and/or other conditions, it's understandable that she may choose to terminate the pregnancy and carry on with her life as it was.
- The government, the lawmaker, the tax collector, payer of social security => one person did something stupid and got pregnant. Should I help her take care of it and get back to work as soon as possible (thus pay taxes as she was already doing) or should I force her to keep that child... maternal leave for a few months and then she may have to leave her current job for sometime longer, or will have to get a part-time job, or whatnot.... bottom line, there's a high likelihood that there will be less taxes coming in... but one more child means more revenue in some 20 years... but an unwanted child has an above average probability of becoming a delinquent, leading to expenditure of money on police and prison.... hmmmm... and then you have the humane problem of actually killing a human being, an under-developed one, but it is human. Give them a time window to perform the termination. After that, they must keep the child... they had more than enough time to think and do something about it.

- Everyone else => gets no say

Anyway, there's my 2 cents.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

It's a good argument for veganism sure

Yeh I appreciate it sets it's own conditions.

Yep, just throw in some extra conditions such as intelligence and tastiness. Baby, you've got a stew going.

[Slave]

teaearlgreyhot: You said;

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No plant has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No plant has a right to life.

While you present an interesting line of reasoning, it is not without fault. The sentience argument falters with plants, as they - contrary to popular belief- do display sentience in their own way. Plants respond to stimuli, search for food, reproduce, defend themselves from predators. There are a multitude of studies that confirm vegetative intelligence. Here is one, for example:

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/1

The sentience argument is not consistent.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

teaearlgreyhot: You said;

All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No plant has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No plant has a right to life.

While you present an interesting line of reasoning, it is not without fault. The sentience argument falters with plants, as they - contrary to popular belief- do display sentience in their own way. Plants respond to stimuli, search for food, reproduce, defend themselves from predators. There are a multitude of studies that confirm vegetative intelligence. Here is one, for example:

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/1

The sentience argument is not consistent.

But can they be said to posses self awareness? A mechanistic explanation can suffice for those attributes of plants you mentioned.

[Slave]

Well, you're getting into muddy water there, because even babies don't have self-awareness until 15-24 months old. So then by your own admission, it is okay to kill babies, because they are not self-aware?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Well, you're getting into muddy water there, because even babies don't have self-awareness until 15-24 months old. So then by your own admission, it is okay to kill babies, because they are not self-aware?

Perhaps. One would be committing an appeal to consequences fallacy if they concluded otherwise.

[Slave]

Pretty much. There are a multitude of societies throughout history that are okay with killing babies (even a thread going right now, in which you posted, the baby soup one I refer to) - I just don't want to be part of a society that condones such an action based on a rationalization of sentience.