PERSON 1:

Saying that life begins at the moment of conception is not an opinion, it's a FACT. When something is alive, it grows and develops. Plus, you need DNA, which is the molecule of life and has the genetic code of a unique individual. When the sperm enters the egg, it is precisely in that moment when a new DNA is created, and it is in that moment when cells begin to grow and replicate. When you have something growing and developing with a particular and unique DNA, that something IS alive, so life begins at conception. It's basic biology. You're free to have whatever opinion you like, but you must accept what I just said because it's the truth.

ME:

Right, so if something is living generally then it's worth protecting? Plantlife also has DNA. Bugs have DNA. Surely the sanctity of life isn't that it is, itself, life, generally...

You can mean "life" in different senses. For instance, I have a "life" but that's not related to me being "alive." Technically being alive and myself as a human being a "life" are two different things.

If your only argument against abortion is that the developing cells have their own DNA and are technically living entities, then this can apply to basically everything else in the world of biology. Surely you'd need a "life" in the sense of being a semi-autonomous creature with feelings and emotions and a realized emotional attachment to the parents..

PERSON 1:

Yes, bugs and plants have DNA, but this is HUMAN DNA we're talking about. And where do you get that having life and being alive are 2 different things?

Is a person in a vegetative state not alive to you? I don't know if that's what you mean...

ME:

Can you make a case for whether or not it's relevant that DNA is human or the blueprint for some other species? Fingernail clippings are human fingernail clippings, but other primate clippings are worth just as little. It's matter that doesn't have an bearing on the emotional abilities or connections to other people that the entity has.

A person living in a vegetative state has either a chance of recovery to an already lived and complexly felt life, but also this person has connections to other people that have experienced this person. A baby, when born, has a connection to its parents from the parents and to the parents. That is to say, the parents themselves feel a connection to the baby and the baby itself has an emotional attachment to the parents. When the cells first develop at the microbial level in the womb, there's no capacity for this at all. And, if the parents don't wish to carry this collection of cells to term, then there's no connection in that direction either. You have to make a case for the worth of the life as a human life relative to other types of life on the same basis as you would for the distinction between human life generally and other life generally. If your only argument is that the life in question has the human blueprint itself without having the qualities that makes being a human different than being a plant, then you haven't established the necessary qualifications for that life's sanctity.

And, in terms of a life being different from being alive, I was referring to the idea of having "a life" like the phrase "get a life." That is to say, a complex history of feeling and and memory that is what sets us apart from plant-life and makes our lives worthy of protecting rather than the simple biological requirements of being a living entity.

PERSON 1:

 I see your point, but it doesn't hold up. What if the vegetative person has no relatives, no friends and no known connections with anybody in the world. Should his/her life be dispposed?

Fingernails have human DNA, yes, but they're a part of a human being, not a human being by itself. You can do that to you because it is your body, that fetus growing inside is not your body, it has a unique set of DNA.

And I completely disagree with giving worth to life relative to other types of life. All human lives are worthy. That's why I also don't agree with the death penalty. A plant will never have the qualities you are talking about, but a fetus will, unless somebody prevents that (or nature), of course.

ME:

I think that if a person in a vegetative state determined prior that he or she would like to be killed if he or she was put into a vegetative state with no chance of recovery, then killing that person should be the appropriate course of action. If no such prior determination was made or if it isn't clear if there isn't a chance for recovery, then they should be kept alive. If there is no chance for recovery and no prior determination was made, then it would be up to the connections that person had made in his or her life to make the decision, just like its up to a parent to keep the baby or not as the baby before being born doesn't have the capacity to form that bond with anyone yet. A person in a vegetative state no longer has that capacity once they're in that state and thus it is up to the other connections, in this case not parents but family generally or friends or whoever.

As for the fingernail comment, that's true but the point is that you have to establish why that distinction is relevant. Why is it relevant that the DNA inside the cells being formed inside of a woman's body is not her own DNA? There needs to be a reason beyond that the clump of cells technically fits into the category of "human" and "life."

If you disagree with giving worth to life relative to other types of life, then why would you specify that all human lives are worthy? The whole point is that human lives are worthy relative to other types of life such as plantlife or animal life. The trick is actually having a reason for this. Once you find that reason, it can or cannot apply to life, be it human or not, in various circumstances. If your only distinction is the potential to have those qualities, then why stop at it being a life at all? Why stop at it being DNA? Why not try to save every sperm or egg? Those components could potentially come together to form a human with those qualities. If your basis is purely that of potential, then you're essentially just finding an arbitrary place to start that potential from.

PERSON 1:

A sperm or egg doesn't have a potential to become a human being, it's the encounter of both which has that potential.

I think we can agree to disagree because it's going nowhere...

ME:

That's fine if you want to end it there, but I'd just note that this is, again, an arbitrary distinction. Sperm has the potential to become a human being provided the condition is met that it meets and egg. The form they combine to create also has the potential to become a human being, provided it is carried to term. There are provisions for both. You'd need more than potential itself.

PERSON 1:

If all conditions are fair, that clump of cells by itself will be born. A sperm with all fair conditions by itself, will not become a human being...

ME:

I don't know what "all the conditions are fair" means. When I say condition being met, I mean something has to happen. Carrying something to term isn't in reality a passive action. The issue is that of why the potential to become a human life with all of the complexities that set it apart from other forms of life matters. And why at that point specifically?


PERSON 2:

So your argument is that someone in a vegetative state who can be woken in nine months isn't worth reviving because of the effort involved?

ME:

No my argument was about abortion and I was responding to him bringing up people in a vegetative state by showing that it is an equivalent scenario only in specific circumstances. Those circumstances, the ones in which I find it morally acceptable to stop the life support of a person in a vegetative state, are either the person in the vegetative state requesting so prior to being in the vegetative state, or there being absolutely 0% chance of recovery and then the family and friends deciding that they should pull the plug. In any other circumstance, be it that the person didn't make a determination beforehand, the family wants to keep the person alive, or there being a chance for recovery, it would be murder.

The way this is analogous to abortion is only in demonstrating that the worth of a human life is determined by both the connections and complexities formed by the life itself and also the connections formed by other lives to that life. If a baby isn't born yet, it A) hasn't had a chance to become autonomous and form a connection to any other life, even at the most minimal level of sleeping in the womb, and B) if the parents want to have the baby aborted, then they haven't formed the connection in the direction of the life. Neither conditions are met so the life hasn't met the reasonable standards for becoming more worthy than plantlife.

If his argument is that the potential to become a human life with either a connection and complexity of awareness or a connection formed by other life is in itself what causes the life to be worthy, then he would need to find a place where that "potential" starts without being completely arbitrary. And, beyond that, he'd need to establish that the potential itself is the determining factor at all.

PERSON 2:

It is human life, scientifically speaking. Your argument seems to be that if you inconvenience someone else for nine months and no one is personally attached to you, then it's fine to kill you.

ME:

Again it would have to be on the basis that you made that determination prior. Like, if I said to my doctor or my family at some point, "If I'm ever in a coma and there's 0% chance of recovery, I want you to pull the plug."

And, my argument wasn't about whether or not your life is your human life, it's about the morality of abortion. Just because a life is a human life, scientifically speaking, doesn't mean that it is automatically always 100% worth protection. There are circumstances, like the ones I outlined, where it would be morally acceptable to end that life. Those conditions are if that life hasn't made any connections to other life or complexities (which includes things like being conscious), doesn't have a chance to recover to conscious life and has given permission to pull the plug, or has no connections from anyone else. These things can apply when talking about abortions. Just because a fetus can at some point become a complex human life with attachments and whatnot to and from other people, doesn't mean that before that happens it is worth protection.

PERSON 2:

This isn't about protection, it's about killing. You are saying that it's morally acceptable to kill helpless non-criminal people that result from your actions because of some arbitrary criteria. You need to repent.

ME:

In some circumstances yes. If that person wants it, I have no problems with assisted suicide. If you're talking about abortion, then I also think that's morally acceptable for the reasons listed above. I'm not sure if you're more concerned about the assisted suicide here or the abortion, but the former was a response to questions about the latter.