-The division between "humans" and "persons" isn't convincing to me. You simply assume it, but from my perspective it seems like a lazy philosophical conceit created almost solely to justify abortion. To me, it seems pretty obvious that human lives and human persons are equivalent, and efforts to un-person living humans have a distinctly creepy vibe that is pretty much without exception used to justify atrocities. As I mentioned before, it's notable that when embryology as a science emerged in the 1800s, it sparked a wave of laws banning abortion, because it was recognized the unborn was alive from the moment of conception. The reason abortion was only murder after quickening in the past was because of the false assumption that the unborn simply wasn't alive until that time.

-A braindead human's life lacks moral priority because they are dead, and said death is irreversible, not because they lack brain activity. Suppose we could cure brain death as long as the cure was applied within 24 hours. Wouldn't you agree that in such a world, braindead people would no longer be considered "dead" and their lives would have moral value again? And if that's the case, doesn't that imply the unborn should have value because of the pending arrival of brain function?

-"So if you buy that, it's morally acceptable to end the life of a non-person to protect the bodily autonomy of a person." That doesn't follow from your premise. Even if humans can be divided into persons and non-persons, that doesn't necessarily imply human persons have the unlimited right to kill human non-persons.

-"When we kill a fetus, there is no person whose life has begun (versus when we kill an adult under anesthesia)." That still seems pretty creepy. It seems to suggest that a life's value comes entirely from its past and not at all from its future. Like, functionally speaking, the anesthetized person and the unborn have the exact same future (being a conscious human), but you say only the former has any moral worth, because it's already spent part of its life as a conscious human? That seems an odd way to divide them.

-Don't you find it pretty worrying that you have to "bite the bullet" on accepting infanticide? Infanticide seems pretty evil to me, a lot more evil than just forcing somebody to carry a pregnancy to term.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246600)

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe I'll concede it can be discounted a bit, if only because a lot of young humans simply self-abort or otherwise die, so a "sure thing" normal adult human has more immediate value. But even if we accept that discounting, it is a very LARGE leap to say that we can inflict certain DEATH on one human simply to preserve the COMFORT of another, even if the latter has a more morally valuable life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34248041)

terminating life is not slavery, it frees effort and is less risky than bringing a birth to term

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34248189)

we also should want the species to have more resources to advance technologically into the stars and improve are lives. Resources in material and capable human effort terms.

agree with this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34248335)

a fly will never turn into a person

neither will a braindead vegetable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34245839)

I am fine with it in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. The vast majority of abortions, however, are for mere convenience, which is a very weak value to hold over future personhood

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34245996)

There is an obvious double standard held by libs where they consider the fetus a "CLUMP OF CELLS, NOT A PERSON!" whenever they fucking feel like it.

Fuck libs. Can't wait for a genetic test to tell us if a kid is going to be a lib so we can fucking abort them all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246197)

Don't think he is declaring for anti-abortionmos so much as saying FUCKLIBS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246335)

this is why i said I'm fine with it in the case of the mother's life being at stake.

Women don't have a fundamental human right to not be inconvenienced. This is why they have to make the ridiculous argument that the fetus doesn't really exist at all, and abortion is only about MY body

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246208)

So should everyone be forced to have large numbers of children? Why does there have to be a fetus for there to be "potential personhood"? Isn't there "potential personhood" any time a guy and a girl are in the same room?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246562)

dont masturbate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246592)

My definition of future/potential personhood is roughly: a being that WILL, in all likelihood, result in a person. This also applies to infants, who by many definitions are not conscious persons yet. Unless they die, they WILL become persons.

There is no guarantee that a guy and a girl in the same room (or even fucking) WILL produce a person.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246594)

Giving money to charity has ethical value, but if everyone gave all their money to charity all the time, where would we be?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246680)

It's fine for philosophers to argue about such things, but it's not within the state's proper sphere of power to dictate them.

On a personal level, I would say that people should generally be encouraged to have kids, and that the optimal number of kids per couple is 2, i.e. replacement rate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246730)

But you haven't even come close to answering *why* you think a fetus isn't a person. Or to take another step backwards, why you think you shouldn't *presume* that a thing isn't a person (or less shittily: you haven't rebutted a sensible presumption, which is that anything that is human - which you have admitted a fetus is - should be presumed to have personhood, absent a compelling reason to deny it that status).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246241)

But let me suggest:

1) It is gravely immoral / wrong to unjustifiably harm the interests of other persons (things w/ personhood).

2) It is not gravely immoral / wrong to refrain from NOT harming the interests of non-persons (things w/out personhood). E.g., it's perfectly fine to NOT smash rocks to tiny bits (of course, it is perfectly fine to smash rocks to tiny bits, as well).

3) If you are not sure whether a thing is a person, then harming that thing's interests at least RISKS doing something gravely immoral / wrong to that thing. If you harm it, and it is a person, you have done something morally wrongful. If you do not harm it, and it is not a person, you have lost nothing.

I'll admit that it is true women and men have an interest in bodily autonomy and that interest is an important one. But even if I were not a Christian, I'd still worry that that interest cannot possibly outweigh the harm that would occur if fetuses / unborn children are, actually, persons.

At most, the loss is a temporary one for the mother; otoh, if fetuses are persons, then the loss is one of life. Which is the greater thing to risk, if you're not certain of which outcome is correct?

It seems to me that unless you can really show that a fetus CAN be permissibly discarded as a non-person, then prudence dictates you should at least err on the side of caution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246762)

Doesn't that contradict exactly your next sentence?

First you say they're zero, but then you say nonzero.

Which and why?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34247282)

It's no more ridiculous to say that personhood begins at conception than it is to say that induced birth somehow magically bestows the distinction.

The constitution clearly does not address the issue, so the constitutional solution seems to be to allow states to legislate the issue as they see fit. If you think Alabama women will suffer from restrictive laws, you should move to alabama and run for office.

It's a non-controversy, because huge majorities will feel comfortable placing the dawn of personhood somewhere in the second or third trimester and everyone can move on with their lives. It's the asshole activists on both sides who demogogue about the issue to get money and votes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3736841&forum_id=2#34246534)