>


Sure. Units don’t particularly matter though.

It does, and that's why I'm asking.  Because I honestly have no idea what this quantification you're talking about is.
So years in terms of what? Expected/predicted years before death?
/u/kabukistar (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Here’s why it’s a good position. It creates a line that can’t be moved somewhere else based on personal preference. For example if the line is heartbeat, why can’t it be moved to frontal lobe function? Why that and not the other? It solely comes down to personal preference. 
On the other hand life at conception creates a principled position that doesn’t move based on personal preference. Any point after conception is just one big grey area, but at conception removes all that grey area. Why not when they develop fingernails as opposed to autonomic nervous system development? There isn’t a principled argument for one but not the other. 
Then you have another problem, after conception what makes it a life? If it is as some argue dependency on the mother that makes it not yet a life then we have a problem. Because we could take a fully grown person, put them in a giant womb, make them dependent on the host, and now we’re able to kill them because they’re dependent on the mother. Life at conception removes this problem by saying it’s as much a life at all points in the womb as much as it is outside of the womb. 
Sure Carl Sagan can say that life began millions of years ago but that’s just a way of slick talking your way out of the problem. Because that unique set of genetic material did not and has never existed previously so you can say that the life that made it existed previously but the genetic material and the life it creates did not. Basically what he’s saying is that life existed previously therefore this is no different because it’s life, that’s a very shallow surface level (and I say intentionally so) way of looking at it. 
Your argument about miscarriages is incorrect. Because first murder requires intent and there is none, so it doesn’t meet it on that front. Second a miscarriage is the embryo or fetus dying on its own, there is no input from the mother in its death. If we were to call that murder then we would have to call dying of a heart attack murder. 
To say that life begins anywhere after conception means you have to contend with the fact that any line drawn on abortion is almost purely arbitrary, >

What if the mother does something intentionally or unintentionally to cause a miscarriage? >

Then they played a part in its death of what they did was attributable to its death. >

So basically, if she pounds energy drinks while pregnant, she should be tried for murder? >

I personally don’t see a real issue with states being unique in their laws as long as they adhere to the constitution. If you if you smoke in your car with your kid and they get a lung disease shouldn’t the parent be held responsible? And I don’t know what absurd level of energy drinks you would have to chug. >

One study linking it doesn’t really say much, what you’d need are multiple studies to create a larger pool of people and a meta analysis of those studies to find the trends so we can’t actually say if caffeine leads to miscarriages. But caffeine intake is already discouraged during pregnancy just due it’s effect on blood pressure and hydration alone. 
If the kids lung cancer can be directly attributed to the parents smoking then how is that any different from the parent slowly poisoning the kid? >

Do you believe that inaction on your behalf that results in the death of someone is morally the same as action that result in the death of someone? >

No. >

When an embryo fails to implant or a woman miscarries, there is no action that was taken to end the life. In the case of abortion, explicit action is taken to end it. One can argue that life begins at conception and believe that sometimes it naturally ends there too. >

The metaphor I was thinking of, is that choosing to spin the chamber and pull the trigger is the equivalent of choosing to try to get pregnant/having unprotected sex in the first place.  And then whether that results in an implantation or miscarriage is the equivalent of the chance of whether that particular chamber is empty or not.
So it's more that the choice to put the child (if you see a zygote as a child) in the danger in the first place is the problem.  Choosing to have unprotected sex is the "action" in the case of the miscarriage or failure to implant.  
Sorry if this was confusing from my original metaphor. >

The issue is that its the same act that you compare to pulling the trigger that is the means of creation. you can't have that child in the first place if you dont have this risk. so it's unfair to say that this is an action comparable to killing when if you dont take the action the life never exists to take. 
I feel like a better metaphor would be an artist with a rickety easel.  as soon as their brush touches it, it could fall over at any time ruining their painting, and sometimes it does, but they'll never be able to make art if they don't risk it, and even then, a single dot on the canvas is, to some extent, art >


The issue is that its the same act that you compare to pulling the trigger that is the means of creation. you can't have that child in the first place if you dont have this risk. so it's unfair to say that this is an action comparable to killing when if you dont take the action the life never exists to take. 

Can you expand on this and why this is a reason I should change my view? >

Basically, the idea is, yes, fetuses and zygotes will die naturally, but the risk of that is part of bringing a baby to term. It happens without the input of the mother and as such should not be looked at as taking an action to terminate because without the supposed action to terminate, the embryo couldn't be created in the first place. this is a distinctly different situation than abortion where explicit action is taken to end the gestation of the embryo. 
if we assume that life does begin at conception, then abortion is murder and a miscarriage or failed implantation is just natural causes. >


Basically, the idea is, yes, fetuses and zygotes will die naturally, but the risk of that is part of bringing a baby to term. It happens without the input of the mother and as such should not be looked at as taking an action to terminate because without the supposed action to terminate, the embryo couldn't be created in the first place. this is a distinctly different situation than abortion where explicit action is taken to end the gestation of the embryo. 

I got this part, but can you connect it to my view and which part of my view it shows I should change? >

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "life begins at conception". Many religions, Christianity being particularly well known for it, say that human life has innate value. They don't say that sperm has innate value. Conception is where they draw the line between having innate value and not.
So, to answer your first objection, it's not the life they're judging it on, it's the innate value. Ditto to your second.
To your third, "you can't make a cake without breaking eggs". Miscarriages are necessary consequence of trying to have children. 
Life begins at conception is a very good argument against abortion, but only if you have the necessary values. >

I agree that "life" is not the equivalent of "innate value".  The problem is that using "life begins at conception" as an argument against abortion kind of blurs the lines between those two concepts. >

That's because it's not the argument, it's a slogan. It's designed so that it's short, catchy, and easy to understand. The actual argument underlying it is much more complicated. Any argument is weak if you don't engage fully with it. >


it's not the argument, it's a slogan. It's designed so that it's short, catchy, and easy to understand.

Funny how "accurate" doesn't make that list. >

Neither is "Eat the rich", or many others. That's not what a slogan is for. >


That's not what a slogan is for.

If your slogan is inaccurate, then you can't get upset when people don't correctly understand what you mean. >

Life begins at conception
Black Lives Matter
Both slogans underreport the true intent of the sloganeers. Punctuation matters. Every penny saved matters. Posture matters. None of these matter as much as black lives. 
These slogans are short for:

A new, living person is created at the moment of conception. 
The lives of any black person matter just as much as the lives of any other person. 

These are more descriptive statements which don’t fit as neatly on a protestor’s sign and aren’t nearly as sexy as the above slogans. 
I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of how someone would support one of the positions and not the other. >


These are more descriptive statements which don’t fit as neatly on a protestor’s sign

"Human Life begins at conception."
"Black Lives Matter, too!"
The simple addition of a word makes it much more accurate. >

In reference to the original post, both of these are slogans, not arguments. And the arguments behind them are not invalidated based on the brevity of the slogan. >

Two of the three reasons are semantics. Life begins at conception means: Human life worth saving begins at conception.
The third point seems valid, however you are not pulling the trigger. Stuff out of your control is. Let me give you a counter example: whenever you drive the car, there is a chance of getting into an accident. Therefore if you drive your kid and you get into the accident, you have murdered your kid.
There is always necessary risk that has to be taken. So if you want a child and have a higher chance of miscarriage, you have to do everything in your power to minimize it, everything else is out of your hands. >


Two of the three reasons are semantics. Life begins at conception means: Human life worth saving begins at conception.

I agree that this is a better metric than just "life", but the slogan/argument "life begins at conception" erases that nuance in order to get something which is less subjective.

The third point seems valid, however you are not pulling the trigger. Stuff out of your control is. Let me give you a counter example: whenever you drive the car, there is a chance of getting into an accident. Therefore if you drive your kid and you get into the accident, you have murdered your kid.

I think the main difference is the level of the risk.  The chance of killing someone each time you get in the car is fractions of a percent. >

No, it doesn't. It's an abbreviation of the whole idea and what you argued against is a strawman.
Noone is saying that pigs should not be killed, because they are life, right?
And noone is saying that you shouldn't masturbate, because you are killing sperm, right?
Therefore the only conclusion you can derive from that is my interpretation unless you are arguing in bad faith. >

You're (potentially unintentionally) equivocating.  The phrase "life begins at conception" does not mean "a blastocyte is alive".  Rather, it means "the human being who would be born if the pregnancy continues to delivery begins their existence at conception".
Each of a human's cells are alive.  But only the whole human is "a life".  Removing a tumor is removing living cells; it's destroying life.  But removing a tumor is saving a life. >

I think the issue is that people don't always mean the same thing when they say "life begins at conception" or there is at least confusion about what people mean by it. I think OPs arguments work well in cases where the meaning is literally that the embryo is biologically alive but of course different arguments are needed in cases where, what people really mean, is that the embryo has personhood. >

So this is a semantics issue? Would the more effective language be “abortion is murder?” 
For the record, I don’t think abortion is murder. But if your objection is only that the specific language “life begins at conception” isn’t accurate… ok, I guess? This seems to—perhaps deliberately—misunderstand the spirit behind the argument though, which is that people who say this believe that abortion is murder (again, NOT what I believe). >

I think "life begins at conception" is certainly a phrase used by people who believe abortion is murder.  But I think it does more than simply re-state that opinion in other words.  It shifts the discussion towards "life" as the metric for a person.  And I think this is intentional since it's hard to argue against the fact that an embryo is life in the technical sense.
e: clarity >

Here’s a semantic fix that will make it more clear for you. Human life starts at conception. Any old cell in your body is not a human life. A fetus IS a human life. >

What's the difference between human life and life which is genetically human? >

Human life has a tangible quantifiable human future attached to it. That zygote has distinct DNA that is at the beginning of a 90+ year process that culminates in an adult human and all the to-be-lived experiences that come with it. 
Some random cell does not have that. >

How does one quantify the human future of a zygote? >

The same way we quantify your future. Just because I can’t predict specifically what’s going to happen to you doesn’t mean your future isn’t quantifiable. That future is where your life derives its value. It’s what we lament the loss of when you have an untimely death. It’s why a child’s death is considered a greater loss than an old person’s death. The child has much more future. Thats how it’s quantifiable. >


The same way we quantify your future.

That's not clear to me either.  What units is it quantified against? Years? >

Sure. Units don’t particularly matter though. More life = more value. 
That’s why kids get in the lifeboat first and if anyone gets left behind, it’s an adult. 
This is how society already works. We already value the length of that future.