>

I mean "genetically unique life" is a different argument from "life", but I still think it has its own problems.
Consider two scenarios:


You have a fraternal twin, which you absorbed in the womb.  You absorbed it before it could develop much, and it's basically just a clump of cells living in your body. But now it's causing you medical problems and you have it surgically removed when you reach adulthood.


You have an identical twin which you kill when you reach adulthood.


The first one is eliminating a genetically unique life.  The second one isn't.  Yet the 2nd one is much more clearly murder than the first one.
/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. >


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? >

The life cycle of a frog starts at a fertilized egg. No one questions this  There is not a point beyond fertilization where a frog's life *actually* begins. The moment the male frog's sperm enters the female's egg, new DNA is formed, and a totally unique and novel frog life begins. The fertilized frog egg is fundamentally different at a genetic level compared to both the mother and father. It isn't a part of either of them, it is it's own unique frog life.   
If we traced your life cycle back, we would reach the same starting point. You're life cycle began the moment your unique DNA was formed when your father's sperm cell fertilized your mother's egg. You, at that moment, were a living being with human DNA and you were genetically unique and different from your parents.   

If it were true that killing an embryo/zygote was tantamount to murder, it would lead to some very questionable moral conclusions.

Humans die all the time sadly, and it happens to all of us at some point. It isn't morally wrong to have a kid because your son/daughter might die in the womb. They might die 2 weeks after they are born. They might get cancer when they are 6. That isn't anyone's fault. It is far different than you actively shooting people.   
If a 6 year old died to cancer would you think their parents were morally wrong for having the kid? After all, they knew there was a chance their kid would get sick an they had a kid anyway. >

Are you sure that you are responding to arguments made by people who believe life begins at conception and not just the phrase “life begins at conception”?
No one is arguing that sperm and egg cells are not alive, the argument is really about personhood. Are you a distinct person from your parents? Taking that Carl Sagan quote at face value you are not. If you are not a distinct person can you be murdered? I presume you accept that killing you is wrong, so when did that happen? Generally we say at birth, but if we accept that a person becomes a person we have to ask what makes a person, what makes you different from any of those examples you mention?
Now, you can accept a person is a person at conception and still support abortion. Many of the current pro abortion arguments are that a persons has the right to terminate a pregnancy even if we accept that the fetus is a separate person. There is some popular argument about someone being connected to an unconscious violinist, that applies to someone we would all accept as alive and a distinct person. >


Are you a distinct person from your parents? Taking that Carl Sagan quote at face value you are not.

What? How do you get this from the Carl Sagan quote?

Generally we say at birth, but if we accept that a person becomes a person we have to ask what makes a person, what makes you different from any of those examples you mention?

That's easy. In order to be a distinct person, I have to be distinct. Distinct just means "discrete" or "separate," and so I became a distinct person at birth, at a moment of physical separation. >

"That's easy. In order to be a distinct person, I have to be distinct. Distinct just means "discrete" or "separate," and so became a distinct person birth, at a moment of physical separation."
How about conjoined twins? They have the same DNA and are connected to each other physically. Only count as one person? >

Conjoined twins become distinct (separate) from their parents (their mother, really) at birth, just like other humans. They aren't separate from each other. The question of exactly where you draw the line between two people and one person in conjoined-twin like cases (e.g. full conjoined twins, "parasitic" twins, mosaicism) is generally a matter of law or medical convention. >

looking at the case where we have full conjoined twins, i mean to point out that they are obviously two different people.  but your previous comment describes how to determine if we have two distinct persons.  and the criteria is being physical separate.  so for conjoined twins, that are not physically separate, your criteria sees them as one person? >

No; my criteria was to answer the question "are you a distinct person from your parents and when does that occur?" It's not a criteria for evaluating the number of people. >

I see.  Usually people like to make a general criteria that they can apply to many situations, so it doesn't seem like they are just pulling out of thin air whatever they want for whatever specific case.  So I guess the question is what criteria do you use for conjoined twins?  Are the two criteria fundamentally different?  If so, why do you choose two fundamentally different criteria for the two cases? >

What I proposed is a general criteria that applies to many situations, including that of conjoined twins. It says that the conjoined twins become distinct from their parents at birth. Birth is when the number of persons in question changes from 1 to some number larger than 1. >


Lots of things are alive (and genetically human), but killing them would not be tantamount to murder. For example if you have a tumor, that is made out of human cells. But I don't think anyone here would consider removing and killing the tumor to be tantamount to murder.

tumor cells fail as an example b/c they are not a mandatory stage of human development, but, perhaps more importantly, there is a distinction between "is a human" and "is genetically human". my hair is genetically human, but it is not a human. my arm is genetically human, but if i am separated from my arm, i retain "is a human" and my arm does not. there is a wholeness required. (to which, you might make a different argument, where that "wholeness is defined as "completeness", where completeness = finished.) but that is a different argument than, "is genetically human = is a human", which would be required for the tumor cell argument. 
secondly, every human being has unique "self-antigens", which is how your cells recognize cells that are "you" and cells that are "not you". cancer is specifically difficult to treat b/c cancer cells typically have the "self" antigens (so the immune system thinks they're "self" and doesn't attack them).  but this is a method of identification, not actual identification. cancer exists because of this exploit. if i dress as a girl scout, and adequately fool the other girl scouts at the girl scout meeting, i have not become a girl scout. i remain an imposter. 

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

this is perhaps a philosophical perspective but it does very little to inform policy. we certainly couldn't legislate around this. i could use this argument to justify pretty much anything. 

But let's say you put 2 bullets in the chamber of a revolver, spin it, and then pull the trigger pointing it at a person. There is a chance, a better than 50% change in fact, that that kid will live and be fine. However, I would argue that this is, even if not fully as bad as the above scenario, still a terrible act whether or not the chamber actually lands on a bullet or not. And, if it does land on a bullet, still murder despite the fact that there was an element of chance involved.

Now consider this; if you and/or your partner have a medical condition such that there is a a high chance of miscarrying (or an embryo otherwise not surviving to term), and you believe that killing an embryo is morally tantamount to killing a person, then repeatedly trying to conceive would be morally the same as repeatedly spinning the chamber and firing the gun as described in the paragraph above. Each time, you would be choosing to put a child (if you see an embryo as being morally equivalent) in a situation where there is a significant chance they are killed.
these are not equivalent. in the one case (pointing the gun), you perfectly control whether or not your child faces an unnecessary risk. just don't point the gun. in the latter, where you are at risk of passing down certain genes, you 1: can't control the fact that exposure to this risk is required to create a person and 2: genetic variation is a critical element of that which allows humanity to exist. there is not a single person alive who is not alive, not in spite of this risk, but because of this risk. >


these are not equivalent. in the one case (pointing the gun), you perfectly control whether or not your child faces an unnecessary risk. just don't point the gun. in the latter, where you are at risk of passing down certain genes, you 1: can't control the fact that exposure to this risk is required to create a person and 2: genetic variation is a critical element of that which allows humanity to exist. there is not a single person alive who is not alive, not in spite of this risk, but because of this risk.

I don't understand this.  What does it mean to "perfectly control the risk"?  Risk is by definition not perfectly controlled.   Also, I'm not talking about the danger of passing down genes; I'm talking about the danger of the embryo dying before it can come to term. >

You claim a moral equivalence to getting pregnant and pointing a gun at a child, and claim the equivalence is due to the fact that the child might die if the gun is loaded, and an embryo might die if conceived. 
I'm saying these are not equivalent as a moral concept. In the gun situation, I control whether or not the child faces the risk.  If I don't point the gun, the child lives. If I point the gun, the child faces the prospect of a bullet. 
Pregnancy is a requirement to create people. There are inherent risks, and one of them is a miscarriage. That miscarriage exists is not the same as, "a pregnant woman is pointing the gun of miscarriage at her baby" anymore than she is pointing the gun of lighting strike at her baby or the gun or crocodile attack at her baby. >

Life starts before conception. It started a billion years ago and it is a continual process. >

A couple of things, the argument isn't "life" it is "human life" specifically that being made. So the first half of your reasoning is invalid to the argument at hand.
Second, 95% of biologist (biologist were overwhelmingly considered by Americans to be the best determinates of human life) all agree that a unique human life BEGINS at conception, not continues. Therefore that statement regarding the continuation of life is completely debunked scientifically unless you just mean life as a noun to represent humankind as a continuing species, which is not the point of the abortion argument. Scientifically a new human's life is created at conception, a life that is entirely human and completely different than anyone else. 
​
The problem I have with the rest of the argument is it boils down to philosophy, which is fine, but not good grounds for a scientific argument regarding ending a human. This is why the pro-choice argument always struggles on a debate stage and why there is a push to avoid such open conflict, because at some point you have to get philosophical to defend abortion, whereas pro-life you could take the scientific argument of "The only way to define personhood is when they become a living human scientifically which is conception, all other lines have to be created with abstract." >


A couple of things, the argument isn't "life" it is "human life" specifically that being made. So the first half of your reasoning is invalid to the argument at hand.

Nothing I said was about non-human life.

Second, 95% of biologist (biologist were overwhelmingly considered by Americans to be the best determinates of human life) all agree that a unique human life BEGINS at conception, not continues. Therefore that statement regarding the continuation of life is completely debunked scientifically unless you just mean life as a noun to represent humankind as a continuing species, which is not the point of the abortion argument. Scientifically a new human's life is created at conception, a life that is entirely human and completely different than anyone else. 

"Unique life" is a different metric from "life" but it also has its own problems. >

By your own argument, every pregnancy is basically as bad as murder by definition.
Because what happens again to the pregnancy when carried to term? A baby is born. And whether now or as an old person in a hundred years they will die. Eternal life just isn't a thing yet, and but particularly close. If you try to conceive, you caused that death as much (or as little) as any of the unintended miscarriages.
(I personally do not think either of these things to be as bad as murder, though I do wonder if people shouldn't put a little more thought into the suffering they may cause their kids) >

Sorry, I think I wasn't clear in my original post.
I'm not arguing that getting pregnant is in fact equivalent to spinning the chamber and pulling the trigger at someone's head.  I'm arguing that it's that way if you believe that life begins at conception.  Obviously, thinking that anyone trying to get pregnant is murder is a ridiculous conclusion, but it's one that follows from that belief.  That was what I was trying to convet. >

I think the important thing is that a new life begins at conception. That is, a discrete entity. >

Discrete in what sense?  Genetically unique? >

Yes. This makes the issues surrounding abortion different than removing a tumor or clipping nails.