Why would people be against abortion?

Either, this is metaphysics. If someone claims that something does or does not qualify as human life then the burden is on them to justify what "human life" means and why their criteria have been chosen.

Alright, well then what would you accept as valid justification (that the bushman does qualify as human life and that the colonialists are wrong to say he doesn’t qualify and kill him)?

Not necessarily. I’d also save my own family member over 100 random strangers. That doesn’t mean they hold more objective value, or that my decision is even correct; it means I personally have more of an emotional connection to them.



People who have lost the ability to think and feel are “killed” by medical staff with the consent of relatives / the courts, but only if it is expected that they will never gain these abilities in future. If they are expected to wake up in X months’ time then they aren’t killed, their lives are still protected. What your example shows is that even if they lack the ability to think and feel now, it is the fact that they will be able to do so in future that is relevant.

An unborn child is also expected to gain the ability to think and feel in future. It also only temporarily lacks these abilities.

Also this ignores the point that brain and nervous activity is detectable in an unborn child at only 6 weeks anyway. So if the ability to think and feel gives someone the right to live, that would already rule out most abortions.



You’re the one arguing that an unborn child and a born one are so different that one deserves the right to life and the other doesn’t. I’m simply saying. I don’t see what the (relevant) difference is.

I don't know, it depends on the reasons being given.

What is the justification for why life should be defined at fertilisation? Why do you keep deflecting the the question?

So not only is one living child not the same as/worth more than 100 fertilised eggs (which destroys your argument that they are the same and worth the same), but you also admit that personal attachment gives a person the right to decide a person's worth (further destroying your argument).
If you think your relative should live while 100 strangers die, how can you argue that a strangers fertilised egg must be protected against that persons wishes when they have the greater personal attachment. What happend to all life is sacred?
Your argument is all over the place. lol!

How can you not know what you’d consider valid justification that it is wrong to kill the bushman? You’re the one who said that in order to oppose it you’d need to have a justification. (Unless you don’t actually oppose it at all).



My answer to you depends on what you accept as valid justification (for the things that you do believe qualify as human life).

It's for you to justify that your criteria are valid, not me. I'm not the one whose argument depends on how we classify human life. How can I know what criteria are / aren't valid if you refuse to even give any (be it for a fetus or bushman)?

You’re the one who said those who oppose the killing of the bushman need to be able to justify why they qualify as human life. Do you not oppose this yourself?

I said that those who use "human life" in their argument should define what "human life" means and justify why they have used that definition.

If I were to support or oppose the killing of anything then I wouldn't rely upon the concept of "human life" for my argument. I have yet to see anyone give a clear and fully justified definition of "human life" that is adequate in any argument, especially those about abortion where people give various definitions which are all as arbitrary as the other.

Yourself, on the other hand, have deliberately used "human life" as a premise for why abortion should (generally) not be allowed.The burden is on you to justify why embyros and fetuses qualify as "human life" since that condition is crucial for your argument.I must have asked you to do this about 10 times by now.

No, I’ve simply told you what I personally would do in that situation. That has nothing to do with a their objective value, or my right to decide their objective value. I haven’t said that my relative should live and the strangers should die.

OK. So now you admit that whether or not a "life" should be saved is entirely subjective and down to how the individual values it. So why do you keep insisting that a fertilised egg is a person and must be saved rather than leaving it to the individual, as you now claim we should?
tbh its difficult following the zigzag backtracks of your argument. You should try to decide where you stand and stay there.

Well then why oppose the killing of anything or anyone at all?

My argument was premised on the idea that we all already agree that it's generally wrong to kill other humans. If this isn't the case then that's not the argument I'd use; it becomes irrelevant what constitutes human life and what doesn't. Instead, you raise the more fundamental question of why killing is ever even wrong in the first place. Depending on the answer to that, abortion may or may not be wrong; I don't know.



It's no longer relevant, but since you're interested:

Suppose we claim that X qualifies as human life and Y doesn't.

Defining human life to start at fertilisation is one possible example in which these three conditions are all met. The criteria are that the thing in question either develops from or can develop into people like you and me (i.e. that which we already agree qualifies as human life). These criteria don't lead to contradictions with any other pretty much universally held premises (i.e. they don't equally imply that cats and bananas qualify as human life, nor that 6 year old kids and African bushmen don't). They are also discrete.

I'm not tied to this definition or claiming it is the only possible definition that meets these conditions. There could be others too, and I'd be happy to consider them as equally valid. I just haven't seen any yet (specifically, any which exclude embryos and fetuses). For example, defining human life to start a certain amount of time after fertilisation doesn't satisfy the third condition.

Defining human life a certain amount of time post-fertlisation satisfies all three conditions, e.g. by defining human life as everything after X number of weeks or everything that has been born. The criteria are discrete, either:


Is the fetus or embryo older than X number of weeks? Yes or No.
Has the fetus been born, i.e. does it exist outside of the parent? Yes or No.

The two criteria are discrete. Something either absolutely is or absolutely isn't a human life.

No. My answer to your scenario said nothing about what should be saved. I told you what I would save. They're two different things.

OK. So if you think the 100 eggs should be saved but you personally wouldn't and you'd save the child instead because you consider that to be the better action - what have you been going on about all this time? It doesn't matter what you should do if you think that is wrong and would do something different.

The first point doesn’t satisfy what I mean by “discrete”. X is still a point on a continuous scale. The question here would be, what is qualitatively different about a fetus or embryo before X weeks compared to afterwards (e.g. presence of a certain organ, presence of consciousness etc.) these would be discrete criteria.

The second doesn’t satisfy the second condition (e.g. it would imply that a fetus one second before birth doesn’t qualify as a human life and as such can be killed). You might believe that but I don’t think society on the whole does.

Being a point on an otherwise continuous scale doesn't stop the criteria bring discrete; everything before week X is not human life, everything after week X is human life. That's a discrete criteria. If by "discrete" you mean "qualitative" then you need only choose X such that something qualitative has happened, it would still take place later tha fertilisation.

The second example does satisfy the second condition. Everything after birth would be considered human life, everything before birth (even by a second) would not. The criteria meets that condition, the popularity of said criteria is neither here nor there (else this conversation would never have started, an overwhelming majority support abortion).

Yes you can use the term “qualitative” rather than discrete if you want. Yes you can choose X such that something qualitative has happened. What would that be exactly, that doesn’t fall foul of condition 2?



The second condition ensures that you’re not contradicting yourself elsewhere. The criterion you have chosen is only valid if you actually, in practice consider a fetus 1 second before birth to not be a human life and thus not entitled to human rights or the right to life. People who don’t believe this (which is most people, including myself) can’t use or accept that criterion.

Then it’s not an unfertilised egg, it’s a fertilised one.

It’s not the egg alone that develops into a fetus, it the egg and sperm combination that develops into one.

But as I said, an egg and sperm combination alone doesn't develop either - it needs a viable womb that will provide the necessary hormones and nutrients.