• Cruxifux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you not understand how the process works? A zygote is a future person. Sperm is only half the equation.

      • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is irrelevant when we’re still just talking about things that wouldn’t be called “human” and have no consciousness to speak of.

          • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes when you’re talking about the formation of something. Like, you’re not gonna talk me into a corner with this kind of argument man. something not even having developed any kind of perception of reality, and that is actually just a clump of cells that might reproduce if left alone into a human is NOT the same as a person. It just isn’t, and it’s not an atrocity to stop that thing from becoming a human if it is going to damage the lives of others.

            • joe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t recall saying it was a person. I said it had rights. You know that rights can be granted to anything, right? Including a clump of cells.

              • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah but rights SHOULDN’T just be granted to anything, because that’s idiotic. Your whole original statement was about how nuance is important and you’re intentionally trying to take nuance out of this decision making process with your weird absolutes.

                • joe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is what I am saying. Convinced me that a zygote should not have rights. Note that talking about consciousness or the relative size of the zygote aren’t relevant to whether a zygote is granted rights.

                  I think that if we want to charge people for murder if they attack a pregnant person and cause a miscarriage, then we naturally have to grant a zygote the right to life. However, just because we do this does not mean that right to life cannot be infringed. Human adults have a right to life until they attempt to kill someone, for example, at which point we say that their right to life is no longer as important as the other person’s right to defend themselves.

                  I see no issues granting a zygote rights and still granting a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy.