There is no debate about whether or not personhood should be ascribed to adults (thankfully). What makes babies any different?
Conversation
We're using the word 'babies,' which evokes to mind something I'm not talking about, to be clear. In the interest of conceptual clarity I'd rather use words that evoke to mind exactly what it is I'm talking about. We can make up a fully neutral word for this if you like.
1
9
The lack of clairty comes from something like, if I go around saying 'I think we should kill babies,' people will grab their 3-month old in fear, even if I don't think we should kill their 3-month old. I'd like to use a word that is not incongruous with my intent.
2
5
Okay, we can call them subjects of abortion. At first I wanted to say victims of abortion, but that’s not very neutral. Can you explain how to justify killing a subject of abortion in a way that wouldn’t justify any other kind of homicide that we agree is unjustifiable?
2
1
This is a big fractal rabbithole of stuff like morality and rights, which I'm saying to acknowledge that I'm doing some 'smoothing over the edges' of things that have a lot more depth nuance to them. That being said,
1
2
"why is it different from other homicide" feels like the same question as "why is removing cysts different from homicide" or "why is poisoning invasive rats different from homicide" - the answer being these things don't strike at our vague shitty concept of 'personhood'
2
2
In a world where subjects of abortion (SOA?) are in fact, actually, objectively equivalent to a cyst or a rat, then your question sort of... falls flat, or become strange to ask about *that* and not all the other kinds of minor life-extinguishing that we do.
1
1
This is why it feels to me that the important question here is not "how is this different from homicide", but rather "are we in a world where SOAs should tickle our intuitions around personhood/humanness, or are we in a world where they shouldn't?"
2
2
I think the idea of personhood is not vague at all and is actually quite simple. It always has been and science has confirmed our long-held suspicions about when life begins. The only reason to call any of it into question and make it vague is to justify the expedient option.
1
I get a little...sad/frustrated? when ppl assume motivated failing as an explanation for why people disagree with them. It makes me feel like you're not really curious for why I believe what I believe, cause you "already know" it's just to justify an expedient option.
1
3
This is exactly the sort of thing I really try to fight against when it comes to pro-choice people insulting pro-lifers. I don't think pro-lifers believe what they do out of motivated badness, I think they are genuinely holding beliefs they find true (even if I think misguided)
I share your frustration with attributing motives. I’m only doing it here because I have some degree of confidence that it’s true. Maybe you can show me that there’s a valid reason to call into question the personhood of WITOPs. I really don’t know one.
1
2
This overturning is likely to have a deeper effect, maybe one calculated by the conservative SCOTUS members:
In the long run, people may re-establish some kind of sanctity around sexual intercourse. TBH, it had gotten a bit out of hand w/new generations. A call for responsibility