You are correct. Something without a mind doesnt have an intrinsic value nearly as high as something which does.
This leads me to ask - What do you mean by “mind”?
Do you mean a “brain”? Because an unborn child’s brain forms and begins to develop at five weeks.
Do you mean “awareness of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought”?
Because a newborn doesn’t have that. They say babies don’t develop this until they are 18 months old. Up to that point it’s all “pre-programmed” reactions to stimuli.
To you - newborns have less intrinsic value than an 18-month old baby? Than an adult?
Better tell that to all those mothers willing to die for their babies. They didn’t get that memo.
Everything has some value, but that value changes depending on its characteristics.
Oh - I get it now.
People who are ugly, sleeping, White, stupid and small are less valubale than pretty, awake, Black, smart and big people.
It’s their characteristics that determine their value. Gotcha.
Please note that all of this is sarcasm.
I do not believe that someone’s characteristics determine their value or whether or not it is acceptable to murder them.
If I have to chose between making a woman miserable or killing an embryo without will, feelings, sensations, emotions and social bonds, the choice is easy. One can be harmed, can suffer while the other cannot.
Considering that newborns lack “awareness” and that mothers to newborns tend to be “miserable” due to exhaustion and lifestyle changes - then new mothers - especially single mothers - should be able to murder their newborn babies?
A person can murder someone depending on how they feel about that person and the characteristcs of the victim?
Our feelings do not determine someone’s value. We cannot kill someone simply because their existence is inconvenient to us.
Someone’s ability to suffer also does not determine their value.
No, because it goes against their will.
And not-yet-born people want to die? Have you checked with them?
It's not like they are a guy in a coma and you never know whether they will ever wake.
Maybe wait the nine months until they can give you answer before deciding for them.
The will of a person extand beyond temporary lapses in consciousness.
The unconsciousness experienced by the unborn is also temporary. Everyone knows they will wake at nine months.
Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is in a coma when you know that they will awaken in nine months?
Or are they SOL if they don’t have a living will that explains that they would want to continue to live when everyone knows that they will wake up in nine months?
Unconcousciousness doesn't suspend social bonds and roles either and often doesn't even suspend all sensations and feelings. The Prime Minister of Britain is Prime Minister even when asleep (or emergency care as he is right now).
At the moment of conception an entirely new and unique DNA sequence is generated that records who the parents are as well as the sex of the unborn child.
Mother, father, son, daughter - these are social bonds with expectant roles which are all decided at the moment of conception.
It does not matter that the unborn child is asleep and underdeveloped. It still has parents and is still someone’s child.
Alexithymia. It occurs in approximately 10% of the population.
I don't believe there are humans without emotions.
OK. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don’t believe that people should murder their unborn children.
There are humans without empathy or feeling of pain for example, but they have emotions still, not just all of them.
You said that it is okay to murder the not-yet-born because they don’t experience pain or suffering.
So - it’s okay to murder these people you mentioned because they wouldn’t feel it?
Or does the fact that they can feel other emotions - like joy - cause you to stop murdering them?
What if the not-yet-born could experience joy?
And no, even if there were such people, you could not kill them because they still have sensations and will.
Sensations and will do not a human being make.
Don’t be “anti-science” and ignore the genetics at play.
Everyone “senses” things differently and isn’t it impossible to prove that we even have free will?
This line of thinking is what leads people to justify genocide and slavery.
“They look/act/think/feel differently than I do so it’s okay to murder them or put them in chains.”
Let’s ditch the abstract and focus on concrete facts.
There are no absolute "shut-ins" without any social bonding abilities and they still have will and emotions so they have value and a right to security.
But - according to you - a “shut-in” would be less valuable than those with more social bonding abilities?
Someone with more expressive will is more valuable than others?
Someone who experiences the “right” emotions are more valuable than others?
Since - as you said - our value changes depending on our characteristics.
In most cases yes, but not in the case where those embryos are aborted.
So - it’s okay to murder people as long as you don’t know them personally?
An abandoned child is worth less than a child with loving parents?
We all need to make sure that we have meaningful relationships with people - develop “bonds” - or else it is acceptable for others to murder us!
It's also a parasocial relationship too since embryos do not gain consciousness of their surrounding until the 24-28 weeks period, well after the point where embryos are electively aborted (that means without medical reasons).
Yet - their brains form at 5 weeks.
The age - or development - of a human being or person does not determine their value.
Otherwise - newborns and those with mental impairments would be considered less valuable than others.
They don't have a social impact, but not a social role. They do not produce anything or participate in any active way in society. Even babies participate to our social lives and society if only in very limited ways, but embryo don't.
So it is society - and our level of involvement with it - that determines our value? Whether it is acceptable to murder someone or not?
Those “off-the-grid” people better look out because it is “open season” on anyone who doesn’t “produce or participate in any active way in society”.
An embryo is simply someone’s baby that hasn’t been born yet.
Kind of like the guy who will wake from his coma in nine months - don’t make any decisions for him.
As I have demonstrated above, this is a false statement.
I went through each of your comments above and I somehow missed that demonstration.
Until the chia seeds turn into a dog, it shouldn't be treated or viewed as a dog. Just like children should not have the right to vote because one day they will be adults.
How does us not treating children and adults the same give us license to murder anyone?
Not being able to feed chia seeds a dog biscuit wouldn’t give anyone the right to kill the not-yet-born dogs - would it?
Embryo shouldn't have individual rights and personhood until they actually start to display personality, will, emotions, sensitivity and consciousness which is, at the earliest, around 24 week of gestation when the neo cortex develops.
None of these things determine anyone’s value.
You know - you should really begin with the “demonstration” you mentioned before making claims like this.
In an overly simplistic and caricatural way this is fairly correct. If a embryo isn't conscious, doesn't feel, doesn't think, doesn't have will, doesn't have social contact, doesn't have independant metabollic capacities, it should not be viewed as a person and doesn't have anything that makes life truly special, unique and valuable. It's only value is thus granted by those who carry those embryo. If they aren't desired, they can be killed just like any weed. If they are desired they are given a value by the social attachment of the mother. It's the a bit the same thing for any object taking an abandonned sock isn't theft, but taking the sock of someone is.
I have nothing to say to this other than I think that it is disgusting and I hope you don’t have children.
"Hey kids! Let me tell you the story about the time when you weren't special, unique or valuable!"
It makes no sense, in my opinion, to qualify of "murder" the killing of something with an awareness and emotional development comparable to a grass. A newborn baby is so far more complex and aware than a 12 week old fetus that trying to compare one to another is an insult to a baby's capacities.
And a full-grown adult is so much more complex and aware than a newborn baby.
All the arguments you have shared to justify murdering the unborn can be used to justify murdering a newborn and even adults.
The quality of someone’s life - their characteristics - their level of development - none of these things determine someone’s value and whether or not we can justify murdering them.
I am truly disgusted and horrified that you believe that they should.