kraysys t1_it1ddme wrote on October 20, 2022 at 5:55 AM

Reply to comment by vermontaltaccount in Why I'm voting yes on Prop 2 & 5 by ButtonFactoryJoe

Please elaborate on this claim:

> I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception.

In another comment you describe it as the “scientific consensus.” I am very curious to know what exactly you mean by this.

Edit: Downvotes (as can be expected, I suppose) yet no reply. This is a good-faith question. Everything I've seen, and my public VT high school education taking biology, indicates that science is pretty settled around the idea that a distinct human life forms when the sperm meets the egg and forms a zygote (i.e. fertilization).

Is there some perspective within the scientific community that I'm missing here? Typically the abortion question deals with when one ought technically consider the fetus a human and worthy of equal moral consideration to the mother -- a live debate for sure -- but I've never really seen anybody argue that science says the fetus isn't a distinct life.

vermontaltaccount t1_it2erpu wrote on October 20, 2022 at 1:22 PM

The neural tube doesn't fully close until 6 or 7 weeks after conception was what I was going with. Beyond that it does admittedly get trickier.

kraysys t1_it2gjqn wrote on October 20, 2022 at 1:35 PM

Why the neural tube distinction? Surely the existence of a neural tube and its closure isn’t the defining characteristic of a new life according to biology.

vermontaltaccount t1_it2jva8 wrote on October 20, 2022 at 1:59 PM

Brain death is considered death therefore we can derive something without a functional brain is not considered alive in a legal/ethical sense.

Plants are also "alive" in the same way a fetus is, and also cannot be murdered.

Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

kraysys t1_it2pxzu wrote on October 20, 2022 at 2:41 PM

You're really getting more into ethics here than science.

The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote. You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

> Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

That's interesting, since you said elsewhere that

> "I also voted yes because I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception"

which implies that this is your primary reason.

As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

vermontaltaccount t1_it2u6dt wrote on October 20, 2022 at 3:09 PM

>The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote.

Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

>You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant at a scientific level.

> which implies that this is your primary reason.

I've also talked in depth about how it's difficult to really elaborate on the full extent of the issue because of how complex it is. I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

>As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

I am not downvoting you.

kraysys t1_it2uzta wrote on October 20, 2022 at 3:14 PM

> Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

Sure, but you made an argument with regard to life generally. Most people can distinguish between moral claims around plant life and human life. I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground early; not because of a brain or lack thereof but because it's not a human life -- and plants and humans are not morally equivalent.

> I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant.

Yes it was, and no I don't think you have anywhere actually. You made a clear claim multiple times around what the supposed scientific consensus was, and in fact the scientific consensus is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

> I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

Haha same, I understand that. But as a primary point it seems to me to be deeply flawed insofar as you've only really made a moral argument because the science-life argument you led with is flatly false.

> I am not downvoting you.

Good to know, thanks. Happened a few times quickly after I made a comment responding to you so I assumed -- but you know what they say about assuming!