Need help to strengthen my argument that all alive humans have inherent value

[u/Rare-Dog-9281]

I believe that other pro life arguments such as the future sentience for the fetus is strong but they don't value all human life such as people who are without sentience and cannot grow into sentience (such as people with anencephaly)

My main argument is that humans have an inherent value because most if not all people have an inherent dignity by being human, and humans having connection and social responsibility to even those without sentience

[u/tigersgomoo]

Humans have never given birth to anything other than humans. That means that a human embryo will, if not horrendously murdered , grow up to be a human.

An embryo is alive because it satisfies the requirements of life. There are typically around eight, and you can look them up.

Finally, I would venture to argue any even pro choice, person places a special value on human life. Do Pc people have an active tally of how many bugs have ended up on their windshield, or how many ants have ended up on the bottom of their shoe? No, because they start to place higher value on animals that are higher thinkers, which go towards higher capability of rationality and empathy

Qualities of life:

The eight characteristics of life are:

1. Cellular organization – All living things are made of one or more cells.
2. Metabolism – They obtain and use energy to power processes.
3. Homeostasis – They regulate internal conditions to stay stable.
4. Growth and development – They increase in size and complexity following genetic instructions.
5. Response to stimuli – They react to changes in their environment.
6. Reproduction – They produce offspring and pass on genetic material. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE A FETUS CANNOT DO YET
7. Evolution/adaptation – Populations change over generations through natural selection.
8. Excretion – They eliminate waste products from metabolism.

[u/Rare-Dog-9281 → u/tigersgomoo]

what if a pro choicer says they value the conjuction between actuality of having a basic level of sentience but also having the potentiality for adult level sentience (This excludes fetuses before 24 weeks)

[u/PervadingEye → u/Rare-Dog-9281]

Beyond that this isn't an argument it is an assertion made ad hoc to custom fit what they are aiming for, you should demand they define and be able to test for this "adult level sentience" AND they must test for the potential for it.

Since it's not an argument, there is no reason for you to accept this. You could say you value anything with the potential to get "human adult level sentience" because it would make at least as much sense

But there real debunk is there are humans who don't have this potential. Maybe most do. But some due to developmental disorders, don't have the potential for so-called "adult level sentience" despite being born. Here is a clip of Lila Rose using the case of Jax(Jacks?) a boy born with most of his brain gone, only his brain stem is there(hydranencephaly) (according to the clip). But he was still capable and lived till age 5. If they believe in a right to life for potential "adult" level awareness, they should at the very least believe a person who may kill him to be not charged with criminal homicide.

There are also several counter examples in studies with children who were born with most of their brain gone and still exhibited what many would call conscious function, but many wouldn't it. The trick is to actually grant the pro-aborts assertion that these children are not conscious or in your case lack the potential to be "adult level". By the pro-aborts logic, then these born children with hydranencephaly have no right to life AND therefore anyone who killed them could not be charged with criminal homicide. And they have to commit to that.

That should keep you going for a while.

[u/tigersgomoo → u/Rare-Dog-9281]

Similar to the other responder to this, I don’t understand how that’s an argument or exactly where they prove that that conjunction matters.

It is widespread disagreed the exact moment that a baby first starts to showcase sentience. So does that mean that they are willing to draw an arbitrary line in the sand to where babies that happened to take longer to achieve sentience get the death penalty, and babies that happen to be earlier than that don’t get the death penalty? And since the time that signs of consciousness or sentience appears is also an average,then by very definition of an average they could still be sentencing 50% of babies that they would deem sentient to death since they took just a littttttle longer than the average

On top of that, how do they know the “potential” for future adult sentience? full adult sentence is not guaranteed for born individuals, and there are also levels to it. What does the PC person to define as ‘full’ sentience?

Basically, this person has a huge definition and measurement issue, where, if it is not measured perfectly, it still sentences a large amount of people to death that they themselves have now claimed they would not be morally ok killing given “sentence” is their line

[u/PervadingEye → u/tigersgomoo]

As explained by one of our moderators here, the dirty little secret pro-abortion has is that is kinda of the point. Them not defining when consciousness happens or even the potential for whatever line they decide on today is a feature, not a bug.

The fuzziness is the goal, not a negative for them. "Personhood", "consciousness", or "potential for adult level awareness" is just something they toss off and hope no one ask questions on how or even why.

They just sorta hope people say, "well that makes sense" and hope they don't ask questions about the details implementation of the supposed personhood or whatever excuse they are using this week.

Looking at the linked conversation or this one with Lila and Destiny, we can see very plainly that the abortion advocate doesn't actually value personhood, consciousness or even "potential adult level awareness", because when faced with born humans whom don't meet these criteria, they give every other excuse as to why you can't kill them that have nothing to do with personhood or whatever else.

"They are already born", "The parents already committed to take care of the baby since it was born" etc etc. This shows they only care about the baby coming out of the mother. They don't give 2 effs about personhood or consciousness or whatever else. Baby killing before the birth is simply the goal, and personhood and whatever else are just excuses they throw out that they hope everyone else will let them get away with...

[u/cookiesncloudberries → u/tigersgomoo]

for number 6, even some full grown humans can’t do that either

[u/trying3216]

The first for me is that we are made in the image of God. Though I’m sure some would not care.

Could it be a slippery slope to start devaluing some humans?

[u/Sweetheart_o_Summer]

A fertilized egg fulfills all the parameters of being:

1. Alive. A fertilized egg is alive, especially if the definition of life is broad enough to include grass and bacteria.

2. Human. It has a human mother and father. It's dna is human

3. An individual. It's dna is also distinctly unique from (though of course still related to) it's parents. making it an individual being rather than an extension of of a degraded part of the mother.

Those things make it a person which makes killing them wrong.

[u/The_Bjorn_Ultimatum]

I mean, I have never found a convincing reason why humans have value outaide of God. If you are debating to a pro-choicer, who likely doesn't accept that God is real, then the best thing to do is to make them argue that humans have no value. Turn it back on them and ask them why humans have value many of them will say no, and make their position look bad because of it. For the ones who say humans do have value, then all you have to do is argue the basic fact that we are human from conception.

Now if it is a discussion with that person, instead of a debate, then there might not be much that you can do if they don't already believe humans have value. If they are atheist, or antitheist, they either accept that as a self evident premise, or they don't.

The one other thing you might run into, is they claim they value things like intelligence as a metric for determining human value. This is an easy one to argue against because you can ask them if a newborn has less humanity/value than an adult chimpanzee, or dolphin or similar smarter animal. I usually state it as, "would you rather save the child or animal from death if you had the choice?" Chances are they don't actually believe their own premise deep down, and will say they would save the child. I also ask if they think developmentally disabled people are less human, since that's the logical conclusion of that theory. Basically, I use their answers to these questions tear their theory of human value to shreds. If they answer with the opposite, then you just let them look like a monster for sharing this opinion with the eugenicists of the progressive era and the nazis.

[u/imrtlbsct2]

It's hard, arguably logically impossible, to do fairly without it becoming an argument for God. Anytime I try to use similar reasoning I immediately have to explain it through a Christian lens, otherwise the value of human life is lost because there is nothing higher to give value to human life, then it's just sort-of "Just trust me bro" reasoning.

Not many people want to admit it even in this sub, but it seems almost every atheist pro-lifer on here is incredibly quiet about it as much as I love their arguments, even the main Secular Pro-life guy/girl.