Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Once an egg is fertilised, human development has begun, thus moral implications simultaneously arise since - yes - an innocent human life is involved. As far as the benefits of stem cell research go, I prescribe to deontology, so benefits don't matter to me as much as the initial means which lead to the benefits in the first place. For example, I also oppose animal testing, despite the benefits that come from it all.
You claim to be thinking deontologically, but you're actually making a consequentialist argument here.
The only thing that matters to you is that 'an innocent human life' doesn't get terminated. Regardless of case or context. Unthinking/unfeeling mass of cells? Keep it. 2 day old rape victim zygote? Keep it. In-vitro egg that was always intended for stem cell research and was never going to result into the formation of a living human? Keep it.
Regardless of the circumstances of conceptions or stage of development, the only thing you focus on is the consequence that 'an innocent human life' gets killed. It's 'wrong' and 'immoral' BECAUSE 'an innocent human life' is ended.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
There is an emotional difference; not necessarily a moral difference.
Disagree.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Of course, any human being will prioritise a 4-year-old child over a zygote, but that doesn't negate the humanity or life of the zygote.
And you think that the only reasons people can come up with for supporting their preference to end a zygote over ending a child is purely emotional? There's no rational thought going into it at all? Like maybe 'oh, it's an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells vs a fully formed thinking, feeling child'?
When determining the morality of things, how people will come to determine the morality of an action differs. Some will go hyper-logical, some will go full emotional, some will mix it up with a combination of logic and emotions. "It's right or wrong because
emotions", "It's right or wrong because
facts", "It's right or wrong because
emotions + facts. Whatever your formula, you're still making a determination as to the rightness or wrongness of something. You're still making a moral decision. There's still a difference in the moral weight of killing a zygote vs killing a second trimester fetus. The line's being drawn aren't plucked from thin air.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Drawing the line at conception is the most objective and morally-consistent position if you value all innocent human life.
That's just like, your opinion man.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I personally don't see it as relevant to the discussion since the pro-life position is consistent with atheism, but yes, I am religious.
Well, if you believed in the concept of a soul, it would explain why you're so concerned about the abortion of zygotes.
Last edited by Ele; Aug 5, 2020 at 04:45 AM.