As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
It's not even my point that abortions should be banned because new DNA new person, since a lot of times we do things in the real world for practical not perfect reasons.
Like you have absolutists that say it's a new developing person so abortion is murder, but murder is subjective. Abortion is killing and there's a lot of killing of even full-grown people that society condones. For example, a lot of states have a Castle doctrine where it's okay to kill somebody even when you could retreat. Personally I don't care if a single cell is killed even though it's a new, developing person. Or a Down or rape baby, parents should not be forced to raise it.
But what the DNA argument does do is take away the idea that a clump of cells is not a person, making the ethical question one of murder vs killing instead of killing vs medical procedure / removing a 'growth'. A lot of liberals don't want to think of it as even killing, because especially convenience abortions would be a lot harder to justify.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
Why 3 months and not a week later? Just because.
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
It's not even my point that abortions should be banned because new DNA new person, since a lot of times we do things in the real world for practical not perfect reasons.
Like you have absolutists that say it's a new developing person so abortion is murder, but murder is subjective. Abortion is killing and there's a lot of killing of even full-grown people that society condones. For example, a lot of states have a Castle doctrine where it's okay to kill somebody even when you could retreat. Personally I don't care if a single cell is killed even though it's a new, developing person. Or a Down or rape baby, parents should not be forced to raise it.
But what the DNA argument does do is take away the idea that a clump of cells is not a person, making the ethical question one of murder vs killing instead of killing vs medical procedure / removing a 'growth'. A lot of liberals don't want to think of it as even killing, because especially convenience abortions would be a lot harder to justify.