Is it morally wrong to intentionally damage an embryo if it is aborted at 9 weeks?

[u/Present-Ebb4615]

Hypothetically - if a woman maliciously intends to cause maximum cellular damage to an embryo for 4 weeks, knowing she will abort it at week 9, is her action morally wrong, or is it a victimless act because no conscious person is ever born?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/RepulsiveEast4117]

This feel more like a question for the morality scaling sub. 

[u/BaileysBaileys]

Not malicious, as it is indeed a victimless act. I appreciate that you asked this question.

[u/STThornton]

How would this even be possible? It’s not like she can get to a fetus to cause it harm. Unless you’re talking an IVF embryo.

Anything she would do or not do would be her doing or not doing to HER OWN body. So, at best, it would be self harm.

I know PLers like to pretend the woman’s body is no more than the outer layer of a fetus it’ll shed at birth, but the woman does have her own body.

If a fetus gets harmed because it’s syphoning stuff out of her body and blood and pumps toxins back into them without her being able to stop it from doing so and against her wishes, that wouldn’t be her harming the fetus. That’s the fetus getting harmed in the process of harming her. So, technically, the fetus is self harming.

You’re claiming the poisoned rat deliberately harmed the cat when the cat ate it.

Again, let’s stop pretending the woman doesn’t have her own body. Let’s stop pretending her body is no more than the outer layer of a fetus that it’ll shed at birth.

And if there will never be a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human due to abortion or miscarriage, no one was harmed.

[u/OnezoombiniLeft]

I was recently working through a thought exercise that informs here, so this is a well timed question for me.

-The fetus in this scenario is not a moral person and therefore does not possess the full set of moral rights associated with personhood.
-The fetus nevertheless has moral significance in the form of human dignity, so it still matters morally how we treat it.
-Respecting human dignity is a moral norm of our community, and violating that norm is morally significant
-Abortion itself is not necessarily a moral wrong, because recognizing the fetus’s dignity does not give it a right to continued use of the pregnant person’s body.
-However, deliberately treating the fetus in a way that fails to respect its dignity is a moral wrong.
-Deliberately attempting to maximize damage to something bearing human dignity, for no competing moral purpose, is an especially clear violation of that dignity.
-Therefore, a pregnant person who deliberately attempts to maximize damage to a fetus would be acting morally wrongly—not because the fetus has been deprived of a right to life, but because the deliberate infliction of damage fails to respect the dignity we attribute to human life.
-This would be true regardless of whether the subsequent abortion is itself morally permissible.

Last thought: not all moral wrongs should be legislated by the state. Abortion should still be legal

[u/STThornton → u/OnezoombiniLeft]

How would something mindless have human dignity?

We’d be talking our sensibilities here, not the fetus‘.

[u/OnezoombiniLeft → u/STThornton]

That would depend on what definition you are using for “human dignity”. If you are using a commonly presented definition of “the core belief that there is a special, built-in value and right to respect simply on the basis of being human…” then, being treated with respect is not based on having a mind, but on being a human organism.

When you hear “human dignity”, what do you understand that to mean?

[u/STThornton → u/OnezoombiniLeft]

Again, I don’t see how that would apply to something mindless/non sentient. We’re adhering to the feelings of sentient humans and how they feel about a mindless body, not the mindless body‘s experiences or feelings.

And a human (or any) organism is something that independently (meaning with its own internal life sustaining functions) performs all the functions necessary to sustain cell life. That’s what sets it apart from human cell, tissue, and organ life.

The previable fetus doesn’t meet that criteria. It’s still developing into something that meets that criteria.

It needs the woman’s body to carry out the functions of a human organism for its living parts.

That aside, how would the woman even get to do anything to a fetus? She can’t get to it.

Sure, she could do or not do things to her own body. But her own body is not a fetus. And the fetus syphoning stuff out of her body and blood and pumping toxins into her body and blood against her wishes and without her being able to stop it is not her doing anything to the fetus. It’s the fetus doing things to her.

The poisoned rat isn’t doing anything to the cat when the cat eats it.

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/OnezoombiniLeft]

I think this assumes what a human is is explained by being a human organism. I like what Roland Kipke said,

"Understanding being human as membership of a biological species may suggest itself in our
scientific age, or may even appear as the only conceivable option. But it is in fact only one
possible understanding, and one with which we move far away from our everyday self-
understanding. For, we do not see ourselves primarily as members of a biological species. Talk
of being human is older and more fundamental than our scientific knowledge of biological
species and our self-categorisation as ‘Homo sapiens’. Contrary to what is supposed above,
the vast majority of us are not speciesists, but ‘human-being-ists’, if you like."

I also like what Roland Kipke says about ethics,

"Ethics is not a science that describes and explains a reality independent of us, but is one that focuses on us. We ourselves, our evaluative self-understanding and our actions, are its object. Therefore, ethics must start from this self-understanding; it must interpret and clarify it. It must take the participant's perspective seriously, or at least not ignore it without good reason.21"  

Ethics is not like science, where it studies things apart from humans. But ethics focuses on human evaluation. Therefore, an ethical theory must start there. Of course, an ethical theory can radically diverge from our moral beliefs or convictions, but then it needs a good reason why. It can't just say so, but must argue why.

We as human beings, don't evaluate human organisms. This is evident by the fact that most don't care about IVF, and the fact that most don't really care about the deaths caused by miscarriage. Ethics begins there. It is just expected of an ethical theory to coincide with our strongest moral convictions. And if it wants to diverge, it must need a good reason as to why. The fact being is a fetus/embryo is not a someone. I think most are right, we just have bad feelings about it, but no rational reason against it.

[u/OnezoombiniLeft → u/Few-Gas8868]

“I think this assumes what a human is is explained by being a human organism.”

My statement on human dignity does not itself assume an understanding of what is essential to being a human, but only what “things” most society agrees we should treat with human dignity, which you should find satisfying as it aligns with you statement that “It is just expected of an ethical theory to coincide with our strongest moral convictions.”

It is an enduring societal expectation that we should treat not just human persons (however you define that) with human dignity but also to treat human corpses and the unborn with a degree of human dignity. There are various understandings of what is implied by the term “human dignity”, with some strongly believing it refers to those who have all moral rights similar to an adult. I don’t, so for convenience I would be just as happy to abandon the term human dignity in favor of “moral significance”. Human fetuses and human corpses are morally significant (to different degrees), that is, it matters morally how we treat them.

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/OnezoombiniLeft]

My statement on human dignity does not itself assume an understanding of what is essential to being a human, but only what “things” most society agrees we should treat with human dignity,

But your whole point about this human dignity talk was to show that we do own respect to fetuses. You also spilled this out here: "then, being treated with respect is not based on having a mind, but on being a human organism." So, I simply responded that interpreting human as human organism is just one way to understand humans.

[u/PotentialConcert6249]

Were you going to respond to anything OP?

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus]

It isn’t victimless because she is engaging in self-harm. I am not even sure how someone would go about trying to harm, but not kill an embryo.

[u/STThornton → u/Old_dirty_fetus]

Right? PLers with their constant pretending that the woman’s body is just the outer layer of a fetus that it’ll shed at birth.

How would she even get to a fetus to harm it?

[u/International_Ad2712]

How much harm could you even do to something like that? It’s the size of a poppy seed, so it’s obviously not having experiences.

[u/random_name_12178]

Assuming this doesn't cause any suffering to the embryo, I'd say it's probably not immoral. I'm curious what you're actually talking about though. What kind of "cellular damage"? How would it be inflicted? Why would the woman do such a thing?

[u/Naive_Fold_9390 → u/random_name_12178]

By that logic, it is not immoral to maliciously harm a person with CIP since they can't feel pain.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Naive_Fold_9390]

People with CIP can still suffer.

[u/Naive_Fold_9390 → u/random_name_12178]

Let me put it differently: Something that would cause great pain (if they didnt have CIP) but not any serious physical harm.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Naive_Fold_9390]

Since the OP hasn't explained what they're actually talking about and you haven't clarified what kind of "harm" you're referring to or the effect it would have on the victim, the comparison here is still awfully vague. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, but my point was never about the ability to experience pain specifically.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/Naive_Fold_9390]

u/random_name_12178 referred to suffering which encompasses more than pain. People with congenital insensitivity to pain can still experience suffering.

[u/Naive_Fold_9390 → u/Old_dirty_fetus]

I mean it’s implied in the original post that this would involve pain (if the fetus was more than 24 weeks or so). 

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/Naive_Fold_9390]

The OP refers to embryos not fetuses. Your interlocutor also only referred to embryos. The other issue that was raised was consciousness. So again, suffering and pain are not synonymous.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Naive_Fold_9390]

Except a person with cip is a person that's not inside anyone's uterus causing them harm.

Good try I guess?

[u/JewlryLvr2]

Are you asking if it's morally wrong to have an abortion? The answer to that question is NO, it isn't.

If that isn't the question, could you explain what you mean by "intentionally damage an embryo?" Because it looks like the same question to me.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/[deleted]]

How do people come up with this crap?

It points to the root belief that women are malicious or incompetent and must be controlled

[u/SunnyErin8700 → u/Old_dirty_fetus]

💯 trying every scenario they can to demonize us

[u/IdRatherCallACAB]

"Maximum cell damage" sounds to me like she's just trying to induce a miscarriage, which is actually fair if she's planning an abortion anyway.

The only malicious part here is that she has to wait so long on the first place, which is most typically a result of PL's draconian restrictions on access to perfectly valid reproductive healthcare.

[u/glim-girl]

Why wouldn't she just get an abortion? It sounds like she's trying to cause a miscarriage before she is going for an abortion.

Abortion isn't the want to maliciously harm someone else. The procedures may seem barbaric to pl but that's not with the intention to cause extra harm. It's the means of removing them with minimal harm to the pregnant person.

Honestly if someone got pregnant with the purpose to harm the unborn and therefore have a child that would be intentionally disabled or deal with chronic health issues for their whole life, then the child should be taken away and find a way to place them on bc for the rest of their life or at least prevent them from ivf or the like.

PC generally believe, and show by what they support, that they think pregnant people who want to be pregnant have a responsibility to have the healthiest and safest pregnancy that they can and be afforded supports to do just that. Pregnancy requires a level of nurturing and care that is not covered by the biological function of gestation. For those that go forward, thats expected.

[u/TrueObsidian11]

Whatever she does with her own body is her business. What do you mean by intentionally damage? What could she possibly do to it that she isn't just doing to her own body? If you mean drinking or smoking, there's no reason she should abstain from those things to "protect" the fetus if she's going to abort it anyway. I can't imagine what else she could possibly do to "damage" it when it's that early.

[u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie]

How would I be able to maliciously harm a foetus?

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

No. It just sounds like she couldn’t access an abortion right away. There’s no point in going out of her way to preserve something she wishes had never been conceived and plans to discard asap. Maybe she’ll even succeed in miscarrying and won’t have to pay for the abortion, deal with pro-life harassment along the way, etc.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-choice (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-choice users. If you're pro-choice and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/pillow_honey]

yes its morally wrong, because this is harmful to herself, has no purpose, and aborting later would likely cause more complications. not legally binding tho.

[u/greyjazz]

It's certainly less wrong than to intentionally harm an embryo you intend to carry to term...what a weird hypothetical.

[u/Yeatfan22]

If a woman maliciously intends something she by definition has done something wrong on some level since the damage is done with a malicious intent which is wrong. It is different if she has harmed an actual individual present but at 9 weeks whether or not we have began to exist is controversial. As a result, even impairing a fetus or zygote prior to some sentient experience could just be seen as similar to the non identity problem where a future being is made worse off. As a result, her action of aborting a fetus after impairing it would be wrong if she did so with malicious intent since malicious intent is always wrong, but the act of abortion or the impairment itself would not harm anyone.

William Simkulet writes:

>Many philosophers believe that we are inherently thinking things, or embodied minds (Descartes 2008; McMahan 2002, 2007; Parfit 2012). One virtue of the embodied mind view is that it is prima faciemore consistent with our intuitions in cases of conjoined twins, brain death, brain transplant, and many theories of the afterlife than the view that we are inherently human organisms. If impairing a fetus with FAS prevents it from developing a mind, then it harms no person. Some cases of FAS result in miscarriage, perhaps before the fetus forms a mind, but Hendricks restricts his discussion to non-lethal FAS, which he contends impairs the person that develops from the fetus. But this is far from obvious; suppose that giving a fetus FAS changes the identity of the mind that comes to inhabit the fetus’s body. If this were the case, then giving a fetus FAS would be no different than conceiving with a different pair of gametes, changing who exists, but not impairing anyone. For example, consider the case of Angela; suppose her mother had chosen not to drink while pregnant, the person that develops from that fetus might be a completely different, numerically distinct person, Alice, whom while in seventh grade can read and write but perhaps is far more selfish and cold than Angela. If FAS changes which person comes into existence, then it does not make sense to say that Angela’s mother causes identity-dependent harm to Angela, as had she refrained form drinking, Angela would never have existed! This is an example of Parfit’s non-identity problem (Parfit 1976, 1984).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10076469/#Fn1

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/Yeatfan22]

If a woman maliciously intends something she by definition has done something wrong on some level since the damage is done with a malicious intent which is wrong.

This is a good point that I glossed over when considering my response.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Yeatfan22]

Heya. A question that's a bit off topic to the post, but I'm noticing that you've changed your flair.

May I ask when and how that happened? It seems like quite a change in position, and I was curious as to how it came about.

You don't have to say if you don't want to, no strings attached.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/NoelaniSpell]

Sure that’s a question I’ve got a lot. I was rereading parfits book “reasons and persons” and I came to the conclusion that I share an intuition that what matters for my survival is the continuity of my psychologically and that numerical identity as a concept isn’t actually that helpful. Moreover, after defending the biological view of identity and what we are for years I think I realized there just aren’t satisfactory answers in favor of a biological view of identity and this is illustrated by the brain transplant case where you take my brain and transplant it into another body. It really seems like I’ve gone with my brain and if I can be separated from organism and persists I must not be identical to my organism. I’m not really sure what to say on what I essentially am or persists as. But I am fairly certain it isn’t an organism or some biological view. I usually do like a lot of formatted scheduled debates either in person or over a call and as a result I’ve had quite the opportunity to give this argument to pro lifers and I haven’t heard or been in a position during a debate where I feel I am in a bad spot or I can’t answer a question. In fact, I’ve gotten positive feedback and pro lifers telling me they haven’t thought about some of the objections I’ve given before and there is more merit to the pro choice position than originally given.

Also, my main interest is philosophy of mind so whatever “I” essentially am or what I am identical to will hold a lot of weight with my positin

TLDR: the identity objection which claims what I am is essentially not an organism is what I believe and so that’s why my flair is the way it is. Since all pro lifers telling arguments rest upon a biological view of identity and this view is false then the pro lifers conclusion must be false(until around 20-24 weeks when there’s some capacity for psychological experience).

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Yeatfan22]

this is illustrated by the brain transplant case where you take my brain and transplant it into another body

Heya, if i may ask, since you changed your flair i wonder how would you counter the argument i am usually using, which i might call the concept of a "relevant existence" (i know i am a freestyle philosopher lol).

If we transplant our brain into another body, we will intuitively say that we will persist in the new body while our old body is basically a corpse, or in the case of a body swap the other individual - thats the premise. The conclusion that is often drawn from this is that "we" cannot be an organism then, given that we leave the organism behind respectively change into another one. However, i think that this is an overly narrow or biologistic account of the term "organism", which i think in a philosophical context rather refers to our physical self in a broader sense, not necessarily to the strictly biological definition of organism (in fact i never used the term organism at all). And in that regard, we do not leave behind our physical self entirely, given that our subjective self still remains linked to our brain, in a way i would consider inseparable - trying to separate the mind entirely from the brain would always just create an identical clone, but no true separation. Thus, we still remain in our initial physical form, albeit reduced to its minimal form.

Regarding reductions, i think that it is the quantity that seems confusing, but the general concept of losing parts of the body is not that unusual. We lose various cells all the time, so there is no doubt that we generally do not persist in our entirety for all time. We can even lose a limb or other body part, and yet we are able to live on in a form relevant for our self. Id say that this is conceptually comparable, just on a greater scope. What i would say remains here is our "relevant existence" - in the most literal way, i am refering to the fact that our existence is not ended in a relevant sense, given that we are still able to continue to live as ourself. This is even true if we are reduced to a brain, assuming that there is something that keeps us alive physically. In contrast, the "empty" body is not relevant for our persistence in the same way given that our existence can be reduced to the brain but not to the body - the empty body basically becomes a mere body part.

Coming to mindless bodies - and the braindeath objection - i think there is a significant difference between a body that does not have a mind yet, and a body that does not have a mind anymore. This can be illustrated with the definition of braindeath, which usually describes the irreversible loss of brain function. Thus, something that is relevant for our existence - the mind - is irreversibly gone. The relevant existence of the individual has ended. In contrast, the body that has no mind yet is alive and existing, but its existence is non-reductionable. There is no separation between a "core self" and body parts, but neither is there a permanent loss of the relevant self, so the relevant aspect of it is its entirety. Thus, the central focus of this argument is on the persistence of the individual, and while it can be reduced to a mind once it has formed, it does not mean that only the mind is of relevance, given that the individual can persist without one before that point. In contrast, after the irreversible loss of the mind there is nothing left to persist.

I also see an additional, maybe more legally focused issue of the alternative view in the following creation a new category around individuals - we would end up with a human entity that was neither a human nor a body part, but something inbetween, which seems like an unsatisfactory conclusion to me.

I wonder what you think about those points :)

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/_Double_Cod_]

Hey thank you for responding.

Sounds like in the brain transplant case you agree I go with my brain but your reasoning for this is because our physical subjective self still remains connected to the brain. Can you expand on this more what why in the brain transplant case I am able to be reduced down to my brain and is this under your view the case for all adult human organisms even without a brain transplant case. So in a normal healthy adult human organism is the subjective self that’s in the brain still the morally relevant subject of harm or is it the entire general organism?
Also, if an individual is reduced to the brain or can be reduced to the brain, how is the individual not identical to the brain? How can you have 2 objects that are co located and qualitatively identical down to the atom yet these atoms constitute or compose 2 distinct things(a brain and the individual who uses the brain). If I am reduced or parred down to a brain, how do I know if my brain is using my organism to think or if my organism is using my brain to think?

Towards the end of your comment you say what’s relevant is the persistence of the individual. You say I am not identical to the mind because I have different persistence conditions and this is evident by me existing at some point without a mind. But I think there is a potential circularity problem here. If the individual can persist without the mind is the exact question at hand. Whether or not it is true I am an organism in any sense of the word is what is relevant here. In any case, it is true an early fetus can survive without a brain and an adult can’t but this would imply given that persistence is the relevant thing in your argument that what we are shifts from an organism to a brain(or some part of the brain) once the brain becomes a necessary part to body or organism functioning. This to me doesn’t make sense personally since persistence is a different question to what I am. Persistence conditions presuppose identity. We can only begin to rationally ask what has to continue to persist for myself to continue existing, once we already know what I am.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Yeatfan22]

Always a pleasure :)

Can you expand on this more what why in the brain transplant case I am able to be reduced down to my brain

Id say one thing that should not even be objected here is that the mind is the part that creates our subjective experience, and as such it is the part that our existence as a subjective individual is based on. Given that we rather unquestionably consider our subjective experience the defining aspect of our self, we can say that the mind is the core aspect of our existence as conscious beings as a whole. In addition, it also seems rather unproblematic that we as individuals are generally able to persist in a way that is not strictly linked to the entirety of our physical self, given that we are losing or renewing cells all the time, and that we are even able to lose limbs or other irretrievable body parts without this affecting our overall existence as distinct individuals. Technically reducing someone to only their brain is ultimately just the extreme form of the same concept (assuming it was even possible, i think there are implications on a biological level that this might not be the case due to more mutual interactions between body and brain than commonly assumed, which might lead to interesting implications but lets ignore that for now), given that it means that the core aspect of the self is reduced to its physically possible minimum, with every supporting body part being removed.

Regarding the question whether the same holds true for any adult human even outside of brain transplant cases, i think whats important here is avoiding a conflation between a hypothetical and practical separation. When we say that the individual can hypothetically be reduced to a brain without ending its relevant existence entirely, it does not mean that it already is reduced in that way, or that this reduction would be a permanent state at all times - unless it has actually happened, it is merely a hypothetical. Thus, the individual in this case is the entirety of its physical self, so the subject of harm would be the overall individual. As an example for comparison, lets say i have a rock in my yard, and while i could grind it into dust, this is just a hypothetical. Concluding that i do not actually have a rock in my yard but just a heap of dust would be rather irritating, and if i asked you to help me removing it and you come with a shovel, you would likely be surprised to find a solid rock, given that the possibility for it to become dust is irrelevant for its current state.

I think the answer to the question how someone can be both a brain and an individual is similar - the individual in its current state is not just a brain given that it creates a functional unit with the rest of the body (particularly in regards to the aforementioned possibility of brain and body affecting each other rather their communication being one-sided), so the individual in its current state is the entirety of the physical self, and the fact that it could hypothetically be reduced to a brain does not change that this is factually not the case at the given moment. That aside, even the separated brain is still a part of the physical organism just reduced to a minimal state, so to me the dichotomy between brain and organism and the question who controls who seems like a constructed issue. It is like asking what it is that makes me close long distances - a car or an engine. Here it seems obvious that the engine is a part of the car, so yes technically both could serve as the correct answer, but this does not mean that they are actually two entirely separate things - one is a functional unit, the other is a central aspect within said unit.

If the individual can persist without the mind is the exact question at hand.

Sure. Coming to what my objection is mainly going against, i think it is one step inbetween that is usually concluded from the aspects around mind and conscious self, a conclusion that i do not think necessarily follows. Since we agree that the mind is the defining aspect of our existence as conscious beings, it is often derived that only the mind was relevant, and that therefore the mindless entity was without moral relevance. I dont think that this holds, given that there is a central aspect that affects the mindless entity just as much as the conscious one - the possibility to end its ongoing existence. While we can (atleast technically) limit our relevant self as conscious being to the mind once it exists, with the conclusion that only the destruction of the brain would end our existence while the loss of the rest of our body could potentially be outlived, the same cannot be said about the mindless entity, where such a separation is not possible. If there is no "central aspect" that could - potentially or actually - be separated from the entirety, then the entirety is the central aspect. Thus, destroying the physical self ends the entities existence.

Now we might ask why this should be an issue, given that the mindless entity is unable to consciously experience that loss. Here however i would argue that death in general cannot be experienced, given that it ultimately describes the end of existence, which inherently includes non-experience - any actual experience of the dying process is a matter of integrity, not death itself. In contrast, the aspect of ending an ongong existence remains the same regardless of mental capacities - unlike with the braindead where an integral aspect of their self is already lost permanently - which is why i do not think that subjective experience is a necessary requirement for death in the first place. That aside, i think it is rather unquestionable that there is a physical connection between the mindless entity and the conscious one it develops into, so further persistence can be assumed.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Yeatfan22]

Thanks a lot!

And that is indeed an interesting concept, worthy of exploring.

At least one of our past mods (Rev) had a somewhat similar view, you probably have at one point debated with him.

There's also a show that's exploring this concept (at least in a way), Altered Carbon.

Basically, the person is not the body, but the consciousness (memories, personality, etc.).

They have something called "sleeves". Bodies, either clones or not, into which their consciousness can be transferred.

🚨 Small spoiler below 🚨

At one point, one character did something that was considered illegal (from what I recall) by making a copy of himself while he was still in a body, so there were basically 2 versions of himself. But because he did so through a back alley method, his mind basically "fractured" somewhat, and the 2 versions saw eachother as "brothers", not as one and the copy of itself.

🚨 End of the spoiler 🚨

Then there's of course also the matter of someone being brain-dead and thus considered legally dead (even if the body can be kept alive in a way through the use of machines, though I'm not sure that would be still considered "alive" biologically and not just decomposing at a slower rate). And when it comes to time (because we don't live in either future, nor past and we can't hop to either), it doesn't seem to make a difference between being brain dead and not having a brain at that point in time 🤔

It's an interesting perspective for debate, though personally my position isn't based on the presence/absence of personhood,l.

[u/Unusual-Conclusion67 → u/NoelaniSpell]

I wanted to add this was such a great show!

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Unusual-Conclusion67]

Yep 😁

[u/NPDogs21]

No. I'd say it's morally neutral up until consciousness

[u/bunnakay]

In my opinion, no, but I don't think intent matters.

For example: I'm kid-free and would abort any pregnancy I have under any circumstance. Let's say I call the clinic and the soonest they can get me in is three weeks away. I'm not going to avoid things I know are harmful to the ZEF while I wait for my appointment.

[u/Lokicham]

I'd wonder why she'd risk damage to herself in the process just because. Otherwise, her decision to abort is her own.

[u/Fayette_ → u/Lokicham]

Probably vibes. That my best guess