Couldn't all the arguments that a foetus is not a person be applied to someone who is asleep?

Couldn't all the arguments that a foetus is not a person be applied to someone who is asleep? If you gave someone a powerful drug that caused them to fall into a deep, dreamless sleep, they would not be conscious, they wouldn't feel pain, they wouldn't have any emotions, they lack rational thought and free ability, preferences, sense of identity etc. It doesn't seem to matter that sleep is temporary, as being a foetus is also a temporary state. Do we all cease to be persons for eight hours every night? Is it acceptable to a being that is asleep or otherwise unconscious, under the abortionist view?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People who are asleep actually have people who care about them and would cry if they were lost. If even a mother is willing to kill a fetus, then it’s safe to say no one cares enough about the fetus, no one has formed a bond with it, it is not valued like other humans.

    If murder were legal, there would be chaos and suffering. If abortion were legal, no one would notice a difference.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Suppose there were a homeless man who was an orphan with no friends , totally isolated from the world. If I found him asleep, it would be morally permissible to kill him simply because no one would care? This would mean that there is nothing intrinsic in a person which makes it immoral to kill them. And what if a mother wanted an abortion, but it would make the father of the foetus and her family very distraught, does it suddenly become murder then?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        1) you can’t really verify if the homeless man has loved ones
        2) if it were permissible to kill random homeless people, then they would take drastic actions to prevent this from happening
        > If murder were legal, there would be chaos and suffering. If abortion were legal, no one would notice a difference.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Murder is more immediately noticeable, but abortion has had and will continue to have it's consequences. No-one noticed the danger of leaded gasoline for decades, that doesn't make it a good thing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. I can end this whole debate with a modified golden rule. Imagine that you will be reincarnated as every single being that will ever exist. Does abortion bother you? No, not really, because all this does is skip a few lives (that were probably going to be shitty anyway). If you actually think that life is sacred and that it should be brought into this world at all costs, then you should be having as many children as possible. How can you call yourself pro-life if you only have a few children?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How does that fictional scenario have anything to do with the definition of a person?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the definition of a person
            midwit semantics. I don’t care what you call it, the only thing that matters is consciousness, suffering, survival, creating a thriving society. Trying to blindly follow absolutes like “killing innocent humans is always wrong” is moronic, because absolutes simply do not work. Suppose a laboratory creates and kills billions of human zygotes every second. Another laboratory simply tortures one child for its whole life. Which laboratory would you destroy, if you could only destroy one? The answer is obvious to everyone, but pro-lifers don’t want to admit that it’s ok to let “people” die if it prevents suffering. Anyone who would save the billions of zygotes from being created and killed is an actual braindead psychopathic zealot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When one talks about the "potential" of a thing, such as a foetus, it can seem irrelevant compared to that which seems immediate. However, time is always going forward, potential becoming actuality, and the potential that once was, what could have been, could be greater than one expects.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you would allow a child to be tortured to save some human zygotes. You’re a psychopath. Actually try to envision that you are that child. How would you feel? Or what if you were the child’s mother, even? How could anyone tolerate this? Who cares if zygotes are “potential” humans? They don’t suffer and can easily be replaced. You might as well try to argue that we should extract every sperm cell and egg from men and women and create as many children as possible

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The view that a child for instance is more valuable in some sense than X number of zygotes, does not necessitate that the zygotes are worthless.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it’s not the child that we’re talking about, but the suffering of the child. If it’s ok to stop the torture of a child by killing trillions of zygotes, then surely it’s permissible to kill one (1) zygote to prevent a likely sub-par life, especially if the mother can have a child later under better circumstances. Imagine if the zygote laboratory created a billion zygotes, but only had enough food to raise half of them, so that most would be starving, and maybe even die of starvation. But the laboratory can kill all those zygotes and just wait 10 years or so, when it can guarantee that there will be ample food, and just create the zygotes then. There’s no justifiable reason to allow the first batch to live and suffer.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If the father of the fetus wants to have the baby but the mother wants to abort. So in that case abortion would be something immoral?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Do we all cease to be persons for eight hours every night?
    Maybe, if you like. But people still have an obvious interest in outlawing the killing of sleeping humans. You don't want to have to worry about being legally killed every time you take a nap.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're absolutely right, which is why pro-abortionists will always fly into a frothing rage about how that's totally not the same

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree that abortion is immoral but your analogy isn't great, no offense.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have raised an important point, anon. However, the difference is that human beings possess innate potentiality. An individual, despite being asleep, still has the inalienable right to life. A foetus has a latent opportunity to blossom into a well-developed being if nourished well, whereas sleeping is a temporary state. The sleeping human being retains many qualities of a person without losing his identity. In summary, a foetus cannot be equated to someone who is asleep, as the former is a potential person.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Being a foetus is a temporary state.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *