That's just my point. There is no line. It's all just perception in the mind. People have a much easier time stealing from someone who is not physically present versus someone who is; this does not mean that it is a lesser crime than stealing from someone who is present! Same for someone they don't know vs. someone they do, etc.
Similarly, a developing zygote may not resemble a human as much as one that is about to be born, but that makes it no less a human life. If you can't delineate a point, then you agree that it is always the same - a human life with the same right to life as developed humans.
I disagree that just because you cannot state an exact point of change that the two extreme ends are equal.
I could point out a color spectrum to you, and even if you said "this purple pixel is red and this purple pixel is blue" I could test you on this claim and prove you wrong by misidentifying them in a blind test. But it would be insanity to claim the red at the end of the spectrum was blue, as nobody would ever confuse the two (unless they had a colorblindness disorder).
There are more examples I could list, but the point remains that small changes added together makes a real difference!
That's not an equal comparison -- color does change in its entirety solely by its wavelength. An experiment that requires 703 nm light would fail if you used 702 nm, despite both being "red" by humans. The limitation of human visual capacity doesn't change what it actually is.
With regards to what makes a human life valuable such that it is immoral to end its life, a newborn is very different in its development than an 18 year old but the same "right to exist" exists for both. A newborn and an 8 month old fetus share that same right. And so on going backwards. The "sliding spectrum" doesn't apply here because the right to exist isn't changing the way wavelength of light does.
It's precisely the same human limitation to visualization that makes it difficult for people to recognize that it's still a human life that's ending when a 3 month old fetus is ended.
An experiment that requires 703 nm light would fail if you used 702 nm
Correct. And that's the basis I would use to prove you wrong. Remember the comparison I'm making is about spectrums::spectrums, not light::fetuses.
Your inabilty to differentiate a shade of purple from the next shade is VERY comparable to my inability to tell the difference between a fetus that is 1 second and a fetus that is 2 seconds old. However there IS an objective difference between both sets of examples (in color:wavelength and in age:seconds).
Given all that, you are trying to equate a 1 second old fetus with a fully functioning breathing baby, because there is no subjective difference between them at each point in reality. Second by second..they are the same...so they must be the same at the end of the cycle right?
But my example clearly shows how wrong that is. Just because we can't tell the difference second by second in the life cycle of a fetus to born baby, we can very easily tell the difference between a developing fetus at a few seconds old an a born baby at a few seconds old.
With regards to what makes a human life valuable such that it is immoral to end its life, a newborn is very different in its development than an 18 year old but the same "right to exist" exists for both.
I agree, because they both share properties of what grants right to life. But it's not life, that grants right to life for me. It's conciousness, autonomy, feeling, homeostasis, etc.
A newborn and an 8 month old fetus share that same right.
According to you, but this is just a bald assertion. I realize I've been on the defense here in the discussion (rightfully so) but you haven't given a reason that a fetus (of any age) should have a right to life other than "because it's life".
The "sliding spectrum" doesn't apply here because the right to exist isn't changing the way wavelength of light does.
But I've never said that the right to life is a sliding spectrum. I've only said our ability to classify what has a right to life is on a spectrum. In my view some early stage developing humans don't have it yet, just like they don't have working hearts, brains, spleens or pituitarys.
It's precisely the same human limitation to visualization that makes it difficult for people to recognize that it's still a human life that's ending when a 3 month old fetus is ended.
I recognize it is a human life that is ending. I don't play games about it. It is human, in origin/configuration, and it is life (the earliest beginnings of an individual life cycle).
We also "end" human life at the end of people's life cycles all the time. The decision to "pull the plug" is made by familes, doctors and sometimes judges or other people in society all day every day. "If we disconnect X from this machine, they will die". And we do it. Just like at the end of life, I don't think the decision should be done lightly. It's very possible some of the people we pull the plug on could have made it if given another week of medical care, or entered a new drug trial. It's nothing to laugh about or feel good about. Life is full of hard decisions. I respect the mother's choice over the governments to make it.
Correct. And that's the basis I would use to prove you wrong. Remember the comparison I'm making is about spectrums::spectrums, not light::fetuses.
This is the error in your assumption. Wavelengths are a spectrum. "Right to live" is not. Development is a spectrum, but that doesn't determine whether or not something has a right to live. You are making the mistake that humans not being able to perceive small gradients in color is the same as humans not being able to discern changes in development. The difference here is that "right to live" isn't a spectrum at all -- it's binary. It does not follow the "development" axis. If it did you could point to something along the development pathway that determines a valuable human life from non-valuable one.
Given all that, you are trying to equate a 1 second old fetus with a fully functioning breathing baby
You can't equate them in terms of development, but you can equate them in terms of "right to live". Remember, the two axis are not co-dependent! A 1 month old is very different from an 18 year old in terms of development, i.e. you can't equate them, but both are very much the same for "right to live".
It's conciousness, autonomy, feeling, homeostasis, etc.
Most of those don't exist in a late-term fetus, yet you oppose abortion at that stage. Do you not see that as incongruous?
According to you, but this is just a bald assertion.
No, you agreed to this earlier. You stated you are against late-term abortion. Why would you be opposed to it if not for the belief that human life is worth preserving? Do you at least agree that a 2-day old newborn has this right? What makes it wrong to kill a 2 day old infant?
In my view some early stage developing humans don't have it yet, just like they don't have working hearts, brains, spleens or pituitarys.
If this holds then there must be a delineating line that the fetus must cross for it to be considered a life worth preserving. What is that line? We understand very well how fetal development works so you can simply state what your metric is. Simply stating "I only know a zygote doesn't have it" sounds like cognitive dissonance; you don't know why but it feels like it shouldn't have it simply because it doesn't look human.
The decision to "pull the plug" is made by familes, doctors and sometimes judges
You can't really equate ending a life for compassion reasons when a person is dying and cannot hope to live normally to a developing infant who will live a full life. Nor can you compare an innocent with a criminal condemned to death. Yes, there are conditions from which we choose to inviolate life, but an innocent unborn child meets none of them.
That's just my point. There is no line. It's all just perception in the mind. People have a much easier time stealing from someone who is not physically present versus someone who is; this does not mean that it is a lesser crime than stealing from someone who is present! Same for someone they don't know vs. someone they do, etc.
Similarly, a developing zygote may not resemble a human as much as one that is about to be born, but that makes it no less a human life. If you can't delineate a point, then you agree that it is always the same - a human life with the same right to life as developed humans.
I disagree that just because you cannot state an exact point of change that the two extreme ends are equal.
I could point out a color spectrum to you, and even if you said "this purple pixel is red and this purple pixel is blue" I could test you on this claim and prove you wrong by misidentifying them in a blind test. But it would be insanity to claim the red at the end of the spectrum was blue, as nobody would ever confuse the two (unless they had a colorblindness disorder).
There are more examples I could list, but the point remains that small changes added together makes a real difference!
That's not an equal comparison -- color does change in its entirety solely by its wavelength. An experiment that requires 703 nm light would fail if you used 702 nm, despite both being "red" by humans. The limitation of human visual capacity doesn't change what it actually is.
With regards to what makes a human life valuable such that it is immoral to end its life, a newborn is very different in its development than an 18 year old but the same "right to exist" exists for both. A newborn and an 8 month old fetus share that same right. And so on going backwards. The "sliding spectrum" doesn't apply here because the right to exist isn't changing the way wavelength of light does.
It's precisely the same human limitation to visualization that makes it difficult for people to recognize that it's still a human life that's ending when a 3 month old fetus is ended.
Correct. And that's the basis I would use to prove you wrong. Remember the comparison I'm making is about spectrums::spectrums, not light::fetuses.
Your inabilty to differentiate a shade of purple from the next shade is VERY comparable to my inability to tell the difference between a fetus that is 1 second and a fetus that is 2 seconds old. However there IS an objective difference between both sets of examples (in color:wavelength and in age:seconds).
Given all that, you are trying to equate a 1 second old fetus with a fully functioning breathing baby, because there is no subjective difference between them at each point in reality. Second by second..they are the same...so they must be the same at the end of the cycle right?
But my example clearly shows how wrong that is. Just because we can't tell the difference second by second in the life cycle of a fetus to born baby, we can very easily tell the difference between a developing fetus at a few seconds old an a born baby at a few seconds old.
I agree, because they both share properties of what grants right to life. But it's not life, that grants right to life for me. It's conciousness, autonomy, feeling, homeostasis, etc.
According to you, but this is just a bald assertion. I realize I've been on the defense here in the discussion (rightfully so) but you haven't given a reason that a fetus (of any age) should have a right to life other than "because it's life".
But I've never said that the right to life is a sliding spectrum. I've only said our ability to classify what has a right to life is on a spectrum. In my view some early stage developing humans don't have it yet, just like they don't have working hearts, brains, spleens or pituitarys.
I recognize it is a human life that is ending. I don't play games about it. It is human, in origin/configuration, and it is life (the earliest beginnings of an individual life cycle).
We also "end" human life at the end of people's life cycles all the time. The decision to "pull the plug" is made by familes, doctors and sometimes judges or other people in society all day every day. "If we disconnect X from this machine, they will die". And we do it. Just like at the end of life, I don't think the decision should be done lightly. It's very possible some of the people we pull the plug on could have made it if given another week of medical care, or entered a new drug trial. It's nothing to laugh about or feel good about. Life is full of hard decisions. I respect the mother's choice over the governments to make it.
This is the error in your assumption. Wavelengths are a spectrum. "Right to live" is not. Development is a spectrum, but that doesn't determine whether or not something has a right to live. You are making the mistake that humans not being able to perceive small gradients in color is the same as humans not being able to discern changes in development. The difference here is that "right to live" isn't a spectrum at all -- it's binary. It does not follow the "development" axis. If it did you could point to something along the development pathway that determines a valuable human life from non-valuable one.
You can't equate them in terms of development, but you can equate them in terms of "right to live". Remember, the two axis are not co-dependent! A 1 month old is very different from an 18 year old in terms of development, i.e. you can't equate them, but both are very much the same for "right to live".
Most of those don't exist in a late-term fetus, yet you oppose abortion at that stage. Do you not see that as incongruous?
No, you agreed to this earlier. You stated you are against late-term abortion. Why would you be opposed to it if not for the belief that human life is worth preserving? Do you at least agree that a 2-day old newborn has this right? What makes it wrong to kill a 2 day old infant?
If this holds then there must be a delineating line that the fetus must cross for it to be considered a life worth preserving. What is that line? We understand very well how fetal development works so you can simply state what your metric is. Simply stating "I only know a zygote doesn't have it" sounds like cognitive dissonance; you don't know why but it feels like it shouldn't have it simply because it doesn't look human.
You can't really equate ending a life for compassion reasons when a person is dying and cannot hope to live normally to a developing infant who will live a full life. Nor can you compare an innocent with a criminal condemned to death. Yes, there are conditions from which we choose to inviolate life, but an innocent unborn child meets none of them.