Doesn't this argument go beyond merely supporting abortion but also infanticide and beyond? As a man, I can't get pregnant, but suppose I have sex consensually and I find myself with a baby I don't want living in my home and crying and waking me up at night. Wouldn't the people seeds argument -- assuming we agree with it in the direction of saying such people seeds don't have a right to our homes -- support me in ceasing to take care of this baby (feed it, clothe it, let it sleep in my home, etc) or even drive it to a dumpster and leave it there?
I'd say the difference is that you can safely remove the baby from your home and relinquish onto another party. Don't get me wrong, I'm and abolitionist and I think this analogy is horrible, but I don't think your objection is valid.
@@grovr7543 Might it still require some time and energy and other resources though to secure a new home for this people seed instead of merely throwing it out of our homes? I don't see what major difference it makes whether the metaphorical people seed is a fetus, already-born baby, infant, teenager, or a full-grown violinist unless there's a resource expenditure threshold of some sort which makes the difference between whether it's unethical to simply eject them from our homes vs. securing them a new one.
@@darkengine5931 I think you make a great point. It will still require time and resources to transfer the obligation onto another party, so couldn't you just include the gestational period as part of the period of time it takes to transfer the obligation? Absent of applying a specific threshold of resources, I think this argument is valid.
@@grovr7543 Cheers! At least that's the way I'm contemplating it. If, due to choices I consensually made, anything resembling a "person" ends up in my home and dependent on its shelter to survive, then I would consider myself morally obliged to do at least the bare minimum to secure them a new home. It is the least I can do; I cannot just throw them out in ways that ensure their death or else I would consider myself a monster. Perhaps some of the argument hinges on the use of "seed" in "people seed". What's that? We started with a violinist who is clearly a person, and then transitioned to a "people seed". Is this more like a thing or a person? I lean towards looking at a fetus as something like a "person", and for reasons no biologist can nullify. It doesn't have to do with sentience or the nature of the cells involved. It's just that when my wife gets pregnant, only to look at what's growing inside of her as "just a clump of cells" that inspires no sense of care or responsibility than I have for a stick, then I think something must be wrong with me. Further, if everyone thought this way, our species would have gone extinct ages ago. So I think most of us must necessarily err on the side of looking at what's growing inside as more than a "thing".
Doesn't this argument go beyond merely supporting abortion but also infanticide and beyond? As a man, I can't get pregnant, but suppose I have sex consensually and I find myself with a baby I don't want living in my home and crying and waking me up at night.
Wouldn't the people seeds argument -- assuming we agree with it in the direction of saying such people seeds don't have a right to our homes -- support me in ceasing to take care of this baby (feed it, clothe it, let it sleep in my home, etc) or even drive it to a dumpster and leave it there?
I'd say the difference is that you can safely remove the baby from your home and relinquish onto another party. Don't get me wrong, I'm and abolitionist and I think this analogy is horrible, but I don't think your objection is valid.
@@grovr7543 Might it still require some time and energy and other resources though to secure a new home for this people seed instead of merely throwing it out of our homes? I don't see what major difference it makes whether the metaphorical people seed is a fetus, already-born baby, infant, teenager, or a full-grown violinist unless there's a resource expenditure threshold of some sort which makes the difference between whether it's unethical to simply eject them from our homes vs. securing them a new one.
@@darkengine5931 I think you make a great point. It will still require time and resources to transfer the obligation onto another party, so couldn't you just include the gestational period as part of the period of time it takes to transfer the obligation? Absent of applying a specific threshold of resources, I think this argument is valid.
@@grovr7543 Cheers! At least that's the way I'm contemplating it.
If, due to choices I consensually made, anything resembling a "person" ends up in my home and dependent on its shelter to survive, then I would consider myself morally obliged to do at least the bare minimum to secure them a new home. It is the least I can do; I cannot just throw them out in ways that ensure their death or else I would consider myself a monster.
Perhaps some of the argument hinges on the use of "seed" in "people seed". What's that? We started with a violinist who is clearly a person, and then transitioned to a "people seed". Is this more like a thing or a person?
I lean towards looking at a fetus as something like a "person", and for reasons no biologist can nullify. It doesn't have to do with sentience or the nature of the cells involved. It's just that when my wife gets pregnant, only to look at what's growing inside of her as "just a clump of cells" that inspires no sense of care or responsibility than I have for a stick, then I think something must be wrong with me. Further, if everyone thought this way, our species would have gone extinct ages ago. So I think most of us must necessarily err on the side of looking at what's growing inside as more than a "thing".