In my original argument, you'll see where I talked about the cost to raise male chickens, feed them, keep them warm and well lit would double the costs as well as the environmental impact of the chickens.
What, that its unjustifiable yet there are many logical reasons to do so? Sure, as I stated before my point wasnt whether or not you think abortion is right/wrong, it was in regards on legally banning it.
If you base your standpoint on the potential of said cell to be able to become a person, couldn't you simply make the same argument for a sperm and say "well, it certainly could become one, if it just injected an egg and then got the nutrients it needed"? You just arbitrary put the line without any thought on what being a person actually entails.
Why is immoral? Why is it that I ought to be a vegan in the case of morality? Why is suffering immoral? Why are you prescribing a moral attribute to us?
You must understand that if you're prescribing moral duties towards others you are edging closer to a moral realistic standpoint and could come into contact with the moral relativist point you've held earlier.
A Zygote demonstrates more characteristics with a organism than a cell. From the beginning of a Zygote's existence it begins begetting different and increasingly complex structures of cells and organs whereas a group of skins cells wouldn't be able to do this. Remember that this Zygote or Embryo creates these organs instead of the other way around. A Embryo can produce brain cells and red blood cells. A red blood cell or a brain cell and not produce the other.
No other cell in the body can create complex cells like the Zygote and all such cells are created by said cell.
I'll say it again to further my point. If you give nutrients to any other types of cells in the body except the Zygote, it will never produce what a baby. However, if you do the same for the Zygote it will eventually produce a baby.
A human can biologically survive on it's own provided it has subsistence as well as a Embryo but cells/tissues/organisms needs each other to survive.
It goes without saying that a Zygote is of the human species but more importantly, it's separate to the mother due to having a different genetic code.
Therefore this thing is of the human species, is biologically different from a sperm and cell and is closer to an organism than of a cell. With all this information I think it's fair to say that it's closer to a person than what we give it credit for.
I'd like to add some scientific argument instead of a purely rhetoric and meta-ethics one (even though that is one of my strong points in regards to philosophy).
As VanityPrime said a singled celled human is alive and it's universally accepted by those who are versed to this field. I could give dozens of quotes from highly reputed sources if you would like me to do so. Ultimately, this argument is based on personhood and the intrinsic value of that foetus. I think a convincing abit brief argument could be made through biology.
The First half of the very brief argument will be based on the differences between the sperm/egg and the Zygote.
How we define differences between cells is how they act and their differences in molecular structure. For example a Red Blood Cell is different to a mitochondria because their molecular structure and "behaviours" (I say this very loosely) are completely different.
When the sperm and egg fuse together the new single cell (or Zygote has a different molecular structure (due to being a combination of both). There's also a different behaviour pattern from the cell due to these new cell trying to stop new sperm with binding with it whereas the egg and the sperm are trying to bind together. Thus, this new cell is quite distinct from it's original components.
To put it simply. You could give nutrients to a sperm or a egg for "x" amount of years and a human baby will never arrive. Do the same to a Zygote and eventually with the right conditions in about nine months human shall be born.
I'll also try to quickly demonstrate why a Zygote is closer to a organism than a human cell. To put it very simply a organism is a complex group of interdependent sets of cells. You and I are humans who are also organisms whereas our hands/ toes are just groups of cells. It would be inappropriate to refer to them as organisms.
I dont think animal cruelty is unjustifiable, I simply think its immoral. There are plenty of beneficial and logical reasons to do so, yet we shouldnt.
Once you start unpacking this, critically analyzing your positions, and weighing them against each other, you'll see that these two positions "Abortion is a subjective preference, the woman who receives the consequences should be the only moral arbiter" and "Animal cruelty is completely unjustifiable regardless of the socio-economic benefits it provides to humans because of the harm on other living beings on this planet"
These two positions cannot, in good faith, harmonize.
Either drop one or develop an ethic which justifies them both.
I'm going to be a bit controversial even tho I'm myself not a vegan and say that any diet besides being vegan is immoral, not only due the suffering but also due to the environmental footprint caused by the industry.
Where do these "basic human values" come from, why should we care?
As for your next statement on the subjectivity of abortion, how do you then assume the moral authority to tell people "not to make laws" when your own ethic illustrates that it doesn't matter. (It's subjective anyway, why should I care about your subjective musing on a subjective preference)
Regardless of whether I think it's a sound and valid argument is honestly, completely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not you think it's sound and valid, consistency principal is a great check to determine whether or not your viewpoint is sound because the criteria should hold true regardless.
Also, I'm not pro-life, I just really don't like bad arguments.
abortion is only acceptable at the early stages of pregnancy, if you abort what could have been a preemie then you either pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.
After watching this, I want you to think critically which is in the better interests under a consequentialist ethic right now.
That billions of people have the price of eggs reduced by half (the randomized cost of eliminating male chickens) or the subjective suffering of the chicken.
Just understand that male chickens are literally worthless, and the cost to feed them, raise them, and house them (electricity etc...) would at least double the cost off eggs around the world, which is one of the staple consumer items that roughly half of the world uses to get essential amino acids and protein.
Does the suffering of the chicken outweigh the enormous benefit they provide to human civilization?
If not, then why? By what criteria do you ignore the massive benefits to human wellbeing for the sake of something that isn't even a person? Can it be outweighed? Why or why not.
I think there are some basic human values that we all agree upon to some extent. Causing suffering would be one of them.
I don't think its a contradiction to then say that whether you think abortion is right or wrong is an entirely subjective view due to your own personal morals and then critizing one for not also being consequential.
I'm not entirely sure if this is a sound argument or not, but it makes sense to me atleast.
I'm quite certain there is a way to justify animal rights in a consequentialist way but my lack of knowledge on the subject makes me unable to find an answer right now. I think however the answer would be to question what you'd mean with citizenry(as I sense an implication that the government should only care for the humans, which I dont agree with) and how the well-being of said citizenry does infact benefit from animals being cared of.
But I'm not entirely sure yet, I'll need some time to look into that. It's a very interesting point tho, it really got me thinking and questioning myself.
Well, to be honest it's literally step one in your argument
"We shouldn't moralize law, law is a separate entity that should focus on a consequentialist ethic and what's in the overall well-being of the citizenry and the government." ( How I understood your argument in your first post)
How do you manage to justify animal rights in that context that doesn't appeal to something greater than a consequentialist ethic without a context for rights?
Why should I care what you believe is moral or not?
Why should suffering matter?
At the end of the day, if you reject moral facts you cannot criticize the morality of others, because it's merely just a preference like chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
It's at this moment I would state a dialectical argument that anyone who chooses to utilize reasoning and argument in order to justify something they claim is subjective, either A. Doesn't truly believe it's subjective, or B. is engaging in moral sophistry.
Is your argument that there is a contradiction in me thinking that suffering is wrong and me critizing that you shouldn't put subjective morals into law? Because that's what I'm thinking right now your point is.
A fetus does not feel pain as its undeveloped, which is why I made the comparision to the finger. As you correctly stated(mostly due to english being my second language) I now understand what you meant by personhood(or as I'd call it alive, since I dont consider a finger to be alive since its cells are techincally alive).
And regarding me not beliving in moral facts, I'm not entirely sure if believing that "causing suffering upon another is immoral " counts as a moral fact or not, but I do believe in that atleast.
