🇳🇱
I think I am very unusual in the sense that I believe abortions should be tax-paid, free to everyone, and pregnancy tests should also be free.... BUT I also think abortion should be very limited, to something around the first **10 weeks** at most.
I've had both right and left leaning folks loose their shit over that. Always entertaining
@jbschirtzinger Yea there is a fair argument against such a cost to tax payers... generally I would agree with you here. But its the only ethical alternative I can think of that doesnt violate the rights of the mother or fetus.
@jbschirtzinger Thats exactly why a 10 week period was picked, since the fetus has no neurons yet it doesnt have rights. Once there are neurons forming (which happens around that time period) it has all the protections and rights... thats the point.
How could a lump of cells with no brain or nurons in any way disagree with me? It has no thought on any level with which to disagree... which is the point.
It has nothing to do with what constitutes "alive".. its not intending to be a metaphysical or philosophical discussion. Its about suffering and a sense of self. If you have no conscious, no thought, no means of expierncing suffering. It has no more consciousness than a barnacle.
@jbschirtzinger The "soul" can get as upset as it wants, it can hitch a ride on the next meat puppet if it wants.
@jbschirtzinger Just another weekend for me, send them my way :)
@jbschirtzinger – instead, focus on whether active agreement/disagreement is interesting and relevant (it isn't) – e.g. suppose you're in a coma and can't agree or disagree to anything. Is killing you at that point murder? What if you're likely to wake up soon?
@freemo
Since we are talking about if killing is ethical if something doesnt have a brain im not sure your analogy is useful here.
@freemo @jbschirtzinger Hmm, I thought it was useful, since it's an example of someone without a currently-functioning brain that we don't kill.
But maybe I'm not understanding exactly why not having neurons is significant for you.
The reason its not useful is that their brain may only be temporarily not functioning. It both stands a chance of recovering, and retaining previous expiernce.. A person without a brain is never waking up in their current state, and if they manage to grow a brain only once the brain is grown can it have any sort of thought or sensse of self or anything that makes a person a person in any meaningful sense (even if its a glimmer of it)
@freemo @jbschirtzinger "their brain may only be temporarily not functioning" And fetuses just temporarily don't have brains?
"A person without a brain is never waking up in their current state" Unless their brain starts growing. Like what happens usually with a fetus.
etc...
Right, not having a brain at all, and being able to grow one, is vastly different than having a brain, personality, memories, expiernces, and it is temporarily turned off.. not remotely comparable.. one exists and is in a domant state, one doesnt exist at all but may be able to be grown.
@freemo @jbschirtzinger "memories" – Whoa if we knew the coma guy was going to have total amnesia then would it be ok to murder him?
@ech Why do you take long lists of things that collectively prove a point, single out a single thing and think that if that one thing in the list is an exception it invalidates the whole list?
No, memories is one of many things I listed that having any combination of those has value, having absolutely none of those (or even a brain) does not... I do think you are trying to argue in good faith, but sometimes it doesnt feel like it.
@freemo I'd encourage you to be a little more flexible about what form an argument takes. Yes: I'm not doing a comprehensive take-down of your post with every post I write. That's ok, right? (There's a few reasons why I might not be doing that, not least of which is that we are basically just repeating ourselves over and over here in this thread. Memories was like the main *new* thing I noticed in your reply.) Or... do you want me to address something specifically?
I'm just trying to make a point about how the way you are arguing about fetuses isn't really consistent with how most people think about the idea of "killing is wrong". In this case, for example, nobody really thinks "killing is wrong" (or "murder should be illegal" or whatever) *because* the victim has *memories*. Not even "memories in combination with a list of other qualities".
@realcaseyrollins It is the only solution Ic an think of that addresses both sides of the concern on abortion.... It addresses a womans right to choice, as well as ensuring the fetus has protections on its life that are science based (protected once neurons develop)
@freemo Science-based might be a bit much, as scientifically, life begins at conception. Your position is based on an opinion on when a human being begins to have personhood, rather than a purely scientific stance.
@realcaseyrollins who said anything about "where life begins"... a barnacle has no brain and is clearly alive... I see nothing wrong with killing it.
Plants, barnacles, and all sorts of things are alive but we recognize killing them isnt an issue since they have no brain to have sense of identity, thought, desires, nothing... Its no different than removing a tumor which also has no brain or thought.
@freemo Here’s where we disagree; I think it’s a common idea among both the religious and secular alike (generally speaking) that killing people is wrong because they’re living human being. There are a LOT of people who still have problems with assisted suicide and pulling the plug on someone who’s on life support.
I’ve never heard anyone say “killing people is wrong because they have neurons”
When has anyone ever been faced with a human being with no neurons to even ask that question? Only time I can think of is fetuses before 10 weeks old... and most non religious people seem ok with that.
@freemo Haha that’s true. But nonetheless, if most people think killing is wrong because of the person’s will or the neurons they have, they’d cite that as the reason. But they don’t.
Not saying you can’t hold your opinion, just saying I’m surprised since it diverts a bit from the type of answer that most people would give.
Most non-religious people would say killing is wrong because it violates self-determination, a person has a right to exercise their own will and not be robbed of that. Or at least some variation of that.
If someone doesnt have neurons then they have no will.
@freemo I don’t think that’s what most non religious people would say to be honest.
To put it even simpler, I think most people are against killing because they put themselves in the victims shoes, and recognize that the idea of their sense of self, their understanding, their awareness being replaced with annhilation, emptyness, blackness, is scary. They want to be protected from that and by extension wnat to protect others form that.
If a person has no neurons then they are already in blackness, they have no thought or desire, those fears are moot as there is no death of consciousness as consciousness doesnt exist yet. The consciousness is already dead as consciousness needs neurons.
@freemo Hmm…I don’t know if I buy that because most atheists oppose killing people but support killing animals, especially for food. Is there something about human neurons that make them special or more capable of sentience or free will than animals?
@realcaseyrollins to be doubly clear personhood and "life" were both concepts I in no way addressed or even see as relevant. What matters is self-determination, consciousness and though. of which you need a brain to have any of those.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins "thought" and "consciousness" are things on a list of differences between a 5 week fetus and an adult. This list also includes things like "size" and "experiences" and "independence" – (some people use those instead).
All the things on this list generally end up being problematic to use in this way.
For example: "consciousness" – someone who is asleep or in a coma doesn't have that, but we would consider killing someone in those states to be murder. And so on.
Which is the point. My core argument is not dependent on defining the moment consciousness exists. It is only dependent on defining when consciousness absolutely doesnt exist (on the obvious fact that when you dont have a brain yet you cant be conscious). The idea being you cant have any of those properties prior to you developing neurons, ergo abortion prior to 10 weeks is garunteed to be morally safe regardless of the ambiguity as to when any of those properties kick in.
"consciousness absolutely doesnt exist" so sort of a "better safe than sorry" approach?
But that's still my point: even if we know consciousness doesn't exist at N weeks, that doesn't matter – using consciousness for this question is ghastly.
I listed three properties, not sure why your focusing on that one (other than its the easier one to attack).. .the point is, if youa rent capable of thought, awareness, suffering, emotions, if you dont have a brain your safe to kill... If you do there is some point its not ok and that point is unknown and cant be easier defined.
So the approach is simple, pick a timeline that garuntees everyone gets a fair shake
@freemo @realcaseyrollins I picked it pretty much randomly; they're all pretty easy to attack, I think.
We don't murder people who can't think, temporarily, for some reason. (Coma again, I guess?) etc.
@freemo From that perspective, would you be willing to share why you believe something that might become an independent living being is more important to protect than someone who is already an independent living being?
Its not, thats why 10 weeks is picked.. both the mother and fetus have their rights protected. Mother can still have an abortion, child is protected.
The reason both are equally important is because once the fetus has brain cells and is capable of thought on any level (around 10 weeks) there is now at a minimum an ethical gray area, and at worst an ethical violation.
This setup ensures all ethical concerns are addressed.
In short: because bodily autonomy is sacred. Your bodily autonomy ends where the bodily autonomy of another being capable of thought (has neurons) begins.. particularly if that other being is in that position (of being dependent on you) due to your own actions (sex).
inb4: in cases of rape in my scenario the mother still has the option to abort in the 10 week window. So she is not denied the option.
@freemo Jellyfish have neurons. Thus, it seems to me you are still stating something that might become an independent living being (and per your clarification might be capable of thought) has more value than someone who is a living independent human being and is capable of thought.
That is what I am curious about. Why does a living independent human being capable of thought have less value to you than something that is not?
Again, since the person has the right to still have an abortion it isnt a measure of who is more valuable. It is a measure that both have value (without measruing who has more) and ensuring both have their value honored by looking after the bodily autonomy of each of them.
I picked a scenario where both can survive, have their will respected, and the woman still has the right to not follow through with an unwanted pregnancy...
I am far more concerned that you are trying to find the value of two humans so you can determine which has the right to murder the other. I prefer a stance where no murder occurs and both have value.
@freemo Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning. I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.
As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human, you said you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is possibly capable of thought, and is therefore human. But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.
> Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning.
> I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.
I know and I explained why your argument for that case is invalid. Who is or isnt a human has very little to do with who is or is not justified in killing. plus its a metaphysical question that is completely fabricated, unlike my position which is based on the known facts and science (development of neurons).
> As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human
I never said it was a "human" after 10 weeks.. but if you want to go there, it is a human before gametes even meet by definition. Sperm are human cells and thus human, as are eggs. So if "human" is the criteria you've already lost that argument. What you did try to do however was specify "independent human" in which case its independence seems of importance not if it is human, and I have debunked that perspective as well.
> you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is **possibly** capable of thought, and is therefore human.
Correct, prior to 10 weeks we know for a fact it is capable of thought. After 10 weeks we dont (and cant) know the exact point where it will be capable of thought but we know for certain it happens after 10 week period.
> But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.
Wrong on both accounts. An embryo by definition is human prior to being birthed.. a hell a fingernail is human by definition, thus this is a horrible definition. Being "birthed" has never been required for the definition of what is or is not human. you are just trying to seperate yourself fromt he independence argument now that you realize it is a failed argument.
@TammyGentzel @freemo None of us is really independent. But you mean something specific that I'm glossing over, right? Can you nail it down?
@ech Maybe you can help me find a better adjective. Someone who is pregnant is at some level currently and actively contributing to society (an independent human). Their social connectivity exists and is complex. My question is, and always has been, why is that person’s life less important than something that might someday be a part of our social connectivity but is not now part of it and, due to the realities of spontaneous abortions and unviable pregnancies, quite possibly never will be?
I think it would be kind of hard to find someone that thinks someone's life is less important because of their level of "social connectivity or whether they're actively contributing to society. Either would be ghastly.
@ech Agreed. It IS abhorrant.
The fetus is not yet a person, not yet capable of living without a host,and will not be either until it is birthed. Yet, there are those who would protect the fetus over the person and argue the person’s life is less important than the fetus’s potential. Why?
@TammyGentzel (who's arguing the mother is less important?)
But whatever – why are people arguing that it is *as* important, you mean?
I think it's because, as we agreed, using those things to ascribe value is ghastly?
