🇳🇱
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
@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.
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.
@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?