🇳🇱
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
@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.
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?
@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.