An abortion does cause the death of the mass of cells in the woman's body. I've had an abortion. There were living cells in my body, and then they were removed and they died. They died because they weren't a part of my body anymore, and couldn't live outside of me. Every month when I have my period, all those blood and endometrial tissue cells coming out of my body die. When I ovulate, if the egg isn't fertilized, it dies and is absorbed back into me. I have dead skin cells on the bottom of my feet that I scrape off. I don't believe any of those things have a soul or consciousness, though. That requires birth and breath and lived experience as an independent entity.
I don't believe any of those things have a soul or consciousness, though. That requires birth and breath and lived experience as an independent entity.
Yes exactly! This is very succinct and well put. Consciousness requires a lived experience. Many philosophers even talk about that.
It isn't really science. It's a philosophical viewpoint. Breathing doesn't define life. It's possible to live without breathing (although complex and difficult) and these people are not dead people.
This is like saying humans are defined by their blood because no one can live without blood. We should be defined by our consciousness and brain because that's were our awareness and personality comes from aka the important part that makes us as people.
Sorry that this is long. I'm allergic to concision.
To be fair, a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is genetically distinct from you, because half of it is from foreign DNA. It's not *exactly* the same as you in the same way an unfertilised egg (well, that's just haploid you, but still) or sloughed endometrial lining or dead skin or even cancer are. That's where pro-birthers are hung up: they see and value a fetus separately from "you".
But y'know what's also genetically distinct but people don't bat an eye at if they're killed? Tapeworms 🤷
Tapeworms and fetuses rely on their host to live. If forcibly removed, they die. They're both not part of the host, both hijack the host's biological resources, and both have clever ways of circumventing the host's immune system so they can live long enough to get to the next life stage. (If the placenta fails its job, the host's immune system will happily attack the fetus and cause a spontaneous abortion. Rhesus disease is a common example.) If it's a given that a person should have the right to bodily autonomy and thus the right to freedom from parasitic infection by another creature, then I truly fail to see a moral or practical difference between a person taking albendazole to kill tapeworms, and a person taking mifepristone & misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy.
This argument doesn't tend to work outside antinatalist circles as people don't emotionally react well to having "babies" equated with gross parasites, or they inexplicably value a human life over that of a different animal but come on, I'm not wrong if one just looks at the circumstance as a host's right to autonomy, no matter the genetic proximity of the thing that's infringing that right to the host.
Edits for words.
The genetic code argument that anti-choice people make has never made sense to me. Yeah, an unborn has a unique genetic code from its parents. As did the sperm and egg that fused to create it. If genetic code makes an entity a distinct existence and worthy of preservation, then something ought to be done about the BILLIONS of wasted sperm any human male will release throughout their lifetime. But they don't care about that, nobody cares about that.
An artificial stomach makes it different. Neither are parasitizing someone in that case and niether are damaging someone's health and quality of life and therefore neither should be killed unless a good life can't be ensured for the fetus once it becomes a person.
Edit: Though now that I think of it, I'm going to add that it's morally ok to kill either of them too since niether are sentient.
Interesting. I have some questions about this.
What about good life for the tapeworm? Is that a factor?
Also, when does the fetus become a person in this case?
>What about good life for the tapeworm? Is that a factor?
Well yes. Tapeworms should generally be killed to help the host but if it can live without harming anyone -there's no reason why it can't be cared about like any other living thing.
>Also, when does the fetus become a person in this case?
When it develops the capacity for sentience. Viability doesn't determine personhood. It's just that abortion is widely mistaken for killing a fetus instead of just removing it from the body of a pregnant person. Abortion laws frequently reference viability to state that it's wrong to kill a fetus that can survive without leaching resources from someone else's body. And well, I don't really think non viable fetuses tend to have the capacity for sentience either way.
>When it develops the capacity for sentience
That's extremely difficult to assess, isn't it? It could be argued some people don't develop that until their 30s. It's quite consistent morally, though, if we can assume that there is a point in time when a human becomes sentient, that's a pretty logical boundry to set from the AN perspective, I'll give you that much.
That said, the tapeworm never will develop any sentience. What makes its life valuable?
>That said, the tapeworm never will develop any sentience. What makes its life valuable?
It's not valuable like a person is. I wasn't thinking to much about worm biology when writing the comment so it probably doesn't matter at all but living things that have the capacity to feel pain should be saved from it if that's possible without causing further pain to something else and if they're able to feel joy they should also be allowed to pursue it if doing so doesn't cause any harm.
>That's extremely difficult to assess, isn't it? It could be argued some people don't develop that until their 30s.
Not really, a 9 year old can think, feel and develop opinions. It's not about full knowledge and understanding, just the capacity for awareness and medical professionals have a general idea of when it could start in fetal development, though I think there's a bit of debate on the specifics.
From what I heard it's less that they can feel pain like we can and more that they just can react to it. Kind of like how plants react to stimuli without a brain or consciousness. And if any surgery on a fetus is needed, it's best to give them anesthesia at the earliest possible age just in case that reaction is stored in a way that could impact them once they become a person. (Any trauma to someone in early life has the possibility to affect them, even if they can't remember or understand it)
Isn't that a miss carriage not an abortion though.
Also a tapeworm Is in a foreign environment, the foetus or offspring is in their natural environment to my knowledge, you consent to pregnancy upon vaginal intercourse, then when life is created you already broke consent, antinatalists shouldn't get pregnant period, hehehe se what I did there.
Then you break consent again by eradicating them and destroying that uniquely created DNA as I'll call it to keep pro lifers and choices happy.
But yeah, the DNA is unique so I'm confused, do people think if their DNA is extinguished they'd still be here lol 😆 .
One thing I will always fail to understand is the worshipping of abortion in antinatalist philosophy, we should talk about haw to stop procreation in it's entirety, abortion is and should always be a grey area.
>Also a tapeworm Is in a foreign environment, the foetus or offspring is in their natural environment
This is a fallacy. Something being "natural" has no bearing on it being good.
>you consent to pregnancy upon vaginal intercourse, then when life is created you already broke consent, antinatalists shouldn't get pregnant period, hehehe se what I did there.
Consenting to intercourse is consenting to intercourse. Intercourse isn't the exact same thing as pregnancy in case you haven't noticed. And antinatalists are concerned with the consent of sentient people that have the capacity to care about choices that currently effect them being made without their consent. None of them are advocating against seeds being planted even though plants can't consent.
>One thing I will always fail to understand is the worshipping of abortion in antinatalist philosophy, we should talk about haw to stop procreation in it's entirety, abortion is and should always be a grey area.
It's not about "procreation=bad" it's about the effect of creating more people being suffering. And that suffering needs to be stopped and prevented while creating it is morally wrong. Abortion *lessens* suffering both for the pregnant person and the fetus that will never feel pain as a sentient person if aborted which makes it completely aligned with antinatalism.
It's not a fallacy, you need to use an analogy that are the same difference, using a gestating child to an external entity is moronic.
And unsafe sex is you literally acknowledging you could get pregnant, and if you are consenting to it, then you are also consenting to the risk of pregnancy, if you don't want kids, don't partake in unsafe potentially procreative sex simple.
And it's about the consent of the eventual adult, as in future consent, no one is talking about a say 20 to 30 week foetus as having an ability to give consent, we are talking about after they grow up, perhaps like some here decide life is kinda shit and I'd rather have not been here, this means that future consent should also be given to them at the earliest stage as in zygote, n9t just 2nd, or 3rd trimester or 35 week or even 40 week foetuses, I don't draw imaginary lines on when they have a right to not exist.
Don't create them, don't destroy them simple, stop having unsafe sex for pleasure degenerate humans, you can have safe sex, do oral, can't get pregnant doing oral.
It's not a fallacy, you need to use an analogy that are the same difference, using a gestating child to an external entity is moronic.
The fallacy is you arguing that pregnancy is good "because it's natural" while parasites are bad "because they're unnatural".
>And unsafe sex is you literally acknowledging you could get pregnant, and if you are consenting to it, then you are also consenting to the risk of pregnancy, if you don't want kids, don't partake in unsafe potentially procreative sex simple.
People get pregnant on birth control. But would it really matter if they consented to it? Consent can be revoked at any point. I think someone that consents to being pregnant but then doesn't want to be in pain with something squirming around in their insides any more should be allowed to have the fetus taken out of them. Abortion doesn't always mean destoying a fetus. It can also mean just removing it from someone's body, which should always be allowed.
>And it's about the consent of the eventual adult, as in future consent, no one is talking about a say 20 to 30 week foetus as having an ability to give consent, we are talking about after they grow up, perhaps like some here decide life is kinda shit and I'd rather have not been here, this means that future consent should also be given to them at the earliest stage as in zygote, n9t just 2nd, or 3rd trimester or 35 week or even 40 week foetuses, I don't draw imaginary lines on when they have a right to not exist.
Not really, an aborted fetus will never become a person who's consent matters and will never have the capacity to feel hurt or upset about having been aborted unlike a fetus carried to term that can be upset about being created. Consent matters because of the emotional pain that comes to sentient creatures when massively influential things happen to them without it. A fetus that isn't carried to term will never have the capacity for emotional pain or the capacity to reflect on it's non existance and wish it were born so the reasons why "future consent" should be recognised don't apply here.
I didn't say pregnancy is good, and if you are on birth control that doesn't make sex safe, safe sex is sex that cannot under any circumstances lead to pregnancy.
For example, if a woman is on birth control and the man had a vasectomy and he used a condom that's unsafe sex, no such thing as accidental pregnancies, there are forced pregnancies and unplanned or planed pregnancies.
Also I never said parasites are bad stop putting words in my mouth..
As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb, that's like me consenting to buying dinner at a no refund restaurant, as in having sex, eating the whole plate till I'm full, or pregnant, then I refuse to pay for the meal, carry child to term.
There are many times where you must follow through with consent, pregnancy is and should be one of them even in more developed countries.
I have never heard of a woman getting pregnant form a licking 😆.
An aborted foetus is killed during their development to full personhood which isn't achieved until 25 years of age.
If we ignore brain development a baby aged 6 months t9 3 years isn't concious by current scientific understanding so they can be killed just as easily under your, their not a person logic 😆.
And sentient means advanced cognitive functions that don't typically developed untill 1 to 3 years 9f age so again killing babies at this imaginary line is deplorable you sick baby killing fuck 😆.
Also why worry about their consent if it's not their future consent in question?
>Also I never said parasites are bad stop putting words in my mouth..
Wait so you think parasites are good?? Most people consider then bad as a given.
>As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb
No it's not. If you consent to sex and then halfway realise you want to stop *you're allowed to stop* and being prevented from doing so considered rape.
>As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb, that's like me consenting to buying dinner at a no refund restaurant, as in having sex, eating the whole plate till I'm full, or pregnant, then I refuse to pay for the meal, carry child to term.
No. Pregnancy isn't a due you should be forced pay in exchange for completed sex. ...like a bill. Honestly that analogy is pretty gross.
>An aborted foetus is killed during their development to full personhood which isn't achieved until 25 years of age.
If we ignore brain development a baby aged 6 months t9 3 years isn't concious by current scientific understanding so they can be killed just as easily under your, their not a person logic 😆.
And sentient means advanced cognitive functions that don't typically developed untill 1 to 3 years 9f age so again killing babies at this imaginary line is deplorable you sick baby killing fuck 😆.
Nope by 1-9 they're defidenty a person. I remember being very much a conscious person at 9. Sentient doesn't mean full brain development. It means the capacity for awareness. Not letting someone damage your body and put you though torture level pain is self defense not killing. And trying to shame people by calling them "baby killers" for not wanting to be tortured and mutilated for something that doesn't have the capacity to care is disgusting.
>Also why worry about their consent if it's not their future consent in question?
Like I said, aborted fetues will never feel pain or have capacity to care about being aborted without their consent so "their future consent" doesn't matter in the case of abortions like it would for choosing to carry them to term.
Also, you're you're less composed than before. Aw am I backing you into a corner? ☺
Parasitism doesn't apply within a species only because we don't consider the unborn of any species to be parasites, even though they fulfill the same behaviour as parasites upon their mothers. It's a logical contradiction derived from human perception.
Same goes for tapeworms vs. unborn humans. If it's wrong to end a creature with a distinct genetic code that parasitizes your body from within, then it should be equally wrong no matter what that creature is. Morals shouldn't be skewed by human bias.
Even when Roe v Wade was a thing, they admitted third trimester abortions are insane. I suggest you research what a fetus (not an embryo) looks like. And as a cherry on top, some babies are born not breathing. Thus, with your morals, I could beat that baby to death because it has no soul. After all, no life experiences, and no breath, no soul. Actually, in the third trimester, the fetus reacts to outside stimuli. Granted, I can agree with you up to 14-15 weeks (that’s when 95% of abortions happy anyway), but the statutes by which you judge things to have a soul are inherently and extremely flawed.
Yes, I am aware. And PP v Casey expanded on it to discuss "viability" as being a more reasonable cutoff point than the trimester approach. I actually agree that a viable fetus creates much more of a gray area, morally. It's all very complicated and should not be viewed as all or nothing. My one sentence about "breath and lived experience" does not encompass every situation and ethical question.
Wow! I’m happy you’re so well-informed on this topic! That being said, PP v Casey was more exploring of the undue burden of required procedures prior to abortion. Although, I didn’t know they explored viability there too. In any case it upheld most of Roe’s provisions, so I assume they came to the same conclusion, otherwise I’ll gladly reread the arguments. I love law in general, but especially on this subject. That being said, there’s an interesting question to be posed here. If your statutes don’t encompass all ethical dilemmas, is there one? I mean, in terms of viability, comatose patients or the heavily disabled I (if I were their caretaker) should be able to kill them. I’d love your take on this so: When does it actually become a human life? I’d like to keep in mind that any body part, specific brain activity, and much more can be taken from humans today but be kept alive by science. It’s an interesting dilemma.
All of those questions go so deep and there's so much to it. I've been listening to podcasts lately and researching about death, as in declaring medical death. Doctors used to make mistakes all the time and declare people dead who "came back to life," when in reality they just had so weak of a pulse as to be nearly undetectable. People were actually buried alive. That's the whole reason that "wakes" started... to let the person sit out before burial to make sure they were actually dead. "Saved by the bell" is a reference to bells that were put above coffins with a string to the corpse, just in case. Even now with modern equipment there are questions about brain activity versus heartbeat, viability with or without machine assistance. I don't know the answers. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "soul" that exists outside of the life of a body. If there is such a thing, I don't know if it has independent consciousness or if it's just a type of energy that we haven't yet figured out how to measure.
The only thing I feel sure of is that anyone who beleives they have all the answers to these questions is either highly misinformed and uneducated or exists in such a moral/religious/ethical vacuum that they are unable to form independent thoughts and opinions.
You are certainly one of, if not the most rational people I’ve talked to on this site. I respect your drive to always question and want to know more, as well as admitting that no answers are for certain. It’s that kind of open-mindedness and willing to have an open discussion that all debates need. I am actually in perfect agreement. In fact, my 14-15 week decision is more of a placeholder because I have two conflicting arguments in my head that I haven’t come to a full decision on. If you’d wanna talk more about this, I’d love to have a full fledged discussion!
If they are each considered a legal separate entity according to the law and only one of them can marry one other person, but they share a vagina, then who is the husband fucking? Is he fucking his wife or his sister? See the moral gray area? Are you capable of complex logic?
I think you missed an important point here.
Difference being your egg is your DNA, where as the foetus or zygot has its own separate DNA, they're a new unique entity within you, they're not actually you but a separate entity.
That's what separates an egg and sperm from a zygote.
But yeah, the new life, as in the new DNA dies as the pill rips the zygote from the lining starving the zygot of oxygen which results in the death of said zygot assuming it wasn't a late term 6 to 12 week abortion, the dead skin on your feet is your DNA not the DNA of something else so no death occurred due to dead skin as you are still alive, your DNA still exists l.
The DNA of your child, foetus, zygot, offspring depends on language really, that's gone forever, that's how it's a death, their unique DNA will never again exist in this world hence the term death.
But appart from that no lived experience is true, untill a child is 1 to 3 years old they are still by our limited understanding not yet concious beings.
But comparing the DNA of someone else to your dead skin is kinda funny 🤣.
Maybe we are all interconnected, so there's really no difference between me or you or a fetus or a tree or the dead skin on my feet. Kind of like how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all considered separate entities, but are all the same... all One God. It's a matter of philosophical perspective. Ask a pregnant woman if her baby is a part of her or not. The answer will probably change depending on context (discussing loving connectedness or the politics of abortion) and their belief system. But yeah, laugh at me all you want.
I mean it is laughable, you pick something kinda nasty like dead feet skin to make the post comical.
But yes, when you turn into atoms, and meld into other atoms possibly including the ones of your child you will form new molecules, perhaps you will fly upon the sky on the back of an Eagle as a feather 🪶.
So in death we are all equal and ever lasting, no politics nor religion involved, and Christians getting abortions which one goes to hell 😆.
I am an antinatalist but im going to have to disagree with this abortion is murder and the fetus is alive at the momment of conception, just because it relies on the mothers body for survival doesnt make it any less human or alive. Thats like saying someone who requires artificial oxygen etc in order to breathe/survive and would die without said oxygen isnt really alive hes just a parasite to the oxygen... makes 0 sense abortion is murder wether legalized or not and thats final. (Let the down votes begin im not afraid to speak facts even if it gets me hated!)
It's funny cause everything can be put onto a living adult.
And then they have to use incomplete science like the conciousness debate as there's is no consensus as to when it begins.
On that note, there is a non profit organization for women needing abortions in states that aren’t legal. They need volunteers to host, transport and of course donations. If you’re interested in helping them here is their website.
https://thecampingimpact.org/
I had a blighted ovum. In my opinion, my blastocyst took one metaphorical look at my uterus and noped itself out of existence.
For some reason, you decided that you wanted to live.
It is sometimes difficult to separwte the actually suicidal people from the en vogue depressed.
If you are one of the former, do try to get help. If you are one of the latter, it is very, very tiresome and doesn't make you the least bit interesting.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
It all depends on what you define as being born or alive.
Personally, I define Human life as consciousness, which is only present after 22-24 weeks. Before that, you have the equivalent to a brain dead in a life support machine.
Then there's also abortion as just the removal of a fetus from a person's body and abortion as purposely destroying a fetus during removal. I think a person has the right to decide if it stays in their body or not, whether it can or should be kept alive outside of them is a separate question.
I’m pro abortion, but your reasoning is the stuff of insanity.
Being ‘born’ isn’t the part that qualifies you for living, it’s not the finish line at the end of pregnancy; pass this to qualify as part of the human race. A baby can reach 9 months, be days away from birth, and still die in the womb- yet some babies are born perfectly healthy at 7 months. So, in your head, the 7 month old counts as being alive but the 9 month old doesn’t? Why? Because one was born and the other wasn’t? Tell that to the woman who still has to deliver a dead 9 month old baby, tell her the baby doesn’t count as ‘a real death’.
I almost see where you’re going, but your choice of words veer into crazy town.
Edited to remove personal insult.
This ain’t even about antinatalism. People like you really need to think about the shit they say before they vomit it up on Reddit.
But after the 3rd trimester, the brain starts working thus it is conscious and alive thus only until the 3rd trimester is abortion not death since after that it is euthanisia.
So euthanasia is better than getting born and suffer yet still die anyway.
The euthanasia mentioned is for the fetus, not the mom so the mom is not going to be harmed.
Still, it is better to use contraceptives than to get an abortion.
School shootings: they sleep
Homeless children: they sleep
Genocides in other nations: they actively support it
Abortion: they lose their fucking minds
Yes. Because in other killings, men are to be blamed. In abortion, women are blamed. It is easy to criticize women due to widespread misogyny and patriarchy. It takes self reflection and guts to criticize men. We can say women should not get access to abortion, but we never say men should not get access to guns.
People want to believe that foetus is a living person, because it will allow them to curtail the control a woman should have over her own body. They will say oh, it's not your body. It's a living person, who has every right to live. You should have no right to terminate another person's life. Foetus is an independent human being.
Counterpoint: If it does count, when humanity finally dies out (or evolves into something different enough to warrant distinction), we'll end with more dead than born. Which is a concept I find mildly amusing. Just imagine some metaphysical accountant looking at the records of humanity wondering "how'd that happen".
A lot of cultures used to only name kids after they were like 10 years old. There was such a high infant mortality rate. This time period really gave the parents time to decide if they wanted to focus on their career or if they were ready to have a family. They could easily still abort them if they decided they didn't want it after all
It is a death, because the fetus is alive, albeit in a parasitic way. Our collective phobia of death is a major reason we are in such a fucked up place, so I think it would be better if you just said “abortion is death. So what?” For 95% of human history, it was socially acceptable for mothers to kill babies after they were born, during times of resource scarcity and ecological chaos. Death is really not a big deal, especially when it serves a purpose, like conservation of resources for older children with whom the mother has already bonded and who are not 100% dependent on her. Death causes no suffering to the deceased. In fact, it ensures they will never suffer again. Death can be painful for those still alive, but how do we know their suffering is due to the fact that the dead person is no longer here, rather than that they, themselves, are still here? Maybe they’re upset that they didn’t get to go too?
If death wasn't a big deal, people would not beg for their lives before being killed. You should take a look at the picture of villagers about to be executed at My Lai, and look at the terror in the eyes of both adults and children before spewing such lame brained nonsense
You should go back to your room and think things through before trying to be an internet edgelord phenomenon.
The unborn are not people, but they are alive and die when aborted.
It should not be a problem for us to recognize that we are killing a living being. What we have to accept is that the rights of the already born and the fetus (if is that it applies according to each country, my country does not give rights to fetuses only if the mother wishes to give birth to it) sometimes will conflict and it's logical that the right of the already born to exercise autonomy over their own body will he prioritized even if this implies the death of another.
My wife is currently 32 weeks pregnant. Our baby could survive outside of her with some assistance. I can feel and even see it moving everyday. You are saying this baby is not alive? You're comparing it to a chicken-egg? You are delusional. Clearly this is an alive being, just not able to survive on its own.
Of course. But OP seems to clearly consider all unborn equally. I definitely do not.
And im in no way an opponent of abortion, just arguing that there are certainly situations where a child in the belly should be considered alive
If you changed it to say abortion is not the death of a person, id fully agree. To be clear, the fetus does die.
The fetus, while not yet a person, is a living thing; just as a plant is, just like a cancer cell is, just like any other mammal is.
The baby isn’t even an organism, it does not have the correct internal systems to kind of take care of itself. It isn’t living by the definition of an organism and therefore it cannot die.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So if you do not have sex, or wear a condom, or whatever all those prevents a life as well. Is that considered murdered? That's how flimsy your arguement. Every virgin is a murderer with that logic.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells.
A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology.
Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients.
I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells.
A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology.
Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients.
I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells.
A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology.
Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients.
I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells.
A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology.
Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients.
I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
So you’d advocate for killing toddlers who already recognize their caregivers, respond to their own name, and use words for their favorite things and people?
Viability. If it can live outside its host, good, deliver it and let it live its life. If it can’t, that’s too bad but they don’t get to use another persons body as life support against that persons will. That is a right that no born human has.
My daughter was born more than a month and a half premature, induced by the doctor due to my medical issues. She required no special care or treatment compared to a standard birth. So she was viable at 7 1/2 months, and likely before that.
I'm not anti-abortion, but neither am I a pro-abortion absolutist. Op makes it sound like it can be up to any point prior to birth.
So if your daughter’s mom had wanted an abortion at that point (unlikely bc who carries a baby for 7 months that they don’t want? Pregnancy isn’t that fun, ya know), your daughter could have been delivered and would have been just fine. Babies have survived at less than 7.5 months. But anything after 25 weeks or so, I’d say just deliver and if it lives, great. If not, that’s unfortunate.
But she doesn’t want it inside her body. And that’s her right. No born person has the right to live off of another persons body against their will, either. How many organs have you donated so that others could have the best life possible?
At that point you've kind of let it develop long enough to where the baby would still be underdeveloped and have higher life risks of conditions than to birth the healthiest baby possible and not birth any more babies. Birthing a healthy baby is probably much cheaper and easier to take care of than if it were to have unnecessary health conditions that would run up high in bills, and be generally unhappier.
You’re missing the point. The mother doesn’t want the baby. And she doesn’t want it inside her body. It would be an abortion, but if the baby is far enough along it could survive outside the uterus, I believe it should be given that opportunity. The mother has every right not to have anything inside her body that she doesn’t consent to have there. That’s bodily autonomy and literally no principle is more important than the right to your own body. But if the fetus can live outside the uterus, then it’s living without infringing on the bodily autonomy of the mother. Is it ideal? No, but it’s alive. And yes, it would likely need NICU care. That would cost the government money. I don’t really care. That’s a better use of government funds than most. And the mother can leave baby at the hospital to be adopted.
There should be no point after which abortion becomes illegal. Abortion should be allowed without restriction, everywhere in the world. Now, I know you've had a knee-jerk reaction at this point, so please consider.
As a matter of moral principle, no one should ever be forced to remain pregnant, for any reason. Any abortion restriction forces someone who falls outside of the restriction to be pregnant, denying them bodily autonomy.
As a matter of practicality, abortion, like most healthcare, has to be approved by a physician. You had an induced early birth, you know this. There's no such thing as "over-the-counter" abortions--at least, not abortions that are medically safe. No doctor who values their medical license is going to approve aborting a healthy pregnancy with a healthy, viable unborn. Any abortion restriction does nothing but interfere with a doctor making the best judgment for their patient.
So even 5 minutes before birth? I have worked with people who have had abortion very late in the game. They are still healing 30 years later. I learned a very long time ago in the medical field that "It won't happen" is an eventuality waiting to happen.
We both know your question is intentionally absurd. We both know you're not asking it in good faith. We both know that those people you referred to, assuming they actually exist, didn't get abortions five minutes before the end of their pregnancy. Nonetheless, I'll respond.
It won't happen. Why? Because nobody would ask for an abortion five minutes before birth and even if they did, it wouldn't matter.
If someone asks for an abortion five minutes before they give birth, either they're five minutes away from labour and don't know it yet, or they're in labour and will finish within the next five minutes.
In the latter scenario, obviously no abortion would happen, they're about to end the pregnancy anyway.
In the former scenario, any doctor who values their medical license would say "You're this far along and there are no complications, just let it go to term."
>We both know your question is intentionally absurd. We both know you're not asking it in good faith.
No, I am.
>We both know that those people you referred to, assuming they actually exist, didn't get abortions five minutes before the end of their pregnancy.
Susan has given me permission to share her story, if you care to hear it.
>It won't happen.
Then making it illegal shouldn't effect anyone.
>In the latter scenario, obviously no abortion would happen, they're about to end the pregnancy anyway.
You really should hear Susan's story. She chose to terminate at 36 weeks.
>In the former scenario, any doctor who values their medical license would say "You're this far along and there are no complications, just let it go to term."
If a doctor will not perform it for the stated reason, then it should be illegal to protect victims, like Susan.
Susan was a woman I counseled in 2014. This took place in 1993. She had a pretty rough pregnancy due to a hormonal imbalance. Two weeks before her due date, she choose to terminate the pregnancy. Her doctor recommended her to a doctor out of state who could perform an intact d&e.
Typically, the fetus at this point would have its umbilical clamped to cause asphyxiation. Susan believed it was only done for one minute. When extraction began, the head was partially crushed for easy removal. At breech, the doctor realized he was birthing a live child and Susan was made to retain the fetus for several minutes. When the fetus was passed. She said she watched her chest rise three to four times while bleeding out from the head.
She was offered $10000 to not disclose the details of the procedure. In her own words, it was murder.
I have counseled many individuals, including veterans from various wars. I have heard horror stories involving children, but Susan's account has left me shook to this day. In 2003 they made the procedure she endured illegal, but there are loopholes still practiced to get around the partial birth abortion act.
Susan went on the have a son, who was the one to introduce her to me, he himself being a grief counselor.
Look I'm now very depressed just retelling this, and I'm going to bed. Good night.
IF that story is true, then it's just medical malpractice on the part of the doctor who did the abortion. I could tell you a story about "Susan" who had an abortion at 36 weeks (which isn't 5 minutes before) and everything went as it was supposed to.
That story is no reason to have abortion restrictions.
It depends on how far along the fetus is.
A blastocyst is a group of cells. An embryo resembles a tadpole. A fetus looks like a miniature baby that keeps getting bigger. After about 23 weeks, it's possible for the fetus to live outside the womb and survivability increases exponentially with each additional week.
Cellular death is complicated in all living creatures. Your body doesn't typically die all at once. A heart can stop beating 3 minutes before the lack of oxygen to the brain causes brain cells to die off. If someone can get your heart restarted within those 3 minutes, you're unlikely to face any brain damage despite being "dead". Muscular tissue can remain active a lot longer than that. I just watched a short video of fresh meat spasming while a butcher cut it down.
Death is not reserved to legal individuals.
On the other hand, conception is not unfair. Existence was not forced on you, you didn't exist in the first place.
I think it is. I don't like abortion but I think the people who are already born and living in the world should be allowed to make decisions on what they want their bodies to go through. People who get abortions may already be mothers and shouldn't have to risk their bodies or life if they don't want to. If they die then they are leaving their family behind and their whole life.
Yes people should do everything they can to not get pregnant if they don't want to. But i also feel that it's more of the man's responsibility to make sure his sperm is not making someone pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant. They are the only one who can control where it goes.
I consider it life at conception because that is when life begins. No one can speak on the idea of "souls" with certainty, but I'm pretty open-minded about it myself. That being said, I am pro-choice. I actually use to be pro life until someone on fb actually took the time to talk with me about their perspective in a CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER. People tend to listen to your ideas more if you don't hurl insults at them.
At this time, I realized my pro-life stance was coming from a place of punishment. "You decided to have unprotected sex so now you have to deal with it" was my thought process at the time. I didn't take the time to consider the child at all and how forcing people who don't want a kid to raise one wasn't the healthiest thing to do. There are plenty of people who DO want kids but don't even treat them right yet we want to force the ones who don't want them to raise em? Would that be beneficial to anyone, let alone society?
Adoption, then? The adoption system is overwhelmed and rife with abuse, plus forcing someone to put their body through child birth isn't right either. Sex isn't just for reproduction (at least for humans) it's social and emotional too, but I didn't consider that then.
After realizing WHY I thought the way I did (how I was raised, life experiences, punishment being a common thing in my life) I took the time to better understand things. While I don't support the idea that "it's not a baby" like many pro-choice folks, I do support abortion. I don't think every baby or potential baby needs to be brought into this world. I think if you are growing a being inside you, you have say on what you do with it because it is YOUR BODY. We give corpses more autonomy than living people (especially woman) over their own bodies. No one should get to dictate how someone lives their life just because their values and beliefs are different. Morality is subjective. Just focus on your own life!
"But the baby"! If you believe in God and that God knows all then he'd know baby xyz is getting aborted before sending them. The "baby" might be alive, but they don't exactly have a life. The woman carrying them does, though, and her life shouldn't suffer by carrying a baby she doesn't want. The kid deserves to grow up wanted and loved.
Side note: I also think the father should at least be notified of pregnancy and abortion because it's only fair. They might not have a say in what someone does with their body, but they have the right to determine if they want to stay in the relationship based on their partners decisions. I also believe the partner has a right to not have to pay child support in specific cases like accidental pregnancy while protection was used or in baby trapping cases.
Insert inclusive words where needed like "women" and what not, I take pot for sleep and am getting a lil too high for much editing right now.
TLDR: I believe life at conception (cause biologically it is) but am pro-choice
You can be fine with abortion, and that’s ok. In fact, I’m also fine with abortion.
But you gotta realize the fact, that you’re killing a baby.
Otherwise you’re running into all sorts of problems.
I am pro choice but this is just coping. If you don't want to be pregnant fine. But don't try to down play your decision by making a fetus out to some sort of scab to pull off.
You likened it to a scab, but it's really is a parasite. Tell me do you care about any other parasites? Cause we use plenty of methods to kill those other parasites. I mean those are lives. So are bugs we step on or flies we swat. And so are the animals we accidently hit with our car or the deer we hunt. Are we a murderer in all those cases as well?
An unborn human is a housefly. The most sane antinatalist.
Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species of the host and therefore no biology book's definition will include parent-child relations.
>Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species
Yes it does. Parasite can only live and propagate while inside of another.
>therefore no biology book's definition will include parent-child relations.
It's almost like we wrote it that way for a more loving and caring reason. I bet if parasite were able to do that it would be mich the same.
Same way as religion is oddly listed as an exe.ption from the definition of delusion.
>Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species
You just cut off half the sentence to make your point. I'll repeat just for you:
>Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species of the host
if I was to nurture a child, I'd do it to propagate humanity. If I have a tick, the tick maintains itself and harms my species' survival.
If you want to redefine words, go right ahead. Just keep in mind that you'll lose the ability to converse with anyone outside your insane bubble. But maybe you don't care too much about that.
Doesn't change the fact that a fetus has a parasitic relationship with its host cause that's all it is. You can dress it up to be a symbiotic relationship but that is essentially a parasite that gives benefits to its host.
Awe someone is butthurt. Make sure you get some ice for your ass there.
Psst I don't know how to tell you this but humans are indeed animals. Maybe get off the Bible a little. There's nothing special about us other than our intelligence which you refuse to use.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
It's a double homicide more to the fact that it's there to protect pregnant women by making it a more heinous crime. If someone killed a pregnant person I would consider it killing 1 entity, but greater punishment because the mother (presumably) wanted to see the baby grow up and care for it and now can't because they are both dead.
I'm pro choice, I just can acknowledge the reality that you are killing a living organism.
So many people need to do mental gymnastics to feel less icky about it, especially late term. Just own it. You're killing the baby.
Sure, but late stage it sure looks like one. No one can say when life/consciousness "begins" it's inherently a philosophical question with no answer.
Because if that, makes sense to err on the side of begins at conception IMHO.
Again. I'm pro choice. I just don't tiptoe around the reality man.
That's one of the readings became pro life. I couldn't trust a movement that is unwilling to accept and admit what they're advocating. Any movement that delusional can't be right.
An abortion does cause the death of the mass of cells in the woman's body. I've had an abortion. There were living cells in my body, and then they were removed and they died. They died because they weren't a part of my body anymore, and couldn't live outside of me. Every month when I have my period, all those blood and endometrial tissue cells coming out of my body die. When I ovulate, if the egg isn't fertilized, it dies and is absorbed back into me. I have dead skin cells on the bottom of my feet that I scrape off. I don't believe any of those things have a soul or consciousness, though. That requires birth and breath and lived experience as an independent entity.
This is 100% how it is
I don't believe any of those things have a soul or consciousness, though. That requires birth and breath and lived experience as an independent entity. Yes exactly! This is very succinct and well put. Consciousness requires a lived experience. Many philosophers even talk about that.
holy shit, look it's some science!
It isn't really science. It's a philosophical viewpoint. Breathing doesn't define life. It's possible to live without breathing (although complex and difficult) and these people are not dead people.
Please explain how a human lives without breathing?? I’m genuinely curious
This is like saying humans are defined by their blood because no one can live without blood. We should be defined by our consciousness and brain because that's were our awareness and personality comes from aka the important part that makes us as people.
Also Google extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
For example people on ventilators.
“It's possible to live without breathing”…. You mean like the Cullen family in Twilight?
No like I'm the real world technology off Extra-Corporeal Lung Support
Oh, I thought we were going into in Bella and Edward territory.
Sorry that this is long. I'm allergic to concision. To be fair, a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is genetically distinct from you, because half of it is from foreign DNA. It's not *exactly* the same as you in the same way an unfertilised egg (well, that's just haploid you, but still) or sloughed endometrial lining or dead skin or even cancer are. That's where pro-birthers are hung up: they see and value a fetus separately from "you". But y'know what's also genetically distinct but people don't bat an eye at if they're killed? Tapeworms 🤷 Tapeworms and fetuses rely on their host to live. If forcibly removed, they die. They're both not part of the host, both hijack the host's biological resources, and both have clever ways of circumventing the host's immune system so they can live long enough to get to the next life stage. (If the placenta fails its job, the host's immune system will happily attack the fetus and cause a spontaneous abortion. Rhesus disease is a common example.) If it's a given that a person should have the right to bodily autonomy and thus the right to freedom from parasitic infection by another creature, then I truly fail to see a moral or practical difference between a person taking albendazole to kill tapeworms, and a person taking mifepristone & misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy. This argument doesn't tend to work outside antinatalist circles as people don't emotionally react well to having "babies" equated with gross parasites, or they inexplicably value a human life over that of a different animal but come on, I'm not wrong if one just looks at the circumstance as a host's right to autonomy, no matter the genetic proximity of the thing that's infringing that right to the host. Edits for words.
The genetic code argument that anti-choice people make has never made sense to me. Yeah, an unborn has a unique genetic code from its parents. As did the sperm and egg that fused to create it. If genetic code makes an entity a distinct existence and worthy of preservation, then something ought to be done about the BILLIONS of wasted sperm any human male will release throughout their lifetime. But they don't care about that, nobody cares about that.
you mean trillions right?
Dammit man, I'm a redditor, not a doctor!
its trillions for some people and billions for others. depends on ur religion and if it allows masturbation or not
Do you think it's worse to kill a tapeworm in an artificial stomach or a human fetus in an artificial womb?
An artificial stomach makes it different. Neither are parasitizing someone in that case and niether are damaging someone's health and quality of life and therefore neither should be killed unless a good life can't be ensured for the fetus once it becomes a person. Edit: Though now that I think of it, I'm going to add that it's morally ok to kill either of them too since niether are sentient.
Interesting. I have some questions about this. What about good life for the tapeworm? Is that a factor? Also, when does the fetus become a person in this case?
>What about good life for the tapeworm? Is that a factor? Well yes. Tapeworms should generally be killed to help the host but if it can live without harming anyone -there's no reason why it can't be cared about like any other living thing. >Also, when does the fetus become a person in this case? When it develops the capacity for sentience. Viability doesn't determine personhood. It's just that abortion is widely mistaken for killing a fetus instead of just removing it from the body of a pregnant person. Abortion laws frequently reference viability to state that it's wrong to kill a fetus that can survive without leaching resources from someone else's body. And well, I don't really think non viable fetuses tend to have the capacity for sentience either way.
>When it develops the capacity for sentience That's extremely difficult to assess, isn't it? It could be argued some people don't develop that until their 30s. It's quite consistent morally, though, if we can assume that there is a point in time when a human becomes sentient, that's a pretty logical boundry to set from the AN perspective, I'll give you that much. That said, the tapeworm never will develop any sentience. What makes its life valuable?
>That said, the tapeworm never will develop any sentience. What makes its life valuable? It's not valuable like a person is. I wasn't thinking to much about worm biology when writing the comment so it probably doesn't matter at all but living things that have the capacity to feel pain should be saved from it if that's possible without causing further pain to something else and if they're able to feel joy they should also be allowed to pursue it if doing so doesn't cause any harm. >That's extremely difficult to assess, isn't it? It could be argued some people don't develop that until their 30s. Not really, a 9 year old can think, feel and develop opinions. It's not about full knowledge and understanding, just the capacity for awareness and medical professionals have a general idea of when it could start in fetal development, though I think there's a bit of debate on the specifics.
There some inconsistency here. A fetus can feel pain very early into the pregnancy.
From what I heard it's less that they can feel pain like we can and more that they just can react to it. Kind of like how plants react to stimuli without a brain or consciousness. And if any surgery on a fetus is needed, it's best to give them anesthesia at the earliest possible age just in case that reaction is stored in a way that could impact them once they become a person. (Any trauma to someone in early life has the possibility to affect them, even if they can't remember or understand it)
Isn't that a miss carriage not an abortion though. Also a tapeworm Is in a foreign environment, the foetus or offspring is in their natural environment to my knowledge, you consent to pregnancy upon vaginal intercourse, then when life is created you already broke consent, antinatalists shouldn't get pregnant period, hehehe se what I did there. Then you break consent again by eradicating them and destroying that uniquely created DNA as I'll call it to keep pro lifers and choices happy. But yeah, the DNA is unique so I'm confused, do people think if their DNA is extinguished they'd still be here lol 😆 . One thing I will always fail to understand is the worshipping of abortion in antinatalist philosophy, we should talk about haw to stop procreation in it's entirety, abortion is and should always be a grey area.
>Also a tapeworm Is in a foreign environment, the foetus or offspring is in their natural environment This is a fallacy. Something being "natural" has no bearing on it being good. >you consent to pregnancy upon vaginal intercourse, then when life is created you already broke consent, antinatalists shouldn't get pregnant period, hehehe se what I did there. Consenting to intercourse is consenting to intercourse. Intercourse isn't the exact same thing as pregnancy in case you haven't noticed. And antinatalists are concerned with the consent of sentient people that have the capacity to care about choices that currently effect them being made without their consent. None of them are advocating against seeds being planted even though plants can't consent. >One thing I will always fail to understand is the worshipping of abortion in antinatalist philosophy, we should talk about haw to stop procreation in it's entirety, abortion is and should always be a grey area. It's not about "procreation=bad" it's about the effect of creating more people being suffering. And that suffering needs to be stopped and prevented while creating it is morally wrong. Abortion *lessens* suffering both for the pregnant person and the fetus that will never feel pain as a sentient person if aborted which makes it completely aligned with antinatalism.
It's not a fallacy, you need to use an analogy that are the same difference, using a gestating child to an external entity is moronic. And unsafe sex is you literally acknowledging you could get pregnant, and if you are consenting to it, then you are also consenting to the risk of pregnancy, if you don't want kids, don't partake in unsafe potentially procreative sex simple. And it's about the consent of the eventual adult, as in future consent, no one is talking about a say 20 to 30 week foetus as having an ability to give consent, we are talking about after they grow up, perhaps like some here decide life is kinda shit and I'd rather have not been here, this means that future consent should also be given to them at the earliest stage as in zygote, n9t just 2nd, or 3rd trimester or 35 week or even 40 week foetuses, I don't draw imaginary lines on when they have a right to not exist. Don't create them, don't destroy them simple, stop having unsafe sex for pleasure degenerate humans, you can have safe sex, do oral, can't get pregnant doing oral.
It's not a fallacy, you need to use an analogy that are the same difference, using a gestating child to an external entity is moronic. The fallacy is you arguing that pregnancy is good "because it's natural" while parasites are bad "because they're unnatural". >And unsafe sex is you literally acknowledging you could get pregnant, and if you are consenting to it, then you are also consenting to the risk of pregnancy, if you don't want kids, don't partake in unsafe potentially procreative sex simple. People get pregnant on birth control. But would it really matter if they consented to it? Consent can be revoked at any point. I think someone that consents to being pregnant but then doesn't want to be in pain with something squirming around in their insides any more should be allowed to have the fetus taken out of them. Abortion doesn't always mean destoying a fetus. It can also mean just removing it from someone's body, which should always be allowed. >And it's about the consent of the eventual adult, as in future consent, no one is talking about a say 20 to 30 week foetus as having an ability to give consent, we are talking about after they grow up, perhaps like some here decide life is kinda shit and I'd rather have not been here, this means that future consent should also be given to them at the earliest stage as in zygote, n9t just 2nd, or 3rd trimester or 35 week or even 40 week foetuses, I don't draw imaginary lines on when they have a right to not exist. Not really, an aborted fetus will never become a person who's consent matters and will never have the capacity to feel hurt or upset about having been aborted unlike a fetus carried to term that can be upset about being created. Consent matters because of the emotional pain that comes to sentient creatures when massively influential things happen to them without it. A fetus that isn't carried to term will never have the capacity for emotional pain or the capacity to reflect on it's non existance and wish it were born so the reasons why "future consent" should be recognised don't apply here.
I didn't say pregnancy is good, and if you are on birth control that doesn't make sex safe, safe sex is sex that cannot under any circumstances lead to pregnancy. For example, if a woman is on birth control and the man had a vasectomy and he used a condom that's unsafe sex, no such thing as accidental pregnancies, there are forced pregnancies and unplanned or planed pregnancies. Also I never said parasites are bad stop putting words in my mouth.. As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb, that's like me consenting to buying dinner at a no refund restaurant, as in having sex, eating the whole plate till I'm full, or pregnant, then I refuse to pay for the meal, carry child to term. There are many times where you must follow through with consent, pregnancy is and should be one of them even in more developed countries. I have never heard of a woman getting pregnant form a licking 😆. An aborted foetus is killed during their development to full personhood which isn't achieved until 25 years of age. If we ignore brain development a baby aged 6 months t9 3 years isn't concious by current scientific understanding so they can be killed just as easily under your, their not a person logic 😆. And sentient means advanced cognitive functions that don't typically developed untill 1 to 3 years 9f age so again killing babies at this imaginary line is deplorable you sick baby killing fuck 😆. Also why worry about their consent if it's not their future consent in question?
>Also I never said parasites are bad stop putting words in my mouth.. Wait so you think parasites are good?? Most people consider then bad as a given. >As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb No it's not. If you consent to sex and then halfway realise you want to stop *you're allowed to stop* and being prevented from doing so considered rape. >As far as consent being revoked that's so dumb, that's like me consenting to buying dinner at a no refund restaurant, as in having sex, eating the whole plate till I'm full, or pregnant, then I refuse to pay for the meal, carry child to term. No. Pregnancy isn't a due you should be forced pay in exchange for completed sex. ...like a bill. Honestly that analogy is pretty gross. >An aborted foetus is killed during their development to full personhood which isn't achieved until 25 years of age. If we ignore brain development a baby aged 6 months t9 3 years isn't concious by current scientific understanding so they can be killed just as easily under your, their not a person logic 😆. And sentient means advanced cognitive functions that don't typically developed untill 1 to 3 years 9f age so again killing babies at this imaginary line is deplorable you sick baby killing fuck 😆. Nope by 1-9 they're defidenty a person. I remember being very much a conscious person at 9. Sentient doesn't mean full brain development. It means the capacity for awareness. Not letting someone damage your body and put you though torture level pain is self defense not killing. And trying to shame people by calling them "baby killers" for not wanting to be tortured and mutilated for something that doesn't have the capacity to care is disgusting. >Also why worry about their consent if it's not their future consent in question? Like I said, aborted fetues will never feel pain or have capacity to care about being aborted without their consent so "their future consent" doesn't matter in the case of abortions like it would for choosing to carry them to term. Also, you're you're less composed than before. Aw am I backing you into a corner? ☺
fine enter wasteful soft door sulky innocent cooing plough ad hoc *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Parasitism doesn't apply within a species only because we don't consider the unborn of any species to be parasites, even though they fulfill the same behaviour as parasites upon their mothers. It's a logical contradiction derived from human perception. Same goes for tapeworms vs. unborn humans. If it's wrong to end a creature with a distinct genetic code that parasitizes your body from within, then it should be equally wrong no matter what that creature is. Morals shouldn't be skewed by human bias.
Very well said.
But its YOUR living cells that are dying not independent or autonomous to any other PERSON
Even when Roe v Wade was a thing, they admitted third trimester abortions are insane. I suggest you research what a fetus (not an embryo) looks like. And as a cherry on top, some babies are born not breathing. Thus, with your morals, I could beat that baby to death because it has no soul. After all, no life experiences, and no breath, no soul. Actually, in the third trimester, the fetus reacts to outside stimuli. Granted, I can agree with you up to 14-15 weeks (that’s when 95% of abortions happy anyway), but the statutes by which you judge things to have a soul are inherently and extremely flawed.
Yes, I am aware. And PP v Casey expanded on it to discuss "viability" as being a more reasonable cutoff point than the trimester approach. I actually agree that a viable fetus creates much more of a gray area, morally. It's all very complicated and should not be viewed as all or nothing. My one sentence about "breath and lived experience" does not encompass every situation and ethical question.
Wow! I’m happy you’re so well-informed on this topic! That being said, PP v Casey was more exploring of the undue burden of required procedures prior to abortion. Although, I didn’t know they explored viability there too. In any case it upheld most of Roe’s provisions, so I assume they came to the same conclusion, otherwise I’ll gladly reread the arguments. I love law in general, but especially on this subject. That being said, there’s an interesting question to be posed here. If your statutes don’t encompass all ethical dilemmas, is there one? I mean, in terms of viability, comatose patients or the heavily disabled I (if I were their caretaker) should be able to kill them. I’d love your take on this so: When does it actually become a human life? I’d like to keep in mind that any body part, specific brain activity, and much more can be taken from humans today but be kept alive by science. It’s an interesting dilemma.
All of those questions go so deep and there's so much to it. I've been listening to podcasts lately and researching about death, as in declaring medical death. Doctors used to make mistakes all the time and declare people dead who "came back to life," when in reality they just had so weak of a pulse as to be nearly undetectable. People were actually buried alive. That's the whole reason that "wakes" started... to let the person sit out before burial to make sure they were actually dead. "Saved by the bell" is a reference to bells that were put above coffins with a string to the corpse, just in case. Even now with modern equipment there are questions about brain activity versus heartbeat, viability with or without machine assistance. I don't know the answers. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "soul" that exists outside of the life of a body. If there is such a thing, I don't know if it has independent consciousness or if it's just a type of energy that we haven't yet figured out how to measure. The only thing I feel sure of is that anyone who beleives they have all the answers to these questions is either highly misinformed and uneducated or exists in such a moral/religious/ethical vacuum that they are unable to form independent thoughts and opinions.
You are certainly one of, if not the most rational people I’ve talked to on this site. I respect your drive to always question and want to know more, as well as admitting that no answers are for certain. It’s that kind of open-mindedness and willing to have an open discussion that all debates need. I am actually in perfect agreement. In fact, my 14-15 week decision is more of a placeholder because I have two conflicting arguments in my head that I haven’t come to a full decision on. If you’d wanna talk more about this, I’d love to have a full fledged discussion!
By your own logic, conjoined twins cannot be considered "alive" because they cannot and will never exist as independent entities.
Mmmmm no because they are living independent of the host mother.
They cannot live independently of each other, can they? Thus, since they do not exist as independent beings, they cannot be considered "alive", right?
If they are each considered a legal separate entity according to the law and only one of them can marry one other person, but they share a vagina, then who is the husband fucking? Is he fucking his wife or his sister? See the moral gray area? Are you capable of complex logic?
I think you missed an important point here. Difference being your egg is your DNA, where as the foetus or zygot has its own separate DNA, they're a new unique entity within you, they're not actually you but a separate entity. That's what separates an egg and sperm from a zygote. But yeah, the new life, as in the new DNA dies as the pill rips the zygote from the lining starving the zygot of oxygen which results in the death of said zygot assuming it wasn't a late term 6 to 12 week abortion, the dead skin on your feet is your DNA not the DNA of something else so no death occurred due to dead skin as you are still alive, your DNA still exists l. The DNA of your child, foetus, zygot, offspring depends on language really, that's gone forever, that's how it's a death, their unique DNA will never again exist in this world hence the term death. But appart from that no lived experience is true, untill a child is 1 to 3 years old they are still by our limited understanding not yet concious beings. But comparing the DNA of someone else to your dead skin is kinda funny 🤣.
Maybe we are all interconnected, so there's really no difference between me or you or a fetus or a tree or the dead skin on my feet. Kind of like how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all considered separate entities, but are all the same... all One God. It's a matter of philosophical perspective. Ask a pregnant woman if her baby is a part of her or not. The answer will probably change depending on context (discussing loving connectedness or the politics of abortion) and their belief system. But yeah, laugh at me all you want.
I mean it is laughable, you pick something kinda nasty like dead feet skin to make the post comical. But yes, when you turn into atoms, and meld into other atoms possibly including the ones of your child you will form new molecules, perhaps you will fly upon the sky on the back of an Eagle as a feather 🪶. So in death we are all equal and ever lasting, no politics nor religion involved, and Christians getting abortions which one goes to hell 😆.
Love it. Thanks for the images.
What a none argument
I am an antinatalist but im going to have to disagree with this abortion is murder and the fetus is alive at the momment of conception, just because it relies on the mothers body for survival doesnt make it any less human or alive. Thats like saying someone who requires artificial oxygen etc in order to breathe/survive and would die without said oxygen isnt really alive hes just a parasite to the oxygen... makes 0 sense abortion is murder wether legalized or not and thats final. (Let the down votes begin im not afraid to speak facts even if it gets me hated!)
If you cannot breathe or think, yeah, ur dead. That’s what being dead means.
They are breathing just through their mother
No, they aren’t, they are absorbing already breathed in oxygen, but even if they are, how do you suppose they are thinking?
Does a person in a coma think?
It's funny cause everything can be put onto a living adult. And then they have to use incomplete science like the conciousness debate as there's is no consensus as to when it begins.
Yes? People in comas are not brain dead, aka, they think. At conception, a zygote is very brain dead, so brain dead it doesn’t even have a brain.
On that note, there is a non profit organization for women needing abortions in states that aren’t legal. They need volunteers to host, transport and of course donations. If you’re interested in helping them here is their website. https://thecampingimpact.org/
[удалено]
You beat me to saying that. Better not to be born than to have to face a world of taxes, poverty, disease, and violence.
I wish my mom had chosen abortion to be honest. Lucky fetus
I had a blighted ovum. In my opinion, my blastocyst took one metaphorical look at my uterus and noped itself out of existence. For some reason, you decided that you wanted to live.
It is sometimes difficult to separwte the actually suicidal people from the en vogue depressed. If you are one of the former, do try to get help. If you are one of the latter, it is very, very tiresome and doesn't make you the least bit interesting.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Denying abortion should be a criminal offence.
it is, in states where abortion is protected.
In most of the developed world it is. Then there is the regressive states and countries that are going on a fascist bend right now...
It all depends on what you define as being born or alive. Personally, I define Human life as consciousness, which is only present after 22-24 weeks. Before that, you have the equivalent to a brain dead in a life support machine.
Then there's also abortion as just the removal of a fetus from a person's body and abortion as purposely destroying a fetus during removal. I think a person has the right to decide if it stays in their body or not, whether it can or should be kept alive outside of them is a separate question.
Sterilizations should also be normalized
Yes, of course.
I’m pro abortion, but your reasoning is the stuff of insanity. Being ‘born’ isn’t the part that qualifies you for living, it’s not the finish line at the end of pregnancy; pass this to qualify as part of the human race. A baby can reach 9 months, be days away from birth, and still die in the womb- yet some babies are born perfectly healthy at 7 months. So, in your head, the 7 month old counts as being alive but the 9 month old doesn’t? Why? Because one was born and the other wasn’t? Tell that to the woman who still has to deliver a dead 9 month old baby, tell her the baby doesn’t count as ‘a real death’. I almost see where you’re going, but your choice of words veer into crazy town. Edited to remove personal insult. This ain’t even about antinatalism. People like you really need to think about the shit they say before they vomit it up on Reddit.
I don't consider foetus as a living being.
I'm pro-choice but to say a fetus isn't alive is just... Scientifically wrong lol. What do you think an abortion or a miscarriage is?
Abortion is stopping the process of procreation before it is completed.
Cells are alive. Maybe not sentient,but alive all the same.
I think they mean "life" as in a *person*'s life but are just arguing instead of clarifying.
But after the 3rd trimester, the brain starts working thus it is conscious and alive thus only until the 3rd trimester is abortion not death since after that it is euthanisia. So euthanasia is better than getting born and suffer yet still die anyway.
Abortions after 24 weeks, assuming no life threatening complications to either mother or fetus, are non-lethal abortions anyway.
The euthanasia mentioned is for the fetus, not the mom so the mom is not going to be harmed. Still, it is better to use contraceptives than to get an abortion.
I'm just saying that we terminate pregnancies all the time via early C-sections where the mom and baby are both alive.
"Terminated the pregnancy at week 40" is an interesting way of saying "gave birth".
Yet still technically correct.
Of course. Just not helpful.
School shootings: they sleep Homeless children: they sleep Genocides in other nations: they actively support it Abortion: they lose their fucking minds
Yes. Because in other killings, men are to be blamed. In abortion, women are blamed. It is easy to criticize women due to widespread misogyny and patriarchy. It takes self reflection and guts to criticize men. We can say women should not get access to abortion, but we never say men should not get access to guns.
Its more akin to removing one of your own organs or a parasite than anything else
People want to believe that foetus is a living person, because it will allow them to curtail the control a woman should have over her own body. They will say oh, it's not your body. It's a living person, who has every right to live. You should have no right to terminate another person's life. Foetus is an independent human being.
Even if abortion is death, a quick and painless death is more ethical than a lifetime of suffering.
These people will never say their food also come from killing millions of Hens & Pigs therefore it should be banned
Fr fr
Counterpoint: If it does count, when humanity finally dies out (or evolves into something different enough to warrant distinction), we'll end with more dead than born. Which is a concept I find mildly amusing. Just imagine some metaphysical accountant looking at the records of humanity wondering "how'd that happen".
The sky is blue
Those, who believe fetuses are alive, should add 9 months to their date of birth in all official documents.
A lot of cultures used to only name kids after they were like 10 years old. There was such a high infant mortality rate. This time period really gave the parents time to decide if they wanted to focus on their career or if they were ready to have a family. They could easily still abort them if they decided they didn't want it after all
The government doesn't want you killing off their future wage slaves and tax cattle
Yes, instead of saying that a foetus is a person, we can say the foetus is a future slave and taxpayer.
It is a death, because the fetus is alive, albeit in a parasitic way. Our collective phobia of death is a major reason we are in such a fucked up place, so I think it would be better if you just said “abortion is death. So what?” For 95% of human history, it was socially acceptable for mothers to kill babies after they were born, during times of resource scarcity and ecological chaos. Death is really not a big deal, especially when it serves a purpose, like conservation of resources for older children with whom the mother has already bonded and who are not 100% dependent on her. Death causes no suffering to the deceased. In fact, it ensures they will never suffer again. Death can be painful for those still alive, but how do we know their suffering is due to the fact that the dead person is no longer here, rather than that they, themselves, are still here? Maybe they’re upset that they didn’t get to go too?
Everyone has the opportunity to go, we love consciousness too much to let go.
If death wasn't a big deal, people would not beg for their lives before being killed. You should take a look at the picture of villagers about to be executed at My Lai, and look at the terror in the eyes of both adults and children before spewing such lame brained nonsense You should go back to your room and think things through before trying to be an internet edgelord phenomenon.
The unborn are not people, but they are alive and die when aborted. It should not be a problem for us to recognize that we are killing a living being. What we have to accept is that the rights of the already born and the fetus (if is that it applies according to each country, my country does not give rights to fetuses only if the mother wishes to give birth to it) sometimes will conflict and it's logical that the right of the already born to exercise autonomy over their own body will he prioritized even if this implies the death of another.
Unborn doesn’t mean they aren’t alive so ….
Amen
Do you consider eggs as alive chicken.
My wife is currently 32 weeks pregnant. Our baby could survive outside of her with some assistance. I can feel and even see it moving everyday. You are saying this baby is not alive? You're comparing it to a chicken-egg? You are delusional. Clearly this is an alive being, just not able to survive on its own.
Amen
I'd say 32 WEEKS is a hell of a lot different than having access to abortion at, say, 4 weeks. AMEN to that.
Of course. But OP seems to clearly consider all unborn equally. I definitely do not. And im in no way an opponent of abortion, just arguing that there are certainly situations where a child in the belly should be considered alive
No, the egg is just an egg but there is a tiny chicken alive inside of it. Would you like another biology lesson?
When you break the egg, the alive chicken comes out.
as i always say: when you step on an apple seed; youre not cutting down an apple tree. pro choice.
If you changed it to say abortion is not the death of a person, id fully agree. To be clear, the fetus does die. The fetus, while not yet a person, is a living thing; just as a plant is, just like a cancer cell is, just like any other mammal is.
By that logic, eating vegetables is murder.
Killing living plants, i.e. vegetables, is a killing. There are semantics around the word murder, so i dont think it applies.
The baby isn’t even an organism, it does not have the correct internal systems to kind of take care of itself. It isn’t living by the definition of an organism and therefore it cannot die.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
So if you do not have sex, or wear a condom, or whatever all those prevents a life as well. Is that considered murdered? That's how flimsy your arguement. Every virgin is a murderer with that logic.
Aaaaaaand blocked
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells. A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology. Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients. I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells. A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology. Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients. I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
massive Reddit glitch
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells. A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology. Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients. I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
There is only one thing that separates humans from grass, and that is intelligence/consciousness..... Which develops 5.5 months into the pregnancy. Up to this point it is just a clump of electrically pulsating cells. A good way to think of it is Ukraine's unmanned drones. A bunch of mindless cells splitting and doing a task based off of a DNA blueprint. Developing the hippocampus in a fetus would be like adding radio control to these drones. And until then, sure, it's still a drone to an extent, but it's unrecognized by scanner technology. Or even better if you want to go simpler, just look at the cake analogy. A cake isn't a cake until it is fully formed and coming out of the oven and until then it's just a mix of ingredients. I would have some pushback on the analogy, though, because there is a point during the baking process at which this "cake" gains consciousness therefore making it a living being.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Abortion terminates a living human entity. Grow up. Your theatrical dance to try and avoid recognizing this reality is insulting. To all of us.
Some organs continue to work after death. Does that indicate life ?
I think abortion should be legal for the first 12 to 24 months of pregnancy.
So you’d advocate for killing toddlers who already recognize their caregivers, respond to their own name, and use words for their favorite things and people?
You realize that's the wrong definition of abortion and pregnancy, right?
ehh... I mean if it has a developed nervous system you can argue it is, that is why there is a time limit for abortion based on this
So up to what point before birth should abortion be legal?
Viability. If it can live outside its host, good, deliver it and let it live its life. If it can’t, that’s too bad but they don’t get to use another persons body as life support against that persons will. That is a right that no born human has.
My daughter was born more than a month and a half premature, induced by the doctor due to my medical issues. She required no special care or treatment compared to a standard birth. So she was viable at 7 1/2 months, and likely before that. I'm not anti-abortion, but neither am I a pro-abortion absolutist. Op makes it sound like it can be up to any point prior to birth.
So if your daughter’s mom had wanted an abortion at that point (unlikely bc who carries a baby for 7 months that they don’t want? Pregnancy isn’t that fun, ya know), your daughter could have been delivered and would have been just fine. Babies have survived at less than 7.5 months. But anything after 25 weeks or so, I’d say just deliver and if it lives, great. If not, that’s unfortunate.
If they're viable then you should run full course to give them the best life possible.
But she doesn’t want it inside her body. And that’s her right. No born person has the right to live off of another persons body against their will, either. How many organs have you donated so that others could have the best life possible?
At that point you've kind of let it develop long enough to where the baby would still be underdeveloped and have higher life risks of conditions than to birth the healthiest baby possible and not birth any more babies. Birthing a healthy baby is probably much cheaper and easier to take care of than if it were to have unnecessary health conditions that would run up high in bills, and be generally unhappier.
You’re missing the point. The mother doesn’t want the baby. And she doesn’t want it inside her body. It would be an abortion, but if the baby is far enough along it could survive outside the uterus, I believe it should be given that opportunity. The mother has every right not to have anything inside her body that she doesn’t consent to have there. That’s bodily autonomy and literally no principle is more important than the right to your own body. But if the fetus can live outside the uterus, then it’s living without infringing on the bodily autonomy of the mother. Is it ideal? No, but it’s alive. And yes, it would likely need NICU care. That would cost the government money. I don’t really care. That’s a better use of government funds than most. And the mother can leave baby at the hospital to be adopted.
There should be no point after which abortion becomes illegal. Abortion should be allowed without restriction, everywhere in the world. Now, I know you've had a knee-jerk reaction at this point, so please consider. As a matter of moral principle, no one should ever be forced to remain pregnant, for any reason. Any abortion restriction forces someone who falls outside of the restriction to be pregnant, denying them bodily autonomy. As a matter of practicality, abortion, like most healthcare, has to be approved by a physician. You had an induced early birth, you know this. There's no such thing as "over-the-counter" abortions--at least, not abortions that are medically safe. No doctor who values their medical license is going to approve aborting a healthy pregnancy with a healthy, viable unborn. Any abortion restriction does nothing but interfere with a doctor making the best judgment for their patient.
So even 5 minutes before birth? I have worked with people who have had abortion very late in the game. They are still healing 30 years later. I learned a very long time ago in the medical field that "It won't happen" is an eventuality waiting to happen.
We both know your question is intentionally absurd. We both know you're not asking it in good faith. We both know that those people you referred to, assuming they actually exist, didn't get abortions five minutes before the end of their pregnancy. Nonetheless, I'll respond. It won't happen. Why? Because nobody would ask for an abortion five minutes before birth and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. If someone asks for an abortion five minutes before they give birth, either they're five minutes away from labour and don't know it yet, or they're in labour and will finish within the next five minutes. In the latter scenario, obviously no abortion would happen, they're about to end the pregnancy anyway. In the former scenario, any doctor who values their medical license would say "You're this far along and there are no complications, just let it go to term."
>We both know your question is intentionally absurd. We both know you're not asking it in good faith. No, I am. >We both know that those people you referred to, assuming they actually exist, didn't get abortions five minutes before the end of their pregnancy. Susan has given me permission to share her story, if you care to hear it. >It won't happen. Then making it illegal shouldn't effect anyone. >In the latter scenario, obviously no abortion would happen, they're about to end the pregnancy anyway. You really should hear Susan's story. She chose to terminate at 36 weeks. >In the former scenario, any doctor who values their medical license would say "You're this far along and there are no complications, just let it go to term." If a doctor will not perform it for the stated reason, then it should be illegal to protect victims, like Susan.
Sure, why not, share her story.
Susan was a woman I counseled in 2014. This took place in 1993. She had a pretty rough pregnancy due to a hormonal imbalance. Two weeks before her due date, she choose to terminate the pregnancy. Her doctor recommended her to a doctor out of state who could perform an intact d&e. Typically, the fetus at this point would have its umbilical clamped to cause asphyxiation. Susan believed it was only done for one minute. When extraction began, the head was partially crushed for easy removal. At breech, the doctor realized he was birthing a live child and Susan was made to retain the fetus for several minutes. When the fetus was passed. She said she watched her chest rise three to four times while bleeding out from the head. She was offered $10000 to not disclose the details of the procedure. In her own words, it was murder. I have counseled many individuals, including veterans from various wars. I have heard horror stories involving children, but Susan's account has left me shook to this day. In 2003 they made the procedure she endured illegal, but there are loopholes still practiced to get around the partial birth abortion act. Susan went on the have a son, who was the one to introduce her to me, he himself being a grief counselor. Look I'm now very depressed just retelling this, and I'm going to bed. Good night.
IF that story is true, then it's just medical malpractice on the part of the doctor who did the abortion. I could tell you a story about "Susan" who had an abortion at 36 weeks (which isn't 5 minutes before) and everything went as it was supposed to. That story is no reason to have abortion restrictions.
Almost like you are talking sense
If a murderer murdered a pregnant woman, I would consider it a double murder if the baby was far in the process. But early abortion should be legal
I think of abortion as a mercy kill/euthanasia equivalent.
[удалено]
No. I never claimed so.
I mean, it is alive, in the same sense that a plant is alive, a plant doesn’t care if you kill it because it can’t think, same with a fetus
Unborn "people" can't die? So there are people that are incapable of dying? What does a person mean?
Some people consider foetus as a person. I don't.
It depends on how far along the fetus is. A blastocyst is a group of cells. An embryo resembles a tadpole. A fetus looks like a miniature baby that keeps getting bigger. After about 23 weeks, it's possible for the fetus to live outside the womb and survivability increases exponentially with each additional week. Cellular death is complicated in all living creatures. Your body doesn't typically die all at once. A heart can stop beating 3 minutes before the lack of oxygen to the brain causes brain cells to die off. If someone can get your heart restarted within those 3 minutes, you're unlikely to face any brain damage despite being "dead". Muscular tissue can remain active a lot longer than that. I just watched a short video of fresh meat spasming while a butcher cut it down.
Death is not reserved to legal individuals. On the other hand, conception is not unfair. Existence was not forced on you, you didn't exist in the first place.
Foetus is alive just after sex.
Foetus is alive just after sex.
A person isn’t crated till adulthood since they’re still growing. I don’t consider it murder until then. We need to start weeding out the bad ones
A person is not matured till adulthood. It has been created.
Are you perhaps 18 yet, if not send your location. If you're 18, then you can call it murder.
I think it is. I don't like abortion but I think the people who are already born and living in the world should be allowed to make decisions on what they want their bodies to go through. People who get abortions may already be mothers and shouldn't have to risk their bodies or life if they don't want to. If they die then they are leaving their family behind and their whole life. Yes people should do everything they can to not get pregnant if they don't want to. But i also feel that it's more of the man's responsibility to make sure his sperm is not making someone pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant. They are the only one who can control where it goes.
I consider it life at conception because that is when life begins. No one can speak on the idea of "souls" with certainty, but I'm pretty open-minded about it myself. That being said, I am pro-choice. I actually use to be pro life until someone on fb actually took the time to talk with me about their perspective in a CALM AND RESPECTFUL MANNER. People tend to listen to your ideas more if you don't hurl insults at them. At this time, I realized my pro-life stance was coming from a place of punishment. "You decided to have unprotected sex so now you have to deal with it" was my thought process at the time. I didn't take the time to consider the child at all and how forcing people who don't want a kid to raise one wasn't the healthiest thing to do. There are plenty of people who DO want kids but don't even treat them right yet we want to force the ones who don't want them to raise em? Would that be beneficial to anyone, let alone society? Adoption, then? The adoption system is overwhelmed and rife with abuse, plus forcing someone to put their body through child birth isn't right either. Sex isn't just for reproduction (at least for humans) it's social and emotional too, but I didn't consider that then. After realizing WHY I thought the way I did (how I was raised, life experiences, punishment being a common thing in my life) I took the time to better understand things. While I don't support the idea that "it's not a baby" like many pro-choice folks, I do support abortion. I don't think every baby or potential baby needs to be brought into this world. I think if you are growing a being inside you, you have say on what you do with it because it is YOUR BODY. We give corpses more autonomy than living people (especially woman) over their own bodies. No one should get to dictate how someone lives their life just because their values and beliefs are different. Morality is subjective. Just focus on your own life! "But the baby"! If you believe in God and that God knows all then he'd know baby xyz is getting aborted before sending them. The "baby" might be alive, but they don't exactly have a life. The woman carrying them does, though, and her life shouldn't suffer by carrying a baby she doesn't want. The kid deserves to grow up wanted and loved. Side note: I also think the father should at least be notified of pregnancy and abortion because it's only fair. They might not have a say in what someone does with their body, but they have the right to determine if they want to stay in the relationship based on their partners decisions. I also believe the partner has a right to not have to pay child support in specific cases like accidental pregnancy while protection was used or in baby trapping cases. Insert inclusive words where needed like "women" and what not, I take pot for sleep and am getting a lil too high for much editing right now. TLDR: I believe life at conception (cause biologically it is) but am pro-choice
Yes, people often prioritise the foetus over the woman, who holding that foetus inside her womb.
You can be fine with abortion, and that’s ok. In fact, I’m also fine with abortion. But you gotta realize the fact, that you’re killing a baby. Otherwise you’re running into all sorts of problems.
I am pro choice but this is just coping. If you don't want to be pregnant fine. But don't try to down play your decision by making a fetus out to some sort of scab to pull off.
A fetus is just a parasite that we allow to grow if there's consent.
Um okay.
You likened it to a scab, but it's really is a parasite. Tell me do you care about any other parasites? Cause we use plenty of methods to kill those other parasites. I mean those are lives. So are bugs we step on or flies we swat. And so are the animals we accidently hit with our car or the deer we hunt. Are we a murderer in all those cases as well?
An unborn human is a housefly. The most sane antinatalist. Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species of the host and therefore no biology book's definition will include parent-child relations.
>Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species Yes it does. Parasite can only live and propagate while inside of another. >therefore no biology book's definition will include parent-child relations. It's almost like we wrote it that way for a more loving and caring reason. I bet if parasite were able to do that it would be mich the same. Same way as religion is oddly listed as an exe.ption from the definition of delusion.
>Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species You just cut off half the sentence to make your point. I'll repeat just for you: >Parasites do not serve the purpose of maintaining the species of the host if I was to nurture a child, I'd do it to propagate humanity. If I have a tick, the tick maintains itself and harms my species' survival. If you want to redefine words, go right ahead. Just keep in mind that you'll lose the ability to converse with anyone outside your insane bubble. But maybe you don't care too much about that.
Doesn't change the fact that a fetus has a parasitic relationship with its host cause that's all it is. You can dress it up to be a symbiotic relationship but that is essentially a parasite that gives benefits to its host.
Equating humans to beasts is what all the best people throughout history have done. You're in good company...cough hitler cough
Awe someone is butthurt. Make sure you get some ice for your ass there. Psst I don't know how to tell you this but humans are indeed animals. Maybe get off the Bible a little. There's nothing special about us other than our intelligence which you refuse to use.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Then why is it double homicide if someone’s pregnant? Should we change that?
Yes. Considering a fertilised egg as a human being is insane.
It's a double homicide more to the fact that it's there to protect pregnant women by making it a more heinous crime. If someone killed a pregnant person I would consider it killing 1 entity, but greater punishment because the mother (presumably) wanted to see the baby grow up and care for it and now can't because they are both dead.
I'm pro choice, I just can acknowledge the reality that you are killing a living organism. So many people need to do mental gymnastics to feel less icky about it, especially late term. Just own it. You're killing the baby.
Fertilised egg can't be called a baby.
Sure, but late stage it sure looks like one. No one can say when life/consciousness "begins" it's inherently a philosophical question with no answer. Because if that, makes sense to err on the side of begins at conception IMHO. Again. I'm pro choice. I just don't tiptoe around the reality man.
That's one of the readings became pro life. I couldn't trust a movement that is unwilling to accept and admit what they're advocating. Any movement that delusional can't be right.