3 ms·

What I find quite interesting in the discussion in the US about abortion is the extreme all-or-nothing view, on both sides. One side sees any abortion, at any t

What I find quite interesting in the discussion in the US about abortion is the extreme all-or-nothing view, on both sides. One side sees any abortion, at any time and any condition, as highly immoral, while the other rejects any limits on abortion as an insufferable limit on women's rights. The question is, when does the non-sentient fertilizied human egg become something more. Certainly not at the moment of fertilization, but "birth" seems rather arbitrary too. I like your examples for questions, because they are thought-provoking. Let me add two more: Should a baby born a (2/3..) month (or a day!) premature be less protected than a baby born 3 days late? Would you rather save a five year old, or 20 premature born babies? Or, what do you think about abortions done because the embryo is female.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
but "birth" seems rather arbitrary too. It seems like the most notable milestone in the entire process, so what makes it arbitrary?
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  The existence of c-section and labour-inducing medicine. It is certainly the most perceivable milestone. But maybe we can define a status change which is more relevant to the question cell group -> human. Maybe "has consciousness". My point is that this is a discussion which seems important.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    > has consciousness This hinges on the definition of consciousness, which we really don't have a good definition for.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I agree that defining an exact moment is difficult and/or somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that physical birth doesn't make sense as a cutoff since the baby is usually viable before that point. In my opinion a better milestone is higher brain function which occurs at about 19 to 20 weeks.
Retra 8y ago
If you ask me, the questions are not "is it human" (skin flakes are human), "is it alive", (plankton is alive), but "is it an human individual for whom we grant rights. And so long as it is biologically dependent on a host, it is not individual at all.
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  Agreed on "human individual". But what is the limit of "biologically dependent on the host". A born baby needs to be fed, it can not sustain itself. But obviously, the "host" can change. So I guess you would say "not biologically dependent". On the other hand: A 8 month unborn baby could easily (in the sense of "as easy as a born baby") live without the host if somebody just would help it out of the host. Which is often done.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Yes, it is arbitrary. Most things in life are arbitrary. At what exact moment do you become a licensed plumber? How fast do you have to be going to be speeding? We solve this problem by leaving it to the judgment of the people involved at the time of their involvement. We don't legislate exact moments pertaining to unforeseen situations in advance. We spend a lot of resources raising mothers and teaching them to make decisions. It is actually quite insulting to try to micromanage another person's pregnancy when you're not involved. We don't need an answer to that question. We need to understand why complete strangers are so politically and emotionally involved in the existence of babies they don't know.
    - davrosthedalek 8y ago
      The moment a plumber becomes licensed is well defined after extensive discussion. The speed limit is a constant discussion. We spend a lot of resources building fast cars and educating drivers, it's actually quite insulting to try to micromanage how fast another person drives. No, it's not. We absolutely DO legislate exact moments pertaining to unforeseen situations. See discussion about "stand your ground" laws, which are exemptions from "murder is bad". Are they good? No, I don't think so. Your last sentence is hilarious. We need to understand why complete strangers are so involved in the existence of babies they don't know. Really? The same reason we care that immigrant kids (we don't know) are separated from their families (we don't know either) and caged. The same reason we care about the people affected by the war in Syria. None of which I know personally btw. It's very simple: Iff an unborn baby is at any point a human individual, it has rights. They need then to be balanced with the rights of the mother. We can discuss if this is the case, and we can discuss how that balance should be found if we find that "yes". We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not.
jonhendry18 8y ago
The thing is, medical emergencies that require abortions don't conveniently limit themselves to certain periods of pregnancy.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

but "birth" seems rather arbitrary too. It seems like the most notable milestone in the entire process, so what makes it arbitrary?

davrosthedalek 8y ago
The existence of c-section and labour-inducing medicine. It is certainly the most perceivable milestone. But maybe we can define a status change which is more relevant to the question cell group -> human. Maybe "has consciousness". My point is that this is a discussion which seems important.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  > has consciousness This hinges on the definition of consciousness, which we really don't have a good definition for.
harimau777 8y ago
I agree that defining an exact moment is difficult and/or somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that physical birth doesn't make sense as a cutoff since the baby is usually viable before that point. In my opinion a better milestone is higher brain function which occurs at about 19 to 20 weeks.

Retra 8y ago

If you ask me, the questions are not "is it human" (skin flakes are human), "is it alive", (plankton is alive), but "is it an human individual for whom we grant rights. And so long as it is biologically dependent on a host, it is not individual at all.

davrosthedalek 8y ago
Agreed on "human individual". But what is the limit of "biologically dependent on the host". A born baby needs to be fed, it can not sustain itself. But obviously, the "host" can change. So I guess you would say "not biologically dependent". On the other hand: A 8 month unborn baby could easily (in the sense of "as easy as a born baby") live without the host if somebody just would help it out of the host. Which is often done.
- Retra 8y ago
  Yes, it is arbitrary. Most things in life are arbitrary. At what exact moment do you become a licensed plumber? How fast do you have to be going to be speeding? We solve this problem by leaving it to the judgment of the people involved at the time of their involvement. We don't legislate exact moments pertaining to unforeseen situations in advance. We spend a lot of resources raising mothers and teaching them to make decisions. It is actually quite insulting to try to micromanage another person's pregnancy when you're not involved. We don't need an answer to that question. We need to understand why complete strangers are so politically and emotionally involved in the existence of babies they don't know.
  - davrosthedalek 8y ago
    The moment a plumber becomes licensed is well defined after extensive discussion. The speed limit is a constant discussion. We spend a lot of resources building fast cars and educating drivers, it's actually quite insulting to try to micromanage how fast another person drives. No, it's not. We absolutely DO legislate exact moments pertaining to unforeseen situations. See discussion about "stand your ground" laws, which are exemptions from "murder is bad". Are they good? No, I don't think so. Your last sentence is hilarious. We need to understand why complete strangers are so involved in the existence of babies they don't know. Really? The same reason we care that immigrant kids (we don't know) are separated from their families (we don't know either) and caged. The same reason we care about the people affected by the war in Syria. None of which I know personally btw. It's very simple: Iff an unborn baby is at any point a human individual, it has rights. They need then to be balanced with the rights of the mother. We can discuss if this is the case, and we can discuss how that balance should be found if we find that "yes". We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not.

jonhendry18 8y ago

The thing is, medical emergencies that require abortions don't conveniently limit themselves to certain periods of pregnancy.