6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Retra 8y ago
      >We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not. I was not saying people shouldn't have opinions. I was saying they should not have opinions that are so strongly held that compromise is not an option. That is the problem we have. The laws we currently have are already a result of extensive debate and compromise.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    > We need to understand why complete strangers are so politically and emotionally involved in the existence of babies they don't know. Because of basic humanity? If you grant that they actually do believe (as they say they do) that those babies are human beings with rights, should they not act?
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      But these same people support a political party that is in favor of capital punishment and against a larger social safety net. Where is the basic humanity in the state murdering someone or a person dying for lack of healthcare?
      - ModernMech 8y ago
        Also missing in this context is the same group who wants to make abortions illegal also wants to reduce access to contraception, sex education (abstinence only) and healthcare for women. If you honestly want to reduce abortions, all of the above ha e shown to work. The one thing that doesn't work to reduce abortions is to make it illegal. Rich people just have abortions elsewhere, while everyone else who really wants one does it anyway illegally.
      - colemannugent 8y ago
        There are plenty of people who are pro-life, against capital punishment, and for a reliable social safety net. The two American political parties exist only paper; I've never met someone who agreed with 100% of their parties platform. That being said, someone having one wrong belief does not automatically invalidate all of their other arguments. For example, Albert Einstein wrote several racist remarks in his travel journal while he traveled Asia. That does not invalidate any of the science he pioneered.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        I believe it does invalidate their opinion on abortion when they are using “basic humanity” as their reasoning. Some unrelated example about Einstein and racism doesn’t really address that hypocrisy. Not to mention that this same political party isn’t practicing “basic humanity” in their border policy or towards journalists. It’s ok to call out the hypocrisy. Crying “basic humanity” isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a get-out-of-jail-free card.

by Retra 8y ago

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.
  - Retra 8y ago
    >We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not. I was not saying people shouldn't have opinions. I was saying they should not have opinions that are so strongly held that compromise is not an option. That is the problem we have. The laws we currently have are already a result of extensive debate and compromise.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  > We need to understand why complete strangers are so politically and emotionally involved in the existence of babies they don't know. Because of basic humanity? If you grant that they actually do believe (as they say they do) that those babies are human beings with rights, should they not act?
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    But these same people support a political party that is in favor of capital punishment and against a larger social safety net. Where is the basic humanity in the state murdering someone or a person dying for lack of healthcare?
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      Also missing in this context is the same group who wants to make abortions illegal also wants to reduce access to contraception, sex education (abstinence only) and healthcare for women. If you honestly want to reduce abortions, all of the above ha e shown to work. The one thing that doesn't work to reduce abortions is to make it illegal. Rich people just have abortions elsewhere, while everyone else who really wants one does it anyway illegally.
    - colemannugent 8y ago
      There are plenty of people who are pro-life, against capital punishment, and for a reliable social safety net. The two American political parties exist only paper; I've never met someone who agreed with 100% of their parties platform. That being said, someone having one wrong belief does not automatically invalidate all of their other arguments. For example, Albert Einstein wrote several racist remarks in his travel journal while he traveled Asia. That does not invalidate any of the science he pioneered.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        I believe it does invalidate their opinion on abortion when they are using “basic humanity” as their reasoning. Some unrelated example about Einstein and racism doesn’t really address that hypocrisy. Not to mention that this same political party isn’t practicing “basic humanity” in their border policy or towards journalists. It’s ok to call out the hypocrisy. Crying “basic humanity” isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a get-out-of-jail-free card.