5 ms·

Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than t

Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.

trasz 4y ago
I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling. Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible. Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law. Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies. Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why? >You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations. The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children. Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. >You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1] >The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion. Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation. >Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy. Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you. > We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion. Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct. I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all. [1] https://secularprolife.org/ https://secularprolife.org/
campl3r 4y ago
It is not
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Want to provide an explanation?
  - trasz 4y ago
    LMGTFY: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain-starts-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain... “co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy.”
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks. Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
      - trasz 4y ago
        Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? >there is distinct DNA There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead. Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life? It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain. >There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human. >See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse. If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Here are two lists: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...

Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.

trasz 4y ago

I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling. Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.

_-david-_ 4y ago
First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible. Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law. Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies. Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
- trasz 4y ago
  >First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why? >You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations. The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children. Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. >You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1] >The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion. Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation. >Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy. Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you. > We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion. Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct. I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all. [1] https://secularprolife.org/ https://secularprolife.org/

campl3r 4y ago

It is not

_-david-_ 4y ago
Want to provide an explanation?
- trasz 4y ago
  LMGTFY: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain-starts-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain... “co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy.”
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks. Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? >there is distinct DNA There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead. Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life? It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain. >There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human. >See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse. If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Here are two lists: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...