5 ms·

Or it's an effort to show that a fetus is not automatically a person from conception. I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can

by csours 4y ago

Or it's an effort to show that a fetus is not automatically a person from conception. I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person, and that personhood starts at some point before that viability test; I think there is a lot of room to discuss a question of personhood in the first few weeks of development. My personal view is that personhood requires a mind, and here on our physical earth, a mind requires a brain with some level of development. My personal view is that level of development is not reached in the first trimester. You are perfectly free to disagree with me on this! I am not trying to unduly influence anyone's point of view. I cannot say you are wrong if you disagree! I would like to gently point out that there are facts in this discussion, but there are also opinions, deeply held beliefs and analysis. Only the facts can be fact checked. The opinions, beliefs and analysis require some kind of framework for discussion.

cld8483 4y ago
Both these abortion-related takes are incredibly cynical. I know lawyers aren't people but even they might earnestly care about a pregnant woman and her fetus/child...
- csours 4y ago
  My comment is not meant to preclude that. I do not expect to get a complete analysis of a situation from internet comments.
- freejazz 4y ago
  > I know lawyers aren't people Yuck. Of all the comments I see, the ones from lawyers seem the most human and less misanthropic or so purposefully obtuse as to suggest one has no connection to society at all, etc, like I see from so many developers drooling over their edge-case applications of definitions as if the law was some sort of "whatever you can say goes" as opposed focusing on what actually makes sense.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
[flagged]
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  > Frankly I think this situation is hilarious, pitting Republican's crime and punishment fever against their god fever. It genuinely won't matter. Those thumping the anti choice, anti autonomy drum have not demonstrated the ability to feel shame for their hypocrisy -- at least I've never seen it over the last few decades.
  - csours 4y ago
    It's very hard for the self to see hypocrisy when the subject is not falsifiable. In many faiths it is perceived to be sinful to question a divine plan or commandment. I was raised in such a faith. Hypocrisy does not enter into it, because their beliefs are consistent with divine commandments, not your analysis.
  - splitstud 4y ago
    What could possibly be more hypocritical than your attempt at a rights-based argument while reserving rights to only some living beings? The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      You might be able to leverage that if you didn't stop at fertilized egg, but pushed that insanity to its logical conclusion, where no sperm can be wasted and women must always be pregnant because anything else is genocide of the not-yet-to-be-conceived. As it stands it's like a burn victim quadruple amputee pointing at someone merely homely and calling them too ugly to look at.
chimprich 4y ago
> I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person That's problematic right there. A child can't survive without any support until some years after birth, and the age at which a foetus can survive with support keeps getting younger due to technical advances. At some point fully artificial wombs will be able to allow a foetus to survive outside their mother from conception. Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable. > My personal view is that personhood requires a mind That seems more reasonable. Attainment of consciousness seems like a reasonable differentiator, but there's a difficulty is in establishing when that is.
- csours 4y ago
  > That's problematic right there. Yes. I can't completely square the circle. There's a lot of undefined area, a lot of discomfort, but I am comfortable with my level of discomfort and ignorance for now. --- I don't think a viability test or a theory of the mind is sufficient on it's own, I view them as lines of evidence. I am open to other lines of evidence. I also think that the unbroken chain of life that leads to a new baby is a miracle, whether you think of it as a divine miracle or a secular miracle.
- joombaga 4y ago
  > Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable. Why? This strikes me as begging the question.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
In some jurisdictions it is very clearly defined that a fetus is not a person. It does not matter whether it could survive outside the womb. That has the merit of being clear-cut and to avoid a lot of arguments.
- jfk13 4y ago
  At what point (precisely) does it become a person and gain rights? Does it have to have entirely exited the birth canal, or is it enough that the head has begun to be visible, or what?

by csours 4y ago

cld8483 4y ago

Both these abortion-related takes are incredibly cynical. I know lawyers aren't people but even they might earnestly care about a pregnant woman and her fetus/child...

csours 4y ago
My comment is not meant to preclude that. I do not expect to get a complete analysis of a situation from internet comments.
freejazz 4y ago
> I know lawyers aren't people Yuck. Of all the comments I see, the ones from lawyers seem the most human and less misanthropic or so purposefully obtuse as to suggest one has no connection to society at all, etc, like I see from so many developers drooling over their edge-case applications of definitions as if the law was some sort of "whatever you can say goes" as opposed focusing on what actually makes sense.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

[flagged]

dpkirchner 4y ago
> Frankly I think this situation is hilarious, pitting Republican's crime and punishment fever against their god fever. It genuinely won't matter. Those thumping the anti choice, anti autonomy drum have not demonstrated the ability to feel shame for their hypocrisy -- at least I've never seen it over the last few decades.
- csours 4y ago
  It's very hard for the self to see hypocrisy when the subject is not falsifiable. In many faiths it is perceived to be sinful to question a divine plan or commandment. I was raised in such a faith. Hypocrisy does not enter into it, because their beliefs are consistent with divine commandments, not your analysis.
- splitstud 4y ago
  What could possibly be more hypocritical than your attempt at a rights-based argument while reserving rights to only some living beings? The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    You might be able to leverage that if you didn't stop at fertilized egg, but pushed that insanity to its logical conclusion, where no sperm can be wasted and women must always be pregnant because anything else is genocide of the not-yet-to-be-conceived. As it stands it's like a burn victim quadruple amputee pointing at someone merely homely and calling them too ugly to look at.

chimprich 4y ago

> I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person That's problematic right there. A child can't survive without any support until some years after birth, and the age at which a foetus can survive with support keeps getting younger due to technical advances. At some point fully artificial wombs will be able to allow a foetus to survive outside their mother from conception. Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable. > My personal view is that personhood requires a mind That seems more reasonable. Attainment of consciousness seems like a reasonable differentiator, but there's a difficulty is in establishing when that is.

csours 4y ago
> That's problematic right there. Yes. I can't completely square the circle. There's a lot of undefined area, a lot of discomfort, but I am comfortable with my level of discomfort and ignorance for now. --- I don't think a viability test or a theory of the mind is sufficient on it's own, I view them as lines of evidence. I am open to other lines of evidence. I also think that the unbroken chain of life that leads to a new baby is a miracle, whether you think of it as a divine miracle or a secular miracle.
joombaga 4y ago
> Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable. Why? This strikes me as begging the question.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

In some jurisdictions it is very clearly defined that a fetus is not a person. It does not matter whether it could survive outside the womb. That has the merit of being clear-cut and to avoid a lot of arguments.

jfk13 4y ago
At what point (precisely) does it become a person and gain rights? Does it have to have entirely exited the birth canal, or is it enough that the head has begun to be visible, or what?