5 ms·

The abortion thing is very much down to opinion. Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p There's no winning this. Tha

The abortion thing is very much down to opinion. Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p There's no winning this. That's why it's actually smart to let the states decide this - that way Trump has no say in it.

John23832 2y ago
> Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p Because the bacteria on Mars would plausibly exist on it's own. On a different planet.
- noworriesnate 2y ago
  A newborn can't exist on its own though. It needs to nurse, has to have someone change its diapers, etc.
  - John23832 2y ago
    >A newborn can't exist on its own though. It needs to nurse, has to have someone change its diapers, etc. A newborn by literal definition can exist on its own. It has been born. A newborn can breath, metabolize foods, and does not depend on being connected to another life giving organism. The more appropriate work you're looking for is "care". You need to care for a newborn for it to survive. You can provide care specifically for a newborn. You cannot specifically provide care for a fetus, you are providing care for the mother. I know all of this is falling on deaf ears though.
    - noworriesnate 2y ago
      The mother is providing care for the unborn child with her body. Seems like needing care vs. being unable to exist on its own is a distinction without a difference.
ruthmarx 2y ago
[flagged]
- tzs 2y ago
  Huh? Since when is a zygote not alive? It has a cell membrane, contains genetic material, has metabolism, can maintain homeostasis, and can grow. That's pretty much the definition of life. Do you also think neurons, muscle cells, etc are also not alive? The abortion debate is not about whether or not the thing that gets removed during abortion is life--I doubt you can find any competent biologist who would say it is not--but rather whether that particular cell or group of cells should be treated different than other cells or groups of cells in your body. E.g., why should abortion be any different from removing tonsils or from circumcision, both of which also involve the removal and death of living cells from the body?
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > Do you also think neurons, muscle cells, etc are also not alive? There is a difference between something being 'alive' (although I think the examples you give are dubious), and being a 'life'.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    By that logic, we should also consider banning antibiotics. In a world where we consider a cell or a small grouping of cells to be a life (rather than just alive) antibiotics are essentially a tool for genocide.
    - joshuaissac 2y ago
      The whole purpose of antibiotics is to kill life, and the term itself means 'against life' in Greek. That does not mean that it is necessary a tool for genocide; conversely almost anything can be a tool for genocide depending on how it is used.
      - dspillett 2y ago
Lanolderen 2y ago
I don't care for the abortion topic but that cell comparison is really good.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  No it's not. "a [human] life" and "life" are completely different things. For example: a tree
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    True. Although the scale for anything from sperm to baby is probably human<->animal<->bacteria life. I liked it because it definitely shows it's a form of "life" in an accessible way. Where on the scale it falls and whether that life should be protected is an entirely different matter.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  I know, right? It's not mine. I don't really care for it either (except for the "kill at 9 months" thing), but it's interesting to see the two groups argue about it. Both seem to think they're undoubtedly 100% right, as a fact, etc. Compromises must be made!
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    By that logic ending slavery should have been a 'compromise' as well.
  - atq2119 2y ago
    Allowing abortions up to some reasonable time limit is the compromise.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  I remember reading about college professors who shows a 1 day old zygote or whatever and a skin cell which appear pretty indistinguishable from one another. Does any reasonable person believe that zygote at that stage is truly equivalent to a human life? Next up no one should be masturbating because each sperm is potentially the next Mozart or Einstein.
dspillett 2y ago
> why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth That is conflating life (the ability is eat, shit, reproduce, and the potential to late become sentient) with actual sentient life, which is not correct. Also, no one is planning to ban antibiotics because bacteria is considered life so we can't do anything to save the host by killing it.
Olreich 2y ago
We could make it not opinion with ease. Make the test: “Can the fetus survive without the host body?” That’s a medical question that will slowly move toward not aborting ever. And it solves the medical issues as well. “This fetus is killing the host” always allows for removal, because we can either keep them alive, or it can’t survive. Then the folks who want more babies to reach term can focus on improving medical technology instead of getting involved with the mess that is people’s love lives.

John23832 2y ago

> Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p Because the bacteria on Mars would plausibly exist on it's own. On a different planet.

noworriesnate 2y ago
A newborn can't exist on its own though. It needs to nurse, has to have someone change its diapers, etc.
- John23832 2y ago
  >A newborn can't exist on its own though. It needs to nurse, has to have someone change its diapers, etc. A newborn by literal definition can exist on its own. It has been born. A newborn can breath, metabolize foods, and does not depend on being connected to another life giving organism. The more appropriate work you're looking for is "care". You need to care for a newborn for it to survive. You can provide care specifically for a newborn. You cannot specifically provide care for a fetus, you are providing care for the mother. I know all of this is falling on deaf ears though.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    The mother is providing care for the unborn child with her body. Seems like needing care vs. being unable to exist on its own is a distinction without a difference.

ruthmarx 2y ago

[flagged]

tzs 2y ago
Huh? Since when is a zygote not alive? It has a cell membrane, contains genetic material, has metabolism, can maintain homeostasis, and can grow. That's pretty much the definition of life. Do you also think neurons, muscle cells, etc are also not alive? The abortion debate is not about whether or not the thing that gets removed during abortion is life--I doubt you can find any competent biologist who would say it is not--but rather whether that particular cell or group of cells should be treated different than other cells or groups of cells in your body. E.g., why should abortion be any different from removing tonsils or from circumcision, both of which also involve the removal and death of living cells from the body?
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Do you also think neurons, muscle cells, etc are also not alive? There is a difference between something being 'alive' (although I think the examples you give are dubious), and being a 'life'.
- dspillett 2y ago
  By that logic, we should also consider banning antibiotics. In a world where we consider a cell or a small grouping of cells to be a life (rather than just alive) antibiotics are essentially a tool for genocide.
  - joshuaissac 2y ago
    The whole purpose of antibiotics is to kill life, and the term itself means 'against life' in Greek. That does not mean that it is necessary a tool for genocide; conversely almost anything can be a tool for genocide depending on how it is used.
    - dspillett 2y ago

Lanolderen 2y ago

I don't care for the abortion topic but that cell comparison is really good.

Dylan16807 2y ago
No it's not. "a [human] life" and "life" are completely different things. For example: a tree
- Lanolderen 2y ago
  True. Although the scale for anything from sperm to baby is probably human<->animal<->bacteria life. I liked it because it definitely shows it's a form of "life" in an accessible way. Where on the scale it falls and whether that life should be protected is an entirely different matter.
jeffhuys 2y ago
I know, right? It's not mine. I don't really care for it either (except for the "kill at 9 months" thing), but it's interesting to see the two groups argue about it. Both seem to think they're undoubtedly 100% right, as a fact, etc. Compromises must be made!
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  By that logic ending slavery should have been a 'compromise' as well.
- atq2119 2y ago
  Allowing abortions up to some reasonable time limit is the compromise.
ruthmarx 2y ago
I remember reading about college professors who shows a 1 day old zygote or whatever and a skin cell which appear pretty indistinguishable from one another. Does any reasonable person believe that zygote at that stage is truly equivalent to a human life? Next up no one should be masturbating because each sperm is potentially the next Mozart or Einstein.

dspillett 2y ago

> why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth That is conflating life (the ability is eat, shit, reproduce, and the potential to late become sentient) with actual sentient life, which is not correct. Also, no one is planning to ban antibiotics because bacteria is considered life so we can't do anything to save the host by killing it.

Olreich 2y ago

We could make it not opinion with ease. Make the test: “Can the fetus survive without the host body?” That’s a medical question that will slowly move toward not aborting ever. And it solves the medical issues as well. “This fetus is killing the host” always allows for removal, because we can either keep them alive, or it can’t survive. Then the folks who want more babies to reach term can focus on improving medical technology instead of getting involved with the mess that is people’s love lives.