7 ms·

The death penalty and locking up a fifth of the young black population is generally inconsistent with the other positions "people who oppose abortion" take, yet

by aneth4 14y ago

The death penalty and locking up a fifth of the young black population is generally inconsistent with the other positions "people who oppose abortion" take, yet I don't see them doing much about that. If we can stop talking in such broad generalizations now... Nobody who will be born in the future has been born yet. By choosing to use a condom or birth control, are we killing those people? What's the difference between a sperm being inside an egg and outside other than some sort of religious spiritual mumbo jumbo or philosophical possibility? At what point does a fertilized egg become a "person," and who are you to determine that? All those progressive people you condescend to are not "supporters" of abortion. Almost nobody "supports" abortion, and hardly anyone is ok with late term abortion. Those progressive people are generally thinking beings who have morality. They think about things rather than accepting an arbitrary criteria such as whether someone is born or not. For most it is whether the bundle of cells is a sentient being capable of experiencing, something a zygote most certainly is not. A zygote is not a person by any reasonable standard. It has the potential to become person with lots of help from its environment, as does every combination of viable sperm and egg on the planet. Every sperm may be sacred, but every sperm is not deserving of equal protection.

adamnemecek 14y ago
No one is arguing about sperms. Even though I consider myself progressive, I have a similar position as the parent comment author. Abortion in 24th week (which is the latest legal date) is WAY too late.
- aneth4 14y ago
  Reasonable people can debate when the latest legal abortion should be. The parent comment simply referred to abortion. Generally those opposed to abortion believe that abortion should be illegal from egg fertilization, or even prior to this by restricting birth control. I might tend to agree with you that 24 weeks is too late based on a quick look around: "By 22 weeks, your baby's nervous system completely 'connects'. The vital link between their brain and spinal cord (the brain stem) now matures and many nerve cells make vigorous connections. When this happens your baby becomes capable of recognising warmth, light, sound and pain. While primitive brain waves have been detected in unborn babies as early as 7 weeks, it is not until 22 weeks that sustained patterns can definitely be recorded. Some women will now notice that their baby 'jumps' with a loud sound. " http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 If no brainwaves have been detected prior to 7 weeks, I'd probably set that as the lower bound for when abortion should be legal.
FaddiCat 14y ago
>>> Those progressive people are generally thinking beings who have morality. They think about things rather than accepting an arbitrary criteria such as whether someone is born or not. For most it is whether the bundle of cells is a sentient being capable of experiencing, something a zygote most certainly is not. It doesn't seem that way. Most efforts to legalise abortion are based on the argument 1) that women have a right to do what they want with their own body, or 2) that abortion has social benefits. And since the progressive side of politics is making no real effort to stop abortion after the embryo has become a foetus and developed a nervous system it's probably safe to assume that women's rights and social benefits are far more important to them than whether an foetus is 'sentient being capable of experiencing'.
- aneth4 14y ago
  > that women have a right to do what they want with their own body This is not much different, since as a non-sentient individual, the fertilized egg is a part of the woman's body. I can't speak for others, but I certainly look for the line when a foetus becomes a "person." I'd like to see some surveys on how many Americans support abortions in which terms and why, but haven't found any. > that abortion has social benefits This is a supporting argument only relevant when the underlying action is ethical. Executing stupid people may have social benefits, but it is not ethical.
  - FaddiCat 14y ago
    >>>I'd like to see some surveys on how many Americans support abortions in which terms and why, but haven't found any. Yeah, me too. Anecdotally, most people seem to be fine with first trimester, reluctantly accepting of second trimester, and against third trimester (except where the mother's life is in danger).
marknadal 14y ago
1. Mathematical difference. As another commentator pointed out, a zygote is genetically unique. This means it has rare information, as a result of combinatorics. Destroying it has interesting impacts: A. Destroys information from the universe. B. Destroys /genetic information/, which is an evolutionary mechanism. C. Slows evolutionary development, as beneficial mutations are already rare enough - increased abortions also increase the loss of a punctuated-equilibrium event. This "combination" and "potential" as you note, is strike-on why it deserves equal protection and ought to be viewed as sacred. (Not sperm, but the zygote) 2. Social Difference. Now note, I'm not suggesting that every such zygote /will/ be that Einstein, but historically greatness have come from unexpected circumstances. Da`Vinci was a bastard child of a female peasant, aborting him (if it was modern day) would have been strategic move to save the face of his more upper class father. A. Preemptively: yes, the chances of any Churchill is also chances of a Hitler. Admittedly, an abortion might also have destroyed the next genocidal tyrant. But ironically, this is not a justification - because it is that very act of destruction which is why we hated those men in the first place. B. A society with no Hitlerbabies is also one that will never have Churchills. A society with Hitlerbabies is also one with Churchills. The former society is definitively doomed, the second at least has a chance of succeeding. And as entrepreneurs/hackers, we know that this risk variable is the key which makes and breaks. Conclusion: A universe with more information is genetically more fit for evolutionary survival. And a universe which has a plus-sum of social progress is probabilistic in success, versus a neutral or destructive society as having an absolute convergence of failure. The difference between even just only 1% and a NULL solution is an infinite gap.
- lclarkmichalek 14y ago
  You only talk about the effect of the aborted. For 2, it's worth mentioning that people who raise children at young ages often stop attending school/university/whatever, meaning that sometimes not having an abortion will "abort" your modern Einstein. Talking about the universe is odd, considering that the issues around abortion mostly affect society, and at a push humanity. On the universe scale, there is no more information destroyed/created by having an abortion than by raising the child. The universe does not know the difference between a human's life and the absence of a human's life. 1C) assumes that the abortee will have more children overall if the child is not aborted than if they are not. This is hardly something that can be assumed, given how people's lives can be massively affected by a child. It also takes a very micro scale view of evolution; I do not think many people believe that adopting a policy of encouraging very large families is something that is good for the planet, and unfortunately for us, what is bad for the planet is usually bad for us (in the long run). However, when you make an argument that appeals to evolution, the long run is the only run that matters. 2's point on historical greatness coming from unexpected circumstances is most likely the product of massive selection bias. I would be very interested to see a study showing significant difference between the distribution of the backgrounds of "great people" and "normal people". 2A equates the destruction in abortion to the destruction in the Second World War. 2B references a society with no Hitlerbabies, which doesn't seem to really be what anyone is discussing here. I think it's fair to assume that there is a near to uniform distribution of potential across aborted children, meaning that there isn't a clear reason why there should suddenly be no Hitlerbabies/no entrepreneurs. But seriously, how do you write a comment about the affects of abortion on society without talking about the woman who is having the abortion.

by aneth4 14y ago

adamnemecek 14y ago

No one is arguing about sperms. Even though I consider myself progressive, I have a similar position as the parent comment author. Abortion in 24th week (which is the latest legal date) is WAY too late.

aneth4 14y ago
Reasonable people can debate when the latest legal abortion should be. The parent comment simply referred to abortion. Generally those opposed to abortion believe that abortion should be illegal from egg fertilization, or even prior to this by restricting birth control. I might tend to agree with you that 24 weeks is too late based on a quick look around: "By 22 weeks, your baby's nervous system completely 'connects'. The vital link between their brain and spinal cord (the brain stem) now matures and many nerve cells make vigorous connections. When this happens your baby becomes capable of recognising warmth, light, sound and pain. While primitive brain waves have been detected in unborn babies as early as 7 weeks, it is not until 22 weeks that sustained patterns can definitely be recorded. Some women will now notice that their baby 'jumps' with a loud sound. " http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 If no brainwaves have been detected prior to 7 weeks, I'd probably set that as the lower bound for when abortion should be legal.

FaddiCat 14y ago

>>> Those progressive people are generally thinking beings who have morality. They think about things rather than accepting an arbitrary criteria such as whether someone is born or not. For most it is whether the bundle of cells is a sentient being capable of experiencing, something a zygote most certainly is not. It doesn't seem that way. Most efforts to legalise abortion are based on the argument 1) that women have a right to do what they want with their own body, or 2) that abortion has social benefits. And since the progressive side of politics is making no real effort to stop abortion after the embryo has become a foetus and developed a nervous system it's probably safe to assume that women's rights and social benefits are far more important to them than whether an foetus is 'sentient being capable of experiencing'.

aneth4 14y ago
> that women have a right to do what they want with their own body This is not much different, since as a non-sentient individual, the fertilized egg is a part of the woman's body. I can't speak for others, but I certainly look for the line when a foetus becomes a "person." I'd like to see some surveys on how many Americans support abortions in which terms and why, but haven't found any. > that abortion has social benefits This is a supporting argument only relevant when the underlying action is ethical. Executing stupid people may have social benefits, but it is not ethical.
- FaddiCat 14y ago
  >>>I'd like to see some surveys on how many Americans support abortions in which terms and why, but haven't found any. Yeah, me too. Anecdotally, most people seem to be fine with first trimester, reluctantly accepting of second trimester, and against third trimester (except where the mother's life is in danger).

marknadal 14y ago

1. Mathematical difference. As another commentator pointed out, a zygote is genetically unique. This means it has rare information, as a result of combinatorics. Destroying it has interesting impacts: A. Destroys information from the universe. B. Destroys /genetic information/, which is an evolutionary mechanism. C. Slows evolutionary development, as beneficial mutations are already rare enough - increased abortions also increase the loss of a punctuated-equilibrium event. This "combination" and "potential" as you note, is strike-on why it deserves equal protection and ought to be viewed as sacred. (Not sperm, but the zygote) 2. Social Difference. Now note, I'm not suggesting that every such zygote /will/ be that Einstein, but historically greatness have come from unexpected circumstances. Da`Vinci was a bastard child of a female peasant, aborting him (if it was modern day) would have been strategic move to save the face of his more upper class father. A. Preemptively: yes, the chances of any Churchill is also chances of a Hitler. Admittedly, an abortion might also have destroyed the next genocidal tyrant. But ironically, this is not a justification - because it is that very act of destruction which is why we hated those men in the first place. B. A society with no Hitlerbabies is also one that will never have Churchills. A society with Hitlerbabies is also one with Churchills. The former society is definitively doomed, the second at least has a chance of succeeding. And as entrepreneurs/hackers, we know that this risk variable is the key which makes and breaks. Conclusion: A universe with more information is genetically more fit for evolutionary survival. And a universe which has a plus-sum of social progress is probabilistic in success, versus a neutral or destructive society as having an absolute convergence of failure. The difference between even just only 1% and a NULL solution is an infinite gap.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago
You only talk about the effect of the aborted. For 2, it's worth mentioning that people who raise children at young ages often stop attending school/university/whatever, meaning that sometimes not having an abortion will "abort" your modern Einstein. Talking about the universe is odd, considering that the issues around abortion mostly affect society, and at a push humanity. On the universe scale, there is no more information destroyed/created by having an abortion than by raising the child. The universe does not know the difference between a human's life and the absence of a human's life. 1C) assumes that the abortee will have more children overall if the child is not aborted than if they are not. This is hardly something that can be assumed, given how people's lives can be massively affected by a child. It also takes a very micro scale view of evolution; I do not think many people believe that adopting a policy of encouraging very large families is something that is good for the planet, and unfortunately for us, what is bad for the planet is usually bad for us (in the long run). However, when you make an argument that appeals to evolution, the long run is the only run that matters. 2's point on historical greatness coming from unexpected circumstances is most likely the product of massive selection bias. I would be very interested to see a study showing significant difference between the distribution of the backgrounds of "great people" and "normal people". 2A equates the destruction in abortion to the destruction in the Second World War. 2B references a society with no Hitlerbabies, which doesn't seem to really be what anyone is discussing here. I think it's fair to assume that there is a near to uniform distribution of potential across aborted children, meaning that there isn't a clear reason why there should suddenly be no Hitlerbabies/no entrepreneurs. But seriously, how do you write a comment about the affects of abortion on society without talking about the woman who is having the abortion.