Discussion A treatise on abortion's moral philosophy

[Transposon]

There’s this concept called gradability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue, green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

 

[Transposon]

@lumen @Mogden credits
@slopslinger @apatheia @Genetics @OsamaBinBallen @johnfkennedy

 

[Mogden]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue into green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, if Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

Honestly I see the solution being the criminalization of r*pe having the death penalty.

 

[dipenhydramine]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue into green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, if Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

repost my old writing
civic inequality / achieving maximum global egalitarianism should ABSOLUTELY come before limiting abortion.

take a thought experiment: if the world is equally fair to all children born, and they have an equal chance to succeed, so it is entirely dependent on their inherent genes and not a severely lacking nurturing, yes we should never abort again unless it’s r**e / a threat to the mother.

Except that the millions of children in africa, rural china, rural russia, greenland, etc. etc. could be born with superior genes (say, an “einstein”) yet never succeed due to severely limiting socio economic factors

That alone should disprove the “value of life” and the idea that a child’s potential is infinite and therefore infinitely deserving of chance.

Those who cannot provide for an einstein should be fully allowed to abort, as the einstein or anything less would only hinder them socially/economically/dare i say politically

 

[Transposon]

Those who cannot provide for an einstein should be fully allowed to abort, as the einstein or anything less would only hinder them socially/economically/dare i say politically

This is a very immature and limited view

 

[Mogden]

repost my old writing
civic inequality / achieving maximum global egalitarianism should ABSOLUTELY come before limiting abortion.

take a thought experiment: if the world is equally fair to all children born, and they have an equal chance to succeed, so it is entirely dependent on their inherent genes and not a severely lacking nurturing, yes we should never abort again unless it’s r**e / a threat to the mother.

Except that the millions of children in africa, rural china, rural russia, greenland, etc. etc. could be born with superior genes (say, an “einstein”) yet never succeed due to severely limiting socio economic factors

That alone should disprove the “value of life” and the idea that a child’s potential is infinite and therefore infinitely deserving of chance.

Those who cannot provide for an einstein should be fully allowed to abort, as the einstein or anything less would only hinder them socially/economically/dare i say politically

As much as I’d hope for this to be possible. I doubt it. Abortion is more than a debate. It’s a modicum of controlling the political climate. It’s a piece on the chess board for elites to use people’s innate sense of protection for others against each other.

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue, green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

I’m Gothams Reckoning

 

[Deleted Member 78932]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue, green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

Pretty much my thread

 

[Transposon]

Honestly I see the solution being the criminalization of r*pe having the death penalty.

How so?

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

This is a very immature and limited view

why? those who cannot provide, should not be forced to. (Long term) Stability is what makes a great nation egalitarian by and to the individual instead of being top down.

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

Honestly I see the solution being the criminalization of r*pe having the death penalty.

@hachiko

 

[Mogden]

How so?

Unfortunately the system is built on r*pe and we have too many abusers in power, but ideally by giving r**e the death penalty, in combination of an advanced surveillance/militaristic state like the one America is about to enter with Palantir, choosing to be a r*pist would be suicide.

 

[Transposon]

@sigmagoy

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

Honestly I see the solution being the criminalization of r*pe having the death penalty.

@hachiko idk why i tagged you in this i misread his comment

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

@sigmagoy

follow back bhai

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

As much as I’d hope for this to be possible. I doubt it. Abortion is more than a debate. It’s a modicum of controlling the political climate. It’s a piece on the chess board for elites to use people’s innate sense of protection for others against each other.

yes I agree. Abortion is not argued on equal merits and measures. Not to false dichotomy, but one side believes it is an individual right for their own purposes, and the other believes that it is a large scale social issue to be solved with large scale reform

 

[sigmagoy]

@sigmagoy

Why me

 

[Transposon]

Why me

Tom Welling AVI
@dipenhydramine @twinkdestroyer @foidletlexi is it what I think it is..

 

[Penalizer69]

In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human.

Except you can tell when it's absolutely not, that's why there are laws in place about when you can vs can't have an abortion in most places and as it should be

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.

See though there's reason for this. r**e is very hard to prove and therefore has very low conviction rates especially if someone doesn't come forward right away because in that case there's usually 0 way to tell.

Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

I agree as I stated before

Good thread though I was pleasantly suprised

 

[Mogden]

yes I agree. Abortion is not argued on equal merits and measures. Not to false dichotomy, but one side believes it is an individual right for their own purposes, and the other believes that it is a large scale social issue to be solved with large scale reform

IMO the casualties speak for themselves

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue, green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

As a man, why does it concern you, just curious to hear your perspective… no judgement here

 

[Transposon]

As a man, why does it concern you, just curious to hear your perspective… no judgement here

It's a question. Answering a question requires logical thinking. That interests me

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

It's a question. Answering a question requires logical thinking. That interests me

How do you feel on a personal level about it logicmaxxer?

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

IMO the casualties speak for themselves

100+ billion have been born. perhaps a few million have achieved notable recognition.

I would argue that the billions of people who lived and died in shit mud sweat and blood are a greater injustice than a zygote dying because someone could not handle it.

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
— Stephen Jay Gould

 

[Transposon]

Except you can tell when it's absolutely not, that's why there are laws in place about when you can vs can't have an abortion in most places and as it should be

Except, you cannot, it depends on what's important to us, heartbeat? Survival in vitro? a more humanoid appearance? The contradiction lies in your statement itself. In the US, for example, different states have different laws. If it were as easy as you said, there wouldn't have been an argument to begin with.
Also thanks a ton

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

As a man, why does it concern you, just curious to hear your perspective… no judgement here

the man craves dominance over that which he will never understand.

 

[Mogden]

100+ billion have been born. perhaps a few million have achieved notable recognition.

I would argue that the billions of people who lived and died in shit mud sweat and blood are a greater injustice than a zygote dying because someone could not handle it.

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
— Stephen Jay Gould

But the zygote was robbed of the experience of life. The idea that some feel allowed to decide if real conscious beings should be alive or not for reasons of convenience and comfort are disgusting. One life can change the world. Think of what potential the 1 billion that were unborn would have had.

 

[Mogden]

the man craves dominance over that which he will never understand.

Quote?

 

[Transposon]

How do you feel on a personal level about it transposon?

A zygote is a human. The specie designation for it is Homo sapien, there's no other way to go about this.
Abortion should be allowed if r**e or incest is involved. If the foetus has genetic abnormalities, could pose a threat to the mother's life. In such cases they should even be given monetary help relating to the procedure.
In all cases, otherwise, abortion should be legal till the heartbeat.

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

Except, you cannot, it depends what's important to us, heartbeat? Survival in vitro? a more humanoid appearance? The contradiction lies in your statement itself. In the US, for example, different states have different laws. If it were as easy as you said, there wouldn't have been an argument to begin with.
Also thanks a ton

reply to my argument. it literally fully counters this.

If some arbitrary scientific point to define life matters, then surely you will recognize the wholy lived lives of those who died confined to their class and unable to reach their potential as a far more tragic matter (which is also significantly more real and should be solved first)

 

[Mogden]

A zygote is a human. The specie designation for it is Homo sapien
Abortion should be allowed if r**e, incest is involved. If the foetus has genetic abnormalities, could pose a threat to the mother's life. In such cases they should even be given monetary help relating to the procedure.
In all cases, otherwise, abortion should be legal till the heartbeat.

when discussing this are we valuing qualitative or quantitative data

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

A zygote is a human. The specie designation for it is Homo sapien, there's no other way to go about this
Abortion should be allowed if r**e, incest is involved. If the foetus has genetic abnormalities, could pose a threat to the mother's life. In such cases they should even be given monetary help relating to the procedure.
In all cases, otherwise, abortion should be legal till the heartbeat.

Although I disagree personally, you come at this from a very well-written perspective

 

[slopslinger]

imo abortion is bad because only because it's a symptom of the moral decay in society. the fetus itself means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[Transposon]

Although I disagree personally, you come at this from a very well-written perspective

What're your opinions?

 

[Transposon]

when discussing this are we valuing qualitative or quantitative data

What does this mean?

 

[Mogden]

What does this mean?

Do we value statistics or potential cases for deciding the validity of abortion. Numbers or emotional impact

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

But the zygote was robbed of the experience of life.

and those granted that experience are robbed of the ability to make something great

The idea that some feel allowed to decide if real conscious beings should be alive or not for reasons of convenience and comfort are disgusting.

YOU decide the fate of those who are confined too. YOU choose to ignore them. YOU are the controller for that capitalist idea of convenience and comfort. YOU empower the systems that ensures they will never reach their potential.

One life can change the world. Think of what potential the 1 billion that were unborn would have had.

I ask you to think of the billion already alive, starving, freezing, dying, and slaving away first. They were born into a system unfair to them. You are just moving the goalposts. A child forcibly born will just be another number to the masses who cannot realize his potential because his mother KNEW she could not support him yet was forced to cripple herself to create another slave.

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

What're your opinions?

I genuinely do not care what a woman does with her body but I do think abortion should be limited to at max first trimester BUT I could be niggababbling and talking out of my ass. My concern is I am a huge proponent of individual autonomy when it comes to decision making and a human beings body is no exemption. As a man, I will never be able to understand what goes into birthing a child.

@over0 thoughts on this interpretation?

 

[Penalizer69]

I genuinely do not care what a woman does with her body but I do think abortion should be limited to at max first trimester BUT I could be niggababbling and talking out of my ass. My concern is I am a huge proponent of individual autonomy when it comes to decision making and a human beings body is no exemption. As a man, I will never be able to understand what goes into birthing a child.

@over0 thoughts on this interpretation?

Very normie take but solid

 

[Mogden]

and those granted that experience are robbed of the ability to make something great

YOU decide the fate of those who are confined too. YOU choose to ignore them. YOU are the controller for that capitalist idea of convenience and comfort. YOU empower the systems that ensures they will never reach their potential.

I ask you to think of the billion already alive, starving, freezing, dying, and slaving away first. They were born into a system unfair to them. You are just moving the goalposts. A child forcibly born will just be another number to the masses who cannot realize his potential because his mother KNEW she could not support him yet was forced to cripple herself to create another slave.

I am not the embodiment of capitalism. I agree that there are people worse off. But this conversation was about abortion specifically.

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

Very normie take but solid

n***a the high-IQ stuff is being reserved for the blackpill files

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

I am not the embodiment of capitalism. I agree that there are people worse off. But this conversation was about abortion specifically.

I wrote the connection as carefully as I could for you. Do not deflect.
A child forcibly born will just be another number to the masses who cannot realize his potential because his mother KNEW she could not support him yet was forced to cripple herself to create another slave.

If you force children to be born to mothers who know they cannot support them, there will be children born who will fail. There have been. Those are the children i speak of. Those children do not exist to you because you don’t want to accept that you play a part in their failing?

 

[Mogden]

I wrote the connection as carefully as I could for you. Do not deflect.
A child forcibly born will just be another number to the masses who cannot realize his potential because his mother KNEW she could not support him yet was forced to cripple herself to create another slave.

If you force children to be born to mothers who know they cannot support them, there will be children born who will fail. There have been. Those are the children i speak of. Those children do not exist to you because you don’t want to accept that you play a part in their failing?

This seems nihilistic. What do you mean by fail. Not climb the capitalistic ladder and become wealthy or mentally sane? OF COURSE THEY WONT. But that is no reason as to why they should never be able to touch, taste, see, hear, or feel anything EVER.

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

This seems nihilistic. What do you mean by fail. Not climb the capitalistic ladder and become wealthy or mentally sane? OF COURSE THEY WONT. But that is no reason as to why they should never be able to touch, taste, see, hear, or feel anything EVER.

Fail = that they will be entirely confined due to external reasons and will never have ANY chance to improve themselves.
While it is a valid question to ask whether a trapped life filled with suffering is more valuable than having never lived at all, I think ultimately the greatest action would be to resolve the systemic class confiniment of those who were born to fail, before you force more to be born and fail in that same system.

 

[Deleted Member 84844]

This seems nihilistic. What do you mean by fail. Not climb the capitalistic ladder and become wealthy or mentally sane? OF COURSE THEY WONT. But that is no reason as to why they should never be able to touch, taste, see, hear, or feel anything EVER.

Holy babble

Lowkey respect tho

 

[Transposon]

Fail = that they will be entirely confined due to external reasons and will never have ANY chance to improve themselves.

You know nothing.

 

[OsamaBinBallen]

You know nothing.

Then tell me

 

[Mogden]

Fail = that they will be entirely confined due to external reasons and will never have ANY chance to improve themselves.
While it is a valid question to ask whether a trapped life filled with suffering is more valuable than having never lived at all, I think ultimately the greatest action would be to resolve the systemic class confiniment of those who were born to fail, before you force more to be born and fail in that same system.

So should you have been born then?

 

[Deleted Member 74605]

There’s this concept called gradeability in philosophy.
The best way to explain it is to imagine the rainbow
There’s no ‘point’ where the colour violet becomes indigo, or blue, green.
It’s a smooth transition, it’s a spectrum so as to say
Now, I want to bring up the second important concept relevant to this issue, the word - 'convention'. Broadly - ‘A convention can be defined as an agreed-upon standard, custom, or rule that governs behavior or practice’. Here's an example - we all agree with each other, it’s understood, that the abstract word ‘chair’ relates to that wooden object with 4 legs. To expand on this, it can indeed be said, all of our communication is based upon agreed upon definitions.


In an analogous manner, at one end you have the zygote. A unicellular organism in the female's fallopian tube and at the other is a delivered baby. The whole journey between the zygote to a human, thus, is like the transition of the colours, dependent on an innumerable number of mitoses. You can’t ’really’ point out one exact place where the ‘clump of cells’ becomes a human. So.. we have to choose, based upon our convenience, an agreed upon standard that we can all get behind, very similar to how - cross-culturally, we've decided for ourselves that the age '18' is when a teenager becomes an adult. There isn't even a persuasive biological certitude as to why, but we had to pick one age and so we we did. What matters more is we all agree upon this age, not that things would have changed were it to be 17, instead.

So, now we're left with the question, "What trait becomes a human, human?" We want women to be given rights, to do with their bodies as they want, but I'm quite sure none of us want to condone murder either. This in my opinion, then, is the core question of our issue.
Were it not for the stakes behind this, I might even call this question beautiful, our human-ness is something we're emotionally tied to.
Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a very satisfactory answer to this with the current political climate.

Before the left took very strongly to this issue, as far as I'm aware this was mostly in the hands of physicians. There the consensus was that heartbeat should be the measure. I can get behind this, it's very intuitive after all.
At one extreme, you have people who think that birth begins at conception. Their criteria is based, not on, morphological similarities to the 'human form'. But a cell having the potential to be human. Although I can get behind this too, the boundaries get fuzzy. Is a sperm not a potential human too, or an egg? In the left there’s this popular concept. I think it's that - it should be legal till 24 weeks since till then the foetus cannot survive outside of mother’s womb.
More importantly I do not think anyone wants to use logic to solve this issue. It's a very large, elaborate, virtue-signal fest going on between the left and the right. Who's more virtuous, the side that wants to save the poor women, repressed since millennia, or the one that wants to save indefensible little babies.

The people who say 'women should do whatever with their bodies and thus get an abortion at any point', come at this from the wrong angle. Not to mention how much of a slippery slope this is.. Should we all allow people to do xyz obviously morally corrupt action if it's their bodies making the 'action'.


The most I can hope for us, is, to get behind some universal laws at least. Everyone should be given the absolute best of medical care, if r**e or incest were involved.
Now if the question is, should Jessica, the college going girl, who 'accidentally' got pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother at 21 should get an abortion or not, we have to define the period till which she can, so a murder doesn't end up happening.

“Chat gpt summarize this into 1 sentence”