this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
67 points (93.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43714 readers
1472 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There can also be devastating psychological fallout from not getting an abortion, which would be why many people believe it should be a choice that the people involved get to make about themselves, rather than forcing it on them.
About the rest of your argument, it hinges entirely on a detail that it doesn't mention: when does an egg become a human? If sex caused literal newborns to be delivered by storks the next day, of course no one would be arguing to kill the child, even if that was by far the most "convenient". However in reality there is a transition from a mere collection of cells no more special than any other collection of cells in the body (besides their potential for further development), all the way to a fully developed baby. The egg and sperm cells alone are clearly not human, while a baby clearly is. So then where along this gradual process can we first say that it is a human?
And this is the real crux of the debate. There is no point convincing people that it's bad to kill their unborn baby via abortion, because they don't believe there is a baby to kill at all yet, but rather a collection of cells which will eventually form a baby. By removing these cells, you stop any potential for a baby to be formed, just like wearing a condom stops the potential for a baby to be eventually formed, by keeping the egg and sperm separate.
"Stage-of-development" is a flawed argument because it presupposes that some qualifications must be met before an embryo or fetus reaches a status of personhoood when in reality the "clump of cells " has all the genetic instructions it requires to proceed through all stages of development at conception. Entertaining the idea that it somehow matters less because it is smaller, less developed, dependent on the mother etc is the pilpul I was talking about. If it wasn't a human then an abortion wouldn't be necessary because a dog, bird or fish embryo would die immediately.
It is not like contraception (e.g. a condom). A gamete on it's own will never develop into a human under any circumstances.
We are talking about people (man and woman) who decide to have sex and don't want to deal with the logical, predictable outcome. No one is forcing them to do anything. They have created this situation for themselves. It's that simple. The rest is just mental gymnastics for them not taking responsibility for their actions.
The only intellectually and morally honest argument for abortion is "I don't care".
Of course some qualifications must be met to qualify for a specific term, that's exactly what definitions are. You yourself are presupposing your own qualifications ("having all genetic instructions") which you are thrusting upon everyone and assuming it must be the one true definition. But your definition is also deeply flawed. If I have some stem cells harvested from my bone marrow, are those stem cells also a human? If I let those cells die, am I killing someone?
Or to take a step further into hypotheticals, if I store an egg and a sperm separately in a device built to automatically mix them together in a year from now, is this device now a human? Because it matches your definition of containing all genetic instructions, and if left alone then it would eventually produce a fertiliser egg, which you claim is already a human.
A human individual is an incredibly intricate thing, and to try reduce its definition to something as mundane as "contains human genetic information" is the actual mental gymnastics here.
This is blatant false equivalence. Trying to claim that if the embryo is not of some other animal, then it must be a human, as in an individual life. It is obviously a "human embryo" but that does not necessarily mean it is "a human", just like a "human fingernail" is different from a "chimp fingernail" and yet is still not "a human"
This is honestly a frighteningly cruel outlook. If a rock climber has a fall and is dangling with a broken arm from his rope, should we just leave him there to deal with it himself, since it was his choice to take the risk of climbing? Of course not! Despite his own actions causing his predicament, we as a society still provide care where we can. Hospitals tend to the wounds of idiots who play with fireworks, governments (in many countries) provide care to homeless people who lost all their money gambling. Just because a couple takes a risk which goes badly, does not justify revoking their access to care.
Again, this whole debate comes down to a definition of when a fertilised egg becomes a live human. And if you want to have any actual impact in this debate, then you are going to have to do better than pre-assuming some definition and dismissing anyone who disagrees with it.
Why? People dont usually abort things that are dead and if it's not human then there's no need for an abortion. I reject the false equivalency objection that somehow a human embryo is not "human" the same way I reject that a toddler is somehow less human than an adult.
This "live human" stipulation is a pilpul fabrication meant to inject moral ambiguity. This allows abortion to be morally justified as an acceptable practice at least up until some arbitrary stage of development (even though it's clear that pregnancy, barring complication, means a baby is on the way.)
You will never get consensus on your "live human" criteria. That is by design.
I posit instead that the crux of this debate comes down to the sanctity of life and personal responsibility. Calling me cruel for "denying care" is odd considering I'm arguing to prevent the termination of healthy pregnancies conceived with full consent and knowledge of the man and woman involved. A pregnancy isn't a "risk ending badly" it's a blessing and a responsibility (for both woman AND man).
To break it down simply -- babies come from sex. More specifically they come from the product of sucessful egg-sperm fertilization (e.g. the early stage embryo and fetuses that are aborted by the millions each year) This occurs in the womb which is naturally equipped for this process. It's pretty clear what is going on.
Determining termination based on some level of cognizance is an arbitrary standard and frankly one that opens the door for other judgements that are only limited by imagination, rhetoric and charisma.
At what point does this evolve into screening fetuses, altering genomes and treating early human development like some science experiment. Aldous Huxley, a eugenicist, explores this future in his novel Brave New World.