I am simply asking questions and giving my opinion.
I will never say this doesn’t affect women way more significantly than men- it’s not even a contest. But that doesn’t mean a man can’t have an informed opinion.
A genocide happening in Rwanda doesn’t affect me (other than ruining my mood and making me doubt humanities ability to survive) and I can have a strong opinion on it. So, since abortion laws in my country can affect me (no, not nearly as much as it can affect my daughter or nieces or other female friends and relatives) I think I can have an opinion on it as well.
If we were on here deciding the law, I would agree that we need to track down women, but until we get way more women on here talking about it, it’s going to be mostly men (I’m assuming most on here are men. I actually don’t know for certain who is and isn’t a woman.)
Participant @thatoneguy
It is a basic fact of biology.
Vacuous respo0nse absent any rational argumentation. You could just as reasonably said “cuz said so”
Ok dude. I guess you know better than all those biologists.
Sounds like you did not read what I wrote. “Life” in general is not the same as “human life”
A tree is alive. A cell on my tongue is alive. A worm is alive. None of these things are a human life.
A human life is a person. A human life has an intrinsic right to life in our law and by consensus among nearly all human beings. A human life is a human being and has personhood.
A human cell, or a human organ other than the brain does not have personhood and is not a human life and is not a human being.
A human life, or a human being, or a person has 1 brain. Not 0 or 2 brains. Specifically, 1 brain per person, per human life, per human being.
When a person’s brain ceases to function then their human life has ended. The heart might still be pumping. The other internal organs might still be functioning. But if the brain dies the person dies. Personhood is determined by the functioning of a human brain. With a functioning human brain you are a living human being, a human life, a living person. Absent a functioning human brain there is no human life, no human being, no person.
I'm not talking about life in general. Human life is the subject and that is obviously what I meant by Life begins at conception. Personhood does begin approximately when the brain develops, but so what? The time before that is a necessary stage of life that must be passed before personhood is reached.
If person 2 is your minor child your responsibility is to remain connected unless and until you can arrange for an orderly transfer of support to another person or a machine such that your child is not substantially harmed.
TimB said: Person1 and 2 was an analogy. Person 2 would indeed be analogous to the fetus. The thing is, in the case of the fetus the mother cannot transfer it. SO in the analogy it would also need to be that a transfer to another person or machine would not be possible. The only choice is to continue to be connected to person 2 for several months, or not. Maybe you are saying that Person 1 is obligated to continue keeping person 2 alive by being connected to his blood stream continuously until the several months have passed… Oh and to continue the analogy, after finally being disconnected from person 2, person 1 will be responsible for keeping person 2 alive and safe, feeding and clothing him, getting him any education he might need, etc for 18 years. Also, person 1 is very likely poor and barely able to get by in their life, even before the connection to person 2.
The only choice is to continue to be connected to person 2 for several months, or not. Maybe you are saying that Person 1 is obligated to continue keeping person 2 alive by being connected to his blood stream continuously until the several months have passed… Oh and to continue the analogy, after finally being disconnected from person 2, person 1 will be responsible for keeping person 2 alive and safe, feeding and clothing him, getting him any education he might need, etc for 18 years. Also, person 1 is very likely poor and barely able to get by in their life, even before the connection to person 2
Yes, that is called being a parent.
The alternative is to give up your child to a government agency or private party in a legal and orderly process such that the child is not physically harmed.
Keeping the child while failing to adequately provide for your child is the crime of neglect.
Killing your child overtly or by severe neglect is the crime of murder.
Do you really need all this to be spelled out for you? Do you have any familiarity with parental responsibility, both ethically and legally?
Stardusty: A human cell, or a human organ other than the brain does not have personhood and is not a human life and is not a human being.
These words show that you understand the point I am making when I say that there is a significant portion of time between fertilization and birth where the embryo is not a human- you can imagine it to either be a separate entity using the human to support its life, or literally a part of the human until such time as it can live on it's own- regardless of how you look at it, it's not a person.
Only once it reaches the stage where brain function begins and/or it can live outside the womb, is your argument valid.
So let’s say that a fetus is only a potential human life until it has a functioning brain. (I know some say that it is a human life at conception, but for now let’s say that for whatever reason everyone agrees that it is a human when it has a brain.) Now how developed does that brain need to be? Is it just enough to maintain autonomic processes? Is it a brain that is developed enough to potentially develop speech one day?
Once we have all come to the agreement as to when the fetus is a living human, is that it? The pregnant woman no longer has a choice and must bear to term? I wonder, because I wonder at what point a woman should no longer have the ability to determine what happens with HER OWN BODY, which IS undoubtedly a human life.
The point is that you seem to be wanting to force a woman to choose parenthood, if she gets pregnant.
If she is pregnant with a human being she is already a parent. I didn't force her to do anything.
Once she is the parent of her in utero child she has all the responsibilities of parenthood, first and foremost, do not murder your child.
How is not murdering your child even slightly controversial? Is there somebody out there, other than a homicidal sociopath, who thinks it is ok to murder your child?
Only once it reaches the stage where brain function begins and/or it can live outside the womb, is your argument valid.
Yes, almost. Nobody can live on their own for many years after birth.
To be a parent of a newborn baby, isolated, such that the baby is utterly dependent upon your parental sustenance, is an awesome responsibility. If you ever live through a period of such responsibility, and afterwards fail to appreciate the enormous responsibility a mother has to keep her in utero child alive, you have, I submit, a pathological lack of empathy for the human life of the other…sociopathy laid bare.
Viability (in the USA defined as the ability to survive outside the womb with the aid of the most advanced technology in existence) is presently being used, under USA law, as a proxy for in utero humanity.
That proxy is false. Brain function is the true measure of humanity, be it at the end of life, or the beginning of life.
More developed than the first neurological signal and less developed than a term in utero baby. I don't think we will ever be able to define a point at which the bracket of upper and lower bounds converges to precision.
To narrow the width of the bracket to the greatest extent feasible we can, and I think, must, apply science to mapping the criteria for the end of life of an adult human being to the beginning of life for an in utero human being.
The pregnant woman no longer has a choice and must bear to term?
Absent a self defense argument of substantial threat to her own physical life or health, yes, and that is the law in most states in the USA, using viability as a proxy for humanity.
I wonder, because I wonder at what point a woman should no longer have the ability to determine what happens with HER OWN BODY,
Her right to waive her fist around ends at the tip of my nose.
You have a right to control your body, unless controlling your body the way you want to harms my body.
A woman’s right to control her body ends where it means electively destroying the life of her own child.
Check out the 6 mo. fetal brain. Does it look like a regular functional human brain, as the 9 mo. clearly does? Where are you advocating that the brain is delineating the fetus as a live human? 52 days? 59? 70? 20 weeks? 6 months?
Good point of view. Got me wanting the answer. When is the brain a brain. Without a working brain we are human matter. The brain stem Pons is responsible for vital life functions such as breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure. The pons (the at the end of the brain stem) is in control of sleep cycles, and controls respiration and reflexes.
A human being who is living just above the threshold of being diagnosed as brain dead.
What is the lowest level of brain activity that under law and medical practice indicates that a person is still alive?
If we think a human being is alive when they have brain function of level X why would we consider a fetus to not be a live human being if she has brain function of level X?
How can there possibly be a functioning human brain without a human life?
So you’re saying a fetus becomes a live human when its brain develops to the equivalent of that of a person in what is commonly referred to as a vegetative state?
