The Abortion Thread

[WolfBear]

Apparently, Curtis Bay Energy is burning the babies for electricity in Baltimore area.



Time stamp: 13:07




Bullshit.

Medical waste company edits website after being accused of burning aborted babies for electricity - LifeSite

While the medical waste center has insisted that the accusations made against it by pro-lifers are inaccurate, it appears the company has subsequently removed some of the controversial content from its website which seemed to give weight to the claims.

www.lifesitenews.com

I didn't know that embryos and/or fetuses could actually be used for electricity!

 

[Bear Ribs]

Now as I've said before, we are using brain activity as a proxy for thought. But it does make figuring out where that point happens harder, I'll give you that. Perhaps it happens earlier, but that's ultimately a scientific fuzziness, not a fuzziness with my theoretical point. I know there is a point, I know what that point is (human thought) I just don't know when it is. And that's fine, we can wait for science to roll in on that. It'd have to be after some amount of brain formed, as (for example) electrical signals from the body aren't indicative of life if the head got destroyed.

Only the idea that conception is a definite point at which all life begins is wrong. And pretty frequently wrong, as any identical twin will tell you. And that's just one of the problems with it. There's also the other problems I've been listing.

Twins aren't an argument against conception any more than clones are. Both twins lives began at conception, and they separated later.

The problems you list are entirely pedantic and without substance, though. By your own standards, the notion of brain activity is clearly nonsensical because there's no sharp line where brain activity begins, as soon as the neural plate forms in the first few days, the first signals begin and they steadily strengthen as the plate forms the neural tube and then grows into a full brain. People may say "Brain activity at five weeks" but this is shorthand for the actual situation where it steadily develops, a line where they feel there's enough brain activity and it's detectable to current instruments. You're just drawing an arbitrary line and saying "This much brain activity, this many neurons."

And of course, if we want to wax pedantic about edge cases, what happens when people attempt to upload their minds, perhaps into optic circuits with no electrical elements, or other technologies that don't resemble human brains at all? Yes, future tech but so are your arguments about cloning.

That's the scientific definition of human tissue, not of what a human is. Or you've just classified a cut off hand as a whole human. Again, I'm not really concerned about separating humans from animals, but with separately classifying one human from another.

So first, the definition you listed (having the genome) doesn't include the specific traits, that's actually one of the advantages of it. Now the person will likely have those traits, but they don't have too, they just need the genome. So it actually doesn't have the weakness you claim, which is why they don't worry about such edge cases: they don't exist.

Wow, so you split the definition in half in your reply so that you could wax pedantic about each half separately and each of your disputations is neatly canceled by the other half you split off. Pretty decent proof you can't actually argue with it else you wouldn't have needed to use such a dishonest method.

There are questions about what death is, but most of the leading definitions all have to do with a certain level of brain function (or really lack of it). I don't see why that doesn't work as a perfectly good starting point for what new life means also.

Also, again, with the complaining about pedantry on the philosophy forum. Seriously, this is the forum for it.

Pedantry that's irrelevant to the question, is the problem. Again, we haven't had to redefine human away from biped legally just because a dude lost a leg to a landmine.

As for death, the reason we legally define it via brain function is because currently we do not have the ability to revive someone whose brain has ceased. In the past we defined it as lung or heart dysfunction, but when medical tech became advanced enough to save people with nonfunctioning hearts and lungs, we moved it to the next organ we couldn't currently fix. It's fully possible that in the future, we'll be able to rebuild the mind of a person whose brain has been destroyed and then we'll move the definition back again. There's nothing inherently sacrosanct about brain activity, it's merely a useful line in the sand waiting for the tides to shift. Scientifically is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

There are also deeply disturbing edge cases based on brain function to address since that seems to be the mode of this discussion. Who gets to define what brain function is? Suppose someone clones only a small segment of neurons but they start sending bioelectrical signals in a petri dish? Is the petri dish a human now? How far away from the human norm does it have to be before something is no longer human and you take away their rights? A person with Alzheimer's has brain activity but the personality is gone, are they still human? A person with ADHD or Autism has abnormal brain function unlike other humans, if they count as human how do you justify not defining other hominids with nonhuman brain function? Do you trust that future politicians aren't going to make it stop counting once you've made "brain function" such a critical lynchpin?

 

[Abhorsen]

Twins aren't an argument against conception any more than clones are. Both twins lives began at conception, and they separated later.

That's not how twins work though. The difference between an embryo that splits into identical twins and one that doesn't is probably nothing, just random chance that splits them.

The same if you make clones from a cell line by splitting off cells, then implant them. Unless you believe in determinism? So unless you do, they both don't begin existing at conception.

The problems you list are entirely pedantic and without substance, though. By your own standards, the notion of brain activity is clearly nonsensical because there's no sharp line where brain activity begins, as soon as the neural plate forms in the first few days, the first signals begin and they steadily strengthen as the plate forms the neural tube and then grows into a full brain. People may say "Brain activity at five weeks" but this is shorthand for the actual situation where it steadily develops, a line where they feel there's enough brain activity and it's detectable to current instruments. You're just drawing an arbitrary line and saying "This much brain activity, this many neurons."

The line is thought. That is a precise line, but where it exists is somewhat scientifically blurry. Brain activity is a prerequisite though, and that starts at about 8 weeks, so I'd draw the legal bar there to be safe. Neuron's firing in the spine but not being picked up isn't something I'd call human thought, any more that pain that is never felt by a brain because of a broken spine.

Wow, so you split the definition in half in your reply so that you could wax pedantic about each half separately and each of your disputations is neatly canceled by the other half you split off. Pretty decent proof you can't actually argue with it else you wouldn't have needed to use such a dishonest method.

Miscommunication. Here is your definition:

As far as defining human we already have a fairly thorough scientific definition, that generally boils down to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens genome though there's some discussion of whether Neanderthals and Denisovans should be included. As there are no extant examples those have no impact on the matter at hand. This definition includes various specific traits such as upright bipedal posture, member of the great ape grouping without a tail or prehensile toes, etc. Nobody worries about edge cases like a guy who lost a leg to a landmine making "biped" no longer correct for that definition.

I read your definition as the bold part, and then you as claiming it implies the unbolded part. I then pointed out that the bold part doesn't imply the rest, which is one of the advantages of what I thought your definition was. Then I also add that what I thought your definition was isn't specific enough.

If you actually intended both parts as your definition, your definition is just bad because it doesn't include the edge cases. A definition for something so fundamental that doesn't include edge cases is fatally flawed. Like there are thousands counterexamples in every city bad.

Basically, I was trying to be charitable to you.

Look, again, this is the philosophy forum. One of the most famous counterexamples in philosophy was Diogenes Chicken. If your definition falls to something so obvious ("Behold, an amputee is not a man"), it needs serious work.

Pedantry that's irrelevant to the question, is the problem. Again, we haven't had to redefine human away from biped legally just because a dude lost a leg to a landmine.

Um, yeah, you do. You 100% do. That's the basic point of a philosophical definition. We aren't looking for something for colloquial or good enough use, we are looking for something the law might use after being bent by a lawyer.

There are also deeply disturbing edge cases based on brain function to address since that seems to be the mode of this discussion. Who gets to define what brain function is? Suppose someone clones only a small segment of neurons but they start sending bioelectrical signals in a petri dish? Is the petri dish a human now? How far away from the human norm does it have to be before something is no longer human and you take away their rights? A person with Alzheimer's has brain activity but the personality is gone, are they still human? A person with ADHD or Autism has abnormal brain function unlike other humans, if they count as human how do you justify not defining other hominids with nonhuman brain function? Do you trust that future politicians aren't going to make it stop counting once you've made "brain function" such a critical lynchpin?

See, the petri dish! Now that's a good counter example! (The rest I'll deal with quickly by noting I'm including any thoughts, so it doesn't matter if they are normal, human, or whatever. The human classification was the genome test)

This shows that my previous definition was too broad or alternatively not precise enough by not defining brain. Or maybe this should be a human? (You had something of the same objection above with the neural plate, but I feel that we can better know scientifically when thoughts start because we know something about how humans develop, whereas this would be new).

Now that is a question, at what point do a bunch of neurons lumped together make thoughts? And should it be considered human if they are all human neuron cells? I really don't know. Though I will note that conception has the same problem: what if you do this from a stem cell line? Is that a human? Does it matter if the stem cells came from a fertilized egg or skin cells (real question about this one)?

 

[Bear Ribs]

That's not how twins work though. The difference between an embryo that splits into identical twins and one that doesn't is probably nothing, just random chance that splits them.

So no, they clearly both don't begin existing at conception. The same if you make clones from a cell line by splitting off cells, then implant them. Unless you believe in determinism?

No, they clearly both began at conception and split later. Neither one is the "original," both started at the same time. Saying they clearly don't is massaging the data to fit a preconception that they're an exception.

The line is thought. That is a precise line, but where it exists is somewhat scientifically blurry. Brain activity is a prerequisite though, and that starts at about 8 weeks, so I'd draw the bar there. Neuron's firing in the spine but not being picked up isn't something I'd call human thought, any more that pain that is never felt by a brain because of a broken spine.

So if a dude gives a girl a ruffie and rapes her in her sleep, it's okay if she doesn't remember it?

Miscommunication. Here is your definition:

I read your definition as the bold part, and then you as claiming it implies the unbolded part. I then pointed out that the bold part doesn't imply the rest, which is one of the advantages of what I thought your definition was. Then I also add that what I thought your definition was isn't specific enough.

If you actually intended both parts as your definition, your definition is just bad because it doesn't include the edge cases. A definition for something so fundamental that doesn't include edge cases is fatally flawed. Like there are thousands counterexamples in every city bad.

Basically, I was trying to be charitable to you.

See, this is the kind of bullshit pedantry that makes your arguments so weak. You have to strawman people utterly to get any traction. I stated there's a pre-existing scientific definition of human to use that used various features, starting with the genome and going from there. I didn't bother to copy-paste the whole thing because why would I need to if I clearly stated I'm going off that pre-existing definition?

Look, again, this is the philosophy forum. One of the most famous counterexamples in philosophy was Diogenes Chicken. If your definition falls to something so obvious ("Behold, an amputee is not a man"), it needs serious work.

Um, yeah, you do. You 100% do. That's the basic point of a philosophical definition. We aren't looking for something for colloquial or good enough use, we are looking for something the law might use after being bent by a lawyer.

<Morbo>LAWS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo>. That's not how things operate legally, ever. You will never run out of edge cases because the edges just move with your definition and unless you're a God able to define all of reality perfectly, you will never cover it all. You will never find something a lawyer can't twist or find an edge case on. Trying to do so actually makes the law less robust and more prone to loopholes, the more complex, the more edge areas it creates and the more unintended consequences arise. The law is, when written properly, simple and edge cases are handled by case law as they come up.

Chimeras in particular are ridiculously rare and no laws need to be written to handle such edge cases. We know of around 100 total human chimeras on the entire planet, one can go through millions of humans without finding one, it's ludicrously rare. And when it does show up? The law doesn't need special chimera exemptions pre-cut-out, the legal system's designed to handle it. The case of Lydia Fairchild is one of the rare few, a woman was DNA tested and found not related to her children, because she had multiple cell lines. She wound up in court because she was not genetically the mother of her child, but what happened? Was there no recourse because the law wasn't billions of pages long to cover every single possibility, including Chimeras which weren't known to exist at the time?

No, the judge ruled and settled things for her, and all future chimeras, once the truth came out. Pedantic wailing in trying to create a perfect law that handles every imaginable situation is entirely the wrong way to go about things.

See, the petri dish! Now that's a good counter example! (The rest I'll deal with quickly by noting I'm including any thoughts, so it doesn't matter if they are normal, human, or whatever. The human classification was the genome test)

This shows that my previous definition was too broad or alternatively not precise enough by not defining brain. Or maybe this should be a human? (You had something of the same objection above with the neural plate, but I feel that we can better know scientifically when thoughts start because we know something about how humans develop, whereas this would be new).

Now that is a question, at what point do a bunch of neurons lumped together make thoughts? And should it be considered human if they are all human neuron cells? I really don't know. Though I will note that conception has the same problem: what if you do this from a stem cell line? Is that a human? Does it matter if the stem cells came from a fertilized egg or skin cells (real question about this one)?

A stem cell line becomes human at conception. If it's split into multiple lines, those lines all began at conception and split later, just like twins. My definitions are consistent.

 

[Abhorsen]

No, they clearly both began at conception and split later. Neither one is the "original," both started at the same time. Saying they clearly don't is massaging the data to fit a preconception that they're an exception.

How did they start earlier though? As far as I can tell, it's not genetics that cause cell splitting. It's literal random chance that can't be determined at conception (the rate of identical twins is basically identical world over, as opposed to fraternal, which is different).

So are you claiming that a single cell is multiple humans depending on how it turns out? Because that's getting into determinism. Or are you saying something else?

See, this is the kind of bullshit pedantry that makes your arguments so weak. You have to strawman people utterly to get any traction. I stated there's a pre-existing scientific definition of human to use that used various features, starting with the genome and going from there. I didn't bother to copy-paste the whole thing because why would I need to if I clearly stated I'm going off that pre-existing definition?

...The pre-existing scientific definition of human doesn't contain biped. Like, I don't know how to make this more obvious to you. The scientific definition is just "animal that has the human genome". No specification as to specific parts, no loop holes, it just hides the "when does life start part" in the definition of "animal".

And again, saying that exceptions are fine is stupid. It just means the definition being used is bad. Also, whining about pedantry in the philosophy forum remains hilarious, but is a waste of time.

<Morbo>LAWS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo>. That's not how things operate legally, ever. You will never run out of edge cases because the edges just move with your definition and unless you're a God able to define all of reality perfectly, you will never cover it all. You will never find something a lawyer can't twist or find an edge case on. Trying to do so actually makes the law less robust and more prone to loopholes, the more complex, the more edge areas it creates and the more unintended consequences arise. The law is, when written properly, simple and edge cases are handled by case law as they come up.

No, that wasn't a legal edge case. Please learn what you are talking about. Genetics only sometimes define legal parentage. Specifically, the relevant Washington law (not 100% sure if this was what was listed at the time, but it'll do) already covered such a case, saying that giving birth to the kids established Lydia Fairchild as a mother. That was all that was needed. The confusion was about the facts, not the law. Specifically, CPS thought that she hadn't given birth and had gotten the children illegitimately. She showed that she was the legitimate mother by demonstrating facts, no interpretation of law needed.

A stem cell line becomes human at conception. If it's split into multiple lines, those lines all began at conception and split later, just like twins. My definitions are consistent.

Sure, but now they depend on determinism, and make no sense (unless you are an ardent determinist, which doesn't seem to be the case). Seriously, why define life as starting at conception then? Why not define it as happening 3 days before?

You make even less sense now.

 

[Fleiur]

It's probable that in the next few decades a person will be able to say "biologically speaking, I don't have a mom or dad or any parent." They will have been created by genetically altering an egg cell. They might say that they are a clone of person X, it might be completely new genetic code.

Now what? Are they a human or not? Your definition says no.

You are wrong. That unborn child is still a human being. Because the unborn child is the offspring of two human beings. The unborn child has his/her own developing body and a distinct human entity. No matter how it conceived. The "how" the unborn child was conceived whether sex or invitro is another topic. The whole point here is that the unborn child is a human being.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Because the unborn child is the offspring of two human beings.

The entire point of the hypothetical in question is that this is inapplicable. There is no sperm cell adding the other half of the chromosomes, their genome may well be built from more than two sources, completely shattering your premise because their lineage ends up containing three or more direct parents.

You can maybe brush recombination under the rug as a very peculiar sort of sibling, but when you get into splicing more than two sets in any way, your definition collapses into uselessness. And I have yet to receive an answer to my doubts about conception being a terrible basis because of the sheer scale at which it results in miscarriages.

Most pregnancies are noticed as nothing more than a late period. Because most of the time, zygotes fail to develop more than a month, maybe two. To argue life begins at conception makes it obscenely cheap and pointless, because it's far too low a bar. There's far too little a chance an actual birth will come about.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

to be frank don't care about the spiritual sanctity of life (meaning abortion is bad because deus vult); I don't care preservation of civilization or even humanity itself I have no investment in any sort of humanist cause. I'm in this for myself and mine, yet I still believe I have a dog in this fight for one very, very, big reason. For those who are pro-abortion, If you really think this will end at whether a fetus is a life or not I think you are mistaken. At first abortion had to be done early on and now some states allow late term abortions under the guise of "it's not developed enough to be considered How long before we decide a 3 Year old isn't a "fully developed life" what about 5 years? 8 years? prepubescents? people under 18? people under 21? How long before the left decides People who don't agree with their political way of thinking are not "properly developed human beings" and therefore should have no rights and so it is in turn their right to do whatever they want with them? this isn't just about the babies rights or the woman's body. This is about your rights and your body too. you give them and inch and they will take everything you have.

 

[Ixian]

And also, you can clone them. It's quite doable, we just don't. A clone has only 1 parent (for lack of a better term), and has the exact same DNA as them.

Your definition of human (the offspring of two humans), thus does not include clones of humans. Hence your definition of human is bad, because it doesn't include them.

You also don't need a woman to give birth to a clone, we have come a long way since dolly the sheep, and a clone could theoretically be grown in a bag or a tube, no living womb required. Of course, there has never been an official human clone, so officially this has never been attempted. I just always get a chuckle when radical feminist go on about how men aren't needed for reproduction anymore due to cloning, because neither are women really.

 

[Abhorsen]

You also don't need a woman to give birth to a clone, we have come a long way since dolly the sheep, and a clone could theoretically be grown in a bag or a tube, no living womb required. Of course, there has never been an official human clone, so officially this has never been attempted. I just always get a chuckle when radical feminist go on about how men aren't needed for reproduction anymore due to cloning, because neither are women really.

Eh, I don't think we are there yet, as much as I'd like to be (extraction to an working artificial womb is the ethical alternative to abortion). There's a reason women who don't want to carry use human surrogates, not a machine.

 

[Bacle]

Abortion in general seems to be a subject were there is little nuance or subtlety or reasoned debate/discourse, and mostly just emotionally fueled arguments about who's bodily autonomy matters more, the mother or the child, and how edge-cases seem to define the fights, because that's where the lines and laws start to seem inadequate to protect and respect all parties and situations.

The problem is that to a lot of people, even on the 'Right', do not view a baby as alive till it's full term, even with incubators being able to allow an infant to survive at 21 weeks. And most of the Left doesn't seem babies as human until they are out of the womb, and sometimes not even then.

Many of them seem to think that valuing the life of the child means you do not value the life of the mother, as well.

For example, say you point out that a woman who is raped and gets pregnant from it is a victim, but aborting the baby is still killing an innocent life for the crimes of another, even if in cases of rape abortion is more...justified than in most cases.

A bunch of them will consider you a sociopath or psychopath if you suggest both the rape victim and the baby are equally deserving of life, instead of saying it should be aborted out of hand to save the mother trauma of carrying it till it could be put in an incubator, so the child could be put up for adoption later.

Those sorts of edge-case can define and test where the lines and laws need to be drawn, because those sorts of edge-cases do happen and often the trickiest ones to figure out a 'right' answer for.

Personally I do not like that abortion is so entrenched in our society now that we are having these sorts of fights, but the Left has taken 'safe, legal, and rare' and run with it to the point of viewing pregnancy almost as an illness to be treated.

Which is part of why Roe needs to go, and we need to figure out what the best lines for...'acceptable/justifiable' abortions are; if the fetus will never be viable or kill the mother if they try to carry it to term, medical necessity obviously wins out, but if it's just an abortion of convenience...that not something I am going to condone.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

This woman had an... interesting view.

 

[Cherico]

This woman had an... interesting view.

to be fair she is an excellent argument for abortion.

 

[WolfBear]

I like how the fetuses are drawn in this cartoon:

 

[Agent23]

The entire point of the hypothetical in question is that this is inapplicable. There is no sperm cell adding the other half of the chromosomes, their genome may well be built from more than two sources, completely shattering your premise because their lineage ends up containing three or more direct parents.

You can maybe brush recombination under the rug as a very peculiar sort of sibling, but when you get into splicing more than two sets in any way, your definition collapses into uselessness. And I have yet to receive an answer to my doubts about conception being a terrible basis because of the sheer scale at which it results in miscarriages.

Most pregnancies are noticed as nothing more than a late period. Because most of the time, zygotes fail to develop more than a month, maybe two. To argue life begins at conception makes it obscenely cheap and pointless, because it's far too low a bar. There's far too little a chance an actual birth will come about.

Imagine what weird family combinations would arise once vat-grown multi-genetic donor humans become possible.
Since corporations are people would that maybe force them to "procreate" to get tax writeoffs?
It was sort of there in The Expanse with Holden's weird religious sect parents, all 20 of them, IIRC, but never really explored properly.

This is a science fiction story begging to be written, IMO.

I like how the fetuses are drawn in this cartoon:

Well, technically they aren't wrong, libtards have fucked over the world pretty massively.

 

[Fleiur]

OVERTURNED. It is just the beginning.

 

[WolfBear]

OVERTURNED. It is just the beginning.

Ironically, this could perhaps allow Democrats to be more competitive in heavily red US states in the long(er)-run if they will agree to leave abortion a state issue, oppose Wokeness, and focus almost exclusively on economics. My hunch is that there is a sizable bloc of voters who would be willing to support the Democrats on economic policy if they abandoned Wokeness; just compare Obama's 2008/2012 victory margins in the Midwest to those of Clinton/Biden in 2016/2020.

 

[AndrewJTalon]

Ironically, this could perhaps allow Democrats to be more competitive in heavily red US states in the long(er)-run if they will agree to leave abortion a state issue, oppose Wokeness, and focus almost exclusively on economics. My hunch is that there is a sizable bloc of voters who would be willing to support the Democrats on economic policy if they abandoned Wokeness; just compare Obama's 2008/2012 victory margins in the Midwest to those of Clinton/Biden in 2016/2020.

Yes... But the modern Democratic party literally cannot do that. They're too invested in woke for control.

 

[Navarro]

Guess after ditching "rare", they're already working on the "safe"?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

And not we see what the plan is for National Parkland. As a staging ground to subvert state laws, and additionally empower the Federal Govt.