Let's Analyze Abortion from the lens of a Fetus

Very true...The human population could do with thinning down a tad...As things currently stand, abortion makes no difference to human proliferation.

Currently by whatever means, human death makes no difference...As a species we are just programmed, mindless sex addicts and survivalists.

Certainly makes one wonder why.

Marley wanted all eldians to die, Zeke wanted that they simply stop reproducing, a pacifist idea.

Zeke wanted to sterilize the Eldians, not kill them in utero. Also, sterilizing people without consent is not pacifist.

They use false Equivalence to equate a lump of cells with a human baby

"Lump of cells" is not well defined enough for me to really understand your position. At what point does a human made of cells stop being a lump of cells? I assume your answer is probably consciousness, but then is killing unconscious people fine? What if we know when the unconscious person wakes up they will be poor? The cells in the unconscious person are developing consciousness, but then the same is true of the unborn.

Killing unconscious people is actually considered mercy, braindead people's family usually demand withdrawal of life responses if there's no hope, it's just 2 or 3 months old thing, that a hospital drew life support from a brain dead man, a committe of doctors of highest qualifications concluded that there's no hope, as commanded by the supreme court of India, the petition was filed by none other than the man's father. He didn't want to lose his son, but he knew what's better. Think about it. Were the committee members, the dad, the supreme court, were those people evil to withdraw life support?

And honestly I don't get you people, did you not read biology or what. A sperm doesn't have consciousness, an egg doesn't have it. Yet girls have periods, and its not murder, boys jerk off, it's not Genocide but abortion is murder ??

Nowadays I am getting a srupid argument, a LOT. Which says ummm but Sperm can't develop into a human but an embryo can 🤓

How stupid is that ? It can become human. I fully agree. Wait for a few months and it will surely be one, but IS IT A HUMAN ??

No it Isn't !! It's a lump of cells, which your lack of biology is classifying as a human, and your twisted evil moral sense wants it to be born in scenarios in cases when it shouldn't be born. Your stance is basically nearer to Shoe Tucker than a child loving person.

8 weeks, absolutely no activity.

12 weeks, forms a rough structure.

24 weeks, considered completely safe.

People need to stop looking at life in black and white, either dead or alive.

The property of being a human doesn't automatically spawn in us at the time of conception, it develops with time, if it was a human at that time, there wouldn't be a 9 months waiting period.

On play store or apple store, you start downloading a game, till 99% you can cancel it, after 100%, it's deletion and not cancelation

The analogy isn't 100% accurate, but it's true to a significant factor in this case.

24 weeks is the safe line, somewhere it's even lower, most abortions take place in the early stages.

Also, Zeke didn't had a choice, he was the dog of marley. The best he could do was avoid the annihilation of Paradis. He had more of that victim mindset

Killing unconscious people is actually considered mercy, braindead people's family usually demand withdrawal of life responses if there's no hope

The majority of unconscious people are not brain dead...if a fetus is not viable then sure, abortion is justified. If not then it's a human who is going to be conscious soon, much like the majority of unconscious people. If you know the patient is gonna wake up in 9 months, unplugging them is not justified.

A sperm doesn't have consciousness, an egg doesn't have it. Yet girls have periods, and its not murder, boys jerk off, it's not Genocide but abortion is murder ??

I have elaborated on my position in more depth here, but I will summarize it: individuals are entitled to processes their body is in the process of developing but lack nutrients to develop (for example, an unconscious person who is starving from lack of nutrients is still being harmed by the starvation). This is analogous to the unborn child. But individuals are not entitled to have totally new development processes added to them (for example, I'm not being harmed by someone not giving me the ability to fly, even if such an operation were possible). The latter is comparable to contraception.

Your stance is basically nearer to Shoe Tucker than a child loving person

My position isn't "kill children who are born." I can be against killing both before and after birth.

Zeke didn't had a choice, he was the dog of marley

Sure, I'm just saying sterilizing people isn't pacifism, regardless of if it is justified.

For some people abortion is a solution to a problem...Just as killing Palestinians or Ukrainians or Iranians is a solution to other peoples problems...None of which makes any difference to human proliferation and demand for Earth resources....What the planet needs is an asteroid and AI to take over the job.

If killing is accepted as a solution, it will be applied to other human actions.

My position isn't "kill children who are born." I can be against killing both before and after birth.

When your a woman and have any possibility of being in that position/circumstances, then you will have validity of opinion, until that occurs I think its best you keep your nose out of pregnant womans bodily business.

A child is a born-out human individual independent from the womans body.

A fetus is an organism of the womans body.

When you have the ability make this distinction, then and only then will you have any validity of what a woman's choice in the matter.

Man X y - X x Woman >Pregnant woman X x ( one or more possible resultants }

Man = seed....Woman { pregnancy potentials } = ?

12-around-1 equal radius sphericals aka 4-fold Vector Equlibrium { 14 openings and easily transform-able/change-able} ergo one-in-the-oven pregnant woman symbolism via geometric equanimity. This can occur in two primary ways tho total of three differrent ways: Two as Face centered close packing and one in Hexagonal Close Packing. In both cases all 12 equal radius spheres are tangent to the nuclear spherical.

12-around-0 equal radius sphericals aka 5-fold icosa(20}hedron, the one has been born out.

So where would man X y appear in this geometric symbolism presentation? It appears as an a seemingly aborted X chromosome with much less genetic material. Yes, the compacted Barr Body small x chromosome may appear as an aborted larger X, however, it contains same amount of genetic material.

.....AI..' The Rest: The remaining ~85% of genes on the Barr body are transcriptionally silent, meaning they are not actively expressed. [1, 2] '...

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/classical-genetics/sex-linkage-non-nuclear-chromosomal-mutations/a/x-inactivation

In past Ive associated man symbolism with the 4-fold octa{8}hedron, --6 equal radius sphericals-- and the resultant born out progeny as the 3-fold tetrahedron -- X x or X y--. tho I now think this latter may not be the best choice, since the genetic material is likened more like 12-around-1 and/or the 6 spheres as octahedron.

In some ways the y could be associated with the 3-fold tetrahedron. H,mm. Still looking for Cosmic Connections of Universe to most complex humans.

When your a woman and have any possibility of being in that position/circumstances, then you will have validity of opinion

There are pregnant women who are against abortion. Hypothetically speaking, if one of them was saying all the exact same things I was saying (and many of them are), then how would you respond to them? The argument still exists and is out there, regardless of whatever issues you have with me as an individual. If your position is correct, then in theory at least, you should be capable of rebutting the argument.

A child is a born-out human individual independent from the womans body.

A child is biological offspring, which includes stages in utero.

A fetus is an organism of the womans body.

A fetus is an organism depending on the woman's body, but also a child.

A fetus is dependent on the mother for everything.

1} Your not a woman, and will never be pregnant.

2} A child is a born-out human individual and independent from the womans body.

3} a fetus is in-spirited rganism of the pregnant woman and not a born out child whose former pregnant woman is now a mother, if the born out child survives.

..... You seem to have difficulties in making the factual distinct in latter comment above.

..A born out individual child breaths in oxygen via its mouth, throat lungs i.e. has taken its first in-spiration { inspirited externally } A fetus does not. Simple distinction to be made for those interested in refined facts.

Men should keep their nose out of pregnant womans bodily business. Simple. Yes there is too many humans on Earth for the operational systems humanity has in place, and how we deal with that is a seperate issue, that, begins with agreement from out front from humanity. Not just the nutters who dont believe in birth control pills, condoms for men or women.

Strictly speaking "a child" is a separate post natal organism.

Whereas a foetus is an attached post embryonic developing organism, to which the word "child" is often applied erroneously.

I assume your answer is probably consciousness, but then is killing unconscious people fine?

This is a strawman. You are conflating unconsciousness with the absence of consciousness. An unconscious entity is capable of experiences. The complete absence of the biological capacity for experience means no internal state can be recovered as no subjective experience has begun to exist.

The complete absence of the biological capacity for experience means no internal state can be recovered as no subjective experience has begun to exist.

I think we've debated this "capacity" standard before, but my biggest problem with it is that it seems rather arbitrary. An unconscious person could wake up, which doesn't take much, but that's still a biological change. With comatose people with significant brain damage the changes needed to realize the capacity for consciousness are a bit more significant. Once we're saying people can have the capacity for consciousness even if biological processes will need to occur to realize it, I don't think we can say with confidence that the fetus does not meet this standard.

no subjective experience has begun to exist.

Is the standard past consciousness/experiences then? If yes, then I think this raises dilemmas with a hypothetical comatose infant, but some people are willing to bite the bullet on that.

An unconscious person could wake up, which doesn't take much, but that's still a biological change. With comatose people with significant brain damage the changes needed to realize the capacity for consciousness are a bit more significant. Once we're saying people can have the capacity for consciousness even if biological processes will need to occur to realize it, I don't think we can say with confidence that the fetus does not meet this standard.

There is a fundamental difference between waking up an existing mind and building the substrate of a mind from scratch. The total absence of necessary brain structures allows us to rule out consciousness with certainty.

Is the standard past consciousness/experiences then? If yes, then I think this raises dilemmas with a hypothetical comatose infant, but some people are willing to bite the bullet on that.

There can be no consciousness until the mental architecture exists. A comatose infant will have that, while a fetus (especially early in this developmental stage) will not. Mental content and mental capacity are not the same thing.

But either way a fetus is not able to express itself.

The line for sufficient architecture here seems arbitrary to me. Comatose people don't have all the neurons or structures needed to be conscious or they wouldn't be comatose. They have more of them, maybe even most, but there are still stages of development in many cases that need to happen to rebuild the full architecture.

I think you're trying really hard to split hairs here. A comatose patient has the intact macrostructures necessary for consciousness (assuming they have ever been conscious). The biological hardware is fully built; its function is simply being disrupted by some type of shock to the system. That is completely different from an early fetus, where the nueral pathways are non existent.

It's still a relatively arbitrary choice of which the macro structures matter. The fetus' body is a macro structure that develops consciousness. I guess the problem could be avoided by strictly defining the structures that matter, but somehow that feels arbitrary to me. Maybe that does seem like splitting hairs though.

It's only 'arbitrary' if you ignore neuroscience. The fact of the matter is we know exactly which structures matter for consciousness and that the (for example) hand or spleen have no direct involvement. There is a definitive, non-arbitrary line between the body that supports life and the mental systems capable of processing internal experience.

I feel like I'd be repeating myself at this point (not saying you haven't addressed my arguments, just that I don't think there's much ground we haven't covered) or just be posting a wall of possibly nitpicking, and I do get why you might see my position that way.

I should mention, you have the perfect opportunity to submit your view to the argument database, where I have also elaborated my position in a lot of words. Haven't been able to spur much activity there, but it's always open.

Yes, I agree - we have covered this ground fairly well. It is always nice to have a civil conversation adjacent to abortion. Well done, sir.

What child?

A fetus is not fully developed to be able to communicate.

SatanLucy wrote:

Child she is carrying in her womb.

Women do not carry children in their wombs...They use various devices for moving children about.

SatanLucy wrote:

Women do not carry children in their wombs

I mean, how do you think pregnancy works?

Read my reply to Savant...#13