Should Abortion be Illegal?

[lilac pilot]

It's circumstantial

[pale solstice]

thats true

[cosmic pivot]

I feel like you’re making this complicated for no reason. While yes, abortion will result in “damaging” a woman’s body, that is not the goal here. The goal is to get rid of what is inside her, the foetus.

I think I get your point, but what you seem to be missing is that sex is not a sole person thing. It takes 2 to do it. The woman and the man decided to do it.
He never forced her to take his sperm. Maybe he did it with her when he was drunk and you could even say he had sex unwillingly or maybe even though he used protection, she somehow got pregnant. The point being : the dad doesn’t want that child, but here it is. I feel like forcing the man to become a dad is a form of injustice. Maybe he doesn’t want the child and would appreciate it if it never developed into a human. The same applies for the woman btw. The reasoning is very simple and just. If one of the 2 creators don’t want the baby, they should be able to get rid of it.
Yes, the woman will suffer more physically because she is the one to bear the child, but that’s just what it is. That has nothing to do with the fact that you shouldn’t force someone to become a parent. It sucks for the mom, but thats nature. Why would it be ok if both parents were to suffer physically equally, but it isn’t because just one has to suffer physically?

• Why would you want to have the child of a man that doesn’t want them to exist? Abortion is there to get rid of the child, so why not use it?

I feel like men get less empathy in this situation because almost all rape cases happen to women, but would you be ok with the fact that the woman who raped you gets to bear your child? I don’t think so. You didn’t allow her to have your baby, and you don’t want it. You wish you could get rid of it.

And I don’t understand your first point.
Are you implying that because something is new/different, that = bad? That is not a good argument.

Lots of stuff to unpack there, I went overboard admittedly, I just hate it when people don’t understand my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it, but at least try to understand plz 😿

[pale solstice]

so allow him to have the choice to not be involved

not to perform such a proceedure on an unwilling mother

how would you even do it?

[cosmic pivot]

?

Abortion

It’s too late, you are involved whether you want it or not, we can’t change that

What both parents should be able to decide is whether to have the child or to kill it. If both want to keep it, fine. If one doesn’t want it. Kill it.

[rare dust]

My first point was that no one should be forced into any type of medical procedure against their will. That’s just standard medical ethics. In any case, including this one, I consider it a violation of bodily autonomy. It has nothing to do with being new or different.

[valid rune]

No, because as it's a medical procedure on the woman they have the choice to have it or not. The man doesn't get to force the woman to have a procedure.

[pale solstice]

the woman doesnt get the force the man to have his baby killed

[valid rune]

It's not a baby yet

So no, if he wants one find a different woman, or a surrogate

Or adopt

Upwards of 20% of fertilized eggs, even in healthy individuals do not result in a baby

And it's probably SIGNIFICANTLY higher than that, but we don't have good stats on it because so many fertilized eggs just don't implant

Forcing a pregnancy even if we have a simple medical procedure that would remove it is like not removing a carcinoma because "surgery is unnatural"

Or like being effected by rickets because "Vitamin D supplements are unnatural"

You can choose that for yourself, but you have no right to force those conditions on others

[pale solstice]

matter of perspective

[valid rune]

No it's not

[pale solstice]

some may say its a living human

[valid rune]

If the mother has a heart attack that will never be a baby

Until ~25 weeks it's not an independent life

[pale solstice]

some may say forms at conception

[valid rune]

No medical science or innovation to date can keep that embryo alive

[valid rune]

Please refer to my 20-40% of conceptions don't result in babies

Because that's human nature

[pale solstice]

^

[valid rune]

Miscarriage is VERY common

And many more fertilized eggs don't implant

Egg + sperm does not a human make

It's a human "seed" if you will

And until you get to ~25 weeks gestation it is ENTIRELY dependent on the specific womb it implants on

[pale solstice]

^

what you are saying makes sense

but there is a VERY commonly held belief

that life begins at conception

[valid rune]

And blocked, you're not contributing to the discussion

[pale solstice]

and its not scientifically wrong either

[valid rune]

You're just parroting the same thing over again with no justification

[pale solstice]

go ahead i wont shed any tears

[cosmic pivot]

Alright, you have a firm opinion and a simple logic, I get it.

[stuck ore]

They are both responsible, they just have different points of no return. For men it is sex, for women it has been viability for the past half century.

Prior to the 1990s when paternity tests became more accurate and available, men could completely avoid any responsibility for a child simply by lying.

[pale solstice]

what do you mean by that first statemetn

[stuck ore]

Roe v Wade made abortions legal until viability (the point where a baby can survive outside the womb so is no longer explicitly reliant on the mother), with certain exceptions. Speaking of the US here, but that has been the standard for 50 years. And that is the general standard most of the world follows with its abortion laws.

[valid rune]

It's also when >90% of abortions occur

Main stream Pro-life in the USA has nothing to do with loss of life or suffering.
If they actually cared about that there would be far more funding for early childhood, single mothers etc.

It's almost exclusively about subjugation and control

[latent vapor]

But why is the woman not held to the same standards? Are women not able to foresee the potential consequences of their actions as well as men, so men should be held to a higher standard?

I agree on the rest, and I even agree the father shouldn't be able to force an abortion, but neither do I think the woman should be able to force an abortion if it is to even be allowed. I think both the parents should have mutual consent on what happens to their offspring.

That is different than the vast majority of the situations in which abortion occur though (at least here in the United States). All I feel is that no one should be allowed to willing fully cause the death of another by extra actions, such as tearing limbs off a child and removing them from the womb.

[pulsar galleon]

Take a break and tell me the formula for social benefits

[latent vapor]

Why should it be different for men a women? Do they not have the same level of awareness of what the consequences of their actions are?

[stuck ore]

Because children are not a punishment. It isn't about consequences. Once a child is born there are obligations we as a society have decided on. That children deserve support from both parents. That support does not extend to a right to their parents physical bodies for sustenance, before or after birth.

I am aware that both men and women, if they had proper sex education, would know that sex could result in pregnancy.

Sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy, not consent to follow through with that pregnancy.

[latent vapor]

Except for the man it is, also correct, children are not a punishment. Consequences aren't only negative, consequences are just results of something

The consequence of me replying is either no reply, or another reply

[stuck ore]

That's true, the consequence for the man is he will have no say over whether or not he has fatherly obligations. The consequence for the woman is she has to make a choice whether or not to go through with the pregnancy. And that choice has additional consequences.

[latent vapor]

Yea, so that's where we disagree then. You think men should be able to foresee the future better than women and therefore should be responsible for their actions much sooner than women. Seems kinda misogynistic if you ask me, no?

[safe mica]

This is exactly why it's clearly so harmful for the general population to believe that pregnancy is harmful to a mother, so abortion is somehow better for a woman's health. That's absolutely not the case.

[safe mica]

Strange epidemic of people just blocking those who don't agree with them. Doesn't seem to have much to do with anyone being particularly rude.

[safe mica]

There's plenty of funding for that. Pregnancy centers are all over the place. It's just a bit hard when you've got abortion activists trying to make them illegal or literally fire bombing them. But a lot of places offer free stuff for mothers up until the child is like 5 years old. Diapers, breastfeeding classes, medical checkups, food, etc.

[stuck ore]

Not better, just based on reality. Men can't get pregnant, so their foresight does not include "what will I do if I get pregnant."

And they have no recourse to force a woman to end a pregnancy, so yes they need to be aware of that when deciding whether or not to have sex.

The same way someone with a peanut allergy needs to know to avoid certain cookies. Not everyone has to do that.

[valid rune]

There are different means of contraception for the different sexes. There are different health concerns etc. for the different sexes. Why wouldn't there be different considerations? The sexes are fundamentally different.

The man shouldn't be able to force a pregnancy on a woman any more than the woman should be able to force the responsibility of that child on the man

That's why I said that within the first trimester, when thr bulk of abortions are performed, the man should be able to voice their opinion, and if refused by the woman, not be held responsible for rearing that child (aka treated as a sperm donor, not a father)

[stuck ore]

Also, I'd say the same thing to a woman pre 1990s. She should be careful who she sleeps with because if you get pregnant and want to keep the baby, there is no way to prove who the father is.

Everyone is responsible for understanding the consequences of their actions and their potential recourse based in the times they live in.

I'd also recommend for women today in red states to be more careful about contraception and partner choice if they don't have the funds to travel for an abortion and dont want to be pregnant.

[stuck ore]

I find this problematic. Because an abortion can be a very traumatic procedure for a person. Whether it be social or family stigma, religious beliefs, etc. It can also have its own dangers dependant on medical history.

So to say that if a man wants an abortion and the woman is not willing to do so, he can get out of child support, does not jive for me.

Child support is for the benefit of the child, not the parent. This is why technically parents can't waive child support. The courts can under rare circumstances, but they have to determine that it would be in the child's best interest, which is extremely hard to prove.

[latent vapor]

Men can get a woman pregnant though, so their foresight should include "what will I do if she gets pregnant". If she gets pregnant, he should be responsible for the kind, just as much as her. If he gets pregnant she should have to be responsible for the kid. No need to make hypocritical takes and contradictory points.

You peanut allergy statement serves my case well. The men do not have the allergy, the women do. If the man and the woman both consent to eating the cookie, and the women gets an allergic reaction, she should have seen that coming.

[latent vapor]

I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about consensual sex, the vastly most common type of sex. The pregnancy isn't forced by the man, they both consented to it the second they had sex. If you want to gamble, that's fine, try to stack the odds in your favor, doesn't mean the house won't win. Just because the house won doesn't give you the right to then go and rob the casino.

[stuck ore]

I never said they shouldn't both be equally responsible for the child once it is born. I fully believe that. However, the woman has sole discretion over whether or not she will follow through with the pregnancy, and the man knows this also before engaging in sex.

[valid rune]

Not what I meant, I was more talking about "lie about birth control/vasectomy" or "poke hole in condom". There are plenty of ways that a one party can be "tricked" into a pregnancy.

It's also far and away not the most common reason for abortions

And one particular subset of the population not wanting it isn't justification to ban it wholesale

On one is, nor are they trying to, force abortions on unsuspecting women.

[latent vapor]

I don't care how it happened, there are risks no matter what. If it can be proven that the man or women did something to their contraceptives, such as a hole in a condom, then they should be charged with rape, as the other party only consented given the measures taken (which then again are never 100%).

As for abortion though on the hole, I don't see any reason to kill a kid because 1. it is an innocent human 2. (in most cases) it was a consensual choice, whether they took precautions or not against it.

[latent vapor]

Yea, that's my issue. The man has to live with his choices, the woman gets coddled to the point of getting to choose murder to avoid the consequences of her actions.

[pale solstice]

abortion is such a wild topic, i feel no two people agree with eachother 100% on the matter unless they just listen to what their media tells them to listen to

[valid rune]

It's not a human though, just like a seed isn't a tomato plant

[latent vapor]

When in development would you say it is a human then?

[valid rune]

If you think your embryo is then don't have an abortion

[valid rune]

Once it is able to be kept alive without the life of the mother to whom it implants on the womb and developes

Currently that's ~26 weeks

And is dependent on jurisdiction and medical care

[latent vapor]

Do you view human as a concept rather than a species?

[valid rune]

I'd need more context as to what you think the difference is before I can provide you with a contextual answer

[latent vapor]

Well one is a biological determination, one is a philisophical determination

[safe mica]

The issue with that is that while it might draw an actual line, it's not at all a moral or philosophical line. The idea that the ability to support oneself determines humanity is a common justification for all sorts of evils, killing infants who also can't take care of themselves, killing the elderly who can't take care of themselves, killing those who are handicapped... we lose a lot of our humanity when we allow that to be the determining line.

[stuck ore]

She has to live with her choices too. Getting pregnant still has consequences for the body whether they abort or give birth. She just also has the right to say she isn't willing to share her body with the baby.

It's not murder.

[valid rune]

It's not that it can support itself, it's that without the specific and distinct life of that singular womb it cannot develop fully.

Until the fetus can be seperated from the mother and kept alive to fully develop its potential life does not supersede that of the mother

[latent vapor]

Do you believe the airman in a bomber plane who opens the hatch and releases the bomb commits murder when the civillians below die?

[safe mica]

I get it, it's just not a clear moral or philosophical line. Those who desire to be morally or philosophically consistent will be willing to take things much further, since the moral justifications for allowing a child to be aborted are the same justifications that can be used for the other cases I mentioned.

[valid rune]

No they cannot, because infants and the elderly can be cared for by any suitability trained and equipped person

[stuck ore]

It's actually not the same at all if the reasoning is bodily autonomy of the mother and everyone essentially. That says nothing about preserving life whenever possible in other circumstances that don't require violating one person's autonomy to save another.

[safe mica]

There's nothing in particular about being inside a woman at 24 weeks that gives you far less value than when you hit 26 weeks. And that's the crux of it. Devaluing life at 24 weeks necessarily devalues the life at 26 weeks, and therefore also a newborn's life, an infant's life, or the life of anyone who isn't self-sufficient.

[latent vapor]

^

[safe mica]

You either value life or you don't.

[stuck ore]

Sure, but that's not even close to an equivalence. Do you think a person who refuses to do partner dialysis for someone to keep them alive and healthy longer is responsible for their death?

[valid rune]

There is definitely a difference. Much like a boat missing all the portholes below the waterline isn't sea worthy

Like I said, the exact timing of when it is will change depending on the available medical infrastructure and training

But there are definite lines where it's clearly one or the other

[latent vapor]

If they made a commitment to do such, then went back on that commitment and it directly resulted in death, then yes.

[valid rune]

There is a fuzzy timing between 20-26 weeks, but +90% of abortions are a full month before that

[safe mica]

If you have a submarine in repairs with a massive hole cut in its size, it's useless for missions and obviously not operational. But even so, that government property is treated as just as valuable as the operational submarine that's out to sea.

If you didn't treat it as valuable, you wouldn't take care of it and wouldn't properly repair it, which is the same thing that happens when you don't care about a fetus as long as it's only 24 weeks old.

[stuck ore]

That's not how it works though. Someone might initially agree to do partner dialysis, but after a few weeks of being hooked up for hours on end decides they really can't continue. They didn't realize how hard it would be, the toll it would take on their body.

No medical professional or court would force them to continue against their will regardless of any promise they made.

We might judge them for not following through on their word, but I'd prefer that still be their right.

[valid rune]

It was just analogy, and it's a false equivalency. More accurate it's like having a periscope, 1 torpedo tube and a generator and calling it a submarine

[latent vapor]

That doesn't mean it's not murder.

[stuck ore]

Legally it does.

[safe mica]

If you're a couple weeks away from being seaworthy, you've got a hell of a lot more than that on a submarine.

[latent vapor]

DOing something to directly result in the death of another, is not murder?

[stuck ore]

Refusing to continue doing something that keeps someone else alive at a cost of your own body is not murder.

[safe mica]

The point is that suddenly becoming seaworthy isn't the thing that changes the value of the property, even if it strongly changes the capabilities and its ability to be useful in missions.

[valid rune]

It's very easy to cancel that build and repurpose the resources, especially if that project is not needed for wartime and would bankrupt the country and starve and impoverish millions of citizens

[latent vapor]

So you agree, doing something to cause the death of another is not murder?

[valid rune]

Not necessarily murder

I agree

[stuck ore]

It can be, depends on the circumstances. Murder is a very specific legal definition. You seem to be confusing it with any action that results in death.

[latent vapor]

Technically you are correct, let's change it to homicide.

[valid rune]

I still agree, homocide has a specific legal definition which doesn't apply to all cases where a specific action results in death of a human

[latent vapor]

Homicide is just an act in which a human causes the death of another human. The death could be accidental, reckless, negligent, or without intent to kill, but is still homicide

[stuck ore]

Homicide just means causing the death of another, but it is not always illegal.

[valid rune]

A doctor taking a calculated risk or operation that only has a 70% chance of success

[latent vapor]

regardless of legality, we're talking about a morality question

Legality is just the morality of others

[stuck ore]

Yup and I've always said I'm fine with the idea that abortion is immoral in many cases, but it should still be legal.

[valid rune]

Consensual medical procedure that specifically resulted in the death of the patient

Not murder, not homicide

Deliberate action

Still dead human

[latent vapor]

Ok I think that is a more fair point, comes down to wether you think immoral acts of homicide should be illegal or not then.

[latent vapor]

That is much different though, there was 2 consneting parties as you admitted. The patient knew the risks and through his own power gave the doctor right to attempt the procedure.

Did the baby give the doctor the consent to tear it limb from limb?

[valid rune]

It's not a baby

It has no limbs

[latent vapor]

Semantics. I don't agree with your view on what life is or isnt

[valid rune]

That's great, but you don't get to make that decision

[latent vapor]

Yea science doesn't agree with you either

[valid rune]

You can treat your embryos how you want

[valid rune]

🤣

[latent vapor]

Yea I can also go rob a bank, doesn't make it right

[safe mica]

If you're truly close to seaworthy, then it's not at all easy to repurpose those resources. No more difficult than decommissioning a fully operational vessel. The option of repurposing resources at all makes it not ideal for comparing to a child. But even then, repurposing is with the purpose of keeping another vessel going or creating a new vessel, not just destroying a vessel.

[stuck ore]

Depends on the situation. Withholding support which causes death and which could not be provided by anyone else I would not want to be illegal. Now you're opening the door to someone suing a bone marrow match who refused to donate. Abortion I'm fine with because of the very specific circumstance of the required use of another person's body.

Self defense I'm generally okay with but the issue there comes in when theres no way to really know if the person felt threatened or if that justified their response.

Every event of taking a life I could conceivably feel different about when looking at the unique circumstances. That's the problem with morality. Too nuanced for law.

[valid rune]

The growth and development of a fetus is exponential. So you would agree that if it's only 5% of the way there it's not very close

[safe mica]

There are literally limbs. They form long before a baby can survive.

[latent vapor]

No one is getting abortions at hospitals 23 days in

[safe mica]

Did you suddenly move away from talking about 24 weeks?

[valid rune]

Only EXTREMELY RARE cases are at 24 weeka

With extensive medical consultation

[safe mica]

But you're arguing that those are fine.

[latent vapor]

Is that internationally, or nationally for your country Oxblood?

[stuck ore]

Just to be a bit more accurate to the numbers

[safe mica]

Are you arguing that 24 weeks should no longer be allowed? I thought you were focused on viability rather than how often it happens.

[valid rune]

34 + 18 + 13 = 65% are before limbs

Thanks

[safe mica]

The rarity of something doesn't really determine whether it should be allowed, and we were specifically discussing 26 weeks (viable) vs 24 weeks (non-viable).

[valid rune]

And 90% by 16 weeks

[latent vapor]

Not entierly accutrate, they can develop limbs as early as 5 weeks

[safe mica]

Okay... so are you arguing that everything after 16 weeks shouldn't be allowed?

[valid rune]

MONTHS before that grey area of ~24 weeks

[valid rune]

No, that's between the medical professional and the mother

[safe mica]

Are you arguing that anything after 24 weeks shouldn't be allowed, since it's grey area?

Weren't you arguing that viability is the deciding factor? So we know 26 weeks is off the table then, right?

[stuck ore]

It's really easy. If the doctor thinks the baby can survive they should deliver it and see assuming that the probability of it surviving justifies any additional danger to the mother.

[valid rune]

I think if there is overwhelming "ProLife" they should fund the adoption and medical expenses for those that can be kept alive if they care so much

[latent vapor]

I completely agree

Although I am not pro-life myself

[valid rune]

There are also additional medical situations both for fetus and mother that would require consideration

[safe mica]

There are waiting lists for adoptions. The issue generally isn't people willing to take the children.

[valid rune]

I would also consider that wonton killing of a 40 week old baby is murder

But that's not what actually happening

[safe mica]

I'm just saying, viability does not add value to a fetus. Arguing that a fetus has no value before viability is a quick route to moral and philosophical difficulties with profound consequences.

[valid rune]

It doesn't have "no value" and I've never claimed that

Stop putting words in my mouth

[safe mica]

I wasn't trying to say you were saying that. Sorry for being unclear.

Many argue that a fetus is a clump of cells with no value.

I don't think you specifically said that.

[valid rune]

They are genetically distinct cells with the potential to become a human

[stuck ore]

Ya I don't argue that it has no value either. It just doesn't have a right to its mother's body. The same as every other human not having a right to anyone else's body regardless of their individual value.

[safe mica]

The argument I'm making is that the fetus absolutely has value that is important to protect, and that this value doesn't depend on viability.

[valid rune]

But much like a tomato seed is not a full tomato plant, a fertilized embryo is not a full human

[stuck ore]

The value doesn't depend on viability, but our ability to protect it does without violating someone else's rights and individual value.

[safe mica]

That's an odd comparison. Even green tomatoes are tasty, and therefore similar in value to full tomatoes.

[valid rune]

Embryo vs toddler

[safe mica]

As a reminder, we were comparing 24 weeks to 26 weeks, not sperm cells to a two year old.

[valid rune]

No we aren't, again that 20-26 range is HIGHLY dependent on medical access

It's effectively 0% survival before 20 weeks

And gets to about 75% at 26 weeks

[safe mica]

Did I misunderstand your position? I thought you were saying that the procedure being allowed should depend on viability.

[valid rune]

We are talking about 99% before 19 weeks or something similar based on subitising Pvt's chart

And 65% before 8 weeks

[safe mica]

That's talking about survival rates. It doesn't substantially change the arguments if we say 20 weeks vs 26 weeks.

[valid rune]

I do not accept you moving the goal post for ALL abortions based on a tiny subset

[safe mica]

What are you talking about?

[valid rune]

It very much does. Before 20 weeks it's not survivable without the specific and distinct mother's life

[safe mica]

Look, the ambiguity wasn't the point.

[valid rune]

After 26 weeks it has a good chance of survival with suitability trained and equipped medical professionals

[safe mica]

That's why I said 20 vs 26 instead of 24 vs 26.

24 weeks was muddying the water, which wasn't the intent of the discussion.

[valid rune]

0-20 weeks is effectively not survival with current medical technology

[safe mica]

Yes, that seems to be established.

And most survive after 26 weeks.

[valid rune]

21-26 weeks is highly dependent on locality, medical access, etc.

[safe mica]

Does the value of the fetus change substantially between 20 and 26 weeks? I would argue that it doesn't.

If a fetus is valuable at 26 weeks, then it is already valuable at 20 weeks.

[valid rune]

I would say it does, substantially

Because at 20 weeks there is absolutely nothing the father can do without the mother

At 26 weeks it's likely that anyone with enough resources could keep it alive

[safe mica]

There's no question that viability changes substantially. I'm just not sure that value changes accordingly.

And I question the moral ramifications of assigning disproportionate value to viability.

[valid rune]

To be clear, I'd also say there is more value in a 16 year old than a 2 year old

Would you argue against that?

[safe mica]

Absolutely I would. This is part of the logical conclusions that come from basing value on viability.

Your logic is consistent to say that.

[valid rune]

Even just as meat, there is more calories in the larger body

[safe mica]

I just don't like where that goes at all. Because it also necessarily follows that a handicapped person is worth less than someone able bodied.

It necessarily follows that someone old and unable to work or support themselves is worth less than someone younger.

[valid rune]

Depending on how they are handicapped

[safe mica]

It necessarily follows that an adult has much more value than a child.

All of that gets into extremely dangerous moral territory, in my view.

[valid rune]

Up to a certain age yes

[safe mica]

We lose something very important when we fail to value life for its own sake.

[valid rune]

Potential future value is speculation

[safe mica]

I do appreciate that you're consistent with your views, even if I disagree.

[latent vapor]

Would you give more value to a 90 year old or a 5 week "fetus"

Just curious

[valid rune]

Apple vs Microsoft stock in 1985

[valid rune]

Impossible to tell without more context

I've met both catatonic and also extremely intelligent and active 90 year olds

[latent vapor]

the average 90 year old perhaps

[valid rune]

5 week old fetus is Dime a dozen

[latent vapor]

I don't entierly know what the average state of a 90 year old is, but I'd say in the Western countries.

Lets say, male for both, the old man was previously an engineer

[valid rune]

Probably the 90 year old

[latent vapor]

ok

[valid rune]

Immediately lost value, he's going to die sooner and is too stubborn

Also probably full of obsolete and antiquated facts

FYI I'm a male engineer

[latent vapor]

lol

what type of engineering do you do? Not to get off topic

[valid rune]

Civil, specific to residential, restoration as well as other O&M for condos and high rise rentals

[valid rune]

I would use this curve (not the absolute values noted on the scale) but would adjust the 0 years value to about 25% and the 10 year old to about 60% of what they are

The gap I see as a combination of sentimentality, speculation, and sunk cost fallacy

You can also trace that line back through gestation with conception being the (-9 month, $0) point

Probably with a similar exponential curve to around that grey area of ~26 weeks, and a shallow up tick until birth

[valid rune]

Does it though? Is a doctor more valuable than a plumber? Because outside of North Korea that's the consensus.

Not valueless, but objectively of less value as judged by society

[safe mica]

That dives into what someone means by "valuable". Society is far from unified on that. But ultimately, the jump from worth less to worthless is not a large jump, so it's morally dangerous territory.

Society might initially think it's simply valuing certain people more than others, but the logical conclusion of such ideas is to give certain individuals no value at all. Over time, with that framework in place, society will progress to a point where certain groups are indeed valueless, as has happened in the past often enough.

I prefer instead to be part of the society that values life when it doesn't make sense, and works to make life better for those who seem to be completely worthless. That society will also change over time, but in ways that seem extremely positive.

[valid rune]

Then we should pay everyone the same hourly rate, regardless of the work they do? Homemakers, Doctors, Janitors, Quadriplegics, sports stars, etc.

There is a base value of life, but there is undeniably other physical and or mental capacity that adds value

[safe mica]

Legal compensation for a life doesn't determine the value of a life. You don't just get to pay 8 million and then kill anyone you wish if you're rich, because that's not how it works. The value of life goes beyond monetary value and beyond the market value of labor, into something quite intangible.

[valid rune]

Again please read my post, I explicitly said that I didn't accept those absoule values, and was only looking at the curve and relative comparison of value

There is the value that is inherent to any life, but there is undeniably MORE value in the knowledge, skills, physicality etc. of certain individuals

I fundamentally object to the idea that a toddler has the same value as a neurosurgeon. Objectively to society.

That's like saying a pile of timbers and a house have the smell value

Or a pile of paint and the Mona Lisa have the same value

[safe mica]

So if I am able to help a young man or a handicapped elderly person, should I focus all my energy on the young man, since that provides the most value to society? Ignore the weak and helpless in favor of those at the higher value levels? I don't think I'm understanding the point you're making at all. The value of a person and the monetary value of their expected life productivity in a legal sense are not the same and aren't really even related to each other, but you're speaking as if they're equivalent.

[pale solstice]

honestly for both of you

out of all the arguments here its pointless to discuss this one

because the issue isnt a matter of opinion its a matter of way of life

its not factual

its simply a core belief of someone

and an argument wont change that

regardless of whos right or wrong if there can even be a right or wrong

i feel all factual parts of this argument have already been discussed

[rough zephyr]

There is only one right in every argument. And it should be illegal it’s illegal everyone cmon

[lilac pilot]

Doesn't sound like a mindset of someone that can have constructive phillosophical debates, but that's just my interpretation.

[safe mica]

Why do you say that? What is the purpose of a constructive debate when you're involved in one?

[valid rune]

The assertion that there is only ever 1 answer and that is "I'm always correct" doesn't lend itself to the constructive or the debate part

[lilac pilot]

Thank you.

I thought that would be self-evident

So the thing is, we are on a fora that supports debates on philosophical topics where it is encouraged to form your own opinion and your views being challenged. Why would you then come on here to make a statement like ''there is only one right in every argument'', which undermines the whole purpose of this fora to begin with?

If you say that, it means you are by definition not interested in a discussion or a philosophical debate, hence you might as well just not be here

[lilac pilot]

There is no purpose to have a debate at all if it is not constructive.

Hence the reason i stopped responding to you

[safe mica]

Are you saying that if there is only one correct answer, then people won't have a discussion in order to arrive at the correct answer?

[safe mica]

It is also very difficult to have a constructive conversation unless people are willing to answer the questions that are being asked. I asked what your purpose was when having a constructive debate, not whether a non-constructive debate had purpose.

[rare dust]

Ah, yes, the old “cmon guys” defense. 😂

[cosmic pivot]

"It's just common sense"

[rough zephyr]

It’s because I can barly speak English my english is not good but the things I see and for what i understand for where I live (Bulgarian) it’s crazy🤣

[opal cypress]

In the Netherlands, it is at least €25 per child, and even a parent with no income at all is obligated to pay this.

[safe mica]

I think the standard over here is closer to $300 per child, but I'm not sure.

Nope, I was wrong. It averages $721 per month.

[opal cypress]

I mean, I didn't even look at averages

That's most likely a lot higher here too. I was just talking about the minimum

[lilac pilot]

Minimum in the Netherlands is in fact 0. A judge can rule to stop the child support under specific circumstances. But generally ofcourse child support is paid.

[opal cypress]

Oh crap you're right That moment when your country doesn't care about your kids

[lilac pilot]

I see it differently; its only ruled to be 0 when the marginal costs to the child-support payer are believed to be significantly higher than the marginal benefits for the child. E.g: mom has custody and a good job. Dad has no custody and no job. Costs for the dad far outweigh the benefit for the kid; child support can be suspended.

For example mom earns 10k/month and dad is workless/min wage. His child support would amount to maybe a couple tens of euros a month, whereas the kid already gets the equivalent of hundreds from his mom

[opal cypress]

In that case you don't have to worry

[lilac pilot]

Then it is not in the best interest of the kid or the parents that dad needs to continue to pay child support

[opal cypress]

But in my case, I would

As a politician, I make below minimum wage

[lilac pilot]

Yeah the reason im so adamant is because i personally know someone in this exact situation

[opal cypress]

So that minimum is very significant for me

[lilac pilot]

Politician? At what level of gov if I may ask?

[opal cypress]

Local

[lilac pilot]

Municipal/

[opal cypress]

Yup

[lilac pilot]

Cool

But thats not a full time job no?

So i can imagine you have a ''proper'' job

[opal cypress]

Being a full time single parent is my proper job 😋

[lilac pilot]

Oh nvm lmao, didn't mean it like that

[opal cypress]

Oh no, I'm just answering your question

It really is

[lilac pilot]

Its just that most people that are politically active in NL have a ''proper'' job on the side, so i was just assuming

[opal cypress]

I do, it's being a parent

[lilac pilot]

I agree

Although I think parenting is not considered a job by most

As in, it wouldn't show like that in the statistics

As it does not net you any money

You are providing a service to yourself, your kid and society, yet society sees it as a neccesary obligation

kinda crazy

[opal cypress]

But yeah, their mom's in so much debt, she's being told to go to the judge to stop child support, so she can pay it off.

Which basically just means, companies are more important than your children.

[lilac pilot]

Could also mean that a judge thinks that for the long-term benefit of the child, it is important for the mother to pay off her debts. But idk the specific situation, just trying to play devils advocate here. I can definitely image situations where it would be the preferred option, I have however no idea whether that applies in your specific situation or not. From what you've told me, probably not.

[opal cypress]

Yeah it's important the debts to those companies are paid off, but her debt to her own 2 year old daughter isn't as important as those conpanies, clearly

[lilac pilot]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/texas-abortion-ban-linked-rise-infant-newborn-deaths-rcna158375

"The new study compared infant death rates in Texas from 2018 to 2022 to those of 28 other states. The data included newborns 28 days or younger and infants up to 12 months old. Infant deaths in Texas rose by nearly 13% the year after SB8 was passed, from 1,985 in 2021 to 2,240 in 2022. During that same period, infant deaths rose by about 2% nationwide.

Babies born with congenital anomalies also increased in Texas, by nearly 23%, but decreased by about 3% nationwide.

“This is pointing to a causal effect of the policy; we didn’t see this increase in infant deaths in other states,” said Alison Gemmill, assistant professor of population, family and reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who led the research. "

[safe mica]

This is such a wild thing to say. "Not being able to kill your child linked to your child dying." It's like a parody headline, except these people actually are serious.

[latent vapor]

Yea that makes no sense at all, banning abortions in no way would increase death rates for kids. If you kill the kid in an abortion, the kid is dead, if it dies during birth, it's dead. Banning abortions can only decrease the death of children.

Assuming that banning abortion causes more infant deaths is just absurd. Now maybe if the claim was rising death rates in mothers, then that may be believable, as birth can lead to the death of the mother in some circumstances, which would be expected when we don't decide to play God and choose for ourselves who lives and dies.

[safe mica]

Except as I've pointed out a couple times, data show that death rates increase more for abortion than for childbirth. So you're putting the mother at risk when you do an abortion.

[high spire]

Well the mortality rate for aborted babies is 100%. It can’t get any worse than that.

[latent vapor]

^ logically it just doesn't make sense how decreasing the amount of abortions could increase the amount of deaths in infants, because at the worst you are going from 100% of babies aborted dying to 100% of babies with some sort of issue that causes death naturally dying, which is not going to be 100% of aborted babies, and for stats to increase it'd have to be over 100% increase which means every time 1 infant dies, it counts as more than 1 death.

The only argument I've heard that makes some sort of sense, which I know Falcon mentioned abortions putting mothers at more risk, I'ma definitely check on that, is that banning abortions will cause people to have unsafe abortions since no doctors (who want to keep their license) would facilitate abortions anymore, thus the woman is in even more risk of danger, and the simple answer to that is, illegal things usually aren't safe.

[safe mica]

https://medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/#:~:text=This review explores the relationship,risk of death from childbirth

[latent vapor]

Thank you, ima read these.

The first one is pretty clear, for first time pregnancies, women who had abortions, late or early, died more often than women who delivered, and to a lesser extent, miscarrages. That is actually shocking, I figured miscarrages would have a higher mortality rate than abortions, but hey, the more you know. Time for the 2nd one

"In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth"

[stuck ore]

Falcon had no interest in my rebuttal to this but maybe you will understand the significance.

Compared to women who delivered, the age and birth year adjusted cumulative risk of death for women who had a first trimester abortion was significantly higher in all periods examined, from 180 days (OR=1.84; 1.11 <95% CI <3.71) through 10 years (1.39; 1.22 <95% CI <1.61), as was the risk for women who had abortions after 12 weeks from one year (OR=4.31; 2.18 <95% CI <8.54) through 10 years (OR=2.41; 1.56 <95% CI <2.41). For women who miscarried, the risk was significantly higher for cumulative deaths through 4 years (OR=1.75; 1.34 <95% CI <2.27) and at10 years (OR=1.48; 1.18 <95% CI <1.85).

This is not about the risk of death during an abortion versus during birth. And it isn't about deaths related to abortion or related to birth.

It is simply, did they die within this period and also have an abortion or give birth. That is very loose correlation and it is not accounting for any factors other than age.

Someone who is poor is more likely to have an abortion and also more likely to die in general.

[latent vapor]

That is true. It didn't mention whether cause of death was considered in the mortality rates, and if those causes of death where in any way influenced by the method chosen of delivering the baby, early abortion, late abortion, or a miscarriage. It is just based on did they have a pregnancy, and if so did they die within 10 years. If so, mark them down for the category of what happened during their pregnancy (delivery, abortion, or miscarriage).

While you can argue that there is technically a coorelation there, it doesn't seem like an appropriate coorelation givent he fact it doesn't matter how they died, jsut that they did die. If a woman was shot and died within that ten years after having an abortion, it would inflate the deaths for that category, despite having no direct link to the abortion (even if she was shot for getting an abortion, that shouldn't be considered)

-Separating out the two talking points for easier viewing-
Question though, what about the 2nd article mentioned: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/
This one seems to be implying that abortions directly lead to a higher mortality rate, not that there was some sort of correlation, whether meaningful or not, between abortions and mortality for the woman.

[stuck ore]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9292639/

Here is the actual study that study is referencing when it brings up the 4 times as likely statistic.

Again, this is not a direct result of pregnancy or abortion, it is women who died up to 1 year after giving birth or having an abortion.

The original study also goes into heavy detail on factors that make someone getting an abortion more likely to die. It mentions being 14 times more likely to be murdered, and the impact of poverty, suicide, and drug overdoses on the maternal mortality statistics.

So again, this is not very compelling for me. Especially when every other study shows that at the point of delivery/abortion it is more likely for their to be complications resulting in death for births.

[safe mica]

First of all, I did reply. Your rebuttal ignores what I said and ignores what the article said.

Second, you're hyper-focused on risk of death during childbirth vs risk of death during abortion. That's not the claim I was talking about, not the claim the article is talking about, and not what's actually important for the women in question.

[safe mica]

The point of the article isn't whether you're more likely to die from complications of childbirth vs complications of abortion. That isn't even remotely all of the story. It is well documented that having a miscarriage increases your chances of death from all causes. That doesn't have much to do with complications of a miscarriage, but does that make it insignificant? General Bains seems to think that doesn't matter at all and that it should be ignored, which seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[stuck ore]

If the studies tried to control for poverty, drugs, homicides, suicide, things we know affect mortality then it might be more compelling.

[safe mica]

Maybe try actually reading the studies, especially the parts where they explicitly discuss these very factors? I actually took the time to find studies where the full text is available for free, not just the abstract.

[stuck ore]

I did, and everything in them pointed to these being factors that increased the death rate of those who got abortions but were not excluded from the sample.

I would only be interested in comparing deaths that could be directly linked to complications or health decline from abortions or births. So noted on as a cause or contributing factor in the death. Without that there is no causality link and the correlation is weak. Which is why I cate most about those that die at the time of procedure, because those are the only ones that can be definitely linked.

[safe mica]

I mean this is exactly the problem, right? You're only interested in complications from abortion vs childbirth. So why are you trying to issue some sort of rebuttal on my comments, which are not that, or on studies that aren't studying that?

[stuck ore]

They even said they have to way to accurately calculate most of the variables they were looking to compare.

[safe mica]

You're not interested in the claims these studies are making. You're not interested in the claims that I'm making. But you're still talking about it for some reason as if I have to get them to do a different study because you're hyper focused on specific things that they aren't.

[stuck ore]

Yes, because that's what matters. I'm including long term health affects. My grandma had a myriad of issues due to miscarriage that led to an early death. So something like that I'd consider related. But if you're just saying people who get abortion are more likely to die in 10 years due to unrelated issues, that's not an argument against abortion.

[safe mica]

I'm interested in a basic question:
Are we reducing risk to women when they have an abortion instead of giving birth?

That's the question these studies answer clearly. And the answer is a resounding no, we are not reducing risk through abortion. We are doing the opposite, and increasing it.

[stuck ore]

And I reject that conclusion. We don't know whether those specific women not having an abortion would have affected their mortality in any way.

[safe mica]

You're only including direct effects, ignoring the fact that there are many well-documented indirect effects.

I couldn't care less about your rejection. Why should anyone? You're not rejecting it based on objections to the study, you're rejecting it because you want to hyper focus on a different question than they do.

They explicitly talk about your question and why it's virtually impossible to get good data to answer the specific question you're looking at.

But that's not something you care about.

[stuck ore]

I do care about it, but I'm not going to accept a conclusion based on loose correlations.

Just because they can't get better data

[safe mica]

I mean you've already done that in claiming that other studies support your ideas.

They get great data to support their claims.

They aren't making the claims you are concerned with, but they're very much answering the question I'm concerned with.

Your studies do nothing to answer my question.

Are we reducing risk to women when we encourage them to have abortions? Absolutely not.

[stuck ore]

You are if the women who got murdered or overdose after getting an abortion would still get murdered or overdose of they didn't get the abortion

[safe mica]

That statement makes no sense.

How exactly does that reduce risk?

"They would have died anyway, therefore their risk went down." ???

[safe mica]

"Carrying a pregancy to term is associated with physiological changes associated with a reduced risk of breast, ovarian, and endrometrial cancers. Live births may also contribute to psychological benefits, or at least behavioral changes and lifestyle choices associated with being a parent which improve health and/or reduce unhealthy or risk-taking behaviors."
"Abortion is associated with an increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a lower assessment of general health. In addition, it is notable that the elevated rates of mortality associated with pregnancy loss observed in this study are on the same order of magnitude as the elevated rates of mortality among women who experience the death of a child under 18 years of age. Factors common to both experiences may explain the effect observed in both groups."

These things are completely ignored when you only care about complications from giving birth or abortion. Ultimately, only caring about the immediate operation does little to actually answer the broader question of risk to a young woman, and that's why studies conducted by those promoting abortion overwhelmingly very narrowly focus on that comparison, which has very poor data associated with it, instead of the better question of the overall effects of abortion vs childbirth on health.

[stuck ore]

It's not even in question that there is huge overlap between people who would be in a position where they felt the need to get an abortion and people who engage in substance a use, self harm, and dangerous lifestyles.

The question is whether getting an abortion causes an increased risk of these things in any way, or is a person who gets an abortion already in a situation that makes these other occurrences more likely.

I'm not saying the abortion must cause death, I'm saying I want to see a definitive causal link between the abortion and an increase in these behaviors and outcomes.

[safe mica]

And who exactly is going to perform that research? The people advocating for abortion who happen to control the funding for it?

You're dismissing these studies not because there's anything wrong with them, but because you want to see specific things that they didn't talk about.

The reality is that there's plenty of good things in there if you read the studies for what they are instead of looking for what they are not.

[stuck ore]

Though ultimately it also does not play any factor in whether abortion should be illegal.

I'd certainly want and do want women to be aware of all risks but as we have the freedom to make medical decisions against our best interest it still would not impact whether they should be allowed to get sn abortion.

[safe mica]

And what they provide is a much, much better look into the overall effects of abortion and childbirth on the health of a woman than any study comparing complications.

[safe mica]

Of course it is a factor. You don't think every single abortion advocate doesn't claim that abortion is the safer option, and that denying the safer option is denying healthcare?

The idea that the health of the woman isn't a factor in whether abortion should be legal or not seems a bit ridiculous.

Whether or not it is the determining factor is a different question, but why on earth wouldn't it be a factor???

[stuck ore]

Because people are allowed to make medical decisions that can have slightly worse outcomes or different risks.

If a person's desire is to end a pregnancy these types of numbers are not likely to sway them. 27 times out of 100,000 if you give birth you may die in some way within 10 years and 101 times out of 100,000 you will die somehow if you go the abortion route.

I doubt most people would think much of that distinction versus the guarantee that they would need to be pregnant for 9 months and everything that would go along with parenting or giving a baby up.

Give them the info by all means as long as they ultimately get to make their own medical choices.

[safe mica]

So why wouldn't health be a factor then?

You really don't think a woman being scared about her health factors in? You don't think a doctor factors the effects on a woman's health into his recommendations?

[stuck ore]

It may factor into her decision, it shouldn't factor into the legality.

Knee surgeries have ruined tons of people lives and been a savior to others. I'm not interested in the government deciding whether people can make that medical decision for themselves.

[safe mica]

Why shouldn't it factor into the legality?

[stuck ore]

In what other cases do we take away a person's right to make personal medical decisions based on that decision being potentially harmful to them in the future?

[safe mica]

Are countries wrong to ban lobotomies?

[safe mica]

When someone is a minor, for starters. Assisted suicide is also not legal in most places.

There are numerous banned medications.

Many plants are banned, even when proven highly beneficial medically, due to their use in producing illegal drugs.

[stuck ore]

Lobotomies are still technically legal in the US with patient consent.

Area dependent but there is no federal ban

[safe mica]

Not what I asked though, is it.

[stuck ore]

You said it's an example of us not allowing someone to make a medical choice.

[safe mica]

It hasn't been performed since the 60s, and the patient died. So you think that countries banning the procedure made a mistake?

Doctors are also not allowed to intentionally kill their patients in the United States.

Regardless of the circumstances and the wishes of the patient, they aren't allowed to just be intentionally killed.

[stuck ore]

And yet abortions are allowed, because it's not considered killing.

[safe mica]

Except it is considered killing by much of the world and much of the US, and therefore banned in certain places and heavily restricted in others. What's hard to understand about that?

[latent vapor]

I actually agree with General Bains here. Just because something may put you at more risk, shouldn't make it illegal. Just like chewing tobacco increases your risk of cancer. The only real debate I see for or against abortion comes with people seeing babies as living or not living. Or as that 1 other person said, at a development state where we decide ok, now you have enough value to be considered not-killable.

[safe mica]

Hang on, so you're saying that health shouldn't be a factor at all? That you're not supposed to consider how something affects the health of someone at all when deciding if something should be illegal or not?

Because I gotta tell you, the fact that you yourself have mentioned the affects on health kinda seem to make you a liar. You're obviously thinking about it at some level, which means it's a factor.

It's part of the discussion in every single debate that's had on this subject. Are you saying that's wrong? That people shouldn't be talking about the effects on health at all, no matter how good or bad?

[latent vapor]

I have a very libertarian stance. As long as it only negatively affects you, the government shouldn't decide. I don't think just because something harms you it should be illegal, that is why I ultiamtely think abortion should be though, cause it doesn't just run the risk of harming you, it kills the baby.

[safe mica]

But that's not what's being said. You're saying health shouldn't be a factor. Why not?

[latent vapor]

I was just curious on the effects, because I'd never heard of a coorelation between abortion and increased risk of mortality, not neccisarily that the increase risk should be a factor for it being illegal.

[latent vapor]

Well because I don't believe the government should be able to tell you what to do with your body, something abortion isn't as that is your body and your child who has its own life. I mean that is why I also support most drugs (except cigarettes, heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, etc. as those can affect other people) since you are only risking yourself.

[safe mica]

I'm not saying that it should be a deciding factor necessarily, but it's wild to me to think that it shouldn't be a factor at all.

[latent vapor]

Well yea, I don't think risk to yourself should be a factor, but risk to other people should be

I mean do you think tobacco should be illegal?

[safe mica]

That's just not how any part of life operates anywhere.

We mandate seatbelts. We relate drugs. We hold companies liable any time someone is put at risk no matter how clearly it states it in the terms and conditions.

Which again, I'm not saying it should be the determining factor necessarily, but I think that it should definitely be a factor somewhere in there. If we find out something is drastically affecting someone's health one way or another, that should be a consideration at some level. Even your exceptions take that into account.

Do you think those drugs would be illegal if they didn't pose a serious risk to people's health?

[latent vapor]

Well yea, but I don't neccisarily agree with required seatbelts. Drugs make sense though as those affect your actions, or some even just provide smoke such as cigarettes with their tar that go into the air affecting other people which I believe should automatically make them illegal. But, we also don't hold companies liable, if the person signed an agreement saying they won't hold the comapny liable (assuming what happened was in the operation of the company.

Do you think those drugs would be illegal if they didn't pose a serious risk to people's health?
No, I think they'd be legal if they didn't pose a serious risk to other peoples health, but then again cigarettes are a double standard there as you're giving unwanted people just in your vacinity 2nd hand smoke which leads to cancer, something that isn't their choice in public. I mean if they didn't alter your state of mind and they didn't have low lethal doses, then there wouldn't be any reason for them to be illegal.

[safe mica]

So at some level, health is a factor in all of these things. Again, not saying it has to be the deciding factor, but it's wild to me to think you shouldn't consider it at all.

For most things, I agree with you. If it's only affecting you and no one else, it should probably be legal. But I still think health effects should be taken into account at some level, even if it's only your health.

[lilac pilot]

Well yea, but I don't neccisarily agree with required seatbelts.
Well if you get into a car accident and get badly injured or die becasue you didn't wear a seatbelt, you bet that it affects other people. Not only your near friends and family, I also don't thank thats neccesarily something to be considered on a legislative level, but also putting extra strain on healthcare etc, which is impact on others that SHOULD require legislation imo .And this can for a big part all be prevented by one simple action; wearing a seatbelt.

Now I do mostly agree with the notion of; as long as it does not affect other people you should be able to do what you want. However, the line of ''affecting'' and ''not affecting'' others is more like a very big gray area rather than a clear line.

[lilac pilot]

There are many drugs out there that are illegal that do not pose serious health risks. There are also many drugs that are legal that do pose serious health risks. It has little to do with how dangerous a substance is and mostly just comes forth out of values that a society has, mainly judeo-christian values and just a more general conservative view on substance usage in general

Like sure, most of us probably agree that fentanyl should be illegal. But what if we are talking LSD, or mushrooms. What if we are talking prescription drugs like opioid antidepressants

[safe mica]

But health effects still factors into these decisions, right? I mean, companies have to do a recall if effects on health are suddenly uncovered. It's always a factor at some level.

[lilac pilot]

To some extent yes, but the policies (worldwide, not just US) about drugs and substances are generally rather arbitrary

It seems like often the line is drawn at recreational vs medical use

Even though many medical use drugs are often much more dangerous health-wise for example

[safe mica]

Sure, can't argue there. It's one factor of many, not necessarily the deciding factor even where it ought to be.

[lilac pilot]

And although it is a clear boundary where you can separate your policy if you wanted to, especially if you are anti-drug use, then I would argue that health itself has little to do with the dicision making. Best case its just an afterthought

[lilac pilot]

Yeah exactly.

Holy shit i feel like this is the first time ive spoken to you that we actually agreed on something ngl

[lilac pilot]

Also; even this is only true to some extent. So for example, if there are clear immediate health risks to some drug, then yes it has to be taken off the market in most places. However, there are many drugs that fall into addiction groups that do not pose immediate health risks, but do probably make you addicted to harmful substances for the rest of your life. Hence I mentioned opioid antidepressants earlier. These are often allowed to stay on the market, since their averse health effects are only long term, but can be just as severe.

And big pharma just says: "Well yes but it solves their current issues doesn't it?"

[safe mica]

Addiction does tend to be a stronger factor than impact on health.

[latent vapor]

By affecting other people, I mean physically causing them some sort of harm, such as 2nd hand smoke from cigarettes, alcohol distorting your judgement if a lot is consumed, etc. As for extra strain on healthcare, I mean, I can understand that argument from a system like the Netherlands where everybody is paying for everybodys healthcare, because if I am going to be forced to pay for someone elses healthcare, they shouldn't be able to just go around living an unhealthy lifestyle, but I'd disagree with the strain on healthcare in the US because we are paying for our own healthcare. If I injure myself, that comes out of my pocket, not other peoples. Now there is a discussion to be had about the fact that you are taking space and time in healthcare facilities from people who would be able to use that space had you lived a safer/healthier lifestyle, but then that comes down to a more difficult decision on whether laws should eb made to prevent you from doing anything that increases your risk of hopsital visits, such as sports, junk food, etc. Once again though, you could draw a distinction between the likeliehood of those involving you taking up space, such as junk food, it isn't likely you will be in the hospital if you consume junk food, but in excess it could very well lead to health issues.

[lilac pilot]

Yeah its not really about money, I'm not sure why you suggested that. It's about the overstrained healthcare market. There is always too little personell, so if you preventably take up a place in the healthcare system, that means someone else is not going to get treatment.

[latent vapor]

Yeah its not really about money, I'm not sure why you suggested that.
Everything is about money to some extent. I mean, the too little personnel comes from, not enough money. In the US, unless there is a mass emergency such as rising deaths from a new disease people are still building immunity to such as COVID, there are almost always rooms available. If not at a hospital, a quick visit to the urgent care. ICUs are almost always open to take in critical and immediate care-needing individuals here.

[lilac pilot]

Everything is about money to some extent. I mean, the too little personnel comes from, not enough money
Nah not really. It is because the status of the job has become so poor that no one wants to become medical personell anymore, regardless of pay. Government has raised the pay for workers in this field year after year but it has no effect on the amount of people that enroll in studies related to healthcare. Suggesting that money is at most a secondary factor

I agree that technically you could always persuade people if you put in enough money

if you give me a million euros every year, I will switch carreers and become a healthcare provider

But that is outside of the realm of reasonable expactations

Lets say that the price for healthcare workers is not elastic

therefore increasing the pay does not neccesarily increase the availability of healthcare workers

But maybe thats not a phenomena that is present in the society you live in idk

[lilac pilot]

there are almost always rooms available
here there are plenty of rooms available, just not enough personel to care for all the rooms

But I also feel like your worldview; everything is motivated by money; is quite a cynical way to look at the world. Many decisions are based on factors that are not economic in nature, for example emotions, status etc.

[safe mica]

An overstrained healthcare market is 100% a money issue. There's no reason you should have demand and no one willing or able to fill it, unless it's a money issue, usually due to government manipulation of the market.

[safe mica]

Medicare pays doctors less and less for the work they do, but somehow you've still got people praising the "low cost" of Medicare, ignoring the fact that it's only doctors getting paid less, but the costs are still very high. A lose-lose for everyone. It is very much causing physicians to leave the profession entirely.

Saying that increasing pay doesn't increase the availability of healthcare workers is very strange. That sounds like a horrible system you're used to.

[lilac pilot]

If prices were elastic, then sure. But prices are not elastic, therefore the supply and demand are decoupled from the marketprice, hence money is not the main/core reason for this phenomenon.

People rather work a nice job for 40k /year than work a shit job for 60k/year

[safe mica]

You realize doctors should be making much, much more than that, right?

[lilac pilot]

I think docters make around 100k/year ye

[safe mica]

Do doctors really only make 100k a year where you're from? After a decade in expensive, difficult schools?

[lilac pilot]

But i was mainly talking about healthcare workers like nurses etc.

[lilac pilot]

expensive?

School is basically free

[safe mica]

Yeah, no. Nurses are some of the most highly paid professionals where I'm from.

[lilac pilot]

and 100k is like top 0.01% here

[lilac pilot]

I mean, 50k here is already above median income

[safe mica]

If the school is free, then you're not getting the top 0.01% becoming doctors. You're just getting anyone. Ouch. I like your system less and less.

[lilac pilot]

Except you have no clue how our system works

It is nothing like where you are from

Education here is divided into ''categories''. Bluntly stated, the smart people don't follow the same education as the lesser gifted people starting from like age 12

If you are not so smart, you get into schools that prepare you for practical work

If you are smart you get into schools that prepare you for theoretical work

Like being a docotor

there is no; we all go to the same high scohol

[safe mica]

Yeah, y'all are clearly dirt poor over there. Top 0.01% barely makes 100k? If you're at top 3.65% in the US, you're making over 200k.

[lilac pilot]

Before or after tax?

[safe mica]

Are you saying 100k after tax?

[lilac pilot]

ye

[safe mica]

Because that makes a lot more sense, but it's still not 0.01% worthy.

[lilac pilot]

lmao

[lilac pilot]

Thats your opinion

The maximum legal amount you can earn in a payroll job in here is around 230k before tax

which is like 100k after tax

they literally earn the highest income POSSIBLE

[safe mica]

Lol, you wouldn't make the top 8% over here.

That's so wild. Your people are so poor, and it's government mandated. Wow.

Your top 0.01% doesn't even make as much as our top 8%.

Do you have any idea how wild that is?

No wonder you have issues filling your high skill roles. That's 100% a money issue.

You only have to make around $142k over here to equal the top earners over there. That's so wild man.

[lilac pilot]

Yeah but life is also much more expensive there

And a lot of the things we have here are paid for in taxes

Meaning that the money we earn, we can also actually spent on meaningful things

We are not actually poor

as a matter of fact, we have the 11th biggest GDP/cap of the world

So I'd say that mocking my country saying we're poor is kinda out of place

Netherlands doesn't work at all the same as where you live

Meaning thatt the amount of money you make also cannot be normally compared

Is the USA richer as a country/society, absolutely yes. But is that wealth distributed in a meaningful way? Absolutely not. That's I guess the differenec

In the netherlands, more people have a higher living standard on average due to the distribution of wealth being less extreme

mean, median and average wages for example don't say a thing if the wealth and income distribution is not a normal distribution

which it is not in any country in the world

Thats just statistics

[vital imp]

Lol. US is so poor they cant afford free healthcare

[latent vapor]

Wdym by the status of the job has become so poor? Like in your country healtchare providers are looked down upon? I wonder if it also has to do with the population size of countries, as in a country with a smaller population you just have less people in general to do jobs, but then again I'd assume the amount of jobs needed and the amount of people who'd want to go into it would scale with the size.

[latent vapor]

Well yea, but from my experience people usually go into a job for 2 main reasons: Money or passion, the best outcome would be both in my opinion, but that is not always possible. As long as cost of living goes up, more and more people will eb trying to seek for jobs paying higher and higher wages. There are some other factors though that can heavily force peoples hands, such as just their learning capability preventing them from getting a chance at taking courses and opportunities to go for jobs they want or that pay high, so their forced to look lower. If a field is in desperate need of workers, it'd only make sense to try and promote that field as much as possible and give incentives, such as higher pay, more time off, opportunities to earn bonuses,(here in America) better insurance plans, etc. Now that isn't to say that it will 100% bring in enough people, but it is a tried and true method that even the military here does it to get people to go into needed jobs.

[latent vapor]

Everyone can afford free healthcare, it is free.. Or do you not mean free healthcare (which doesn't exist outside of you treating yourself with things you don't need to purchase)

[lilac pilot]

Like in your country healtchare providers are looked down upon?
Yes pretty much. A lot of people consider it to be a low-skill job. With the exceptions of like doctors and surgeons but thats only a very small minority of all healthcare workers ofcourse

[lilac pilot]

As long as cost of living goes up, more and more people will eb trying to seek for jobs paying higher and higher wages.
Well it doesn't quite work exactly the same here because prices for many things are influenced by government policy. So unless there is strong outside forces creating mass inflation, e.g. war in Ukraine, the purchasing power of people here is basically stable.

Another thing here is that for many people, at a certain income treshold, money becomes a secondary variable, as quality of life at some point is not really correlated with income anymore. Lets say if you have a joint income of 10k net or more, more money isn't really gonna get you a better quality of life. Yeah maybe you can buy a bigger house or a bigger car, but not many people really care about that stuff. They'd rather work less hours. Which brings me to my next point, which is that most people that DO work in the healthcare sector, only work part time. Stereotypically they are mothers that work part-time for 12-24 hours a week.

And the final contribution is just that we are in desperate need of people in the workforce in general. There are more open jobs here than there are people who are looking for a job, meaning that pretty much every sector has personel shortages. But in due to the ageing population, the healthcare sector has an especially big problem, as the demand for people keeps rising faster than the amount of people that work those jobs.

And the combination of those things result in the fact that the price for workers, especially in some sectors like heatlhcare, is quite inelastic. Like for example, they would need to double the pay to attract maybe 2% more people. (maybe thats an exaggeration, but you get the idea, I don't know the actual numbers on that)

But I also have heard from people that lived in the US that the working culture here is much much different from for example the USA

They generally describe it as something like: "In the US people live to work, in the Netherlands people work to live"

Pretty much meaning that here people are at some point satisfied and are not really willing to give up more spare time in order to work more for example, regardless of extra income.

[latent vapor]

Thats a shame, I wonder why people would care whether its a low skill job or not though, since it is still providing an essential service.

[latent vapor]

the purchasing power of people here is basically stable
Would things such as shortage of supply affect it at all (not sure if that was meant to be implied in the "strong outside forces creating mass inflation)?
we are in desperate need of people in the workforce in general
Oooh ok that makes a lot of sense. So its more of a population issue rather than JUST lack of interest?
Pretty much meaning that here people are at some point satisfied and are not really willing to give up more spare time in order to work more for example, regardless of extra income.
I'd say that is pretty similar to here. The biggest difference I heard is that in most salary jobs people in the US get a lot less time off for vacations and stuff as opposed to European countries. Then again though, I guess that just depends on the jobs people go into.

[lilac pilot]

Would things such as shortage of supply affect it at all (not sure if that was meant to be implied in the "strong outside forces creating mass inflation)?
Depends. So if if is only certain goods that are exchangable then no. If it is essential goods that are irreplacable, yes ofcourse. But that is exactly the kind of stuff that causes mass inflation. So for example. when the Ukraine war started there was very littel sunflower oil as Ukraine is a large producer of this. Now this resulted in a normal bottle of sunflower oil going up in price like 4 or 5 times. But also all other products that use sunflower oil in their recipe. Resulting in mass price surges on certain product groups.

Oooh ok that makes a lot of sense. So its more of a population issue rather than JUST lack of interest?
Yes it is combined factors that ultimately lead to the current situation.

I'd say that is pretty similar to here. The biggest difference I heard is that in most salary jobs people in the US get a lot less time off for vacations and stuff as opposed to European countries. Then again though, I guess that just depends on the jobs people go into.
Difference mostly is that here you are protected by the law to guarantee e.g. 25 paid leave days. I can imagine that in the US in ''replacable'' low-skilled work that could be difficult to get.

[safe mica]

I mean, all of the problems you're describing are very predictable based on what you're saying. Government controls create a situation where:

1. High skill, essential jobs are not properly rewarded, and therefore not properly valued, leading to a shortage of essential workers that isn't corrected by normal market forces.
2. Because additional labor isn't rewarded, you have a shortage of labor, with many people unable to find workers due to an unwillingness of the population to work.
3. Any particular crisis will quickly get out of hand, since there is no resiliency in the market to react to new sources of supply or demand, with government response lagging behind by months if you're lucky.

You barely see the results of this now, since much of it is mitigated by the capitalism you do have. But as you commit further and further to the system you're promoting, the problems will surely get worse. I don't think you appreciate how much Northern European countries have had to reverse course on many of these policies to keep their countries from collapsing. North Korea had a high standard of living in the recent past. So did Venezuela. But all such systems inevitably fail because that's what they're designed to do.

[latent vapor]

Difference mostly is that here you are protected by the law to guarantee e.g. 25 paid leave days. I can imagine that in the US in ''replacable'' low-skilled work that could be difficult to get.
I actually find that quite the opposite, I think it is more of the higher-end jobs where it is difficult to get more time off. At least where I live, and from the people I know. And then of course I'm mostly knowledgeable on the cattle industry, for me it isn't even work, it's just fun, so I don't really care for time off, but if I need to, there is almost nothing holding me there as say we were branding, we can do that over multiple weeks, not just 1 small time. One side of my family though we have 2 business people, they're constantly working, even when they're off of work they're having to work. I think this comes from the fact that most "blue-collar" people here in the USnare understanding of other peoples situations, they've been in their shoes, they don't mind trying to help people out, but then on the business side they only care about business, they're going to get whatever they can out of you, make every last penny of your paycheck productive for them.

[stuck ore]

Higher education is free in most of Europe, as it shoukd be in any country that wants an educated population, so no it being free does not mean you get worse doctors.

There are also states in the US where college is free (Michigan, Florida if you had good enough grades in high school, plus more) though med school would still cost money.

[safe mica]

You're not paying people to become highly trained professionals. There's a huge cap on what people can earn. That means they're going to take their talents elsewhere, into a job that's not so strenuous. It's not a net benefit for society, and you end up with shortages of healthcare workers like Cury describes.

[lilac pilot]

Most healthcare workers are not higly trained professionals

[latent vapor]

(In the US a lot are, if not most, at least to my understanding)

[lilac pilot]

Ah look there is the difference maybe

Most healthcare workers are just nurses in nursing homes, homecare or hospitals

At least here

And you don't need a university degree to become one

That's why i mentioned aging population as a big strain on healthcare

Since most elderly people want to keep living at home, but they require assistance as they are not able to do everything themselves

E.g. getting out of bed or going into bed, taking a shower etc

Most of healthcare workers work in those jobs or similar ones

The amount of doctors or otherwise highly trained medical professionals is only a small amount of the total amount of jobs in healthcare

So there are about 1.6 million people working in healthcare, of which about 30.000 are highly trained medical professionals (e.g. doctors)

[lilac pilot]

Would you consider a nurse in a nursing home (for elderly people for example) to be highly trained? And if so, what education do they require in order to become a nurse?

Because to me, "highly trained medical professional'' is associated with doctors who did 10+ years of education to become one.

You can finish the nursing degree at about 19/20 years old. You can become a doctor at about 30 years old. Assuming you start your studies directly after high school. Quite the difference

[safe mica]

Nurses here are highly trained and highly paid.

Nursing is the most difficult degree you can get, period.

No one works harder in college than nursing students, and that includes medical students. Their school lasts longer and gets harder later, but nursing is worse. They earn their bachelor's degree more than anyone.

[rare dust]

After reevaluating what everyone here has said, I think my position is that only the wealthy should be able to get abortions, because they could hide it from you and get away with it anyway, but if you’re poor, you shouldn’t have any sex unless you really want to have a kid.

[lilac pilot]

well, there is your difference. You shouldnt project your society on mine and then reflect on why things don't work. It's because society is different and therefore things work differently

[safe mica]

Lol. No one is projecting. What are you talking about? You've got a shortage of healthcare workers, and the ones you do have are not as highly trained. Enough said.

[lilac pilot]

What jobs do nurses perform where you live, that requires a uni degree??

[safe mica]

Where I come from, you should be highly trained if you're taking care of patients. If you're sick, you expect those looking out for you to be highly trained. Is that a difficult concept? If you end up in the hospital, why would you expect those looking out for you to not know what they're doing?

[lilac pilot]

Most healthcare workers don't work in the hospital. And especially not nurses

If you take care of patients you are a doctor and you are highly trained

You only take care of patients in a hospital as a nurse in the sense of helping them get in/out of bed. Helping them go to the toilet. Bring them food etc.

None of which requires extensive higher education

It would be a waste to let highly skilled workers do that

[safe mica]

Nurses are the ones to administer medication, insert IVs, and do everything else related to actually giving care. Doctors don't do the majority of things for patients. Is that not how it is for the Netherlands? Doctors put in IVs for patients themselves?

[lilac pilot]

No a nurse is not allowed to administer medication, insert IVs etc. That would be a ''doctors assistant''

But apparently there is no english translation for that word

But yeah there are about 3/4 levels of ''nurses'' here

[safe mica]

What, a PA? Physicians assistants exist.

Kinda sounds like your nurses aren't really trained to do anything over there.

[lilac pilot]

Well, what i call a nurse and what you call a nurse are two separate jobs

[safe mica]

With nurses being the primary people to take care of patients over here.

[lilac pilot]

Yes and here its different

[safe mica]

So you've got highly trained people taking care of basic patient needs over here, and untrained people taking care of patients over there.

[lilac pilot]

If thats what you believe then by all means go ahead

But the reality is that the job description you described would not be performed by a nurse here

[safe mica]

That's literally what we just established.

[lilac pilot]

So say I am in a hospital. Do you only have doctors and nurses taking care of patients, or is there also other personell

Why would you let highly skilled highly trained people do jobs like getting patients to the toilet or give them food?

Seems incredibly inefficiënt

[safe mica]

There are all kinds of personnel. The primary people responsible are doctors and nurses. Doctors probably check on patients a few times a day. Nurses are the ones checking in on them constantly.

[safe mica]

Because you're in a hospital, and if something goes wrong, they can immediately recognize it and ensure the patient gets the care they need.

[lilac pilot]

Okay, yes here we have more ''layers'' of personell then i guess

[lilac pilot]

But yeah, it makes sense why the healthcare would then be needlessly expensive, if you let highly skilled people do work that the most basically skilled person can do.

Why would anyone want to go through 4-6 years of education just to end up changing sheets and bringing food to people

[safe mica]

Well, we do have more than just nurses that do that, but nurses often perform such functions. You do that because in those basic functions, you are able to see a lot of how a person is doing and what care they need.

How well they move and are able to move themselves, their response to food, all of these things are critical indicators that can be missed by staff who aren't as highly trained.

[latent vapor]

I'd say according to your definition of highly trained medical professional then you are correct, it is not a lot (comparitavely) that are, but here in the US the vast majority of healthcare providers (at least I assume it is the vast majority, since I don't know if the receptionist and such have the same requirements as RNs and such) are required to have at least a bachelers degree from a regular university or an associates degree from a specialized nursing school in order to become a Registered Nurse (RN). RNs are the people working mosts of the active jobs here such as handling the patients, including in nursing homes.

I guess highly trained would be a stretch for me to say by your standards, but they are definitely trained through years of schooling with most jobs requiring job experience in the field which most of our students gain through internships during their years in college or after they graduate.

I read through some of your dialouge with Falcon though and it seems the difference lies in with what the job responsibility of the roles are between countries as ours are much mroe hands on compared to y'alls it seems like, practically taking the roles of doctors. Whereas our doctors are more of the specialist.

[sonic vessel]

i think my biggest argument to this is the bodily autonomy factor. and what the government should even be making laws about.

i do not believe more laws and regulations will fix a much bigger issue.

i also don't think its right to take away a woman's autonomy over her own body when we accept a corpses autonomy. so that is my bigger stand. government law and autonomy. neither of which do i think should result in an abortion law.

[high spire]

Hmmm, I understand your point, but one issue I see with this logic is you're overlooking the other living human deserving of human rights: the baby.

What I mean is, obviously the unborn human is in fact a human being, and scientifically speaking: life begins at conception. So therefore scientifically speaking, the baby is in fact a human, so why should the mothers "right to autonomy" trump the child's?

I'm going to try not to get fully whisked back into this conversation, so I will give some rebuttals anticipating your response(s), and hopefully I will at least give you something to think about, even if your mind doesn't change:

Objection 1. "The baby is dependent on the mother to live, so the mother gets to choose because its her body that is being used.":
A good point to mention for this objection is neglect laws. A parent can be charged for neglect if they don't feed their child. The government "legally forces them" to use their bodies in order for the child's to survive. If they do not feed the child, the government can prosecute them. I would argue the same principle applies here. The mother is legally obligated to physically act to keep the child alive out of the womb, so why not in the womb also? The baby is still a living human deserving of human rights in both instances, are they not? If not, explain.

Objection 2. "What about victims of rape, incest, and what about mothers' whose lives are threatened by the pregnancy?":
I'm more than happy to temporarily concede all 3 of those points to you. If we agree that abortion is wrong and should be illegal in any case except for all of those exceptions, then that's great progress and I'll be more than happy to pick up from there.

---

Objection 3. The only other main objection I've come across here (as best I recall) is simply a disagreement over the premises. I of course claim the child is an innocent living human (and therefore deserving of human rights.) Here's a basic outline of how I got there (I kind've mentioned this earlier, but just to reiterate):

• Scientifically speaking, life does begin at conception. That's just a fact.
• A human fetus is from the human species (if not, what species would you say it is?)
• An unborn baby has not committed legal (or moral) wrongdoing, and is therefore innocent.
  -----> Therefore, an unborn baby is an innocent, living human being.

---

I'm not saying other objections don't exist, I just tried to hit the big 3 ones. I'm not intentionally straw-manning or generalizing the other side, I'm just trying to hit a broad spectrum of counter-arguments, and I recognize others do exist (so don't be mad if I missed/misstated something)

[lilac pilot]

Couple of things that I think you missed or are incorrect:

scientifically speaking: life begins at conception
As a matter of fact, if we think about conception as the act of a sperm and an egg fusing into a single cell, then scientifically speaking, life does NOT begin at conception at all. I don't understand why you make a claim as if your stance is something scientific, since its not. Literally all biologists you can name will agree that both the sperm and egg are living cells before conception. Meaning that conception is merely the act of two living cells merging into one living cell. Hence, life does NOT start at conception, rather both of the gametes are already alive. Even the sperm and eggs in all men and women living today are living cells and are therefore alive. It is a GROSS misconception to insinuate that life starts at conception and it is a huge misrepresentation of science to claim that "scientifically speaking life begins at conception". Its just plain wrong.

The other thing that I want to point out is that I believe you have missed one of the biggest arguments against regulating abortion laws, which is that many people believe that the government has no business making laws about the autonomy of of people and what they can and cannot do with their body. You can be against abortion, yet still believe that it is not up to the government to decide. I am in the camp where I believe that any person can better decide for themselves in the situation they are in with all contextual information present, than any governent official in some far away office ever could. For me, this is a matter that should not be illegal, purely based on the fact that I believe its not the governemnts job to regulate this.

[high spire]

Ok so regarding the point about life's beginning: I'm just going to paste something from online and work from that and let someone much smarter than I am explain it, instead of rambling at you:

the sperm shares the genetic code of the man; the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically-distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth.

Essentially, before fertilization, a sperm cell is genetically identical to the father, and the egg cell is genetically identical to the mother. While you argue a sperm cell is alive, its only "alive" in the way all cells that make up a person. A sperm cell is one of the father's living cells, just as a skin cells, or red blood cells are alive. The problem for you is a single living cell (lets say a skin cell for example) is not considered a human (and especially not considered a different human) than the one where it came from, even if it is broken off and has not died.

---

Perhaps a distinction that may help is if I add the words "new human"... Life for a new, unique human organism begins at conception. It seems what you've done is said that life exists before conception, you've just left out the fact that the "life" is not the unborn baby we are talking about in the instance of abortion, its simply 2 living cells genetically identical and non-distinct from other parental cells. The real point though is that its only at fertilization is a unique human made alive.

So if you respond to this with still a disagreement with my conclusion: Life for a new, unique human organism begins at conception, then I ask that you answer this question set, so I can further understand your stance:
Is a sperm cell detached from the father a living human organism unique from the father?
Is a skin cell of the father's that is detached but still "living" a unique living human organism?
Is a human zygote a unique living organism?

[lilac pilot]

First question is, can you please also share the source

[lilac pilot]

Essentially, before fertilization, a sperm cell is genetically identical to the father, and the egg cell is genetically identical to the mother.
This is, in fact, also not correct. Sperm and egg cells are haploid whereas any other cell in your body is diploid, making it that your reproductive cells have exactly half of the genetic material as the other cells have. Moreover, men have both X and Y chromosomes in most cells. What cells don't have these X AND Y chromosomes you may ask? Well ofcourse the haploid sperm cells as they only have either one of them and not both.

While you argue a sperm cell is alive, its only "alive" in the way all cells that make up a person. A sperm cell is one of the father's living cells, just as a skin cells, or red blood cells are alive. The problem for you is a single living cell (lets say a skin cell for example) is not considered a human (and especially not considered a different human) than the one where it came from, even if it is broken off and has not died.

I don't concider a single cell a human being, whether thats an unfertilized egg, a lone sperm cell, or a fertilized egg. I do understand the point you are trying to make. My problem with your statements is that they are worded incorrectly. And in a delicate debating topic like this, it is all the more important to use precise wording to convey your stance. I have not given you any content-related reaction. I was merely pointing out that you claimed something to be true, whereas what you were claiming is actually a false statement, because you said something different from what you meant. In the first sentence in this reaction it's the same. You are claiming that gametes are genetically identical to the father/mother, whereas that is factually incorrect and i can demonstrate that to you.

I am not attacking your view on the matter, I am attacking your wrong usage of biological concepts in order to support your view.

The initial point I was making is that you suggested/insinuated that sperm and egg cells are not living things, as you mentioned that life starts at conception. And then you went on and claimed this to be a biological fact. Both of these statements being false to begin with. Now I don't assume any malicious intent, that's why I am pointing out why, what you were claiming, is incorrect.

[lilac pilot]

Perhaps a distinction that may help is if I add the words "new human"... Life for a new, unique human organism begins at conception.
I agree that a new set of genetically diverse cells starts at conception. But that is not what we call life in biology. So to then claim that ''life starts at conception'' just shows either how little you understand about biology, or if you do understand biology, how you are intentionally twisting words and concepts to use them as support for your statement, even though they don't support your statement.

Again, I am not attacking your view on the matter, I am attacking the way you are using biological concepts wrongly in order to supposedly support your opinion.

It seems what you've done is said that life exists before conception,
It does. I don't think anyone here would deny that.

you've just left out the fact that the "life" is not the unborn baby we are talking about in the instance of abortion,
You never explicitly stated that with ''life'' you meant the unborn baby. That's not what most biologists would refer to when they refer to life. On the contrary, most life does not even reproduce sexually so in most life there are not even babies. Since you explicitly stated that ''it is a biological fact'', I assumed you meant the general definition of life that is used in biology, which would also classify gametes as living cells, hence your statement is wrong or at the very least misleading.

its simply 2 living cells genetically identical and non-distinct from other parental cells. The real point though is that its only at fertilization is a unique human made alive.
Went over this point already, they're not genetically identical or non-distinct. On the contrary, they are very distinct cells that can easily be shown to be non-identical. Also, genetic difference can occur through means other than sexual reproduction, so creating unique humans strictly does not require fertilization.

[lilac pilot]

So if you respond to this with still a disagreement with my conclusion: Life for a new, unique human organism begins at conception, then I ask that you answer this question set, so I can further understand your stance:

I don't think you get the point. In my reactions I am not disagreeing with your view on the topic. I am disagreeing with the arguments you use and the misuse of biological concepts that are present within your arguments. I am fine with you believing that ''life starts at conception'' but I am not fine with calling that a ''biological fact'' as it is not a biological fact. More strongly, biologically speaking it is even a false statement.

THAT'S what I am speaking out against. You saying something is a biological fact whereas in reality the statement you refer to is biologically false to begin with.

[lilac pilot]

Is a sperm cell detached from the father a living human organism unique from the father?
I think you misuse the word organism here, but lets just go with it.

No I don't think a sperm cell detached from the father is a living organism, as it only consists of a single cell, whereas its genetic makeup does not allow it to be self-sustained as a single cell.

Is a skin cell of the father's that is detached but still "living" a unique living human organism?
No. Same reasoning as before.

Is a human zygote a unique living organism?
No. Same reasoning as before.

They are all unique living cells, but none of them is a unique organism, as none of them are organisms.

But I think maybe you misused that word as I mentioned earlier.

[sonic vessel]

@lilac pilot very well written.

A lot of words I haven’t read or used since school. Genetics class was one of my favorites.

My issue with the life begins at conception argument is where does that logic fall to artificial insemination? Where eggs are fertilized but not all are used. Are those discarded lives or only ones in the uterus? And along those same lines then is the morning after pill abortion?

This is why I’m uncomfortable with the government making laws about abortion. No matter where the line is drawn it will still be a fight until we have more laws.

If we are making laws based on religious beliefs (Which is the root of any moral stance vs logical) then we at least in the United States are going against exactly what the founding fathers wrote our charter on.

Remember we aren’t arguing if it’s right or wrong, or when it is right or wrong. We are arguing should the government step in and make laws about it.

[stuck ore]

Just going to respond to point 1 at the moment. These are not comparable.

You must feed your child because you have accepted the responsibility to take them home and raise them.

You could give them up to the state or someone else if you do not wish to do this. No one will force you to be a parent.

When it comes to a woman sustaining a child in the womb, there is no such option. If she says she isn't willing to continue using her body to sustain the life, they remove the child, and because it is unable to survive outside the womb it dies.

We also don't charge parents with neglect if they refuse to donate organs to their children. Because while most people would, and we collectively would judge the hell out of any parent unwilling to save their child, we don't force giving up pieces of your body for anyone even your own child.

Bodily autonomy is taken very seriously in medical ethics and law. Even a dead person has the right to say how their body can and can't be used, even if refusing means other people will die.

What I dont understand is why people think babies deserve more rights than any other person. That they should have a special right to their mothers body that we don't recognize in any other situation. It's purely emotional.

If as a society we took the approach of weighing risks and gains when it came to these situations it would be different.

That would lead to forced blood donation, forced organ donation after death, mandatory bone marrow registration and donation. Because all of these things carry far less risk to the individual donating versus the gain to the individuals surviving. And if that were the case pregnancy would likely also fall into the category of the risk being less to the mother than the gain to the child. But we don't evaluate medical situations in that way, and I don't know that I'd want to.

[high spire]

That's a lot of paragraphs (I had a feeling I would regret this)

[high spire]

https://abort73.com/abortion/are_sperm_and_egg_cells_alive/

Just to clarify, I'm not using this as a textbook that you MUST accept or you're a science-denier, I'm only using it to say what I'm trying to say but better 🙂

[lilac pilot]

I would argue that this is a source that's biased on the subject and therefore I don't find it a credible source on the subject matter. Now for some things it ofcourse does not matter, as if they represent irrifutable facts, than I don't care whether its a religious ministery or some dr that's professional in the field. I would just like to express my concers about the potential biased view that this source may provide.

But yeah, the source should not be used as a credible source for scientific knowledge.

But now let me actually read it and see. I mean for a topic like ''life'', I don't think they will have the factual information wrong

[high spire]

Ah yes, it seems I got so caught up in showing that the sperm cell got its DNA from the father that I way-misstated that. Allow me to rephrase my point:
The sperm carries half the DNA of the father, I guess a better way to say this is all the genetic information of a sperm is simply taken from the father. So the sperm is only "half" of the father, and it takes the other "half" form the mother to form a unique person.

I don't concider a single cell a human being, whether thats an unfertilized egg, a lone sperm cell, or a fertilized egg.
I understand your position with this, but I guess my response would be that just because you don't consider a fertilized egg a human being doesn't make that to be scientifically true. I don't see this as subjective, or a matter of perception. It seems undeniable that the scientific reality would have it that a fertilized egg is:
A. living
B. unique
C. human
D. alive

My problem with your statements is that they are worded incorrectly
Yes I do apologize for any lack of clarity. It won't offend me in any way if you critique my word choice for the sake of clarifying the argument, so feel free.

I was merely pointing out that you claimed something to be true, whereas what you were claiming is actually a false statement, because you said something different from what you meant.
That's perfectly fine and I have no problem with this.

---

The initial point I was making is that you suggested/insinuated that sperm and egg cells are not living things, as you mentioned that life starts at conception.
I'm not so sure that I was wrong about that. We can get into criteria for life if you like, but metabolism isn't the only factor for life. You would at least agree that a sperm cell is not its own living organism, right? I think thats the part that really matters here.

[lilac pilot]

A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. An egg also has twenty-three chromosomes, and it can never make another egg. Thus, we have sperm that cannot reproduce and eggs that cannot reproduce unless they get together.
True. However, a zygote can ALSO not reproduce and therefore the argument is pointless.

Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are.
The same is true for a zygote. If not supported by the blood stream of its host, it will die in only a few hours to days.

The sperm shares the genetic code of the man; the egg shares the genetic code of the woman.
Partially correct, although there is some misunderstanding here. They indeed share some genetic material, but the way it is phrased suggests that the sperm is identical to the man's dna and the egg to the womens. That last part is obviously not true. Now they don't explicitly state this, so I'm gonna let it slip, but don't get fooled by this misrepresentation.

biologically-distinct human beings comes into existence.
Interesting wording. A biologist would never use this language. Although I believe this to be intentionally misrepresentative, strictly speaking it is not incorrect. Have to let it slide again.

Individual sperm and egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive."
True. This is how life works. A bacterium is also alive and does not sexually reproduce. It just clones itself. But that does not mean it is not alive. Sexual reproduction is not some precondition for something to be alive or living. I don't get the point though. They are so desperately trying to argue that a living cell is somehow different from a living gamete, although they don't actually provide any argument other than they have a strong belief there is a difference

[high spire]

But that is not what we call life in biology. So to then claim that ''life starts at conception'' just shows either how little you understand about biology,
Again, metabolism is not the only factor to be considered alive. And I have already explained that by life, I'm referring to the life of a human organism. I could say "well life really began millions of years ago" or whatever, but I'm not talking about any life of any cell or any thing, I'm talking about the life of the unborn baby in relation to abortion.

Again I'll just underline to be crystal clear: the life we are talking about here is the life of the baby that is killed in an abortion.

You never explicitly stated that with ''life'' you meant the unborn baby. That's not what most biologists would refer to when they refer to life. On the contrary, most life does not even reproduce sexually so in most life there are not even babies. Since you explicitly stated that ''it is a biological fact'', I assumed you meant the general definition of life that is used in biology, which would also classify gametes as living cells, hence your statement is wrong or at the very least misleading.
Ok this explains a lot. I think this is where the whole miscommunication started. I assumed because we were talking about abortion, when I said "life begins at..." that would refer to the baby. I do apologize if the confusion resulted from that.

They are all unique living cells, but none of them is a unique organism, as none of them are organisms.
I'm not sure I understand how I misused the term, but perhaps that is the confusion here. Are you saying something must be self-sustained for life to be an organism? Please explain.

[high spire]

As I said, you don't have to accept it as automatically credible, I'm only putting forth the point it was making for discussion.

@stuck ore Here's a past message I sent that should answer your organ/blodd donation questions. I know we've covered that topic in extensive detail and I don't see the need to rehash the same points.

[high spire]

True. However, a zygote can ALSO not reproduce and therefore the argument is pointless.
Well, if a human zygote is a human being (as it is) then it can, so long as it lives through the natural processes of life to that point.

Partially correct, although there is some misunderstanding here. They indeed share some genetic material, but the way it is phrased suggests that the sperm is identical to the man's dna and the egg to the womens. That last part is obviously not true. Now they don't explicitly state this, so I'm gonna let it slip, but don't get fooled by this misrepresentation.
I think the point here is the one I attempted to make earlier, which is that the genetic material of the sperm is 100% from the man, not "unique" (that may not be the best word to use) to the sperm, therefore not making the sperm genetically unique, though (as you said) that doesn't make it technically genetically identical to the father.

[lilac pilot]

Again, metabolism is not the only factor to be considered alive. And I have already explained that by life, I'm referring to the life of a human organism. I could say "well life really began millions of years ago" or whatever, but I'm not talking about any life of any cell or any thing, I'm talking about the life of the unborn baby in relation to abortion.
I fully agree that what we consider life is dependent on many other factors than metabolism alone.

If you mean ''human life'' when you refer to ''life'' that's fine. That just was not clear from the words you used. Hence I took the liberty to correct it. I would then suggest you to use the term ''human life'' rather than ''life'' as I personally believe that to be misleading.

Again I'll just underline to be crystal clear: the life we are talking about here is the life of the baby that is killed in an abortion.
I would argue that under US federal law, legally speaking abortion is not considered killing, so I would suggest to not use those words. But that's a separate discussion.

Same holds for the fact that a gamete or fetus is biologically speaking generally not referred to as a ''baby'' and I think the rhetoric used here is intentionally misleading. Not sure why you use these specific words to refer to these concepts, when you actually mean something different. Again, its really important with a subject like this to be really precise with the words you use.

[lilac pilot]

I'm not sure I understand how I misused the term, but perhaps that is the confusion here. Are you saying something must be self-sustained for life to be an organism? Please explain.
In general, the biological definition of an organism is something along the lines of "An individual living entity composed of one or more cells that exhibits the properties of life, such as ordered structure, response to stimuli, growth and development, regulation, energy processing, and reproduction. "

Now defnitions, especially in biology, are not set in stone and one can adopt a different one. I am not saying this is the one and only correct definitoin, but most university biology textbooks will hold a definition similar to this one. Now there are many things that a zygote lacks of this definition that would not qualify it to be an organism. Therefore, it is not condered an organism.

The fact that eventually it can grow and become an organism is irrelevant to the fact whether or not it is an organism at this point in time

We don't call a lump of metal a car, just because it can be turned into a car at some point in the future; we dont call a caterpillar a butterfly just because at some point it can turn into one.

Now again, I have not attempted to discuss this topic with you on any of the actual content on abortion laws etc. I am only attacking you on the things you say and how you phrase them, because to me that is important to establish before starting an actual discussion. Because if I have the feeling that you are saying things that you mean in a different way, then I don't believe there is a point in discussing in the first place. I am not in any way having critique on your position on abortion and abortion laws. Too many discussions in this topic have ended up in a semantic one, and I want to be ahead of that 😉

[high spire]

If you mean ''human life'' when you refer to ''life'' that's fine. That just was not clear from the words you used. Hence I took the liberty to correct it. I would then suggest you to use the term ''human life'' rather than ''life'' as I personally believe that to be misleading.
I think we have come to agree on this point then.

I would argue that under US federal law, legally speaking abortion is not considered killing, so I would suggest to not use those words. But that's a separate discussion.
Well thats what this whole debate is: should it be considered murder. Seems like begging the question a bit.

---

Same holds for the fact that a gamete or fetus is biologically speaking generally not referred to as a ''baby'' and I think the rhetoric used here is intentionally misleading. Not sure why you use these specific words to refer to these concepts, when you actually mean something different. Again, its really important with a subject like this to be really precise with the words you use.
I don't think its false to use "baby." I'll also note I'm pretty sure I've been prefacing "baby" with "unborn", at least most of the time. Both "unborn baby" and "baby" are accurate though, right?

In general, the biological definition of an organism is something along the lines of "An individual living entity composed of one or more cells that exhibits the properties of life, such as ordered structure, response to stimuli, growth and development, regulation, energy processing, and reproduction. "
Hmmm, from what I recall, and from what I can find online, it seems the universal consensus is that a zygote is in fact an organism. Even by your definition, I don't think an organism has to be exhibiting every single one of those properties all of the time for it to count.

Because if I have the feeling that you are saying things that you mean in a different way, then I don't believe there is a point in discussing in the first place. I am not in any way having critique on your position on abortion and abortion laws.
We haven't talked about actual law fair (and I never even mentioned it when I restarted this conversation to begin with) so I think we both are discussing abortion-law-adjacent topics, which I don't have a problem with.

[tropic moth]

Would it be ethical to kill a clone? Why does the genetic material need to be unique?

Almost all of us have moral limits to the justification for killing things. We kill pests because they annoy us, but we can't kill humans because they annoy us. It's hard to define exactly where the bounds are set, but we each have our own smell test for when killing something is justified. Claiming that life starts at conception is deeply dissatisfying because very little separates a fetus cognitively from a fruit fly.

Is the problem that the fetus will someday grow up to a human being? If so, why are we arbitrarily landing at conception as our starting point?

[lilac pilot]

Well thats what this whole debate is: should it be considered murder. Seems like begging the question a bit.
The question is whether or not it should be illegal. Whether or not it is considered murder is something completely different. All I am saying is that under the law, it is not considered murder, therefore I believe it to be misleading to name it murder, as you have no legal basis to name it like that.

[lilac pilot]

Hmmm, from what I recall, and from what I can find online, it seems the universal consensus is that a zygote is in fact an organism. Even by your definition, I don't think an organism has to be exhibiting every single one of those properties all of the time for it to count.

I am interested in the sources then. I cannot find any credible textbook definition that would consider a zygote an organism.

I will respond later though, I'll have to start my commute

[lilac pilot]

We haven't talked about actual law fair (and I never even mentioned it when I restarted this conversation to begin with) so I think we both are discussing abortion-law-adjacent topics, which I don't have a problem with.
No i agree. I think this is really important to discuss this too, especially in a topic like this. I was just trying to say that its not like I am saying all these things to dismiss your opinion, I am saying this to find some common ground before we can actually discuss.

[high spire]

Would it be ethical to kill a clone? Why does the genetic material need to be unique?
Our conversation started to go off-topic, so I think it led to some mis-understandings. The reason unique genetic material was brought up was to show that a zygote is "unique" while a sperm is not. Again, the wording may not be precise here, but hopefully the point comes across.

Claiming that life starts at conception is deeply dissatisfying because very little separates a fetus cognitively from a fruit fly.
If all that matter is cognition, then can we kill people in comas, or the mentally disabled?

Is the problem that the fetus will someday grow up to a human being? If so, why are we arbitrarily landing at conception as our starting point?
Its not arbitrary, if you read my conversation with @lilac pilot, you will understand why it is placed there [or at least the significance of conception] (it took us a minute to understand each other, but we got there)

[high spire]

The question is whether or not it should be illegal. Whether or not it is considered murder is something completely different. All I am saying is that under the law, it is not considered murder, therefore I believe it to be misleading to name it murder, as you have no legal basis to name it like that.
yeah as I said we strayed from the actual question which I don't have a problem with. We haven't been talking about law hardly at all so far. I still think this pertains to it though.

[tropic moth]

Its not arbitrary, if you read my conversation with @Cury, you will understand why it is placed there (it took us a minute to understand each other, but we got there)
Would you mind pointing me to the post? I didn't see it in my read through the thread

[tropic moth]

If all that matter is cognition, then can we kill people in comas, or the mentally disabled?
We do regularly kill people in comas. Still I think there's a compelling argument here: we take people off of comas in cases where we believe that given a lack of action they will die. Likewise, the argument could be made that given a lack of action, the fetus will become a human, while a sperm or egg would not. When it is (reasonably) believed that the fetus will not develop into a healthy human, abortion is justified. Maybe that's why you're pointing at conception?

Still, I'm not satisfied by defining human life as starting at conception. The mentally disabled and people in comas are still capable of cognition even if we claim it's to a lesser extent than a "normal" human being. I still wouldn't kill a chimp or a dolphin just because I didn't want it around.

[high spire]

@tropic moth Well its kinda pieced together throughout the whole thing, but about 3/4 of the way down he says it is not incorrect that fertilization is when "a biologically-distinct human being comes into existence." You could further see the significance of the formation of a zygote by reading our whole conversation; we talk about it sharing genetic information up until that point, and we touch on what makes something "alive" or not.

[high spire]

When it is (reasonably) believed that the fetus will not develop into a healthy human, abortion is justified.
That's progress I think. So the way the human will turn out is part of justification? Do I understand that right?

[high spire]

he mentally disabled and people in comas are still capable of cognition even if we claim it's to a lesser extent than a "normal" human being.
Bingo. And its the same thing for unborn babies.

[tropic moth]

Running out of time before I need to run but I'll come back to this later. The gist of my argument is that we require justification for killing all living things. The closer it comes to ourselves, the higher the cost to justify killing it. We justify killing flies because they annoy us, but we don't do that to deer. We kill deer for food (even this is argued over), but we don't do that to humans. A fetus belongs on that list too (we shouldn't kill them for no reason), but lower in justification cost than a "living" human.

[high spire]

Ok I understand your position, thanks for talking 👍

I'll respond by asking the justification for killing a child 1 day old versus a child who is 1 week from birth? Physically, they are very similar, so is it right to kill 1 but not the other? It seems the justification to kill either of them would be pretty close. Does that mean its almost justified to kill an infant? I think this view implies a few problems with how the "justification scale' is analyzed.

[stuck ore]

I'm not sure where you are even getting this. Who is trying to justify aborting babies 1 week from birth? This is not the law or the position of any significant portion of people.

The law under Row v Wade and the position of most pro choice advocates is that pre-viability abortion is fine because the child cant survive outside the womb and you cant force someone to use their body to sustain another against your will. Post viability, it depends on the circumstances but generally you should try to save both lives whenever feasible. For example, if the mothers life is threatened they can terminate the pregnancy if there is no safe way to save both lives. Or if the baby will not survive outside the womb, missing skull or something of the sort, which would fall under non viable as well despite being post 24 weeks.

The concept of "abortion up until birth" outside of medically necessary situations is not something advocated for by any groups that I am aware of, though I'm sure you could find individuals who are cool with it.

[lilac pilot]

Well thats what this whole debate is: should it be considered murder. Seems like begging the question a bit.
I don't think that is the question of the topic at all. You can make abortion illegal based on other arguments too. I don't think it is so self evident that making it illegal equates abortion to being murder.

[high spire]

I'm not sure where you are even getting this. Who is trying to justify aborting babies 1 week from birth? This is not the law or the position of any significant portion of people.
I'm trying to further understand his position. "Pro-abortion" people can have a wide range of what they think is ok or not. Some people absolutely would fine with a week before. Some people aren't fine with it at all.

The concept of "abortion up until birth" outside of medically necessary situations is not something advocated for by any groups that I am aware of, though I'm sure you could find individuals who are cool with it.
This uncertainty is why I was asking about @tropic moth 's personal take on it

[lilac pilot]

I don't think its false to use "baby." I'll also note I'm pretty sure I've been prefacing "baby" with "unborn", at least most of the time. Both "unborn baby" and "baby" are accurate though, right?
Well, to my best understanding, a concieved egg is called an embryo. From week 10 its called a fetus and after birth its called a baby. That's why I said its misleading to call an embryo a baby because it's simply not a baby. Same as why a caterpillar is not a butterfly or why a tadpole is not a frog.

By calling it a baby, you are suggesting that aborting a 1 day old clump of cells is equal to killing a baby after birth, which i believe to be a gross misrepresentation of abortion

But maybe that's what you believe, I don't know

[high spire]

I don't think that is the question of the topic at all. You can make abortion illegal based on other arguments too. I don't think it is so self evident that making it illegal equates abortion to being murder.
Yeah I agree with that. Again, I'll just emphasize that my focus hasn't been on law, as most responses I receive don't involve the law. Its also much easier to debate legality after one understands the moral and ethical standing of something, in my opinion.

Well, to my best understanding, a concieved egg is called an embryo. From week 10 its called a fetus and after birth its called a baby. That's why I said its misleading to call an embryo a baby because it's simply not a baby. Same as why a caterpillar is not a butterfly or why a tadpole is not a frog.
The term "unborn baby" is a very common term that I think conveys an accurate meaning for this conversation. For example:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/unborn-child#:~:text=An unborn child has not,who are not born yet.

[lilac pilot]

The term "unborn baby" is a very common term that I think conveys an accurate meaning for this conversation. For example:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/unborn-child#:~:text=An unborn child has not,who are not born yet.
I am not saying that it is not correct. I am saying it is misleading, as you make no distinction between a 1 day old embryo or a 38 week old fetus if you name them all the same. Since there are different words that are very specific about their meaning, I don't understand why you would not use them in a discussion, unless you are intentionally trying to be misleading or make a misjudging argument.

Let me add to that. My personal belief is that there is a massive difference between an abortion of a 10 day old embryo vs a 30 week old fetus. Therefore I use distinct descriptive words in order to more clearly convey my ideas and opinions.

If you deliberately choose not to use those distinct words, then from my point of view, either you are intentionally trying to mislead, or you honestly believe that there is no difference.

But i can't read your mind so I don't know which one

If its not deliberate, then its all a misunderstanding ofcourse, but that should be self-evident.

[high spire]

Well heres why, because I argue that abortion is wrong across the board, instead of saying all 3 terms, or however many you said it was, I can sum it up by saying "unborn baby" because its easy to understand what I mean by that

I understand distinctions can be helpful when talking about specific instances, but for the broad statements (as I have been making) it seems easiest to just use "unborn baby" as it is an efficient umbrella term.

[lilac pilot]

So can I take that and assume you believe there to be no differnence between aborting a clump of undifferentiated cells vs pretty much a full-grown baby? Its all the same to you?

[high spire]

'It is wrong to abort embryos, fetuses, and babies'
versus
'It is wrong to abort unborn babies.'

[lilac pilot]

Well strictly speaking you cannot abort a baby as that would be murder

As that would be a legal human being

[high spire]

No, of course not. Morally speaking: yeah its about the same, but technically speaking of course the 2 stages are different.

[lilac pilot]

Okay so if they are different, then why do you choose to generalise them? Its something I don't really understand I'm sorry

So here is why i think it matters:

• You can kill an embryo and its not murder
• You can kill a fetus and its not murder
• You can kill baby and it IS murder

There is a legal distinction between them and since the topic is about a legal question (should abortion be illegal) it only makes sense to me to make a distinction

Now if your position is that it should be banned because all are morally wrong and you should legally ban things that are morally wrong than that's a consistent position

But then we are in disagreement

But at least I can understand and respect the position, even if I hold different beliefs

[high spire]

No worries. What I'm saying is because I have only made broad statements, instead of using 2 or 3 terms, I just use 1, and the 1 term includes all 3 of the terms.

Example:
'It is wrong to abort embryos, fetuses, and babies'
This statement uses 3 terms; but the meaning of the statement is the same as:
'It is wrong to abort unborn babies.'
(not technically but you see what I mean, if not, theres a second example)

The times I would use the specific terms is if I only need to refer to 1 of the things, and not all 3 collectively.

Alternate example:
'I study mosses, ferns, flowering plants, and gymnosperms.'
'I study plants.'

They mean about the same thing, but the latter sums up the former in fewer words, and it avoids unnecessarily introducing specific groups, when I'm only talking about plants as a whole.

[high spire]

That is not my position, but I do however think morals are often helpful in understanding laws.

[lilac pilot]

Then I think its time to ask you what your position is. Should it be illegal and if so, what are the boundaries?

[tropic moth]

My answer to the question whether it's justified to kill a day-old baby or a week-old baby would be the same about a deer which would be the same as an adult human. Sometimes. The occasions in which killing something can be justified becomes more narrow the more humanlike the thing is/becomes. The difference in justification cost between a day-old child and a week-old child is probably minute and more dependent on the situation than the age of the child. Am I a time traveller and the week-old child is baby Hitler? What if the week-old child is my child? If you were forced to push a button that kills one or the other -- no other context given -- which would you pick and why?

Individuals are entitled to their own sense of justice. Vegans choose to believe that killing game animals for food is murder (i.e. unjustifiable). "Pro-abortionists" (quotes used because they are more, but not entirely, lax in justifying abortion) choose to believe that certain situations justify terminating a pregnancy. I think a hierarchy of living things is the best (maybe only?) way to satisfactorily explain why we justify killing certain things for a reason that cannot be used to justify killing other things.

[tropic moth]

Stating the current law is unhelpful in defining what the law should be. Killing a fetus/embryo/infant is or isn't "murder" based on how you (our supposed lawgiver) declare.

[tropic moth]

This argument (that we can terminate the pregnancy as long as the child can survive on its own) is also dissatisfying. Do you mean to tell me that a week-old child is self-sufficient?

Assuming we are allowed to help the child, this also seems to suggest that abortion should become illegal earlier in the pregnancy as medical technology advances. Morally consistent as far as I'm aware but just an interesting note.

[stuck ore]

Yes, I think that if it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb, and extraction does not pose a serious risk to the mother, that should be the course of action. If she wants to end the pregnancy for whatever reason at that point. 3rd trimester abortions are already incredibly rare so it's barely worth talking about.

Being self-sufficient is not the same as being able to physically survive outside the womb.

A one week old child does not need to be tethered to another human to survive. It requires caregivers, but those can be anyone and as a collective we should take care of children when parents can't or won't.

There is no comparison to a responsibility for a living child that can be relinquished at any point and being forced to share your body with a baby against your will.

[tropic moth]

If we could keep and develop an embryo in an artificial womb from conception, would we be obligated in your framework to outlaw abortion entirely?

[stuck ore]

In the hypothetical world where such a thing was possible and posed no additional risk to the mother, sure.

I don't know about illegal though. My position is not that abortions should be illegal at any point.

It should be between the doctor and patient. A doctor following medical ethics guidelines is not going to abort a viable pregnancy at 8 months on a whim without there being sufficient medical reasoning.

Because even then there would be exceptions. Genetic conditions that result in death at birth, or weeks of excruciating pain then death.

[tropic moth]

I can buy into this.

Say we wanted to sue a doctor for moving forward with an abortion that was not necessary. What would be the criteria for establishing that malpractice occurred?

[sonic vessel]

But we are losing the sight of the question. We aren’t arguing what’s a human, what’s a baby, or what’s a mass of sells. The question posed isn’t even about the morality.

The Question is should it be illegal. Should there be government interference and laws dictating legality and punishments.

[stuck ore]

Not sure, but I'd be willing to discuss that when it's a possibility.

For now I care about what is possible now and what shoukd be legal now. Just like before medicine had methods to end pregnancies relatively safely it was either go through with it or do some really dangerous things to force a miscarriage.

[lilac pilot]

Saying abortion is murder also does not help. Again, the question is not whether it should be considered murder. The question is whether it is supposed to be illegal. Making strawman arguments and ungrounded appeals to emotion does not help in establishing an answer to the question.

[tropic moth]

Law follows ethics. When we consider whether something should or should not be illegal, we are really asking the following: is an act ethical? If not, is there some reason that the state is not responsible for punishing that act?

Any discussion asking us to consider whether something should or should not be legal will necessarily require us to consider whether it should or should not happen.

[lilac pilot]

Why should the government then make things we deem immoral make illegal. I don't really subscribe to the notion that ''in general'' law follows ethics. There are plenty of examples of laws in different countries that would go against my ethical framework.

For example, I deem it unethical that wealthy people can get tax brakes or legally evade taxes, while many people in the same countries go hungry or have no roof over their heads. Three major branches of ethics are virtue ethics, consequentialism and Kantian ethics. Neither of those three subscribe to the idea that a capitalist system, even with pure markets and no government interference, are ethical. Virtue ethics will say that its not virtuous to live in luxury at the expense of others. Consequentialism will claim that the overall welfare decreases in a capitalistic system. And Kantian ethics will tell you that most systems within a free market are to use people as a means not as an end.

But in many countries, that's the reality.

If you would make laws following ethics, you would tax people that can afford it in order to help people that cannot

Also, there are many laws that prohibits ethical actions, which directly contradicts the statement that law follows ethics

And then we have the vast majority of laws that exist that are more or less ethically neutral

[sonic vessel]

Agreed law should be ethically neutral and deal only with direct rights or harm to person or property.

When a life becomes a life or gains it’s own autonomy could be an argument. But needs to be an argument based on more than moral/ethics/or religion.

A similar example is speeding.

So should an abortion law carry a graduated punishment like speeding does? Maybe based on the month?

Or should speeding carry the same punishment no matter the amount of violation.

Plenty of laws are income generation or only a real penalty if you are poor.

These are my issues with making a law.

If you are a firm believer in what should be made a law draft in your terms what that law should be and on what grounds vs arguing ethics of acknowledging a “life” based on the amount of time cells have conjoined or replicated.

And if you’re going to argue laws based on ethics and that’s how we make laws, as City pointed out plenty of laws aren’t ethical. Any slavery laws, plenty of laws pertaining to women around the world…. The list of immoral laws or opinions changes based on time and standards. So no ethics is not a good law making framework.

[lilac pilot]

I am not arguing that laws should be ethically neutral. Rather I am arguing that although laws and ethics may overlap at some points, there is no direct causal relation between the two. I don't agree with the statement that law follows ethics because I don't subscribe to the idea that they are strongly correlated let alone have a causal relation.

[tropic moth]

We don't disagree here. Do you believe that the law should give the wealthy tax breaks or loopholes while people go hungry? I suppose my wording wasn't very clear: descriptively, the law is not perfectly ethical; prescriptively, it should be.

[lilac pilot]

Well, your statement was "law follows ethics". My point was to show you that as a general rule of thumb, that is not the case. Maybe in an ideal world you would want that, although I think a ''perfectly ethical society'' would have many other problems. I am just trying to point out that law and ethics are generally not correlated.

What I believe the law should be is not strictly relevant. My claim here is that if law follows ethics, the law would direct us towards a governing system that is strictly socialist, as I believe that to be the purest representation of an ethical system under most branches of ethical phillosophy. Now although in some countries there are socialist tendencies, I would argue that no country in the world has a strict socialist governing system.

[lilac pilot]

Now as far as abortion laws go, there are many arguments to make based on ethics that both favor abortion laws as well as contradict them. There is no clear ethical framework that determines whether abortion laws are deemed ethical or not, as it mostly depends on the branch of ethics you refer to when making those claims and it is heavily dependent on the assumptions you make in creating an ethics debate on the topic.

Therefore my point is that I believe that ethics as a subject does not really have a place in a debate about abortion laws, and that it moreso is a question about law and rights and not about ethics.

So I don't really understand your comment:

"Law follows ethics. When we consider whether something should or should not be illegal, we are really asking the following: is an act ethical? If not, is there some reason that the state is not responsible for punishing that act?

Any discussion asking us to consider whether something should or should not be legal will necessarily require us to consider whether it should or should not happen."

As to me that is not relevant to the discussion on the legality of abortion.

Beacuse

1. I dont subscribe to this notion: "Law follows ethics"
2. I don't think this statement is true: ". When we consider whether something should or should not be illegal, we are really asking the following: is an act ethical?"
   and
3. "Any discussion asking us to consider whether something should or should not be legal will necessarily require us to consider whether it should or should not happen." -> This prior statement is interesting, but you make the assumption that whether something should or should not happen is neccesarily motivated by ethics, whereas I think there are plenty of other arguments you can make why something should or should not happen that do not involve ethics.

[tropic moth]

Okay, allow me to clarify further: the law aspires to be ethical, but often fails. I have no misgivings about the world being ethical. A perfectly ethical society will never exist, because we (its citizens) are far from perfect. But when you hear anybody arguing for or against a certain law (abortion for example), they are ultimately arguing "I believe this to be ethical (or unethical)".

I am willing to entertain that socialism is a more ethical system than capitalism (or however you want to define the flawed system we have now). If "no country in the world has a strict socialist governing system", my first question is: why not? It seems to me that socialism is not a stable system, at least currently, in most cases. We don't get to pick the perfect option, we pick the best option out of all possible options.

[magic citrus]

Simple answer

Yes

[stuck ore]

Abortion is just a medical term for ending a pregnancy. So not really simple. This idiotic attitude is actually why the bills being passed are so dangerous.

It's bad enough taking away anyone's bodily autonomy. But the wording in these bills also prevents doctors from terminating non viable and dangerous pregnancies until the fetus/baby dies in the womb.

You could have a baby missing half it's skull that will die within a few minutes of birth and the doctors still can't terminate in some of these states because "abortion" is illegal.

Even the states that throw in life of mother exceptions do so in ways that mean the mothers life must immediately be threatened. So even if they know the pregnancy is non viable and her life will be in danger in the next day/week/month they can't act until her life is currently being threatened.

Words and definitions matter when writing laws.

[opal orbit]

Imagine these statements in the context of self-harm.

My body, my choice!

It's in my body so I have the right to remove it.

It's not conscious, so I can remove it.

It's medically assisted tho.

Everyone should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

It doesn't affect you.

Stop trying to control my body.

It will always be a reminder of a traumatic event so I should have the right to remove it.

I didn't consent to having this biology.

[stuck ore]

It's not illegal to kill yourself. We as a society push to provide help and assistance for those in crisis, but ultimately if a person chooses to end their life that is up to them and we don't put them in jail for trying.

And in some cases it is even cruel not to allow them to do so.

We also don't punish people for refusing to use their bodies to keep others alive, which is what people advocating for making abortion illegal want.

[opal cypress]

I can't imagine a world where self harm would be a punishable offense. These arguments are less relevant to that than that psychological help is more useful than punishment, but they do still hold value, yes ^^

[opal orbit]

1. Allowing someone to harm themselves is morally wrong.

2. We legislate morality.

Conclusion:
We should make allowing and helping someone else harm themselves illegal.

[stuck ore]

Neither of your premises are valid. Morality is subjective, so in order to say something is right/wrong you need to add the goal and why you think that action logically supports your goal.

Something like this:

1. Allowing people to harm themselves makes society worse because in most cases the thoughts that lead to self harm are temporary and treatable, and having healthier and happier people in a society raises the quality of life of everyone in that society.

We also do not legislate morality. If we did, capitalism wouldn't exist. We legislate mainly based on protecting personal property to keep society going. Sometimes that overlaps with many of our personal moral beliefs, but it is not the basis of it. You could say theocracies legislative their personal morality if all laws are based on their holy book, but that certainly isn't objective morality.

[opal orbit]

We do legislate morality. You have different idea of what is right and seek to legislate it. This shouldn't be controversial. Conservatives seek to elect people who will legislate their conservative ideas of what is wrong and right, and democrats seek the same.

You seem to subscribe to a consequentialist morality. Am I correct on that?

If you wanna bring it down to brass tax then tell me your underlying moral principles. Our society has utilitarianism, the naturalistic fallacy and the no harm principle as the limitations on our freedoms. Do you agree or disagree with them?

[stuck ore]

Yes I generally tend towards utilitarianism over consequencialism. Our laws should be designed to prevent the most harm while keeping individual rights in tact whenever possible, because it would be impossible to legislate all the exceptions.

Somewhere out there is a 6 year old mentally and physically capable of driving a car, but we make the driving age 16 because that is when we have decided arbitrarily or scientifically most can be responsible enough to do so.

We make it illegal to roll a rock down the side of a cliff onto a highway always, as opposed to only the time that it lands on a car and crushes someone.

I agree that people will try to legislate their personal morality, that doesnt make it correct to do so. That's the reason we had slavery and women couldn't vote. Because people promoted their personal viewpoints over hmwhat was actually best and equitable for all groups.

[opal orbit]

"Yes I generally tend towards utilitarianism over consequencialism. Our laws should be designed to prevent the most harm while keeping individual rights in tact whenever possible, because it would be impossible to legislate all the exceptions."

The two aren't mutually exclusive and often go together. However if we go by utilitarianism, then on what grounds could you object to necrophilia, beastiality, and incest? All they would have to do is find a way to do it without causing harm, and it would be morally permissable?

"Somewhere out there is a 6 year old mentally and physically capable of driving a car, but we make the driving age 16 because that is when we have decided arbitrarily or scientifically most can be responsible enough to do so.

We make it illegal to roll a rock down the side of a cliff onto a highway always, as opposed to only the time that it lands on a car and crushes someone."

I think that this is still consequentialistic. It's the position of, if the consequences are societally good, then it should be allowed.

"I agree that people will try to legislate their personal morality, that doesnt make it correct to do so. That's the reason we had slavery and women couldn't vote. Because people promoted their personal viewpoints over what was actually best and equitable for all groups."

The issue doesn't seem to be legislating morality, but the type of morality being legislated. After all, we got rid of those injustices by legislating morality that is pro equality.

[stuck ore]

No, what I stated was not consequencialist. If it were, then if I rolled the rock down a cliff and it didn't cause any harm then I shouldn't be punished at all. We dont structure out kaws that way and shouldnt. They aren't entirely mutually exclusive though. We still have harsher penalties for when the worst possible outcomes occur, but under a consequentialist framework we wouldn't make it illegal to drive drunk unless you cause an accident.

It's pretty easy to object to necrophilia from a utilitarian perspective. Most people would not want their body or a loved ones body used for someone's personal gratification after death. Moreover, we recognize bodily autonomy after death such as with organ donation. So I suppose if someone explicitly stated in their will they were fine with being someone's sex doll then it would be fine, outside of the concern of disease spreading. But the default, as with organ donation, should be that no one gets access to another's body even after death without their consent.

Beastiality, animals do not have the capacity to consent to a sexual relationship. The same reason we do not allow children to consent. They can be manipulated and therefore we should protect them. Plus from a utilitarian perspective the potential for cross species disease spreading would be a serious deterrent.

Incest, this one is a bit different. Obviously when speaking of children or grooming it is wrong for the same reasons it would be with a stranger. However, if two consenting adults who happen to be related want to engage in a sexual relationship that is up to them. The utilitarian aspect would only be related to procreation and the heightened potential for birth defects, and again the potential for grooming is much higher in an incest situation. We are all related to some degree, so we have just drawn arbitrary lines as to when it becomes acceptable that have shifted a lot throughout history.

[ionic thorn]

combing through the thread, does pete still dislike lawyers 😅 i’m applying for law school this fall 👀

[lilac pilot]

If your argument is that

1. There is some moral standard we adhere to
2. We legislate morality

Then you would at least show that both statements are true, or at the very least motivate them with your own view, before anyone can accept these statements. A little bit earlier in the discussion I made an argument that law DOES NOT follow morals, based on the three main branches of moral ethics.

Just saying "law follows morals" or anything of that nature without actually going into detail explaining why you believe that to be the case is just, excuse my language, bullshit.

[elder rivet]

No, but he hates you in particular

[ionic thorn]

😭 rip oh well (hoping there was sarcasm)

[silver cliff]

The notion that the most definite line is conception rather than birth feels off the mark. Conception is when babies become explicitly alive, and is the clearest "on/off" switch to human life, if there even is one. Far less murky and subjective than conception

[wicked igloo]

You got some problems man.

Oh but then what would happen to the person carrying out the punishment? Oops.

It's not ok. But I'm ok with things that are not ok (unfortunately).

Not always 🙄

Likewise that's not why they don't work when they don't work.

Oops you didn't get it 🤷‍♂️ (realistically)

An infant is a baby... (so is a fetus but that's another matter and more relevant).

Anyway, I'm done. I guess I just saw this light up and it took me to random comments I don't care about. Sorry, lol.

There's a reason I never commented in this thread before. I'll go back to not commenting in it 😮‍💨

[wicked igloo]

Ah right it's you the new guy. Did Byz invite you or something?

[silver cliff]

No

[craggy wave]

Why would they be connected to me in anyway? 😛

[wicked igloo]

I suppose since you're not friends lol. They just came out of nowhere and literally joined yesterday and aren't in any other Risk servers 🤣

[lethal forge]

i think it should be illegal. i have great empathy for the pro choice movements and i think i can get behind it but i think the pro life movements are aiming at a goal that's more valuable. they genuinely see the unborn as the same value as a fully developed human, they genuinely think that abortion is murder, and they see the value of the life that will be and not just a clump of cells. they don't see value just as how valuable it is right now but how valuable across time and i think that's a main difference between bro life and pro choice. and i happen to agree with the pro life side. i think the value of a fetus is the same as the developed human because value isn't just what its worth at this very moment. but what what the fetus will be.

i will lay out some arguments and anyone may reply to them

argument 1: I already went over this in the beginning paragraph but i see value across time not just as what it is now. so for example if you had a coin and the coin is pretty much worthless but you know in 9 months it will be invaluable would you get rid of it now? even if the coin was of life changing inconvenience for those 9 months you had to wait for it to have infinite value? even if after those 9 months you would have to maintain the coin so that it didn't break or erode or deteriorate? id assume that if you see people as invaluable that you would keep the child and not have an abortion. even if the baby is an inconvenience to you, if the human life is truly invaluable then you will want to and feel the need to take care of it. and i believe that if you think differently then your morals have been skewed to the detriment of humanity in a kind of way. but i dont think thats really the pro chicers fault. maybe its the idea they stand fors fault but maybe they dont know what they stand for.

argument 2: this kinda ties with argument. but id like to point out that a fetus is human dna. so it is human even if not fully developed, i think it just depends on how much you value humanity, now there is arguments that what is valuable to humanity is consciousness, or the meaning that people can bring to life, or literally anything that a developed human brings that a fetus doesnt bring. but id argue that the fetus does bring those attributes if you let it develop, making it just as valuable (ties back to the first argument) and if you do abort the fetus, you are getting rid of the ability for it to develop into a grown human and preventing all the beautiful thigs like love and meaning and beauty that humans create. when you have an abortion you destroy a future that means as much as your current existence... it matters as much as your own life that you let the fetus develop and be born.

also i apologize if you cant understand what im saying due to my terrible English and punctuations. hopfully its still readable

now thinking about it both arguments are just the same idea explained in different situations.
the core matter is that i dont think value is only how valuable things are now but how valuable they can be.
and i believe that is true actually. i think that the future holds the most value. i think there is an ideal that you can conceive of for yourself. and that ideal is of more value than your current state but it is something that you can become. and the same logic goes for abortion. the futus may have to present value but the potential value is infinite. and it shouldn't be up to you to be the decider if that exists or not.

[cosmic pivot]

I like your argument, but I disagree on the base of it :

" ~ the value something can have in the future adds value to the value something currently has. ~"

I want you to try to think of counter examples and how this way of thinking could create some problems.

[cosmic pivot]

The major problem in my opinion is that you don't know for sure what the future value of a thing/action will be so you can't apply that "made up" value to something in the present

Example : everytime you ejaculate (and dont inseminate), childs, that could be born, arent. But you are saying this semen holds as much value as a fully developped human being. So should we punish everyone that doesnt make a child, while they had the occasion to?

Also, again, if you have something worth millions, but it's value will only be priced in 10 years/months (doesnt matter). And this thing worth millions in the future, costs you thousands to maintain right now, as well as physical damage and emotional fatigue. You might simply not be able to afford it, or not ready/willing to have it.

Lets say you can invest 10 000$ and make 1000% profit in a year, but you don't have the 10 000$ rn and cant borrow money. Even if in the future, it would be great, rn you are not in a situation where you can do it.

• Some people just don't want to. They don't see the future value, or present value, as meaningful to them. They have other things they would rather do