Printable View
Food for thought: no human has two hearts. Therefore, by the time a fetus has a heartbeat, it's its own person and aborting it is murder.
I'm cool with that logic. So, let's take it further...
No human has two different genetic codes; therefore, conception creates a second person* and aborting it is murder.
*If I'm getting terminology wrong (like it's DNA code not genetic code or whatever), please correct me so we can focus on the meat of the idea without distraction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-1744960.html
Not a fan of the starting point or further logic.
That strikes me as a uniquely different situation.
I think I would say that developing a heartbeat via the natural reproductive process is definitely different than doing so by surgical grafting.
Your starting point is arbitrary, and the logic doesn't follow.
^^ Stating that you're cool with your own premise doesn't make it valid.
Conjoined twinsQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Every mother carries genetic material and markers of every child she's carried.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Mothers of boys can test positive for male DNA - in rare cases of if you're specifically looking for it.
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/...7/55731137.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"There's a better home awaiting, in the sky, Lord, in the sky."
Any premise on this topic will be arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It can be reworded so that the idea is the same without technical mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think if the OP was perfect in all its logic, I still wouldn't agree with it. I don't know.
What counts as 'human' seems like the question here. Those biological definitions of what counts as human seem too simplistic imo. I think it goes beyond pure biology and into something more to do with sentience. Defining murder as ending the life of something that is 'biologically more human than not human' doesn't seem to work too well.
If a baby is born and the mother decides 'i don't want this' and stuffs it in a trash can that is definitely killing a human (i.e., murder).
If a woman takes a morning after pill and thus aborts a sperm-egg coupling that is distinctly 'human' (as opposed to 'dog' or 'cat' or 'werewolf') inasmuch as it contains human DNA that doesn't seem to me like murder. The thing doesn't have any sentience at that point.
If a foetus is 5 or 6 months old and the mother decides to abort, it's a bit more murky imo.
That's mostly the way I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
An added element from me, though, is that I just don't like abortion. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. Just something about it. Regardless of at what stage the abortion is conducted, it is the elimination of a unique human life.
I also think there is probably a negative correlation between how abortion-friendly a society is and how healthy the society is. That's certainly not demonstrated though; it can be easily argued against.
Wuf, I'm not being technical.
Your starting point is arbitrary. There is no reason to start your chain with a heart. Why not the brain? The kidneys? Stomach? Face? A person would need all of these. So It's arbitrary. However, these pieces do have different development times. I'm not going to bother researching them, but if the heart developed at 5 weeks, then you've forced 5 weeks as the cut off. That cut off is therefore also arbitrary.
Nevertheless, the logic doesn't follow even with genetic code, dna, or whatever. When you break it down to simple logical statements, you'll see you're assuming your premise. You are assuming that it is a heart that makes a person a person. Or that it is a unique genetic code. It's ultimately irrelevant whether someone can never have two of these things...your argument depends on one being an ID of personhood
https://i.gyazo.com/9c0e7a440e41c2b9...22822de590.png
Someone posted this on my facebook feed and I find it hard to disagree with. Libertarians are pretty well split on abortion so even though I'm pro-choice, I see many valid anti-abortion arguments. It's just something where you have to make a hard call and value one important thing more than another. I'm okay with the status quo of "legal-with-conditions" that is put into place in most U.S. states at present.
So that's how a checkmate looks likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
So, the bodily autonomy thing, I like. It's logical, and makes sense to me. I'm buying it.
Then I thought about it more, and I need help reconciling that view with some of my other views.
In regards to stem cell research and the controversy last year about planned parenthood selling fetuses...
My thinking has been "who cares, those fetuses are going in the trash anyway"
How do I reconcile that with bodily autonomy? Doesn't the fetus have the right to dictate what happens to its remains? Don't the stem cell scientists need consent?
Furthermore, if bodily autonomy matters, why do we make an exception for example, when police turn over the remains of John and Jane doe for use as medical cadavers?
The person who disagrees just says "bodily autonomy except for when it's a baby." And the rationale is valid. When a human life depends on your body, it's a unique situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It goes even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What if Jeff and Jim are abducted by Mad Scientist, who cuts off Jim's head and attaches it to Jeff's shoulder, keeping Jim's brain fully alive yet turning his life dependent on Jeff's body? What if the cops bust Mad Scientist and Jeff-and-Jim's-head are taken to the hospital and Jeff wants to cut off Jim's head from his shoulder? Bodily autonomy, right? Yeah but Jim is still conscious and mentally autonomous.
We may never be able to logically figure this shit out.
You realise you've just mentioned a situation in which is easily resolved by bodily autonomy right?
I agree it's a nonsense to just assume that's a correct answer to why abortion is ok however it is a very valid argument.
:lol:
I think I've seen that movie.
How so? I thought about it for a while and couldn't come to a conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Yeah it'd be fine under the rules of that concept. It doesn't mean the concept isn't valid for other things nor does a concept applying to one situation means it applies to all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
True but doesn't that also negate the "bodily autonomy" thing? You can just say "oh it doesn't apply here...because different."
It depends on what you're talking about, as I said it isn't like it's a universal truth. Realistically though it also applies in the situation you're talking about. They were essentially murdered and the fact that someone did something atrocious shouldn't mean that another person should have to bare the burden of that. You might think it's fucked up for that person to not allow another person to use their body to live but at the same time it isn't something you'd accept if it wasn't forced upon you.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ultimately you could debate bodily autonomy isn't well or deeply explained in that post. It is just a quick answer to a question asked by a person with an interest in a subject and if they wanted they'd look into it more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38840657
Does this strike anyone else as really strange? Makes me a bit uncomfortable really (therefore it should be banned).
It is a bit strange, but if it helps them get over their loss then why not? It's not like they're taking the baby home and making sausages out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Mostly agree, though taking the baby out in.....I assume 'pram' is British for 'baby carriage' .....seems a little offside. I understand you're grieving, but I'm not sure anyone in public wants to see a dead baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My hilarity is wasted on this forum.
Pram = baby carriage, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I doubt the corpse is draped over the top of the carriage for all to see. More likely it's wrapped in a blanket inside like a living baby would be. Does seem a bit macabre though.
Your hilarity should be banned.