You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Debunking a Woman's Right to Choose in Four Words
I'm not disagreeing with your stance, I respect it. However I do have one question.... actually a few questions.
In your view, when is the baby officially a person? and what makes the baby become a person?
I just had to google the definition of person before answering, and I accidentally missed the final letter before I pressed the search button. Google showed me that perso means "lost" in Italian. Given this language was primary given to us by the Romans, I find that very interesting, for we are very fucking lost today.
In truth I think the answer you ask is a very difficult one, and it is that difficulty in ascertaining when a life becomes worthy of the title "human being" that leads me to believe it's a human being from the moment of conception. But I think if we are to be consistent, the allowance of abortions should also support the allowance of killing children up until whatever age they have the mental faculties to say, "I object to this decision," which would typically be over a year after their birth.
Well, I don't think even the most "liberal" of politicians would ever condone such laws and frankly I would pitchfork against it myself.
I guess the reason why I ask the question is because until as a society we can't agree on that definition. On when it becomes a human, people will continue to talk past each other. You see what I mean?
Because we have people who have the religious belief (nothing wrong with that, to each his own) that it happens at the point of conception.
Then we have the pragmatics who believe that it happens when its born.
So its not a black and white foundational understanding, its nuanced, I get it. I'm wondering though if we are ever going to find something even closely resembling common ground.
We already found common ground, my friend. You must simply have overlooked it. We both agree that it's impossible to tell at which point a life becomes too valuable to bring an end to. But if we can agree that this is very difficult to agree on, I do not see then why the default decision we fall back on would be to terminate lives up to x point in the pregnancy. What does that say about society? It seems that if this were a morally inclined society, the inability to establish at what point a human life is worth saving should lead to the obvious moral truth that they're all worth saving.
I understand why abortion is legal from the perspective of the people in power who both profit from it in a monetary sense and by keeping the population low, but from the perspective of a normal citizen, I find it it very difficult to empathize with the position of abortion advocates. Perhaps you can assist me in understanding by giving me your best pro abortion point? I ask because I will have a better ability to argue my cause to pro abortionists in future if I better understand the reasons why they believe it ought to be acceptable. Typically I just here really illogical excuses that seem to be spawning from a place of guilt. You on the other hand seem very sound of mine and have entered this conversation with your emotions under control, so I think you're the perfect candidate to hash this out with.
I don't have a pro abortion statement per say. In my opinion anyone that can break it down with a positive spin is doing moral contortionism at best. However, I'm also aware of what happens when we deem things ilegal.
In south america, (where my father lives) abortion is ilegal. Does it still happen? All the freaking time, as a matter of fact, its possibly even worse down there because of the clandestine nature of it.
Meaning, newer generations get pumped with the idea of "sex is wrong, so says God" and they simply hide the sexuality aspect of life.
Then they discover it, and indulge, but in complete ignorance.
I actually had someone tell me once, you will think I'm making this up, but its 100% accurate.
"all you gotta do, is make sure she takes 2 aspirings and drinks a whole coke before you do it... she can't get pregnant like that"
That's funny, but its not supposed to be.
So, to me... and this is my opinion, the fact that is morally wrong, or unethical and having a conversation from that platform might not be as productive as the establishment of systems that educate the young to make better, healthier choices.
Will this eliminate abortions? possibly not, but I'm convinced it would reduce them if less people think the aspirin thing works.
That being said, I also don't have the political artistry to come up with a way to both allow choice and prevent abuse (which happens). That requires a brain that is not currently in circulation, or a whole different species all together.
Let's get into this from the perspective of consciousness in beings. You know you are conscious. I know I am conscious. But is a baby that hasn't even developed in the womb conscious?
It's the subtle difference between animated machines and humans. By animated machines, I include all the AI that are emerging nowadays. Even though they might be animated, or they may portray consciousness, are they really conscious? The answer is no. They are designed to look conscious and this difference can be smelled from a mile away. We have all used Alexa, Siri, and Cortana to do our bidding time and again, and don't think twice before shutting them off or even erasing or deleting them simply because they aren't conscious of themselves and don't have the human desire to live.
A similar argument which I'd like to make is about machines. They are simply animated with responses designed in them. They don't have a will of their own. Similar to how a baby inside the womb is more of a machine which develops from the splitting of cells. That goes on until the time that it can actually be conscious of it's being sometime during the seventh, eighth and ninth months of pregnancy. It doesn't grow a brain strong enough to comprehend its own existence until then. It just has a basic function designed to keep the body which has been built to stay "alive" in a sense. This function is more about animation than it is about consciousness and serves as a preparation period for the brain to start fully functioning in, or for the child to be truly alive. Until then, it has no sense of its own existence. It's just repetitively doing what its DNA tells it to do. It is essentially a machine. You wouldn't think twice about destroying a machine. Why not a cellular one?
Your argument of allowing abortions until they are worthy of cognition is certainly a strong one. After all, you don't boil an egg and say that you're eating a chick even though you are devouring the unborn. You don't compare it abortion because it can't comprehend anything it.
But when it comes to a legal perspective, which is more or less what this question is about, being pro-life is stripping people of their rights. It is their wish to take responsibility for a child, or even give birth to one. And it isn't hampering anyone's life because of the aforementioned reasons. It still hasn't exactly found life yet. The child is their responsibility, and they can choose to deny it.
Going off topic here, an ID Card is called "Personalausweiß" in Germany. It is usually shortened to "Perso" in day to day language.
Which is funny now that I have learned about this bit of the italian language. If someone manages to lose his ID Card, calling it a "Perso" now feels more fitting than ever to me.