🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I think I am very unusual in the sense that I believe abortions should be tax-paid, free to everyone, and pregnancy tests should also be free.... BUT I also think abortion should be very limited, to something around the first **10 weeks** at most.
I've had both right and left leaning folks loose their shit over that. Always entertaining
mia
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@realcaseyrollins who said anything about "where life begins"... a barnacle has no brain and is clearly alive... I see nothing wrong with killing it.
Plants, barnacles, and all sorts of things are alive but we recognize killing them isnt an issue since they have no brain to have sense of identity, thought, desires, nothing... Its no different than removing a tumor which also has no brain or thought.
realcaseyrollins ✝️
@freemo Science-based might be a bit much, as scientifically, life begins at conception. Your position is based on an opinion on when a human being begins to have personhood, rather than a purely scientific stance.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@realcaseyrollins It is the only solution Ic an think of that addresses both sides of the concern on abortion.... It addresses a womans right to choice, as well as ensuring the fetus has protections on its life that are science based (protected once neurons develop)
realcaseyrollins ✝️
@freemo This position isn’t one I support, but it’s one I’d vote for because relative to where we are in the #USA, it’s in the right direction.
There are prolifers who won’t vote for anything other than a complete abolition of abortion. I’m not one of them.
mia
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
It is the tour de' france
mia
realcaseyrollins ✝️
mia
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Ahh the only race where everyone looses :)
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
By “loose[sic] their shit” I take you mean “disagree with me”. Not too surprising, for a Mad Libs style position such as yours.
Nope I meant exactly what I said. Not surprising your struggling to understand what was said when your starting with an insult in your very first sentence I guess.
What are the chances that you will be in the position of having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Are you seriously asking a perfect stranger what genitals they have? Disgusting, and none of your business
If zero, what gives you the moral authority to impose limits on others, that would not affect yourself?
Even if it were 0 uit has effected me greatly. I was once a fetus and thus once at the whim of abortion laws. As someone (like everyone) who was once at risk of being effected by these laws I, and everyone, has a right to an opinion.
David Truesdell
@freemo
By “loose[sic] their shit” I take you mean “disagree with me”. Not too surprising, for a Mad Libs style position such as yours.
What are the chances that you will be in the position of having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
If zero, what gives you the moral authority to impose limits on others, that would not affect yourself?
Finally, how did you arrive at a figure of 10 weeks, given that many fetal abnormalities can’t be detected until well after that point?
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Well, good thought in general, but i’d disagree on the timeframe.
Most people do so thats understandable. Obviously I disagree.
You see, you messed up one thing: you’re a man, and this is a decision that the woman in question needs to make.
Dont assume what genitals I have.
More important it very much has effected me. I like all humans have been fetuses and at the mercy of the law regarding abortion. Therefore since everyone has been ont he receiving end we all have a right to say.
Thats a bit like saying “you cant judge what laws we should have for murder, your not a murderer so it wont effect you!”… No but i am a potential murder victim….
Not loosing my shit, but omniously whispering “seeeeexismmmm” ;-)
Lawl
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Well, good thought in general, but i'd disagree on the timeframe. You see, you messed up one thing: you're a man, and this is a decision that the woman in question needs to make.
Not loosing my shit, but omniously whispering "seeeeexismmmm" ;-)
In a less quirky way: late term abortions would weigh heavy on the woman in question. Their consequences, their choice. Flips when the child is viable on its own, then there's a person beyond the mother.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@trinsec Life viability doesnt seem relevant here for me.. two reasons 1) the mother by not getting an abortion in the first 10 weeks (remember pregnancy tests are free so no excuse in this scenario) they are choosing to make a life dependeant on them for 9 months. That choice makes them responsible to see it through in my eyes since you put the child in that risk to begin with.
Trinsec
@freemo@qoto.org I'm being practical. When 24 weeks is the minimum for being viable for life, and close to 22 weeks is generally seen as the start of being able to feel pain.. then 20 weeks is for me the generous cutoff to give that fetus a chance.
At that stage it isn't an individual imo (before 24 weeks), so it wouldn't be murder in my eyes. It is not even a baby yet, it is a fetus. A baby is when it is born.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@trinsec That seems like a horrible cut off... killing a baby who would survive given time simply because it cant survive at this moment.. that seems like a horrible measure designed more to justify the murder than to actually look after the self determination and bodily autonomy of the baby
Trinsec
@freemo@qoto.org Reading elsewhere: "When one's 24 weeks pregnant, the baby has a chance of survival if they are born. Most babies born before this time cannot live because their lungs and other vital organs are not developed enough."
For me that's a good enough cutoff. Before 24 weeks, they're simply.. blobs of meat which wouldn't survive, and thus cannot really be called individuals. Basically tumors before they become potentially useful. 😋
So I think around 20 weeks is a generous cutoff.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@trinsec its all we have. consciousness and other higher forms of thought are unknown to us and purely speculative. All we know is prior to 10 weeks there is no brain so no moral issue.. .after 10 weeks there is and the morality is no longer clear.. how underdeveloped does a brain have to be before murder becomes ok? Id rather stick with the science and go with the one line we can objectively measure without moral ambiguity
Trinsec
@freemo@qoto.org That's not telling me much. Even snails have neurons and people flatten them every day without thought. 😋
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@trinsec 10 weeks is when neurons form and fire.
Trinsec
@freemo@qoto.org Why 10 weeks? I've read that consciousness likely begins at 22 weeks, and that's when they would be able to feel pain. So 20 weeks would probably be more apt for the limit?
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo > Their consequences, their choice.
The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.
Dont assume what genitals I have.
Really? Is this a defense mechanism or are you alledging that male presentation in past posts might have been a lie?
And did you put “effect” instead of “affect” to torture me? shivers
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo > Their consequences, their choice.
The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.
Dont assume what genitals I have.
Really? Is this a defense mechanism or are you alledging that male presentation in past posts might have been a lie?
And did you put “effect” instead of “affect” to torture me? shivers
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Again, since the person has the right to still have an abortion it isnt a measure of who is more valuable. It is a measure that both have value (without measruing who has more) and ensuring both have their value honored by looking after the bodily autonomy of each of them.
I picked a scenario where both can survive, have their will respected, and the woman still has the right to not follow through with an unwanted pregnancy...
I am far more concerned that you are trying to find the value of two humans so you can determine which has the right to murder the other. I prefer a stance where no murder occurs and both have value.
Tammy Gentzel
@freemo Jellyfish have neurons. Thus, it seems to me you are still stating something that might become an independent living being (and per your clarification might be capable of thought) has more value than someone who is a living independent human being and is capable of thought.
That is what I am curious about. Why does a living independent human being capable of thought have less value to you than something that is not?
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
In short: because bodily autonomy is sacred. Your bodily autonomy ends where the bodily autonomy of another being capable of thought (has neurons) begins.. particularly if that other being is in that position (of being dependent on you) due to your own actions (sex).
inb4: in cases of rape in my scenario the mother still has the option to abort in the 10 week window. So she is not denied the option.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Its not, thats why 10 weeks is picked.. both the mother and fetus have their rights protected. Mother can still have an abortion, child is protected.
The reason both are equally important is because once the fetus has brain cells and is capable of thought on any level (around 10 weeks) there is now at a minimum an ethical gray area, and at worst an ethical violation.
This setup ensures all ethical concerns are addressed.
Tammy Gentzel
@freemo From that perspective, would you be willing to share why you believe something that might become an independent living being is more important to protect than someone who is already an independent living being?
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.
Great, then that would be the fetus, and when someone is unable to express their will to live we assume they have one.
The risk to the murderer is not nonexistant.. they risk emotional damage fromt heir acts, harm from the victim fighting back, etc. So both have consequences. The reason we facor the victim isnt because they are the only one with consequences, it is because the murderer put them in the situation against their will, much like a moth puts their unborn child int hat situation against the childs will.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Really? Is this a defense mechanism or are you alledging that male presentation in past posts might have been a lie?
I have never once publicly talked about my genitals, I dont plan to start. Thats like asking someone who looks like a woman in a womans bathroom if she is a “Real woman” aka, what genitals she has. Its not appropriate to do so I do not appreciate when people assume ones outward appearance must match ones genitals, its counter productive to society.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Ok, that i can agree on. Sorry.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@admitsWrongIfProven No worries.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo I still think men should not decide such things. If you are not one, fine. But i have no indication of that, and let’s leave it at “Women internal affairs”.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@admitsWrongIfProven and I disagree.. anyone who is or has been a fetus should have a say on who is or was allowed to kill them.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.
Ramifications of a different approach are that a non-viable system may be abandoned and suffer for this.
I think i have a negative utilitarian approach here, while you favor the positive utilitarianism. Stopping pain is just more important to me than creating joy.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.
Generally thats true, afterall its why its ok to remove a tumor (even if that tumor may have a brain which can happen).
the difference here is we have a host system who forced the subsystem into existance and waited long enough for the subsystem to develop that it potentially could suffer or expiernce its death. So the analogy breaks down quickly.
If I abduct a human, force them to be biologically dependant upon me against their will, then murder them I dont kind it an acceptable excuse that just because they were dependent on me (as a consequence of my actions) that I had a right to kill them.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
> When you decided to make woman's "genitals" your business, you've made 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨 a valid topic of discussion. Or, are you claiming some special right to privacy that you would deny others?
So if someone fights for the right for transgendered people to use the woman's bathrooms by your logic I have the right to demand what such a persons genitals is? It is therefore appropriate for me to demand transgendered in woman's bathrooms to tell me what their genitals look like"
Get out of here with that sexist bullshit.
> Since your chances of becoming pregnant would appear to be zero, absent the availability of a time machine, abortion laws have no direct impact on you. Only woman are, which is why I think 𝘺𝘰𝘶 shouldn't have a say in them.
Irrelevant, my chance of committing murder is 0 yet i still have a right to talk about what the laws should be around a murderer.
You are going to sprain something with those mental gymnastics...
David Truesdell
@freemo
When you decided to make woman's "genitals" your business, you've made 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨 a valid topic of discussion. Or, are you claiming some special right to privacy that you would deny others?
Since your chances of becoming pregnant would appear to be zero, absent the availability of a time machine, abortion laws have no direct impact on you. Only woman are, which is why I think 𝘺𝘰𝘶 shouldn't have a say in them.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Well, to discuss this dimension, we need an actual definition of suffering.
What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?
I would include some form of consciousness, as in “current LLMs might output the phrase ‘i am suffering’, but they do not, as they purely remix”.
Animals do change behaviour, they can sometimes detect context (something happened accidentially). At least mammals can, probably many more species.
So, if you include first nervous cells developing, i would argue that you are including a /potential/ for suffering, but not demanding actual suffering. The same would be true from conception, taken to the extreme from just the existence of a fertile male and female.
Additionally, enforcing any birth has the potential for great suffering in case the care is not done well. So if you force a mother to give birth, then the child will suffer if that mother is unable to provide, if the father is abusive, if their finances break down, etc.
If we cannot determine this (what can suffer) exactly, i circle back to empowering the person that has direct consequences. If a hard choice is to be made, taking it out of this persons hand is oppression in my view. The unborn is not able to weigh in, it cannot comprehend or communicate.
Side node: A problem i have (ethically) with reproduction is that it is always without consent.
It is impossible to ask a child-to-be if it wants to be born, and when that becomes possible, it is too late.
So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?
this is already back to where I started. We cant define exactly when suffering, consciousness, or thought begins. We dont have the ability to test for it.
The only thing we know is it requires a brain, and we therefore know it is garunteed not to be possible before 10weeks, and that sometime between 10 weeks and infinity those properties develop.
Therefore 10 weeks is the natural line… Now if you want to move it beyond 10 weeks it is on you to prove that suffering and consciousness is not possible before the new time period you propose.
And while you cant ask a child if it wants to be born,t hat doesnt matter. Our laws are such that murdering something is wrong whether it wants to be murdered or not. But obviously doubly so if you assume and the thing you kill gave no indication it wanted to die.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Hmm, i don’t understand the law argument. This was a discussion about what should be, not about what is, right?
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Are you suggesting we should be free to murder people wyho havent explicitly expressed a will to live? If someone is nonverbal for example we should be free to shoot them in the head at will?
I would think that we agree that if someone doesnt express they have a will to live that it should be the default assumption unless stated otherwise. Afterall it is the case for virtually everyone with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions we try to treat first.
NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️
@freemo Not sure where you left the discussion i was having - i did not say “express a will to live”, i asked where suffering begins, then, seperately i declared the lack of consent to be born is a problem for me.
Let’s leave it at that for the moment, i’m getting a bit tired.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
The entire end of your last message left on this note:
So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?
David Truesdell
@freemo
Wow, what a leap in logic.
Unless someone is flashing their genitals in public, their genitals are of nobody else's concern.
The problem is that you 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 claiming the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies, based on their genitals, which opens yours as a topic of discussion.
Of course it's fascinating that in a discussion on abortion, you immediately pivot to comparing it with committing murder.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
> Unless someone is flashing their genitals in public, their genitals are of nobody else's concern.
Great then we agree, I am not flashing my genitals in public therefore its none of your business, leave me alone you perv.
> The problem is that you 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 claiming the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies, based on their genitals, which opens yours as a topic of discussion.
Right, just like someone who is claiming what transpeople can or cant do with their body by entering a bathroom. Therefore they have to announce their genitals like yo demand of me right? Yea you can get out of here with that sexist bs.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@kj6dbe Oh and dont forget next time your pulling this sexist nonsense you bother to demand anyone with an opinion on abortion describe their genitals AND tell you if they are post-menopause or otherwise sterile... Remind them they are required to tell you so you can verify if they are permitted their opinon, since once they cant bear children, according to you, they are no longer allowed an opinion on abortion.
::rolls eyes::
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
> Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning.
> I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.
I know and I explained why your argument for that case is invalid. Who is or isnt a human has very little to do with who is or is not justified in killing. plus its a metaphysical question that is completely fabricated, unlike my position which is based on the known facts and science (development of neurons).
> As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human
I never said it was a "human" after 10 weeks.. but if you want to go there, it is a human before gametes even meet by definition. Sperm are human cells and thus human, as are eggs. So if "human" is the criteria you've already lost that argument. What you did try to do however was specify "independent human" in which case its independence seems of importance not if it is human, and I have debunked that perspective as well.
> you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is **possibly** capable of thought, and is therefore human.
Correct, prior to 10 weeks we know for a fact it is capable of thought. After 10 weeks we dont (and cant) know the exact point where it will be capable of thought but we know for certain it happens after 10 week period.
> But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.
Wrong on both accounts. An embryo by definition is human prior to being birthed.. a hell a fingernail is human by definition, thus this is a horrible definition. Being "birthed" has never been required for the definition of what is or is not human. you are just trying to seperate yourself fromt he independence argument now that you realize it is a failed argument.
Tammy Gentzel
@freemo Absolutely incorrect interpretation of my meaning. I am saying a fetus is not yet a human and will not be until it is birthed.
As to the 10 week designation that now the fetus is a human, you said you set that time because that’s when neurons develop, the fetus is possibly capable of thought, and is therefore human. But the presence of neurons is not, in and of themselves, an indicator of being human…being birthed is.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.