Zephyn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2020
- Messages
- 2,053
I'd lobby for them to be more accessible.abortions are free in nearly every western country expect america.
I'd lobby for them to be more accessible.abortions are free in nearly every western country expect america.
The argument should be when does CONSCIOUSNESS beginThis is exactly what I mean though.
you can't just say "when does life begin" is irrelevant. Whether you realize it or not, you are in some way using that judgment to form the rest of your opinions.
I mean, you have to be, because if you really did consider it irrelevant that means you're perfectly fine with the idea of letting a human being die, so as to prevent significant negative impact to another human being.
I don't believe most of you actually think that, I think that if you did believe as I do that live begins, for practical purposes anyway, at conception, you would realize how the rest of your deductions become inconsistent with other parts of your moral beliefs.
For instance, I assume you would accept that it is morally wrong for a parent to murder their 4 year old child. If they don't want to support it they have to give it up for adoption.
That 4 year old I still mooching of their parent though, it can't survive on its own. But you don't seem to think that fact means it's life has no relevance.
That's what I mean when I say that several of you are arguing that abortion is wrong because it is wrong. Because while your arguments make perfect sense and are logically consistent with the above position, that is ONLY the case assuming a fetus doesn't have the same worth as human life as a 4 year old.
So it is NOT irrelevant to the question, it IS the question.
Likely nearly everyone here has similar moral beliefs about human rights, it's the recognition that a fetus is entitled to them or not that ultimately leads to deriving different moral conclusions.
Please, one you guys on the pro choice side, at least tell me you comprehend what I'm getting at here?
Cause it's enormously frustrating to hear again and again pro choice types justifying their position... Using their position. You build moral positions on top of a few basic assumptions. You don't build your position out of your position. Which is what saying "I don't believe the fetus has rights because the fetus doesn't have rights" essentially is.
It's impossible to even have interesting if unsuccessful debate so long as so many can't even recognize that they arent actually making an argument, they are repeating uncontested moral positions such as "humans have a right to their body, and to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else".
That's not in debate, I think part of this assumption is the belief that all pro lifers just want to control women and so you think that's the position your opposing. I can't say that's not true of any pro lifer but it's certainly not true for all of them.
A lot of us really, honestly and in good faith believe life begins, for the purposes of law anyway, at conception, to at least some degree.
And because of that, we aren't seeing a womans rights infringed purely to punish her sexuality or something, we are seeing a regrettable situation where there are no good answers and someone's life is gonna be impacted anyway, we, or at least I, am just preferencing the lesser infringement of having to have the baby vs the infringement of end of life.
Which is why if the pregnancy carries high risk I consider that an exception, it becomes closer to a question of infringing life vs life, at which point morally I judge the existing life to have greater moral priority to the new one.
Get it? Even if you don't agree please for the love of God tell me you get it.![]()
consciouness begins before the big bang before anything in this physical universe. Consciousness is eternal and not bound to a physical body nor will it ever end.The argument should be when does CONSCIOUSNESS begin
The argument should be when does CONSCIOUSNESS begin
Which leads to the question how does an unconscious zygote have rights? Its purely based upon your spiritual beliefWell, that's again taking it a small step perhaps a little too far, at least to start off with.
The question is ultimate does the fetus have a right to live higher than the mothers right to her body for the duration of the pregnancies and all the risks and potential consequences that come with it.
Consciousness is certainly one criteria you can use to try and determine if the fetus has that right. But it's still that right that's at question here.
Consciousness is a bit of a problem though because we understand so little about it. It's difficult to say that a newborn baby is truly conscious in the way we would normally consider a human to be vs say an animal.
Which leads to the question how does an unconscious zygote have rights? Its purely based upon your spiritual belief
@TripSitterNZ. On one side you’re advocating for a foetus that can’t survive outside the mother but saying people with disabilities shouldn’t exist and advocating for genetic engineering. Like fucking hell. Pick a moral and stick to it?
Imean, I jizz on squiggles and call it chaos magick, I consider even inorganic matter part of the universal intelligence, but our spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion. For the sake of this discussion consciousness should be defined as "self awareness, the ability to form memories and react to stimulus", which an unborn baby even at 24 weeks, does not have.nothing is unconscious. Your are basing your beliefs to murder life in your own mind which said beliefs are wrong. Consciousness pervades the entire reality and is not bound to anything. everything is already aware and thus has life at the conception of its own cell and DNA coding. Life begins as soon as that sperm enters the egg.
It’s pretty fucking horrid. Ignore seems a good option. HahaIs that really what he's arguing? I wouldn't know I have him on ignore. I trust the reason is pretty self evident. :D
a fetus from day one is self-aware and has everything encoded to grow and become a full fledged human.Imean, I jizz on squiggles and call it chaos magick, I consider even inorganic matter part of the universal intelligence, but our spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion. For the sake of this discussion consciousness should be defined as "self awareness, the ability to form memories and react to stimulus", which an unborn baby even at 24 weeks, does not have.
Id argue with you that you are stating your personal belief as fact, but it seems to apply to most of what you saya fetus from day one is self-aware and has everything encoded to grow and become a full fledged human.
Where’s the line though? How do you ever define that? You can’t. I’ve cared for people with disabilities practically my whole life and each person I have cared for added something special to the world. Anyway, it’s going off topic so I won’t continue. Genetic engineering is a contentious issue and demands a more educated discussion.Disabled people have all rights and the duty of able bodied people to look after them. I never once said they should not exist. But ay if people still want to impose horrible illnesses on life in the future when we can give said people a cure then thats on you and not me.