| Do you approve of abortion? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 11, 2026 10:41 PM |
|
|
Artu, I thought we had established that embryos/fetusses are different from born babies. Isn't then, by extension, infant mortality something else than naturally aborted pregnancies?
EDIT: Oh, I see, Galaad answered that way better than I could.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 11, 2026 11:09 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:20, 11 Jan 2026.
|
They are something else because of personhood based on sentience but they are alike when it comes to nature taking them out in chunks. So if nature doing that is supposed to have any effect on our behaviour (with a reasoning such as “even nature does this”), then, it would have applied to babies, too. We dont protect the babies because nature also does that, so how is nature not protecting the fetuses relevant in any way? I dont think Galaad’s answer addresses this.
“The point is that biology itself doesn’t present conception as a clear functional boundary for assigning rights and obligations.”
Biology doesnt present anything for us to assign rights and obligations. It’s not normative. Something dying or dying a lot isnt nature’s way of hinting us it is not ready to be assigned rights.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 11, 2026 11:25 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I disagree, because the embryo/fetus has a strong protective layer or whole that protects the life reaches on the earth, but the doctor's eyes thrust the protection through.. Thus happy baby or his/her face never appearing.. So you've face, etc Ok it before hard race reaches the egg.. The same matter you go to sauna, where many and crowded men are there, but you find a one free place for sitting sauna board, you say million sperm reaches to one place, it's me.. So hard race caused many sperm's tail becomes faults, etc So only thing failed event can do abortion, other fun doesn't come.. If fun thing someone soul abort your face.. Think about science tried headless frogs for research purpose, they told headless frogs breathe, beat heart, etc but they ended their immaterial life.. Ok why? They research for organ transfers to another body.. Just alternative, but today alternative is chip.. How? Abortion, and creates headless human are the same thing.. Sal knows well.. I mean that is 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2026 12:08 AM |
|
|
@ artu
Well, you are wrong. Infants dying from EXTERNAL factors: malnutrition, disease, you name it.
Embryos/fetusses die from "flawed material", INTERNAL factors.
No difference?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 12, 2026 01:33 AM |
|
|
I dont think that difference is relevant to if their death by our decision should be considered immoral/illegal or not.
How exactly do you postulate that? “This one’s the mother’s choice because in nature a lot of fetuses die because of internal reasons but this one’s not the mother’s choice because a lot of babies die because of external reasons.” Doesnt make sense to me in any significant way.
Anyway, I guess, it’s just a technicality about the chain of logic. Maybe, I’m a little compulsive about noticing such things.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 12, 2026 05:24 AM |
|
|
|
It becomes litho i.e. pedion or stone baby.. A mother can't make a pregnant without abortion..
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted January 12, 2026 09:17 AM |
|
|
@Artu
I think we actually agree on more than it looks, and the remaining disagreement really is about the chain of logic.
I’m not postulating any rule like "nature kills X, therefore humans may kill X". I agree that makes no sense, for fetuses or babies. Natural death is morally irrelevant by itself.
The distinction isn’t why nature kills (internal vs external), nor how often. It’s this:
babies are independent subjects, so society can assign duties of protection without compelling one specific person’s body. Early embryos are not. Any "protection" necessarily means enforcing bodily use by the woman.
That’s why infant mortality triggers collective intervention, while early pregnancy doesn’t create the same kind of enforceable obligation. Not because nature behaves differently, but because the structure of responsibility is different.
So yes, biology isn’t normative - but it constrains what obligations can coherently exist. That’s the only role it plays here.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2026 09:42 AM |
|
|
It also helps, to recheck where that point came from - it was just a counter to phe, when he started with this abortion bad and evil thing and fetussdes would suffer and God's will and all this, that I said, IF that was the case, since nature has a high abortion quota itself, god would be a bad and corrupted thing as well.
Later, I concluded, that nobody makes a fuss about THAT (as opposed to an infant dying), so why make a fuss about it, when it happens on purpose (there IS a lot of fuss made when an infant dies - but not in general and everywhere which is a different matter, though)?
You may also add, that the fuss becomes bigger, the older the fetus gets - which makes a lot of sense, since the development goes on.
For, from that it follows, that it only leaves to determine when a fetus is too much developed to allow an abortion without serious consequences. At this point, week 15 or 16 seems fine.
Of course there ARE these cases of very young pregnant youths, trying to hide their condition, being afraid and ashamed and all, but that is yet another difficult aspect to keep in mind.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 13, 2026 02:36 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 14:37, 13 Jan 2026.
|
Other! If it would help us..
Did you know that the embryo has a small amount of yolk? Thus evolution saved a small part. So imagining life outside makes us food. Same as we do to chickens to produce eggs. So they abort the human embryo. The question mark of life! - Translated by Google
If nothing else.. So the thread is excellent.. Thanks for the incompetent/unskilled discussion.. The next thread is the soul, but if I've a time to create a thread.. I don't know about Sal.. I also know about the soul..
Yes, you can answer this, thread isn't over..
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 08:46 AM |
|
|
Yeah nervous system.. But what develops first embryo, an answer is the heart.. Later on nervous system, brain, etc
Thanks for good thread.. If you've something, welcome again here..
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 10:30 AM |
|
|
|
Lol, Ghost. The soul? Well, IF something like that really exists, then it's supposed to be immortal, isn't it? So if an aborted fetus already has one, it will continue to exist. If not, that's that.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 10:42 AM |
|
|
|
Ok first Sal said the soul, what a coincidence I know a lot about the souls.. I thought to create thread, but I haven't feel it yet.. And today the heart thing came to me, I'm a little surprised, because the common saying is that the soul is in the heart.. So I don't really know about the soul?!.. But abortion can do, thus nervous system and esp. the brain aren't presence yet.. A heart word/thing directed at phe, ok..
|
| |
|
|
