Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.
I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling.
Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.
First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be.
Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible.
Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law.
Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies.
Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
>First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities.
Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why?
>You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments.
You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
>Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why
A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter.
Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations.
The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby.
I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children.
Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back.
>You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones.
Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1]
>The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above.
Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion.
Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation.
>Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax.
Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy.
Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you.
> We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct.
I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all.
So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I'm sorry if I'm not reading this charitably, but I find this argument to be abhorrent.
> Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back.
Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation[1].
> The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter.
Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime.
I guess this is fine though, because those uteruses are for babys after all...
>So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth?
I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation.
>Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation
As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong?
If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year.
I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should.
>Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever.
When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself.
This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it.
In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.
>A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide.
A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy: you're arguing that someone's personal freedom should be violated because of somebody else's religious superstition.
>Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife.
And a good resource to learn about vaccines is Breitbart?
>There are millions of nonreligious prolifers.
There are millions of anti-vaxers. Just because many people believe in silly things doesn't mean they are correct.
Also, this issue isn't "supported by religions". This issue is pretty much specific to one particular branch of Christianity, the one most famous for raping children and for being so wrong they had to make own infallibility an official dogma. But again, I'm not going to teach you history to explain why Roman Catholic Church is a parody of Christianity, because it doesn't matter, same reason the question of why life begins doesn't matter to this discussion. What does matter is you're condoning stripping people of their fundamental human rights.
>A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy
It is not. Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment.
>you're arguing that someone's personal freedom should be violated because of somebody else's religious superstition.
It is amazing how the first people to bring up religion are always the prochociers. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers, but you just attempt to smear them with accusations. Please don't assume the reasons people support or don't support various issues. It is arguing in bad faith and makes you look bad.
>And a good resource to learn about vaccines is Breitbart
Have I posted anything about vaccines from Brietbart before? I think you may be confusing me with somebody else? If you are trying to say Secular Prolife is equivalent to Brietbart than you haven't read them both.
>There are millions of anti-vaxers. Just because many people believe in silly things doesn't mean they are correct
What do you mean by correct? Are you suggesting that every nonreligious person must believe the same thing?
>Also, this issue isn't "supported by religions".
Sure it is.
>This issue is pretty much specific to one particular branch of Christianity,
Just factually untrue.
1. Catholic
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Oriental Orthodox
4. Assyrian Church of the East
5. Ancient Church of the East
6. Some Protestant denominations
7. Mennonites
And huge amount more than that.
Even some groups that may or may not be Christians
1. Mormons
2. Jehovah's Witnesses
Now in terms of other religions there is some debate in them, but many of the followers in these think it is opposed to their religion:
1. Sikhism
2. Islam
3. Judaism
And more.
>the one most famous for raping children and for being so wrong they had to make own infallibility an official dogma. But again, I'm not going to teach you history to explain why Roman Catholic Church is a parody of Christianity
Please do not derail the conversation. There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry.
>same reason the question of why life begins doesn't matter to this discussion.
I agree why life begins is irrelevant to this conversation. When it begins is the only thing that matters.
>What does matter is you're condoning stripping people of their fundamental human rights.
That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right to not be killed.
>Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment.
Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts.
>1. Catholic 2. Eastern Orthodox 3. Oriental Orthodox 4. Assyrian Church of the East 5. Ancient Church of the East 6. Some Protestant denominations 7. Mennonites
All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above.
>There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry.
What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies.
>When it begins is the only thing that matters.
You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights.
>That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right
Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't.
>Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts.
I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. I do think you are required to provide the basic necessities, but are not obligated to go beyond. Due to our limitations with artificial wombs and fetus transplants it is not possible to provide the basics without carrying the pregnancy.
>All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above.
Those are not the same branch of the same religion. It is mighty convenient that you left off all the other branches along with different religions I mentioned.
>What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies.
I don't really care if you are PC in general. HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. Bigotry like what you spewed isn't in keeping with the guidelines.
>You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights.
If you can't stop bringing up religion there is no point in continuing. This has nothing to do with religion. There is good biological evidence life starts at conception.
Here are some resources which contain biologists and biology text books.
>Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't
Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. They only have a minimal level of sentience and consciousness. I am concluding that toddlers are not humans. Great reasoning there.
>I do not think it is comparable to organ donation.
Yet you can't point out the difference.
>HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place.
And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect?
>This has nothing to do with religion.
This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence").
>Toddlers don't have fully formed minds.
Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.
The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. The purpose of your regular organs is to support your body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the fetus. If a woman didn't bear children she wouldn't have a uterus.
>And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect?
I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect.
>This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence").
You are the one repeating. Nobody is talking about religion except for you.
So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing.
>Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.
A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s.
Fetuses have brain waves. Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. That is not to say the fetus is in fact dreaming, but it _could_ be.
I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks.
Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?
>there is distinct DNA
There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby?
See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
>Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds.
Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
>When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?
We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead.
Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life?
It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain.
>There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby?
I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human.
I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human.
>See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception?
People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead.
>so if it [hydatidiform mole] is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human.
xD
>If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception?
Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context, wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
>People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead.
And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well.
A fetus has some level of brain waves at 7 weeks. Does that mean you think a fetus is alive after that time period, but not alive before?
Since you didn't reply to everything, I will ask again: Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
>xD
I don't know what this means. Like I said I don't know about that specific condition.
>Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context
To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?"
>wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
I don't think every part is human. Skin cells are not human. I agree that would be a ridiculous point to make. Good thing I am not making it
>And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well.
Not really, that's the point.
>Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain?
>To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?"
Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity.
>Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain?
I mean severe autism or something like that.
>Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
I looked into it a bit.
First, it is quite dangerous for the woman so removing it would be acceptable in every state. I don't have an issue with this.
Second, some of the situations there is no embryo tissue. I don't have a problem calling it dead in this case.
Third, I am not sure about a partial one. I think it is a malformed human, but I am not really knowledgeable about this. Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. Down syndrome people have chromosomal issues but are still humans. Just because there is a difference in viable doesn't change the humanness of the person. You may have justification to remove it from the uterus to protect the mother though.
