When does human life begin?

[El_Machinae]

Conjoined twins that are not separable are such an outlier case as to be repugnant to use to respond to a point that 1/4 women in the US actually go through.

You're the one that created a definition that said they're not people. "Outliers" are whom we make rights for! Your definition excluded real people.

Pronouncements that exclude outliers is the very definition of bigotry.

If your logic cannot take in other life experiences (it cannot) then it should not be used to dictate policy over others, especially in regards to their own bodies.

This isn't the abortion thread. It's the 'human life beginning' thread. If your definition cannot survive a very simple, yet utterly common, counterpoint, then your definition is wrong.

Also how is a pregnancy not a medical privacy issue?

In the United States, a number of rights surrounding pregnancy were defended under the aegis of 'medical privacy'. I'm bemoaning that we eroded that, meme-wise. We threw women's rights under the bus to protect a bunch of people who never appreciated it. I think it was a bad trade.

At what point do Alzheimer's patients cease to be people?

This is one of those "we don't tolerate killing, but tolerate ignoring" situations.

 

[Estebonrober]

At what point do Alzheimer's patients cease to be people?

they don't. how is this considered a serious response that is not misogynistic in nature?

 

[Estebonrober]

You're the one that created a definition that said they're not people. "Outliers" are whom we make rights for! Your definition excluded real people.

Pronouncements that exclude outliers is the very definition of bigotry.


This isn't the abortion thread. It's the 'human life beginning' thread. If your definition cannot survive a very simple, yet utterly common, counterpoint, then your definition is wrong.


In the United States, a number of rights surrounding pregnancy were defended under the aegis of 'medical privacy'. I'm bemoaning that we eroded that, meme-wise. We threw women's rights under the bus to protect a bunch of people who never appreciated it. I think it was a bad trade.



This is one of those "we don't tolerate killing, but tolerate ignoring" situations.

We cannot as a society define what life is on a solid and fundamental level. Is a virus life? What about sentience? yea issues abound there too. How about when human life starts? Yep, completely arbitrary. So in the end the only thing being debated is how you are deciding for women how they live their lives. Thats it. Misogyny.

 

[Lexicus]

There's a common thought experiment on this question: if you were in a burning building and you could save a tray of 50 fertilized human embryos or one infant from the flames, which would you pick?

I submit that anyone who picks the tray of fertilized embryos is a demented lunatic whose views should have no influence whatever on public policy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most people I know would subsidize an armful of kittens to adopt out rather than use those same resources in defending women, so it's not an entirely useful question. Sure, it unmasks some weirdo, but it ignores the actual elephant in the room.

We cannot as a society define what life is on a solid and fundamental level. Is a virus life? What about sentience? yea issues abound there too. How about when human life starts? Yep, completely arbitrary. So in the end the only thing being debated is how you are deciding for women how they live their lives. Thats it. Misogyny.

I am not, and gosh you express dissonance in a hostile fashion ...

If you'd pull your head out and work more on being a useful ally rather than a uselessly loud one, you'd recognize that 'cojoined twins' defeats many pro-life arguments without hampering the pro-choice agenda what-so-ever. I've used it many times here as such, even.

It might be that you're temporarily triggered today, I guess. But you need to shape up, because I need you useful.

 

[Lexicus]

This is one of those "we don't tolerate killing, but tolerate ignoring" situations.

I'm sorry, but this is the sort of logical argument that simply does not comport with the pro-life movement as it actually exists in the world. In the US the overwhelming majority of pro-life voters vote for the party that is doing this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/texas-v-jesus/620144/

So, this is a case of not only do we tolerate killing but we actually spend money arguing that we need to be able to kill, that there is such a compelling state interest in killing that we need to be able to use drugs that may inflict a more painful death, or keep a pastor from holding a man's hand and praying with him as he is killed.

Does the Republican Party in the US care about the sanctity of human life? I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.

 

[sophie]

There's a common thought experiment on this question: if you were in a burning building and you could save a tray of 50 fertilized human embryos or one infant from the flames, which would you pick?

I submit that anyone who picks the tray of fertilized embryos is a demented lunatic whose views should have no influence whatever on public policy.

I personally really like Thomson's trio of thought experiments: the violinist, the people seeds, and the brothers with chocolate. They really clarified the core issues at play for me.

 

[danjuno]

At what point do Alzheimer's patients cease to be people?

When their actual body dies. People who are already born and gets sick afterwards are not dependent on a literal host body to stay alive.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sorry, but this is the sort of logical argument that simply does not comport with the pro-life movement as it actually exists in the world. In the US the overwhelming majority of pro-life voters vote for the party that is doing this:

Lol, the majority of Alzheimer's sufferers are women, and the average "I'm not a misogynist, not like THEM!" will do nothing more than lift a token finger until it affects them personally. Ooooooh, we round up our bill at the grocery store every so often ... whatevs.

We tolerate the suffering from Alzheimer's at a scale completely out-of-whack with what we'd tolerate if it were caused by an identified person. A serial killer occasionally playing Russian Roulette with the frontal lobes of elderly women would cause people to lose their minds. We're about to watch the Boomer women enter the phase of their lives where they're abandoned en masse, except by their daughters. "Oh, here's a quarter for the collection jar". Puhlease.

Oh, I know that we conflate the Pro-Life with the Rightwing in the United States, I'd never deny that. I was talking about Alzheimer's, specifically Alzheimer's, when I said what I said. And, to my point, let's count people's posts about the Death Penalty vs. Alzheimer's on CFC. We're offended by the killing way more than we're bothered by the ignoring.

 

[Estebonrober]

Most people I know would subsidize an armful of kittens to adopt out rather than use those same resources in defending women, so it's not an entirely useful question. Sure, it unmasks some weirdo, but it ignores the actual elephant in the room.


I am not, and gosh you express dissonance in a hostile fashion ...

If you'd pull your head out and work more on being a useful ally rather than a uselessly loud one, you'd recognize that 'cojoined twins' defeats many pro-life arguments without hampering the pro-choice agenda what-so-ever. I've used it many times here as such, even.

It might be that you're temporarily triggered today, I guess. But you need to shape up, because I need you useful.

"useful allies" has lead to fifty years of regression in my lifetime. Its useless, I spent my time doing that and now I'm on to other things. I'm not going to change anyone's mind here today or tomorrow, I might plant seeds to make them doubt themselves in the future and even that I don't care much about anymore.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm not sure what you're saying? If they're on life support, they'd still be alive?

I don't understand what people on life support have to do with this conversation. I can't escape the feeling you're being deliberately obfuscatory, but I'll play along in case I've been unclear. After all, I'm not a doctor, I'm just trying to understand what I'm reading.

It sounds to me as though human fetuses at the 21st week of development are simply not functioning organisms capable of sustaining their own existence. They don't possess the basic biological functions necessary for life, such as the ability to oxygenate their own blood. I don't know if their kidneys are functional, so they may not be able to remove toxins from their own blood, either. If you remove them from their mother, they die, 100% of the time.

At the 22nd week, the number of fetuses capable of life outside the womb vaults up to 2-3% if they have modern, "first-world" medical intervention. I would imagine the modern medical interventions that enable those few to survive constitute "life support", as we use the term colloquially - machines capable of mimicking the functioning of basic organs like lungs and kidneys (I don't know that for sure, I'm just speculating).

As of the 21st week of gestation, it doesn't sound like a fetus can be considered a human life, because it's not capable of living. It's a potential life, yes, but so is an unfertilized egg and some sperm. Even at the 22nd week, we'd be hanging our hats on, at best, 3 in 100. It gets better rapidly, literally day by day. iirc, the Roe v. Wade decision was based on the understanding that a fetus in the 24th week was capable of independent life outside of the mother's womb. I think that's still playing with fire, though, medically. I don't know if any doctor would say a baby born at 24 weeks is good to go, I think they're in heaps of trouble. But, okay, Roe v. Wade said, "being born in heaps of trouble is close enough, for the purposes of deciding whether or not a fetus should be considered viable."

According to the University of Utah,

In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent.

The survival rate for 24-week-old infants is between 60 and 70 percent.

And again, that's with modern medical interventions that can mimic biological functions ("on life support", in other words). 30-40% of 24-week fetuses cannot sustain life, even with help.

 

[Estebonrober]

I don't understand what people on life support have to do with this conversation. I can't escape the feeling you're being deliberately obfuscatory, but I'll play along in case I've been unclear. After all, I'm not a doctor, I'm just trying to understand what I'm reading.

It sounds to me as though human fetuses at the 21st week of development are simply not functioning organisms capable of sustaining their own existence. They don't possess the basic biological functions necessary for life, such as the ability to oxygenate their own blood. I don't know if their kidneys are functional, so they may not be able to remove toxins from their own blood, either. If you remove them from their mother, they die, 100% of the time.

At the 22nd week, the number of fetuses capable of life outside the womb vaults up to 2-3% if they have modern, "first-world" medical intervention. I would imagine the modern medical interventions that enable those few to survive constitute "life support", as we use the term colloquially - machines capable of mimicking the functioning of basic organs like lungs and kidneys (I don't know that for sure, I'm just speculating).

As of the 21st week of gestation, it doesn't sound like a fetus can be considered a human life, because it's not capable of living. It's a potential life, yes, but so is an unfertilized egg and some sperm. Even at the 22nd week, we'd be hanging our hats on, at best, 3 in 100. It gets better rapidly, literally day by day. iirc, the Roe v. Wade decision was based on the understanding that a fetus in the 24th week was capable of independent life outside of the mother's womb. I think that's still playing with fire, though, medically. I don't know if any doctor would say a baby born at 24 weeks is good to go, I think they're in heaps of trouble. But, okay, Roe v. Wade said, "being born in heaps of trouble is close enough, for the purposes of deciding whether or not a fetus should be considered viable."

According to the University of Utah,

And again, that's with modern medical interventions that can mimic biological functions ("on life support", in other words). 30-40% of 24-week fetuses cannot sustain life, even with help.

I thought this was generally accepted and reasonable to base our policies on, but here we are banning fudging ectopic pregnancies. I have a daughter and she could die from this ignorant bullfeathers. I'm in one of these fudging moron states. So yes, people I'm pissed off.

 

[El_Machinae]

"useful allies" has lead to fifty years of regression in my lifetime. Its useless, I spent my time doing that and now I'm on to other things. I'm not going to change anyone's mind here today or tomorrow, I might plant seeds to make them doubt themselves in the future and even that I don't care much about anymore.

Being a useful ally is proposed as compared to shooting your own team's foot. If it means something in local parlance, I apologize. The only option we have is to be better, because our previous best was insufficient.

In the longer run, remember that cojoining only sometimes creates two people. This will be useful when you're dealing with a pro-lifer who has a weirdly specific biological rationalization. Oh, they'll suffer dissonance too, but like you say, you can only plant seeds.

Oh, and remember that no one really GAF about your posts here (and you can't change minds by making incorrect accusations, remember). Donate to an efficient Women's Rights organization, hopefully by foregoing something that is net-harmful. Everything else is armchair "well, actually" from a guy with no skin in the game and won't put skin in the game.

 

[João III]

I don't understand what people on life support have to do with this conversation. I can't escape the feeling you're being deliberately obfuscatory,

That I wasn't my intention, I'm sorry if that's how I've come across. My main point is that just because a child in the womb is dependent on the mother, that doesn't diminish their humanity.

Similarly, just because someone (doesn't have to be an infant, could be an adult) requires life support, that doesn't diminish their humanity either. Maybe my initial response was confusing, again, sorry if that's the case

but I'll play along in case I've been unclear. After all, I'm not a doctor, I'm just trying to understand what I'm reading.

Thanks for elaborating a little more, I hope I've made myself clearer as well

 

[Snowygerry]

[...]
The legal positivist view of murder is deplorable. In it, no Jews, Roma, etc were murdered in the Nazi death camps, as their executions were all legally sanctioned. Morality does not come from law, but law ought to be informed by morality. [...]

While I reject your reductio ad Hitlerium in this context,

let me just point point out that in the Nuremberg trials none of them were convicted for murder - they were strung up, and rightly so - for 'aggression' against 'humanity' precisely to circumvent the 'legal positivist' reasoning outlined above.

None of that is 'deplorable' in any way.

Dura lex, sed lex.

 

[Angst]

People become adults around 30 I'd say.

and somehow i'm still behind

 

[Remorseless1]

Life begins at birth. Governments should not have the right to intrude on a woman's personal decisions concerning her personal body.

Btw I have two daughters. Crazy about them.

 

[Narz]

are they reliant upon a host body to ensure their survival?

Yeah, obviously. Know many kids who grew up without a host taking care of them (at their own expense)?

One's 'humanness' is in no way tied to one's dependence or lack thereof on others.

Then hush child.

You talk like this in person or just to your screen?

 

[Gorbles]

When people talk about policymaking, the way it's sometimes approached really reminds me of this (SMBC) comic - https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-07-11.

 

[Kaitzilla]

At what point do Alzheimer's patients cease to be people?

I would say they are people right up until they die.

Just because a person loses a piece of themselves every day and they get more and more injured, doesn't mean they can't still have relationships with others.


The caretaking is beyond grueling though.
Often, the caretaker is the 1st to die.

It is extremely heartbreaking to explain to your panicking loved one their spouse passed 15 years ago and they cry for hours.

Gradually losing the ability to walk without falling and then to even stand with a walker.

Or when it reaches the brain stem and automatic breathing, heartbeat, and swallowing all become affected.

That part is really soul crushing.


I once heard a story about an old man who got the diagnosis, and he walked out of the hospital and into the ocean.

With covid causing such widespread brain damage, it might become a more common disease in the future.