NationStates

Ors Might wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:Except that they actually have physical capabilities for conscious thoughts, as opposed to undeveloped fetuses.

Brain dead humans then. Regardless, I’m not sure how you’re missing the obvious differences between an organism with the very real potential to become a human being and a crustified sock.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Brain dead humans then. Regardless, I’m not sure how you’re missing the obvious differences between an organism with the very real potential to become a human being and a crustified sock.

Because even the most basic philosophy course would teach you that potential is irrelevant in these cases ?

Liriena wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Brain dead humans then. Regardless, I’m not sure how you’re missing the obvious differences between an organism with the very real potential to become a human being and a crustified sock.

There is a difference, sure, but even if we acknowledge the biological differences between sperm cells and fetuses, all the moralism and categorizations surrounding them could use some biopolitical deconstruction.

Liriena wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Because even the most basic philosophy course would teach you that potential is irrelevant in these cases ?

Potential humanity is such a weird concept when you think about it, specially when you use it to criticize abortion.

I mean, "what if your parents had aborted you?" is probably one of the most philosophically nonsensical gotchas ever conceived.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I’m sure you apply the same logic to those in comas. And no, sperm cells by definition do not have tissue, being singular cells.

I see. The multicellular aspect is then the key difference in your mind ?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Brain dead humans then. Regardless, I’m not sure how you’re missing the obvious differences between an organism with the very real potential to become a human being and a crustified sock.

Because even the most basic philosophy course would teach you that potential is irrelevant in these cases ?

Ors Might wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
I see. The multicellular aspect is then the key difference in your mind ?

It’s part of it. See, a sperm cell when “stored” for lack of a better term will not develop into anything. It has no inherent potential. Even in case of ejaculation during procreation, there’s only a minute chance that it’ll form a zygote with an egg and even then that zygote might be naturally aborted shortly after. A fetus has the very real possibility of developing into a viable human being, whose nature we can only guess at. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, it seems plain to me that mourning the loss of that virtually infinite potential is only natural.

Bardarus wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:
Yeah, how selfish of women to not want to be enslaved to the fetus for 9 months if they don't want it to be there but have no legal recourse. How selfish(!)

Im not saying that THE WOMAN in question is selfish for wanting to have an abortion because she might have not enough resources to raise her child Im saying that society today has become too abortion oriented and i only support abortion ONLY if the pregnant woman's life is in danger.

Ors Might wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Because even the most basic philosophy course would teach you that potential is irrelevant in these cases ?

Then I have a very real disagreement with those philosphy courses. A human life that has the potential to develop into a human being is intrinsically valuable, even if one takes the position that bodily automony supercedes it.

Liriena wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Brain dead humans then. Regardless, I’m not sure how you’re missing the obvious differences between an organism with the very real potential to become a human being and a crustified sock.

There is a difference, sure, but even if we acknowledge the biological differences between sperm cells and fetuses, all the moralism and categorizations surrounding them could use some biopolitical deconstruction.

The New California Republic wrote:

Liriena wrote:There is a difference, sure, but even if we acknowledge the biological differences between sperm cells and fetuses, all the moralism and categorizations surrounding them could use some biopolitical deconstruction.

As I said, we switch off the life support machines of humans that are brain dead, so I don't see why Ors Might is holding them up as a support for their case.

Ors Might wrote:

Liriena wrote:There is a difference, sure, but even if we acknowledge the biological differences between sperm cells and fetuses, all the moralism and categorizations surrounding them could use some biopolitical deconstruction.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp from an evolutionary standpoint. Humans for the most part are hardwired to have at least some concern for their young.

Ors Might wrote:Conceptualizing fetuses as the development state of babies, which they technically are, would easily lead many to become protective of them as well.

Liriena wrote:

Ors Might wrote:It’s part of it. See, a sperm cell when “stored” for lack of a better term will not develop into anything. It has no inherent potential. Even in case of ejaculation during procreation, there’s only a minute chance that it’ll form a zygote with an egg and even then that zygote might be naturally aborted shortly after. A fetus has the very real possibility of developing into a viable human being, whose nature we can only guess at. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, it seems plain to me that mourning the loss of that virtually infinite potential is only natural.

So how do you feel about frozen fertilized eggs?

Liriena wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Then I have a very real disagreement with those philosphy courses. A human life that has the potential to develop into a human being is intrinsically valuable, even if one takes the position that bodily automony supercedes it.

But how and why is potential human life "intrinsically valuable"?

You're assigning high social and ethical value (and political power) to a being that doesn't presently exist, might never come into being naturally, and whose qualities are entirely hypothetical.

Ors Might wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:As I said, we switch off the life support machines of humans that are brain dead, so I don't see why Ors Might is holding them up as a support for their case.

We typically don’t do so unless we’ve exhausted most of the available options for treating them

Ors Might wrote: and even then it’s generally considered a somber act.

Liriena wrote:

Ors Might wrote:It’s not a hard concept to grasp from an evolutionary standpoint. Humans for the most part are hardwired to have at least some concern for their young.

That hardwiring does not inherently include fetuses, though. That's very much something we constructed socially and culturally over time.

Ors Might wrote:Conceptualizing fetuses as the development state of babies, which they technically are, would easily lead many to become protective of them as well.

Of course... buuuuuut there remains the issue of whether that conceptualization is essentially and universally valid.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ors Might wrote:
We typically don’t do so unless we’ve exhausted most of the available options for treating them

Same with pregnant women who do not want the fetus inside of them. We have exhausted all available options.

Ors Might wrote: and even then it’s generally considered a somber act.

Because women and the doctors who are in abortion clinics are laughing and having a jolly good time, aren't they?

Ors Might wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Same with pregnant women who do not want the fetus inside of them. We have exhausted all available options.


Because women and the doctors who are in abortion clinics are laughing and having a jolly good time, aren't they?

Now where did I imply that? I’ve stated in this thread that I don’t think they’re having a good time and that I feel genuine pity for those that felt as though they had no choice. Don’t you assume otherwise.

Ors Might wrote:one never really hears someone describe the sct of abortion in and of itself as a positive thing.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Now where did I imply that? I’ve stated in this thread that I don’t think they’re having a good time and that I feel genuine pity for those that felt as though they had no choice. Don’t you assume otherwise.

Then why mention that your point of comparison with abortion—switching off the life support machines of brain dead humans—is a somber act? it just reinforces even more that your point of comparison can't be used as a counterargument against abortion...

Page wrote:

Ors Might wrote:one never really hears someone describe the sct of abortion in and of itself as a positive thing.

Abortion is a positive thing in the same way antibiotics are a positive thing, they solve a problem and it's good that the problem is solved.

Ors Might wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Then why mention that your point of comparison with abortion—switching off the life support machines of brain dead humans—is a somber act? it just reinforces even more that your point of comparison can't be used as a counterargument against abortion...

I’m saying that turning off life support for someone that’s brain dead is somber but necessary because there’s no chance that they can live. I feel pity for those that have to make the choice to pull the plug. The termination if the fetus is tragic for similar reasons but worse. If carried to term, that fetus will become a human being. An organism that I see as having value.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I’m saying that turning off life support for someone that’s brain dead is somber but necessary because there’s no chance that they can live. I feel pity for those that have to make the choice to pull the plug. The termination if the fetus is tragic for similar reasons but worse. If carried to term, that fetus will become a human being. An organism that I see as having value.

But a potential person does not override the will of an existing one to not have their body used without their consent.

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:
So your response to "why should the woman and fetus be made to suffer unnecessarily" is: "this is a waste of time". What a shameless cop out.

---

It's from a different thread, but it shows a pattern of behavior that needed to be brought forward to show your attitude to such things.

In brief, I'm not utilitarian. The ends do not justify the means. Abortion is a murderous action, which is worse then temporary suffering. It is certainly a difficult choice, but it is better to have the fetus die from natural causes than to kill him/her. When someone is ill, we don't rip them apart, we let nature take its course for their death. My position is incomprehensible if one just sees abortion as a medical procedure on a clump of cells, and not the murderous destruction of a human.

Happy? I'm going to guess not. Now you'll provide a rebuttal (along with several other people), and you'll expect a prompt response, calling me a coward if I refuse.