I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

Your position of being against abortion without exception appears to contradict your belief that some abortions are definitely not a sin (immoral, wrong, erroneous, or whatever).

If they are not 'different thing's then they cannot be alternate states of 'one another', let's say. They would be the same thing. There is a difference, which you acknowledge here. — AmadeusD

This is because it is hard to describe a living thing with a static word “thing”. We have to be precise and language, which fixes things, is trying to fix a living, changing organism. So it’s messy.

An adult organism is constantly changing too. So if we want to say an adult human Is a “thing”, and then say it constantly changes, tomorrow morning we have a new “thing” too according to you. Really, moment to moment everything changes.

So “thing” becomes a meaningless term. There are no things anywhere ever anymore.

But if we want to believe that, in the changing motion, there is some sort of temporary but for a time lasting component to reality, as in, a pregnant woman that can last nine or so months, we can integrate constant change with its permanent subject of that change.

Now when a sperm fertilizes an egg, we can say the constantly changing sperm is a thing that, once joined with the egg, ceases to be a thing, and the egg and sperm together start the motions and changes of a new thing.

I’m saying that the motions and changes of that new thing, the zygote, if left to play out, move on to fetal forms, infant form, adolescent and adult, and I’m saying this is the life of that one thing.

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult - it’s what a human being is when it is first conceived like the adult is what a human being is when it is grown. — Fire Ologist

It's true the acorn and the oak are the same species, so in that sense, the same thing, but the loss of an acorn is very different from the loss of a tree. The loss of an oak tree has a far reaching impact on the area in which it lived, just like the loss of an adult impacts children, friends, employers, etc., while the loss of a fetus is usually felt as the loss of what could have been. I'm speaking from watching people lose relatives in a hospital environment. Infants don't have distinct personalities, so when they die, though it may be devastating to parents, it's not like the loss of an individual with specific traits. It's the loss of what was hoped for, or maybe it's the loss of a potential person the parents bonded to prior to it's even existing.

The loss of an elderly relative is a matter of letting go of someone who has lived a full life. There's grief, but there's no sense that this shouldn't have happened. It's natural. The worst death of all is that of a child. It was an individual. He or she was a distinct person, and it's always counter to nature. It's never ok, and it can never be ok. This leaves me with the sense that we value real personhood over potential. Potential isn't something we can hold in our hands. It's only in our minds, you know? How would you address that?

Ok, I mistook you to be skeptical of my motives. You were skeptical of my ability to make a coherent point. Fair enough.

Abortion without exception - means abortion any time for any reason.

I personally am against someone having an abortion for any reason they want. So personally, I am anti abortion without exception. This opinion only comes up when someone asks. It’s not a tee-shirt I hand out at rallies. I don’t go to rallies.

But I am fine letting people use their own reason to figure out their own choices about a lot of things. I don’t think we need nearly as many laws as we have. So practically, I’m pro private right of abortion with certain limitations (up to six months or something, then for life of the mother, etc).

Anything more metaphysical seem contradictory?

I think you might not realize... — frank

Somewhat presumptuous of you.

There's more than one issue here, of course, and many an intractable problem. In todays ABC news is a report concerning problems with accessing abortion on NSW. One story is of a mother of two who traveled for two hours to a hospital for a procedure to terminate a malformed foetus at 14 weeks, but due to a misunderstanding here procedure was canceled, forcing a later term abortion. Another case was a woman who sort an abortion at nine weeks but was not supported by here doctor on conscientious grounds and eventually needed an abortion at 22 weeks.

The issue here is why folk stand against abortion at all. This is not to deny the import of when and how. But that is a seperate discussion.

Added: And both of these issues are seperate to the issue of language chosen. Your reference to Hitler was insipid.

My argument is that it is wrong to kill one’s offspring. My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it.

eventually needed an abortion at 22 weeks. — Banno

Why did she need an abortion?

Why do you need to know? You don't trust her?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-30/abortion-access-regional-australia-denying-women-health-care/104387416

So it’s messy. — Fire Ologist

I agree with this, and I think this is why this particular debate always ends up coming down to a 'gut feeling', such as that contains any meaning.

An adult organism is constantly changing too. So if we want to say an adult human Is a “thing”, and then say it constantly changes, tomorrow morning we have a new “thing” too according to you. — Fire Ologist

I'm only in partial agreement here. An adult organism is always changing, but with the exception of something like surgical removal or addition, it's form does not change. We do not expect an adult human to become another form. We do with younger humans - even toddlers. Proportions change drastically in those first 10 years, and then function changes drastically in the next four or five. Once that's relatively settled by roughly 25, we do not expect any more significant changes. Nay, we couldn't expect any that are not aberrations. I think this is important and supports my distinction.

So “thing” becomes a meaningless term. There are no things anywhere ever anymore. — Fire Ologist

This seems, sorry to say, a totally unreasonable strawman. It doesn't actually address the use of 'thing' anyway. It addresses it's application to a changeable entity.

we can integrate constant change with its permanent subject of that change. — Fire Ologist

In my view, it's not 'we can'. It is the case. There's nothing further.

Now when a sperm fertilizes an egg, we can say the constantly changing sperm is a thing that, once joined with the egg, ceases to be a thing, and the egg and sperm together start the motions and changes of a new thing. — Fire Ologist

We certainly could. But, if you want to do this, you need also take on board some other very, VERY important aspects of gestation that would provide a new 'thing'. And that also supports both my view above, and that we can have various ideas of what a 'person' or 'human being' comes into existence. The gut feeling determinant remains.

some abortions are definitely not a sin — praxis

Oh you were wondering how I think that, because all abortion is the killing of a person, only some abortions might be sins. An easy example is an abortion to save the life of the mother. It’s not a sin in a crappy situation to do the best you can to save lives, and if the way to save any lives involves killing the fetal human, it’s not a sin or immoral to do so.

Hmmm, let's ask what a third disinterested party thinks.

Hey @chatgpt, what does anti-abortion without exception mean?

"Anti-abortion without exception" refers to a stance on abortion that opposes allowing abortion in any circumstance. This position means that a person or policy does not support abortion, even in cases where exceptions are typically debated, such as:

Rape or incest: Situations where pregnancy occurs due to non-consensual acts.

Life or health of the mother: When the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the mother's physical health or life.

Fetal abnormalities: Cases where the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that may lead to a non-viable pregnancy or severe health issues after birth.

Those who hold this view believe that abortion should not be permitted under any conditions, often based on ethical, religious, or moral grounds. It contrasts with other anti-abortion positions that may allow for specific exceptions. — chatgpt

You guys need Planned Parenthood. These are small clinics that offer a range of services for women's health including abortion. Like a lot of stuff in the US, it's partly funded by donations, so it's able to exercise some autonomy in providing low cost services. Since abortion is something you feel strongly about, you should start a funding drive to open a clinic for those women.

My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it. — NOS4A2

I don't see what the point of humanizing (making it more civilized or whatever) a fetus would be if they weren't aware of it in some way. I've heard of parents playing classical music during pregnancy for their unborn child. Couldn't hurt, I think.

Hmm. The problem is more general than that, to do with the NSW government failing to provide adequate health care in rural areas. But even given that there is no way I would trade our health system for your mess.

You slide through multiple issues without accountability.

I think the focus on the single cell is for the insult value. — frank

No, it isn't.

Hitler liked the word "vermin." — frank

Godwin's law.

I think you might not realize... — frank

You do not know what I "realise".

Why did she need an abortion? — frank

Can't women be trusted to make their own decisions when provided with professional support?

...you should... — frank

More presumption.

Yes. I'm a butthead. So are you.

Agreed.

You are learning. :wink:

:grin:

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult — Fire Ologist

It's not clear what you mean by this. A human zygote is a single-celled organism – 46 chromosomes surrounded by cytoplasm surrounded by a cell wall. A human adult is a multi-cellular organism with a brain and other organs, limbs, and capable of thinking and feeling. In terms of morphology and physiology, there are very real and very significant physical differences between a zygote and an adult. The only "similarity" is that the 46 chromosomes contained within the nucleus of a zygote contain roughly the same DNA as that contained within the cells of some human adult.

So what do you mean by saying that a human zygote is the same thing as an adult? And why is this sense of being the same thing morally relevant?

If it's just about the DNA, then the second question is what matters most. DNA is just a bunch of chemicals. Why is a particular combination of chemicals morally significant?

Say there are two zygotes; one containing chromosomes with human DNA (and so is counted as a human zygote) and one containing chromosomes with frog DNA (and so is counted as a frog zygote). What is it about the former set of molecules that morally distinguishes it from the latter set of molecules?

My concern isn’t so much the taxonomy but the flesh-and-blood entity that you are justifying killing. I don’t require categories to tell me when it is or isn’t appropriate to take a life, and I don’t need to dehumanize someone. Simple justice and dignity suffices to inform how it is appropriate to treat another living being.

So if it isn’t human life what kind of life would you suggest it is? — NOS4A2

You can only ever act on your categories. It's why you don't have a problem killing a fly as a fly is not a human even though it has flesh and blood. As I said before, we will agree 99% of the time what a human is. A vast majority of these "flesh-and-blood" entities fall neatly into that category. It is only those entities that are on the fringes of the category that we might disagree. In fact, a zygote has no flesh or blood, so according to your own words, they would not qualify.

What I am focusing on is those grey areas in those boundaries where life starts and life ends. How is terminating a life that is in a coma and may never come out, or ending a life that is on life support and may never be able to come off of it, dehumanizing someone? People make those decisions frequently and we don't say that they are being de-humanizing, rather the opposite. Terminating a zygote or embryo when it wasn't wanted in the first place, or when tests show that there could be serious mental or physical problems, or is a threat to the mother's life, isn't any more dehumanizing than terminating those at the end of their lives to give them some semblance of dignity. You are free to have an abortion or not. You are not free to force others to have children when they don't want them and the pregnancy is still in an early stage. Thinking you can force a woman that was raped to have a child, or to have a child with severe mental or physical disabilities when you aren't the one that will have to worry about that child's well-being through it's life and after the mother dies, is dehumanizing.

I get it that it looks contradictory The term “anti abortion-without-exception” is confusing, depending on where the hyphens go.

It’s a stupid term. There’s “anti-abortion, without exception” which is what chat GPT defined, and then there’s someone who is against (anti) unrestricted abortion for any reason (abortion without exception), which what I am.

Although I think I was very clear, in the interest of exchanging more discussion with you on my supporting arguments, I’ll try to clear up what my conclusions are as you’ve asked.

Public policy: Abortion should be legal to be conducted for any reason up to six months, and then after should be restricted to cases of necessity.

Personal reasoning on the issue: Since even a zygote is a human being, I would not ever recommend an abortion except in cases of necessity (ie, life of the mother).

So, given my public policy stance and private personal stance I say I’d basically leave the law so others can have room for different personal stances, but I am personally against abortion unless it is for a necessary reason. I called this anti abortion-without-exception (versus pro abortion-without-exception) and created the contradiction controversy. The better catch phrase might be anti-private right of abortion-without-exception. And because this phrase is open to some limited abortion rights, I, without contradiction, leave space for a public stance that is pro- public right of abortion with some limitation.

I hope that helps. Sorry about the confusion. There’s no contradiction there. It’s a fairly common bunch of conclusions.

Personally none of the above is really interesting, except to catch me in a contradiction, which is relevant because why should you continue speaking with someone who contradicts themselves.

But now that we’ve cleared that up, what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking?

One can act on his principles and experiences. I don’t kill flies because they are flies but because I am at eternal war with them.

The abortion itself isn’t dehumanizing. Dehumanizing someone isn’t the act of killing, but of considering someone inhuman so as to make killing them easier. It’s a psychological and linguistic process. You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible, question his humanity, so the homicide leaves a softer mark on the conscience. It’s why you cannot say what other species of life you are killing, despite questioning that he is human.

I’m completely against prohibition or forced births, and always was. But fairly recent advances in embryology and genetics makes it clear we’re ending an innocent human life. “Personhood” isn’t a coherent ground to stand on either, and the notion comes off as more superstitious than the transmigration of souls. So personally I cannot be dismissive of the victim and pretend abortion is some moral good to be celebrated.

created the contradiction controversy — Fire Ologist

There’s no controversy. I’d trust you more if you admitted to goofing around. Honestly though, I don’t care if you’re sincere or not. Let’s play pretend…

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking? — Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views in order to get into this. I’m sure they will be interesting.

You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible — NOS4A2

What human qualities does a zygote have? It is 46 molecules of DNA wrapped in proteins contained within cytoplasm and a cell wall.

It strikes me that you keep equivocating on the term "human", where you want it to be both a term that just refers to any organism with certain genetic information and also a term that carries moral significance. The former does not entail the latter.

All humans go through that phase in their development and are born of human parents. Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term.

So what do you mean by saying that a human zygote is the same thing as an adult? And why is this sense of being the same thing morally relevant? — Michael

So first, I am treating these two questions completely separately. The first question is: when does a new thing that comes into being, have to be called a “human being”? When does something like you and me first begin to exist?

I have no interest yet in assigning value or moral relevance to whatever may be the answer. I’m treating a human being like a frog, as just any old organism, and asking when does an individual organism first come to be? At this point, there is nothing of moral value anywhere in the discussion, for me.

I think much, but not all, of the controversy on the moral (second) question is because of bad or no answer on this metaphysical/biological (first) question.

When we get to the moral question, I don’t intend to give equal moral relevance to anything other than a person. But for now, I just intend to lay out some definition of a person, and point to where on the timeline such a creature pops into existence.

Is that a conversation you want to have? The metaphysical/biological question of when any new type of life is new?

Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term. — NOS4A2

I don't believe in essentialism. If you want to use the term "human" to refer to any organism – even single-celled organisms – with such-and-such DNA then you're welcome to, but this linguistic practice carries no moral relevance.

If this is all you mean by "human" then the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent humans" is the claim "it is wrong to kill innocent organisms with such-and-such DNA", and this second claim hasn't been justified. What is so special about this DNA?

If you were to argue that it is wrong to kill any innocent organism regardless of its DNA (and so regardless of its assigned taxonomy) then that would be one thing, but the fact that you keep talking about it being human and dehumanization shows that you think there's something special about our DNA, but you refuse to ever explain what or why this is.

if you admitted to goofing around — praxis

Are you reading my whole posts? The time I’m putting in to try to answer your questions.

I admitted the phrase you took to GPT was confusing AND I cleared up my thoughts again. If you think there was any goofing around, are you still not understanding me?

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking?
— Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views — praxis

That came out of nowhere. You’ll have to describe how religious views have any bearing or relevance in conversation about when an animal first comes to exist.

This all has nothing to do with religion to me.

I’d rather you just lay out and explain your own view or we can keep circling around some point about me and what I must really think.

I’d trust you more if — praxis

Odd thing is, I couldn’t be more clear about exactly what my conclusions are. There is nothing left to hide.

Wish you would take your turn.

You don’t believe in essentialism, yet insist that it is essentially just a single-celled organism, no different than any other single-celled organisms.

But this single-celled organism came about different than other single-cells organisms. The act and the beings who created it also make it human. Its creation, its development, its biology, its surroundings, and yes its DNA, make it a certain kind of single-celled organism.

I think much, but not all, of the controversy on the moral (second) question is because of bad or no answer on this metaphysical/biological (first) question. — Fire Ologist

That's where I disagree. I don't think the first question matters. I'm not an essentialist. There is no such thing as some necessary and sufficient set of conditions that must be satisfied for an organism to "count" as human. We simply use the word "human" to refer to a group of similar organisms, but disagree on whether or not zygotes and embryos and foetuses are similar enough to us to warrant the use of the term "human" to refer to them. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer; it is a linguistic convention either way.

To better explain this, consider these three sentences:

1. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent human
2. It is wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog
3. It is not wrong to kill X because X is an innocent frog

These are all non sequiturs. One cannot go from "X is a member of species Y" to "therefore it is wrong/not wrong to kill X". At the very least each of these needs some additional supporting premise, such as:

4. It is wrong to kill an innocent human
5. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog
6. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog

But then each of these must be justified. We need some other additional supporting premise, such as:

7. It is wrong to kill an innocent human because an innocent human has/is Y
8. It is wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog has/is Y
9. It is not wrong to kill an innocent frog because an innocent frog doesn't have/isn't Y

Y is what matters. When we determine what Y is we can then ask whether or not zygotes (or frogs, or some extra-terrestrial species) have/are Y.

For me, that Y concerns a sufficient degree of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence, etc., and I can use this to judge the moral worth of other organisms, whether they be zygotes, frogs, Kryptonians, or whatever.

But this single-celled organism came about different than other single-cells organisms. The act and the beings who created it also make it human. Its creation, its development, its biology, its surroundings, and yes its DNA, make it a certain kind of single-celled organism. — NOS4A2

And why is that morally relevant?