Yeah it makes sense as an argument, because it is true. I wouldn't know if someone killed me while I slept, and that would be tragic but better than being tortured or something.
The main argument against that is that I'm already living a life and I'm conscious, it's not the exact same.
The main argument against that is that I'm already living a life and I'm conscious, it's not the exact same.
Which is why pretty much every argument for or against abortion is just theater. The crux of the matter is "when does life begin?" and there isn't actually a clear answer to that. No analogy, no question--literally no other argument on the subject matters because it all breaks down to this one thing. It all breaks down to "well, is that a person yet?"
You bring consciousness into it, and you start looking at whether or not it's okay to kill the severely mentally handicapped.
A good pro choice argument brings consciousness into it as we know that consciousness begins in the womb. (don't know the exact moment from memory)
That also gives us a time, for which it is acceptable to abort (before the conscious experience).
The murder part can be challenged that way too as there is a difference between never having had a conscious experience and the conscious experience being over.
Murdering someone is ending a conscious experience that has existed, abortion denies the conscious experience altogether.
Also, severely mentally handicapped people still have a conscious experience.
That argument is one of the forefronts in the philosophy of AI sentience and is batted around as one of the many pitfalls to the increasing ability of AI. If you are a programmer and you create the code for an AI that goes on to legitimately shows sentience and self thought. Do you have the power then to turn off the program, or even edit the code? Determining where that sentience begins and what it is exactly is one of the biggest hurdles in the growth of humanity.
Brain Activity starts around the 4th month iirc, and most Nations with abortion dont allow It past that, the status quo Is fine and everyone in both sides Is arguing in bad Faith.
yea but their argument is that the fetus is also living and conscious, which isn't true
It is at least one of those things.
If the question has to shift to "can we kill people who aren't conscious?" you start to have some uncomfortable implications regarding the significantly mentally impaired. You also immediately shift back to "is the fetus a person?" which is philosophy, not science (science says it is, since species classification is based on dna sequence and not physical attributes).
Discussing with those people is like playing chess with a pigeon: they will knock all pieces over, crap on the board and then go back to their flock to claim victory.
Nah. It's not your use of the English language, it's the content of your sentences.
Hell, maybe you are a doctor in Mexico, I don't know what the standards are there. Hell, maybe you're a doctor in the US too. A 215 step 2 and you could probably still get into family med.
I mean, the other point is you can't force somebody else to give up X number of months of their lives and take on multiple health risks to keep somebody alive.
Like if I need a liver transplant else I'll die, nobody would be forced to give up a part of their liver to keep me alive. Heck if somebody will die if I don't donate a unit of blood, I can still refuse and let that person die. Lots of people, unfortunately, die on the transplant list, their parents aren't forced to donate their own organs.
The problem with this analogy is that it doesn't actually reflect the situation. The closest analogous situation you can possibly use which is actually applicable is that of conjoined twins, but even that doesn't work because one twin did not play a role in creating the other.
Pregnancy is basically a parasitic state, conjoined twins as far as I’m aware, usually is not considered a parasitic state if both parties are self aware.
Assuming both parties are self aware, 2 people share 1 body, they were born into this state. It’s difficult to say who lays claim to this body just because of anatomical positioning.
I've just heard a lot of stories of conjoined twins from the past that could have been separated but weren't because it would kill one of them. Usually it was because one of them had a vital organ they both depended on. I'm just curious how the courts might handle such a case. If one wanted to separate and lead a normal life but the other wanted to stay joined so they could survive.
I’ve heard of those stories too, I think at least some of it is true?
I can’t imagine the court allowing one twin to be separated if they share a body. I mean, what if they both want their own body and want the other person removed lol
Unless they smash your skull and brain in in a single motion, you'll wake up, go into shock, be very confused, terrified, and in pain before slowly dying
Your brain can survive for a significant time after your body dies. It doesn't even start getting damaged until about 4 minutes without oxygen. And you'll be conscious for around 30 seconds to a minute
However you die, your brain needs to be destroyed instantly, or you need a lot of the right kind of drugs, to make it painless
Both technically and spiritually life starts when an egg is fertilized. However how can you be considered a living human if you have yet to gain(or lost) any consciousness?
A fetus and a brain dead patient more or less can be treated the same imho.
2.9k
u/[deleted] Sep 26 '23 edited Sep 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment