U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Creamu]

Added a bit of an edit to clarify the position. It’s absolutely true that humans have the capacity to dehumanise their kin for various purposes. Science *should* be considered with data - any science based on feeling can be discarded. I know for a fact that if I take a blood sample of a fetus to a lab and ask a technician to analyse it and tell me what species it’s from, they will tell me it’s human blood. That *should* be the end of the debate.

Yes, but science is a powerful institution, and people who seek power do this for reasons that are not scientific or not even rational. It might even be the case that actors who engage in such institutions are practicing high levels of self deception. I think it is important to always keep an eye on this.

The debate over personhood is more complicated, it’s part ideology and part brain development, with the latter part being murky, since the existence of a functioning brain doesn’t automatically denote sentience or personhood.

Personhood is a nabstract concept not rooted in nature, therefore I would argue ultimativly bound to ideology. What I find troubling is that we are by objectifying things like this, dominating people of other ideology. There may be no one size fits all solution to questions like these. If in a star trek scenario another planet has a certain practice of abortion should we get involved?

Are patients in a vegetative state persons? They are now, because we’re compassionate creatures, but are they really? It depends on what the brain is doing. We can’t communicate, of course, which makes things hard to quantify. We’d have to look at what parts of the brain are active, but even then we don’t know if we’re looking at thoughts or white noise. It’s complex - determining the species is not.

Well, to function at all and not being trapped in a solipsistic loop for example, there have to be assumptions. A deeper and deeper observation and analysis will not be free of underlying assumptions. The conlcusion will always be a revelation of the subjective mind. What do you think?

 

[osaka35]

I disagree - I wouldn’t consider a stem cell a separate human being, it’s a small part of the whole. Your skin is a part of you, but you are not your skin - you’re a collection of cells that compose you. Things get even more fun if we look at things from the Theseus’ Ship perspective, but that’s a different discussion. My point of contention is the dehumanisation of the fetus - it’s dishonest. It’s more honest to call it a human because it is in fact human, and given time, it would develop further into a child. That’s not the problem - the problem is whether we want that to happen, and at which point do we cross the line when it should no longer be permissible, if such a line exists. Some fanatics say that even a morning after is not permissible - that’s ridiculous, a fertilised egg has no chance at further development without nesting, even if it is human, and they’re often discarded by a woman’s body anyway. Not every fertilised egg gets to grow. On the flip side, fanatics on the other side are okay with abortion all the way up to 5 minutes before birth, when the child is fully formed. That’s equally ridiculous, and no different than infanticide. There’s a point between those two extremes that the lion’s share of society can agree on, it’s just a matter of finding that point. Scientifically speaking, the most agreeable point is before rapid brain development begins, as it’s hard to argue personhood with no brain. That’s the correct track, I think.

your definition of human seems to include "all potentials of a person, but only after conception". dehumanization of a fetus is baking in your conclusion though; the assumption a fetus is a full human. From what I understand, it's far more scientifically accurate to think of it as a blueprint of a human. It sounds like your definition of human includes the blueprints, since those are necessary for the final creation of the actual human. Just like you can't build a building without a plan, a blueprint is indeed necessary...but i personally wouldn't include it in the definition of a building. But I think we agree, that's almost a different conversation when religion isn't brought into the conversation.

And I agree, before the third trimester is probably the best cut-off point, for a variety of reasons. Ultimately it's up to the pregnant person if and when is appropriate, as it's their body being used as an incubator, but I agree most would feel that's the most logical cut-off point to avoid any ethical issues.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, but science is a powerful institution, and people who seek power do this for reasons that are not scientific or not even rational. It might even be the case that actors who engage in such institutions are practicing high levels of self deception. I think it is important to always keep an eye on this.

Personhood is a nabstract concept not rooted in nature, therefore I would argue ultimativly bound to ideology. What I find troubling is that we are by objectifying things like this, dominating people of other ideology. There may be no one size fits all solution to questions like these. If in a star trek scenario another planet has a certain practice of abortion should we get involved?

Well, to function at all and not being trapped in a solipsistic loop for example, there have to be assumptions. A deeper and deeper observation and analysis will not be free of underlying assumptions. The conlcusion will always be a revelation of the subjective mind. What do you think?

We can draw conclusions regarding brain function based on prior experience - science is actually very helpful here, even if it is occasionally tainted with ideology. Traumatic injury can profoundly change one’s personality - calm people can become violent, introverts can become extroverted, people can lose their ability to speak or read, even if they technically have the physical capacity to do so. From that we can extrapolate that the part that makes you “you” is the brain - that’s the temple of your personhood, which is admittedly a somewhat philosophical concept (although the science of personality is very much real), but it’s how we describe our body’s interpersonal and cognitive functions. If the brain is the temple, then whether the brain functions or not becomes the determining factor, does it not? We generally care about human life, but more specifically, we care about people, meaning persons. We don’t care about meat - meat is meat, human or otherwise. A cold way to think about things, but so is most of science.

your definition of human seems to include "all potentials of a person, but only after conception". dehumanization of a fetus is baking in your conclusion though; the assumption a fetus is a full human. From what I understand, it's far more scientifically accurate to think of it as a blueprint of a human. It sounds like your definition of human includes the blueprints, since those are necessary for the final creation of the actual human. Just like you can't build a building without a plan, a blueprint is indeed necessary...but i personally wouldn't include it in the definition of a building. But I think we agree, that's almost a different conversation when religion isn't brought into the conversation.

And I agree, before the third trimester is probably the best cut-off point, for a variety of reasons. Ultimately it's up to the pregnant person if and when is appropriate, as it's their body being used as an incubator, but I agree most would feel that's the most logical cut-off point to avoid any ethical issues.

The blueprint of a human is the DNA - it’s a sequence that has all the information required to create a complete organism, we have the technology to clone living beings, after all. I consider a fetus a growing human being because that’s what it is - it’s a growing mass of human cells, just like we all are. It’s “the ship”, not part of a ship - conceptually it’s the main body from which all other parts originate, and all future parts will belong to. I don’t distinguish between whether it’s complete or incomplete - an amputee is a human, but they are incomplete, they lack some of the parts that humans have. Completeness is another red herring that functions to dehumanise, and not the core issue. As you say, the core issue is whether we’re talking about a person or not - that’s what we *actually* care about. We generally agree that personhood requires a brain, therefore the existence of a functioning brain is the point of interest. I don’t like getting lost in the weeds, and there’s a lot of weeds in a complex issue like this. Only through separating the problem from all of the distractions can one arrive at the truth. The funny thing is that we’re arguing about this at all when we seem to be in agreement regarding the core - that’s precisely what I mean when I say that we miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on what’s immaterial to the core. We *could* agree at this point already as we’ve arrived at a mutually satisfactory time frame, but we’re arguing instead. See my point?

 

[Creamu]

We can draw conclusions regarding brain function based on prior experience - science is actually very helpful here, even if it is occasionally tainted with ideology.

Would you agree with the idea that science is a product of a collective of subjective minds?

Traumatic injury can profoundly change one’s personality - calm people can become violent, extroverts can become extroverted, people can lose their ability to speak or read, even if they technically have the physical capacity to do so. From that we can extrapolate that the part that makes you “you” is the brain - that’s the temple of your personhood, which is admittedly a philosophical concept, but it’s how we describe our body’s interpersonal functions.

What about the microbiom, the bacteria of your gut. However they are composed has an impact on your behavior and personality.

If the brain is the temple, then whether the brain functions or not becomes the determining factor, does it not?

In many cultures the brain is not the temple.

We generally care about human life, but more specifically, we care about people, meaning persons.

The question of person is abstract. Lao Tse has a concept of defeating ones own ego/I. To overcome the concept of being an actor in a greater whole but being the whole itself (Tao). Not holding on to as static form but see all as a movment.

 

[SyphenFreht]

What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS.

Plain and simple, people have become corporate products, and generations of people en masse have been bred to believe that human life is valuable, but only in the sense of corporate interests and personal affiliation. If all life is valuable, don't complain over just abortions. Complain about terrible wages, outrageous standard of living costs, a for profit prison system, and pretty much anything else that affects human life and its ability to live. Otherwise, how is it anyone's business but the select few involved?

 

[Foxi4]

Would you agree with the idea that science is a product of a collective of subjective minds?

What about the microbiom, the bacteria of your gut. However they are composed has an impact on your behavior and personality.

In many cultures the brain is not the temple.

The question of person is abstract. Lao Tse has a concept of defeating ones own ego/I. To overcome the concept of being an actor in a greater whole but being the whole itself (Tao). Not holding on to as static form but see all as a movment.

The concept of science, and the scientific method, are products of our minds. The results of science are derived from observations of the world, we’re basing our science on data. Our biases don’t affect the data, they can only affect our interpretation of the data.

This isn’t really a cultural matter - some cultures dance to make it rain, that doesn’t mean the rain is controlled with the power of dance. We know this, because we’ve observed weather patterns and arrived at a more logical conclusion.

Researching personality is a science in and out of itself, and the ego is one part of it. That’s immaterial to which human organ governs personality - we know it’s the brain because altering the function of the brain alters the personality, and surprisingly, vice versa. Your brain function can be affected by the activities you engage in. Your biology affects your cognition, and your cognition affects your biology - the conclusion is inevitable.

 

[Creamu]

The concept of science, and the scientific method, are products of our minds.

To be exact, it is the product of actors within a scientific discourse. A discourse that has different mechanism created by the same actors.

The results of science are derived from observations of the world, we’re basing our science on data. Our biases don’t affect the data, they can only affect our interpretation of the data.

If we produce the data how can it be divorced from our biases?

This isn’t really a cultural matter - some cultures dance to make it rain, that doesn’t mean the rain is controlled with the power of dance. We know this, because we’ve observed weather patterns and arrived at a more logical conclusion.

Yes, and for us that more logical conclusion works for us. Should we get involved in their affairs though? Evoltionary speaking I would argue, that the people with the "more logical" conclusion have arrived at that point because it was helpful for their survival. I would argue that the ritual of dancing for rain, has a deeper function to benefit their survival.

Researching personality is a science in and out of itself, and the ego is one part of it. That’s immaterial to which human organ governs personality - we know it’s the brain because altering the function of the brain alters the personality, and surprisingly, vice versa.

Same applies to the microbiom, and thats only bacteria in your body.

 

[Foxi4]

Same applies to the microbiom, and thats only bacteria in your body.

Skipping over the minutiae, why do you think that is?

 

[Creamu]

Skipping over the minutae, why do you think that is?

Because the human experience form an inward or outward perspective is determined by all factors at play.

 

[Coto]

What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS.

Plain and simple, people have become corporate products, and generations of people en masse have been bred to believe that human life is valuable, but only in the sense of corporate interests and personal affiliation. If all life is valuable, don't complain over just abortions. Complain about terrible wages, outrageous standard of living costs, a for profit prison system, and pretty much anything else that affects human life and its ability to live. Otherwise, how is it anyone's business but the select few involved?

I'd be 99.9% sure these are paid people to push political agendas of the party they work with. It's very easy to identify these people. They cause segregation or tantrums to oppose people against you, by collectivizing specific groups (like young people, usually being unable to distinguish what causes them harm and whatnot) by decimating any rational-common sense, individual thought causing instead, a shift in power towards their own minority controlling the whole group.

KGB agents calls that marxism leninism

 

[Creamu]

I'd be 99.9% sure these are paid people to push political agendas of the party they work with. It's very easy to identify these people. They cause segregation or tantrums to oppose people against you, by collectivizing specific groups (like young people, usually being unable to distinguish what causes them harm and whatnot) by decimating any rational-common sense, individual thought causing instead, the control to shift towards their own minority controlling the whole group.

KGB agents calls that marxism leninism

agreed

 

[Foxi4]

Because the human experience form an inward or outward perspective is determined by all factors at play.

Or, or, or! More likely, your gut bacteria determine your digestion and glandular function, which in turn affects hormone production, and hormone levels affect your brain function. Brain chemistry is a thing - we know this because certain chemicals affect our cognitive function. I can independently verify that by clanking glasses with you and having a drink. I’m a gin and tonic man, you? Which poison affects your personality best? This, among other factors related to microbiome, affects your personality, but only by proxy - it does so because it affects the brain.

 

[Creamu]

Or, or, or! More likely, your gut bacteria determine your digestion and glandular function, which in turn affects hormone production, and hormone levels affect your brain function. Brain chemistry is a thing - we know this because certain chemicals affect our cognitive function. I can independently verify that by clanking glasses with you and having a drink. I’m a gin and tonic man, you? Which poison affects your personality best?

Waterkefir, which coincidentally cultivates the microbiom.

 

[Foxi4]

Waterkefir, which coincidentally cultivates the microbiom.

Interesting choice! I’ll drink to that.

 

[Creamu]

Interesting choice! I’ll drink to that.

Hopefully in a low EMF enviroment, because EMF radiation changes the DNA of your microbiom.

 

[Foxi4]

Hopefully in a low EMF enviroment, because EMF radiation changes the DNA of your microbiom.

There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.

 

[Creamu]

There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.

It's been nice talking to you. Take care!

 

[Deleted member 559230]

What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS.

That's easy. Life is precious, abortions should not take place. However, the financial responsibility lies on the people who created the baby. Not random strangers. You're bitching because people like me don't want to pay for dead beat parents. You're basically saying it's okay for the parents to not feed or cloth their children and it should be my responsibility to do so when I had nothing to do with creating their child. Yeah, nope. I'm not supporting dead beat trash by making excuses for their actions or by voting to give them part of my income.

 

[KennyAtom]

https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device

no matter your stance on this issue, you have to admit this article is funny but also partially true.

 

[AleronIves]

the core issue is whether we’re talking about a person or not - that’s what we *actually* care about. We generally agree that personhood requires a brain, therefore the existence of a functioning brain is the point of interest.

The problem is, not everybody believes that personhood requires a brain. Much of the abortion debate in the US revolves around religious beliefs, especially the idea that some sort of supreme being gives you a supernatural, immutable essence (usually called a soul) at the moment of conception. As long as people believe such a thing, they will never support abortion, since their threshold for personhood is conception, rather than brain development in the third trimester.

Since the US has separation of church and state, one could argue that these beliefs should be ignored in favour of the third-trimester threshold of personhood, as that's the best answer science can currently give us, but that's difficult to do in practice when many elected leaders hold the "life begins at conception" viewpoint (which really means "personhood begins at conception", since everybody agrees that life begins at conception. The core issue, as you've already discussed, is whether that life matters, i.e. is it a person).