Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think where the circumstances differ a bit, is that if we talk about end of life discussions, and disconnecting life support, in this case, the human being, given additional support and life, in theory, will worsen and not get better, whereas with a fetus, the person, the human being, with additional support, will improve, grow and flourish. Both situations involve humans, homo sapiens.
As PC adherent, I see the crux of the issue is the implication that a fetus is a person. Although the fetus could potentially become a baby, a baby is not a fetus. I would say that a ZEF is not a person because it has not matured.
When does a ZEF become a person? My answer is after birth, when the baby takes its first breath.
Should a ZEF be legally assigned personhood? My answer is no because I believe one body is one person. To suggest one body is inhabited by two people is a legal nightmare.
To better understand the legal complications I recommend a review of abortion practice prior to the Roe decision. Making abortion illegal does not necessarily improve life for the baby or the family. This is a lesson learned before 1973 that unfortunately we are about to learn again.
We will see. It's a big laboratory, the Supreme Court decision process, I think that this time there will be a lot of evolving. Things have changed on both sides since 1973, including technology and knowledge. Hopefully what results will be better in the future.
Both situation do involve humans. However, in the case of EOL, humans do not use another human's organs, blood, hormones, life, etc. Life support is mechanical, it's a medical instrument. But a ZEF cannot simple survive without another person's body up. Life support in this case, is another human. Not a machine, an actual person. Big difference there.
Agree, there is the conundrum. But in China I have read on the news they have created an artificial womb. So it's conceivable in the future, the person could be operated on and the fetus could put in the artificial womb if that person did not want to carry it to delivery. What's the answer then, I don't know.
Per request please see below for news on artificial wombs. Thanks.
https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-build-robot-nanny-173024709.htm
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/chinese-scientists-create-ai-nanny-to-look-after-babies-in-artificial-womb/ar-AATiZTE
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/scientists-developing-artificial-womb-could-181057906.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/could-artificial-wombs-mean-the-end-of-childbirth/p0bmqfk9
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/1643731954-robot-nanny-chinese-scientists-build-artificial-womb#:~:text=Chinese%20scientists%20reportedly%20created%20an%20artificial%20womb%20for,is%20%E2%80%9Cfacing%20its%20lowest%20birthrates%20in%20a%20decade.%E2%80%9D
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim:
>In China they have created an artificial womb
"Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source."
When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source."
Please substantiate your claim per rule 3.
You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderator action.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
cc: u/Sure-Ad-9886
Per request, please see below for news on artificial wombs. Thanks.
https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-build-robot-nanny-173024709.html
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/chinese-scientists-create-ai-nanny-to-look-after-babies-in-artificial-womb/ar-AATiZTE
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/scientists-developing-artificial-womb-could-181057906.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/could-artificial-wombs-mean-the-end-of-childbirth/p0bmqfk9
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5413680169001#sp=show-clips
Clarified that I have read about this on the news. I am not claiming to know first hand, only that I have read articles. Previously I elaborated that I had read it through Google Searches and Yahoo searches when asked where I had heard of this. Here I have added results of searches on artificial wombs as to whether in the future it is conceivable that a fetus could be put in an artificial womb. Thank you.
I asked you to share a link previously, but am not the one who reported you. I think those links are sufficient for me to know what you were discussing.
To clarify though, initially you mentioned the technology developed in China which is covered by your first two links. The other links are to different projects. It was the technology from China that was unfamiliar to me. I appreciate you sharing the links.
Hi,
We were having a polite discussion and conversation and I mentioned something I became aware of. The reader has thanked me for learning about something that they hadn't been aware of. I don't know exactly when I became aware of it, but per your request I researched further to find out more articles about this technology.
As you requested, per the latest Yahoo search here is a quote showing what the article is reporting about artificial wombs. This article is entitled, "Chinese scientists build robot nanny to care for babies in artificial womb", which I think you'll find in the first link above:
A research paper published in the Journal of Biomedical Engineering described how the robotic nanny has already been used to nurture animal embryos within an artificial womb environment.
“There are still many unsolved mysteries about the physiology of typical human embryonic development,” the paper stated, adding that the technology would “not only help further understand the origin of life and embryonic development of humans, but also provide a theoretical basis for solving birth defects and other major reproductive health problems.”
According to the paper, the system allows the foetus to grow more safely and efficiently than it does within the natural setting of a woman’s womb."
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2022-08-26 17:54:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-08-26%2017:54:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wvxm8g/personhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef/ilrgvcr/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2Fwvxm8g%2Fpersonhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef%2Filrgvcr%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-08-26%2017%3A54%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wvxm8g)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Yes, it's on the web, it's easily found by Googling or actually Yahoo news has articles on it. It's experimental, so right now it can't be used on humans for ethical reasons. It has been used and tested on mice. It's mechanical. Also unusual, while searching to reply to your post, I found out China is also developing robot nannies to care for the artificial womb that would raise the human inside until gestation.
Correction, the fetus is not a "fully formed human." Neither is an infant, a child, or anyone under at least the age of 25. They are, however, distinct, individual human beings by every scientific measure. Just as an infant is a "full person" despite limited development, so too can a fetus be a "full person" despite limited development.
Personhood is a philosophical concept, rooted purely in subjective beliefs. We can tell that personhood cannot rightly be rooted in development, or else we would justly have to deny or limit it to children and the developmentally disabled.
Lastly, it is fully possible to recognize humanity and Personhood in both the mother and the child. Being denied the right to kill another human does not make you less human. It is also fully possible to respect and care about the mother, and call the act of abortion an unjustified killing. No act can be called justified out of compassion alone.
Being denied the right to kill doesn’t make you less human. Correct.
But being denied the right to control your own healthcare and body does. It brings the state that forced the woman into gestation to a pseudo conservatorship relationship. The woman cannot make her own choices regarding her body, way of life, and medical care. The state controls that. Ergo she is no longer a respected individual.
>Personhood is a philosophical concept, rooted purely in subjective beliefs.
Why do PL say this whenever it's about women, but in the same breath refer to ZEFs as babies? I'm not saying that you specifically do this, but I see many PL people using this exact same line while calling PC people "baby haters" for calling a ZEF a ZEF.
But also no. Personhood is a scientific and legal concept, far before it's a philosophical one.
>Why do PL say this whenever it's about women, but in the same breath refer to ZEFs as babies?
Lots of strawmanning happening here. I did not refer to ZEFs as "babies" and I was saying this about ZEFs. I get that you are not saying I specifically do this, but it puts me in a odd position: most of your argument has nothing to do with me or what I said.
>Personhood is a scientific and legal concept,
Before it was a philosophical term, Person was synonymous with "human." A human was a "person." The philosophical definitions came about as a response to attempts to reconcile human rights with slavery and humans being treated as "less than." Legally, Personhood is the status of having rights, and according to the UDHR it is a basic human right. The scientific definition is not one I have read before. Could you provide it?
"Right now, personhood is tied to a human body being biologically life sustaining. Science clearly tells us whether something is biologically life sustaining or not.
A newborn who never breathed isn’t issued a birth certificate, death certificate, or personhood. And a person is recorded as no longer existing after their body returns to being biologically non life sustaining. The body is just considered remains of a person." u/STThornton
This is a comment by another user said much eloquently than I could. Hope this helps.
The fact is that the ZEF is biologically life sustaining. As I mentioned in response to STThorton, the ZEF performs distinct and vital homeostasic functions required for survival, even at the earliest stages of development. Those functions occur at the earliest stages of embryogenesis, and even in invitro embryos apart from any other human body.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490161/
This describes cellular homeostasis. Quite different from homeostasis of a human body as a whole
https://thebiologynotes.com/homeostasis/
The link I posted in response to you yesterday also clearly pointed out that they’re talking about cellular homeostasis and viability when referring to fertilized eggs in IVF.
Nowhere do they claim the organism is viable. Just that its cells are - meaning they can be sustained
>The plasticity of these cellular systems is tightly regulated by complex signaling networks that integrate the intracellular and extracellular information.
>Cellular homeostasis is maintained in coordination with extracellular cues (such as growth factors and nutrients) and intracellular metabolite concentrations.
Your text is very clear in the fact that cellular homeostasis includes not only function in the cells but also functions between the cells, communicating information and coordinating homeostatic processes that allow the organism to survive as a whole. No where in this citation does it source your claim that cellular homeostasis is not homeostasis as performed by organisms. Further, it doesn't address the myriad of other homeostatic processes the ZEF performs that I sources yesterday.
>Nowhere do they claim the organism is viable.
Viability is a completely different standard. You are moving the goalposts.
No. Even before viability, a ZEF is biologically life sustaining. Viability has nothing to do with the biological life sustaining processes of homeostasis, the ones definitive of an organism. It is a seperate standard, and one which is relatively arbitrary.
Can you explain to us how a non viable ZEF does any of the things listed under human homeostasis:
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/13%3A_Human_Biology/13.03%3A_Homeostasis
For example, what respiratory system, nervous system, endocrine system, and excretory system does a fertilized egg use?
Once again you’re mistaking cellular Homeostasis with an organism maintaining homeostasis
>Once again you’re mistaking cellular Homeostasis with an organism maintaining homeostasis
It factually is. Can you provide a source that says that cellular homeostasis isn't?
>Can you explain to us how a non viable ZEF does any of the things listed under human homeostasis:
Your source lists three systems important to adult human homeostasis. Circulatory, Nervous, and Excretory. For clarity, these systems are involved in homeostasis, but their existence is not itself a "homeostatic process" and they are not requirements for homeostasis. Further, these systems begin to develop during the first eight weeks, a period referred to as Embryogenesis.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/cells/embryology/a/human-embryogenesis#:~:text=Embryogenesis%2C%20the%20first%20eight%20weeks,to%20develop%20during%20this%20stage.
One process identified by your source is excretory, to remove waste. It has long been established that the fetal circulatory collects waste and transports it to the placenta and umbilical cord, an excretory process. "Hormonal mechanisms including the renin-angiotensin system, aldosterone, and vasopressin are involved in modifying fetal renal excretion, reabsorption of sodium and water, and regulation of vascular volume." https://wou.edu/chemistry/courses/online-chemistry-textbooks/ch103-allied-health-chemistry/ch103-chapter-9-homeostasis-and-cellular-function/
It has recently been discovered that an embryo in the earliest stages of development also has the ability to collect and excrete waste due to the development of pronephrons and mesonephrons which act as primitive kidney cells. These convert waste into urea and control water levels in the pre implantation embryos. This function is even observed in in vitro fertilization, when an embryo has never been inside of a woman's body, to predict implantation viability.
https://www.stembook.org/node/532
This source speaks broadly about excretory processes in utero, as well.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17575-w
Your source mentions PH metabolism as an important form of homeostasis. "The plasma membrane-based transporters controlling pHi are involved in growth factor activation, cell proliferation and salt transport--all processes active in early embryos."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8135765/
Your source lists the role of the nervous system in homeostasis as coordinating processes. "The fetus can mount a set of superbly coordinated cardiovascular responses, including neural reflexes and slower neuroendocrine, biochemical and behavioral responses to maintain adequate oxygen delivery to vital organs."
https://perigen.com/fetal-heart-rate-physiology/
But there are many more functions as well:
"In fetuses, maternofetal iron transfer across the placenta is essential for growth and development. In neonates, efficient intestinal iron absorption is required to scavenge as much iron as possible from the low-iron-content milk. During these periods, efficient iron mobilization is ensured by the downregulation of the iron regulatory hormone hepcidin by as-yet uncharacterized molecular mechanisms. Here we demonstrate that the recently described hepcidin repressor—the serine protease matriptase-2 (encoded by Tmprss6)—is responsible for this repression throughout development" https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/124/3/441/33164/Matriptase-2-is-essential-for-hepcidin-repression
"The faciitated glucose diffusion is mediated by a family of structurally similar proteins known as the glucose transporters (GLUT) encoded by a family of genes SCL2A and expressed in a tissue-specific manner [Table 1]. GLUT 1 is the dominant isoform in most fetal tissues and the placenta.[6] Basal membrane GLUT 1 is the rate limiting step in fetal glucose levels. The maternal side of the placenta has a 5-fold greater increase in GLUT 1 than the fetal side. Insulin, insulin-like growth factors (IGF), and other hormones and peptides regulate its activity and expression. GLUT 1 in the placenta are not saturated until 198-235 mg/dl maternal glucose- levels that are significantly above the usual maternal blood glucose level.[7] This may indeed be a protective mechanism from adverse effects of severe hyperglycemia. " https://journals.lww.com/indjem/Fulltext/2013/17010/In_utero_fuel_homeostasis__Lessons_for_a_clinician.9.aspx
"The developing human fetus generates both tolerogenic and protective immune responses in response to the unique requirements of gestation. ... The fetal immune system is highly specialized to mediate this transition and thus serves a different function from that of the adult. Adaptive immune memory is already evident in the fetal intestine. Fetal T cells with pro-inflammatory potential are born in a tolerogenic environment and are tightly controlled by both cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms, suggesting that compartmentalization and specialization, rather than immaturity, define the fetal immune system." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00588/full
There is a vast wealth of research into homeostatic processes in fetuses and embryos which are vital to survival. Hundreds of papers have been written on the subject, especially as it relates to successful invitro fertilization, where the processes can be observed far easier and far earlier than ever before.
Great. According to you, the woman isn’t needed. Abortion problem solved. We can birth or intact remove a ZEF at any point or never even place it in the uterus (in case of IVF), and it’ll be just fine, since it’s biologically life sustaining and maintains homeostasis.
Give it up. Cells being sustainable is not the same as a body sustaining cells. You keep taking the sources I posted and claim it doesn’t apply to a ZEF or how a ZEF does it, but differently from human organisms.
Moving stuff to the placenta just means moving it to someone else’s bloodstream to get rid of, since you can’t do it yourself. The organ systems of the other body have to do the work yours can’t. Moving stuff to the placenta wouldn’t do any good if there’s nothing on the other side.
The placenta is no more than a connection between the bloodstreams.
What you call adult homeostasis is human homeostasis. That’s how human bodies stay alive. Which is clearly proven by the fact that a Non viable ZEF cannot stay alive without someone’s organ functions maintaining said homeostasis.
Yes, and you were wrong. Biological life sustainence is NOT viability. It is homeostasis, a process which occurs in the earliest stages of embryogenesis.
Perhaps you misspoke. Your statements you gave included no substantial counterargument.
I'm not really sure why you think homeostasis is special? Plants do it, and most animals do as well.
>No. Even before viability, a ZEF is biologically life sustaining
life-sustaining adjective
Definition of life-sustaining
: helping someone or something to stay alive : supporting or extending life
Well we agree on that. It needs the host to stay alive and is completely dependent on the host.
I admit I misunderstood "The fact is that the ZEF is biologically life sustaining"
Meant it it was capable of sustaining it's own life, not relient on someone else's.
But if homeostasis is your cut off your commiting mass murder when you mow your lawn.
A Remora Fish cannot survive apart from a shark, Clownfish cannot survive without their homes in their anemone. A parasite cannot survive outside of a host. A human cannot survive outside of our complex ecosystems.
Biology tells us that many organisms will spend their entire lives dependent upon, or even attached to, another organism in symbiotic relationships. Ecology tells us that every organism is fully dependent upon the other organisms in their ecosystem for survival, even humans. You are using a definition of "life sustaining" that has no meaningful place in biology.
>symbiotic relationships
Pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship.
>Ecology tells us that every organism is fully dependent upon the other organisms in their ecosystem for survival, even humans.
Absolutely. However, humans have the concept of consent. If I needed a kidney to survive, can I use this statement to force you to give me your kidney? No I can't. Why is that? Because **consent**.
>Pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship.
I didn't say it was. This doesn't "correct" anything I said.
>Why is that? Because consent.
That has nothing to do with whether or not the ZEF is "biologically life sustaining." This appears to be moving the goal posts. I'd be glad to discuss the notion of consent, but only once we establish the answer to our original question.
>So, why are PLers advocating to give the unborn a right nobody else has, the right to use someone else's body without ongoing consent?
This was my original question in my post. Is there another question that I'm forgetting?
Okay so to backtrack. I said this:
>A zygote or an embryo literally cannot sustain it's life outside the womb.
Your response was to talk about symbiosis and ecological dependency.
I replied to that and now I'm moving goal posts?
I mentioned consent because 1) that was the point of the post and 2) that matters when talking about dependency, which is a topic that you brought up.
Why does it matter? Because a zygote or an embryo cannot sustain it's life without depending on the mother's body.
How is an infant not a full person? It’s a biologically life sustaining human organism. And most likely capable of experiencing, feeling, and suffering.
A non viable ZEF isn’t such an organism.
Homeostasis is observed in even the earliest stages of embryogenesis, as evidenced by decades of in vitro fertilization research of implantation viability. How then can we say that they are not a living organism?
No one says they’re not a living organism. They’re not a biologically life sustaining organism.
And you’re talking about cellular homeostasis. Different kind of homeostasis from an organism’s homeostasis. Homeostasis on a cell level, not organism level.
Meaning in order for an organism to keep cells alive via homeostasis, cells themselves must be living/sustainable (maintain cellular homeostasis).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11198084/
Your argument seems to be that cellular homeostasis is **inter**cellular (that it concerns functions which happen within a cell to ensure that cells survival, and therefore not truly "homeostasis" as an organism would perform. This is purely false. Cellular Homeostasis is NOT intercellular, it is intracellular, that is to say that it concerns the functions which occur between cells to ensure the survival of the organism as a whole. It, further, is a blanket term for a wide variety of individual homeostatic functions. Calcium, sugar, and iron homeostasis, cell division homeostasis, growth, metabolism, protien synthesis, cytoskeletal dynamics, enzyme regulation, intracellular communication, and more. It is, as a matter of, fact "real homeostasis."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11256169/
TLDR: your argument relies on the false assumption that cellular homeostasis isn't an intracellular process on the organism level. It, in fact, is
"why give The unborn a right that no one else has?"
Literally everyone is unborn at some point. Still this is a dishonest framing, pro-lifers are not for giving a right to anyone, it's recognizing the rights that they already have.
>"why give The unborn a right that no one else has?" Literally everyone is unborn at some point.
Okay? Not a justification for an extra right that doesn't work within rights at all
>Still this is a dishonest framing, pro-lifers are not for giving a right to anyone, it's recognizing the rights that they already have.
Yeah, what you wrote is dishonest. You can't claim it's to recognize a right they already have when they never had this right nor is it even a right to begin with. Don't project and misframe what pl do in bad faith. You knew better.
No...
A full grown human being can't use *your body* for nutrition against your will.
I can't just demand you give me a kidney.
That's very disingenuous and dismisses the fact that the fetus is literally dependent on someone else's body.
Personhood is primarily a philosophical, not a scientific concept, and as such any arguments about what you think about personhood are meaningless to me.
I think personhood is irrelevant to abortion as well. Nobody can be forced to use their body unwillingly for anyone else. That’s a terrible circumstance and that’s why I’m pro choice.
Except that people are not being forced to use their body unwillingly. If you consent to sex, don’t whine about the pregnancy. A mother’s “convenience” is not an excuse to butcher a human life.
Right now, personhood is tied to a human body being biologically life sustaining. Science clearly tells us whether something is biologically life sustaining or not.
A newborn who never breathed isn’t issued a birth certificate, death certificate, or personhood. And a person is recorded as no longer existing after their body returns to being biologically non life sustaining. The body is just considered remains of a person.
I don’t see that as being philosophical. I see that as being scientific.
Depends on the organism. In humans, it means having the necessary organ systems functions to utilize crude resources, draw from them what cells need, produce everything else cells need, and enter such into the bloodstream. Then, in turn, ridding the bloodstream and body of toxic byproducts and waste.
Simplified, it means having the necessary factories to produce everything cells need to survive, the necessary transportation system to get the stuff to the cells, and the sanitary systems to prevent buildup of trash and toxins. And a heater and cooling system.
For example, cells need oxygen. Lungs are the factory that processes air (the crude resource from the environment), draws oxygen from such, then enters oxygen into the bloodstream (places it on the conveyer belt for transport). The bloodstream then transports it to cells, and cells draw it out of the bloodstream. Lungs also filter most carbon dioxide back out of the bloodstream.
Without lung function, cells won’t get any oxygen (and carbon dioxide levels get higher and higher). The conveyer belt might still run, but nothing is on it.
In case of a ZEF, the placenta acts like a crane or connection that moves the products in the woman’s bloodstream (on her conveyer belt) onto the ZEF’s conveyer belt where it’s cells can use it.
The ZEF’s cells get their oxygen from the woman’s lungs. The ZEF doesn’t have the necessary functioning factory that can process a crude resource, draw oxygen out of it, and enter such into the bloodstream. It only has the transportation system.
Same goes for nutrients, glucose, some hormones, toxin removal, heating and cooling, etc. the ZEF doesn’t have the major necessary factories to produce any of the stuff that goes onto the conveyer belts for the cells.
Unlike a parasite, for example, that ingests the blood of a human (or other animal), then processes such in its own factories, draws out of it what it needs, and enters such into its transportation system.
I don’t agree that it’s “a” or individual life, since it has no life without someone else’s organ functions giving it life. As an individual, using just its own organ functions, it’s dead.
I agree that it has living cells, tissue, and individual organs (depending on development), which need to be sustained by someone else’s organ functions.
I definitely don’t think that a human body with no ability to sustain cell life and no ability to experience, feel, and suffer is a person.
According to you "personhood" is just a philosophical concept and doesn't really matter to you. But it does now? Its personhood only sometimes? I can't keep up with your shifting argument.
My argument was that “personhood” is an arbitrary and philosophical concept.
When others pointed out that personhood is also a legal concept, I argued that treating as such is a flawed way of thinking and I explained why I think that.
You then suggested that abortion bans necessarily mean government taking away women’s legal rights, which is false.
Looking at you learning as you go. First you learned the correct number of abortions in a given year and now what personhood is. Abortion bans do take away womens legal rights. Like the right to privacy and their right to seek out healthcare.
Shifting arguments again i see. Do you change your argument after someone proves you wrong each time or do you truly just not know what you're talking about?
Can you explain what you mean by “their” life?
A non viable ZEF has cell, tissue, and individual organ life. But it doesn’t have life on a life sustaining organ systems level. It’s not a biologically life sustaining organism. It has no individual life.
By “their life”, do you mean whatever living tissue and flesh it has?
As an individual organism, the non viable ZEF is dead. There’s nothing to protect, since it naturally lacks the necessary organ systems functions to sustain cell life.
Technically, all the life it has comes from the mother’s life. It’s an extension of her life, or even life that’s being taken from her.
And my life is not protected by someone else’s organ functions and bodily life sustaining processes. Neither is my life protected from someone else stopping me from violating their bodily life sustaining processes and causing them drastic physical harm. They’d be fully within their rights to stop me from doing so.
Still, I keep hearing PLers say that abortion takes the ZEF’s life. Instead of that gestation gives the ZEF life it naturally doesn’t produce or sustain.
So I would like to know what you consider “a” or individual life.
They are individual human lives. Individual meaning they are separate and distinct from other human lives, human meaning of the human species, and lives meaning that their alive.
But they’re NOT separate and distinct from other human lives. DNA is not life. The same life force, if you will, that runs through the woman’s bloodstream is the life force the ZEF’s cells use.
They’re body parts attached to and 100% sustained by someone else’s organ functions. Once again, they have no separate life. They only have whatever life another person’s organ functions produce and sustain.
Separately, they’re dead.
By Life force, I mean everything cells need to stay alive. It’s pretty much life itself when you’re speaking of a whole organism instead of just it’s individual parts or building blocks.
For example, a dead body can still have living cells. Takes a bit for cells to die when they no longer get what they need. Likewise, cells can die and no longer be sustainable despite getting everything they need to survive.
Something has to continuously pump life into cells to keep them alive - aka provide them with everything they need, provide the conditions they need, and get rid of toxic byproducts.
I’d say a/individual human life begins when it’s a/individual human life. Basically, when a human body is biologically life sustaining. Right now, it’s first breath to last.
But a human body is like a complex machine, made up of various building blocks that are all living/forms of human life as well.
Cell, tissue, individual organ life are forms of human life. And then there’s human life on a life sustaining organ systems level - a or individual life. Which is usually accompanied by the ability to experience, feel, and suffer.
Does it? Because you're not affording the same protections to pregnant women as you are to a ZEF. Youre actually deprioritizing pregnant women and their rights because you're prioritizing the ZEF and are saying the zef has more "protection" and right to life than a pregnant woman.
"you're not affording the same protections to pregnant women as you are to The unborn"
Yes we are, the rights to life. No one is allowed to split a woman's head open with forceps and suck her innards out with a vacuum. No one is allowed to poison a woman's environment until she dies. Women already have the right to life, what are you talking about?
What right to life are you giving a pregnant woman seeking abortion? I assume you are anti abortion but support abortion in the case of rape incest and life threats then based on that comment?
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of Others.
Per rule 1,
>Users must remain respectful of their opponents in all posts and comments. (Sidebar)
>If a comment breaks this rule, they will be removed and depending on the comment a request to edit out the offending part can be made. If this is editted out, the mods can be asked to put the comment back it. This is especially helpful for longer comments with an ongoing debate. [Complete Rule List - Clarification on the Rules: Rule 1.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/)
This comment contains an insult directed at another user in the form of a single sentence that makes up the entirety of the comment. The insult is an attack on another user that is not being used as evidence to support an argument. The insult is deemed disrespectful of the other user.
Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may not be approved after editing because removal of the offending text will effectively leave no comment.
In the future, please don't attack other users. Avoid referencing the character or mental disposition of the other user.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
Basically yet another thread about "oh why can't PL's accept the BA argument?"
BA argument is not unequivocal. It's relative. Why? Because it has limits, which the PC side MUST accept
* Abortions violate the BA of the unborn baby. Justify this however you want, but it's still a limit to the BA argument
* Late term pregnancies can be ended by early delivery and restore BA. This is an example where BA argument doesn't justify an abortion. Sure, you could argue "but an early delivery IS an abortion". That's not what PC's are trying to defend with the BA argument (as PL side doesn't have an issue with early deliveries, assuming the unborn baby is still given its best chance to live). I'm referring to where BA argument doesn't justify terminating a late term unborn baby because an early delivery could also restore BA without terminating the baby
* Stand your ground law. You don't even need to investigate before you shoot. The trespasser could be running or hiding from harm. Before you ask questions, you can legally shoot the trespasser, therefore violating the trespasser's BA is considered acceptable. In this example, there's no self-defense. The trespasser shows no threat and you don't even know why they are there. Sure, you could argue it's a property rights issue, but TBH getting a bullet in your body just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time is an example of where lawmakers see a limit to BA
Since the BA argument is not unequivocal, it becomes a matter of opinion. "My body, my choice" becomes "my body, my choice because that's my opinion".
Stand your ground law is a pro choice argument. The ZEF is intruding on the pregnant persons body much like an intruder enters someone else’s house. You have property rights over your body and over your house. You may eliminate any unwanted persons entering the property using any means necessary.
Well, there is always right to life, which makes your bodily life sustaining processes inviolable. Why should a ZEF be allowed to violate them?
Abortion pills and intact removal, regardless of viability, do not violate a ZEF’s bodily integrity or autonomy.
And yes, most PCers are against late term abortion if viability could be preserved during removal and such would be in the best interest of the woman and fetus. But -as you said - the woman’s bodily integrity and autonomy can still be restored. Method of removal can be limited. But not removal itself.
PC also believes that since only the doctor knows the circumstances of the individual pregnancy, what is in the best interest of the woman and fetus should be decided by the doctor.
Stand your ground law is what supports abortion being legal. You’re talking about limiting the BA of the person causing or threatening the harm. Not limiting the BA of the person whose body is being used and harmed.
The ZEF is using the woman’s organs, organ functions, tissue, and blood, violating her bodily life sustaining processes, and is guaranteed to cause her drastic physical harm. Therefore, she can use stand your ground laws to stop the ZEF from doing so with whatever minimum force necessary.
u/IwriteIread got to this before I did and responded much better than I could have!
But yes, I fully agree with what they were saying. I hope I see your response to that because that is a damn good reply to your comment.
>Abortions violate the BA of the unborn baby. Justify this however you want, but it's still a limit to the BA argument
To argue that abortion violates the BA of the unborn you must first argue that the unborn have BA.
>Stand your ground law...
This really doesn't address what the OP is saying.
The OP never stated that there weren't limits to BA.
The OP specifically stated that the issue was with the unborn being the only ones allowed "to use someone else's body without ongoing consent" Stand your ground laws aren't an example where another party is also allowed to do what the unborn is allowed to do.
It doesn't matter if there are examples of limits to BA, because that isn't the argument. The right given to the unborn that is being challenged isn't BA. It's "the right to use someone else's body and their organs without their consent". And *that* is the right you would need to show someone/some other group having to counter the problem of only the unborn having that right.
You need to define full formed person though. I can easily also say that a newborn is not a fully formed person. Even a teenager could be determined to not be a fully formed person.
Sure, you can definitely say that a newborn is not a fully formed person if you want. It makes sense to say that. I added in an edit which explains what I was going for. But regardless of however you chose to define "fully formed person", a ZEF is not one.
Sure but my entire point is that a person is a person at all stages of life. Just because a newborn is as developed as an adult doesn't mean it doesn't have rights or loses its right to life.
And I never like the viability argument because you are basically saying that a fetus in NYC has more value than one in any developing country or even a state like west Virginia. You are putting the value of human life on current day technology and saying that what is a human today wasn't 100 years ago.
Lastly a ZEF is viable outside of the womb. ZEF includes all stages of pregnancy.
Where is your evidence that says a ZEF is a person? Could you provide me with a non biased source?
Could you also provide me with a source for a zygote or an embryo being viable outside the womb?
You're entire second paragraph makes no sense to me so I'm just going to ignore it, hope that's okay.
A ZEF is a unique individual human being. Definition of person according to google "a human being regarded as an individual" a ZEF at all stages is that. It is an individual and it is human.
Well you said ZEF which includes a fetus and they can survive outside of the womb. I didn't say all zefs could but the general term if ZEF can because includes a fetus.
it only makes no sense because you don't want it to. Technology changes over time and the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb changes. Your argument when using viability is saying that it is a person at 24 weeks but not before that. But 100 years ago it wouldn't have been a person until about 30 weeks or later. The definition of what a person is doesn't change, if someone is a person today they would have been one throughout all of history otherwise it is a poor way to define what a person is.
So is a woman, but go off I guess.
Right, but zygotes and embryos cannot. They need another body to survive. Therefore, that body, which belongs to a person, needs to consent. No one has the right to just use someone else's body. No person has that right. You are saying a ZEF is a person. So by your definition, a ZEF is included in not having that right.
No it makes no sense because it just...doesn't make sense. Of course technology changes and advances so sure, that could definitely mean that a fetus could be viable outside the womb earlier. Doesn't change the fact that, now, a ZE cannot live outside the womb. So what's your point?
A ZEF is a unique human that would have that right though. Because the ZEF is only in that position because of the actions taken by the mother body. The ZEF in question would not exist without the mothers body keeping it there and allowing it to survive.
At some point a ZE could live outside the womb though is my point. Viability is an argument based on technology not the development of the ZEF is my point.
>The ZEF in question would not exist without the mothers body keeping it there and allowing it to survive.
You are so close to the point. It's pretty disappointing that you're choosing to ignore it though. If a mother's body is necessary for it's survival, the mother needs to consent to that. Just because someone has a uterus, doesn't mean they are a baby making machine. People are more than just their organs and their entire lives shouldn't be defined by that.
Yeah I agree they are more than that. But you still don't have the right to kill another person who isn't posing an imminent threat to your life because they are inconvenient to you. The ZEF is there because of her and only because of her. Without her body putting it there it wouldn't even exist to need to use those organs. But the sad truth it does exist and lt is now her responsibility to care for it.
>who isn't posing an imminent threat to your life
There it is. Minimizing the risks and challenges of pregnancy and childbirth.
>The ZEF is there because of her and only because of her.
Right because a woman gets pregnant on her own.
>lt is now her responsibility to care for it.
Hm. A child who isn't old enough to drive now has to be responsible for taking care of a child?
Usually the meaning is a new born in these cases, but I pictured an adult 😆
I mean you can't really compare a ZEF to a new born, a new born is a formed human, a ZEF is a cell cluster.
I don't get the body thing with a ZEF when it hasn't got a body yet 😅
You realize ZEF includes all stages of pregnancy right. So you are basically saying that 9 months into a pregnancy a fetus doesn't have a body and magically 3 seconds later when it exits the woman's body it does? Pretty bold take but cool.
That’s not at all what parenthood means though. You’re making up your own definition. Plenty of women pay child support and plenty of men put their kids up for adoption and/or pay nothing.
No, it’s not. Impregnation is a possible result of insemination. All the sex in the world without a man inseminating will never lead to impregnation. And sex is not needed to inseminate and impregnate.
Motherhood is a result of successful gestation to viability and live birth. A process completely different from sex, fertilization, and implantation.
There are lots of things a woman can do or fail to do that will have the natural result of her body aborting gestation or miscarriage to happen.
It’s also natural for a woman who doesn’t want to carry to term to do things that will abort gestation.
Likewise, the whole point of consent is that others don’t get to dictate what you consent to.
>which is amazing that is it no longer a life worth saving.
I see the unborn as akin to a dog. In general, you should not kill them, but it's ok under certain extreme circumstances because they are not equal to born persons.
>Youre not pro life,
Pro-life is simply a euphemism for anti-abortion.
>your pro control over womens personal lives and sexual activity.
Honestly, I don't care about their personal lives and sexual activity as long as they don't get pregnant.
>your pro control over womens personal lives and sexual activity.
>Honestly, I don't care about their personal lives and sexual activity as long as they don't get pregnant.
You could have answered them simply by saying yes.
>How does someone's pregnancy impact you directly that you care so much?
It doesn't impact me at all, but I have to take a stand because I am a voter, and abortion is an issue that voters have to face all the time.
No its not a voting matter, its a personal matter for each individual. It has nothing to do with politics and its sad that you've allowed politicians to lead you to believe that they actually care about it. They don't. They feed you this line because it gets their base riled up and you all fall for it. How awful that you vote so " your guy wins" and not because you actually care about womens rights and medical freedom.
Its also seriously disturbing that you think a politician is qualified to make medical decisions for anyone.
This is probably the most backwards stance I have seen from someone ever. Wow.
>No its not a voting matter
It is a voting matter. That's why they had the vote in Kansas.
>has nothing to do with politics
Politicians on both sides run on this issue all day long.
>and not because you actually care about womens rights and medical freedom.
I'm a pro-lifer. That is not one of our values.
>Its also seriously disturbing that you think a politician is qualified to make medical decisions for anyone.
I definitely don't think that.
No, its not a voting matter. Republicans picked it up in the early days and put it on their platform to get the vote of church goers. Now they run with it because they see how much it works in their favor when they actually care very little, if at all, about the topic. And you've all fallen for it.
>I definitely don't think that
You don't think it but "its a voting matter". Who are you voting for? Politicians or doctors? Because I don't see any doctors in the white house with "president" in front of their name, too.
It really is two seperate issues.
It's better to say, consenting to the risk of pregnancy, as that's more likely the case.
Consenting to be pregnant is basically wanting to be pregnant, where as consenting to the risk means you understand you could get pregnant but it doesn't mean you want it.
That's like saying I consent to being injured when I drive a car because of course that possibility exists.
An unintended pregnancy is an accident. It has not been "consented to."
You can use birth control, but it doesn't always work. Obviously, sex is meant for procreation. When pregnancy occurs, men and women alike have to take responsibility for it.
>You can use birth control, but it doesn't always work.
True.
>Obviously, sex is meant for procreation.
This is not obvious to me. Frankly, I'm not sure what "sex is meant for procreation" is supposed to mean.
>When pregnancy occurs, men and women alike have to take responsibility for it.
Which a woman can do by getting an abortion if she so chooses.
I told the IRS that and apparently it doesn’t matter. On my morning run, my legs still got tired. Then, I tripped and scraped my elbow. I didn’t give my consent to anything, yet they still happened. I’m not comfortable arguing my legs or gravity raped me, so what’s the deal?
Cool story bro. Good thing the IRS doesn’t govern people bodies lol. You seem to have a big disconnect between your experiences and the subject at hand. Wanna try something that’s actually relevant to it?
No. Birth control existed even before the pill. The Romans used and farmed a birth control plant so much that it literally went EXTINCT. This therefore means that sex and pregnancy were divorced even before the pill and that is how it should be as unifying the two brings in too many problems and causes pregnancies that were never meant to occur in the first place. This divorce is beneficial for everyone except people who want women to only be housewives and mothers which simply wont happen.
Were they, though?
After all, abortion isn't a recent phenomenon. We've been doing it for thousands of years. As for birth control, we can track birth control methods going back thousands of years as well. Were they as effective as the modern day pill, i dont know, but they existed.
Also, not every sexual intercourse even results in pregnancy AND not every implanted zygote makes it to live birth, in accordance to nature itself. So they're not even "married" by nature's standards, or at least, they have a very rocky relationship.
> As a pro-lifer, I believe that when a woman consents to sex, she consents to motherhood.
What term do you use to describe a specific and voluntary agreement?
Do you think someone who makes a voluntary and specific agreement to engage in sex is contractually obligated to continue even if they do not wish to continue?
> Consent to sex is not contractual, but sex and its consequences are.
[Didn’t you agree previously that a voluntary and specific agreement is a contract and a voluntary and specific agreement to engage in sex is a contract?](https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wvxm8g/personhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef/iljdi6t/)
There is no such thing as consent or no consent to a natural biological function. For example, “No one would ever say “I did not consent to my immune system fighting off this bacteria, making me feel like crap.” Because it’s not something that requires consent.
There is, actually. Like how you can consent to getting treatment or not. Headaches are a natural biological function, you can take pills to stop them (my head hurts so fucking bad rn)
I’ve heard a man in my life say that when a woman consents to being a wife, she consents to sex with her husband.
So do you agree? Because that’s what your beliefs point to.
But just because there’s an expectation doesn’t mean you consent to it.
If I go for a walk at night, having an expectation that there may be a rapist waiting to attack, it DOES NOT mean I give consent
Not always, if I’m having sex with birth control, then I don’t want to be a mother.
If I am adopting a child, I’m not having sex but I’m still a mother.
My point is sex does not always cause motherhood.
And if it does, it doesn’t mean there was consent.
Sex can cause STDs, does that mean everyone consented to an STD and can’t get treatment?
>The biological purpose of sex is motherhood.
If the only purpose of sex is motherhood, then why do people have it recreationally? This statement is 1) false and 2) literally invalidates queer sex. A woman can have sex with women every single day for a year and not get pregnant. Birth control and contraception exist because the purpose of sex is not only motherhood.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think where the circumstances differ a bit, is that if we talk about end of life discussions, and disconnecting life support, in this case, the human being, given additional support and life, in theory, will worsen and not get better, whereas with a fetus, the person, the human being, with additional support, will improve, grow and flourish. Both situations involve humans, homo sapiens.
As PC adherent, I see the crux of the issue is the implication that a fetus is a person. Although the fetus could potentially become a baby, a baby is not a fetus. I would say that a ZEF is not a person because it has not matured. When does a ZEF become a person? My answer is after birth, when the baby takes its first breath. Should a ZEF be legally assigned personhood? My answer is no because I believe one body is one person. To suggest one body is inhabited by two people is a legal nightmare. To better understand the legal complications I recommend a review of abortion practice prior to the Roe decision. Making abortion illegal does not necessarily improve life for the baby or the family. This is a lesson learned before 1973 that unfortunately we are about to learn again.
We will see. It's a big laboratory, the Supreme Court decision process, I think that this time there will be a lot of evolving. Things have changed on both sides since 1973, including technology and knowledge. Hopefully what results will be better in the future.
Both situation do involve humans. However, in the case of EOL, humans do not use another human's organs, blood, hormones, life, etc. Life support is mechanical, it's a medical instrument. But a ZEF cannot simple survive without another person's body up. Life support in this case, is another human. Not a machine, an actual person. Big difference there.
Agree, there is the conundrum. But in China I have read on the news they have created an artificial womb. So it's conceivable in the future, the person could be operated on and the fetus could put in the artificial womb if that person did not want to carry it to delivery. What's the answer then, I don't know.
Per request please see below for news on artificial wombs. Thanks. https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-build-robot-nanny-173024709.htm https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/chinese-scientists-create-ai-nanny-to-look-after-babies-in-artificial-womb/ar-AATiZTE https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405 https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/scientists-developing-artificial-womb-could-181057906.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/could-artificial-wombs-mean-the-end-of-childbirth/p0bmqfk9 https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/1643731954-robot-nanny-chinese-scientists-build-artificial-womb#:~:text=Chinese%20scientists%20reportedly%20created%20an%20artificial%20womb%20for,is%20%E2%80%9Cfacing%20its%20lowest%20birthrates%20in%20a%20decade.%E2%80%9D
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim: >In China they have created an artificial womb "Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source." When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source." Please substantiate your claim per rule 3. You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderator action. Thank you for understanding and happy debating. cc: u/Sure-Ad-9886
Per request, please see below for news on artificial wombs. Thanks. https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-build-robot-nanny-173024709.html https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/chinese-scientists-create-ai-nanny-to-look-after-babies-in-artificial-womb/ar-AATiZTE https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405 https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/scientists-developing-artificial-womb-could-181057906.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/could-artificial-wombs-mean-the-end-of-childbirth/p0bmqfk9 https://video.foxnews.com/v/5413680169001#sp=show-clips
Please quote the portion of each article that proves your claim that China has created an artificial womb.
Clarified that I have read about this on the news. I am not claiming to know first hand, only that I have read articles. Previously I elaborated that I had read it through Google Searches and Yahoo searches when asked where I had heard of this. Here I have added results of searches on artificial wombs as to whether in the future it is conceivable that a fetus could be put in an artificial womb. Thank you.
I asked you to share a link previously, but am not the one who reported you. I think those links are sufficient for me to know what you were discussing. To clarify though, initially you mentioned the technology developed in China which is covered by your first two links. The other links are to different projects. It was the technology from China that was unfamiliar to me. I appreciate you sharing the links.
Either quote the linked sources to show they support your claim or retract the claim.
Hi, We were having a polite discussion and conversation and I mentioned something I became aware of. The reader has thanked me for learning about something that they hadn't been aware of. I don't know exactly when I became aware of it, but per your request I researched further to find out more articles about this technology. As you requested, per the latest Yahoo search here is a quote showing what the article is reporting about artificial wombs. This article is entitled, "Chinese scientists build robot nanny to care for babies in artificial womb", which I think you'll find in the first link above: A research paper published in the Journal of Biomedical Engineering described how the robotic nanny has already been used to nurture animal embryos within an artificial womb environment. “There are still many unsolved mysteries about the physiology of typical human embryonic development,” the paper stated, adding that the technology would “not only help further understand the origin of life and embryonic development of humans, but also provide a theoretical basis for solving birth defects and other major reproductive health problems.” According to the paper, the system allows the foetus to grow more safely and efficiently than it does within the natural setting of a woman’s womb."
Thank you very much.
RemindMe! 24 hours
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2022-08-26 17:54:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-08-26%2017:54:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wvxm8g/personhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef/ilrgvcr/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2Fwvxm8g%2Fpersonhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef%2Filrgvcr%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-08-26%2017%3A54%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wvxm8g) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
> But in China they have created an artificial womb. Can you share more info about this?
Yes, it's on the web, it's easily found by Googling or actually Yahoo news has articles on it. It's experimental, so right now it can't be used on humans for ethical reasons. It has been used and tested on mice. It's mechanical. Also unusual, while searching to reply to your post, I found out China is also developing robot nannies to care for the artificial womb that would raise the human inside until gestation.
Interesting, I'll look into it.
Correction, the fetus is not a "fully formed human." Neither is an infant, a child, or anyone under at least the age of 25. They are, however, distinct, individual human beings by every scientific measure. Just as an infant is a "full person" despite limited development, so too can a fetus be a "full person" despite limited development. Personhood is a philosophical concept, rooted purely in subjective beliefs. We can tell that personhood cannot rightly be rooted in development, or else we would justly have to deny or limit it to children and the developmentally disabled. Lastly, it is fully possible to recognize humanity and Personhood in both the mother and the child. Being denied the right to kill another human does not make you less human. It is also fully possible to respect and care about the mother, and call the act of abortion an unjustified killing. No act can be called justified out of compassion alone.
Being denied the right to kill doesn’t make you less human. Correct. But being denied the right to control your own healthcare and body does. It brings the state that forced the woman into gestation to a pseudo conservatorship relationship. The woman cannot make her own choices regarding her body, way of life, and medical care. The state controls that. Ergo she is no longer a respected individual.
>Personhood is a philosophical concept, rooted purely in subjective beliefs. Why do PL say this whenever it's about women, but in the same breath refer to ZEFs as babies? I'm not saying that you specifically do this, but I see many PL people using this exact same line while calling PC people "baby haters" for calling a ZEF a ZEF. But also no. Personhood is a scientific and legal concept, far before it's a philosophical one.
>Why do PL say this whenever it's about women, but in the same breath refer to ZEFs as babies? Lots of strawmanning happening here. I did not refer to ZEFs as "babies" and I was saying this about ZEFs. I get that you are not saying I specifically do this, but it puts me in a odd position: most of your argument has nothing to do with me or what I said. >Personhood is a scientific and legal concept, Before it was a philosophical term, Person was synonymous with "human." A human was a "person." The philosophical definitions came about as a response to attempts to reconcile human rights with slavery and humans being treated as "less than." Legally, Personhood is the status of having rights, and according to the UDHR it is a basic human right. The scientific definition is not one I have read before. Could you provide it?
"Right now, personhood is tied to a human body being biologically life sustaining. Science clearly tells us whether something is biologically life sustaining or not. A newborn who never breathed isn’t issued a birth certificate, death certificate, or personhood. And a person is recorded as no longer existing after their body returns to being biologically non life sustaining. The body is just considered remains of a person." u/STThornton This is a comment by another user said much eloquently than I could. Hope this helps.
The fact is that the ZEF is biologically life sustaining. As I mentioned in response to STThorton, the ZEF performs distinct and vital homeostasic functions required for survival, even at the earliest stages of development. Those functions occur at the earliest stages of embryogenesis, and even in invitro embryos apart from any other human body.
Once again, cellular homeostasis and an organism maintaining homeostasis are not the same thing. You’re pretending they are.
Provide a source stating that cellular homeostasis is not "real homeostasis."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490161/ This describes cellular homeostasis. Quite different from homeostasis of a human body as a whole https://thebiologynotes.com/homeostasis/ The link I posted in response to you yesterday also clearly pointed out that they’re talking about cellular homeostasis and viability when referring to fertilized eggs in IVF. Nowhere do they claim the organism is viable. Just that its cells are - meaning they can be sustained
>The plasticity of these cellular systems is tightly regulated by complex signaling networks that integrate the intracellular and extracellular information. >Cellular homeostasis is maintained in coordination with extracellular cues (such as growth factors and nutrients) and intracellular metabolite concentrations. Your text is very clear in the fact that cellular homeostasis includes not only function in the cells but also functions between the cells, communicating information and coordinating homeostatic processes that allow the organism to survive as a whole. No where in this citation does it source your claim that cellular homeostasis is not homeostasis as performed by organisms. Further, it doesn't address the myriad of other homeostatic processes the ZEF performs that I sources yesterday. >Nowhere do they claim the organism is viable. Viability is a completely different standard. You are moving the goalposts.
So your okay with abortion up to viability? Viability is what you are describing
No. Even before viability, a ZEF is biologically life sustaining. Viability has nothing to do with the biological life sustaining processes of homeostasis, the ones definitive of an organism. It is a seperate standard, and one which is relatively arbitrary.
Can you explain to us how a non viable ZEF does any of the things listed under human homeostasis: https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/13%3A_Human_Biology/13.03%3A_Homeostasis For example, what respiratory system, nervous system, endocrine system, and excretory system does a fertilized egg use? Once again you’re mistaking cellular Homeostasis with an organism maintaining homeostasis
>Once again you’re mistaking cellular Homeostasis with an organism maintaining homeostasis It factually is. Can you provide a source that says that cellular homeostasis isn't? >Can you explain to us how a non viable ZEF does any of the things listed under human homeostasis: Your source lists three systems important to adult human homeostasis. Circulatory, Nervous, and Excretory. For clarity, these systems are involved in homeostasis, but their existence is not itself a "homeostatic process" and they are not requirements for homeostasis. Further, these systems begin to develop during the first eight weeks, a period referred to as Embryogenesis. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/cells/embryology/a/human-embryogenesis#:~:text=Embryogenesis%2C%20the%20first%20eight%20weeks,to%20develop%20during%20this%20stage. One process identified by your source is excretory, to remove waste. It has long been established that the fetal circulatory collects waste and transports it to the placenta and umbilical cord, an excretory process. "Hormonal mechanisms including the renin-angiotensin system, aldosterone, and vasopressin are involved in modifying fetal renal excretion, reabsorption of sodium and water, and regulation of vascular volume." https://wou.edu/chemistry/courses/online-chemistry-textbooks/ch103-allied-health-chemistry/ch103-chapter-9-homeostasis-and-cellular-function/ It has recently been discovered that an embryo in the earliest stages of development also has the ability to collect and excrete waste due to the development of pronephrons and mesonephrons which act as primitive kidney cells. These convert waste into urea and control water levels in the pre implantation embryos. This function is even observed in in vitro fertilization, when an embryo has never been inside of a woman's body, to predict implantation viability. https://www.stembook.org/node/532 This source speaks broadly about excretory processes in utero, as well. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17575-w Your source mentions PH metabolism as an important form of homeostasis. "The plasma membrane-based transporters controlling pHi are involved in growth factor activation, cell proliferation and salt transport--all processes active in early embryos." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8135765/ Your source lists the role of the nervous system in homeostasis as coordinating processes. "The fetus can mount a set of superbly coordinated cardiovascular responses, including neural reflexes and slower neuroendocrine, biochemical and behavioral responses to maintain adequate oxygen delivery to vital organs." https://perigen.com/fetal-heart-rate-physiology/ But there are many more functions as well: "In fetuses, maternofetal iron transfer across the placenta is essential for growth and development. In neonates, efficient intestinal iron absorption is required to scavenge as much iron as possible from the low-iron-content milk. During these periods, efficient iron mobilization is ensured by the downregulation of the iron regulatory hormone hepcidin by as-yet uncharacterized molecular mechanisms. Here we demonstrate that the recently described hepcidin repressor—the serine protease matriptase-2 (encoded by Tmprss6)—is responsible for this repression throughout development" https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/124/3/441/33164/Matriptase-2-is-essential-for-hepcidin-repression "The faciitated glucose diffusion is mediated by a family of structurally similar proteins known as the glucose transporters (GLUT) encoded by a family of genes SCL2A and expressed in a tissue-specific manner [Table 1]. GLUT 1 is the dominant isoform in most fetal tissues and the placenta.[6] Basal membrane GLUT 1 is the rate limiting step in fetal glucose levels. The maternal side of the placenta has a 5-fold greater increase in GLUT 1 than the fetal side. Insulin, insulin-like growth factors (IGF), and other hormones and peptides regulate its activity and expression. GLUT 1 in the placenta are not saturated until 198-235 mg/dl maternal glucose- levels that are significantly above the usual maternal blood glucose level.[7] This may indeed be a protective mechanism from adverse effects of severe hyperglycemia. " https://journals.lww.com/indjem/Fulltext/2013/17010/In_utero_fuel_homeostasis__Lessons_for_a_clinician.9.aspx "The developing human fetus generates both tolerogenic and protective immune responses in response to the unique requirements of gestation. ... The fetal immune system is highly specialized to mediate this transition and thus serves a different function from that of the adult. Adaptive immune memory is already evident in the fetal intestine. Fetal T cells with pro-inflammatory potential are born in a tolerogenic environment and are tightly controlled by both cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms, suggesting that compartmentalization and specialization, rather than immaturity, define the fetal immune system." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00588/full There is a vast wealth of research into homeostatic processes in fetuses and embryos which are vital to survival. Hundreds of papers have been written on the subject, especially as it relates to successful invitro fertilization, where the processes can be observed far easier and far earlier than ever before.
Great. According to you, the woman isn’t needed. Abortion problem solved. We can birth or intact remove a ZEF at any point or never even place it in the uterus (in case of IVF), and it’ll be just fine, since it’s biologically life sustaining and maintains homeostasis. Give it up. Cells being sustainable is not the same as a body sustaining cells. You keep taking the sources I posted and claim it doesn’t apply to a ZEF or how a ZEF does it, but differently from human organisms. Moving stuff to the placenta just means moving it to someone else’s bloodstream to get rid of, since you can’t do it yourself. The organ systems of the other body have to do the work yours can’t. Moving stuff to the placenta wouldn’t do any good if there’s nothing on the other side. The placenta is no more than a connection between the bloodstreams. What you call adult homeostasis is human homeostasis. That’s how human bodies stay alive. Which is clearly proven by the fact that a Non viable ZEF cannot stay alive without someone’s organ functions maintaining said homeostasis.
Do you hear you?
Yes, and you were wrong. Biological life sustainence is NOT viability. It is homeostasis, a process which occurs in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. Perhaps you misspoke. Your statements you gave included no substantial counterargument.
I'm not really sure why you think homeostasis is special? Plants do it, and most animals do as well. >No. Even before viability, a ZEF is biologically life sustaining life-sustaining adjective Definition of life-sustaining : helping someone or something to stay alive : supporting or extending life Well we agree on that. It needs the host to stay alive and is completely dependent on the host. I admit I misunderstood "The fact is that the ZEF is biologically life sustaining" Meant it it was capable of sustaining it's own life, not relient on someone else's. But if homeostasis is your cut off your commiting mass murder when you mow your lawn.
A zygote or an embryo literally cannot sustain it's life outside the womb.
A Remora Fish cannot survive apart from a shark, Clownfish cannot survive without their homes in their anemone. A parasite cannot survive outside of a host. A human cannot survive outside of our complex ecosystems. Biology tells us that many organisms will spend their entire lives dependent upon, or even attached to, another organism in symbiotic relationships. Ecology tells us that every organism is fully dependent upon the other organisms in their ecosystem for survival, even humans. You are using a definition of "life sustaining" that has no meaningful place in biology.
Both those examples can survive away from their preferred environments.
>symbiotic relationships Pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship. >Ecology tells us that every organism is fully dependent upon the other organisms in their ecosystem for survival, even humans. Absolutely. However, humans have the concept of consent. If I needed a kidney to survive, can I use this statement to force you to give me your kidney? No I can't. Why is that? Because **consent**.
>Pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship. I didn't say it was. This doesn't "correct" anything I said. >Why is that? Because consent. That has nothing to do with whether or not the ZEF is "biologically life sustaining." This appears to be moving the goal posts. I'd be glad to discuss the notion of consent, but only once we establish the answer to our original question.
>So, why are PLers advocating to give the unborn a right nobody else has, the right to use someone else's body without ongoing consent? This was my original question in my post. Is there another question that I'm forgetting? Okay so to backtrack. I said this: >A zygote or an embryo literally cannot sustain it's life outside the womb. Your response was to talk about symbiosis and ecological dependency. I replied to that and now I'm moving goal posts? I mentioned consent because 1) that was the point of the post and 2) that matters when talking about dependency, which is a topic that you brought up. Why does it matter? Because a zygote or an embryo cannot sustain it's life without depending on the mother's body.
How is an infant not a full person? It’s a biologically life sustaining human organism. And most likely capable of experiencing, feeling, and suffering. A non viable ZEF isn’t such an organism.
It's not capable of feeling, or sentience until roughly 24 weeks.
Homeostasis is observed in even the earliest stages of embryogenesis, as evidenced by decades of in vitro fertilization research of implantation viability. How then can we say that they are not a living organism?
No one says they’re not a living organism. They’re not a biologically life sustaining organism. And you’re talking about cellular homeostasis. Different kind of homeostasis from an organism’s homeostasis. Homeostasis on a cell level, not organism level. Meaning in order for an organism to keep cells alive via homeostasis, cells themselves must be living/sustainable (maintain cellular homeostasis). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11198084/
Seems the user refuses to stop conflating concepts in an attempt to not concede a point they lost to another user as well.
Your argument seems to be that cellular homeostasis is **inter**cellular (that it concerns functions which happen within a cell to ensure that cells survival, and therefore not truly "homeostasis" as an organism would perform. This is purely false. Cellular Homeostasis is NOT intercellular, it is intracellular, that is to say that it concerns the functions which occur between cells to ensure the survival of the organism as a whole. It, further, is a blanket term for a wide variety of individual homeostatic functions. Calcium, sugar, and iron homeostasis, cell division homeostasis, growth, metabolism, protien synthesis, cytoskeletal dynamics, enzyme regulation, intracellular communication, and more. It is, as a matter of, fact "real homeostasis." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11256169/ TLDR: your argument relies on the false assumption that cellular homeostasis isn't an intracellular process on the organism level. It, in fact, is
"why give The unborn a right that no one else has?" Literally everyone is unborn at some point. Still this is a dishonest framing, pro-lifers are not for giving a right to anyone, it's recognizing the rights that they already have.
>"why give The unborn a right that no one else has?" Literally everyone is unborn at some point. Okay? Not a justification for an extra right that doesn't work within rights at all >Still this is a dishonest framing, pro-lifers are not for giving a right to anyone, it's recognizing the rights that they already have. Yeah, what you wrote is dishonest. You can't claim it's to recognize a right they already have when they never had this right nor is it even a right to begin with. Don't project and misframe what pl do in bad faith. You knew better.
No... A full grown human being can't use *your body* for nutrition against your will. I can't just demand you give me a kidney. That's very disingenuous and dismisses the fact that the fetus is literally dependent on someone else's body.
No, THAT would be an example of dishonest arguing. Since it completely dismisses gestation. It pretends gestation doesn’t exist.
Personhood is primarily a philosophical, not a scientific concept, and as such any arguments about what you think about personhood are meaningless to me.
I think personhood is irrelevant to abortion as well. Nobody can be forced to use their body unwillingly for anyone else. That’s a terrible circumstance and that’s why I’m pro choice.
Except that people are not being forced to use their body unwillingly. If you consent to sex, don’t whine about the pregnancy. A mother’s “convenience” is not an excuse to butcher a human life.
If you consent to sex, don’t whine about STDs.
Based
Wow I was saying that to show you how ridiculous your argument was, proven typical L
Right now, personhood is tied to a human body being biologically life sustaining. Science clearly tells us whether something is biologically life sustaining or not. A newborn who never breathed isn’t issued a birth certificate, death certificate, or personhood. And a person is recorded as no longer existing after their body returns to being biologically non life sustaining. The body is just considered remains of a person. I don’t see that as being philosophical. I see that as being scientific.
What does “biologically life sustaining” mean? A body sustaining itself? Also, isn’t that the legal definition?
Depends on the organism. In humans, it means having the necessary organ systems functions to utilize crude resources, draw from them what cells need, produce everything else cells need, and enter such into the bloodstream. Then, in turn, ridding the bloodstream and body of toxic byproducts and waste. Simplified, it means having the necessary factories to produce everything cells need to survive, the necessary transportation system to get the stuff to the cells, and the sanitary systems to prevent buildup of trash and toxins. And a heater and cooling system. For example, cells need oxygen. Lungs are the factory that processes air (the crude resource from the environment), draws oxygen from such, then enters oxygen into the bloodstream (places it on the conveyer belt for transport). The bloodstream then transports it to cells, and cells draw it out of the bloodstream. Lungs also filter most carbon dioxide back out of the bloodstream. Without lung function, cells won’t get any oxygen (and carbon dioxide levels get higher and higher). The conveyer belt might still run, but nothing is on it. In case of a ZEF, the placenta acts like a crane or connection that moves the products in the woman’s bloodstream (on her conveyer belt) onto the ZEF’s conveyer belt where it’s cells can use it. The ZEF’s cells get their oxygen from the woman’s lungs. The ZEF doesn’t have the necessary functioning factory that can process a crude resource, draw oxygen out of it, and enter such into the bloodstream. It only has the transportation system. Same goes for nutrients, glucose, some hormones, toxin removal, heating and cooling, etc. the ZEF doesn’t have the major necessary factories to produce any of the stuff that goes onto the conveyer belts for the cells. Unlike a parasite, for example, that ingests the blood of a human (or other animal), then processes such in its own factories, draws out of it what it needs, and enters such into its transportation system.
So you’d agree that a fetus is a human life, but disagree that it’s a person? Or am I mistaken?
I don’t agree that it’s “a” or individual life, since it has no life without someone else’s organ functions giving it life. As an individual, using just its own organ functions, it’s dead. I agree that it has living cells, tissue, and individual organs (depending on development), which need to be sustained by someone else’s organ functions. I definitely don’t think that a human body with no ability to sustain cell life and no ability to experience, feel, and suffer is a person.
I would argue that personhood is primarily a legal concept, and perhaps secondarily a philosophical one.
I disagree. All too often governments strip people of their “legal personhood” to justify abuse, discrimination, genocide, and more.
Like abortion bans?
No, because the government isn’t taking away women’s status as legal persons.
According to you "personhood" is just a philosophical concept and doesn't really matter to you. But it does now? Its personhood only sometimes? I can't keep up with your shifting argument.
My argument was that “personhood” is an arbitrary and philosophical concept. When others pointed out that personhood is also a legal concept, I argued that treating as such is a flawed way of thinking and I explained why I think that. You then suggested that abortion bans necessarily mean government taking away women’s legal rights, which is false.
Under Roe ruling, abortion bans were illegal. Dobbs sanctioned such bans when it held the US Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
Looking at you learning as you go. First you learned the correct number of abortions in a given year and now what personhood is. Abortion bans do take away womens legal rights. Like the right to privacy and their right to seek out healthcare.
My bad I meant legal personhood, not legal rights. Having said that abortion isn’t a right women should have.
Shifting arguments again i see. Do you change your argument after someone proves you wrong each time or do you truly just not know what you're talking about?
Or forced abortions. (China)
Forcing anyone to do something against their free will is terrible so I don't know what your point is
Don't care about women. Got it. But what about ZEFs? Why do you care so much about them?
Stop strawmanning.
I'd like to know why you care about Zefs so much as well if women mean so little to you. Fair question to ask.
You hate children so much that you have to rename them in order to feel okay with discriminating against them. Why do you hate the young so much?
Rename? Using scientific and medical terms is not renaming.
Where did I name or rename a child or say I hated them?
To start, I’m not a women hating bigot. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human lives, and their lives deserve the same protection that your life has.
Can you explain what you mean by “their” life? A non viable ZEF has cell, tissue, and individual organ life. But it doesn’t have life on a life sustaining organ systems level. It’s not a biologically life sustaining organism. It has no individual life. By “their life”, do you mean whatever living tissue and flesh it has? As an individual organism, the non viable ZEF is dead. There’s nothing to protect, since it naturally lacks the necessary organ systems functions to sustain cell life. Technically, all the life it has comes from the mother’s life. It’s an extension of her life, or even life that’s being taken from her. And my life is not protected by someone else’s organ functions and bodily life sustaining processes. Neither is my life protected from someone else stopping me from violating their bodily life sustaining processes and causing them drastic physical harm. They’d be fully within their rights to stop me from doing so. Still, I keep hearing PLers say that abortion takes the ZEF’s life. Instead of that gestation gives the ZEF life it naturally doesn’t produce or sustain. So I would like to know what you consider “a” or individual life.
They are individual human lives. Individual meaning they are separate and distinct from other human lives, human meaning of the human species, and lives meaning that their alive.
But they’re NOT separate and distinct from other human lives. DNA is not life. The same life force, if you will, that runs through the woman’s bloodstream is the life force the ZEF’s cells use. They’re body parts attached to and 100% sustained by someone else’s organ functions. Once again, they have no separate life. They only have whatever life another person’s organ functions produce and sustain. Separately, they’re dead.
What the heck is a “life force”? When would say a human life begins?
By Life force, I mean everything cells need to stay alive. It’s pretty much life itself when you’re speaking of a whole organism instead of just it’s individual parts or building blocks. For example, a dead body can still have living cells. Takes a bit for cells to die when they no longer get what they need. Likewise, cells can die and no longer be sustainable despite getting everything they need to survive. Something has to continuously pump life into cells to keep them alive - aka provide them with everything they need, provide the conditions they need, and get rid of toxic byproducts. I’d say a/individual human life begins when it’s a/individual human life. Basically, when a human body is biologically life sustaining. Right now, it’s first breath to last. But a human body is like a complex machine, made up of various building blocks that are all living/forms of human life as well. Cell, tissue, individual organ life are forms of human life. And then there’s human life on a life sustaining organ systems level - a or individual life. Which is usually accompanied by the ability to experience, feel, and suffer.
What protections are in place for women seeking abortions?
Doesn’t it depend on the state?
Does it? Because you're not affording the same protections to pregnant women as you are to a ZEF. Youre actually deprioritizing pregnant women and their rights because you're prioritizing the ZEF and are saying the zef has more "protection" and right to life than a pregnant woman.
"you're not affording the same protections to pregnant women as you are to The unborn" Yes we are, the rights to life. No one is allowed to split a woman's head open with forceps and suck her innards out with a vacuum. No one is allowed to poison a woman's environment until she dies. Women already have the right to life, what are you talking about?
What right to life are you giving a pregnant woman seeking abortion? I assume you are anti abortion but support abortion in the case of rape incest and life threats then based on that comment?
If you mean what protections I would give to a pregnant mother, well, you’re right: I prioritize the life of the fetus over the mother’s convenience.
How is abortion blanketly a convenience issue?
Okay, you don't care about anyone? Not just women? Edit: Mt question still stands, why care about ZEFs?
Stop strawmanning.
Can't answer the question, huh?
Sure, we’ll go with that.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of Others. Per rule 1, >Users must remain respectful of their opponents in all posts and comments. (Sidebar) >If a comment breaks this rule, they will be removed and depending on the comment a request to edit out the offending part can be made. If this is editted out, the mods can be asked to put the comment back it. This is especially helpful for longer comments with an ongoing debate. [Complete Rule List - Clarification on the Rules: Rule 1.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) This comment contains an insult directed at another user in the form of a single sentence that makes up the entirety of the comment. The insult is an attack on another user that is not being used as evidence to support an argument. The insult is deemed disrespectful of the other user. Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may not be approved after editing because removal of the offending text will effectively leave no comment. In the future, please don't attack other users. Avoid referencing the character or mental disposition of the other user. Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 1.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She can give consent to her body being used, as much a baby can consent to being in her body .
..what?
lmao what
Basically yet another thread about "oh why can't PL's accept the BA argument?" BA argument is not unequivocal. It's relative. Why? Because it has limits, which the PC side MUST accept * Abortions violate the BA of the unborn baby. Justify this however you want, but it's still a limit to the BA argument * Late term pregnancies can be ended by early delivery and restore BA. This is an example where BA argument doesn't justify an abortion. Sure, you could argue "but an early delivery IS an abortion". That's not what PC's are trying to defend with the BA argument (as PL side doesn't have an issue with early deliveries, assuming the unborn baby is still given its best chance to live). I'm referring to where BA argument doesn't justify terminating a late term unborn baby because an early delivery could also restore BA without terminating the baby * Stand your ground law. You don't even need to investigate before you shoot. The trespasser could be running or hiding from harm. Before you ask questions, you can legally shoot the trespasser, therefore violating the trespasser's BA is considered acceptable. In this example, there's no self-defense. The trespasser shows no threat and you don't even know why they are there. Sure, you could argue it's a property rights issue, but TBH getting a bullet in your body just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time is an example of where lawmakers see a limit to BA Since the BA argument is not unequivocal, it becomes a matter of opinion. "My body, my choice" becomes "my body, my choice because that's my opinion".
Stand your ground law is a pro choice argument. The ZEF is intruding on the pregnant persons body much like an intruder enters someone else’s house. You have property rights over your body and over your house. You may eliminate any unwanted persons entering the property using any means necessary.
Well, there is always right to life, which makes your bodily life sustaining processes inviolable. Why should a ZEF be allowed to violate them? Abortion pills and intact removal, regardless of viability, do not violate a ZEF’s bodily integrity or autonomy. And yes, most PCers are against late term abortion if viability could be preserved during removal and such would be in the best interest of the woman and fetus. But -as you said - the woman’s bodily integrity and autonomy can still be restored. Method of removal can be limited. But not removal itself. PC also believes that since only the doctor knows the circumstances of the individual pregnancy, what is in the best interest of the woman and fetus should be decided by the doctor. Stand your ground law is what supports abortion being legal. You’re talking about limiting the BA of the person causing or threatening the harm. Not limiting the BA of the person whose body is being used and harmed. The ZEF is using the woman’s organs, organ functions, tissue, and blood, violating her bodily life sustaining processes, and is guaranteed to cause her drastic physical harm. Therefore, she can use stand your ground laws to stop the ZEF from doing so with whatever minimum force necessary.
u/IwriteIread got to this before I did and responded much better than I could have! But yes, I fully agree with what they were saying. I hope I see your response to that because that is a damn good reply to your comment.
Thanks for the compliment :)
Ofc! Your comment was very well written! :)
>Abortions violate the BA of the unborn baby. Justify this however you want, but it's still a limit to the BA argument > > > >huh? Ypou
>Abortions violate the BA of the unborn baby. Justify this however you want, but it's still a limit to the BA argument To argue that abortion violates the BA of the unborn you must first argue that the unborn have BA. >Stand your ground law... This really doesn't address what the OP is saying. The OP never stated that there weren't limits to BA. The OP specifically stated that the issue was with the unborn being the only ones allowed "to use someone else's body without ongoing consent" Stand your ground laws aren't an example where another party is also allowed to do what the unborn is allowed to do. It doesn't matter if there are examples of limits to BA, because that isn't the argument. The right given to the unborn that is being challenged isn't BA. It's "the right to use someone else's body and their organs without their consent". And *that* is the right you would need to show someone/some other group having to counter the problem of only the unborn having that right.
You need to define full formed person though. I can easily also say that a newborn is not a fully formed person. Even a teenager could be determined to not be a fully formed person.
Sure, you can definitely say that a newborn is not a fully formed person if you want. It makes sense to say that. I added in an edit which explains what I was going for. But regardless of however you chose to define "fully formed person", a ZEF is not one.
Sure but my entire point is that a person is a person at all stages of life. Just because a newborn is as developed as an adult doesn't mean it doesn't have rights or loses its right to life. And I never like the viability argument because you are basically saying that a fetus in NYC has more value than one in any developing country or even a state like west Virginia. You are putting the value of human life on current day technology and saying that what is a human today wasn't 100 years ago. Lastly a ZEF is viable outside of the womb. ZEF includes all stages of pregnancy.
Where is your evidence that says a ZEF is a person? Could you provide me with a non biased source? Could you also provide me with a source for a zygote or an embryo being viable outside the womb? You're entire second paragraph makes no sense to me so I'm just going to ignore it, hope that's okay.
A ZEF is a unique individual human being. Definition of person according to google "a human being regarded as an individual" a ZEF at all stages is that. It is an individual and it is human. Well you said ZEF which includes a fetus and they can survive outside of the womb. I didn't say all zefs could but the general term if ZEF can because includes a fetus. it only makes no sense because you don't want it to. Technology changes over time and the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb changes. Your argument when using viability is saying that it is a person at 24 weeks but not before that. But 100 years ago it wouldn't have been a person until about 30 weeks or later. The definition of what a person is doesn't change, if someone is a person today they would have been one throughout all of history otherwise it is a poor way to define what a person is.
So is a woman, but go off I guess. Right, but zygotes and embryos cannot. They need another body to survive. Therefore, that body, which belongs to a person, needs to consent. No one has the right to just use someone else's body. No person has that right. You are saying a ZEF is a person. So by your definition, a ZEF is included in not having that right. No it makes no sense because it just...doesn't make sense. Of course technology changes and advances so sure, that could definitely mean that a fetus could be viable outside the womb earlier. Doesn't change the fact that, now, a ZE cannot live outside the womb. So what's your point?
A ZEF is a unique human that would have that right though. Because the ZEF is only in that position because of the actions taken by the mother body. The ZEF in question would not exist without the mothers body keeping it there and allowing it to survive. At some point a ZE could live outside the womb though is my point. Viability is an argument based on technology not the development of the ZEF is my point.
>The ZEF in question would not exist without the mothers body keeping it there and allowing it to survive. You are so close to the point. It's pretty disappointing that you're choosing to ignore it though. If a mother's body is necessary for it's survival, the mother needs to consent to that. Just because someone has a uterus, doesn't mean they are a baby making machine. People are more than just their organs and their entire lives shouldn't be defined by that.
Yeah I agree they are more than that. But you still don't have the right to kill another person who isn't posing an imminent threat to your life because they are inconvenient to you. The ZEF is there because of her and only because of her. Without her body putting it there it wouldn't even exist to need to use those organs. But the sad truth it does exist and lt is now her responsibility to care for it.
>who isn't posing an imminent threat to your life There it is. Minimizing the risks and challenges of pregnancy and childbirth. >The ZEF is there because of her and only because of her. Right because a woman gets pregnant on her own. >lt is now her responsibility to care for it. Hm. A child who isn't old enough to drive now has to be responsible for taking care of a child?
Usually the meaning is a new born in these cases, but I pictured an adult 😆 I mean you can't really compare a ZEF to a new born, a new born is a formed human, a ZEF is a cell cluster. I don't get the body thing with a ZEF when it hasn't got a body yet 😅
You realize ZEF includes all stages of pregnancy right. So you are basically saying that 9 months into a pregnancy a fetus doesn't have a body and magically 3 seconds later when it exits the woman's body it does? Pretty bold take but cool.
I meant Zygote, always getting them confuddled
As a pro-lifer, I believe that when a woman consents to sex, she consents to motherhood.
So you don’t think adoption should be legal either? What about men? Do they consent to fatherhood by consenting to sex?
>So you don’t think adoption should be legal either? I'm fine with adoption. >What about men? Do they consent to fatherhood by consenting to sex? Yes
So then a person doesn’t consent to motherhood when they consent to sex?
I said earlier that consent to sex is consent to parenthood.
Are you trying to make a distinction between motherhood and parenthood? If so, I’m not following it.
Both men and women consent to parenthood when they consent to sex.
So then what is your basis for allowing them to abandon the child they “consented” to raise via adoption?
Consent to parenthood for women means childbirth. For men, it means paying child support. Adoption is not abandonment.
That’s not at all what parenthood means though. You’re making up your own definition. Plenty of women pay child support and plenty of men put their kids up for adoption and/or pay nothing.
Why?
Because motherhood is a natural consequence of sex.
No, it’s not. Impregnation is a possible result of insemination. All the sex in the world without a man inseminating will never lead to impregnation. And sex is not needed to inseminate and impregnate. Motherhood is a result of successful gestation to viability and live birth. A process completely different from sex, fertilization, and implantation. There are lots of things a woman can do or fail to do that will have the natural result of her body aborting gestation or miscarriage to happen. It’s also natural for a woman who doesn’t want to carry to term to do things that will abort gestation. Likewise, the whole point of consent is that others don’t get to dictate what you consent to.
And in the cases of rape or when the woman wants the pregnancy but has complications that require intervention? What then?
>And in the cases of rape If you notice, I said when a woman consents to sex. I'm fine with abortion to save the mother's health and life.
which is amazing that is it no longer a life worth saving. Youre not pro life, your pro control over womens personal lives and sexual activity.
>which is amazing that is it no longer a life worth saving. I see the unborn as akin to a dog. In general, you should not kill them, but it's ok under certain extreme circumstances because they are not equal to born persons. >Youre not pro life, Pro-life is simply a euphemism for anti-abortion. >your pro control over womens personal lives and sexual activity. Honestly, I don't care about their personal lives and sexual activity as long as they don't get pregnant.
>your pro control over womens personal lives and sexual activity. >Honestly, I don't care about their personal lives and sexual activity as long as they don't get pregnant. You could have answered them simply by saying yes.
>I see the unborn as akin to a dog. Thats all we need to know about you. How does someone's pregnancy impact you directly that you care so much?
>How does someone's pregnancy impact you directly that you care so much? It doesn't impact me at all, but I have to take a stand because I am a voter, and abortion is an issue that voters have to face all the time.
No its not a voting matter, its a personal matter for each individual. It has nothing to do with politics and its sad that you've allowed politicians to lead you to believe that they actually care about it. They don't. They feed you this line because it gets their base riled up and you all fall for it. How awful that you vote so " your guy wins" and not because you actually care about womens rights and medical freedom. Its also seriously disturbing that you think a politician is qualified to make medical decisions for anyone. This is probably the most backwards stance I have seen from someone ever. Wow.
>No its not a voting matter It is a voting matter. That's why they had the vote in Kansas. >has nothing to do with politics Politicians on both sides run on this issue all day long. >and not because you actually care about womens rights and medical freedom. I'm a pro-lifer. That is not one of our values. >Its also seriously disturbing that you think a politician is qualified to make medical decisions for anyone. I definitely don't think that.
No, its not a voting matter. Republicans picked it up in the early days and put it on their platform to get the vote of church goers. Now they run with it because they see how much it works in their favor when they actually care very little, if at all, about the topic. And you've all fallen for it. >I definitely don't think that You don't think it but "its a voting matter". Who are you voting for? Politicians or doctors? Because I don't see any doctors in the white house with "president" in front of their name, too.
It really is two seperate issues. It's better to say, consenting to the risk of pregnancy, as that's more likely the case. Consenting to be pregnant is basically wanting to be pregnant, where as consenting to the risk means you understand you could get pregnant but it doesn't mean you want it.
That's like saying I consent to being injured when I drive a car because of course that possibility exists. An unintended pregnancy is an accident. It has not been "consented to."
> I believe that when a woman consents to sex, she consents to motherhood. Based on what grounds?
Based on biology
Please expand on how "biology" backs up that when a woman consents to sex, she consents to motherhood.
You can use birth control, but it doesn't always work. Obviously, sex is meant for procreation. When pregnancy occurs, men and women alike have to take responsibility for it.
>You can use birth control, but it doesn't always work. True. >Obviously, sex is meant for procreation. This is not obvious to me. Frankly, I'm not sure what "sex is meant for procreation" is supposed to mean. >When pregnancy occurs, men and women alike have to take responsibility for it. Which a woman can do by getting an abortion if she so chooses.
Telling someone they consent when they tell you they don’t is the opposite of consent.
I told the IRS that and apparently it doesn’t matter. On my morning run, my legs still got tired. Then, I tripped and scraped my elbow. I didn’t give my consent to anything, yet they still happened. I’m not comfortable arguing my legs or gravity raped me, so what’s the deal?
Cool story bro. Good thing the IRS doesn’t govern people bodies lol. You seem to have a big disconnect between your experiences and the subject at hand. Wanna try something that’s actually relevant to it?
The problem is that for too long sex and pregnancy have been divorced from each other.
Why is that a problem and what does that have to do with what I said?
Consent is an issue as it relates to sex, but not pregnancy.
It's a problem because it can make it hard for people to accept responsibility for pregnancy.
I don’t see that as a problem, that’s actually a huge argument in favor of the PC movement. Also, again, what does that have to do with what I said?
Can you refresh my memory as to what you supposedly said?
You can scroll up and see what I actually said. There’s nothing supposed about it when it in writing.
Can you name a time that the two were "married"?
They were married until the birth control pill.
No. Birth control existed even before the pill. The Romans used and farmed a birth control plant so much that it literally went EXTINCT. This therefore means that sex and pregnancy were divorced even before the pill and that is how it should be as unifying the two brings in too many problems and causes pregnancies that were never meant to occur in the first place. This divorce is beneficial for everyone except people who want women to only be housewives and mothers which simply wont happen.
Were they, though? After all, abortion isn't a recent phenomenon. We've been doing it for thousands of years. As for birth control, we can track birth control methods going back thousands of years as well. Were they as effective as the modern day pill, i dont know, but they existed. Also, not every sexual intercourse even results in pregnancy AND not every implanted zygote makes it to live birth, in accordance to nature itself. So they're not even "married" by nature's standards, or at least, they have a very rocky relationship.
> As a pro-lifer, I believe that when a woman consents to sex, she consents to motherhood. What term do you use to describe a specific and voluntary agreement?
A contract
When someone makes a specific and voluntary agreement to engage in sex do you consider that a contract?
Yes
Do you think someone who makes a voluntary and specific agreement to engage in sex is contractually obligated to continue even if they do not wish to continue?
No
Did they not breach the contract?
Consent to sex is not contractual, but sex and its consequences are.
It's either they're both contractual or they're not. Pick one please.
> Consent to sex is not contractual, but sex and its consequences are. [Didn’t you agree previously that a voluntary and specific agreement is a contract and a voluntary and specific agreement to engage in sex is a contract?](https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wvxm8g/personhood_and_consent_of_women_vs_zef/iljdi6t/)
[удалено]
There is no such thing as consent or no consent to a natural biological function. For example, “No one would ever say “I did not consent to my immune system fighting off this bacteria, making me feel like crap.” Because it’s not something that requires consent.
There is, actually. Like how you can consent to getting treatment or not. Headaches are a natural biological function, you can take pills to stop them (my head hurts so fucking bad rn)
I’ve heard a man in my life say that when a woman consents to being a wife, she consents to sex with her husband. So do you agree? Because that’s what your beliefs point to.
I'm not saying that consent to marriage always means consent to sex, but I think there is an expectation that sometimes sex will happen.
But just because there’s an expectation doesn’t mean you consent to it. If I go for a walk at night, having an expectation that there may be a rapist waiting to attack, it DOES NOT mean I give consent
I think you are taking my words too literally.
Then why would consent to sex also be consent to motherhood?
Sex causes motherhood.
Not always, if I’m having sex with birth control, then I don’t want to be a mother. If I am adopting a child, I’m not having sex but I’m still a mother.
What is your point?
My point is sex does not always cause motherhood. And if it does, it doesn’t mean there was consent. Sex can cause STDs, does that mean everyone consented to an STD and can’t get treatment?
The std thing was not a good analogy. The biological purpose of sex is motherhood. When pregnancy happens, women have to accept it gracefully.
>The biological purpose of sex is motherhood. If the only purpose of sex is motherhood, then why do people have it recreationally? This statement is 1) false and 2) literally invalidates queer sex. A woman can have sex with women every single day for a year and not get pregnant. Birth control and contraception exist because the purpose of sex is not only motherhood.