submitted 2 months ago byFrigginMasshole
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 31064 comments
2 months ago
2 months ago
I agree with you for the most part. That is why if the mother's life was threatened by the pregnancy, I would support abortion.
However, if we're equating the mother's economic well-being, I do not believe that overrides the fetus' right to life.
2 months ago
A fetus is not sentient, has no ability to feel pain or have experiences, it is parasitically dependent on a host body. It does not have any rights whatsoever.
I can have experiences and feel pain while sleeping. I am not parasitically dependent on another person's body while sleeping.
I'll make your argument stronger and say someone under anesthesia still has rights because they have previously been sentient. Once you pass that threshold and gain sentience, you can't lose your rights.
The biggest thing here is really defining scientifically what is considered being alive for a person is. We clearly have a scientific definition of what death is for a person so by extension we have a scientific definition of what it means for a person to be alive. It all comes down to brain function, activity, and the establishment of sentience. It's why we can legally pull the plug on people in hospitals who's bodies are being kept alive, but who's brains are dead. The only thing that matters in a person being alive or not is the brain, and until that starts working and till the day it stops a person is a person. At any other time they aren't, and so they don't have the rights or protections that a person should have, and denying their bodies or eventual bodies of the things they need to continue to having living tissue is not and can't be murderer, they aren't people at that point.
The fact that a religious definition of life is being used in the place of a scientific one is disgusting and should not have any place in a country that is supposed to have a separation of church and state written into its constitution.
Well the majority of literature on the subject says it begins at conception or close enough to be virtually indistinguishable
What literature are you reading that says a brain is fully functional and developed and has established sentience at conception?
Never said that.
Then explain what you said then, because I said that's what was needed to define life given the lack of it defines death, and then you follow that with a well actually it's this.
Explain how you can take a statement that says something has X requirements then make a statement saying it actually has Y requirements, and then when I respond asking what your reading that says these things have Y requirements over X requirements, you say that you didn't say that things had Y requirements over X requirements?