WTF is this "life" everybody talks about, anyway?

Homepage Forums Small Talk WTF is this "life" everybody talks about, anyway?

This topic contains 38 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43752

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Autumn, that makes me think of the impossibility of identifying the moment a species or an individual organism attains consciousness. Not just awareness of pain and good sensations or emotions but self-awareness. Being sentient

    #43753

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Good points, all. Just remember the difference between life and death is 21 grams, LOL.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment#:~:text=Despite%20its%20rejection%20within%20the,that%20it%20weighs%2021%20grams.

     

    #43754

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    I think – yes life does begin at conception – but yes, the mother has the right to decide if she wants to bring that life into the world. No government, or MAN should have any say in the matter. Period. Point blank. Simple. The only man who should have a vote or a say is the father – assuming she’s in a good enough relationship with him that is input is valid – and assuming it wasn’t rape/incest etc. the woman ultimately has the CHOICE and should have the choice to do as she sees fit. Women should have full control of the choices with their own body. The “life” growing inside her does not take priority over her own well-being because she is a LIFE of her own and her decisions affect her – and those who love her.

    #43755

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Belle, for clarification of your position-does that change in the week before delivery?

    #43756

    Unseen
    Participant

    If you wanted to define ‘cat’ along temporal lines, you’d run into similar issues. At what point in the evolutionary timeline did cats become cats, distinct from their predecessors as a species (or family with the broader definition of ‘cat’)?

    True, but when discussing what people mean by cat in everyday life, definitions will vary but will largely be congruent and noncontradictory.

    #43757

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    @jake

    Belle, for clarification of your position-does that change in the week before delivery?

    um…no…why?

    #43759

    Autumn
    Participant

    If you wanted to define ‘cat’ along temporal lines, you’d run into similar issues. At what point in the evolutionary timeline did cats become cats, distinct from their predecessors as a species (or family with the broader definition of ‘cat’)?

    True, but when discussing what people mean by cat in everyday life, definitions will vary but will largely be congruent and noncontradictory.

    In everyday life the same is true for the common definitions of ‘life’. There are certain technical/ contextual areas where it gets thornier. But if cats were as politicized as MAiD or abortion—we’d probably run into similar issues. If there were an argument that the right to have cats as pets was constitutionally protected, we might start having similar problems with what ‘cat’ means when people started keeping mountain lions as pets.

    I’m not disagreeing with your point so much as suggesting some of the difficulty surrounding the definition of ‘life’ isn’t down to the difficulty of defining the word in practical or theoretical terms so much as politically-motivated muddying of waters.

    #43761

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Belle, cuz i don’t think your position makes sense. At that point in the pregnancy it is a kid and the state ought to protect it. Constitutional law and rights are concerned with balancing interests. That is why free speech is not absolute. Right to bear arms is not or at least should not be absolute. Free exercise of religion is not absolute. Once the religion calls for virgins to sacrifice the right of the virgin to avoid being sacrificed supercedes the right of the theist to sacrifice the virgin.

    #43776

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    @jake

    Belle, cuz i don’t think your position makes sense. At that point in the pregnancy it is a kid and the state ought to protect it.

    Says who? Says you? In ALL cases?

    Are you SURE about that?

    What if they discover for example that the baby has its brain hanging out of his skull. She the mother be forced to deliver that? What if she doesn’t want to? Should she be forced to? It’s not as cookie cutter simple as you think sometimes. And it’s no one’s business.

    #43778

    jakelafort
    Participant

    From Belle,

    Lets get Belle some danish.

    Are you SURE about that?

    What if they discover for example that the baby has its brain hanging out of his skull. She the mother be forced to deliver that? What if she doesn’t want to? Should she be forced to? It’s not as cookie cutter simple as you think sometimes. And it’s no one’s business.

    That is funny. It is exactly what i was gonna ask you as a follow-up to what i anticipated would be a clarification. I thought you would say that the right to abort right before birth is obviated. At that point it is a kid. Hell sometimes babies are plucked by cesarean weeks before birth when the mom is in danger. It is just wrong to kill an infant. Infanticide a day after birth is more or less equivalent to one that is ready to pop.

    And then i would ask you if the mother might not have a right to an abortion in the event some birth defect or similar catastrophe were discovered.

    #43788

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    @jake

    It is just wrong to kill an infant. Infanticide a day after birth is more or less equivalent to one that is ready to pop.

    I don’t think I have ever heard of a case where a mother was in a late third trimester abortion where they just decided they wanted to do it because they didn’t want the baby. That just doesn’t happen. It is almost always because of some kind of really crazy circumstance out of her control and she hast to make a tough decision. Most abortions happen early on but those that happen later are just as important to the health and well-being of the mother. The problem is that now that we have different states with different rules and so it depends on where you live that determines what kind of medical care you can get, it is a huge cluster fuck. And other types of fertility issues are now being put under a microscope as well. It’s just no man’s place or the governments place to make any kind of medical decisions for women. Even if she does have to have a late trimester abortion for some crazy reason, it’s not like she would want that. I don’t know a single woman that would just wake up one day and say, “Gee, I think I’ll go to sleep around  and then if I get pregnant I’ll just abort the baby right before it’s born.” That never happens I guarantee it it just doesn’t happen.

    #43790

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Belle i am sure it is highly unusual. But i doubt it never happens. I’ve seen stories about newborns being thrown in a dumpster. The Spartans loved to kill little ones who were not up to their standards.

    I totally get and support the notion that a woman’s autonomy over her body is paramount UNTIL a point in the pregnancy where a new life is far enough along that it is not her sole prerogative to determine the outcome. For me Roe did it. Was a reasonable decision.

    #43794

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    @jake

    I totally get and support the notion that a woman’s autonomy over her body is paramount UNTIL a point in the pregnancy where a new life is far enough along that it is not her sole prerogative to determine the outcome.

    If the baby is still inside her body it is still her sole perogative to determine the outcome with support of her partner (If she has one) and her doctor. No one else should have anything to do with it.

    #43795

    Autumn
    Participant

    At that point it is a kid. Hell sometimes babies are plucked by cesarean weeks before birth when the mom is in danger. It is just wrong to kill an infant. Infanticide a day after birth is more or less equivalent to one that is ready to pop. And then i would ask you if the mother might not have a right to an abortion in the event some birth defect or similar catastrophe were discovered.

    It’s a bit of a moot point in practical terms. I don’t know if there are (m)any jurisdictions or medical practice in the world that offer elective terminations of pregnancies that late.

    Strangely, murder has potential to be a victimless crime. Assume I have no one who will grieve me when I die. My affairs are in order. I don’t contribute anything irreplaceable to society. I go to sleep and someone painlessly kills me without my awareness. I experience no fear, anxiety or pain in the process. I simply never wake up again. Who suffers in this scenario? Once dead I cannot experience loss of any sort nor pain nor suffering. I experience none of those things while alive. These same considerations may be even easier to apply to a newborn, and are probably even easier to apply to a foetus at any stage in development. It’s plausible the life could be ended without any appreciable suffering.

    There are reasons to prohibit killing beyond suffering, of course. I’m not suggesting homicide laws be changed to include some sort of suffering analysis. I suspect that would have a pretty detrimental effect on society. It may be that foetal viability or even birth are somewhat arbitrary bounds for prohibiting termination or death. Supposedly we may such prohibitions in the interest of protecting life, but as societies, protecting life is a pretty inconsistent value. It may be more accurate to say we protect life in a manner that makes most of us comfortable no one is allowed to kill us. Instead of working out some contrived calculus about the exact nature of who can be killed when, we have much more generalized blanket rules.

    I understand that sounds a bit sociopathic. In reality, I’m someone who wouldn’t rat out the mice that infested my apartment to my landlord because I couldn’t rationalize why we had the right to kill them for inconveniencing us. But I think if we’re going to wax moral on killing we have to a) accept that our lives are built off the deaths of others already, and b) come up with a more thorough understanding of when and why it is actually wrong to kill.

    #43797

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Autumn, that was a wild ride. You are not a bot, not that i ever thought…

    So lets put the age and circumstances of intended death usually referred to as homicide in the rear view mirror. Under any circumstances why do we make a fuss about taking a life? (In war we demonize the enemy, kill em like they’re of no value, and use their skulls as coffee cups. I contrast suicide with all circumstances in which another is taking the subject’s life.)

    And why do we typically mourn more for children and women who are killed than men? Society puts up a shit fit when a famous person dies like Kobe Bryant (not murdered, helicoptor crash) but there is little to no appreciation for a homeless person. We categorize some as productive but others as wastrels. The loss of life is deemed more significant when we deem the person more significant. Seems our animal heritage and social hierarchies are imprinted in our thoughts. When the death is to an untouchable, witch during witch killing era, heretic, traitor, reviled because of racism Black person, Jew or Gypsy during holocaust it is not much of a loss, if any. Historically European justice always looked at the victim and his status. Doing wrong to an aristocrat was a far greater crime than doing a peasant wrong.

    Thus our view of murder and its severity or even whether it is a crime depends on the historical context and perception of the victim. Still there is an underlying assumption that life has value. It has intrinsic value. Even brooding and dour malcontents lost in melancholia and saturnine reflection are affirming that value when they do not take their own lives. Life has intrinsic value. If that is true then it is as wrong to take a newborn as it is a healthy child. Irrespective of knowledge or termination without suffering life has value.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.