Did you know: until the early 80s, the religious position was that life began at birth, and specifically with the newborn's first (unaided) breath.

It wasn't until the Right realized that the sexual revolution wasn't just a phase and needed a new way to limit the sexual agency and freedom of people who weren't cis men that the current "life begins at conception" rhetoric settled in.

@noelle

Christianity will be a "Right" thing, when "Right" people will live as Christians, sharing all they own, as Christians do at
https://www.nomadelfia.it/eng/

Also, I think life begins at conception by basic logic, given the genome is already complete there.

#Abortion is a #murder.
But I don't blame the mother, but the society. It's a collective murder. It's acceptable only if you accept people are things, production tools.

Abortion is an #oppressive social-control tool.

@Shamar @noelle
Well, life begins, but is it a life of a person?

We don't call it a murder, when you kill a chicken, or a worm. We only call it a murder when you kill another person.

So, is an embryo already a person? or is it just an animal?

@Wolf480pl @noelle

What make it less than a person?

@Shamar @noelle dunno, maybe being unable to pass a turing test?
What makes it more of a person than a fly?

@Wolf480pl @noelle

The genome.

@Shamar @noelle
Would that mean that:
- if another species was equally intelligent to humans, but its DNA was very different from that of a human, it wouldn't be a person?
- if a non-biological creature, eg. an electronic one, was as intelligent as humans, it wouldn't be a person?
- if you uploaded your mind to a computer, the copy of your mind wouldn't be a person?

@Wolf480pl @noelle

Assuming common meaning of #person (from Latin, "per se unum", that is a well defined single entity holding human rights)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

Now we could grant human #rights to #intelligent aliens, non biological intelligences and even software simulators if we like (with some issues for human beings... but you know... with propaganda... 😉)

But we could not make these human, even if we call them "person".

A human #embryo, instead IS a #human.

@Wolf480pl @noelle

The mention of #Turing test to identify humans shows how deep penetrated #Capitalism #propaganda.

Humans are not #things!
We are not #tools!

Every single human on Earth could fail the Turing test. After a tongue- or brain-demaging incident, for example.

If a #human cannot STOP being a human, why the hell should it "become" a human at a certain point in life?

So if the life begin at #conception, it's already a human #life.

It's simply #logic, IMHO.

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @noelle
The ugly truth is that a human can indeed become something that is no longer truly a person.
The even uglier is that a fetus can have genetic defects that would just cause them and/or others suffering. If you can detect these defects soon after conception then it is acceptable to choose not to bring such a child into the world.
1/2

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

These not truths, they are opinions. Not particularly rooted in science I would add, since several physicians I know (including my wife) say that a fetus does not survive if it's genes are so defective to be incompatible with life.

Obviously there are exceptions, but even so they are still human.

To me it's not accepable to kill a human, just because he cannot produce and consume.

This is true for a paralized adult and for a Down child. ..

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

because I refuse to treat humans like things.

Whatever human.

Child, adult, male, female, trans, black, white, killer, saint... whatever.

They are not things we can throw away.

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @noelle
And ideally we wouldn't have to throw anyone away, but sometimes you must make a choice in limited time with limited information and limited resources and that choice will affect you and others, possibly drastically so.

And you might refuse to acknowledge that there is an ordering of your potential choices but the ordering will still be there and others might acknowledge it.

Ideally, people wouldn't have to think of this stuff, but the world can be ugly.

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

I don't undestand what you mean.

I'm sincere, I'm not lying.

In that exact situation with no other info to infer a difference in the probability of saving anyone, I would try to save all the human present, even with the risk of losing everyone.

Give me other info and my decision could change.

But note that this thought experiment is... well... just an imaginary experiment.

Abortion kills real humans.

Thus I'd prefer real objections.

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

I mean objections based on real cases, already happened.

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @noelle
-not having the right to safe abortions just increases the number of unsafe and illegal abortions
-women are shamed for even considering an abortion and are told that "god will help" them. and guess what, they often die.
-rape victims should not be forced to carry a child they did not want

also, it is usually better to prioritize the mother's safety because they can, to put it bluntly, always have more kids

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

1) having the right to safe income and sustain for the kids, having welcoming communities that actively help the mothers and the right to affidate the kids to safe lovely institutions that grow them without judging the mothers decrease the abortions
2) God cannot help anyone alone, He need whole communities to grow a children even if he has a family around.
3) do yoy prefer the cheaper alternative: let them abort and forget them?

As for mother safety...

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle

... I think that's a very complex, delicate and personal issue that a mother should decide with the help her physician.

But this is a relatively rare issue: most abortions do not occur to save the mothers' lifes.