Can two lives become one?

[Fletch]

It's an vague generalization intentionally designed by anti-choicers to call a calculated end to any further critical inquiries onto the issue.

No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.

 

[quip]

No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.

On the contrary. Proper context would include the mother's rights. Anti-choice completely and conveniently avoids this distraction.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Mmm Nah I better not....

Wise move. We have already demonstrated that we are not above cannibalism.

 

[anatta]

Perhaps, by refusing to hide behind the vague pronouncement of "life" and taking an earnest, non-reactionary examination of the issue.

agree. human life is a process from embryo to development in the womb, to birth. but an embryo is not a human being.

It's like saying a germinating seed is an oak tree. It's obviously not. Science is the guideline -but for legal purposes (abortion/personhood)
we set certain measures for when abortion is OK and when it's not -even though an abortion is terminating "life'

 

[Bodi]

Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.

Sure there is. Like, does it matter?


j

 

[Gordy327]

Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.

Sure there is, such as the woman's life, her situation her rights, and what difference "life" makes as that is not the issue.

There is nothing vague about life or when it begins. Unless your goal is to terminate that life without a guilty conscience.

Why would anyone feel guilty?

No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.

Proper context: Abortion is a legal and personal issue. As such, there is no rational or legal reason to restrict abortion at all and its an issue between a woman and her doctor and no one else's business or concern.

 

[roguenuke]

No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.

Except that in one of my examples (identical twins), one of the lives did not exist at conception. In the other (chimerism), when did the life itself end if we only have one baby born? And belief in a soul would put this on another level as well.

 

[Noodlegawd]

So according to most of those against abortion, life begins at conception. If true, how does chimerism fit into that perspective? For that matter, where do identical twins fit?

For those unaware, chimerism is when two fertilized eggs, early in gestation (days or weeks at most), combine to form a single embryo and generally develops into a single fetus, then a single person is born. On even more rare occasion, the single chimeric embryo can divide to become two twins as well.

And of course identical twins would be one fertilized egg splitting into two embryos generally again very early in gestation. I think conjoined twins is when it happens later in gestation and would also be a part of this discussion.

Where exactly does the other life end or begin? How do you determine which life ended when chimerism occurs? Which life began at conception and which life begins with the split when it comes to identical twins? If you believe in souls, when does the soul enter a body or leave a body?

How's any of that relevant to the issue of abortion? If separate lives hypothetically begin or end during the processes you described, it still would be a matter of natural processes and have nothing to do with the issue.

 

[roguenuke]

How's any of that relevant to the issue of abortion? If separate lives hypothetically begin or end during the processes you described, it still would be a matter of natural processes and have nothing to do with the issue.

How does the issue of when life begins or ends matter to abortion is part of the point.

Laws are being written claiming life begins at conception and that there are rights given at conception, even legal recognition in some states at conception. If taxes are affected according to how many "people" are there, then it matters when it comes to abortion. Additionally, if you aborted twins, is that one count or two? So if you abort a chimera fetus, is that one count or two?

 

[reinaert]

This may seem weird, but I have to say it because I think it applies to a situation like this: I have been reading the philosophy of these philosophers, considered generally as "postmodern" philosophers: Deleuze and Guattari. They have a very interesting metaphysics of how the world works. They liken it to a rhizome. This holds in many different things in life: but in this situation it seems to apply to what it is to be an individual. It is not a tree, a singular entity from which roots and branches diverge. It is an "assemblage" that forms a network with all sorts of other entities: both socially and biologically. Such cases highlight the difficulty of even finding the "stem" or "tree trunk" of what it is to be an individual, a subject. It is not so neatly defined. There are so many things, biologic and environmental and cultural, that go into making a person (roots), and so many things that come out of it (branches)- a chaotic network of stuff, many of it even contradictory. And like a living rhizome, it is constantly dynamic and shifting.

I have found this to be a very enlightening and even therapeutic way of thinking about the self, about ideologies, about identities, about meaning in life, etc, etc...

Rhizome (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Addendum: BTW, this seems very much to converge on some of the insights from Buddhism, and its ideas of Anatta (the no-self, not as an individualistic ego- but a nodal point merging in all directions with the rest of the universe).

Read Nomadology: The War Machine yet?

 

[weaver2]

Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.

I agree. People that belong to this point of view are not going to change. No amount of logic, philosophy, religion, statistical evidence will change these people way of thinking. What often does change though is the act of getting an abortion when a pregnancy becomes an embarrassment or an impediment. The % of anti-abortion advocates that get abortions is almost exactly the same as the general population of those who advocate for legal abortion.

 

[Noodlegawd]

How does the issue of when life begins or ends matter to abortion is part of the point.

Laws are being written claiming life begins at conception and that there are rights given at conception, even legal recognition in some states at conception. If taxes are affected according to how many "people" are there, then it matters when it comes to abortion. Additionally, if you aborted twins, is that one count or two? So if you abort a chimera fetus, is that one count or two?

Either way, there's at least one "life" according to the theory. The laws being written based on that theory would be the same whether one or two "lives" are involved.

What taxes are affected by how many "lives" there are in a woman's uterus?

 

[roguenuke]

Either way, there's at least one "life" according to the theory. The laws being written based on that theory would be the same whether one or two "lives" are involved.

What taxes are affected by how many "lives" there are in a woman's uterus?

In Georgia, a person can claim the unborn on state taxes due to their heartbeat law.

 

[Noodlegawd]

In Georgia, a person can claim the unborn on state taxes due to their heartbeat law.

That's based on when a heartbeat can be detected, not on life beginning at conception.

 

[choiceone]

Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.

Of course there is. Even though a fertilized ovum may be a human life, it is not a person. Abortion does not end a human life, because abortion only occurs after an embryo is implanted into the living body of the woman, who is a person.

After implantation, a placenta forms of the cells of that person and the embryo, and it transfers the person's oxygen, nutrients, antibodies, etc., to the embryo. The person's biological systems, organs, homeostasis, etc., substitute for those the embryo lacks, e.g., the embryo has no heart, but the person's heart substitutes for it.

The placenta is not a human life and not a person. On one hand, a placenta has no rights and a human life has no rights, but a person does have rights. However, even if the embryo were defined as a person, it would not have the right to use the woman's body to save its life. Hence, if she wants to end the implantation, she certainly would have the right to end it.

Once the placenta isn't connected to her body, the embryo won't continue to live. I don't see that as a direct killing of the embryo. The embryo simply dies because it isn't a human life that is separate from the implantation.

 

[Bodi]

Nobody has the right to stop a person from removing something from their body that they do not want there and that can cause them health issues up to and including death. Basically any person against abortion is a scumbag.

 

[choiceone]

Nobody has the right to stop a person from removing something from their body that they do not want there and that can cause them health issues up to and including death. Basically any person against abortion is a scumbag.