Exactly, an unborn child is fundamentally innocent. Hence my humanist views I suppose.
No—it’s neither innocent nor guilty. Those categories don’t apply.
In terms of power dynamics I'm happy with the analogy, but I'll stop with the absurdity if you do. You've already stated that an unborn child, a viable fetus, is essentially no different to a non-human parasite. Get off your high-horse please, you've said a lot of dumb scientifically illiterate shit so far.
I haven’t said a fetus is “essentially” no different than a parasite. Definitionally speaking, parasites tend to be of different species. If anything, I implied that the reproductive relationship is comparable to a parasitic relationship. This isn’t “scientifically illiterate.” A fetus behaves much like a parasite does; the difference is that rather than infecting a host, a fetus is produced by intra-species sexuality.
Abortion is a perfectly acceptable option given the toll that pregnancy takes on a woman’s body—not to mention potential workplace repercussions.
I didn't say there was proof or that it was logically sound, just that I can give enough of an explanation to swat away your derisive use of words like "magic" to describe my views.
You are pretty magical sometimes dude...
Of rights are an effect of the “sovereign body,” then what do we do about the problem that an unborn child resides within the sovereign body of a woman? Your answer seems to be “because it’s life or death.” You haven’t convinced me that life (the bare essence of survival, of the beating heart) is more meaningful than already-existing livelihood.
I've already stated that I don't believe in a universal ban of abortion at any stage. I added the caveat that if the mother's life is at risk and a choice must be made between saving the fetus and saving the mother, the law should be on the mother's side and allow the abortion. This is a very rare case but it's a caveat I hold that busts any claim that I'm holding some kind of universal stance on abortion.
...then what the hell are we arguing about? If you actually said you don’t believe in a universal ban “at any stage,” then I’m sorry. I’ve been assuming you believe in a ban on post-first trimester abortions.
I agree, but again we're dipping into always vs not always and if it turns out that this empathy is misplaced and the child is unwanted, the child can be given up for adoption. A death can very easily be avoided.
Think of it this way: it’s not only the child that’s unwanted, but the pregnancy. You say that the potential for living, decision-making individual supersedes that preference. I don’t still don’t see why beyond “it should be able to make the choice.” I see that as a misapplication if the right to choose. An unborn child can’t choose, it is neither guilty nor innocent.
Now let’s add another dimension. By the time it’s old enough to choose, it will either undeniably choose “yes,” or it will have suffered so much pain and agony that it will choose “no” and end its life.
This whole premise of being able to choose simply makes no sense to me. And it rejects the woman’s right to choose (again, if we were discussing disallowing abortion—which apparently we’re not).
She couldn't know either scenario; that's my point. Your claim that killing an unwanted viable fetus would be a benefit is based on some kind of weird calculation you've not specified.
I have specified: do you know how many cancer-curing Einsteins there are out there...? I’ll answer: not that many.
Further point: the cancer-curing Einsteins are more likely to come from the families that want their children and don’t feed them into the foster system.
Many useless shitheels are born to wealthy families where they don't suffer and many decent productive people are born to families (or single parents) where you would assume during the pregnancy that the child shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I just don't get how you think you can make a claim like that.
We’re talking about “decent productive people.” I thought we were talking about cancer-curing Einsteins.
I don't want to go into the realm of being a massive cunt because I generally like you, but some of the stuff you've said here is just bizarre and so utterly anti-humanist to me. But since it turns out that actually you don't have any kids, I would be interested to see if anything changes about your views when your wife eventually gets pregnant, and the whole process happens etc.
I know I have anti-humanist views. For what it’s worth, I believe they keep me grounded and attentive to all sides of an issue.
I actually want kids. So does my wife. And I’ll probably love those little shits as much as I do my cat. But when it comes to my work/thinking, the “human” is something I’m unendingly critical of.
I see no reason why you hinge so much on socialization. The thing about an unborn child is; because it's at the stage of viability, all you have to do is basically remove it from the womb and it would instantly begin socialization, building memories, recognizing faces and so on.
It mainly has to do with experience. I value experience, and in this context the woman has social experience, identity, agency, etc. The unborn child doesn’t, or has far less.
The difference with anti-natalism is that they make a final choice for a living human that cannot be reversed. I don't dictate that life is good or bad, I simply say a living human should be allowed to live and see for themselves, if they agree with the anti-natalist view of the world suicide is always an option. Similar logic to my stance on circumcision in fact.
A parent making that choice for a baby is irreversible, arguments can be made for the positives or negatives of circumcision but ultimately the choice should be made by the individual.
The ethic of predicting misery to justify termination of a life is distorted IMO.
You’re also advocating a choice that can’t be reversed, though. You can’t take back a pregnancy, and you can’t take back having been in the world (although you can end your being in the world).
EDIT: apologies for typos and other odd locutions. I’m on my phone.
