The Abortion Thread

[Einherjar86]

The tone on this thing is comedy gold, but it makes a pretty good case against abortion.

It's not making a case for or against abortion. I linked it because it provides evidence for comparing a fetus to a parasite. Embryonic cells "invade" the uterus, genes in embryonic development have been linked to cancer, etc. etc. A fetus isn't categorically a parasite, it's just virtually the same thing.

 

[CiG]

I would say it isn't providing evidence for comparing a fetus to a parasite, it's demonstrating that in the first trimester (at least majority of it anyway) an embryo is parasitic. Calling the fetus, especially at the stage of viability (seriously sick of typing that word), a parasite whether literally or virtually however doesn't really cut it to me because it can survive outside of the womb (or if you would prefer, "host").

By all means, abort the parasitic entity within the first 6-8 weeks. Calling a fetus a parasite is disingenuous though.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say it isn't providing evidence for comparing a fetus to a parasite, it's demonstrating that in the first trimester (at least majority of it anyway) an embryo is parasitic. Calling the fetus, especially at the stage of viability (seriously sick of typing that word), a parasite whether literally or virtually however doesn't really cut it to me because it can survive outside of the womb (or if you would prefer, "host").

By all means, abort the parasitic entity within the first 6-8 weeks. Calling a fetus a parasite is disingenuous though.

Did you not see this portion?

Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through the endometrial surface, puncturing the mother’s arteries, swarming inside and remodelling them to suit the foetus. Outside of pregnancy, these arteries are tiny, twisty things spiralling through depths of the uterine wall. The invading placental cells paralyse the vessels so they cannot contract, then pump them full of growth hormones, widening them tenfold to capture more maternal blood. These foetal cells are so invasive that colonies of them often persist in the mother for the rest of her life, having migrated to her liver, brain and other organs. There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras.

Or any of the passages after that talking about the mother-fetus relationship?

 

[Dak]

It's not making a case for or against abortion. I linked it because it provides evidence for comparing a fetus to a parasite. Embryonic cells "invade" the uterus, genes in embryonic development have been linked to cancer, etc. etc. A fetus isn't categorically a parasite, it's just virtually the same thing.

I know it's not making that case, but in the case of making a "parasite" argument, it somewhat dispenses with the "clump of cells" angle. The closest analogy I can make for the tone of that article is playing horror movie music over a romcom to change the atmosphere.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that analogy is pretty accurate!

You're mocking it somewhat for its tone, but it's a purposeful and effective move. The essay is challenging the very popular and very mainstream notion that pregnancy is a beautiful union of mother and child. You call it comedy gold, but I'm not sure if you don't understand the cultural move it's making (using biological facts, no less) or you're trying to defend the "beautiful union" angle...

 

[Dak]

The essay is challenging the very popular and very mainstream notion that pregnancy is a beautiful union of mother and child. You call it comedy gold, but I'm not sure if you don't understand the cultural move it's making (using biological facts, no less) or you're trying to defend the "beautiful union" angle...

Well there is no such thing as a "beautiful union" in strict biological terms. Biology is a messy struggle. Procreation, genetic transmission, is - from a species-centric perspective - "beautiful" as we begin to zoom out. Our bodies contain millions of "bodies" which work in symphony, without which we would rapidly die. Are gut microbia "parasites"? Depends on what "music" you want to play, I guess. But we need them at the individual level and at the species level. Our genes need sexual reproduction at the individual level and the species has apparently benefited from the primate foetal "invasive" gestation, just like life benefitted from mitochondrial invasion etc..

One aspect of the female "genetic chimera" assertion not addressed is that abortion likely doesn't completely inhibit this and this has sexual norm ramifications. Provides some biological support for traditional sexual social norms based on evolutionary fitness (survival) of paternal genetics. A women potentially carries genes from former partners forever, so it's in the interest of men to both support social restraint on uninhibited sexuality while also trying to up their individual partner counts.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

laughing at how ADD everyone got
circumcision, playing with foreskin, veganism, vegetarianism, pedophilia, homophobia, SJWs, people in comas, assisted suicide, and a picture of Data from TNG were all crammed into "The Abortion Thread"

 

[Einherjar86]

Well there is no such thing as a "beautiful union" in strict biological terms. Biology is a messy struggle. Procreation, genetic transmission, is - from a species-centric perspective - "beautiful" as we begin to zoom out. Our bodies contain millions of "bodies" which work in symphony, without which we would rapidly die. Are gut microbia "parasites"? Depends on what "music" you want to play, I guess. But we need them at the individual level and at the species level. Our genes need sexual reproduction at the individual level and the species has apparently benefited from the primate foetal "invasive" gestation, just like life benefitted from mitochondrial invasion etc..

Technically speaking, I believe that a parasite has negative effects on its host, so gastrointestinal bacteria wouldn't be parasites... although I tend to find all the distinctions between parasite and host, and mutual symbiosis and parasitic symbiosis, imprecise and ambiguous (go figure).

A fetus, however, does actually have negative effects on its host. A mother doesn't need a fetus in order to live, and the fetus deprives the mother of energy and nutrients. In that respect, it behaves parasitically.

One aspect of the female "genetic chimera" assertion not addressed is that abortion likely doesn't completely inhibit this and this has sexual norm ramifications. Provides some biological support for traditional sexual social norms based on evolutionary fitness (survival) of paternal genetics. A women potentially carries genes from former partners forever, so it's in the interest of men to both support social restraint on uninhibited sexuality while also trying to up their individual partner counts.

I find the chimeric dimension fascinating, and didn't mean to insinuate that it's harmful. Nor did the author, to my eyes; she's simply underscoring how invasive pregnancy is.

 

[CiG]

Did you not see this portion?



Or any of the passages after that talking about the mother-fetus relationship?

I did. I said it's disingenuous because the fetus can be removed from the mother and kept alive. Hopefully we can get to a point technologically where we can remove a fetus earlier and earlier to limit risks to mothers while maintaining humanist standards regarding a fetus.

 

[arg]

Who’s gonna pay for the early-removed fetus as it incubates? Those machines will be expensive

 

[CiG]

Shut up whoremonger.

 

[Einherjar86]

I did. I said it's disingenuous because the fetus can be removed from the mother and kept alive.

I’m not sure I see the relevance. You can remove a fetus and keep it alive through artificial means, i.e. life support. By comparison, you could remove a tapeworm and keep it alive by artificial means.

 

[Dak]

A fetus, however, does actually have negative effects on its host. A mother doesn't need a fetus in order to live, and the fetus deprives the mother of energy and nutrients. In that respect, it behaves parasitically.

Some women love being able to eat more tacos, /shrug. It's offspring. All offspring have a resource draw. But it is also a genetic procreation, and, excluding rape cases, not invasive.

 

[Einherjar86]

Some women love being able to eat more tacos, /shrug. It's offspring. All offspring have a resource draw. But it is also a genetic procreation, and, excluding rape cases, not invasive.

Whatever weird neurochemistry goes on, it doesn’t change the negative impact the fetus has on a mother. They’re eating more tacos because their fetus is sucking up their energy.

 

[Dak]

Whatever weird neurochemistry goes on, it doesn’t change the negative impact the fetus has on a mother. They’re eating more tacos because their fetus is sucking up their energy.

Why is being able to enjoy eating stuff without permanent weight gain an objective negative? Now, there are some physical negatives for the mother, at a minimum in terms of abdominal/oblique stretch and related epidermal stretching, but again, tradeoffs, and big picture concerns. Particularly with modern medicine, most natal related serious health concerns are due to pregnancy in previously unhealthy mothers. Some stretching is just an inconvenience, not a serious issue. If we look at life expectancy etc, having kids isn't near the health concern as simply being male is.

 

[CiG]

I’m not sure I see the relevance. You can remove a fetus and keep it alive through artificial means, i.e. life support. By comparison, you could remove a tapeworm and keep it alive by artificial means.

Yes but a tapeworm isn't a human with legal protections, which is what a fetus is the instant it's outside of the womb. Also a tapeworm doesn't become a person in a relatively short period of time (well, at all, but what I mean to say is the period where a tapeworm comparison can even be made is very short).

If you remove a fetus and put it on life support, it won't stay a fetus unless it dies as a fetus.

Anyway this is just going into stupid places and your attempts at dehumanizing something which is definitively human in order to justify your position is getting to be really bizarre and desperate.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why is being able to enjoy eating stuff without permanent weight gain an objective negative? Now, there are some physical negatives for the mother, at a minimum in terms of abdominal/oblique stretch and related epidermal stretching, but again, tradeoffs, and big picture concerns. Particularly with modern medicine, most natal related serious health concerns are due to pregnancy in previously unhealthy mothers. Some stretching is just an inconvenience, not a serious issue. If we look at life expectancy etc, having kids isn't near the health concern as simply being male is.

Objective negative? Come on, be serious.

A parasite sucks up nutrients and energy from its host, forcing the host to overcompensate. A parasite that causes the host to vomit will also induce weight loss and allow the host to eat more.

Yes but a tapeworm isn't a human with legal protections, which is what a fetus is the instant it's outside of the womb. Also a tapeworm doesn't become a person in a relatively short period of time (well, at all, but what I mean to say is the period where a tapeworm comparison can even be made is very short).

If you remove a fetus and put it on life support, it won't stay a fetus unless it dies as a fetus.

Anyway this is just going into stupid places and your attempts at dehumanizing something which is definitively human in order to justify your position is getting to be really bizarre and desperate.

I think you’re the desperate one, clinging to your comfortable conceptions of the human. I’d say you should read some posthumanist theory, but I wouldn’t want to disturb you any further.

 

[CiG]

I think you’re the desperate one, clinging to your comfortable conceptions of the human. I’d say you should read some posthumanist theory, but I wouldn’t want to disturb you any further.

Dude, I take that you have points about the definitions of personhood, humanity and so on. But I'm tying to drill down to what can be translated into law and I'm trying to come to a balance that has its roots in a humanistic worldview.

You want me to turn my position inside-out because you're inclined to challenge classical definitions, but I think it's dangerous to do such things when we're talking about what should or shouldn't be legal.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dude, I take that you have points about the definitions of personhood, humanity and so on. But I'm tying to drill down to what can be translated into law and I'm trying to come to a balance that has its roots in a humanistic worldview.

You want me to turn my position inside-out because you're inclined to challenge classical definitions, but I think it's dangerous to do such things when we're talking about what should or shouldn't be legal.

In this specific case, it's dangerous to you because you're proceeding from some axiomatic notion of what constitutes a human, and whether a fetus fulfills that definition. I have a different axiom.

But that's a fair comment and I'm content to let this lie since we're approaching the issue with a different set of values.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Who’s gonna pay for the early-removed fetus as it incubates? Those machines will be expensive

that could possibly be a legit problem in the future