E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

  • wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not seeing how this in anyway even really touches on this issue at hand. A paper on human development to show that “science says” we have a “human” at the moment of conception?

    At the end of the day this is going to just be about what your definition of a “human” is rather than anything “science” has to say.

    • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      This one goes to the embryo

      https://www.britannica.com/science/human-body/Basic-form-and-development

      But at far as from conception goes, it has DNA distinct from both parents and starts developing until stopped. Even if not developed to whatever your standard is, it’s like a picture developed from film. The picture (or in this case, the human) is still there, it just needs to be developed.

      I see justifying violence on certain humans as opening the door for society to justify violence on other humans. We look back on times when slavery or genocide was condoned and abhor that time and the humans that gave their approval to it. I truly believe that will be the way humanity will see society as it is now when medical technology advances enough to not need a human womb to develop a human to birth. That in and of itself begs the question, when a human is viable outside of the womb from no matter what stage of development, does that change how you view its rights from the earliest stages of its life?

      • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        11 months ago

        Imagine the 'Trolley Problem" where there is a toddler on one track, and on the other track there is a cooler containing 100 in-vitro embryos. Which would you save, and why?

      • wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It wouldn’t because I have criteria, most specifically the ability to suffer, that underpins how I feel about abortion. This is independent of wombs or even DNA potentially.

        I mean, I understand not wanting to allow violence on humans. But this still tied back to the definition of human. And, for me, if we take it back to ability to suffer, it makes a direct case for the way I feel about any entity’s (human or non human) rights

      • wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        As far as I can tell you see abortion as an “exception” that allows killing of a specific type of human.

        While I am not really concerned with humanness. But of the underlying phenomenon that make protecting humans something we should want to do.

        If you think about why we want to protect humans and tie to to consciousness and ability to suffer. There’s no exception and we can use our knowledge of human fetus development to inform abortion policy to prevent abortions that would infringe on those conditions.