pre-persons

[MikeNovack]

You don't know what I "will insist."

Maybe you should ask, rather than assuming it.

Uh --- by repeatedly NOT going by the risk percentage to me is sufficient to conclude that your are "insisting" that whether activity/unwanted outcome is choice of unwanted outcome depends on the particular activity and bad outcome rather than the percentage risk. of bad outcome.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know what I "will insist."

Maybe you should ask, rather than assuming it.

Uh --- by repeatedly NOT going by the risk percentage to me...

I rejected your analogy completely because, as Fairy also pointed out, it was inapt. Try again, I guess.

[MikeNovack]

Sorry if I do not understand: There are two possibilities for arguing "choosing the activity means CHOOSING the unwanted outcome

Activity1 results in outcome1 with risk percentage X
Activity2 results in outcome2 with risk percentage Y

We are saying for "1" that the outcome was chosen and for "2" not chosen.

Possibility one: The risk percentage X is greater than risk factor Y. We have some threshold of risk factor above which we consider the choice to do the activity is courting the unwanted outcome.

Possibility two. We consider risk factor not relevant, There is something about activity1 that makes us treat it differently than activity2

Notice that I just stripped away the "unwanted" because not relevant to the "chose outcome". But I am willing entertain a third possibility if you can give one. Please do not try something like "abortion means killing is worse than a broken leg" --- we're just abut the risk of getting pregnant, NOT about what might or might not happen next.

I also would like you to give an opinion on "when is a woman pregnant" << abortion in applied ethics section >> Is that when she has an attached/implanted embryo? Or is she pregnant even if the embryo is still floating around inside, or for that matter, still in a petri dish. For example, is fertilizing an egg but then NOT putting it where it might manage to get implanted abortion? << it WILL die if not successfully implanted once its reserves used up >>

[Fairy]

Abortion doesn’t even manifest as a thought existing in a woman, not until that woman has first become aware she is even pregnant. A woman is not even aware she is pregnant not until around 1 to 2 weeks after her missed period. And that’s not always the normal as it depends on how regular her periods are, if they are irregular the woman might not even become aware she is pregnant until 6 to 8 weeks after the fertilisation has already taken place. Just look at an 8 week old fetus, it’s a human life already well and truly established.

My point is, abortion isn’t a thing until the baby is already well dug into the womb attached to its mother through the umbilical cord that is sustaining its life. So not even until the woman becomes aware she is pregnant, is abortion an option. It’s not even a thought yet in her mind. An Abortion becomes a thing only when it’s put into action by a choice made by a woman that’s already up to 8 weeks pregnant.

[MikeNovack]

......... the woman might not even become aware she is pregnant until 6 to 8 weeks after the fertilisation has already taken place. Just look at an 8 week old fetus, it’s a human life already well and truly established.

My point is, abortion isn’t a thing until the baby is already well dug into the womb attached to its mother through the umbilical cord that is sustaining its life.

THAT is precisely the topic I started "Abortion, what is it, what isn't it" in Applied Ethics

But you are saying (both) after fertilization and well implanted. There's about a week or a bit more difference between those two events (and about 3 out of 4 embryos will fail to attach). My FIRST question was "is it an abortion BEFORE attached?" While we do not yet (AFAIK -- well certainly not on the market) have any drug that would prevent implantation (*) so a theoretical question. But one that might soon not be moot.

(*) Since attachment is by chemicals/hormones produced by the embryo making the uterine wall accept it (and produce the placenta) it is reasonable to suspect that there might be chemicals that would interfere with that. Almost certainly there is research going on to find out, since could be a "week after pill"

[Fairy]

......... the woman might not even become aware she is pregnant until 6 to 8 weeks after the fertilisation has already taken place. Just look at an 8 week old fetus, it’s a human life already well and truly established.

My point is, abortion isn’t a thing until the baby is already well dug into the womb attached to its mother through the umbilical cord that is sustaining its life.

THAT is precisely the topic I started "Abortion, what is it, what isn't it" in Applied Ethics

But you are saying (both) after fertilization and well implanted. There's about a week or a bit more difference between those two events (and about 3 out of 4 embryos will fail to attach). My FIRST question was "is it an abortion BEFORE attached?" While we do not yet (AFAIK -- well certainly not on the market) have any drug that would prevent implantation (*) so a theoretical question. But one that might soon not be moot.

(*) Since attachment is by chemicals/hormones produced by the embryo making the uterine wall accept it (and produce the placenta) it is reasonable to suspect that there might be chemicals that would interfere with that. Almost certainly there is research going on to find out, since could be a "week after pill"

There’s no difference between the two events.

Fertilisation is already a life in process. This process continues until natural atrophy occurs resulting in the natural cessation of that particular life.

Abortion happens when the woman first becomes aware she is pregnant and intentionally chooses to abort the life that’s an extension of her own life like it’s a piece of rubbish fit only for the bin.

Some women are quite literally okay with disposing their babies if they are not what they wanted. Other women would see the baby as the most precious gift. But for those who don’t see a baby as a gift, will see trash instead.

[Fairy]

“My FIRST question was "is it an abortion BEFORE attached?”

No, because a failed attachment will naturally be absorbed into the woman’s body. A miscarriage is not abortion either because the mother didn’t intentionally choose to miscarry.

Taking birth control pills tricks the woman’s body into being already pregnant. So the ovaries stop releasing eggs. Pill taking is not abortion either because there’s never a real baby to abort, because the body has already been tricked into being pregnant by the chemical, but isn’t a real actual pregnancy.

It’s all very simple really, either life is seen as a precious gift, or it’s seen as a piece of rubbish, fit only for the trash can. The choice is yours. It’s unconditional freedom to choose, because there’s only unconditional love.

[MikeNovack]

“My FIRST question was "is it an abortion BEFORE attached?”

No, because a failed attachment will naturally be absorbed into the woman’s body. A miscarriage is not abortion either because the mother didn’t intentionally choose to miscarry.

a) (and still theoretical) What if there were a drug, etc. that prevented attachment. Would THAT be abortion?

B (not so theoretical) What if it were necessary for the woman to receive certain treatments, refrain from certain activities, etc. to PREVENT miscarriage. Usually, of course, the woman wants the baby, so she will do all possible to not miscarry.But suppose not. Suppose she does not want to have the baby, so she rejects the treatment, does not restrict her activities, etc. Would THAT be "abortion"?

[Fairy]

“My FIRST question was "is it an abortion BEFORE attached?”

No, because a failed attachment will naturally be absorbed into the woman’s body. A miscarriage is not abortion either because the mother didn’t intentionally choose to miscarry.

a) (and still theoretical) What if there were a drug, etc. that prevented attachment. Would THAT be abortion?

B (not so theoretical) What if it were necessary for the woman to receive certain treatments, refrain from certain activities, etc. to PREVENT miscarriage. Usually, of course, the woman wants the baby, so she will do all possible to not miscarry.But suppose not. Suppose she does not want to have the baby, so she rejects the treatment, does not restrict her activities, etc. Would THAT be "abortion"?

Strange idea about what you imagine abortion to mean and not mean…but allow me to answer your question…The natural world doesn’t require treatment, it’s completely functional without intervention by humanity. The natural world doesn’t interfere with itself, because there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s already perfect, just as it is.

The nature of humanity is to interfere with the natural. The natural doesn’t kill anything else by intent, because it has no mind to hold that image. It is only the artificial mind of humans that kill by intent, because that’s their nature. Their nature is to be the custodian of free will, which is unconditionally free to take action, of will I or won’t I
Intention is the rider of the will.

[MikeNovack]

Strange idea about what you imagine abortion to mean and not mean…but allow me to answer your question…The natural world doesn’t require treatment, it’s completely functional without intervention by humanity.

Uh, in the natural wold there is no "murder"either.

To treat or not to treat is not moot. In addition to "abortion" (pre birth) we have "infanticide" (at or shortly after birth. Here I was just asking about per birth as we are on abortion << we can pick up what is or is not "infanticide" later ---- But just as we can have a new born who will not survive without intervention (possibly heroic intervention, possibly never going to be "normal") we can have the same situation pre birth. And that's what on about now >>

Given both ultra sound, MRI imaging, and chemical analysis of amniotic fluid, etc. we are able to detect abnormalities that would prevent survival, either before or after birth (and treatable or not).

In these cases we call early termination "abortion" or not (rather, do those who consider abortion to be murder consider THIS to be murder). Keep in mind that waiting until the fetus has completed dying means infection will set in and the woman might die (and probably will lose fertility) -- REAL, not theoretical, since we have had some deaths because of delay in states with anti-abortion laws

[Fairy]

Strange idea about what you imagine abortion to mean and not mean…but allow me to answer your question…The natural world doesn’t require treatment, it’s completely functional without intervention by humanity.

Uh, in the natural wold there is no "murder"either.

To treat or not to treat is not moot. In addition to "abortion" (pre birth) we have "infanticide" (at or shortly after birth. Here I was just asking about per birth as we are on abortion << we can pick up what is or is not "infanticide" later ---- But just as we can have a new born who will not survive without intervention (possibly heroic intervention, possibly never going to be "normal") we can have the same situation pre birth. And that's what on about now >>

Given both ultra sound, MRI imaging, and chemical analysis of amniotic fluid, etc. we are able to detect abnormalities that would prevent survival, either before or after birth (and treatable or not).

In these cases we call early termination "abortion" or not (rather, do those who consider abortion to be murder consider THIS to be murder). Keep in mind that waiting until the fetus has completed dying means infection will set in and the woman might die (and probably will lose fertility) -- REAL, not theoretical, since we have had some deaths because of delay in states with anti-abortion laws

I understand what you’re saying.That kind of intervention is in no doubt necessary in such an extraordinary challenging case where the condition of the devolving baby’s outcome is poor and severely compromised by natural causes. So yes, non-intervention would potentially be a hazardous risk to the life of the mother. So no, under such unfortunate circumstances that were of no fault of anyone but nature itself. I wouldn’t exactly call any modern day technical intervention resulting in the safe termination would be considered “murder” To abort under these not so common conditions would undoubtedly be the best possible outcome for all concerned. So NO that kind of abortion would hardly be called “murder”, and I’m sure even God himself would understand the true heart behind any decision taken on behalf of the medical experts, including the mother herself.

[MikeNovack]

I understand what you’re saying.That kind of intervention is in no doubt necessary in such an extraordinary challenging case where the condition of the devolving baby’s outcome is poor and severely compromised by natural causes. So yes, non-intervention would potentially be a hazardous risk to the life of the mother. So no, under such unfortunate circumstances that were of no fault of anyone but nature itself. I wouldn’t exactly call any modern day technical intervention resulting in the safe termination would be considered “murder” To abort under these not so common conditions would undoubtedly be the best possible outcome for all concerned. So NO that kind of abortion would hardly be called “murder”, and I’m sure even God himself would understand the true heart behind any decision taken on behalf of the medical experts, including the mother herself.

And not theoretical --- there has been at least one woman's death as a result of doctors being unwilling to perform the procedure before the fetus completely dead (because of punitive state anti-abortion laws). By which time the infection raging and they could not save the woman. And of course hsd she lived, would have been sterile. An ectopic pregnancy (attached outside the uterus is also a case where the fetus is doomed. Surgical removal is the only chance for the woman, and if delayed, she'd not only lose that tube but more (once burst, peritonitis).

[accelafine]

Uh, not quite true. Most fatal ski accidents are one person skiing into a tree, etc. But there are collision with another skier accidents resulting in that person being the one killed.

Most skiers don’t venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with a tree, resulting in their own death. Nor do skiers venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with another skier, resulting in the other skiers death.

If they did the former, it would be likened to deliberately choosing to suicide, and the latter would be likened to deliberately choosing to murder another skier.

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception. That choice is intention to murder a life that didn’t belong to her, it wasn’t her life to take. The conceived child’s mother has terminated another life on behalf of her own conscious choosing to not allow what is already manifest to be so.

I personally don’t agree that anyone has the right to make the decision to end someone else’s life. But we live in a human society that legalises murder, and that seems to be acceptable by definition. And that’s what makes it sick. It’s a sick society when other people are murdered on the behalf of someone else’s decision. Life belongs to God, not women, or men.

Again, well said.

For f*** sake. She didn't 'say' anything. AI did.

[accelafine]

Strange idea about what you imagine abortion to mean and not mean…but allow me to answer your question…The natural world doesn’t require treatment, it’s completely functional without intervention by humanity.

Uh, in the natural wold there is no "murder"either.

To treat or not to treat is not moot. In addition to "abortion" (pre birth) we have "infanticide" (at or shortly after birth. Here I was just asking about per birth as we are on abortion << we can pick up what is or is not "infanticide" later ---- But just as we can have a new born who will not survive without intervention (possibly heroic intervention, possibly never going to be "normal") we can have the same situation pre birth. And that's what on about now >>

Given both ultra sound, MRI imaging, and chemical analysis of amniotic fluid, etc. we are able to detect abnormalities that would prevent survival, either before or after birth (and treatable or not).

In these cases we call early termination "abortion" or not (rather, do those who consider abortion to be murder consider THIS to be murder). Keep in mind that waiting until the fetus has completed dying means infection will set in and the woman might die (and probably will lose fertility) -- REAL, not theoretical, since we have had some deaths because of delay in states with anti-abortion laws

I understand what you’re saying.That kind of intervention is in no doubt necessary in such an extraordinary challenging case where the condition of the devolving baby’s outcome is poor and severely compromised by natural causes. So yes, non-intervention would potentially be a hazardous risk to the life of the mother. So no, under such unfortunate circumstances that were of no fault of anyone but nature itself. I wouldn’t exactly call any modern day technical intervention resulting in the safe termination would be considered “murder” To abort under these not so common conditions would undoubtedly be the best possible outcome for all concerned. So NO that kind of abortion would hardly be called “murder”, and I’m sure even God himself would understand the true heart behind any decision taken on behalf of the medical experts, including the mother herself.

Do you have to make it 'quite' so obvious that you are using AI as your stand-in brain? What's the point? Oh, so you know what 'comprehensible' language looks like when it suits? Using AI in that way instead of writing something yourself hastens dementia, and you really can't afford for THAT to happen.