[ShredKazoo]

>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth.

The troll argument here is: now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".

[kergonath]

> now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".

Which is partly right, to be fair. It’s a fundamental human right issue about who can force things on your body. The consequences also affect whole families, not all men are arseholes who vanish when their girlfriend gets pregnant. Framing this as only women’s issue is part of a dangerous tribal war.

It is also part of a pattern of subjugation of a social group on religious grounds, and as such part of a broader attack on secular, liberal societies.

[bandie91]

1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body.

2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live.

3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring.

4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm.

5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm.

6. the embryo/fetus is a human.

7. saying that someones on "religious grounds" want to subjugate "secular, liberal societies" by opposing to killing innocent humans is no more that projecting USA's domestic radicated bipolar politics to the global level.

8. "religious grounds" are nothing mystical, nothing like "things which only unreasonalbe superstitious are afraid of", but a core attribute of the human nature: just »don't kill humans who are annoying to you even if they don't have social security ID yet, even if they don't pay taxes yet, even if they are your own children«

9. "abortion rights" group also stands on religious grounds, except it worships Moloch.

10. "abortion rights" people often comes from the pre-assumption that they are entitled to enjoy sex without consequences and without any responsibility. gain without pain.

11. "abortion rights" is an other level of productionalization of people. our life is already mostly a product of soulless companies. now they are turning babies into commodity which you can return if you changed your mind or not satisfied with it. wondering how much does it differ from the menacing "slavery".

[bigbluedots]

I'm unsure if you're joking, so I'll bite: if 6 is true (a fetus is a human), then is a zygote a human? Can a human be a single cell? Of course not.

[eru]

I'd say 9 is more fun to pick apart. Looks like there's only two kinds of religions in the world, those that worship the Right Deity and those that worship Moloch.

[bandie91]

needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion.

btw it is sorted in a list not because of any argumentation structure.

i don't think (and don't see what indicated it to you) that there are only these 2 options in terms of worship targets. but phrasing the other option the "only" "right" one, paints me an intolerant blind-faithed, which i reject.

[eru]

Just leave 'Moloch' out of the picture. It makes your argument weaker for the HN audience.

Btw, you might find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion interesting.

[ShredKazoo]

This angle works in the other direction as well: Is a newborn a human? If yes, is a baby in the process of being born a human? If yes, is a baby who will be born in a week a human?

My understanding is that opinion polls show most people have a moderate opinion on abortion, which seems pretty reasonable given that "becoming human" is something that happens in a continuous manner over a 9-month period.

[bandie91]

most of the times they don't argue about killing single cells, but an undisputedly multicellular fetus with human DNA. the conceived egg cell is already a new member of the given species. why? has it to be of a species? if yes, which one other than human? if no, when this "growing clump of cells" become an organization separate from its host? i don't know other event of a pregnancy which more clearly shows that here is something new which was not there before. "Can a human be a single cell?" can it be 2? or 3? …

[bigbluedots]

> the conceived egg cell is already a new member of the given species. why? has it to be of a species? if yes, which one other than human?

A cell being of a species does not make it an instance of that species, in the same way that a skin cell is a human cell but is not itself a human.

> "Can a human be a single cell?" can it be 2? or 3? …

If a single cell is not an instance of a human, it follows that there is some point during pregnancy where an instance of a human exists where one did not previously. Mostly the disagreement is about where this line is.

[bandie91]

> in the same way that a skin cell is a human cell but is not itself a human.

IMO, there is a substantial difference between a conceived egg and any other cells: an egg turns into a human being over time (provided it's left doing its businnes normally), other kind of cells don't operate this way AFAIK.

> there is some point during pregnancy where an instance of a human exists where one did not previously

completely agree. IMO we can even extend it by omitting the "If a single cell is not an instance of a human" condition: even if we qualify a specific single cell to be a human, there must be a point when it became a human.

[AlexandrB]

So is a miscarriage manslaughter? If not, why not? Based on your premises, it's the unintentional taking of a human life.

[bandie91]

yes, miscarriage is a real death of a human. is it killing? yes, it can be a result of an intentional act. can it be caused by neglect? yes, then it's the unintentional taking of a human life.

why we usually threat neglecting the born and unborn differently? because they need different level and kind of care: eg. smoking hurts unborn differently than born. did the mother eat honey which happened to be infected and caused her embryo to die? it was not considered neglect until this honey-effect was discovered.

[GoblinSlayer]

If human's mind was erased to embryo stage, does it constitute killing?