Not a Fed but yes fine I am a horse

“I sent him this reply: ‘Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up out of your head.’” — Nehemiah 6:8 (NIV)

“Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?” — Job 38:2 (NIV)

And you’re not even exaggerating.

Renee Good

Charlie Kirk

Ashli Babbitt

Michael Brown

Brian Thompson

Philando Castile

Trayvon Martin

Laken Riley

George Floyd

Donald Trump (attempted assassinations)

Kyle Rittenhouse

Heather Hyer.

Michael Mohn.

Elijah McClain.

Melissa Hortman.

Chaofeng Ge.

Trayvon Martin.

Michael Brown.

Aiyana Stanley Jones.

Breonna Taylor.

George Floyd.

Joseph Rossenbaum.

Ricky John Best.

Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche. Brian Sicknick.

Howard Charles Liebengood.

Jeffery Smith.

Kyle Hendrik DeFreytag.

Just like I thought you have no clue what you’re talking about and don’t know anything about any of those cases.

I don’t know how many “really bad people” we have in society either, but I feel very comfortable saying the number seems to be greater than zero.

And i know i bring it up a lot and people are probably tired of it but like. One of the ladies at the shelter told me she’d need to close out her benefits card again. I asked her why and she told me she’d given it with the pin to one of her roomies and gotten cleaned out again.

I reminded her not to trust people automatically like that and as always she said she wouldn’t…

…and then I heard all about the person in the same room who has repeatedly tried to con me and repeatedly tried to threaten other residents she dislikes who “bought food for everyone so they could have a nice day” on… hmm. I wonder whose dime? 😡

It’s entirely possible that the way to reform Connie (not her name, a dumb pun) here is NOT to send her back to jail. It certainly doesn’t seem to have taught her much going there the first time.

So I’m open to the idea that prison should only be for people like Diddy, though I’ve yet to see a truly thorough good argument for that.

I’m just not convinced of those 30% because like. People hate my saying Diddy but ignore that I say it precisely because he’s an example of someone where the sexual assault and the nonsexual violence go back decades.

You can absolutely agree or disagree with whether that’s the best goal, or whether our justice system should shift toward being more reformative instead of punitive. But arguing that prison doesn’t work because enough people don’t come out reformed is an argument based on a misunderstanding of what prison is actually intended to do. And if you’re a prison abolitionist because you don’t understand the fundamental purpose of prisons in the first place, you’re not going to be a very effective one.

Maybe instead of arguing to abolish prisons, argue for them to focus more on reforming people if that’s what you want from them?

And then there’s the argument that people commit crimes because of their environment — they’re poor, they don’t have resources, they grew up in bad circumstances, etc. That’s bs. Crime happens regardless of class or resources. There’s as much crime in Hollywood and politics as there is in the poorest neighborhood you know. Personal agency is a thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re poor and don’t have as many resources as someone else. You still know right from wrong, and if you make the wrong choice, you’re still responsible for it.

Some people are just bad and will do bad things. It’s not always because of society or their circumstances. Sometimes it’s because of them. And when people do horrific things that harm other people, something has to be done about it. Even if someone did something bad to you, that’s doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to do something bad to someone else. And people know that.

And prison abolitionists rarely seem to have an actual alternative solution. Even in the article, there’s no real suggestion for what we’re supposed to do instead of prison beyond this vague idea of finding a “type” of reconciliation for the perpetrator that is supposedly healing. I mean, yeah, ideally, if we could change all of these people, make them better, and guarantee that they would never hurt anyone again, obviously that would be ideal. But we can’t. That is not a realistic expectation for a justice system.

You can’t advocate for completely abolishing prisons when you don’t have an actual alternative. Because okay, what happens if we abolish prisons? What do we do with the Diddys and the Ted Bundys? What is the healing reconciliation we’re supposed to focus on when we’re dealing with someone who has committed an extreme act of violence? What do we do with someone who is genuinely dangerous if we can’t lock them away somewhere they can’t continue to hurt people?

But ultimately I think it breaks down because in the case of fetus and parent, the separation between the two is very clear. There's a specialised organ dedicated to bridging the two.

This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.

There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.

No one’s disputing that there’s a difference with the way the bodies are connected. The question is why does that difference matter? That doesn’t break it down at all unless you can provide a sound explanation on why the way the separation works makes any sort of difference as to whether a person is ok to kill.

“This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.”

That’s actually not the reason many conjoined twins aren’t separated. When separation is considered, the question isn’t “Whose body is this?” It’s how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals, even when they share parts of their bodies.

So you’re looking at this from entirely the wrong perspective. It’s not about ownership of the body. It’s about the rights and interests of those involved. And so is abortion.

“There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.”

I would love to know how exactly you see this as support of your position. You literally provided a link to a story of the UK government mandating that one twin in a set of conjoined twins be killed against the parents wishes.

Anon didn’t say this never happens, they said they didn’t think anyone would support it. So what is your point in sharing this? Does the fact that a government did this mean it’s acceptable? Was this a good thing?

“Finally, I disagree with a couple premises tacked onto your main point: A fetus is living sure. Probably unique too depending on how you define it. But up to a point it is definitely not a person. Following this I also disagree that the ability to advocate is the only difference.”

You say up to a point a fetus is “definitely” not a person. If it so definite, then you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes. So when does a fetus become a person? What is the magic component that turns a non-person suddenly into a person?

Anon didn't say this never happens, they said they didn't think anyone would support it. [...] Was this a good thing?

AAG, respectfully, think this through a bit. For it to have happened, someone must have supported it. At least a majority of the medical council that made the decision to go ahead must have supported it.

It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention.

The question isn't "Whose body is this?" It's how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals.

You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests.

If it's so definite, you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes.

I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present.

For example, it's not possible to say when puberty begins and ends. It is possible to identify people that are pre or post-pubescent.

You cannot precisely say when a sunset begins or ends, that doesn't mean we don't have an understanding of day or night.

We attempt to apply hard legal boundaries to both, but these are ultimately arbitrary based on modal data.

This is a non-point. It's like someone saying, "No one would support the Holocaust," and responding, "Well, Hitler did, so that's obviously false." Most people understand that phrases like "no one would support that" are figures of speech meant to convey that virtually no one (or at least an overwhelming majority of people) would support it. They're not literal claims that not a single person on Earth does.

Making an argument that boils down to semantics implies you cannot engage with the substance of the discussion and are thus going for the lowest hanging fruit you can find just to pretend you have something.

"It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention."

If you think it was "defensibly the best outcome" then defend it. If two children are in a medically complicated situation where they are both at risk then go ahead and defend killing the weakest and most at risk child and explain why it's "the best outcome" and why it's acceptable for the government to mandate it happen and override the parent's wishes on medical decisions for their children.

You keep saying things like "a series of bad outcomes" and "considering what would have happened with no intervention" without actually specifying what it is you think would have happened. What was going to happen that makes killing one of the children the best solution?

"You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests."

Of course bodily autonomy can't be approached the same way because conjoined twins are a unique case. That's exactly the point. How we apply bodily autonomy depends on the circumstances. It's clearly not an absolute right, especially when decisions directly affect another person. Pregnancy is a unique case too.

What this example is showing is that you already recognize there are limits and exceptions to bodily autonomy. But when it comes to abortion, you suddenly treat it as if it's absolute. Like someone can always do whatever they want with their body, even if it directly results in another person's death. Yet you're willing to make exceptions in other situations.

And even with conjoined twins, what about cases where the separation between the two bodies is much clearer? Can one twin kill the other because they're exercising "bodily autonomy"? What if one twin is stronger than the other? Does the stronger twin automatically get more rights?

And it doesn't matter if you don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests. It matters what the truth is. They objectively do because they are human beings and they are granted those things by nature of being human even if you refuse to recognize it.

"I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present."

If you cannot determine at what point a non-person becomes a person, then I don't understand how you can be comfortable allowing them to be killed when you don't know when that transition happens. If you don't know when it happens, then there is obviously a point where you cannot say whether consciousness is or isn't present. Otherwise, you would be able to identify exactly when the switch occurs.

And here's what you're not getting: you are the one making the claim that human beings before consciousness are not people, so the burden of proof is on you. What exactly is it about consciousness that grants someone personhood? Why is it that a preborn human being does not qualify?

And where exactly do you draw the line with abortion? Is the argument that once consciousness is definitely there, abortion is wrong, but as long as we aren't sure whether it's there, it's acceptable? If consciousness is the determining factor, then how do you justify making that distinction?

Also, we do not know for certain that a fetus has absolutely no consciousness at any point in their development. There is a lot we don't know about consciousness in the womb and it is an active area of study. There's absolutely no scientific consensus about consciousness in the womb and we are unable to look at a baby in development at any stage and say that consciousness "definitely" isn't there.

"So we can't say precisely when consciousness arises, but we can take a conservative approach of saying it must be after cortex development, therefore consciousness begins with cortex development."

So that's a vague non-answer that basically means there is a point where we know consciousness exists, but before that point it's difficult to identify. So the argument becomes "go ahead and kill the baby because they haven't reached the point in development where consciousness is definitely there, so we're going to assume it isn't there, and if you want to kill them, now is your chance."

In most situations, people tend to err on the side of life when there is uncertainty. But when it comes to abortion, for some reason the position becomes the opposite: "If we can't 100% confirm that all of these specific characteristics have developed, then we're going to assume they aren't there and that means they are not a person and I'm okay with killing them based on that assumption."

"This is a non-point. It's like someone saying, "No one would support the Holocaust," and responding, "Well, Hitler did, so that's obviously false.""

I think it'd be more like responding "Actually a significant number of people do support the holocaust and it's important to remember that" Idk I feel like being accurate is important in conversations like these. But you're right that it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things so let's drop it.

If you think it was "defensibly the best outcome" then defend it. [...] What was going to happen that makes killing one of the children the best solution?

Their life expectancy if they remained conjoined was estimated at 6 months. Separated, one of them is now living as a healthy adult. I didn't specify this because it was detailed in the link I posted. I take the harm reduction stance of saying one dead infant is better than two dead infants. Curious to hear how your stance differs.

What this example is showing is that you already recognize there are limits and exceptions to bodily autonomy. But when it comes to abortion, you suddenly treat it as if it's absolute. [...] And even with conjoined twins, what about cases where the separation between the two bodies is much clearer? Can one twin kill the other because they're exercising "bodily autonomy"?

You're strawmanning me here, I've not expressed these sentiments. I'm nuanced as shit actually. There's also a distinction between the moral and legalistic argument for bodily automony, the latter of which I think is stronger. Remember, the bodily autonomy argument is not framed as going out of your way to kill another person, but in preventing them from accessing your body regardless of what that means for them. I'm not sure about your latter point, it's conceptually weird. To ensure complete dependence and complete separation, let's say we've got two fully separate people linked by an IV that sustains one at the cost of another. Does the donor have the right to unhook themselves, even if it kills the receiver? Morally I think it's questionable, legally I think they should probably have the right. Worth noting that the bodily autonomy argument is not intended to stand on it's own as a definitive argument, I don't think it's the strongest pro-choice argument either, but is one part of the pro-choice toolbox.

And it doesn't matter if you don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests. It matters what the truth is. They objectively do because they are human beings and they are granted those things by nature of being human even if you refuse to recognize it.

You cannot just declare that. It's not objective, it's entirely subjective. Rights are socially constructed concepts, it HAS to be subjective. Point to the object.

You are the one making the claim that human beings before consciousness are not people, so the burden of proof is on you.

You say this as if you're not also making a claim, what are you, agnostic on fetal rights? I think being agnostic on fetal rights would lead you to be pro-choice, after all if you don't have an opinion you should leave it to others to decide for themselves. No, you very much are also making claims here. You are claiming abortion is immoral, and other people should be prevented from doing it. You also have to justify that. Is the argument that once consciousness is definitely there, abortion is wrong, but as long as we aren't sure whether it's there, it's acceptable? [...] So the argument becomes "go ahead and kill the baby because they haven't reached the point in development where consciousness is definitely there, so we're going to assume it isn't there, and if you want to kill them, now is your chance."

I never said anything like that, that's a wild strawman. I said the opposite, as long as there is doubt we should not kill anything. A cortex is required for consciousness. We cannot say for when during cortex development consciousness emerges, but as long as there is no cortex to speak of we can be reasonably certain there is no consciousness. It is not a case of we haven't reached the point where consciousness is definitely there, it is that we are still at the point where consciousness is definitely not there. After consciousness develops, I could consider it immoral to abort, but I think on balance it should remain legal to avoid putting a chilling effect on medically neccessary abortions, subject to ethics board approval. I recognise this is not a perfect solution, I don't think a perfect solution exists.

What exactly is it about consciousness that grants someone personhood? Why is it that a preborn human being does not qualify?

Not pre-born, pre-consciousness. Stop changing what I'm saying. As for what about consciousness grants personhood, this is an incredibly long topic. I'll get into it if you're like, actually open-minded and interested in learning in good faith. In short, I pre-suppose that I am a person. I think about what I am, it seems to be a mental construct. I could conceive of myself existing as a mind without a human body, I cannot conceive of myself existing as a human body without a mind. In the latter, I would not exist. So, it seems my existence is tied to being a mental construct. If I assume this holds for others, it follows that something that doesn't exist as a mental construct is not a person. This is consistent with everything I observe about the world. Also, we do not know for certain that a fetus has absolutely no consciousness at any point in their development.

"Their life expectancy if they remained conjoined was estimated at 6 months. Separated, one of them is now living as a healthy adult. I didn't specify this because it was detailed in the link I posted. I take the harm reduction stance of saying one dead infant is better than two dead infants. Curious to hear how your stance differs."

Okay, but you're glossing over the very important detail which is the action you're calling "harm reduction." This happened by causing the death of a child. A child's life was deliberately sacrificed, and your position is "Meh, one dead infant is better than two dead infants"?

My stance is that we do not kill children. My stance is also that the government should not override the parents' wishes when it comes to medical decisions.

And just because a doctor or doctors estimate a six month life expectancy doesn't mean that's what will actually happen. Doctors can be wrong about those kinds of predictions, and they often are. My stance is that doctors should follow the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm. They should do everything they reasonably can to try to save both children instead of deciding that one child's life should be sacrificed for the other.

"You're strawmanning me here, I've not expressed these sentiments. I'm nuanced as shit actually. There's also a distinction between the moral and legalistic argument for bodily automony, the latter of which I think is stronger. Remember, the bodily autonomy argument is not framed as going out of your way to kill another person, but in preventing them from accessing your body regardless of what that means for them."

I'm not strawmanning you. You're not using that term correctly. You did express those sentiments, even if you don't realize it. You're not nuanced as shit when it comes to abortion. I've seen enough of your comments to know that.

Your description of bodily autonomy doesn't work in the context of abortion because it ignores what pregnancy actually is. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you have to be honest about that. Remember, once someone is pregnant, bodily autonomy is no longer about "preventing someone from accessing your body" because that access has already happened. The baby is already there. And how did they get that access? It was granted to them by the parents.

At that point, the question isn't whether someone can be prevented from accessing your body. The question is whether you have the right to intentionally kill another human being who has done nothing wrong. Someone whose existence was brought about by your actions, who is dependent on your body because of those same actions, and then to retroactively decide they no longer have any right to continue receiving that support. This goes beyond bodily autonomy.

If you're going to have an honest conversation about abortion, you have to acknowledge that bodily autonomy is not the only moral question involved. It has to be weighed alongside the rights and interests of the unborn child, so simply invoking "bodily autonomy" doesn't settle the issue.

"I'm not sure about your latter point, it's conceptually weird. To ensure complete dependence and complete separation, let's say we've got two fully separate people linked by an IV that sustains one at the cost of another. Does the donor have the right to unhook themselves, even if it kills the receiver? Morally I think it's questionable, legally I think they should probably have the right."

My issue I have with you and hypotheticals is that you never answer the ones presented to you. You always change the details of the scenario to one that's easier for you to answer and doesn't even contain the original question which was the whole purpose the scenario was presented to you in the first place. Your IV scenario is fundamentally different from the situations we have been discussing. If you can't answer the one I asked then fine but I'm not a fan of replacing it with a donor situation that changes the question to having a right to unhook themselves from an IV.

"You cannot just declare that. It's not objective, it's entirely subjective. Rights are socially constructed concepts, it HAS to be subjective. Point to the object."

That's fundamentally untrue, and it shows a misunderstanding of how human rights work. How can you argue so strongly for bodily autonomy, to the point of using it to justify killing an unborn child, while also claiming that rights are ultimately subjective? If that's really your position, then what are you even debating? The right to bodily autonomy might as well not exist.

And since you continue to misunderstand my point, the unborn child objectively has rights according to the very framework of human rights. Human rights are rights granted to human beings. There aren't additional qualifiers that say, "only if they're wanted," "only if they're conscious enough," or "only if they meet someone's personal definition of personhood." If you believe human rights are real, then it makes no sense to believe there are human beings to whom they simply don't apply.

Human rights are not subjective in the sense that each of us gets to decide which human beings deserve them and which do not. If bodily autonomy is a human right, then every human being has that right by virtue of being human. If the right to life is a human right, then every human being has that right for the same reason. That's what I mean when I say the issue is objective.

The real question is whether the unborn child is a person. Either they are or they aren't. That's an objective truth claim. If they are a person, then they either possess human rights or they don't. That's also an objective question, not a matter of personal preference.

We don't each get to invent our own definition of personhood and then decide it's acceptable to kill everyone who falls outside of it. So yes, this ultimately comes down to objective truth. Your subjective or abstract views about personhood don't determine what that truth is.

"You say this as if you're not also making a claim, what are you, agnostic on fetal rights? I think being agnostic on fetal rights would lead you to be pro-choice, after all if you don't have an opinion you should leave it to others to decide for themselves. No, you very much are also making claims here. You are claiming abortion is immoral, and other people should be prevented from doing it. You also have to justify that."

I'm not making a claim that would be literally resulting in the unjustified murder of human beings if wrong. And I never indicated I wasn't making a claim? But your claim is the one that allows an action to be taken on a human life and if you are wrong then you are killing someone. So if you are going to assert that we can abort babies because they aren't people, then you need to prove they are not people. Otherwise you are just supporting murder.

And I have justified my claims. You've seen me justify them multiple times.

You, on the other hand, haven't really. You say abortion is ok because they aren't people but you haven't rationalized why they aren't people. You claimed it's because you don't believe they have consciousness but have failed to explain why consciousness is what makes a human being a person and you don't even know when conscious starts. So far, you have been unable to back up a single claim.

"I never said anything like that, that's a wild strawman. I said the opposite, as long as there is doubt we should not kill anything."

It's not a strawman. It's a question. I was asking you something. But please point out where you said if there is doubt we shouldn't kill anything. Because there is doubt. We literally do not have the answer.

"A cortex is required for consciousness. We cannot say for when during cortex development consciousness emerges, but as long as there is no cortex to speak of we can be reasonably certain there is no consciousness. It is not a case of we haven't reached the point where consciousness is definitely there, it is that we are still at the point where consciousness is definitely not there."'

"reasonably certain" is not good enough when we are discussing killing a child. And the cortex starts developing in the first trimester. Like I said, there is a lot we don't know about consciousness in the womb so making a positive claim about it definitely being there or not being there is ignorant at best.

When is consciousness definitely not there? And when is it definitely there? If you can spot those two things, you should be able to come up with some sort of answer of when consciousness starts and a non-person becomes a person.

So far, you're just saying things but you're not offering any kind of support for your vague and noncommital claims. And it really exhausts me being in a back and forth with a person who will not answer questions posed to them or offer support for their arguments. Like I'm pretty sure i won't be responding after this because you're not really saying anything. You're just rephrasing things without offering any new information.

"After consciousness develops, I could consider it immoral to abort, but I think on balance it should remain legal to avoid putting a chilling effect on medically neccessary abortions, subject to ethics board approval. I recognise this is not a perfect solution, I don't think a perfect solution exists."

When does consciousness develop? If that is where you draw the line then you have to know where the line is. And what is a "medically necessary" abortion?

"Not pre-born, pre-consciousness. Stop changing what I'm saying''

Girl, i'm not changing what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. That's my verbiage. That is how i choose to refer to them because I think Pre-consciousness is a stupid term. Especially when you can't tell me when that is.

"In short, I pre-suppose that I am a person. I think about what I am, it seems to be a mental construct. I could conceive of myself existing as a mind without a human body, I cannot conceive of myself existing as a human body without a mind. In the latter, I would not exist. So, it seems my existence is tied to being a mental construct. If I assume this holds for others, it follows that something that doesn't exist as a mental construct is not a person. This is consistent with everything I observe about the world."

So basically, "I think, therefore I am."

I reject that. Being aware of yourself and conceiving on your existence as a mental construct is not what defines whether or not you are a person. You are not a person because you are conscious and can conceive of your existence, you can do that because you are a person.

If consciousness is what makes makes a person a person then why aren't all creatures with consciouness people? Why aren't cats and dogs people? Why aren't bears people? Or birds? You get the idea.

And what about someone in a coma? They have no consciousness. Are they not people anymore?

The unborn baby has the capacity for consciousness from the moment they exist. Not the immediate capacity, but they do have it. It just has to develop. Like everything else.

"I don't buy this. I don't buy that the scientific consensus is the way you describe it. Please describe to me the conscious experience of a single celled zygote. Why is it that a single celled zygote can be conscious but not sperm? What about non-human bacteria? I think it's the most reasonable stance in the world to hold that a brain is required for consciousness."

You don't have to take my word for it you can look it up.

Also, read what I said a little more carefully. I didn't say they do have a conscious experience. I said we don't know for certain. That means exactly what it sounds like - I don't know. I can't describe an experience I'm not even claiming to know exists. But our lack of awareness isn't proof that something doesn't exist.

I don't know exactly when consciousness begins, and I don't need to pretend I do. Get it now? To me, whether a fetus is conscious at a given moment is irrelevant because I don't accept the premise that consciousness is what makes someone a person. Human beings exist from conception, and all human beings are people.

But the difference between a zygote and sperm is that the zygote is a complete living human organism and the sperm is not. It is a reproductive cell. That's why the zygote has the capacity for consciousness and the sperm does not.

Except it doesn’t.

So here’s a bit of a reality check for you:

I’ve made it very clear on my blog how I feel about treating the death of a person as a good thing. I don’t approve when Trump makes comments like this, and I don’t approve when the left practically declares a holiday every time someone they hate dies, like Charlie Kirk. So anon copied one of Trump’s posts and sent it to someone who already thinks it was wrong. What exactly was the point? Like congratulations I guess for successfully imitating behavior I’ve already condemned.

Like, how terminally obsessed with Trump do you have to be that you keep a mental archive of everything he posts just waiting for the opportunity to recreate it later? Someone dies and your first thought is, “Wait! I remember a Trump post that would work here!” That’s genuinely unhealthy. Imagine letting one politician consume that much of your personality. Imagine letting Trump occupy that much space in your head that someone’s death immediately makes you think, “Wait, I know how I can own the conservatives.” That’s not normal behavior.

Furthermore, the audacity any of you crazy leftists have to criticize Trump for saying this is just remarkable. You people spent days cheering Charlie Kirk’s murder. Not just a handful of random accounts, either. There were thousands of celebratory posts, jokes, memes, and people openly saying they were glad he was dead. Where was anon then? Funny how none of that ever found its way into my inbox. Anon wasn’t copying those posts. Anon wasn’t condemning those people. Anon only cared when it gave them another excuse to say, “Trump bad.”

It’s perfectly consistent for me to call Trump’s post disgusting while also calling this ask disgusting. What’s inconsistent is pretending to be outraged by Trump’s behavior after either celebrating, excusing, or conveniently ignoring your own side doing the exact same thing except a million times worse.

And as a stated in my original response, I genuinely hope nobody treats your death the way you treat the deaths of people you dislike or use them as a way to try and score cheap political points. It’s honestly disgusting.

But ultimately I think it breaks down because in the case of fetus and parent, the separation between the two is very clear. There's a specialised organ dedicated to bridging the two.

This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.

There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.

No one’s disputing that there’s a difference with the way the bodies are connected. The question is why does that difference matter? That doesn’t break it down at all unless you can provide a sound explanation on why the way the separation works makes any sort of difference as to whether a person is ok to kill.

“This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.”

That’s actually not the reason many conjoined twins aren’t separated. When separation is considered, the question isn’t “Whose body is this?” It’s how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals, even when they share parts of their bodies.

So you’re looking at this from entirely the wrong perspective. It’s not about ownership of the body. It’s about the rights and interests of those involved. And so is abortion.

“There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.”

I would love to know how exactly you see this as support of your position. You literally provided a link to a story of the UK government mandating that one twin in a set of conjoined twins be killed against the parents wishes.

Anon didn’t say this never happens, they said they didn’t think anyone would support it. So what is your point in sharing this? Does the fact that a government did this mean it’s acceptable? Was this a good thing?

“Finally, I disagree with a couple premises tacked onto your main point: A fetus is living sure. Probably unique too depending on how you define it. But up to a point it is definitely not a person. Following this I also disagree that the ability to advocate is the only difference.”

You say up to a point a fetus is “definitely” not a person. If it so definite, then you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes. So when does a fetus become a person? What is the magic component that turns a non-person suddenly into a person?

Anon didn't say this never happens, they said they didn't think anyone would support it. [...] Was this a good thing?

AAG, respectfully, think this through a bit. For it to have happened, someone must have supported it. At least a majority of the medical council that made the decision to go ahead must have supported it.

It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention.

The question isn't "Whose body is this?" It's how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals.

You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests.

If it's so definite, you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes.

I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present.

For example, it's not possible to say when puberty begins and ends. It is possible to identify people that are pre or post-pubescent.

You cannot precisely say when a sunset begins or ends, that doesn't mean we don't have an understanding of day or night.

We attempt to apply hard legal boundaries to both, but these are ultimately arbitrary based on modal data.

This is a non-point. It's like someone saying, "No one would support the Holocaust," and responding, "Well, Hitler did, so that's obviously false." Most people understand that phrases like "no one would support that" are figures of speech meant to convey that virtually no one (or at least an overwhelming majority of people) would support it. They're not literal claims that not a single person on Earth does.

Making an argument that boils down to semantics implies you cannot engage with the substance of the discussion and are thus going for the lowest hanging fruit you can find just to pretend you have something.

"It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention."

If you think it was "defensibly the best outcome" then defend it. If two children are in a medically complicated situation where they are both at risk then go ahead and defend killing the weakest and most at risk child and explain why it's "the best outcome" and why it's acceptable for the government to mandate it happen and override the parent's wishes on medical decisions for their children.

You keep saying things like "a series of bad outcomes" and "considering what would have happened with no intervention" without actually specifying what it is you think would have happened. What was going to happen that makes killing one of the children the best solution?

"You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests."

Of course bodily autonomy can't be approached the same way because conjoined twins are a unique case. That's exactly the point. How we apply bodily autonomy depends on the circumstances. It's clearly not an absolute right, especially when decisions directly affect another person. Pregnancy is a unique case too.

What this example is showing is that you already recognize there are limits and exceptions to bodily autonomy. But when it comes to abortion, you suddenly treat it as if it's absolute. Like someone can always do whatever they want with their body, even if it directly results in another person's death. Yet you're willing to make exceptions in other situations.

And even with conjoined twins, what about cases where the separation between the two bodies is much clearer? Can one twin kill the other because they're exercising "bodily autonomy"? What if one twin is stronger than the other? Does the stronger twin automatically get more rights?

And it doesn't matter if you don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests. It matters what the truth is. They objectively do because they are human beings and they are granted those things by nature of being human even if you refuse to recognize it.

"I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present."

If you cannot determine at what point a non-person becomes a person, then I don't understand how you can be comfortable allowing them to be killed when you don't know when that transition happens. If you don't know when it happens, then there is obviously a point where you cannot say whether consciousness is or isn't present. Otherwise, you would be able to identify exactly when the switch occurs.

And here's what you're not getting: you are the one making the claim that human beings before consciousness are not people, so the burden of proof is on you. What exactly is it about consciousness that grants someone personhood? Why is it that a preborn human being does not qualify?

And where exactly do you draw the line with abortion? Is the argument that once consciousness is definitely there, abortion is wrong, but as long as we aren't sure whether it's there, it's acceptable? If consciousness is the determining factor, then how do you justify making that distinction?

Also, we do not know for certain that a fetus has absolutely no consciousness at any point in their development. There is a lot we don't know about consciousness in the womb and it is an active area of study. There's absolutely no scientific consensus about consciousness in the womb and we are unable to look at a baby in development at any stage and say that consciousness "definitely" isn't there.

"So we can't say precisely when consciousness arises, but we can take a conservative approach of saying it must be after cortex development, therefore consciousness begins with cortex development."

So that's a vague non-answer that basically means there is a point where we know consciousness exists, but before that point it's difficult to identify. So the argument becomes "go ahead and kill the baby because they haven't reached the point in development where consciousness is definitely there, so we're going to assume it isn't there, and if you want to kill them, now is your chance."

In most situations, people tend to err on the side of life when there is uncertainty. But when it comes to abortion, for some reason the position becomes the opposite: "If we can't 100% confirm that all of these specific characteristics have developed, then we're going to assume they aren't there and that means they are not a person and I'm okay with killing them based on that assumption."