🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins Updated: https://qoto.org/@freemo/111372600445247149

What makes murdering morally wrong?

@realcaseyrollins

@realcaseyrollins

To put it even simpler, I think most people are against killing because they put themselves in the victims shoes, and recognize that the idea of their sense of self, their understanding, their awareness being replaced with annhilation, emptyness, blackness, is scary. They want to be protected from that and by extension wnat to protect others form that.

If a person has no neurons then they are already in blackness, they have no thought or desire, those fears are moot as there is no death of consciousness as consciousness doesnt exist yet. The consciousness is already dead as consciousness needs neurons.

@realcaseyrollins

Most non-religious people would say killing is wrong because it violates self-determination, a person has a right to exercise their own will and not be robbed of that. Or at least some variation of that.

If someone doesnt have neurons then they have no will.

@realcaseyrollins

Ahh the only race where everyone looses :)

@mia

@realcaseyrollins

When has anyone ever been faced with a human being with no neurons to even ask that question? Only time I can think of is fetuses before 10 weeks old... and most non religious people seem ok with that.

@mia

It is the tour de' france

@realcaseyrollins

@jbschirtzinger Just another weekend for me, send them my way :)

@realcaseyrollins to be doubly clear personhood and "life" were both concepts I in no way addressed or even see as relevant. What matters is self-determination, consciousness and though. of which you need a brain to have any of those.

@jbschirtzinger The "soul" can get as upset as it wants, it can hitch a ride on the next meat puppet if it wants.

@realcaseyrollins who said anything about "where life begins"... a barnacle has no brain and is clearly alive... I see nothing wrong with killing it.

Plants, barnacles, and all sorts of things are alive but we recognize killing them isnt an issue since they have no brain to have sense of identity, thought, desires, nothing... Its no different than removing a tumor which also has no brain or thought.

@jbschirtzinger

How could a lump of cells with no brain or nurons in any way disagree with me? It has no thought on any level with which to disagree... which is the point.

It has nothing to do with what constitutes "alive".. its not intending to be a metaphysical or philosophical discussion. Its about suffering and a sense of self. If you have no conscious, no thought, no means of expierncing suffering. It has no more consciousness than a barnacle.

@jbschirtzinger Thats exactly why a 10 week period was picked, since the fetus has no neurons yet it doesnt have rights. Once there are neurons forming (which happens around that time period) it has all the protections and rights... thats the point.

@realcaseyrollins It is the only solution Ic an think of that addresses both sides of the concern on abortion.... It addresses a womans right to choice, as well as ensuring the fetus has protections on its life that are science based (protected once neurons develop)

@jbschirtzinger Yea there is a fair argument against such a cost to tax payers... generally I would agree with you here. But its the only ethical alternative I can think of that doesnt violate the rights of the mother or fetus.

@dukepaaron Did something new happen? or is this a general statement.

Sorry if you had to deal with this recently.

I think I am very unusual in the sense that I believe abortions should be tax-paid, free to everyone, and pregnancy tests should also be free.... BUT I also think abortion should be very limited, to something around the first **10 weeks** at most.

I've had both right and left leaning folks loose their shit over that. Always entertaining

#Abortion #Healthcare