/sci/ - Science & Math

I remember this same thread showing up on /pol/, with of course a lot more cursing and ad hominems.

The important thing about abortion is that it's a moral issue. This means the only arguments that are useful are those with moral relevance.

So, what is the morally relevant thing that is under argument? What makes human life morally valuable, and when does that quality first show up?

I would argue, and I've heard others make the same argument, that what makes people morally valuable is not that we are alive. Algae are alive. It's not that we have a unique DNA configuration, flies have unique DNA. It's our minds. Regardless of your beliefs or understanding of science, you have to realize that ultimately, a human being is a brain with a support structure built up around it. Who we are is in our brains.

This is why we have the concept of "brain death" or "information-theoric death", where all the old lines we thought divided death and life, the loss of a heartbeat or breathing, loss of blood circulation, no movement, and not really death anymore. Those things can be reversed now. But damage to the brain can change fundamentally who you are. The entire concept of humans as unique individuals is based on their brain states.

So, a human fetus becomes a morally relevant human when it develops to the point where it has a functioning brain. This can and has been detected with an EEG, and occurs around 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Which is, in most places, the legal limit for when an abortion can take place.

Before that, it's no more a human being than a clump of cancer cells, a sperm, or a cell culture.

>>3483979

What the fuck is DMT

how the hell can you explain sexual encounters in hyperspace that both partners felt with people thousands of miles away

wat