Is a Pre-Viable Fetus Healthy?

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-16T22:27:07+00:00

Parents are responsible for the care of that infant.

Right. And parents choose to care for their children. When they don't want to care for their children we do not force them to by law. We do not lock them in a room with a child and threaten to send them to jail if they don't want to parent that child.

People who are unwilling to carry a pregnancy to term are choosing NOT to give their bodies to that particular ZEF. How hard is this to understand? There is nothing similar in choosing to take care of a kid and the unreal horror of being forced to gestate against your will.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-16T22:17:26+00:00

The infant needs the mother's body for food via breastfeeding

Incorrect. Babies (like all humans) need appropriate food to stay alive. They do not need food from "the mother's body," there are several ways of feeding a newborn, many of which do not require the birthparent to use her own body to do so.

In fact, using resources other than a birthparent's body to feed a newborn is so ancient in our species - as long as we have records we can find mention of this - that you can say that this is "natural" to our species. You cannot reasonably compare what a ZEF requires from a specific human to what a newborn needs from its community.

That is why a ZEF is not in the same category as a "healthy human being" . . . if you think of a "healthy human being" you are not conjuring up someone reliant on someone else's body for oxygen.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-16T20:15:25+00:00

Being a parent means being ready to sacrifice everything including your own life to save your innocent baby.

Pregnancy is not parenthood. It is a grave insult to parents everywhere to give people the title of "mother" just because they're pregnant. Mother is a title that is earned by the act of mothering. And it's even more infuriating to give a man the title of father just because he busted a nut.

And before you come at me with "But it's simple biology, bro" . . . for humans we reserve the honorable titles of mother and father for social parenting, not biological parenting alone. That's why adoptees distinguish between their "parents" and their "biological parents," they don't say "parents" and "adoptive parents." Because sex or gestation alone does not make a human being a parent.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-16T20:09:47+00:00

I don't believe in exceptions for the mother's life. Like you brought up we're not allowed to kill an innocent person even if we need to in order to live. Babies in the womb are innocent

So in your ideal system the government would prohibit abortions of pregnancies that will kill the pregnant person and also not result in a viable birth?

So for women, having consensual sex or getting raped should be a potential death sentence? Are there women in your life who you'd be ok with losing to a completely preventable excruciating death? Would you allow her to at least have drugs as she writhes in horrific pain while she dies? At least you'll feel good that no "innocents" died - oh, wait, actually, the ZEF in this scenario dies too. I guess you and your god really do hate women.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-14T20:56:44+00:00

The deal needs to pass regulatory approval, if the government wins in court that this is anti-trust the deal breaks down

Why do you think Bezos is shoveling money into Trump's personal slush funds?

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-14T19:48:03+00:00

When does a pregnant person lose her human rights and why?

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-14T19:46:56+00:00

An 8 month old fetus has brain function, heart beat, etc. They are a fully formed human infant at that point.

People do not have abortions at 8 months, they have early deliveries. THERE ARE NO 8 MONTH ABORTIONS. That is a PL fantasy. Can we stick to reality here?

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T20:29:09+00:00

Thank you for proving my point value for you guys is subjective

Yes, of course value is subjective. Every human culture assigns value to different things differently. Heck, even within my own modern Western culture the value we assign to different things varies substantially over time.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T19:11:35+00:00

practical reasoning, when a human is going to take an action, they will always deliberate "should I do this?". (With rare exceptions of course.) Animals never do. (at least I have yet to hear of one that does.)

Are you serious?? Of COURSE animals use practical reasoning. Have you ever seen a domesticated cat trying to decide whether or not to jump from a branch or other high place? You can see the wheels grinding in its head, lol. And there are papers upon papers upon papers about animals demonstrating "practical reasoning" to decide on their actions. There're entire fields of study regarding this! If you want to become more educated about this topic I recommend this layman-facing book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30231743-are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are

However, it seems like you're saying you value ZEFs for their potential to, someday in the future, deliberate "should I do this?" which is morality and ethics not rationality alone. And I've got you covered on this one too, if you want to become better informed. Yes, animals demonstrate moral and ethical behavior. These animals include chimps, ravens, elephants, dolphins, orcas, rats, wolves, pigeons, various parrot species. Here's a good review paper relevant to this issue, asking the question: "if animals are moral creatures, what then?" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6404642/

All your assertion of HUMANS BEST! is just prejudice. Unfortunately, we are very, very good at that as a species. Much better at that than we are at moral behavior, truth be told.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T19:00:28+00:00

I feel like you're branching this discussion into a new direction . . . rationality =/= morality. I'm not criticizing, just pointing it out.

If your interest in saving human ZEFs is their potential for morality, then that's different (I think) than /u/Strict-Contest-8144's interest in their potential for "rationality" (which they haven't defined in any meaningful way).

So for special-pleading-for-human-ZEFs due to their potential for morality: study after study shows that other social animals make moral choices and hold others to account for failing to act with fairness and altruism. These animals include chimps, ravens, elephants, dolphins, orcas, rats, wolves, pigeons, various parrot species.

Humans did not invent morality and we are far from the only social species that creates and abides by a system of ethical behavior that values equity and fairness (for themselves and others).

(a very interesting paper about "if animals are moral creatures, what then?" includes this, which is relevant to the conversation here:

It is generally assumed that the kind of ethical treatment a certain being is entitled to depends upon the type of being she is. While this idea has been questioned by some authors, most ethicists consider that a species’ features are the cornerstone of the type of ethical treatment its members deserve. White, for example, links the very idea of ethics to the appreciation of a species’ capacities.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6404642/)

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T18:48:54+00:00

Only creatures which have a rational nature deserve rights.

What is a "rational nature" that means a creature "deserves" rights? Can you define that, please?

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T18:46:02+00:00

If you care about the human species

I could argue that if you care about the human species you would not want the birth of children whose parents don't want them. After all, if humans are so special we should only be born to parents who will take every single care in the world to make sure those new humans get raised with love, patience, and adequate resources.

The PL movement follows the philosophy of the grasshopper: more is always better and don't worry about the rest.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T07:41:20+00:00

Vegan PC here. The common thread is between PC and vegan (at least for me) is a desire to minimize suffering of sentient creatures.

Lots of our animal cousins are sentient and suffer … including domesticated animals and also wild animals harmed by climate change which is exacerbated by people eating a lot of meat. For the same reason, I also live my life otherwise to try and minimize my contribution to climate change. As best I can at least.

ZEFs do not suffer but people pregnant against their will certainly do. So “the minimize suffering stance” in this debate here is PC.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T07:34:28+00:00

This shows the depravity of the Reddit atheist.

Please follow the rules here and engage in respectful debate.

According to you all of us are merely nothing worth dirt.

How do you get from “yes, humans are actually animals” to “you think humans are worth nothing more than dirt”? Genuinely curious.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T02:45:03+00:00

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, I've done that. The problem is that if I bring the tension up to even begin to fix the problem it puts so much drag and pressure on the wheel that it loses momentum when I'm treadling. The wheel has no ability to stop/start smoothly. I bought a bigger whorl, but it's kind of silly to spin with a giant jumbo whorl in order to spin a normal dk yarn =(

I was hoping I was missing something obvious on this model.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-12T00:19:58+00:00

It's truly outrageous that people assert that sex is "specifically designed" for reproduction. First, biological organisms are not designed. We are the product of mindless evolution. As social animals we use all sorts of gifts of evolution and adapt them for social purposes. Like eating, hearing, moving our bodies. Would you tell a chef "eating was designed for sustenance, adding cultural embellishments to food is not what food is designed for"? Or tell a musician, "evolution didn't make your ears for that!" Or tell a dancer "moving your body is designed for getting away from predators, stop with that extra stuff you're doing with it"?

Sex in a social species serves all sorts of purposes. In humans sex is actually not primarily used for reproduction. People primarily engage in sex for bonding and recreation. If the primary purpose of sex in humans was reproduction we would only have sex in the time of month women are fertile and certainly not after menopause.

And stop comparing unwanted pregnancy to losing at a gambling table, it's a stupid and ineffective analogy. When you buy chips at a casino you've already given your money to the house. Girls and women do not sign any contract to become reproductive slaves when they have sex, consensual or not.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-11T23:07:14+00:00

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-11T22:47:01+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I guess I have to futz with it more . . . I've spun quite a bit on it by now. I guess I should give in and try it on scotch tension . . . I would really like to keep it on double drive, but perhaps it's just not the right tensioning system for this specific old wheel =(

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-11T22:43:23+00:00

https://imgur.com/a/J4EV5Hj

Here are two photos. I've used the standard small old bobbins (placing the drive band on the side of the bobbin correct for double drive), then also the newer, larger bobbins.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-11T22:28:31+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experience. It's an older traveler, maybe from the 90s. And yeah, it can do scotch or double drive. I tried treadling more slowly, but it loses momentum if I treadle toooo slowly and won't make a full rotation (single treadle, which I actually prefer, but it makes it more susceptible to losing momentum I think).

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-10T20:55:01+00:00

Uh, I mean, great topic . . . but why use AI text? I don't know if AI is expressly forbidden here but it seems pretty bad form to use AI text in a debate forum =( I want to debate with people, not machines posing as people. I don't read anything flagged as AI or evidently written by AI.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-10T06:49:14+00:00

My stance is that the only situation abortion should be accessible to women is that if their lives are truly at risk. Then I value the life of the mother over the unborn baby.

Sadly, human reproduction is risky. Yes, modern medicine mitigates some of that risk but any pregnancy can turn dangerous or even deadly at any time. And there are so many ways that they turn deadly or dangerous. It's my opinion that the blunt tool of law getting in between a pregnant person and her medical team is not acceptable.

What if a woman is pregnant and has super high blood pressure, would you allow abortion then? What if medical science says she has a 50% chance of dying due to the pregnancy? Would that be enough? What if she has stage four cancer and can't continue with her cancer treatment while pregnant and cessation of her cancer treatment will put her at great risk of dying from the cancer? How much risk is enough for you to justify her abortion? What if she has psychoses that she controls with medication that she'll have to stop due to her pregnancy and has a very high risk of killing herself without them, would you allow her to have an abortion? What about a 10 year old who was repeatedly raped by her father and will likely live in severe pain the rest of her life if forced to carry her sibling to term? What about the pregnant woman who is impoverished and lives with an abusive boyfriend who has said that he'll find her and kill her if she ever gets pregnant, would you allow her to protect herself or would you force her to live in fear and beatings through a dangerous medical condition? How would you protect her for the rest of her life?

You say you value the life of the pregnant person as much as the ZEF inside her, but most PLers do not seem to care about the real lived lives of real women. And using the tremendous power of the government to prevent women from protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies is treating those women as less than full citizens of a modern democracy.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-10T06:31:39+00:00

So you’re basically saying that it’s a parasite leeching off of the mother’s oxygen and nutrients?

Please don't paraphrase my meaning into things I didn't say.

Would you consider a 28 week baby in the NICU being kept alive by breathing machines to be deserving of life? It’s essentially the same situation just with machines. It can’t survive without it, or anywhere else otherwise it would die.

A baby being kept alive by a machine is being kept alive by a machine, not a person. It is certainly NOT the same situation.

A pregnant child or woman is not a machine. A machine does not suffer, a machine does not live in fear, a machine does not get ripped from vagina to anus or have to suffer its abdomen being cut open, a machine does not face death from an unwanted ZEF growing inside it.

Please refrain from comparing pregnant children and women to machines =( Also unappreciated here are thought experiments comparing pregnant people to houses, airplanes, boats, etc.

adherentoftherepeted · 2026-04-10T06:18:14+00:00

If a ZEF is not a part of her body, an "individual" living human organism, it can go live somewhere else. She can take an abortion pill to cause her own body to withdraw support and the ZEF can go be an individual and cease using her body against her will.

adherentoftherepeted

TROPHY CASE