Asklemmy

43947 readers

893 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

571

What's some really unpopular opinion you have? (lemmings.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

2223 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd argue it's actually further in the opposite direction. I don't really think it's an unpopular position either when put to the test.

Humans like to qualify our soul with what essentially amounts to sapience. When do we become unique?

I'll be having another kid soon. Those first few months after birth they may as well still be in the womb for as much human understanding they have going on. While there is some, it's less human and more animal instinct. You really don't see true uniqueness come through until a year or longer. Let alone going the eugenics route where people agree being born without a brain or similar bouts of very removed cognitive function.

Why we give more more rights to a bundle of cells barely different than any other animal that young, over the 1-2 fully sapient parents that are LITERALLY part of the child. The mom even greater so during pregnancy, is right out.

What people don't like hearing, is that we are beholden to our biology. We grow attached to a fetus or baby before they become truly human and unique.

And it's good and just to provide all three parties protection. Because the bonds we form with family don't have to be strictly human. But providing more protection to a possible future entity with no current true will, with humanity in only the strictest genetic sense at that moment, and no sapience, over a mom, is insanity.

The way our laws and society work requires arbitrary lines in the sand though. This is why we apply liberal margins of safety to catch most everything on the bell curve. Rather than legislating using outliers and extremes as the norm like Republicans like to pretend are issues.

So many points of the topic are tried using the strictest sense of biological definitions like reflexes of a fetus, but completely ignore stuff like imprinting for the parents. Because in reality those protections for the fetus are also humanizing the parents loss if something happens. No parent wants to hear ope, try for another. So many try and try and unfortunately entropy is a bitch.