Maggie's Farm

Goad, interesting nome de plume. Our experience is subjective, adulting is hard, let's work with what we have. I've always thought of morality as an acknowledgment that we are fundamentally selfish by design our inherent subjectivity and that some practical limits on that selfishness are needed for functional association. We are consciousness in one body: the "me". Our empathy requires effort, an individual doesn't feel what any one else feels at the same wattage in real time as part of the body brain infrastructure. Compassion and empathy require some effort, observation and apparently also some wiring else sociopath. The majority recognize others as having equivalent me ness and wish to confer a certain amount of empathetic and practical protection from too much selfish infringement from "optimizing whatever is important to me personally". For sociopaths perhaps practical limits for insurance against the worst "me optimizations by not me" are the selling point? For normal people it's empathetic recognition of the humanness and equality of others. Do unto others... hence the nearly aborted can speak from a strong position. This is why heartbeat laws are so persuasive. The heart implies so much about life, consciousness, empathy and compassion. Morality is the extent to which that recognition of equality has developed in the culture. The law is the line of selfishness that can't be crossed. A line that reasonable society can agree upon. No slavery, no murder, etc. The law defines the limits of infringement applied to gross and extreme cases of selfishness: the extreme "optimization of what's most important to me. " Morality is for the gray selfishness. don't steal: but it's legal to sucker someone to a certain extent in a contract. In groups and tribes might have higher thresholds for selfishness for "other". There are some very interesting dynamics going on in our culture around morality and law. The internet provides a platform and amplifies not just the most logical and best, but also popular but muddled oratory. I wants it! and need some strong emotion evocative truthie ness to hang my hat on. Fundamentally fertility in a woman implies sharing a body with someone not you. Doesn't the whole argument collapse down to what is more grossly selfish? Unwanted sharing of the body and unwanted offspring somewhere in the world vs killing the not me? Good thing we don't have litters. Isn't morality fundamentally a remedy against subjectivity?

I've always thought the "clump of cells" argument was the most defensible location on a timeline of dynamic change (not metaphore) for the reasons you mention. And also from a sterile and unemotionally involved distance. Had a friend that went and had a procedure. Very determined she was. It was not what she expected. It destroyed her mentally. She grieved unconsolably over that "clump of cells". Nothing could be done. Nobody talks about that part of it but I suspect it's not an uncommon reaction. Shouldn't we be talking about that? I really don't know why late is being pushed. Seems to me you're all stretched out and nearly done at that point so why not finish up and let someone adopt. Emotionally it won't be easier than the clump of cells. There are health benefits in terms of breast cancer, brain additional wiring and cell material transfer from baby to mother also.