Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @moth_ball@shitposter.world
バツ子（台風に倒されない@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu (2026-10-20 17:55:19)
@moth_ball @Merc @lebronjames75 @sun 
it's wuzzy, can't say. don't think a newborn is a person yet, but not going to kill one (laws not considered) out of over-caution. like someone who's braindead no longer being a person, cutting off life support is still hard call to make
---Reply---
mothball蛾玉 (*Latest Fad)@moth_ball@shitposter.world (2026-10-20 17:56:28)
@ageha @Merc @lebronjames75 @sun if you can't draw a line it's not a definition worth considering at all

---Replies---

Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-10-20 17:58:29)
@moth_ball @ageha @Merc @lebronjames75 thats the challenge right, there's not really a line but you have to decide, "there's no line" isn't actionable

バツ子（台風に倒されない@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu (2026-10-20 18:07:18)
@moth_ball @Merc @lebronjames75 @sun 
if i had to specify somewhere, own observation from raising kids is maybe somewhere more around 1~2 years※. but it's a stepwise change, not going from "on" to "off". give similar reasoning to other animals, don't think my dogs are quite there, but going to protect them as well, and would never kill one, and extend that over-caution to amniotes generally

the real world doesn't have hard lines; wuzzy reasoning is a necessity. if law's getting involved though, would say drop the line at before-birth, as in that range you're balancing the baby's life versus the parent's, and the parent is (except in extreme circumstances? -_-) a person who should take precedent, with restrictions being a danger to that person's health

※ kids go through several fairly clear "stages" that continue after that point, and by studies the point of persistent self with long-term episodic memories is around 5