Activity feed
Does that mean they wouldn’t have access to the `view_context`? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.
#303 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoHiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as class methods. That way, the problem described in #302 is solved – methods can be referenced unambiguously:
ProductsHelper.index StoresHelper.index
Does that mean they wouldn’t have the view_context? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.
Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as class methods. That way, the problem described in #302 is solved – methods can be referenced unambiguously:
ProductsHelper.index
StoresHelper.index
Hiccdown methods should live in Railshelpers.helpers as instance methods.
That isn’t a good idea because Hiccdown methods often share the same conventional names (index, show, etc), which can and does lead to conflict.
Notes about developing the Ruby gem Hiccdown.
Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers.
6 unchanged lines collapsedClearly,a fetusan embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.4 unchanged lines collapsed
#276 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right?
It’s not considered a fetus until week 9, at which point the nervous system has already begun building.
The correct word to use here is ‘embryo’.
If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them. Why should that be any different for an unborn person?#274 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoFor non-viable pregnancies, where a doctor reasonably predicts that the baby will die during pregnancy or shortly after, abortions should be allowed throughout the entire pregnancy to avoid unnecessary suffering for parents and child.
If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them.
#274 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoFor non-viable pregnancies, where a doctor reasonably predicts that the baby will die during pregnancy or shortly after, abortions should be allowed throughout the entire pregnancy to avoid unnecessary suffering for parents and child.
What happens if only one of two twins is non-viable but abortion would kill both?
8 unchanged lines collapsedAccording to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryomoving.”moving.”↵ ↵ This idea is for *viable* pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
#273 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoThis take does not address the issue of non-viable pregnancies.
Imagine being pregnant and looking forward to becoming a parent. However, during a routine diagnostic test, your doctor tells you your pregnancy isn’t viable; at birth, your baby will likely not survive long outside the womb. Because you live in a state like Texas that has recently banned abortion with few exceptions, you now need to carry this pregnancy to term, carrying the grief of a non-viable fetus and likely endangering your own life in the process.
I have addressed this issue separately – it’s a separate idea. #274
For non-viable pregnancies, where a doctor reasonably predicts that the baby will die during pregnancy or shortly after, abortions should be allowed throughout the entire pregnancy to avoid unnecessary suffering for parents and child.
#107 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This take does not address the issue of non-viable pregnancies.
Imagine being pregnant and looking forward to becoming a parent. However, during a routine diagnostic test, your doctor tells you your pregnancy isn’t viable; at birth, your baby will likely not survive long outside the womb. Because you live in a state like Texas that has recently banned abortion with few exceptions, you now need to carry this pregnancy to term, carrying the grief of a non-viable fetus and likely endangering your own life in the process.
#271 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoSome say that there’s a soul from the moment of conception; that the soul has a right to life.
Appeal to the supernatural
Some say that there’s a soul from the moment of conception; that the soul has a right to life.
#269 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoSome people say the demarcation point should be the heartbeat.
The heartbeat has no particular epistemological or moral relevance.
Defensive force and security services are productive endeavors. Retaliatory force is only part thereof, and defense involves the employment of scarce resources, thus economic principles apply. (LoganChipkin)Chipkin)↵ ↵ If the government tries to step outside the free market, that’s tantamount to pretending there’s magically no scarcity for the government. But in reality, the government still has to attract talent to fill government jobs, pay that talent, and use scarce resources. If it tries this *without* the error-correction mechanisms the free market provides, it will do anything poorly.
#23 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoGovernment creates consent. Without government, there is no consent.
Two people out in international waters, or in space, or anywhere else with no government, can still have consensual interactions. For example, they can decide to share a sandwich. That’s still consensual if neither party has a preference that arbitrarily steamrolls over the other.
#23 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoGovernment creates consent. Without government, there is no consent.
There are already consensual interactions between people that are nonetheless unregulated. Sex, for instance.
#233 · Ante Škugor, about 1 year agoI don't think it's a right to have other people take care of you. The cutoff point is a moral one, but rights are both moral and political institutions. You're right that it'd be ideal for the moral and political institutions to align but it's hard to do that. That's why I think there's some truth to the argument: "Even if abortion were immoral it should be legal"
This seems like a response to another idea (presumably #230 and/or #232), rather than a top-level idea itself. I suggest you move this idea and break it up if necessary. Mark it as a criticism to whatever ideas you end up criticizing. But first, familiarize yourself with the current state of the discussion. Ensure that you’re making new points. These sound like points others have made beforeyou in this discussion.you. Read the entire discussion before you continue. If these points are indeed duplicates, either think of *new* criticisms or address existing criticisms. Don’t repeat the same ideas if you can’t address preexisting issues with them.
This seems like a response to another idea (presumably #230 and/or #232), rather than a top-level idea itself. I suggest you move this idea and break it up if necessary. Mark it as a criticism to whatever ideas you end up criticizing. But first,ensurefamiliarize yourself with the current state of the discussion. Ensure that you’re making new points. These sound like points others have made before you in this discussion. Read the entire discussion before you continue. If these points are indeed duplicates, either think of *new* criticisms or address existing criticisms. Don’t repeat the same ideas if you can’t address preexisting issues with them.