Activity feed
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 upcriticizing.criticizing.↵ ↵ But first, 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.
#234 · 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".
Saying the baby has a right to be taken care of in such and such a manner means nothing if there's no one there to do the taking care of. One of the requirements of being a good parent, I think, is wanting to be one. So by forcing the mother that was irresponsible to carry to term might actually ruin her life, and make the baby's one not worth living.
I 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 belegal"legal". ↵ Saying the baby has a right to be taken care of in such and such a manner means nothing if there's no one there to do the taking care of. One of the requirements of being a good parent, I think, is wanting to be one. So by forcing the mother that was irresponsible to carry to term might actually ruin her life, and make the baby's one not worth living.
I 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"
#231 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agopractically, i think the best we can do now is viability outside the mother
if it's viable and there are people willing to adopt [then] the mother shouldn't have the right to kill it
if there's no one willing to take care of it i don't see how anyone can demand for it to not be aborted.
Someone’s rights can’t depend on whether other people are willing to take care of them. That doesn’t make any sense. You said yourself (#225) the determining factor is personhood. Pick one.
practically, i think the best we can do now is viability outside the mother
if it's viable and there are people willing to adopt [then] the mother shouldn't have the right to kill it
if there's no one willing to take care of it i don't see how anyone can demand for it to not be aborted.
#228 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agodepends whether the mother took measures to not get pregnant, if she did and still got pregnant - less responsibility
She was neither forced nor tricked. She took an action which she knew (or should have known) comes with certain risks. The risks materialized. That doesn’t make her any less responsible.
On the contrary, per my suggestion, she had six weeks to monitor whether she was pregnant. That’s long enough to miss her period, which is a huge warning sign she’d have to be extremely dishonest about with herself to just ignore. During those six weeks, she could have unilaterally decided to get an abortion safely and with impunity. She instead chose to ignore her pregnancy, evade it, not do anything about it, whatever.
Separate ideas
> % source: Ante Skugor > % link: https://x.com/splitkostanjeu1/status/1811341088730357906 > depends whether the mother took measures to not get pregnant, if she did and still got pregnant - lessresponsibility↵ ↵ She was neither forced nor tricked. She took an action which she knew (or should have known) comes with certain risks. The risks materialized. That doesn’t make her any less responsible.↵ ↵ On the contrary, per my suggestion, she had *six weeks* to monitor whether she was pregnant. That’s long enough to miss her period, which is a huge warning sign she’d have to be extremely dishonest about with herself to just ignore. During those six weeks, she could have unilaterally decided to get an abortion safely and with impunity. She instead chose to ignore her pregnancy, evade it, not do anything about it, whatever.↵ ↵ Her body, her choice, *her responsibility*. #171, #172responsibility
#133 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoParents don’t owe their children anything […].
Yes they do. They are responsible for bringing a helpless being into the world who depends on them.
depends whether the mother took measures to not get pregnant, if she did and still got pregnant - less responsibility
She was neither forced nor tricked. She took an action which she knew (or should have known) comes with certain risks. The risks materialized. That doesn’t make her any less responsible.
On the contrary, per my suggestion, she had six weeks to monitor whether she was pregnant. That’s long enough to miss her period, which is a huge warning sign she’d have to be extremely dishonest about with herself to just ignore. During those six weeks, she could have unilaterally decided to get an abortion safely and with impunity. She instead chose to ignore her pregnancy, evade it, not do anything about it, whatever.
#225 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoi agree that morally the cutoff point should be personhood, though i think that probably happens later than the development of nervous system
Personhood presumably does come in later on, but we don’t know exactly when. Since the development of the nervous system is the earliest possible point, that’s the time we should choose if we want to be careful.
#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.”
i agree that morally the cutoff point should be personhood, though i think that probably happens later than the development of nervous system
Clarify what abortion means
If, contrary to #221, premature delivery *is* possible and others want to “save the baby and take care of it”, then sure, go ahead as long as there are no downsides for the baby. But that’s not abortion, so I don’t see how this stance is a criticism of my abortion stance. Abortion means the baby dies.#220 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoit's not a reason in one direction or another, if other people are willing to save the baby and take care of it that seems like a win-win
If, contrary to #221, premature delivery is possible and others want to “save the baby and take care of it”, then sure, go ahead as long as there are no downsides for the baby. But that’s not abortion, so I don’t see how this stance is a criticism of my abortion stance.
#220 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoit's not a reason in one direction or another, if other people are willing to save the baby and take care of it that seems like a win-win
You had originally described (#201) a situation where the fetus “is not yet capable of surviving outside the mother (even with all the technological knowledge of medicine)”, meaning premature delivery would be impossible.
#204 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoThat the baby can’t survive outside the womb sounds like an additional reason to carry to term, not a reason not to do it.
it's not a reason in one direction or another, if other people are willing to save the baby and take care of it that seems like a win-win
It does when those others are responsible for your position. See #133, #138, #172, #203.
#216 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agohaving rights doesn't mean you get to be supported by others that don't want to support you
#202 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoA baby with a nervous system may be a person and thus have rights.
having rights doesn't mean you get to be supported by others that don't want to support you
Anything that processes information is a computer.
The brain processes information.
Therefore, the brain is a computer.
#213 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoPreventing unwanted pregnancy is the goal. Ending an unwanted pregnancy should happen with shame and as early as possible. It’s a mistake that gets worse with time.
If you want the abortion to happen as early as possible, then shame is the last thing you want, as it will cause pregnant women to put off the decision for fear of being shamed.
Preventing unwanted pregnancy is the goal. Ending an unwanted pregnancy should happen with shame and as early as possible. It’s a mistake that gets worse with time.
#211 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIt’s arbitrary. A functioning nervous system does not imply complex thought.
Right, but the absence of a functioning nervous system implies the absence of sentience [see #107]. So I don’t think it’s arbitrary.
#208 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI think it’s not okay to kill someone whose nervous system stops working later in life if it may work again.
They’ve already been a person and may well continue to be a person. That can’t be said of an organism that has never had a nervous system.
It’s arbitrary. A functioning nervous system does not imply complex thought.
#208 · Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI think it’s not okay to kill someone whose nervous system stops working later in life if it may work again.
They’ve already been a person and may well continue to be a person. That can’t be said of an organism that has never had a nervous system.
But if an accident removes the entire brain yet the body somehow stays alive like a vegetable, then yeah I’d say it’s okay to pull the plug.
Is that fair? It’s interesting how abortion and euthanasia are kind of related in this way.
Address criticism
> % source: Dennis Hackethal↵ > % link: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/1810736870093115779↵ >I think it’s not okay to kill someone whose nervous system stops working later in life if it may workagain.↵ > They’reagain.↵ They’ve already been a person and may well continue to be a person. That can’t be said of an organism that has *never had* a nervous system.