Activity feed
#133 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 3 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 3 months 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 Hackethal, 3 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 3 months agohaving rights doesn't mean you get to be supported by others that don't want to support you
#202 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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 Hackethal, 4 months 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.
#206 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoI think it’s not okay to kill someone whose nervous system stops working later in life if it may work again.
They’re already 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.
They’re already a person […].
Not at the time the nervous system is broken and the creative program isn’t running. Personhood has ‘halted’.
#205 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIf my nervous system isn’t working because of coma, is it ok to kill me?
Clarity is suggesting it wouldn’t be okay, thus whether the nervous system is functional can’t be the determining factor.
I think it’s not okay to kill someone whose nervous system stops working later in life if it may work again.
They’re already 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.
#107 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months 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.”
If my nervous system isn’t working because of coma, is it ok to kill me?
Clarity is suggesting it wouldn’t be okay, thus whether the nervous system is functional can’t be the determining factor.
#201 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIf the fetus has "developed a nervous system" but is not yet capable of surviving outside the mother (even with all the technological knowledge of medicine), why should the mother have an obligation to carry it to term?
That the baby can’t survive outside the womb sounds like an additional reason to carry to term, not a reason not to do it.
#201 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIf the fetus has "developed a nervous system" but is not yet capable of surviving outside the mother (even with all the technological knowledge of medicine), why should the mother have an obligation to carry it to term?
Except in cases of rape, the mother is responsible for the baby’s existence.
#201 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIf the fetus has "developed a nervous system" but is not yet capable of surviving outside the mother (even with all the technological knowledge of medicine), why should the mother have an obligation to carry it to term?
A baby with a nervous system may be a person and thus have rights.
#107 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months 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.”
If the fetus has "developed a nervous system" but is not yet capable of surviving outside the mother (even with all the technological knowledge of medicine), why should the mother have an obligation to carry it to term?
6 unchanged lines collapsedThey also start saying basic words by age1.1, which they retain as well.