Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Activity
#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.
#177 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoAbortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Shouldn’t the father have some say? He shouldn’t get to dictate what she does with the baby, but shouldn’t he have some say? It’s his child, too, after all.
Remove criticism; that needs to be a comment
> % source: Rand, Ayn. *The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought* (The Ayn Rand Library) (pp. 58-59). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. > Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her ownbody?↵ ↵ Shouldn’t the father have some say? He shouldn’t get to *dictate* what she does with the baby, but shouldn’t he have *some* say? It’s his child, too, after all.body?
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Shouldn’t the father have some say? He shouldn’t get to dictate what she does with the baby, but shouldn’t he have some say? It’s his child, too, after all.
#174 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoAyn Rand writes:
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).
It’s true that potential beings cannot have rights. But once a fetus is a person, it’s not a potential being anymore. It’s then an actual being.
It’s not the birth that turns a fetus into a person – it’s the running of the universal-explainer software I mentioned in #119. And that might occur before birth.