Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Activity
Anything that processes information is a computer.
The brain processes information.
Therefore, the brain is a computer.
#213 · Dennis HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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 HackethalOP, 10 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.
Ayn 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).
4 unchanged lines collapsedFudging unchosen and chosen obligations is why some of the pro-abortion crowd strike me as people who just want to be able to act without consequence or responsibility. Similar to other women’s ‘rights’ issues [(which aren’t about rights but special treatment andprivileges)](https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/men-have-no-reproductive-rights).privileges)](https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/men-have-no-reproductive-rights).↵ ↵ You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Many suggestions around abortion can be evaluated by asking at whose expense? Whenever the answer is at the baby’s, something is wrong, since the baby did not make any decisions and thus cannot be held responsible.
A lot of the problems around abortion will go away with better technology. (Dirk)
There should be a pill for men, too. That would really shift the power dynamic, too. (Martin)
#162 · Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoI’m not sure newborn babies are “people” in any meaningful sense yet.
In which case, even ‘aborting’ 6 months after birth would be fine.
A child does not seem anything like a functionally complete person until somewhere between 9 to 15 months old. Most people cannot recall memories from before age 3.
I’m skeptical a newborn is anything more than a robot until their creativity comes online.
It would be gross and upsetting, though, so let’s settle for abortion up until the child can be delivered and adoption for any unwanted babies.
(John)
It’s possible creativity, and with it, personhood and rights, only comes online after birth. For example, the universal-explainer program may be partly memetic, as David Deutsch argues in The Beginning of Infinity. In which case creativity only comes online upon exposure to other people.
But that’s highly speculative. The program might as well be wholly genetic and start running before birth.
#167 · Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoI wasn’t talking about forgetting things. Memories might not even be stored before age 3.
(John)
According to WebMD:
Most babies will start walking between about 10 and 18 months old, although some babies may walk as early as 9 months old.
And they retain that ability. So something must be being stored here.
They also start saying basic words by age 1.