Abortion

Showing only ideas leading to #148.

See full discussion·​See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. You may need to scroll sideways.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#5028·​
4th of 4 versions leading to #148 (6 total)

I’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, an 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.

According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542179/, “CNS [central-nervous-system] development begins during the 3rd week of embryogenesis…”

This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.

Battle-testedLinked to by #212 and #2311
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#134·​·​Criticism
Only version leading to #148 (2 total)

There’s ‘evictionism’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

I like this view because it sidesteps the issue of personhood and at what point it arises. It says you’re free to evict anything, person or not. We don’t know how creativity (ie the universal-explainer software mentioned in #119) works so this is handy.

(Amaro)

Criticized3*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#136·​·​Criticism

Evictionism doesn’t explain why personhood should be ignored.

(Danny)

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#137·​·​Criticism

Someone’s personhood has no bearing on whether you should be able to evict them, right? It’s your property, so it’s your choice.

(Amaro)

Criticized1*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#138·​·​Criticism

It does if you caused them to be there to begin with.

(Danny)

Linked to by #218
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#139·​·​Criticism

If you invite someone into your home and they come over you can still change your mind and kick them out. Just because you invited them doesn’t mean they can stay in your home against your will.

(Amaro)

Criticized2*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#141·​·​Criticism

Building on #140, it’s more like forcing someone into your home, locking the door, making them depend on you for food and water, and then complaining they’re in your home. Clearly, killing them is not the answer (if they’re a person).

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#142·​·​Criticism

Where exactly does a child’s dependency on the parents end? At five years old? When the child moves out? Seems arbitrary.

(Amaro)

Criticized3*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP·​#148·​·​Criticism

Not a doctor but AFAIK we already have medical knowledge about when physical dependency in particular ends. For example, doctors will sometimes deliver a baby prematurely when continued pregnancy would be dangerous for the mother.

(Danny)

  • Rationally adoptable.
  • Not rationally adoptable.
  • Older versions with pending criticisms.
  • Ideas are blue, criticisms red, comments small and gray.
  • Hover over ideas to expand them.
  • Click on ideas to jump to their place in the discussion.