Search ideas

Defensive force and security services are productive endeavors.

Retaliatory force is only part thereof, and defense involves the employment of scarce resources, thus economic principles apply. (Logan Chipkin)

If the government tries to step outside the free market, that’s tantamount to pretending there’s magically no scarcity for the government. But in reality, the government still has to attract talent to fill government jobs, pay that talent, and use scarce resources. If it tries this without the error-correction mechanisms the free market provides, it will do anything poorly.

Two people out in international waters, or in space, or anywhere else with no government, can still have consensual interactions. For example, they can decide to share a sandwich. That’s still consensual if neither party has a preference that arbitrarily steamrolls over the other.

There are already consensual interactions between people that are nonetheless unregulated. Sex, for instance.

#240

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 up criticizing.

But first, familiarize yourself with the current state of the discussion. Ensure that you’re making new points. These sound like points others have made before you. 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.

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.

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, #172

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.

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.

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.

It does when those others are responsible for your position. See #133, #138, #172, #203.

Anything that processes information is a computer.

The brain processes information.

Therefore, the brain is a computer.

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.

Right, but the absence of a functioning nervous system implies the absence of sentience [see #107]. So I don’t think it’s arbitrary.

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.

I 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.

They’re already a person […].

Not at the time the nervous system is broken and the creative program isn’t running. Personhood has ‘halted’.

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.

Except in cases of rape, the mother is responsible for the baby’s existence.

A baby with a nervous system may be a person and thus have rights.

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, which they retain as well.

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.

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.

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.

Obligations are only coercive if they are unchosen. People know that sex can result in pregnancy.

More generally, when you take an action that you know (or should know) can result in some obligation, then that obligation is not unchosen.

Fudging 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 and privileges).

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.