543 ideas match your query.:
Search ideas
If so, there might be a way to bind them to the view_context. Or I could definitely pass the view_context explicitly as the first parameter.
Superseded by #305. This comment was generated automatically.
Does that mean they wouldn’t have access to the view_context? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.
Does that mean they wouldn’t have the view_context? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.
Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as class methods. That way, the problem described in #302 is solved – methods can be referenced unambiguously:
ProductsHelper.index
StoresHelper.index
Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as instance methods.
That isn’t a good idea because Hiccdown methods often share the same conventional names (index, show, etc), which can and does lead to conflict.
Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers.
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.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.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right?
It’s not considered a fetus until week 9, at which point the nervous system has already begun building.
The correct word to use here is ‘embryo’.
Superseded by #279. This comment was generated automatically.
If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them. Why should that be any different for an unborn person?
If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them.
What happens if only one of two twins is non-viable but abortion would kill both?
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, 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.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
I have addressed this issue separately – it’s a separate idea. #274
For non-viable pregnancies, where a doctor reasonably predicts that the baby will die during pregnancy or shortly after, abortions should be allowed throughout the entire pregnancy to avoid unnecessary suffering for parents and child.
This take does not address the issue of non-viable pregnancies.
Imagine being pregnant and looking forward to becoming a parent. However, during a routine diagnostic test, your doctor tells you your pregnancy isn’t viable; at birth, your baby will likely not survive long outside the womb. Because you live in a state like Texas that has recently banned abortion with few exceptions, you now need to carry this pregnancy to term, carrying the grief of a non-viable fetus and likely endangering your own life in the process.
Some say that there’s a soul from the moment of conception; that the soul has a right to life.
The heartbeat has no particular epistemological or moral relevance.
Some people say the demarcation point should be the heartbeat.
Superseded by #267. This comment was generated automatically.
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.