543 ideas match your query.:
Search ideas
Superseded by #172. This comment was generated automatically.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I wasn’t talking about forgetting things. Memories might not even be stored before age 3.
(John)
I don’t see why forgetting things that happened before age 3 is meaningful here.
Building on #164, rights do not depend on the presence of any specific skill or knowledge.
A child does not seem anything like a functionally complete person until somewhere between 9 to 15 months old.
Basing personhood on ‘functional completeness’ is fudging smarts and intelligence.
Superseded by #162. This comment was generated automatically.
I’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)
I use David Deutsch’s concept of the universal explainer.
(John)
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.
That’s an inversion of morals and emotions. The emotional response should come after you form a moral judgment, as a result of that judgment. Conversely, moral judgment shouldn’t be the result of an emotion.
I’m not sure newborn babies are “people” in any meaningful sense yet.
In which case, even ‘aborting’ 6 months after birth would be fine.
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)
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).
Obligations to care for another person seem illiberal and coercive.
(John)
Superseded by #154. This comment was generated automatically.
Building on #123, cutting the umbilical does not make the baby an “independent person”. The baby still depends on the parents physically, financially, emotionally, etc.
This mistake strikes me as an instance of the wider mistake of granting or withholding rights based on physical differences.
When developing rules for society, we run into many arbitrary lines. More important than drawling the lines correctly is retaining the means to redraw them over time.
(Logan)
We already have laws for how to deal with neglect.
(Danny)
Superseded by #149. This comment was generated automatically.
Parents facing the consequences of their actions isn’t “force”.