What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Bodily autonomy is different than "freedom to go about your life as you see fit". Carrying a baby and giving birth come with risks and responsibilities and it changes your body. All of this risk is for the baby at the expense of the mother.
Analogy: let's say someone needs a kidney transplant or they will die. Turns out, you're the only match. Donating a kidney is not risk free and your body will be changed for the rest of your life. Should you donate? Yeah, probably. Should you be legally forced to? Absolutely not.
To me, this analogy completely solves the issue. I can say that life begins at conception and still say that bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn't matter if the fetus/baby is a person yet, as long as the mother's body is being used to sustain them, then it's the mother's choice.
-
Yeah that is so out of the blue, I'm not sure what to make of it. I think most people don't even realize SpaceX/Elon want to colonize mars.
-
Let's put aside legality, as that's separate from morality. I am not claiming that abortion should be illegal.
My claim is that intrinsically the morality of killing the fetus just before birth ought to be similar to the morality of killing the fetus just after birth. It's true that there is another term in the moral equation based on bodily autonomy of the parent, which has a dramatic change at the moment of birth. I also believe that this bodily autonomy term ought to be less than the value of a grown adult life (maybe not of a fetus though). In other words, it's worse for someone to die than it is for someone else to temporarily lose some bodily autonomy.
Please note that I'm not sure that the intrinsic value of an 8-month-old fetus is equal to that of a full-grown adult. But most other people think a newborn baby's life is equal to that of an adult, and I think you can more or less substitute "newborn baby" for "8-month old fetus."
In your analogy, I do think that the moral action is to donate one of your two kidneys. It's an even better analogy if it's only a temporary donation of the kidney somehow, and a yet better analogy if you had caused them to be in this predicament. In the case of a several-months pregnant person living somewhere with easy abortion access, the analogy is improved further like so: you had previously agreed to lend them your kidney, but you change your mind during the critical part of the surgery when it's too late for anyone else to sub in their kidney (we can relax the stipulation that you're the only match in this case; this is because I believe life is fungible at inception).
-
I mostly agree with you on the morality of abortion. The only problem I have with your analysis is with the temporary nature of pregnancy. There are risks in pregnancy that can have permanent consequences. Even if the birth goes off without a hitch, the mother is often left with weight gain, stretch-marks, and a risk of post-partum depression. Incisions are often needed to widen the birth canal and sometimes a C-section is required which is major emergency abdominal surgery. These risks are entirely taken on by the mother.
If we look at morality as having things people should do, and things people must do, only the musts should be law because the shoulds can be more open to interpretation. I wouldn't assign my morality onto others. I would classify going through with a pregnancy as a should.
-
The analogy still works because the temporary loan of the kidney might have permanent consequences afterward. And it's only an analogy. I still think those possible side-effects (save for the truly serious ones) don't outweigh the death of a grown adult. Again, I'm not claiming that a grown adult is the same as a fetus. I make this rather strange argument because I actually am a tentative proponent of post-birth abortions -- but most people think such a concept sounds so outrageous that they assume I must be trolling. It's generally only something people are open to considering after they can be convinced that there isn't much of a difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn.
-
I can't believe this word doesn't seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you're looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn't a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person's body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it's almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).
-
There has been discussion somewhere in this tree about viability, but the word itself wasn't used. Viability also has another meaning: the potential to someday be able to live outside the womb. I actually think the latter is more important morally speaking than the former. In a reasonable world, I would think that sensible pro-lifers should agree that if the foetus is doomed one way or another, why prevent an abortion?
But viability as you define it doesn't mean much to me. Consider the earliest point at which the foetus is viable (could potentially survive outside the womb), versus the day before that. On the day before, the parent has the option to wait one day, at which point the foetus will become viable. Now compare this with a different situation: for the price of $20, a certain drug can be used to save a foetus' life. Would you agree that in the latter situation, the foetus is already "viable"; it just needs a little help? If you agree with this, and since waiting 1 day is a similar cost on the behalf of the parent as paying $20, this means, the day before the foetus becomes viable, it's already "viable" -- the word has no meaning.
(If you disagree, and you think that the necessity of $20 drugs before the baby becomes viable means that it's okay to abort it, I find that to be a strange morality, and I'd like to learn more. Or perhaps you think there's something fundamentally different between waiting 1 day and paying $20.)
-
You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.
I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate.
I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.
I'd be extremely curious to see how you define "meaningful" in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
-
Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.
I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.
Especially because you shouldn't give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
-
I think that we just didn't fight the fight very smartly, and in the end it's been weaponized against us.
-
You're under the impression that they were my friends first, which aside from one, who was s cop in another city, I was not. Ony after opening a place of business and being vandalized and had things stolen did I get to know some. The ones I did become more familiar with are definitely the kinds of police you want. They use discretion first, try hard to de escalate a situation, and the last thing they want to do is make a bad situation worse for anyone. And per your questions about how they would treat people, the ones I know would help before punish, as per your examples, they'd buy someone a meal or defuse a tough situation.
The way you describe them all as soldiers working against everyone is a tough statement to take simply because when you don't need them, ACAB, but when you do need them, they can't get there soon enough. Sadly, the bad cops everyone sees is all we'll be left with once all the good ones leave because of that sentiment. Then you'll see the "soldiers" you're talking about.
The good ones I was talking about, the ones I know, half have retired early, because no matter how much good they try to do, reasonable they try to be the only rhe thing people see is an enemy. I don't look forward to the day when all we are left with is the bad ones, and it's coming sadly.
-
why would anarchism require a revolution? we could weaken the state gradually, which is a way better idea, since there will likely be a power vacuum after a revolution
-
Because, historically, the ruling classes never cede power willingly. I'm not an Anarchist though, I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
-
Are these elections in the room with us right now? Mind naming a single “election” that the left was “lost” over illegal immigrants?
-
It's the last one, the "wait a day" option and the "pay $20" options aren't equivalent. If it's still a day away from viability, it isn't viable yet, but if it's $20 away, it is. You may be of the opinion that waiting a day isn't a big deal, or is only $20 worth of hardship, but that's not your choice to make for others.
You'd think ending a doomed pregnancy would be a simple matter even for pro-lifers, yes. They often don't consider the issue, or assume that it'll always be clear-cut and obvious in every circumstance, or worry that any exception will be used as a loophole.
-
I’m surprised you’re not getting downvoted and harassed.
-
Especially because you shouldn’t give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
Unfortunately we are social creatures with a need for acceptance and belonging. We can survive without those things, but it isn't really living. Take it from someone who spent most of their life living like a hermit.
Having someone recognize your gender is one of the most basic kinds of acceptance. Social interactions tend to feel pretty hollow and superficial when you know that the other person doesn't know/care who you really are. (Again, ask me how I know
) -
Im sorry but as someone with mental illness or sensitivities myself I dont expect the world around me to bend for them.
Gender dysmorphia is similar no? Feeling deeply something internal that changes that affects a minority of the populace.
Just like my history with my mental illness affects a small populace. Why should the world have to bend to my problems?
And acceptance and integration in society has always been there, especially with the left and especially since before pronouns.
I would never expect the intolerable, ignorant, racist, or cruel people to bend their beliefs for me. Its a waste of my energy to want that.
All I can do is surround myself with people who respect me and create my own little tribe in this sometimes cruel world.
-
It could have been as simple as "its okay to express yourself however you want or be whatever you want. You should feel safe to do so and we all have your back."
People transitioning to either gender expression has always been a thing. Changing a language seems unnecessary. However, I think respect is just the core message here. Respect all if they do no harm.
