🇳🇱
I think I am very unusual in the sense that I believe abortions should be tax-paid, free to everyone, and pregnancy tests should also be free.... BUT I also think abortion should be very limited, to something around the first **10 weeks** at most.
I've had both right and left leaning folks loose their shit over that. Always entertaining
@freemo Well, good thought in general, but i'd disagree on the timeframe. You see, you messed up one thing: you're a man, and this is a decision that the woman in question needs to make.
Not loosing my shit, but omniously whispering "seeeeexismmmm" ;-)
In a less quirky way: late term abortions would weigh heavy on the woman in question. Their consequences, their choice. Flips when the child is viable on its own, then there's a person beyond the mother.
> Well, good thought in general, but i'd disagree on the timeframe.
Most people do so thats understandable. Obviously I disagree.
> You see, you messed up one thing: you're a man, and this is a decision that the woman in question needs to make.
Dont assume what genitals I have.
More important it very much has effected me. I like all humans have been fetuses and at the mercy of the law regarding abortion. Therefore since everyone has been ont he receiving end we all have a right to say.
Thats a bit like saying "you cant judge what laws we should have for murder, your not a murderer so it wont effect you!"... No but i am a potential murder victim....
> Not loosing my shit, but omniously whispering "seeeeexismmmm" ;-)
Lawl
@freemo > Their consequences, their choice.
The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.
> Dont assume what genitals I have.
Really? Is this a defense mechanism or are you alledging that male presentation in past posts might have been a lie?
And did you put "effect" instead of "affect" to torture me? *shivers*
> The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.
Great, then that would be the fetus, and when someone is unable to express their will to live we assume they have one.
The risk to the murderer is not nonexistant.. they risk emotional damage fromt heir acts, harm from the victim fighting back, etc. So both have consequences. The reason we facor the victim isnt because they are the only one with consequences, it is because the murderer put them in the situation against their will, much like a moth puts their unborn child int hat situation against the childs will.
@freemo I still think men should not decide such things. If you are not one, fine. But i have no indication of that, and let's leave it at "Women internal affairs".
@admitsWrongIfProven and I disagree.. anyone who is or has been a fetus should have a say on who is or was allowed to kill them.
@freemo Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.
Ramifications of a different approach are that a non-viable system may be abandoned and suffer for this.
I think i have a negative utilitarian approach here, while you favor the positive utilitarianism. Stopping pain is just more important to me than creating joy.
> Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.
Generally thats true, afterall its why its ok to remove a tumor (even if that tumor may have a brain which can happen).
the difference here is we have a host system who **forced** the subsystem into existance **and** waited long enough for the subsystem to develop that it potentially could suffer or expiernce its death. So the analogy breaks down quickly.
If I abduct a human, force them to be biologically dependant upon me against their will, then murder them I dont kind it an acceptable excuse that just because they were dependent on me (as a consequence of my actions) that I had a right to kill them.
@freemo Well, to discuss this dimension, we need an actual definition of suffering.
What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?
I would include some form of consciousness, as in "current LLMs might output the phrase 'i am suffering', but they do not, as they purely remix".
Animals do change behaviour, they can sometimes detect context (something happened accidentially). At least mammals can, probably many more species.
So, if you include first nervous cells developing, i would argue that you are including a /potential/ for suffering, but not demanding actual suffering. The same would be true from conception, taken to the extreme from just the existence of a fertile male and female.
Additionally, enforcing any birth has the potential for great suffering in case the care is not done well. So if you force a mother to give birth, then the child will suffer if that mother is unable to provide, if the father is abusive, if their finances break down, etc.
If we cannot determine this (what can suffer) exactly, i circle back to empowering the person that has direct consequences. If a hard choice is to be made, taking it out of this persons hand is oppression in my view. The unborn is not able to weigh in, it cannot comprehend or communicate.
Side node: A problem i have (ethically) with reproduction is that it is always without consent.
It is impossible to ask a child-to-be if it wants to be born, and when that becomes possible, it is too late.
So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?
> What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?
this is already back to where I started. We cant define exactly when suffering, consciousness, or thought begins. We dont have the ability to test for it.
The only thing we know is it requires a brain, and we therefore know it is garunteed not to be possible before 10weeks, and that sometime between 10 weeks and infinity those properties develop.
Therefore 10 weeks is the natural line... Now if you want to move it beyond 10 weeks it is on **you** to prove that suffering and consciousness is not possible before the new time period you propose.
And while you cant ask a child if it wants to be born,t hat doesnt matter. Our laws are such that murdering something is wrong whether it wants to be murdered or not. But obviously doubly so if you **assume** and the thing you kill gave no indication it wanted to die.
@freemo Hmm, i don't understand the law argument. This was a discussion about what should be, not about what is, right?
Are you suggesting we should be free to murder people wyho havent explicitly expressed a will to live? If someone is nonverbal for example we should be free to shoot them in the head at will?
I would think that we agree that if someone doesnt express they have a will to live that it should be the default assumption unless stated otherwise. Afterall it is the case for virtually everyone with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions we try to treat first.
The entire end of your last message left on this note:
> So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?
@freemo Not sure where you left the discussion i was having - i did not say "express a will to live", i asked where suffering begins, then, seperately i declared the lack of consent to be born is a problem for me.
Let's leave it at that for the moment, i'm getting a bit tired.