What is to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry and price-fixing, colluding, and predatory pricing?

I was very surprised so many women would swallow the insults from Trump/Vance and vote for the pro-life sexual predator. If Harris had talked about protecting men whether they like it or not and bragged about grabbing dick, she would have gotten about 0% of the male vote.

Women got pro-choice amendments passed in Kansas and Ohio, of all places. I think they're going to turn out in droves to put one of their own in and send a message to the pussygrabber and his mouthbreathing supporters.

:up:

Long term, virtually everyone would be better off under an anarchy. Apart from criminals and power-hungry war mongers. — Clearbury

There is no such thing as long term anarchy in this world. If something depopulated 99% of the world, maybe, but not in the world we live in. If government disappeared people would start organizing immediately. Surely you must realize that.

I am making the point that anarchy is just and all governments are unjust. I don't think that's a trivial point. That seems highly significant, if true. — Clearbury

I'm a consequentalist. I don't think anarchy is just. It's one of the worst states of affairs, which is why it never lasts long.

:100:

It's a nine ketchup packet storm for sure.

The signs look good, and I think Trump will lose, but he should be losing women by 90 points. I don't understand women who would vote for him. Is it brainwashing?

But then you're making a trivial point. Would you rather live in Heaven or Hell? Which is a more moral state of affairs? Heaven, on both counts, of course. But Heaven (and anarchy) is impossible, so what are you going to do?

I would love to live in anarchy if I could maintain my current lifestyle and not have to worry about people murdering me and taking my stuff, but that's not an option, so now what?

Yes, though I don't think you took it anywhere at all. — Clearbury

OK, let's say you're granted a wish and you wish all the governments away. It's anarchy. You're living on your own in your cabin in the woods and Humungus and his road warriors discover you living your idyllic life and want to kill you and steal all your stuff. Now what?

Anarchy is ephemeral because humans are social animals and inevitably people will band together and power structures will emerge. In this modern era there are too many of us and we're all too interconnected. Government is a necessary evil.

Where do the souls of aborted babies go? What would a soul of an embryo frozen for centuries experience?

Are you just a collection of particles or are you something more? This is where religion probably comes into play.

These are all good questions, but I don't think it is as relevant to abortion as you probably think it is. Me not helping a homeless person right now is not a violation of their rights---or is that what you are suggesting (essentially)? — Bob Ross

But how far would you go to saving a zygote? I can envision myself maybe running into a burning building to save a person trapped there, but a petri dish or a test tube? No way. Would you put yourself at risk to save a zygote?

All of these scenarios I give are to show we value actual persons infinitely more than one-celled organisms, and I think obvious conclusions can be drawn from that regarding the abortion debate.

You didn't answer my question Banno. Let me try again: DO YOU THINK that the zygote has a right to life? Any right to life at all? If so, then what does that right to life entail in your view? — Bob Ross

It has some value in that it has a decent chance of becoming a person. If I saw a zygote dying on the sidewalk, would I take it in the house and keep it nourished and warm and safe for nine months? Probably not. But I might call the zygote-equivalent of the SPCA to come get it.

What about you? How far would you go to save a dying zygote? Would you hook your body up to it for 9 months? What if it meant you would be bedridden during that time?

If we just have a clash of pure intuitions, then I can just intuit the opposite about X and you have no basis to say I am wrong; or, at best, you would appeal the masses and make your view straightforwardly a form of moral anti-realism. — Bob Ross

You're trying to remove intuition from ethics. That's impossible. If your ethically theory leads to extreme counter-intuitives (and yours does), it's as good as dead. It doesn't matter how internally consistent it is. Eventually, we're going to reach a point where you say, "no, I won't sacrifice a zygote to stop the trolley car" and the rest of us are going to shake our heads, and the discussion is pretty much over.

Did you see my question pages ago about the fertility clinic and the orphanage? Suppose a fire breaks out at an orphanage with a dozen kids and a fertility clinic where a bazillion fertilized eggs are stored. Where do you send the town's only fire truck? The orphanage, of course. It doesn't matter how many zygotes will be destroyed. One child's life is worth more than any number of them, right?

I would say that once we're sure (or reasonably sure) something has a mind, we should assume it continues to be a minded thing until we're sure it's mind is gone (i.e., brain death). This maps on to our intuitions that we lose consciousness when we sleep or pass out, we don't lose our minds/become mindless. This would give the fetus some moral consideration when brain waves become detectable.

And how about a dog or a chimp, do they have minds? — Fire Ologist

Most likely. Minds are a necessary but not sufficient condition for having moral value. Bugs might have some kind of primitive minds, but probably not. We kill them with impunity. Same with lizards, snakes, fish, etc. They probably have minds, but we casually kill them too. As a species becomes more sophisticated (aka it's intelligence increases), we give it more moral consideration. For example, I'll eat squid but not octopus.

So, by your logic, you are saying a brain dead child is not a human being. Is that right? — Fire Ologist

I prefer person, rather than human being, which is vague. A brain-dead child is not a person anymore. It's a hunk of meat being kept alive by machines. Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Same thing. She wasn't a person. Her husband had the right to take her off life support.

So the equation is bunch of cells plus a mind equals a human being? Is that the magic formula? No mind, no human being? — Fire Ologist

Yes, this is why parents can order life support removed from brain-dead children and have their organs harvested.

Mrs. Smith is a bunch of cells. Calling a human zygote a bunch of cells or a cyst doesn’t say anything. — Fire Ologist

Mrs. Smith is a bunch of cells and a mind. Any minded organism trumps any mindless organism, like a zygote.

:100:

Moral theories have to handle real world situations, like Trolley Car. If a moral theory says we should not sacrifice bugs or zygotes to save people, it's a failed moral theory. I don't know why you have trouble seeing that.

Suppose you believed in moral theory X. Moral theory X entails that, in a trolley car situation, one must never sacrifice an ant (or any insect) to save any people. If a bug is on the tracks, you ought not pull the switch and save the five persons. Would that consequence of moral theory X- that bugs cannot be sacrificed to save people- be devastating to moral theory X?

You are begging the question: whether or not my theory arrives at an “immoral position” is exactly the essence of the abortion debate, which you are supposed to be engaging with me on. — Bob Ross

No, we've shown with examples that the life of a zygote pales in comparison to the life of a person. For example, if an orphanage and fertility clinic with x amount of zygotes (where x is whatever huge number you want) are on fire, you save the orphanage. In a trolley car situation, you run over x zygotes to save a child (again, where x is any huge number you want).

When your moral theory arrives at an immoral position, then your moral theory is wrong. Giving a zygote standing over Mrs Smith is immoral, and hence so is any moral theory that reaches that conclusion. Your moral theory reaches that conclusion. Hence it is wrong. — Banno

:100:

:100:

:100:

In my mind the answer is clear; always do what you can to save the baby, irrespective of how or how many zygotes are killed in the process. — Michael

Correct.

The answer is still no, I would not use the zygotes to put out the fire. I've elaborated in detail why that would be wrong: please ask questions if you are confused at all on it. — Bob Ross

OK, your position is absurd.

But you would pour zygotes on a burning building to put out the fire and save a child trapped inside, correct?

Exactly. The morality of killing something depends on its level of sophistication.

If the question is: "let one person die (to make it easy, assume they are 100 years old) or every woman in the early stages of pregnancy in the world miscarries, it seems an easy choice to make. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Women who have miscarriages can suffer extreme emotional stress. Some may kill themselves. Also, miscarriage itself can cause death. Your scenario muddies the water. It's easier to use a trolley-car situation like what Michael is doing.

The point that Michael has made, which seems irrefutable, is that a zygote's life is nothing compared to an actual person's life, and any number of zygotes can be killed/sacrificed/used to save a person.

OK, construct a trolley-car type scenario (or any scenario really) where you refuse to sacrifice zygotes to save actual persons.

:100:

I am asking you why you believe that a zygote does not have the same fundamental right to not be killed when innocent like a woman does — Bob Ross

So you would let a child die rather than save their life by sacrificing/using zygote(s)? I think your position is absurd. I also don't think you would let the child die, if push came to shove.

There have been votes; and red states vote no; and blue states vote yes. There is no consensus.
— Bob Ross

Without checking, from what I recall this is not true. Since the Dobbs decision, when there’s a vote on the ballot in red states it goes pro-choice. Legislatures in red states don’t always allow the issue to be voted on, however. — praxis

Yeah, Bob is wrong.
https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment

if I had to go use the zygotes to put out the fire to save the child, then I would be doing something immoral — Bob Ross

If you could save one child by pouring billions of zygotes on a burning building to put the fire out, again, do you really have to think about what to do? You wouldn't let the kid die.