I see little problem with aborting pregnancies due to rape or concerns for the wellbeing of the prospective mother or child. Those are just unfortunate situations. — baker

How does that square with: ""If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?""

Why should the rape victim be allowed to kill their child? How can she be counted on to not kill another person? Are you making some exceptions to your rule here? If you're allowing rape victims to have abortions, what about women who's husbands have died and they can't afford the child?

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?" — baker

Other people? This implies that the fetus is a person. And what if the mother's life is at stake or we're dealing with a rape victim? You would prohibit abortion in those cases too? After all, if a rape victim will kill her own child, who knows what she's capable of in the future, right?

But you can the see the appeal of such a brain replacement thought experiment.

we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness
— Clearbury

Good luck. — AmadeusD

If a neuron dies, you won't lose consciousness. So, if we replace your neurons, one by one, with functionally equivalent mechanical neurons, you wouldn't lose consciousness during the process. Why would you? And now you, who have been conscious the whole time, has a mechanical brain. Your original biological brain is no longer a factor in who you are as a person anymore.

Biden didn't get the most votes in 2020?

It's stupid policy to have 11 million undocumented people living in this country. It's stupid politics on the Democrats part to tolerate/enable that and label anyone who disagrees as racist. It's also evil to let people stream into the country illegally so we can benefit from their exploitation.

A pundit once said if Americans are faced with a choice of a Democrat who won't enforce borders and a fascist who will, they'll pick the fascist. I hope Democrats learn from this shellacking.

Sam Harris said voters don't like seeing women boxers punched in the face by men. He's right. Biological men in women's sports is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but it's indicative of a mindset Americans find abhorrent. It's also stupid policy. Biological men should not be in women's sports.

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?