Well I too am in agreement with improvement in childrearing, though I look at how to get there a little differently. In my experience, prospective parents, or to label it more accurately: folks having sex without Birth Control, generally fall into three groups. Those who will be acceptable to excellent parents, those with good motivation but poor skills and/or habits who will benefit from instruction and/or support and those with no or reverse motivation who account for the vast majority of the really egregious problems. I'm not convinced instruction will benefit most in the third group, rather IMO subsidized access to effective Birth Control and the removal of societal messaging that parenthood is expected would be a more effective strategy.

So what is your point? I am against the extreme regulation of drugs. But there must be at least some regulation, as your pilot example shows (although weakly, as it seems at least as much a regulation of pilots as drugs).

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm perfectly happy with the legal status of drugs where I live.

Prohibition is merely the most extreme example of regulation.

Are you okay with the pilot of your plane or your surgeon taking recreational drugs at work?

Assuming you are not, then you agree with society (through the government) regulating the consumption of recreational drugs. At this point it's just a question of what sort of regulations a particular jurisdiction should enact, not whether there should be regulations.

For me the most convincing argument I suppose you could call it, is intelligent design combined with aesthetics. Why is our vision hard wired to like beauty ? Is it universal?

Yes, that has been a popular "argument" since antiquity: "I don't understand physically how this or that came to be, must have been a metaphysical entity". Obviously in ancient times just about everything observable was capable of being part of this narrative. Now since the advent of science, it is a much smaller (and shrinking) subset.

The majority believe so, yes.

The concept of relative risk is poorly appreciated by the lay public. As if there is a risk-free option.

Well according to some interpretations of Hume, it no longer exists, until it can be observed by a human to given it existance.

Commenting on the "meaning" of life without describing from whose perspective the meaning would be given is only a half asked question. In other words it is unanswerable as asked. It just begets another question.

Exactly. The common understanding (in cases when there is one) typically has at least experiential if not evidentiary data to back it up. Proposing an alternative requires "proof" to counter the common understanding.

That’s true. But we could trust ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities, without seeking the blessing from some distant authority. We could fully and easily reject corporations and powerful individuals, especially if there were no state mechanisms with which they could achieve monopoly, subsidy, contracts, and power.

Which would work in the pre-industrial era. But society benefits from large public works projects that small groups of families or even neighborhoods don't have the resources can finance. Thus the role for a "distant authority".

Let me give you an example and let me know your take on it. Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid.

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? I don't think I do, because consent doesn't matter in the instance that one could save someone else's life without any foreseeably significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think

Cute. Even if your name wasn't Bob, I'd know you were a guy. Ear infection, eh?

If you want an analogy, let's give an analogy. Let's say if you jump in the pool you'll get mystery disease X. Folks who get mystery disease X have a 1.4% chance of "serious morbidity", a 32 per 100,000 chance of dying and about a 33% chance of needing major surgery.

Next: "Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.

The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby"

However, mystery disease X stats are on average. There are some folks who get it who have a 25% chance of dying. Any thoughts about judging those who don't jump into the pool?

Another thing: I can tell you that the kidney stabber convict situation is well established in the Medical Ethics field and it is quite clear the stabber cannot be coerced into donation of a kidney.

Lastly your commentary is missing another angle in the abortion situation and that is society and the courts give very broad powers to parents to manage the healthcare of their minor children. Thus it stands to reason that it should grant even broader powers to those governing potential children (who are not minor children).

In such a case it is ultimately her choice.

My responsibility comes beforehand, making sure we both share the same moral outlook.

So to be clear, when just hooking up (specifically NOT seeking to have a child) thus using Birth Control, you do or don't bother aligning morals beforehand?

I would make sure that whomever I am having a child with share the same moral views.

I understand, but what about someone you had no intention of having children with? Someone with whom you were using Birth Control with, just for hooking up purposes?

If you like government so much, maybe you’d like Somalia better when they had one. It had all the regular stuff: totalitarianism, corruption, political oppression, and of course they turned their weapons on their own citizens and committed genocide. I guess they got their tax dollar’s worth.

Part of the problem with criticizing "government" without providing an alternative is it leaves one open to the assumption that one trusts corporations and/or powerful individuals to act fairly or even charitably towards the public, which is, of course naive in the extreme.

You know who made it that way, bubba?

Well son, historically the British and Italians colonized what is now Somalia, so have to take the lion's share of the blame. As to it's modern history, it kind of started with it's internal warring factions back in the 60s.

Hey, the fact that some nations are worse than us, doesn't mean that our system works perfectly.

Ha ha. First, Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. As to working perfectly, that's a fake goal. No one claims it does, or reasonably should.

This is a good point that I had not thought about before; however, you aren’t going to like my refurbishment (of my view) here (;

I would say that you are right insofar as I cannot say that the obligation to not abort (in the case of consensual sex) is contingent in any manner on ‘reasonably anticipated’ consequences of ones actions. For example, if this were true (that I could make them contingent), then I should never go driving, because there is a small percentage chance, even with taking all the precautions, that I could injure someone in a manner that would be my fault. Likewise, there is a small percentage chance that people having sex while taking every precautionary measures (like contraceptives) will conceive.

My resolution is to say that the obligation to sustain that life (of which their condition one is culpable for) is contingent solely on one’s culpability and not ‘reasonable inferences’ pertaining to the consequences of ones actions. Thusly, in the case of driving, I am accepting that there is a chance that I may be at fault for another person’s injuries (due to, let’s say, a car crash or something) and, in that event, I cannot appeal to the fact that I took a lot of precautionary measures to prevent injuring people with my care to get out of the obligation to help this person that I am, in fact, culpable for their injuries. Same thing is true, I would say, for consensual sex: appealing to all of the precautionary measures they took to prevent conception does not exempt them from their obligation to sustain that new life, since they are culpable for it.

Curious that you never considered the single most common type of sexual encounter between heterosexual partners (consensual while using BC).

As to your reconfiguring your opinion/theory, in typical modern fashion, the intended conclusion is maintained while adjusting for inconvenient new data by fiddling around with the argument to keep it all "consistent".

Lastly, in your car wreck injury example most agree that "taking responsibility" for causing the accident takes the form of helping the victim. Just so you know, there is not a consensus (despite your assertion) that "taking responsibility" for an unintended pregnancy should solely be in the form of carrying it to term.

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it.

Oh not much except for food that's safer to eat, a top notch education system, medications that have research to show they work, clean drinking water, cleaner air to breathe, National and State parks and other recreation areas, I don't have to speak German or Russian (DoD reference), a financial system that has pretty much made for a great retirement, a top notch medical system, the internet, GPS, I can go on but you may have nodded off.

How much have you payed for the Department of defense and have you gotten your money’s worth? I wager you have no clue what you’re paying for or where your money goes, whether to the fire department or into right into a politician’s pocket.

Yeah the 'ol won't/can't answer questions, so throw out random ones of your own. I have to admit I used to do stuff like that a long time ago.

As to your queries: I don't know and I (pretty much) don't care or worry about it. I have received a huge amount from my tax dollar, even though I am paying more total taxes than the vast majority.

The ridiculous thing is folks posting such nonsense using the internet, when the internet would never have existed due to a lack of research funding if money was only ever spent on "products and services"

Speaking of getting your money's worth, just out of curiosity, do you feel better about purchasing your auto insurance if your car gets totalled or if you never have an accident?

And does it make you feel better about paying for health insurance if you get a serious illness?

This is a perfect case of "either can be reasonable". Supporting your long term employment prospects is a reasonable goal. Providing for one's family in the short term is also reasonable. As is ditching working in an industry that is killing the climate and looking for a different job.

They're all OK, individual circumstances will guide individuals on which to do.

I guess you'd use a fee for service model. So have you "used" the Department of Defense's "services"? Do you pay for the Fire Department's equipment before or after your house catches fire?

So is having sex while using Birth Control "an action that is reasonably anticipated to bring a new life into the world"? Most lay persons would say "no", using Birth Control is the opposite of your phrasing.

Of course every method of BC has a failure rate, so if you're intellectually honest you'd be OK with abortion in cases of failed Birth Control, right?

How do you think the definition should be adjusted to match up with your intuitions of free will?

On the specific topic of the definition of Free Will, IMO folks get too hung up on "Free". You hear again and again "free from what?" Others propose that if an individual is influenced by this or that "they're not free". To me, forget about "Free" and concentrate on "Will". If an individual can take their numerous perceptions, memories and opinions which all, yes, influence individuals, then add their analysis, and then (most importantly) they are able to exert their Will (or choice or decision). Unlike in the Determinist universe where there is no choice, just the illusion of choice (or will), since the brain state before the (false) choice, determines the outcome, not human choice or will.

Ah okay, so any complex neurological system that isn't deterministic is free will, is that the idea?

Uummm... no, as you correctly pointed out, a possible system is a random one. Therefore one option is 100% determined and 0% will or choice ("Free" being a label, not a descriptor) called Determinism. A second choice is <100% determined and >0% will or choice (commonly called Free Will). Other options incorporate randomness. 100% randomness is called Randomness (as TS noted). Of course there could be <100% randomness incorporated into either of the first two. I'm OK with that, but as I previously mentioned Determinists abhor (or more likely fear) the concept since functionally randomness can be indistinguishable from Free Will.

You might be surprised but you don’t have to always pay for things with stolen money. Another crook.

Still waiting to hear about the details on the acquisition of "nonstolen" money...

One of you said "True, it is easier to define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that." and the other one of you agreed with it. My comment is meant to point out that I believe you have cast far too wide a net with that definition.

That definition implies that anything with any amount of randomness is free will.

Several things:

First, everyone agrees that when speaking of simple physical systems, like billiard balls, that their behavior is governed by (determined) physics. In a Philosophy Forum (not the Physics Forum) discussion on Determinism vs Free Will specifically refers to complex neurologic systems governing animal decision making.

Second, most Determinists I know do not acknowledge "any amount of randomness" as far as human decision making is concerned, because that would violate their premise that the antecedent state DETERMINES the resultant state AND if a portion of the outcome of decision making was forever unpredictable (no matter the degree of detailed knowledge of the antecedent state), this so called "randomness" would be functionally indistinguishable from true Free Will. And you know they would never go there.

Having folks who have the resources to compensate for the fallout from climate change be the policymakers on cimate change is the height of folly.

They shouldn’t be.

Ah yes, another "something for nothing" dreamer.

so every universe that isn't deterministic is a universe of free will? It doesn't even need life or consciousness in it? It's free will even if there's no beings in the universe who have a will?

Huh? Free Will deals specifically in the realm of animal decision making, not the behavior of billiard balls.

Can't wait to hear proposals on how government services should be paid for.

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change

Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training.

I disagree with pinning bodily autonomy (i.e., consent) vs. right to life principles against each other as absolute principles; as they are not, andin one instance it could be that consent matters more than the right to life and in another it could be vice-versa. It is not productive nor correct to use either of these principles in an absolute manner.

For me, culpability is a principle which, when applied, determines the woman's right to consent as outweighed by the woman's obligation to amend the condition she has put this life in (albeit a new life). She, when consensually having sex, gives up, in the event that she gets pregnant, any relevant consideration of consent.

However, when she is not culpable, it becomes a question of consent vs. the de facto duty to rescue, which is going to revolve around the potential risk/severity of unwanted bodily modifications of the rescuer

I don't disagree with your bolded statement as written, I would just add: matters to whom? Sounds like you're supposing the government, I'm siding with women with the advice of their medical professionals. I have no problem if an individual woman decides that her fetus' right to exist is of more value to her than her right to bodily autonomy.

Your opinion that the type of relationship between a woman and her partner raises or lowers her right to bodily autonomy is an unpopular one that I happen not to share, though I'm sure a significant minority of folks would buy into it. What are your thoughts on the obligation of the medical community to use public health resources on treating the effects of smoking? Is the "culpability" of the patient in creating their medical problem germane in that instance?

But the definition of a fetus by the state changes depending on who terminates the life of the fetus.

If it's a woman's action that terminates the fetus, then that's legal. But if it's another person, it's homicide. The fetus has two ways of legal existence, concurrently

Which is likely of interest in the Legality Forum, here in the Philosophy Forum the adult woman had autonomy over her body and thus could consent to medical procedures on her body (as men can as well). The implications to other entities of her medical decision were hers and her doctors to consider, not the state.

There is no universally accepted definition of free will. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I clearly don't have free will because my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I clearly have a determined and constrained will instead of a free will.

True, it is easier to define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that.

To me, Determinism is believing that antecedent state A leads each and every time to resultant state B, never C. Free Will is believing that antecedent state A can lead to resultant state B or C.

I'm not posting here to argue for or against abortion. I want to just explain something that's irreconcilable about pro-abortion and anti-abortion societies.

When someone announces the pregnancy, her whole circle celebrates: there's formal announcement, there's gender-reveal (shown in theaters, no less), there's baby shower-- when I was a kid I thought they literally bathe the pregnant woman in front of the guests) then there's the birth, and finally the christening where food and gifts are used to celebrate this important occasion. Following this, a lot of legal rights accrue to the baby: the mother could be prosecuted for drug use while pregnant, the baby has the right to be taken care of and not neglected, and of course, if the baby dies at the hands of the parents or any member of their society, there's homicide or infanticide.

Meanwhile, within the same society, the pregnant woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy without any reason required. Because in the pro-choice stance, it doesn't matter whether the fetus growing inside is the woman's own flesh and blood. She is not held accountable morally to spare the fetus just because it's her own blood. This is what it means by her-body-her-choice. The fetus has no right to use the woman's body to grow to full viability. At any given point during the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't count as an entity. Note that if you're one of the guests in a baby shower, you're celebrating the woman, not the fetus inside the womb.

Then here comes another puzzling thing. Suppose a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy and made an appointment with a doctor two weeks from now. Suppose that an intruder attacks the woman and kills her and the baby before the appointment. The state can then charge the intruder with double homicide -- never mind that the woman doesn't' want the baby and is about to terminate it. Depending on what country or state in the US you're in, killing a pregnant woman is double homicide

Not a puzzle. A woman's bodily autonomy does not transfer to a murderer. Just as a person headed up the stairs to throw themselves off of the roof and is killed by a murderer, no one is "puzzled" by the state charging the perpetrator.

"Touching" in common use (as in this thread) does not mean occupying the identical space, it means exerting pressure on another object.