Oddbean

On the topic of abortion, you have a problem of conflicting rights: the right to choose to be a parent vs the right to life. I find it hard to conceive of any situation in which the right to choose should supercede the right to life. Abortion advocates often justify their position by dehumanizing the victim, thus negating the right to life. But dehumanizing the victim puts you on the same moral footing as Heinrich Himmler. I don't think it's a valid position. https://www.reuters.com/legal/idaho-asks-us-supreme-court-allow-near-total-abortion-ban-2023-11-27/

There's also incest. The reason why incest is forbidden in our society is that the children of incest often come out with severe congenital deformities. So most people agree that abortion is acceptable in those cases. But if you take that logic one step further you start euthanizing babies with fetal alcohol syndrome. When you start deciding who should live and who should die, where does it stop? Where do you draw the line?

On the topic of N: First i will frame it carefully to suit my position on this topic, so as to give the impression of ambivalence. People can agree or argue with me or just move right along, there’s nothing at stake. Btw it is literally impossible for me to have first-hand experience with this topic. Next i will leverage my framing of this topic to make a false comparison, making you basically a nazi if you don’t fall on my side of the discussion, also known as gaslighting. Lastly, i sit back and relish the soothing state of accomplishment and sense of superiority knowing that i just checkmated the entire other side of the debate once and for all.

I'm being serious. People on the other side of the argument argue from a position where it is taken as a given that an unborn child is not yet a human and therefore has no rights, so only the rights of the mother are considered. I am not doing so. I acknowledge that the rights of the mother are valid, but argue that they do not supercede the right to life. It's a complicated issue. When you start deciding who should live and who should die, where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? As a parent myself I find euthanizing babies morally objectionable.

I know you’re being serious. We have divergent views, it’s fine. I think more about the edge cases where the mother’s life is in danger, or other serious complications in various aspects of both birth and pregnancy. Since i don’t do any sort of Bible checking to help me decide things, i also don’t necessarily place the same moral precursor to the debate as you do by specifying when life begins and then since it’s called life you have this binary choice in perspective where whether the right to choose outweighs the right to life in general. I also believe that banning things is authoritarian, and only makes the thing being “banned” more dangerous. Like you said though, it’s not a simple situation so i wouldn’t expect many people to align even if, say, they both understand that Bitcoin is the best monetary system in the known universe, destined to absorb roughly the entire monetary premium of everything I was gonna say this is why i’m probably not what you’d call a libertarian, but realized we’re talking about banning something, so i’m just confused. This is why i prefer to identify as retarded primarily, i guess. Shit’s too complicated for me. Abortion debates are just noise. Gonna hit Post anyway 🤣

I think the Roman catholics are right about not separating sex *for companionship and pleasure* from *sex for procreation* The latter is the organic consequence - the fruit - of the former What God has joined together let no man separate asunder If sex leads to fruit then thise who caused the child to be have a duty of care for that child. Can't escape nature. I forgot which libertarian had an excellent case for this based on common law and tenancy etc.

I have an analogy I use sometimes. Imagine you're walking down a sidewalk and somebody throws me off a building and I land on you. You are injured, but you also broke my fall and saved my life, for which I am grateful. Now who should be punished for your injury, me, or the person who threw me off the building? That is an analogy for non-consensual procreation. The person who threw me off the building should be punished for what happened to both of us, and you should not be held responsible for caring for me while I heal from my injuries. But I also shouldn't be euthanized. For a consensual act of conception, you have to imagine by some twist of logic that you were one of the two people who threw my off the building as well as the person I landed on. Now you are culpable for what happened and responsible for my well-being.