[RD] Abortion is either murder or not. You can't have it both ways.

[Farm Boy]

I guess it's interesting to run the liars of political expediency through the hardline prochoice lens for genetic and social status.

Boy did we miss a lot of high value culls.

Is that more the musing you're looking for?

 

[Senethro]

I guess it's interesting to run the liars of political expediency through the hardline prochoice lens for genetic and social status.

Boy did we miss a lot of high value culls.

Is that more the musing you're looking for?

Yeah, I can't actually parse this but genetic + social, typing alongside hardline and accusation of culls suggests something g nasty is being said.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I can't actually parse this but genetic + social, typing alongside hardline and accusation of culls suggests something g nasty is being said.

If I'm reading it correctly he literally cannot perceive any reason for an abortion other than eugenics-based animus against the unborn child

 

[El_Machinae]

I suspect I'm the villain being alluded to here by Farm Boy. For the record, I've read-in some of the hints he drops. There are definitely pro-life people who I respect more than some pro-choice people. I judge paradigms by their ability to motivate action

But I advocate that people actually show discretion with regards to the future life of the person when choosing to reproduce, like to weight them and then change behaviour based on what will happen. We all acknowledge that people do so, I just have opined on what matters, and will be frustrated if people don't. "Refusing to create" is being interpreted as "previous people shouldn't have been made", as if it's some type of condemnation of the person that was forced into existence. Or, worse, as if I am advocating culling rather than refusing to create. It's a bit of a paradigm difference between culling and refusing to create, but I think it's a difference held in good faith.

Edited for clarity, I hope

 

[Lexicus]

I suspect I'm the villain being alluded to here.

Not by me at all.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Refusing to create" is being interpreted as "previous people shouldn't have been made", as if it's some type of condemnation of the person that was forced into existence.

I understand the difference. The convenience of pulling out one life at a point in time is a conceit. There is literally no other basis for the selective decision than observation of like lives. It's one big amalgamation of electrical eddies over time.

It's not you per se... Hague Boy. I kid I kid. I think!

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I think there are many ways to look at what's being created: the value the parents hold, the value the society holds, but also the value the person holds of themselves. "Value" is a very loose term there. But there's only one truly unconsenting party to that result. The best we can do is our best, but we owe a lot to that person.

 

[Crezth]

My point when talking about my State was when I was responding to what you've written about depriving other people of property. We impose hard limits on the level of violence we're allowed to use. Your logical chain seemed really weird with that understanding.

I tend to think we impose soft limits actually, as almost any violence can end up being found to have justification. Sure, not all justifications are valid, but this is purely a technical matter.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I think there are many ways to look at what's being created: the value the parents hold, the value the society holds, but also the value the person holds of themselves. "Value" is a very loose term there. But there's only one truly unconsenting party to that result. The best we can do is our best, but we owe a lot to that person.

Yes we do.

 

[El_Machinae]

I tend to think we impose soft limits actually, as almost any violence can end up being found to have justification. Sure, not all justifications are valid, but this is purely a technical matter.

Ah, I see what you mean. We're talking about different types of 'hard' when we say hard. I mean that there will be circumstances where some line-crossings will be punished. I am allowed to kill someone in the process of getting them out of my house, for example (so there's no hard limit on 'killing'). I'm also allowed to toss an unruly guest onto the road. But I'd also lose a court case where I shot some passed-out drunk guest and then tossed the body onto the road.

Your logic chain just didn't flow (or, more usefully, 'resonate', I'm only providing feedback), because there's a slope to the level of violence that may be used to enforce other rights. My right to flee a burning building doesn't hold absolute priority over the person in front of me from getting shoved by me. It might even be impossible to write a functional formula for that scenario.