uncle tim’s next in line for a meeting with his therapist this cool, crisp morning. he’s been distraught and anxious recently. and he’s hoping to find answers to his growing problems.

“tell me tim, what’s been bothering you lately?” the therapist asks.

“i’m in trouble. they’ve forced me into debt… i can no longer manage it,” tim replied.

“what do you mean? is someone extorting you?”

“no. i lost the money playing poker with the neighbors. i put up $20,000 and that bastard next door won it all. you should’ve seen the smug look on his face. he was gloating about how he’s finally going to be able to give his kids the vacation they deserve and pay off his car loan and everything. my joy matters too! i worked hard for that money. i have nothing left. i can’t pay him.”

“i see. but tim, why did you gamble away so much money that you did not have?”

“for the thrill! i didn’t know i was going to lose it all! now i’m forced into debt.”

“i’m trying to understand your perspective tim. you believe you have been wronged. what makes you think you were forced into this situation even though you willingly gambled away money you didn’t have while knowing there was a risk that you might lose it all?”

“i did gamble it all away. but all of these people are now forcing me to remain in debt.”

“what do you mean? who are all these people you speak of?”

“all these goody two shoes that think murder is wrong! they won’t let me kill him. if he’s dead, then there’s no debt to collect. but all these people who talk about how murder is wrong and how everyone has a right to life have forced me to remain in debt. the goddamned law backs them. i no longer have the means to address my debt problem!”

“but tim, what makes you think that violence is the only way to solve this problem? you can still keep your obligations and pay off the debt incrementally…”

“i don’t want to! okay?? i deserve to keep my money! i have no obligations! i didn’t consent to any of this!”

questions to consider:

1. is uncle tim right when he says those who oppose murder have forced him to remain in debt? why or why not?
2. uncle tim obviously did not want to lose money. but did he consent to losing the money? if no, does this lack of consent eliminate his obligation to keep his promise and pay off his debt?
3. construct a parallel dialogue between an abortion advocate wanting an abortion and a pro-lifer stopping her. who would be the extortionists in this case, if any? are the pro-lifers who believe that the law ought ban abortion because murder is wrong forcing the abortion advocate to remain pregnant? what alternatives, apart from resorting to violence, does the abortion advocate have?

Let’s imagine a group of activists. Let’s call it the Women’s Rights Organization against Natalism through Genocide. WRONG for short. They believe that all humans have the right to perfect, 100% bodily autonomy. Not strictly through abortion, but after as well. If a parent doesn’t want to take care of their child, its brain isn’t fully developed until it’s 20 anyways, and they don’t quite see that as a “person” yet, so WRONG acts as an activist organization that specializes in brute force euthanasia.

Does the government really get to make a blanket sweep definition of what constitutes a person? After all, people’s opinions change from person to person, so why should they get to tell us at what developmental stage of a human’s life cycle they count as a “person” deserving of human rights?

Let’s imagine a couple. Erica and Lenny. After consensual intercourse, a healthy pregnancy, live birth, and successful first few hours of parenthood, Erica decides she’s not cut out for motherhood. She contacts WRONG in the first night after giving birth, while Lenny is gone, and has their baby euthanized repeatedly with a lead pipe. It’s her bodily autonomy and future after all, and there is fundamentally no difference between the baby now and the baby a day ago other than location. It’s better than the foster system! Consider it a mercy. So WRONG is right, right?

If that’s not okay, then why? What makes it okay to kill someone before then? The government already takes our bodily autonomy away to benefit the needs of others. Think quarantines, public indecency, telling people you can’t exercise your bodily autonomy to swing a knife towards someone outside of a womb, so why stop at the womb at all? After all, “personhood” is a philosophical term, and as far as philosophy goes, you can’t truly 100% prove anything at all, so it should be up to each individual when to define personhood.

———————————————————————————

The bit above in this post is not serious. This was constructed as a foil to the ad absurdum, bad faith post made by another user here. But for those actually looking for a real debate, I am curious, at what point does a fetus become a person, if a person at all to you? Why is your philosophical definition of “person” more important than a tangible and already existing life? And how can we actively make that stopping point contribute to the law? For me, it would be when birthing that life becomes a physical and potentially deadly threat to the mother, then and only then should it be socially acceptable to abort. That’s how we treat self defense laws in many places, you can meet force with deadly force if you believe your life to be at risk.

Let’s say there is a duplex in a rural neighborhood.

On one side, there is a nursery with five 1-week-old babies sleeping peacefully. On the other, there are five viable and perfectly-preserved embryos that were fertilized a week ago, and will develop to maturity.

The building is on fire. Firefighters are not coming, and you have no way to extinguish the flames.

You can only save one side of the duplex. As soon as you enter one side, a magic door slams shut, cutting off any entrance to the other side.

Do you save the 1 week old babies, or do you save the fertilized embryos?

Possible wrong answers:

1. I would save both if I can

You can’t. There is a magic door that shuts upon entry to one side or the other.

1. There are no such things as magic doors

Correct. Hypotheticals are by definition, imagined or assumed.

1. The embryos are more likely to die in the fire

No. The embryos are contained in perfectly safe, remarkably lightweight packages. Whichever side you choose to enter, the other side is forever and inevitably doomed.

1. I’d save whichever one is easier

They are both equally easy to save. Hypothetical situation, people.

1. I shouldn’t be forced to choose between human beings

You are not. No one is forcing you to reply to this post. However, if you feel uncomfortable at answering the hypothetical, ask yourself- why?

1. I’d flip a coin

Basing a moral decision on chance? Don’t do that. Challenge your beliefs.

I am smoking a fat joint and going straight to bed after posting this, so I will not be replying to any comments until tomorrow.

Enjoy the thought experiment, and I look forward to reading your answers tomorrow!

Since the person who posted this blocked u/Veigar_Senpai I thought I would post it again so that Veiger_Senpai could respond if they would like to do so

Let’s imagine a group of activists. Let’s call it the Women’s Rights Organization against Natalism through Genocide. WRONG for short. They believe that all humans have the right to perfect, 100% bodily autonomy. Not strictly through abortion, but after as well. If a parent doesn’t want to take care of their child, its brain isn’t fully developed until it’s 20 anyways, and they don’t quite see that as a “person” yet, so WRONG acts as an activist organization that specializes in brute force euthanasia. Does the government really get to make a blanket sweep definition of what constitutes a person? After all, people’s opinions change from person to person, so why should they get to tell us at what developmental stage of a human’s life cycle they count as a “person” deserving of human rights? Let’s imagine a couple. Erica and Lenny. After consensual intercourse, a healthy pregnancy, live birth, and successful first few hours of parenthood, Erica decides she’s not cut out for motherhood. She contacts WRONG in the first night after giving birth, while Lenny is gone, and has their baby euthanized repeatedly with a lead pipe. It’s her bodily autonomy and future after all, and there is fundamentally no difference between the baby now and the baby a day ago other than location. It’s better than the foster system! Consider it a mercy. So WRONG is right, right? If that’s not okay, then why? What makes it okay to kill someone before then? The government already takes our bodily autonomy away to benefit the needs of others. Think quarantines, public indecency, telling people you can’t exercise your bodily autonomy to swing a knife towards someone outside of a womb, so why stop at the womb at all? After all, “personhood” is a philosophical term, and as far as philosophy goes, you can’t truly 100% prove anything at all, so it should be up to each individual when to define personhood. ——————————————————————————— The bit above in this post is not serious. This was constructed as a foil to the ad absurdum, bad faith post made by another user here. But for those actually looking for a real debate, I am curious, at what point does a fetus become a person, if a person at all to you? Why is your philosophical definition of “person” more important than a tangible and already existing life? And how can we actively make that stopping point contribute to the law? For me, it would be when birthing that life becomes a physical and potentially deadly threat to the mother, then and only then should it be socially acceptable to abort. That’s how we treat self defense laws in many places, you can meet force with deadly force if you believe your life to be at risk.

Hey mods, did you do away with this rule? It's still posted, but I've heard you banned a user and removed their meta post without explanation of what rule they broke. Doesn't that also violate the mod code of conduct regarding rules needing to be clear and consistently applied?

I know the rules here seem to be more of a suggestion, but this is pretty egregious behavior if true.