🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

This is what I need my calligraphy to look like!

@calligraphy

@Pat

Yup IMO morality is logical, objective, and generally not as complicated as people make it.

Most of the complexities arise from people refusing to recognize the morality that conflicts with what they have become socially accustomed to (like eating meat)

@PiedraFiera @icedquinn

@Dreamer9177 Yea, in this particular case I'd like to see it codified at the federal level, but in a very loose way (something like all states must allow for abortions up to 12 weeks after conception). Then let the finer details be up to the states.

@Dreamer9177 Yea I think thats kinda fair.

Though to be more accurate it really just means the states decide the rights rather than the federal government. So in the end this depends on how the states respond. Sadly I suspect a few will likely choose to take away peoples rights, others will likely preserve it. Lets hope few if any states abolish abortion all together.

@Dreamer9177 It was a setback, but im not sure the setback is for democracy, since fair elections brought about this result. It is a setback for human rights for sure though.

@PiedraFiera

> Suffering and happiness are true of course, but not objective quantities. They are qualities that color people’s life. They shape people’s choices. In different ways. Not all seek to avoid suffering or pursue happiness. So they are not even “objective” as in “goals” for all.

IF something is a quantity that effects how people behave, and some seek it out while others dont, none of that is an argument that they are any less objective quanities, only that peoples response to it differs, nothing else.

Some people respond to birds by being scared, others dont really care much about birds, while others are very excited to see a bird. The fact that everyone's responds to being around birds differently is not an argument that the number of birds in any one location is somehow subjective.

@PiedraFiera

> I do not believe there are objective metrics or valuations there. Suffering and happiness are hard to define or quantify, which makes figuring out which choice optimizes them harder.

Being hard to measure an objective quantity does not change the fact that it is objective. Moreover things that are objectively true are quite often hard to measure or predict.

> And different situations affect different people differently.

This also doesnt change the fact that it is objective. Some people are made happy by different things than someone else. It doesnt make the fact that one person is happy and the other isnt somehow a subjective truth.. If person A is made happy by sunsets then it is an objective truth that when person A sees a sunset that they are happy. Therefore it would be unethical to deprive them of sunsets. Similarly a person who is indifferent to sunsets and is therefore not made happy by them is objectively uneffected and therefore if you deprive such a person of a sunset it is, objectively, ethical since no harm has been done.

> We can procure conditions that make room for people to be happy.

If you are doing this than you are satisfying my criteria for ethical behavior as you are maximizing happiness.

@PiedraFiera

> There is no universal agreement about what is clearly ethical.

While this is true not everyone **agrees** on a universal definition of ethical that does not in any way imply there is not an objective truth behind what is or is not ethical. IMO I find the objective measure of "ethical" to be a rather easy one define... ethical is any decision which minimizes overall suffering. In other words, the choice which leads to the greatest amount of happiness in the world (or to put it another way, that decision which minimizes the reduction in future happiness).

As far as I am concerned this is the only objefctive valuation of ethical. Beyond that it is debatable what achieves that, but once we define an objective metric it is no longer a subjective subject.

No argument with the rest of your statement though, there are indeed bad actors that do not act towards the definition of ethical as I presented it.

@PiedraFiera My stance is quite simple.. Killing a human capable of thought and suffering is immoral. We know that the point that a a human develops thought and it is universally agreed it is wrong to kill them is somewhere between the development of the first brain cell, and the ability for them to articulate their self awareness, which is between about 8 weeks to to 4 years post conception.

Therefore the only time there is no ambiguity and where abortion is clearly ethical is prior to about 8 week (though im willing to extend that out slightly personally). Anything past that is assumption, drawing that line before that makes no assumptions.

In short the **only** time period you can ensure both parties interests are looked out for is in the early periods of pregnancy. Anything later and those assumption you talk about start kicking in.

@PiedraFiera Now you just moved the goal post.. Before it was as you said "The fetus cant decide" now youve determined that somehow you can attest to the awarness and sense of self of a new born yet not aa fetus, totally different criteria. Either set of criteria fail though since you cant determine the self awareness of a new born either, so your right back to the same conflict.

@PiedraFiera Whicjh is my point. If we use that logic then it is perfectly ok for mothers to murder their children for the first several years of life as well. So the logic seems to break down the moment you try to apply it.

@PiedraFiera You have memories as a fetus? I doubt you remember what level of awareness you had at all, let alone that you lacked a sense of self.

@PiedraFiera So since fetuses are effected by abortion then they should get to decide. How do we enable a fetus to decide? If we argue that they dont get a say because they cant decide then we must likewise allow the murder of any baby for any reason prior to about the age of 4 - 6 (at which point they might be able to make some decision). The logic breaks down quickly.

In my eyes it isnt so complex or even subjective. The goal should be to minimize suffering. The suffering of the fetus needs as much consideration as that of the mother. There is room for disagreement there, but once we agree that the goal is to minimize suffering then most everything eelse falls into place.

@PiedraFiera Yes we must first agree that murdfer is wrong, once that criteria is set then it can be quite objective in what achieves that goal and what does not.

I stated in my OP that many aspects of helathcare must be free for any resolution to be had. So I agree on that regard, healthcare must be a priority along with any decisions made about abortion

@PiedraFiera No brrain cells does not garuntee self-awareness or any sort of complex thought. It **does** represent some degree of cognition however. They produce signals and process data.

The point is **no one** can define the moment that life becomes smart enough that all of a sudden it has rights. Trying to define it leads to the slippery slope where people with mental disorders are assumed to not have any more rights that a cow, which doesnt work.

What brain cells mean is it is the begining of the grey area. Without brain cells we can say with certainy there is no awarness of any kind. Once brain cells are present any certainty goes out the window.

So picking a 15 week period seems to be the best all around (assuming the above considerations from my last post). It ensures the woman has a right to abortion and a window with which to decide it. It also assures the fetus has a right to life as well.

As for states control over someones body, that is inevitable no matter what side you sit on. If you are pro-abortion the state is deciding its ok to violate the fetuses right to its own body, if you are anti-abortion you are violating the mother's right. by allowing a 15 week window neither right is violated.

@icedquinn Yes I agree, there is a problem there and both sides tend to exploit it when they can.

@icedquinn I wouldnt go that far. A judges job is (or at least should be) to interpret the law. The issue is they often go to far and go beyond mere interpretation.