As far as I can tell you see abortion as an “exception” that allows killing of a specific type of human.
While I am not really concerned with humanness. But of the underlying phenomenon that make protecting humans something we should want to do.
If you think about why we want to protect humans and tie to to consciousness and ability to suffer. There’s no exception and we can use our knowledge of human fetus development to inform abortion policy to prevent abortions that would infringe on those conditions.
The more fundamental issue is tying it to “humanness” at all. And I don’t think dependence on the mother really comes into play in terms of if it deserves protection. There’s really no reason you couldn’t have a concious parasite.
All of the highlights why it’s important to define what specific qualities we are looking for in determining the degree of rights an entity would have.
Kids generally don’t have ingrained opinions or social groups formed around whether or not 2+2=4 and generally they’re really just concerned with passing tests
Now this isn’t always true and in cases where it is you WILL have trouble teaching. But the vast majority of school curriculum is not this way.
Idk man. It just seems like you’re saying “political issue” but what you mean is “doesn’t affect them”.
And I think the whole they’re not “anti” these people they just don’t care enough about them to vote for them to have basic protections is a tough sell. At some point it’s a forced choice, and sitting out isn’t really an option.
I guess maybe it’s how they truly see it, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
I’m not seeing how this in anyway even really touches on this issue at hand. A paper on human development to show that “science says” we have a “human” at the moment of conception?
At the end of the day this is going to just be about what your definition of a “human” is rather than anything “science” has to say.
Social beings as well. I wouldn’t even say it’s about how you present facts. We are pretty bad at interrogating our own reasoning for things. We will quote facts when asked for our reasoning, but once you start really digging in it’s often not really about that.
I actually just finished reading “How minds change” by David McRaney and would recommend it to anyone.
But if I had to summarize my biggest takeaway: you can’t really change someone’s mind, you can just facilitate convo with them that leads to them changing their own mind to some degree.
It wouldn’t because I have criteria, most specifically the ability to suffer, that underpins how I feel about abortion. This is independent of wombs or even DNA potentially.
I mean, I understand not wanting to allow violence on humans. But this still tied back to the definition of human. And, for me, if we take it back to ability to suffer, it makes a direct case for the way I feel about any entity’s (human or non human) rights
Disagree. They just believe what they believe for “non-rational” reasons. Often social or emotional reasons that they aren’t explicitly aware of. We all do this.
It doesn’t make them incapable of reason.
Fundamentally I don’t believe that a large proportion of humanity is “stupid.” I think that’s pretty narcissistic.
And this attitude often seeps into the continuously fact quoting method. Which basically makes the whole thing a non starter
Christian nationalism is just the merging of Christian and American identity. “America is a Christian nation”. You hear similar often from pandering and or deranged Republicans
Yea it is easier for them to ignore. Choosing to ignore it is still a choice. And the effect of that choice is the continued suspension of human rights. There is no true option of sitting out.
The point is framing it as a “political issue” takes the responsibility off of them. Again, it’s true they see it that way, but all I hear is they only care about themselves.
I think “matters more to their generation” is doing some heavy lifting. They surely know how to navigate social media and chat servers and all that. And in a way that’s more important.
I don’t think that maps to being able to use Linux with any proficiency.
Kids are smart in some ways and stupid in a lot of ways that adults are. They’re largely being put in a battle they can’t win against YouTube and TikTok that systematically target their psychology.
I think you can say that’s immoral. I’m not sure you can say it will destroy the whole system or that this is an inevitability of any capitalist system.
You will be in close quarters with a lot of people. People suck and will be inconsiderate fucks. Airlines are shit and have you by the balls in terms of delays and shitty service.
Go in with low expectations and don’t make yourself more miserable by getting upset about it
Depends what you mean by same port. A reverse proxy would allow you to expose everything of 443 and then the proxy would route to particular app ports and hosts.
Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion?
E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.
Any experience with teaching kids Linux?
Any one here has any experience with teaching 8 to 12 years old kids Linux?
When/how do you think capitalism will be defeated?
What are your best flight tips and tricks?
Since I assume lots of people are flying this time of year
What's the best gaming console and why?
for me it’s steam deck it’s like a portable pc
What's the point of a reverse proxy and does cloudflare give all the benefits of one?
What if reddit joins race of services joing fediverse?
Title + Have you ever thought of it?