crispy4000

I don’t see it as violent to deny someone a procedure intended to kill another human being. And whose success or failure is determined by it. Other steps can be taken, and should be taken regardless of abortion law. As one example, I think convinced rapists should be forced into prison labor that goes entirely into her bank account. For decades if she becomes pregnant as a result. With plenty of social programs on top that many Republicans today couldn’t stomach. In my opinion, rape is one of those deplorable crimes where there is no such thing as justice adequately served. But as I’ve said, I don’t think that excuses further violence against a 3rd party as collateral. I believe all human beings should have a right to basic nutrition appropriate to their stage of life. At that point, there’s no where else they can receive it. If artificial wombs ever become a viable alternative, victims of rape should have the highest priority. Sure, more foster kids potentially. But it means we don’t just kill off the unwanted as a marginalized class.

Reasoned take. Gotta go for now, I’ll respond when I’m able tomorrow.

Their body isn’t sacrosanct enough to unjustly kill another. Or rape another. It’s not a matter of rape being more morally licit. Because its not morally licit.

My wife has had long term complications post pregnancy and delivery. I don’t think I’m as naive on this as you think. But yes, I’m always open to learn more if I’m missing perspective.

I don’t respect self-determination and personal liberty over other human being’s lives at their core. That’s my view in a nutshell. It’s hard for me to romanticize about any view to the contrary.

We’re operating on very different principles of medical care and what laws entail surveillance states. I will say that “life of the mother” is a different issue. That’s one where I’m much more willing to entertain nuance. I don’t think vasectomy’s should be illegal. But if she was pregnant and had a good chance of bleeding out, more options should be on the table. I’m not of the belief that the child and mother should both die, or that the mother shouldn’t be able prioritize life threatening conditions to her.

I do when it doesn’t involve as extreme of a measure as abortion to exercise those rights. I’d speak similarly on other issues, such as a quackjob arguing for their rights to be slaveowners as free persons. In my view, beyond the pail.

To be fair, I’m not speaking for pro-life views as a whole on this. Plenty of people who consider themselves pro-life make exceptions for rape. The majority in all likelihood. And I wouldn’t say they lean pro-choice as a result.

Society has more of a say than the dead kid. But hey.

Father violating the mother doesn’t excuse the mother violating the child. But I don’t expect any of you to see eye to eye on that. It’s to be expected with the perspectives here on the unborn.

Personally? Anything further than attempting to stop conception, yes. I don’t consider that a pre-requisite for being pro-life in a general sense though.

That depends on if they want that number to stick. I’d consider it pro-choice but feeling more comfortable in a middle ground of sorts. I'd consider pro-life (in the pre-birth sense) to mean wanting the young life protected from being killed by choice outside of extraordinary circumstances.

There are many factors people have tried to ascribe human worth in terms of use, empathy, want, burden, intellectual capacity, experiential capacity, inclination toward suffering, net happiness, etc. In limited contexts, they can be appropriate depending on the purpose. But writ large in baseline judgements of which humans we should be able to kill, I'm much more skeptical. IMO, history doesn't present a good argument considering how much we've killed each other for "advancement" contrary to our basic collective needs. We're still here. It's still been a bloodbath for much of human history. And winning a war doesn't make you justified if it happens to lead to greater prosperity.

Difference of perspective surely. Defining a human being's experiential existence as "richer" as means to determine how much they deserve to live is something I find repulsive. Kids don't even develop their eyesight and ability to process what they see fully for some months after birth. And a rational ability above most animals until after that. They won't hold onto their earliest childhood memories as well. IMO, the capacity to 'richly' experience the world leads most directly Peter Sanger's arguements. Edit: I missed this earlier, but a human in utero is not less “evolved” than a developed adult. Not the correct context for that word.

The worst thing about being pro-life today, as someone who is, is being lumped in with that lot who thinks the status quo is acceptable for struggling families. I'm pretty sure I'll still be hated for my beliefs regardless of how liberal I am on related issues. That speaks to the true divide on it. I'm not okay with killing mothers. Or mothers dying. I am okay with actions taken in earnest to save the mother's life that involve the child dying as one of the consequences. Save both when possible.

I’d say that an evolved creature typically inclined to be that in its future has a similar significance, and it flies too close to the sun to say they should be killed when the further developed one should not. Especially when there can be much better reasons to kill an adult resulting from their own deliberate action.

Human rational thinking is the normative result. In healthy, typical circumstances, they are developing towards reason. If you want to call that a hypothetical, go ahead. Feels kind of needless though. A second fetus never existed in that situation. There is nothing to kill. Not murder, not even hypothetically.

Then why do you work under that presumption? Or bother to use it? I think that’s worth questioning. I do use it, because generally, I believe in that members of a rational kind shouldn’t be killing each other. Even if for a time, we’re not capable of that thought processing. It’s what we’re oriented towards.

You missed it when I said taken to an extreme. It was testing his argument’s limits to get to a clearer picture of his understanding. (Which served its purpose:) Pre-birth there is scientific evidence of emotional attachments of child to mother. But even there wasn’t, I don’t understand a faucet of development (ie: the capacity for emotional bonds) as being something to deprive a human being of if natural processes were to otherwise continue. Human also does a lot of the heavy lifting. We kill animals for our benefit all the time that form emotional bonds deeper than a newborn. All the more reason to think carefully about why the term applies.

You have a different definition of human than embryologists. I can appreciate that consistency from you. It's not trying to sidestep anything. Should probably regulate that to the emotional. Could be argued there is no stronger physical bond than in utero. As for emotional attachments, I think it raises questions about what is enough of an emotional bond to suffice, on either side. Could be used to suggest we kill foster kids, taken to an extreme. I'd rather say that we naturally develop attachments, so a temporary lack of them shouldn't be an excuse to cut our development short.

Better go correct some wiki articles then.

I see nothing wrong with the term pro-life when applied consistently. That doesn't fit the Republican party though. A successful abortion is the premeditated and intentional killing of a very young member of the human race. I find that to be the only rational view of what abortion is. So I consider it a greater burden to argue that this is not murder, and likewise, to address opposing views of when exactly a human being is/isn't developed enough to be worth protecting from being intentionally killed. That said, a significant portion of the population considers it not truly human yet if it doesn't fall under their belief of when abortion is okay. So culpability is a question. I also believe our justice system should be oriented to not punish women who abort so much as the providers. It's subjected to laws, after all. The fundamental moral question of abortion isn't.

I won't often stick with a 40+ hour RPG unless the story keeps me invested on some level. It's really hard to just have the systems, puzzles and environments carry a game for that long. Dropping an occasional story beat is a no-brainer way to keep things paced and fresh. Even a game like TotK could use a little more of it IMO. Also, game endings. I expect at least a halfway decent plot pay-off after investing so much of my time and effort. Games are better for it when they resolve in a satisfying way.

Not unnoticeable, just not a great value IMO for how much these devices cost relative to the Deck.

Yes, you were absolutely underestimating DLSS. What you said initially about its use at low resolutions was incorrect. You can both be wrong about that, and be crazy to think Nintendo's new portable better be overwhelmingly better than the Deck. Nintendo has a history of lowballing. Though I suppose frame generation could take it there, if were somehow viable on Switch 2.