Search the Community

Hello FDR!, Today I came across a series of convoluted reports on a court case in Oklahoma, USA concerning a young woman's marriage to her biological mother. The mother, allegedly, had previously been married to her son. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bet.com/news/national/2017/11/09/woman-pleads-guilty-to-incest-for-marrying-her-biological-mother.amp.html http://www.kswo.com/story/33054070/brother-claims-siblings-were-manipulated-by-mother Of course I'm thinking 'Isn't incest illegal because of the biological risks correlated with incestual reproduction?' Upon further reading I learned that there are two states in the USA that do not legally enforce ant-incest laws to impede people from participating in incest. In Canada, Incest is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It's curious that we treat incest with such severe opposition because of the health risk involved in incestual breeding but we do not consider other forms of dangerous breeding to be as serious an offence. In many cases, dangerous breeding that may result in serious health problems or environmental deficiencies are facilitated by the incentives government subsidies provide through the use of force against citizens who generate economic growth. I'm opposed to the idea of incest between two consenting adults but I'm not sure it justifies caging the weirdos for a decade. If that choice does justify being caged for a decade, should we not hold other forms of dangerous breeding to an equal standard of legal judgement? *There is an important distinction made between incestual pedophilia or molestation and a voluntary incestual relationship between two consenting adults.

So, the Australian Sex Party has just come out and started a hashtag about shouting your abortion with then intention I think to remove some of the stigma associated with it. It has spurred up a little bit of unease within me as I don't really know where I stand on abortion as a whole. I've heard the position of Stefan and I really appreciate the viewpoints he puts forward however there are some circumstances where I still struggle to see things in the logical way that he and I am sure, a number of other people on this forum do. Please help me in my pursuit of self knowledge and maybe give your opinions on the matter and what you think about the stigma of abortion. Thank you so much. ----- Edit ----- Also, apologies if this topic has already been covered or I am in the wrong area of the forum.

Abortion This topic is important for at least two reasons: one, if we are wrong about our thinking here we are possibly endangering many lives and two, we may be assigning blame wrongfully, in a very destructive manner. Many years ago I took a class called “Contemporary Moral and Social Issues.” In that class we discussed personally identity and specifically we did an overview of the views expressed in the following academic paper (you don’t have to read it, but I will reference it): http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Animalism-and-the-Varieties-of-Conjoined-Twinning.pdf The bottom line being that because of conjoined twins and the possibility of body transplants, our identity is no more than a brain or, so that we can avoid a lengthy philosophical tangent, consciousness which supervenes on that brain. Further, that brain is simply one part of a larger organism that is the culmination of all our organs. If this is true, then before certain parts of the brain form, which are necessary conditions for consciousness, we simply do not exist (and under these conditions abortion is morally neutral). The Conjoined Twin Argument Animalists are those who say we are identical with the whole of our body, that is we are the entire organism composed of both a mind and body. Dicephalus is a variety of conjoined twin where two heads share one body. This presents an interesting question for animalists: are dicephalus one person because there appears to be one organism? Or is it that there are two people sharing one organism? If this is the case, then who we are is not identical with the whole of the biological organism that gets called by our name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo Are there two people here, or is it one person? Do the parents have daughters, or a daughter? Now while it is true that there are two tracheas and other various organs, it would be strange to say that this is why there are two organisms. Mainly because there is a variety of conjoined twin that is two bodies, with one head. Is this two people? This seems implausible. The Transplant Argument If we are the sum of all our organs, then when a full body transplant occurs (a head is removed from one body and kept alive until it is attached to another) another problem occurs. Did that person die when their head was removed? Was a new person “born” when the head was attached to the new body? It appears that we survive a body transplant, especially if, throughout the procedure, we are kept conscious via some artificial blood supply. Such a transplant has been done on a monkey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwkkmsoo4a4 Also this surgery may be done to a human soon: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php If we survive such an operation, clearly we are reducible to something less than the whole of our body. Resisting the Conclusion I’ve forwarded this thesis before, if not with these exact words. When I did so, there was one objection (or an unconvinced objector perhaps) who argued that my mistake was assuming it possible to separate the mind and the body. He went on to emphasize the close relationship between the mind and the body: the fact that chemical processes in the latter drastically effect the former. Without any advanced knowledge of human neurophysiology, it can still be asserted that such a relationship is irrelevant. The ongoing stimuli from the body is not different in substance from normal external stimuli such as those that activate our sensory organs. The origin of the stimuli is simply closer to home (about as close to home as you can get). Additionally, the above form of argument sidesteps the “future like ours” argument against abortion put forward by Don Marquis because cells don’t have a future like anything. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml Conscious entities may have a future like ours, but before those conscious entities exist, they cannot be harmed. In the same way, posthumous harm is incoherent. To truly resist the conclusion that we are identical with our minds, which are themselves a part of the body, you would do well to say that murdering the twins above is simply killing one person and that we do not survive the head transplant. Short of this, it seems we are stuck. Last Word The real problem then, if we are our minds/brains, is that saying abortion is wrong before there is a thalamus or amygdala, is itself wrong. After all, what would be harmed in such a procedure simply wouldn’t be a person. I therefore hold that abortion before those structures develop is morally neutral.

Most of you have probably heard Richard Dawkins newest controversial tweets saying that it is immoral to bring a child to term with down syndrome if you know this going to be the outcome when it is a fetus. While this does seem a tad heartless/brash, I can see the argument. This comes down to the fundamental nature of man as a rational animal. If you know you will create a human with a very limited capacity to live a rational life, is it ethical to bring this human into reality when you can determine this outcome while it is still a fetus? I am still mulling this over (so please don't jump down my throat, I know this is a touchy subject!!), but I would love to hear thoughts on this from the FDR community! Here is a video that shows the tweets: http://youtu.be/w4-GCk6-azM

This is a followup to some ideas I outlined in this post. I started thinking about this in terms of a stateless society and DRO's, but I realized it might even work in the current statist system (though the govt likely would have to allow it as they've got incentives not to)...is this a good idea? a terrible idea? am I missing something? any feedback would be appreciated Disputes arising from unintended pregnancy, putting your money where your mouth is. People take risks. Smart people mitigate those risks, insurance is a common approach. Unintended pregnancy is one of the risks many take, and the consequences can be devastating -- emotionally, spiritually, and financially. What if this risk, too, could be mitigated through voluntary contractual obligations, unintended pregnancy insurance? Below I've outlined, in a simplistic way, two "insurance plans" and the various ways that disputes could arise -- and be resolved -- between participants of those plans should an unintended pregnancy occur. These insurance plans could provide incentives for people to make better choices with regard to sex partners and could provide leverage to "get your way" in any disputes that arise. Being contract-based they're likely to hold more weight in court -- should things come to that -- as it's not just a "he said, she said" situation, but rather a contractual obligation. If such a system were widely adopted, people could use inter-group sexual ostracism to further mitigate their risks. Sure, some people will always be irresponsible, but wouldn't it be great if you could just check the "insurance card" of a potential partner and *know* that your values align? The plans: Plan A - (A for abortion) prefers kids be aborted, or A(d)opted Plan B - (B for baby) prefers kids not be aborted Plan A gives discounts for birth control use, biggest discount for long-lasting injection-type. Also gives discounts for time without a claim. An optional additional premium goes toward incentivizing adoption over abortion, let's call this Plan A(d). Plan B gives discounts only for time without a claim. The players: Manny the man-whore and Suzy the floozy are both on plan-a, they've agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children and have insurance to cover contingencies. Manny has plan A(d), he doesn't want any children but would prefer his progeny be adopted over aborted. Suzy doesn't want to be tied down with the complications of pregnancy at all and therefore has plan A. Sally the saint and Mark the moralist are both on plan-b, they would prefer that even unintentional pregnancies be carried to term. Irene and Ivan are both irresponsible, they have no "abortion insurance" at all. Vance and Veronica don't want any kids, ever, so they've chosen vasectomy and tubal ligation, respectively. They don't have to worry about any of this. The scenarios: Note that payouts/incentives would be an effect of the "level" of insurance one carries, if one party has a $500k policy and the other has a $50k policy, the one with a higher level of coverage is going to have much more leverage. So, what happens when we mix up these variations of preference in the sexual arena, and unintended pregnancies result? Let's explore some of the possibilities. I) Manny unintentionally impregnates Sally. Manny does not want to be responsible for his progeny, he doesn't want children, and he's got insurance to mitigate the financial impact of his poor decision making. Sally refuses to abort the child and has insurance to mitigate the financial impact. In this case Plan A and Plan B underwriters get together and come up with the following options: 1 - Sally can be paid (by plan A(d), Manny's insurer) to abort the child. 2 - Sally can choose to release Manny from any liability, for appropriate compensation, and to carry out the pregnancy and either - a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation in accordance with Manny's coverage. 3 - Sally can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support. II) Manny unintentionally impregnates Suzy. They've both agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children...these are Suzy's options: 1 - Suzy can have an abortion, paid for by Manny's insurer. 2 - Suzy can choose to release Manny and their insurers from any liability and carry out the pregnancy and either -- a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation from Manny's plan A(d) coverage. 3 - Suzy can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support, her case will likely be thrown out of court as she's already signed agreements not to do this. III) Manny unintentionally impregnates Irene. Manny is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, Manny's insurance will cover part of the expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child, releasing Manny and his insurer from liability. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Manny's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. IV) Mark ("the moralist") unintentionally impregnates Sally. They both prefer their progeny not be aborted. These are Sally's options: 1 - Sally can carry the child to term, receive compensation from Mark's insurance and either - a) keep the child. b) give the child up for adoption (possibly to Mark.) 2 - Sally can keep the child and follow the traditional route. 3 - Sally can, at her own expense, abort the child. She will likely be dropped from her insurance coverage or her rates will increase significantly. V) Mark unintentionally impregnates Suzy, the options for Suzy are much the same as II above, varying only in regard to compensation for the various options (i.e. Mark's insurance will not pay for an abortion and will offer incentives to carry out the pregnancy.) VI) Mark unintentionally impregnates Irene. Mark is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, at her own expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child and release Mark and his insurer from liability for just compensation. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Mark's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. VII) Ivan unintentionally impregnates Irene. Neither are insured. Irene's options are: 1 - no different than they are today.

Hello all, this is my first post here, I'll be sure to write something up in the appropriate forum for introductions but I just wanted to share something I've been working on and get some input from the community. The below are things I posted in facebook discussions, the first in response to a discussion between Michael Shanklin and Peter Joseph (oh, the joy!) and the other in a thread regarding abortion and equality of rights between men and women...I intend to keep thinking about and tinkering w/ the ideas and arguments, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. ----Regarding the "who owns children?" question. I think of it as though the parent is holding the child in trust for its future self. A trustee has certain duties and obligations to care for the property of another. If you're renting a home, you don't own the property but you do have custody and control of it and are obliged to at least call the landlord when the roof starts to leak.This all works very well with the competitive "child advocacy business" (CAB) scenario and I have little doubt such systems would be well funded if they can prove their effectiveness. CAB organizations could be tied into DRO contracts wherein the obligation and funding is purely contractual. Much like driving a car obligates you to have insurance that meets certain standards, having a child could require you to contract with a credible CAB or be dropped from the DRO for breach.I think an argument could be made that parents owe a few years of therapy if they "screw their kids up", to me this seems well within the scope of a CAB to set guidelines, make appropriate determinations and to effect remedies. The question of capacity determination (when the child's custody should be given back to itself) also seems quite within the scope of a DRO/CAB system. It seems likely that a CAB would offer parents real incentives to educate themselves in effective parenting strategies and to participate in regular evaluations (discount daaaahblecheck.)As per usual, you can remove yourself from the DRO system entirely to live in the woods and let the squirrels raise your children, good luck with that. regarding private dispute resolution in the case of one parent wanting to abort and the other not wanting it. note the morality of abortion is specifically not at issue. ---- Well, outside of the state system, private dispute resolution organizations (DRO) would take on the role of courts...to my mind, the closest analog we have to a DRO is an insurance company, like your auto insurance carrier...part of a DRO contract could be a clause regarding pregnancy, this could include the topic of abortion.Let's say I sign up w/ a DRO that has an anti-abortion clause, I agree not to initiate/advocate abortion and they agree to make attempts to not allow any of my progeny to be aborted. Part of the contract may include penalties if I sleep with women that have pro-abortion clauses in their DRO contracts, or separate agreements (contracts) with such women in order to avoid the penalties.So, I go out and shag a gal that's got a pro-abortion DRO contract...let's say her contract actually demands that she abort...as has been pointed out, we can't actually force that, but you could certainly encourage it with things like financial penalties or dropping their coverage entirely.So, I end up impregnating this gal, I immediately am penalized by my DRO and likely have to purchase a policy with a child advocacy business (CAB) before I can even resume coverage...but there's now a dispute between my (anti) DRO and hers (pro)...they're just businesses though and have only one interest -- making money by serving their customers interests -- so it all comes down to numbers, it's just a function of the market very similar to insurance payouts.So pro-DRO and anti-DRO do some calculations, let's say pro figures it'll cost them $1million -- from lost customers as well as CAB and child-rearing costs to go against their clients wishes to abort...pro-DRO figures it'll cost them $1.5million both from lost customers and and penalties they'll owe their client to go against his wishes to not abort...in this case, the negotiators sit down and the following agreement is reached -- if the woman will carry the baby to term, they'll (anti-DRO) pay her $500k; if she aborts, her DRO (pro-DRO) will pay $500k...these costs would likely be passed directly to the customers themselves...in other words, she's got a $1million incentive to have the baby.