Discussing Abortion, personal October 2020 analysis

You can read it, yourself, at https://www.linktr.ee/hackingcovfefe . It would be in the October 2020 bundle that would be on the Locals Community.

So this is addressed to a "pro-life" person, after watching their interview with Michael Knowles. Danielle D'Souza Gill or something.

My attempt was to get around the typical axis of "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" by going towards the state's view of protecting mere taxpayers (mother and the baby, current and future taxpayers).

Some of the wording is weird, since it was a single go and really was just mean to hook you and let you read it and... Whatever. I wasn't trying to be followed, but to allow the reader to figure out their position. It's written to the recipient, as audience.

By focusing on the state's position, we can attempt to make it a court decision for allowing abortions. While this seems like it doesn't change anything, try getting the court to allow you to cheat on your wife. ... You probably won't try to ask the court for permission to do that so, well, why would you expect permission to murder your child?

The hypothetical of "artifical womb" isn't to promote detaching biology from our lives but, rather, to argue away the position of "pro-choice" people. If you can get the desired attempt by allowing the mother's body to be replaced, then what is the problem with "forcing" or encouraging the mother to birth the child as humans have done since life began? Safe havens already exist, yes, though the future could be used to conceive of the "artifical womb" which may be desired to save the life of the mother.

Ethically, what is good?

IVF can be used to clone people like in Star Wars, make slaves, or allow a totalitarian state to occur. Same with an "artifical womb".

Pragmatically, though, we can use the hypothetical to better understand ways to avoid the ghoulish fate of plenty of babies slaughtered.