U.S. Marshals Spied on Abortion Protesters Using Dataminr

I don't think that's sufficient to revoke 1A rights. I think the people who do those bad things should get locked up in jail, and any remaining actual peaceful protesters should get to continue protesting.

>There are plenty of secular arguments for flat earth. It's not about the number of arguments, but about their validity. There are no secular arguments that don't depend on logical fallacies or invalid assumptions.

This is a false equivalency. Flat earth is a matter of facts, not ethics. Further, you are taking the least charitable interpretation of my words. Of course I meant that there are plenty of _valid_ secular arguments.

>And similarly when talking about forcing someone to donate their blood, or part of liver for transplant we'd need to balance the rights of the forced donor and the rights of the prospective transplant receiver, right?

Yes, this is a common counter-argument. I first encountered this in A Defense of Abortion in the form of the "unconscious violinist". A more whimsical version can be found in Rick and Morty's second Interdimensional Cable. A common counter-counter-argument is that this situation differs from abortion in that the mother bears partial responsibility for the creation of the fetus, and thus owes it more than she would owe another random person. This is one of the reasons people get more outraged about restriction of abortion rights in cases of rape, as the mother had no volition and thus (by this logic) owes her fetus nothing more than she would owe a stranger.

Regardless, you may find that the right of the mother to bodily autonomy outweighs the right of the fetus to life, but not everyone will weigh the situation the same. We often agree as a society that one must help others if the cost to oneself is considerably lower than the value provided to others. For example, you are obligated (in an ethical sense) to provide water to a man dying of thirst as long as you have plenty. Or perhaps (more controversially), you are obligated to jump into a cold swimming pool to save a drowning child (if you can swim). Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother outweighs the life-long value to the unborn child in a similar manner.

>It's not only not one of the challenging ones, it's not a serious question at all. Modern ethics is pretty clear on reproductive rights.

The funny thing is that each side seems to think this, and that the other side is insane, naive, or misguided for disagreeing. FWIW, I am personally pro-choice, but I also think that if you cannot understand the other side's arguments, that is a weakness of your own mental model, not a sign that they are crazy or bad arguments.

I'm happy to talk more about this, as I think it is a genuinely interesting and challenging issue that remains unresolved, unlike many things that our society argues about. Another interesting unresolved issue is the ethics of punishment - I have come to believe that government punishment is generally unethical, but that's another post.

[flagged]

>And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any.

>>Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother [is outweighed by] the life-long value to the unborn child in a similar manner.

>I don't think this line requires any comment.

This is one of the secular counter-arguments to abortion rights. My apology, I misstated the direction of the "outweighed" part. A very simple and principled restatement: life is more important than liberty. I am not sure why you have chosen not to comment on the key argument in my post. Perhaps the outcome is so obvious to you that you cannot imagine another rational being who would hold the opposite view.

>Again, same as with any other fallacy, like flat earth.

Again, this is not the same kind of argument. You really seem to like to pick on flat earth, maybe because it's an easy target. Why not at least pick an ethical debate instead of a factual one? There are plenty.

>If you cannot understand flat earther's arguments, that's a weakness of your own mental model? :)

I was very curious about flat earthers, sovereign citizens, anti-vaxxers, 5G phobics, and other similar "alternative truthers" because I in fact cannot understand their arguments. The more I look into them, the more I have come to believe they are mostly afraid and feel out of control, so they seek something that explains, even if it's insane. I would in fact like to be able to simulate their mental states more accurately, but I'm not sure how to get there without the mask becoming too heavy if you will.

>FWIW, I do understand those arguments. It's just that I also understand they are stupid and evil - because they flow from ideology which is stupid and evil.

I dunno about "evil". That word has way too strong of a connotation. I'd say the typical ideology associated with pro-life people is very paternalistic. They feel that they know better than you what choices you should make. I don't appreciate that dimension of their ideology at all, but I see the same traits in a number of different circles outside of the American religious right. For example, I hold the somewhat radical idea that suicide is an extension of a person's right to self determination, but many others seem to think that they have the right to force a suicidal person to stay here against their will.