• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

I didn't consider "murder" requiring a guilty party just that it seems the killing is somewhat unethical. Elon Musk was saying an alternative would be to adopt out the baby.
Elon Musk wants more and more people so he can sell his products. If the population declines it means less wealth for Elon.

Whatevere Elon says doesn't matter, only what Elon does matters. What is Elon doing to back up his rhetoric?

And where are all the graves? There should also be graves for all miscarried conceptions. Where are they? When did all this pro life hypocrisy take off exactly? Why isn't a miscarriage murder and why are they not funeralized?

In short, Elon wants wealth and he also wants right wing idiots to buy his products so he is cozying up to Orange Hitler.
 
Who cares.
It doesn’t happen enough to be any kind of social disease that needs to be addressed by a government. I agree that it sounds disgusting, immoral, unethical and like a bad thing. So much so in fact, that I have foregone any plans I ever had to engage in such a thing. How about you?
I think the inconvience of a pregnancy can seem to outweigh the issues with killing an unborn baby... even though apparently a lot of couples (or singles) are trying to adopt...
Wut??!!
Nine months in? No, sorry. If it happens it’s vanishingly rare. See Bronzeage’s post.
says "the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. It is generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks" (i.e. can be before the 9 month mark)
Does this happen to you a lot, exc?
Or is this what you consider a “thought exercise”? If that the case your brain needs a stairmaster.
 
That may be what he said, but the article was quite clear about what was going on and I trust that article more than I trust him to present me with facts. He is saying it is illegal under ITAR to hire these people but the article says that it is not. The laws are public information and this can be looked up.

And a persecution complex is typical right-wing nutjob fare.
Musks' idea that some laws contradict each other so you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't" are interesting though.
Sure, lots of ideas are interesting.


This is the problem with disinformation though. It takes only a sentence or two to spread it, but it takes a lot more time and effort and research and paragraphs to counter it.

In this particular instance, the issue is that SpaceX incorrectly claimed that hiring asylees and refugees would put them at odds with the ITAR export control laws. This is not the case, as:

the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) control the export of commodities, software, and technology, as well as govern and restrict “deemed exports,” such as the release of technical data, technology, or source code to individuals within the U.S. who are not “U.S. persons.” Under U.S. export control laws, a U.S. person is defined as any individual who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, refugee or asylee. Refugees and asylees thus are permitted to view certain controlled items on equal footing with U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
[1]

Now, it is true that violations of the ITAR laws can carry very heavy penalties, likely worse than violating the Immigration and Nationality Act. So, as a business decision, SpaceX incorrectly stated they could only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, to just simply avoid even worrying about the issue.

Read this article from the National Law Review (among others that can be easily found online) for a good summary of the subject.

Also note that Musk is fighting the DOJ lawsuit not on the grounds that he is correct on the merits, but by alleging that the administrative law judges (ALJs) on the case were “unconstitutionally appointed” because they possess authority that only those appointed by the president should have[2].

Now, whether asylees and refugees should be granted the same status as other "U.S. Persons" when it comes to ITAR is a very good subject for discussion, and there may be good arguments why the laws should be changed in this regard. But that's not the approach Musk has taken; rather, he has cried foul by claiming persecution and weaponization of the DOJ against him personally. This is not a person acting in good faith discussion on the subject.

Now, keep in mind, there are other rules when it comes to being hired by the government and/or working on projects that require security clearance, which most people, including US Citizens, do not have. But those shouldn't be conflated with this issue here, where the laws do not actually "contradict each other", but rather are just inconvenient for his political position.
 
What’s the point in reasoning if all your premises are false?
ALL? That language doesn't seem very precise.
Hey, if they can exaggerate and get things horribly wrong, why can’t I?
The language is not precise because the issue, human reproduction, is so complex and fraught with moral issues.

Speaking for myself,
I'm opposed to casual elective abortion, as a concept. But I am even more strongly opposed to the clowns in the statehouse sticking their noses into private citizens business on such an issue.

I'm all for fighting such abortions with sex ed, starting early. Giving at risk people access to contraceptives without regard for ability to pay. Empowering people to make better decisions .
I'm absolutely sure that Planned Parenthood prevented more abortions than all the dumbasses in pulpits and legislatures put together.
Tom
 
I didn't consider "murder" requiring a guilty party just that it seems the killing is somewhat unethical. Elon Musk was saying an alternative would be to adopt out the baby.
Elon Musk wants more and more people so he can sell his products. If the population declines it means less wealth for Elon.
Yeah he did say:
population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming
But I thought robots could look after the elderly, etc.
 
I didn't consider "murder" requiring a guilty party just that it seems the killing is somewhat unethical. Elon Musk was saying an alternative would be to adopt out the baby.
Elon Musk wants more and more people so he can sell his products. If the population declines it means less wealth for Elon.
Yeah he did say:
population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming
But I thought robots could look after the elderly, etc.

You thought wrong. At least, no extant robots can.

Besides, why would anyone think that old people would WANT to be looked after by robots?

But this is not the point anyway. Musk doesn’t give a shit about old people, or anyone else. HIs real fear about “population collapse” no doubt owes to the fact that he subscribes to The Great Replacement theory, that brown immigrants will increasingly replace white people.
 
But I thought robots could look after the elderly, etc.
You thought wrong. At least, no extant robots can.
Well there isn't a crisis with elderly people yet. I think that within 5 years or at most 10 years robots would be able to look after the elderly and even have friendly conversations with them. e.g. this from several months ago:

Besides, why would anyone think that old people would WANT to be looked after by robots?
Well consider this super friendly AI:

But this is not the point anyway. Musk doesn’t give a shit about old people, or anyone else. HIs real fear about “population collapse” no doubt owes to the fact that he subscribes to The Great Replacement theory, that brown immigrants will increasingly replace white people.
Yeah I've heard about that.
 
But I thought robots could look after the elderly, etc.
You thought wrong. At least, no extant robots can.
Well there isn't a crisis with elderly people yet. I think that within 5 years or at most 10 years robots would be able to look after the elderly and even have friendly conversations with them. e.g. this from several months ago:

Besides, why would anyone think that old people would WANT to be looked after by robots?
Well consider this super friendly AI:



I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Truthfully, if I can have an intelligent conversation with a robot I'm good. I can't have an intelligent conversation with some of my siblings or friends. I can make the robot more intelligent by changing it's program. introducing a few arrays to search through, but that fundagelical isn't going to change unless I replace it's entire processor, which I'm not allowed to do.

So if I get old and decrepit I'll take the robot.
 
That's what Elon Musk says. I tend to agree with him.
I'd say it depends on the reason for the abortion, and what is meant by able to survive outside the womb. A medical decision that results in the death of an adult is not always murder, and the death of a neonate is not always either. There are legal definitions of murder, and I would expect those conditions to be met before someone was charged with murder for the death of a neonate. It's not an appropriate situation in which to evade considering context.
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
What woman are you talking about?
Tom
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
What woman are you talking about?
Tom
The one talking in the video (though it is actually an AI woman)
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
I didn’t listen to the conversation. I don’t need to. AI is not friendly. It is not unfriendly. It has no interior life, no thoughts, no intentions, nothing.

Are you proposing that old people will be taken care of by AI robots who they think are people, because the care recipients won’t be told they are being taken care of by mindless bots?
 
I a going to hazard the guess that the vast majority of old people are never going to want to be cared for by robots, no matter how life-like or “friendly” they are.
Did you watch that 1 minute video? BTW I think most people would never suspect that he was talking to an AI.
An AI is not “super friendly,”or friendly at all.
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
What woman are you talking about?
Tom
The one talking in the video (though it is actually an AI woman)

There is no such thing as an AI woman.
Sorry to break it to you.

I don't care what the computer geek billionaires tell you.

There was a movie about this, one I never bothered with.
The Wives of Bradford?
Tom
 
If that conversation didn't involve an AI would you consider the woman to be friendly?
What woman are you talking about?
Tom
The one talking in the video (though it is actually an AI woman)
There is no such thing as an AI woman.
Sorry to break it to you.

I don't care what the computer geek billionaires tell you.

There was a movie about this, one I never bothered with.
The Wives of Bradford?
Tom
Well an AI that sounds like a woman. BTW apparently some humans identify as cats, etc.
 
Well an AI that sounds like a woman. BTW apparently some humans identify as cats, etc.
Identifying as cats doesn't make them cats.

You seem dangerously prone to accepting replicas as reality. That's not healthy.
Tom
 
Back
Top Bottom