Does it matter?

A) You were my guest
B) You were a stowaway.

Absolutely.

A) Depends
B) Still probably depends.

this is the answer that feels most correct to me

Is the "survivability" test just when you think protection begins or does apply to end-of-life issues as well? Are you okay with this being a fluid standard fetus x could survive outside of the womb at 26 weeks, fetus y could not. Can one be aborted and the other not? Also fluid insofar as scientific advances will make this earlier and earlier.

Should a conjoined twin who is completely parasitic on his brother be treated like a fetus here (i.e. he cannot survive on his own without his brother; can the "host" brother choose to sever ties?)

I'm obviously not endorsing whatever maxtower may or may not be proposing, but the long lines of people who want to adopt healthy infants is a phenomenon that exists only in some societies, and of course in societies where there's a wait, the length of that wait depends on what kind of kid you're looking to adopt, health aside. The "long lines" are also not universally a "supply" problem. In fact it's often not. A lot of the waiting is "bureaucratic" in nature. The "waiting" is generally only a supply problem for parents from western countries looking for healthy white infants from non-hard-drug addicted domestically-located white mothers. There's far less waiting (often none, aside from the red tape) if you're willing to adopt a mixed-race or black or latino child in places like the US. There's more waiting if you're wishing to adopt internationally, but again, that's far less a supply problem than it is a "bureaucratic" or diplomatic one.

Keynesian economics requires growth in GDP and population growth. Seems we ought to be stimulating the population to grow.

FYP.

you should probably think about Nielsio's question.

Just get the **** over it. Abortions are awesome and have helped out many many men.

Has anyone answered Nielsio's question?

Fwiw, I think murder is wrong because it violates the victim's individual will.

Why is that bad?

This is weak ldo, but murder being wrong is basically self-evident.

It is weak in the sense of not admitting that you don't know.

I'm not trying to bust people's balls over this, btw. I'm in the process of writing an article about it, so you'll know my ideas on it soon (hopefully). But in any case I think it's good to raise the question and have people think about it; particularly when they make a claim about it.

In regards to the abortion issue, I think you must have an answer to why murder is bad before you can discuss it, because what happens otherwise is people start with the assumption that murder of people is bad and then fight over the definition of what a person is. And if you don't know why murder is bad, then won't know how to arrive at what qualities make a person or what process should define the person-hood (and also what the consequences should be).

ok, i'll start. one of the biggest reasons why murder is bad is the way it affects people still alive.

FWIW my notion of murder being wrong has always been strongly tied to the Judeo-Christian ideal of "thou shall not kill." But I understand that's not going to cut it for purposes of this discussion; perhaps in a strictly rational sense I've looked at "murder is wrong" as an axiom similar to the "men act" one which serves as the foundation for Austrian thinking.

come on now. do you respond the same way if i ask why rape is wrong or why assault is wrong? are all of those not wrong for the same reasons?

yes, sure. I'm saying it's self-evident that these things are wrong; I just haven't yet put together a strong philosophical argument for the reasoning.

An axiom is something descriptive, not prescriptive.

got it, thx. as i said i haven't thought too deeply about this.

can you preview your thesis btw?

You are correct sir. It is an important question to ponder.

I think, first off, it is important to note that the very definition of murder precludes that it is the unjust killing of an individual, and not simply the killing of an individual. Murder is always wrong because it is by its very nature, unjust. I think the more important question is: under what circumstances is killing wrong (unjust)?

Then, from there, we get "Is abortion always murder?" That, I think, is the real question.

Would you disagree with the characterization of "initiation of violence is wrong" as a moral axiom?

Murder is wrong because it is unjust? Murder is wrong because it is wrong?

Murder is typically only used to describe an unlawful (or unjust, or immoral) killing. One might refer to homicide to be more precise in one's language.

As moral principle (not axiom), I would not disagree.

Murder is wrong because the word "murder," by definition, means "the unlawful (or rather, unjust, as laws aren't always just as you can attest) killing of an individual."

The word "murder" and the word "killing" are epistemologically different for a reason.