3 ms·

I think the glaring omission in the article is “are the tic tacs sentient?” Because that ultimately does decide the question, whether our hypothetical fascist a

I think the glaring omission in the article is “are the tic tacs sentient?” Because that ultimately does decide the question, whether our hypothetical fascist accepts the answer or not. If indeed as that other commenter stated, tic tacs are a stand in for fetuses, then they are categorically not sentient. The vast, vast, vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is even large enough to constitute a notable amount of tissue death, in comparison to something like biting a piece of your lip off. Brain activity is a null issue, there’s no brain yet. But of course a core tenet of fascism is the rejection of intellectualism, so this will be unappealing. However fascists frequently have that niggling problem where reality keeps proving their bullshit to be… well, bullshit. Which is why to the majority of properly thinking people it’s a ridiculous system of thought and governance.

projektfu 2y ago
I think that reduction works for tic tacs but perhaps not for fetuses/embryos/fertilized eggs. I can say that I agree with the statement, "embryos are not sentient", but I cannot speak to whether the "fascist" believes that the sentience of the embryo is the important part. Even if it were, our concept of sentience will probably be self-serving, based on our stake in the discussion. The 13-week compromise was unsatisfying for many people. A 20-week compromise would satisfy some people more and others less. At some point the fetus must acquire sentience, if you believe it didn't have it at one point and you believe that a baby does, so the discussion may be a matter of what point you define it. To say that it is imbued with sentience at birth is merely to choose a convenient point that is unlikely to be true in fact. In which case, to not set a limit on abortion means that you do not really care about sentient beings at all, if you were saying that sentience was the important thing to you. Oops, now it will become a discussion of the rights of one being over the rights of another, and we are all fascists now.

projektfu 2y ago

I think that reduction works for tic tacs but perhaps not for fetuses/embryos/fertilized eggs. I can say that I agree with the statement, "embryos are not sentient", but I cannot speak to whether the "fascist" believes that the sentience of the embryo is the important part. Even if it were, our concept of sentience will probably be self-serving, based on our stake in the discussion. The 13-week compromise was unsatisfying for many people. A 20-week compromise would satisfy some people more and others less. At some point the fetus must acquire sentience, if you believe it didn't have it at one point and you believe that a baby does, so the discussion may be a matter of what point you define it. To say that it is imbued with sentience at birth is merely to choose a convenient point that is unlikely to be true in fact. In which case, to not set a limit on abortion means that you do not really care about sentient beings at all, if you were saying that sentience was the important thing to you. Oops, now it will become a discussion of the rights of one being over the rights of another, and we are all fascists now.