Yes. Because it's not communism.

When you think about communism, the transfer of wealth isn't what it's about because then you would start from the assumption or the situation that there would be rich people to tax and poor that you redistribute to. — ssu

If a person is taxed 100%, their income is irrelevant, no? it would be no different than having no salary at all. I suppose wealth could be defined as any existing wealth, but if taxed on death, it would only be 70 years or so before that initial wealth was depleted.

From that point on in the system, and individual could technically than horde their 'equally distributed' income, and obtain wealth over time simply by means of savings. I can see this as a reason for why this system wouldn't be communism, as any wealth is a property, and that property is community controlled and owned -- hording wouldn't be legal with Communism I'd imagine. (unless redistribution was provided by means of services, rather than income)

I'm not sure why someone would work in such a scenario, where not working may allow result in the same income as another. If working is a requirement, I look to the Soviet Union where my Russian friend stated that jobs that required the least amount of time and effort were pursued. In the case of 100% taxation, I'd imagine you could define and take any job you deem, but with Communism, you are assigned a role by the community -- this could perhaps lead to unfettered propaganda.

I suppose one way to resolve these issues, to control production more closely, is to not pay people equally, but have the 'government/community' pay people to do the jobs most demanded. Those doing jobs that are unwanted would be paid less or nothing. This might work in communism, albeit I could be wrong about that, but when speaking of 100% taxation, the idea is that with taxation you still allow for freedom of venture, corporate structure, and self-determination of role. Once you begin to assign roles, the illusion that there is any income to even tax at 100% is fleeting -- and this becomes even more clear once you start assigning people and paying them differently. At least in an equal pay system there is given the illusion of a social welfare system, rather than payment that is taxable. Otherwise there might be a paradox where you are taxed 100% on an imaginary salary to only be given a new salary that is taxed 0%.

Does Communism require that property and means of production be seized by overnight force? Or is that just a belief that it would be the only way to ensure it would happen. I don't see how the principals of communism couldn't be established over time, gradually, which seems to me personally like the more realistic way of a sustainable outcome. 100% taxation seems like a gradual way, despite initial conditions.

Besides, the word "communism", just as "capitalism", "socialism" or "fascism" are used today in public discourse just as adjectives, which usually mean something negative without much thought given to what the underlying term and it's ideology is about. — ssu

Thank you for the reply.

I see nothing wrong with the term capitalism, personally. :) I acknowledge capitalism needs some regulation to ensure the well being and rights of others, but I am a big fan of it.

Just like many leftist use the term "fascist" quite casually in many instances where the subject has nothing to do with actual fascism. It's just a convenient way to express something negative from the political right and is a pseudo-intelligent way to describe your thoughts.

I appreciate you saying this. I hear the term fascist used a lot, particular since Trump, but also with the rise of neo-Nazism and ANTIFA. I don't really have a grasp on what a casually used meaning of fascism is these day. If you could explain this in more detail, you'd actually help me understand what these ANTIFA types are actually trying to say. I have no clue at times.

I suppose I'm guilty of saying "communist", although I suppose I've been using it with a definition based by historical representations of its implementations, versus out-right strict definitions. For example, Cuba, 1980's China, North Korea, Soviet Union -- these have been largely defined as communist states in my head, although they don't always live up to the strict dictionary definitions.

I think I may be a hypocrite with my usage of calling someone a socialist/communist, but I might do so if that person is anti-capitalist or does not see a problem with the more extreme principals of socialism/communism. When someone calls me a fascist though, I get confused: no aspect of that do I believe in. I could be called a greedy capitalist I suppose, although every action in my career has been with the goal of improving humankind, and I do believe in many social welfare programs.

Not doctors, hospitals, and clinics for the most part. Much of the better health and longevity we enjoy is due to the efforts of civil engineers who built sewers, sewage treatment plants, and drinking water systems; farmers who grew more food (thanks in part to the Haber Process for making ammonium fertilizers), transportation systems that moved the food to market, and researchers who developed vaccination protocols for a dozen or so diseases. Pubic Health programs, in other words. Cleaning things up. — Bitter Crank

I can't disagree too much with anything you said here. Sanitation, understanding germs, washing hands, etc, have been key to healthier living.

I would say that quality of life as you age has improved with medication advancements though, such as Lipitor, which is a anti cholesterol drug that numerous people I know use; I believe Trump is on it as well. I don't think my father would still be alive today if it weren't for that drug. DNA and stem cell research is also a very exciting field, which will allow for better prevention, detection, and custom medication/treatments.

Doctors I hope will be all near obsolete in the near future, replaced by machine learning , robots, drugs, researchers, and technicians. I suppose this is something Communists and I might share in common, where automation and technology will lead to the unshackling of humans from certain burdens, but I struggle to believe these capabilities would arise efficiently in non-capitalistic systems.

I can't say I am a scholar in this material at all, so I value your insights here. The french revolution seemed to have an atheist component to it, as did the soviet union, but my memory from past readings is hazy at best.

In Canada and America, I recall there being a spike in anti-christian sentiment online about 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism The four-horse-men, etc. I perceived it as a bit left-leaning, with attacks undermining the conservative-right being the goal. I really don't recall much in the way of identity politics at the time, although universal health care and gun control were topics of debates. I tended to be a bit patriotic in my views; I was defensive towards attacks on Canada's health care system and gun laws, but I had no idea what I was talking about really. Still probably don't.

Some of those who would "fundie bash" by means of Youtube response videos and forums, in the last couple years have mentioned that they now regret doing so now. I sense that on reflection they now realize that religion and holy morals had a value and function, even if the beliefs themselves were unverifiable or just plain wrong.

I would say these fundie-bashers considered themselves left-leaning at the time, but have since felt disenfranchised by the left; by identify politics, for example. They also didn't connect with the existing right-wing parties, and as a result felt rather lost. When I first heard the term alt-right a few years ago, I first thought it was defining those now felt disenfranchised by the left.

I was wrong about what the alt-right stood for, but in my defense, I don't think it still has any solid definition. Regardless, someone like Dave Rubin on Youtube, is a person I believe who represents this disenfranchised-left. I find Dave Rubin a bit more right-leaning than myself, but I think him, his audience, and even myself, are trying to find themselves in this new political world -- post-Christianity.

It may not be an increase in Atheism though: Obama indirectly introduced identity politics in 2008, as well as there being a market crash, bank bailouts, and the Occupy Wallstreet Protests. Terrorism and anti-Muslim sentiment was on the rise, and with it racism and nationalism. Shortly after that Obamacare was front and center. Things still seemed to be under control though, but around the GamerGate controversy, things just exploded.

There were ANTIFA-type riots here in Canada just the other week: breaking store windows, etc -- I'm wondering if those young adults growing up in a post-2008 world have been raised with just a completely different mentality and set of needs. I've looked at videos of these North Shore ANTIFA groups and they say things like "comrade", so it gets me pretty confused by what's going on there. I've just largely assumed they are confused and unhappy, but I don't recall this happening when I was younger.

Maybe it's Russian trolls and social media propaganda. Maybe its Trump's divisiveness.

I saw this article a few months ago and it really reflects how I am seeing things:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/

Democrats have moved left on several issues. Over the past few years, some of the biggest changes in opinions among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have been on race and the role of government. There has been far less change in the views of Republicans and Republican leaners. As a result, the public’s views as a whole have moved in a more liberal direction.

I suppose when you don't share the same views of the direction the democrats are moving, or are disenfranchised by it at the least, you're left a target as you are without an identity. At least, that is how I feel, and perhaps it has left me to open minded to propaganda.

I am sometimes sarcastic, always sincere, and I never troll. I regret putting communication barriers in the way. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for understanding.

Health care is expensive, and the insurance companies (like Aetna, Prudential, Blue Cross, etc.) add from 15% to 20% of additional cost just to operate their pretty much superfluous service. — Bitter Crank

That does seem to be the case from my readings, although it sounded like some of it paperwork overhead as well.

It's not that private health insurance does not exist within Canada mind you, but it is instead for such services as pharmacare, dental, and superfluous services: maybe like back massages.

I do personally pay out of pocket for my dental care and pharma though, and I definitely know I am spending quite a bit more than perhaps the budget student dentist down the street. The experience and available services of this clinic has made it worthwhile to me though. They have given me a 30% discount actually, knowing that I am no longer claiming insurance. My last dental appointment, the hygienist was sick, so they paid to bring in an stand-in to ensure I didn't have to re-book. I can't imagine that happening with a socialized service -- you'll just get a 'we are closed' sticker on the door when you show up instead. This has happened.

The US medical system tends to provide more services than necessary. — Bitter Crank

I do tend to believe that. CT vs Xray seems like fringe case that is damaging, whereas I personally can't get enough of MRI testing if its available -- but it's never available in a timely manner. From muscle rips to head trauma, an MRI has repeatedly shed light on problems that have nagged me for months... because I've had to wait months.

I've been rather fortunate as I grew up with doctors in the family, and they would pull favors to ensure quality and speedy care. Over time, those strings retired or died, and I started to realize how much I hated the actual health care system. I'm not a fan of the public education system either though, but I realize that there isn't a budget in place for a public system that I would of personally of loved to experience.

$25,000 was a big share of my savings at the time, and given my age, I didn't have time to re-earn it. — Bitter Crank

I'm sorry to hear that. I can only imagine that insurance gets even more expensive with age.

In the past, families , communities, and churches would support those who have fallen ill. Today, we have new technologies that can help us in ways that simply were not available previously; they can be quite expensive though. These new treatments were derived in part as a commercial enterprise to make money, allowing those who can afford them to gain access where no access before was possible.

In Canada, I'd argue the incentive to develop new treatments and technologies isn't as great as it is in the USA. Many of the technologies and medications that appear in Canada come from US firms; we are lucky to have some of these products available as I doubt many 'superfluous' treatments would get enough funding in Canada alone. Given that many of these treatments are not made available to Canadians anyways, because the Government deems them too expensive, they might as well not exist at all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#26cee1251a71

I apologize if I use terminology or phrases that are offensive or sounding hateful. I am here seeking your help for greater understanding and clarity. I am not consciously trying to be hateful if that comes off that way.

For the sake of this discussion, I hope you don't mind if I use the following quoted definition of communism; there are variations I see online, but below is my interpretation.

Communism, also known as a command system, is an economic system where the government owns most of the factors of production and decides the allocation of resources and what products and services will be provided.

The most important originators of communist doctrine were Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Like the socialists before them, they wanted to end the exploitation of the masses by the few.

Aspects of seizing private property may be worth including in the definition, although I suppose I don't believe that is an aspect that defines communism outright, particularly if part of the inner strategy is to allow a natural distribution of property once economic equity is had or by re-claiming of property/assets in final passing. We have heard of the "death tax" from the left for example, which could be such a strategy to reclaim property without revolt if implemented.

Regardless,

In socialist practice, once productive property is seized from the creators, the union gangs or government will run the businesses “on behalf of the community as a whole.” After socialism is instituted, any new businesses that individuals have built will (or “should”) be taken over by the government or gangs, as soon as the entrepreneur attempts to hire any wage workers.

In the case of 100% taxation, there are no wages in outcome, so no entrepreneur could hire a wage worker regardless. In terms of property rights, if we consider China's 70-year 'lease' on land or whatever, that wouldn't be all too much different than a 100% death tax, no?

As well, I didn't quite clarify if the economic system in this scenario was planned or unplanned, but currently I'd argue the government controls partial aspects of both means, services, and production. If the government is elected by the people, then arguable these systems are controlled by the people as well.

If we consider money as a resource, governments often fund certain industries in an attempt to control products and services, no?

For example, Canada dumps billions into the tech industry here, which creates jobs in the tech industry and technology services. Many startups are given investment by the government, but only on approval basis and under certain conditions. One condition might be that the company would need to hire a female executive to obtain the investment. Without the government's investment, many startups fail to launch in Canada, as Canadians generally have very conservative investors.

Oil is controlled by the government here, by means of granting pipeline and drilling rights. It is also regulated in forms of carbon emissions, and conversely, the government will violate and seize native Canadian's lands to create new means of productions.

Canadian media networks, from Radio to TV, are forced to create a quota of Canadian-focused content. About 30% I believe.

In the USA, certain crops are subsided I believe, which controls the means of production.

I do not believe that the a Communist government needs to control all the means of production and services: just the ones it wishes to. I'm not sure how a system of 100% taxation could avoid even further government regulation of what is produced, what services are enforced, etc.

I am utterly exhausted in thought currently: I am sure my logic is flawed to know end. I am expecting my above arguments to be ripped to shreds.

If only we had that. — René Descartes

I'm sure you are serious, although I find myself a bit shocked to hear that. ** 100% taxation.** I really struggle to contemplate that working effectively, if at all. What am I missing?

He is not a Communist. I doubt you even have an understanding of what Communism is. — René Descartes

My argument was not that he is a communist, although I made the mistake of not clarifying that I believe his political beliefs are evidence of society approaching more communist values. It is quite possible I am just overly suspicious of some progressive policies, falling for far too much red-baiting online, or maybe I am just ranting nothing more than fears. I also often confuse social democrat with socialist, which in part relates to my main OP question.

Huge popularity of right wing populist parties at the moment all over the western world. — René Descartes

I can't disagree, as Trump and Brexit and some anti-migrant attitudes have surprised me in the last couple years. I suppose those groups are the "alt-right" that is so hated these days, while the left is perhaps growing more leftist. If this is true, I'd expect a growing political divide between political views and ideologies, which I've interpreted as an increase in socialist attitudes.

It seems that we share a different metric for where the center is in the spectrum of politics. I don't have an answer to this, and apologize if I upset you.

I do not feel perplexed that people are looking to Fascism to solve all their problems. — René Descartes

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties

- some definition I found online to quote.

I don't quite know why the term Fascism gets used frequently these days. I suppose for the same reason I spout anti-communism I suppose.

I most definitely don't agree with Fascism though: I am a strong believer in democracy and am open to civil dialogue. I am a strong supporter of immigration, although I believe a merit based system that also provides for a balanced Canadian *mosaic* keeps the system stable. I am an advocate of the family too though, yet I find myself in constant internal conflict on how best to support the family.

Do people here denounce Communism?

their shared egalitarianism, particularly, which speaks to them as both being religion substitutes — gurugeorge

fascinating concept.

I apologize that I can't really reply to your comment in full, because I found it hard to tell what was sarcasm, what was sincere, and what was trolling.

Single Payer Insurance is the most efficient way to pay for health care, as it pretty much eliminates the burdensome and parasitical insurance companies. Single Payer will be a thorough-going de-worming of the Body Politic. — Bitter Crank

Canada may of been where all the communists went after being chased out of the USA in the previous century. Canada does have single-payer healthcare. It isn't that great. I've been spoiled with good healthcare, and what Canada has isn't it. It's like a used Honda Civic: it can get you to point B, but it's going to take some time to get there and it may break when pushed.

Something to be aware of is that there is no private healthcare in Canada; or at least not for the masses. I can get my cat an MRI scan within 2 days, but it will take me personally between 2 and 6 months. The military (some politicians) and corporations are allowed to pay for private care (think, NBA players), a but not the average Joe. My family has flown to the USA for care on more than one occasion to receive treatment unavailable as a result in Canada. We aren't rich.

When I walk into a public clinic, it's pretty obvious it's public. When I walk into a private clinic, the floor is marble and there may even be a fish tank. This is reflected as well by the age of the medical equipment and services that can be provided. Accessing a specialist requires hoop jumping, and typically I just do not go to the doctor anymore because I know I'll either feel better or be dead before I get my appointment. Doesn't help that parking is normally $15/hour, which was done to actively dissuade people from going if a bottle of pain pills would do instead. Be prepared to wait a few hours.

NONE of this is to say the USA's healthcare system is perfect. It is a disaster in its own right, but I tend to think technology and disruptive systems can solve the insurance and red-tape issues. Perhaps even the rise of AI and centralized health care systems will improve things.

In some ways 'the proof is in the pudding' as the saying goes: despite social popularity of parties like the NDP in Canada, or of politicians like Bernie Sanders in the US, there has not been significant policy enacted between 2011-2016 that has fundamentally altered the structure of either countries political economics in a way that would point toward anything even remotely "communist" or definitively "socialist" (and that does not appear to be an objective for characters like Sanders or parties like the NDP anyway). — Larynx

Obamacare in 2010 was significant.

PEW research indicates there is growing support for single payer health care in the USA as well:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

The share of Democrats supporting a single national program to provide health insurance has increased 9 percentage points since January [2017] and 19 points since 2014.

In Canada, the NDP is quite leftest by even Canadian standards, yet there is a growing bubble of support. Traditional liberals are feeling pressured to adopt greater socialist policies to remain in power, or convert to the darksi--, er, become a conservative.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
(It might not be fair for me to put up 2011 election data, but the Liberals here have adopted more left-leaning policies in years since. The most recent federal budget here reflects that clearly.)

The liberal party here has introduced free medication for those aged 25 and under, and there is an increase in spending on childcare. This is expected to be expanded if the NDP wins, with universal pharmacare, free childcare, more doctors, & more medical clinics. There is already a subset of the population here who are receiving a universal income, and I haven't seen a single person I've talk to here yet disapprove of rolling out the idea fully to everyone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/06/basic-income-canada_n_16971060.html

While there will be a backlash on this socialist momentum, eventually, I've never seen the pendulum swing this far before. So while there may not of been too many large scale moves yet, I have apprehension about what is coming. Maybe it is all just in my head.

People making this argument (I don't know about you personally) generally seem to have no problem with a CEO earning more than a nurse. — Pseudonym

I acknowledge that a nurse does good, but a CEO can also do good. A talented CEO that's worth paying a small fortune too is able to execute on ideas that lead to new small fortunes. Such CEOs are not oblivious to the greed of people, the need for cash flow to turn the gears, or the value of abilities/network/etc. As a result, they often measure their own success in terms of wealth generation.

My mother was a nurse and I personally was a medical technician in my younger days. No one wants to wipe the ass of someone else, but it is a job that needs to happen, admittedly. In Canada, decades ago, the government paid for a nurse's education and ensured a job opportunity; there was a shortage I suppose, but creating new nurses didn't take rocket science. Not all occupation shortages can be grown on demand however: talent goes to the highest bidder.

In Quebec recently, 700 doctors I believe have attempted to forfeit a salary increase as they urged the government to instead spend more on nurses et al. Perhaps one challenge with this is that some doctors will leave the country if they are not paid what they are due. The middle east pays very well and even the USA pays perhaps 50% more than doctors in Canada. Those that stay, stay because of __insert_reasons__, but numerous times there have been doctor shortages resulting from low pay.

Although 700 doctors might be willing to take a pay cut, if the province wants to retain 10,000 doctors, they need to offer attractive wages regardless. A doctor shortage in the 1990s was able to recover some of the lost doctors with increased pay. If nurses are ultimately not getting paid enough, the government needs to simply spend more or become more efficient.

In the government's great wisdom previously, they assigned an arguably weak CEO to make the healthcare system more efficient, but ended up blowing a billion dollars. I think they paid that CEO just $107,000.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ehealth-scandal-a-1b-waste-auditor-1.808640
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/departed-ontario-bureaucrat-paid-762k-1.1115733

His report says the board of directors at eHealth Ontario felt it had little power over CEO Sarah Kramer because she had been hired by chair Alan Hudson "with the support of the premier." That, McCarter said, gave Kramer the impression she had approval to ignore normal procurement procedures.

Perhaps that is the truth. I could just be overly paranoid here.

I'll need to find time to provide you a proper reply, but I should point out that I live in urban Canada; not the USA. Please see Canada and the increased popularity of the NDP. My family extends into northern Europe as well.

While I do not like Trump as a person, I do like some of his economic views. I believe this divisive divide in politics, where liking anything about Trump in Canada will land you in the loony bin, adds to my confusion and frustration.

A video I saw the other day, trending on Youtube, is this: https://youtu.be/0omjeOt-U6w
where at time https://youtu.be/0omjeOt-U6w?t=95 a correlation is subtly made that Trump = Extremism.

crisis was inflated out of proportion in medias, which created a sense ofpanic — Coldlight

Perhaps I am just a causality of watching too much media.

Attack might be a bad word, as it reflects some of the internal bias I have here.

Disagreements with some friends is the extent of personal attack on the issue of high taxation, although I find myself being confused enough to take a lot of Youtube videos and Twitter responses as somewhat personally. I find myself also confused by other progressive social movements, which reinforces my biases of more progressive ideas.

Many of my friends and family are rather in favor of increased social spending; free childcare, free medication, free dental, universal income, free post education, and more. To me this all comes off as a slippery slope, as individuals are turning to the government as the new father figure, and with that comes increased dependence on the government. They dispute this, which has me questioning myself now -- and the reason for the post.

I've been spending some time on a mothers/feminist forum, trying to come to better understanding of gender equality and the complete tangled mess of the different view points I see in this world. I highly recommend reading over their views for added insights to this discussion: their forum doesn't seem to be far-left in view, but rather just a very female view.

One thread they have going that seems particularly interesting to me lately is an ANTI-EQUALITY bill, or more precisely, an exemption wish list for women. ie) Girl Guides, bathrooms, prisons, gyms, etc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YMTB26EMURyu08BTTbDZLKdNm7NSRoda/view
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3185398-Biological-SEX-MATTERS-How-many-mumsnetters-say-aye-to-this-campaign

When push comes to shove, honest women will admit there are biological differences between men and women. Please see the above document and their public vote for evidence. This really stands out when the topic of transgender picks up; women don't trust any sort of man at all it seems. I can attest to the fact that as a man, I cannot go to the beach or playground with a camera in hand, nor can I be left unsupervised when with other people's children around. This does not apply to a lady though. Sexism at it's finest**

I tend to agree with a lot of what women are stating actually though, however I am utterly confused by what is politically acceptable and not anymore. **There are a lot of double standards and double think, so I am left perpetually confused.

For example, no 8-year old boy (or trans) is going to rape an 8-year old girl if the boy is allowed into girl guides. Girls are allowed into boy scouts without concern to make that evident. I get very confused though to hear that when Girl Guides needs to allow in boys, this becomes unacceptable from feminists however.

Their explanation for this:

1. Learning, education and development
Some children and adults thrive more in single-sexed education and recreational
activities. This includes single-sex schools, Girl Guides and women and girls in STEM subjects.

2. Sanctuary, privacy and recovery
Single-sex spaces mean participants can be confident they will be free from
potential harassment, voyeurism, intrusion, domination or embarrassment

Before I can state where my opinion on the matter of gender equity lands, I think I need to understand all the views. So far, that is proving impossible as the complexity is far beyond my abilities to juggle while trying to side step cognitive biases. I tend to find the safest answer then is to look around at how things are now, what works and what doesn't, and not try to leap to conclusions about what an ideal resolution would be instead.

Reminds me of something I have been wondering; what is the degree of connection required, between the differing data units which are being accessed, for the system to remain 1 overall memory system? would the minimum required connection be an electrical current perhaps? — Tyler

I don't know. One aspect might be latency, as lets say we add enough latency to each fragment of the brain so that the time difference of each data chunk is noticeable. For example, you may see your hand moving before you told it to move, and only moments later then realize why you are moving it; that might introduce the awareness of fractured time to the conscious. Our nerve impulses move very quickly at times, fast enough that we aren't aware of the delay.

In a real world example of added latency, If I put my hand on the stove, my hand is moved quickly, perhaps even before I realize it has moved. I realize it after, but I don't seem to notice that I moved my hand before I was made conscious that I wanted to move it. It's a weak example, as it requires little thought to have such a reflex, but it illustrates my point somewhat I hope.

I disagree. I think the idea which is represented by the term "consciousness" does in fact imply consciousness. Since the only definition and intended meaning by the term "consciousness", is that idea. The only thing that the term really refers to is that idea, which we have of what it means.
Your cat may be a clever one for pissing on your pillow, ha ha, but the idea of a cat, functions differently or to a significantly differing degree, than the idea we have of consciousness. — Tyler

I get my own semantics on this issue confused at times. Self awareness, consciousness, and the ability for active thought. I don't know

You get dreams, perhaps. Sleeping is a lack of sensory and memory input, and without active stimulation for memories, the brain defaults to memories which have most recently been accessed. — Tyler

I wasn't even thinking of dreams, but I believe you may be largely correct. I was thinking of being awake, conscious, and when i explored "sensory deprivation" systems, it seems people lose track of time and their own sansity in quick order.

Would that be basically the method of function for one memory to trigger another related memory, and at times circle back and trigger the same memory? — Tyler

Perhaps. Our brain is a complex map of layers of structures and neurons, and many of these systems I suspect have feedback loops. In machine learning, a recursive neural network is what your describing and I have little doubt our brain makes use of these.

In computers, looping data from the output of a transistor, into the input of the transistor, is a way to keep it in memory. It wouldn't surprise me if those systems existed in us too, especially when talking about something like short-term working memories -- don't know tho

I suppose my main point is that although we see the world as a singular, the "now", our current thoughts are a mix of past, present, and even future, being processed across more than just one space in our heads. There is probably a small spot of the deep brain that really brings the sensors all together, but it would still be a complex system that relies on all its inputs and even outputs.

I think that makes sense, that it could all be represented by data. Do you think that would mean the data could be generated in a computer to simulate consciousness, without imitating the infrastructure of a brain? Perhaps a mimic of consciousness could be computed with only code. Though I suspect it would take a lot of code. — Tyler

absolutely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

I think the required data is a minimum of 20-petabytes (assuming just the addresses of the connected neurons, the synapse type and the synapse "weight" for each of the brains' 10^15 synapses), which seems feasible with high resolution MRI scanners. Last I heard, it takes 40 hours of supercompute cycles to simulate a minute of brain activity. I'd like to have my brain scanned on my death bed if possible, even if it meant freezing my brain to allow for an accurate scan.

. I do not believe that all this is the product of blind evolution and random chance — tus

And yet to me it's hard to believe it could be explained any other way.

I see all the death, predation, pain, disease, filth, untold amounts of completely pointless suffering and so on.

death comes from life. Without death, there likely wouldn't be life, and life is considered a good, so we find a balance. Without life, there is no good or bad, as there is no perception to define good or bad.

Predation is competition. Life needs resources, and successful life responds with more life, which needs even more resources. At some point, the life will face limited resources, and those who obtain resources will continue, and those who don't will cease. Predation is the shift from the competition of resources to turning the competition into resources; is a naturally easier path to resources in an saturated world.

Pain is feedback; negative feedback. Negative feedback is very useful; look at those humans that are born without pain. It's a miserable life for them. If it didn't hurt, it wouldn't exactly be negative. Pain is fascinating when you consider that we evolved it as an ability to make us stronger and more competitive. It sucks, but you know what sucks more? Not realizing or caring that you picked up a red-hot stone out of a campfire.

Disease sucks, but its tied to competition. We are not free from competitors. It's a constant battle.

Filth. What ?

Pointless suffering? There isn't really much of an evolutionary reason to prevent suffering is there I suppose. Perhaps we should torture every child on the planet, and allow only those who seem to suffer less to have children. In a few hundred generations, perhaps people will have been bred to suffer less. We aren't perfect systems, but your suffering isn't really something that matters to the overall picture, hence why it continues on.

I think we learn to become self conscious by means of differentiation. Early on infants identify with their care givers and they do not consider them separate entities, but eventually in following others actions, and constructing theories on why things are occur as they do, children learn that care givers are acting purposely, causally and in this manner they learn that they are not their care givers. In making this distinction the child learns its own agency, its ability to act self consciously, to change and not be able to change things according to its desires. — Cavacava

interesting.

Are other creatures capable of learning conscious in the same way then? Or is there something more to humans that allow us to have that capability. I like to believe while my cat may not have the language to define himself as an individual, I believe he is quite conscious of some things. For example, he is quite clever, and if being clever requires conscious thought, than `nuf said.

In regards to identity or awareness as a concept, it does indeed seem that one may need to first learn that there is a the difference between them and others, before the next step is taken to be conscious of ones own agency, or along the lines as you so put.

We are building systems that think; every day we make progress in duplicating our capabilities and more. I have no doubt we will one day be able to create synthetic awareness that we will struggle to differentiate from our own. if that makes us gods, so be it.

Perhaps the modern theory that we live in a virtual universe is itself true too, where we are the created, and as such, by your definition, we would then not be conscious. Even for a creationist, if we were created, the only one with a conscious should then be the creator themself.

There is nothing abstract about it. — Rich

It's possible I used the wrong word, but I think I still stand by the choice in word.

ab·stract - existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

From the outside looking in, a virtual robot to us appears to not have a conscious. We go so far as to argue that pets and animals do not have conscious either, yet we generally assume that a mentally handicapped person has a consciousness, because we assume they are like us.

I am able these days to program a neural network to dream or to create a post, perhaps even more logical and meaningful than your own. A machine passing the Turing test is no longer an impossibility. That does not prove to me that it or even you has a conscious. From the outside physical world looking in, your consciousness to me is nothing more than a bunch of neurons pulsing away. This is why I use the word "abstract".

This term, consciousness, represents an idea we claim to have, but an idea does not mean we are truly conscious. Having an idea does not imply consciousness, does it? My cat has lots of clever ideas, like the idea of pissing on my pillow when I went on vacation for a week.

Without a doubt, it will be one day be possible to upload a physical snapshot of our brains to a computer and run it. We will be able to run our thoughts backwards in time, and yet we will still perceive ourselves and time as moving forward. We can run our digital brains across millions of computers, in fragments, perhaps even run part of it from the moon and the other part here, and yet we will still perceive things as singular. Cutting away at this digital brain, how much is needed before we then qualify the system as no longer conscious?

Is there any reason it is 18? I would of suspected any age would still be valid.

What if the teenager had a child before turning 18; would that child then still be in reach of the grandparents? And which grandparent gets to make the decision? One or all?

When I think of memories, I'm reminded of a RadioLab podcast that looked at those with short term memory loss. What intrigued me was that the human response to some input could be reproduced identically and repeatedly in patients with a 2-minute memory. The mechanics of what make people think don't change all that much over time, so it's the memories and environment that enable variations in response over the short term.

Also being exposed by modern deep layered neural networks, we see that there are different mechanisms of learning. Back-propagation techniques allow for neural networks to rearrange and balance themselves out over many iterations of training, but when not learning, these networks of neurons act as nothing more than a very complex transformation matrix. Data comes in, gets transformed, and the output is the reaction.

This physical transformation matrix, made up of neurons, represents a memory of what has been learned. The physical arrangement of switches, weights, and activation all are forms of learned memories; they are not really re-callable memories though, rather hard-wired reactive memories that perform a task. You can perhaps visualize the hardwired network by poking it and seeing what output is generated. Entering the word cat might result in a picture of a cat, for example.

When we look at more modern machine learning techniques, like long-short-term-memory neural networks, more temporal forms of memory are added to the system that allow inputs to be connected over time. Sentence structure, sentiment analysis, and predictions become possible. The system becomes more than just an instinctive reflex and even someone in deep sleep is capable of a reflex.

As we learn more about neural networks, it seems we are learning more about ourselves. Regarding this conversation, my belief is that consciousness is an outcome of neurons just doing their job and the resulting arrangement of it all. The arrangement of these neurons can be represented with just data, the behavior of each neuron can be represented with just data, and the state of current dynamic memory is stored in some physical but ever fleeting way. The system needs to spin though to keep processing the input information, so energy is needed to keep the neurons reacting as programmed in the network that they have been arranged.

Consciousness is then simply some abstract consolidation of the different outputs and inputs, perceived as one thought. It is a meshed loop of outputs feeding into inputs, chained together in a way that is unaware of how fragmented it all is in relation to actual time and space. As the components of each system flow from cluster of neurons to cluster or neurons, perhaps simultaneously at times, the illusion of a singular time line and singular consciousness is established. ie, The right side of the brain may not actually know what the left side is doing, yet we still feel we perceive ourselves having one consciousness.

One curious question though is, what happens when you take away the inputs to such a system and replace it with something unnaturally void? Systems without inputs start to produce some really weird results from my own experiments with neural networks. I suppose phantom limbs and sensory deprivation tanks are possible places of answers.

Well, by today's viewpoint Jefferson would most definitely be a tyrant; I can't deny that he did some disturbing things. I suspect he had the capabilities to free his own slaves too, even if it meant sneaking them out to Canada, although it would of been to his detriment.

A mix of reasons I've found online, although most are just outright bad.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property

• the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold);
• his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves;
• his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society;
• his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government;
• and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.

Today, we live in a society were a lifetime of good deeds mean nothing if the #metoo movement accuses you of past sexual misconduct. We also have wealthy elites proclaiming wealth redistribution, although they themselves are not willing to contribute from their wealth alone. It's not even limited to the elites, as there are hundreds of countries worse off than America, and yet wallets largely stay closed. I've adopted my cat, although I do feel guilty that I have room to adopt a few more, and yet I don't.

So my argument is that Jefferson did "give a fuck", although how far he was willing to self-sacrifice can easily be held to scrutiny. Given the context of the time, he was a progressive!

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Regarding payment to slaves, he was heading in the direction of modern McDonalds I suppose,

Jefferson attempted to motivate slaves to perform tasks with incentives such as “gratuities” (tips) or other rewards. He experimented with “new modes of governance” of enslaved people, which was intended to moderate physical punishment and to capitalize on the human desire to emulate and excel.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

I also found this a bit interesting, although a bit off topic:

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Based on his view of the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, he believed freeing of the slaves outright would result in a race-war, but he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union.

This fear was at least partially not unfounded, as the civil war proved, and we see race battles persist in America today and in countries like South Africa.

Pardon the pedantic nature of this reply, but I'm struggling to offer answers to your questions.

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal" — Dachshund

Not an argument really, but I'm Canadian and as such I learned about American history on my own accord. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which does not use those terms you mention, yet the end result for us has been equal or even more extreme. I suppose then it's not the wording or phrasing that matters so much as the general sentiment.

As per the Canadian charter, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination... [affirmative action programs however can trump these rights]".

Relevant is the Canadian Federal Budget released yesterday, $1.4-billion has been allocated towards female entrepreneurs, along with the introduction of a federal mandate of equal pay for females; whatever that may entail needs to be seen.

the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist — Dachshund

Reading over Paine's history in more detail, I find it interesting how he sees "created equal" as not an anti-slavery argument, but as an anti-monarchy one. I believe there might of been reference to Jesus in his argument, so take that for what it is worth.

Furthermore, for Paine, the terms "inalienable" and "self-evident" seemed to imply that human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter. If granted by means of political charter, that would imply those rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges. This also would seemingly imply that these rights are not to be questioned and are not up for debate. I have read though that in later years Jefferson himself spoke of these rights as not just political, but morally as well, but times do change people.

Based on the works of Locke, which also seem to carry significance to this discussion, he asserted that human natural rights would mean nothing without a moral human code to define them. I can't particularly fault him for such belief, although I am generally of the mindset that natural morals are primarily allowances in behavior that ensures reproduction and survival.

The deviation of any moral code and moral equity by the founding fathers would seem however to come directly from the Christian bible's declaration of such truths. If there be a separation of state and church, it seems a bit of a fallacy to base the premise of any rights on the incontestable assertions of any one's religion's morals. I suspect that to "respect" a person is to not infringe on those rights claimed to be natural. Either way, the words picked do imply that regardless of derivation, the stated rights are not to be questioned. This is fairly normal of most charters though, no?

I'm struggling to tackle your other deeper arguments however, as I find myself needing to make a lot of debatable conclusions as to what the basis of "all men are created equal" means. Juggling these assumptions is overwhelming me.

Boo Hoo. — charleton

I don't quite follow.

I think we should be allowed to abort our child up to the age of 18 — René Descartes

Seems like a lot of wasted tax dollars, as those first 18 years of child care services aren't cheap. Do adopted parents get to make that choice, or only the biological parents? Mom or father?

Based on the poll that just went up, it caused me to wonder if post-birth "abortions" would be considered a legitimate view point. Does the difference of a few minutes, the duration of the delivery, really change the argument made by some people here? The born child is just as helpless as it was when within the womb, but now its easier to discard of if the goal is late-stage abortion; you don't need to pull the fetus out piece by piece this way. Would the argument be emphasized if the umbilical cord was still attached?

Tearing into this a bit more, 28 weeks of pregnancy seems like more than enough time to make a choice on whether to keep a child or not. Not aborting by around this time is sort of an acceptance of responsibility, and failing in responsibilities come consequences. Arguably having sex seems like a choice and responsibility on its own already, so I suspect that argument won't hold up.

Either way, with the introduction of late stage information of the fetus being determined to have serious health issues, I could see how late stage abortions would be acceptable. But based on that logic, if you learn of these birth defects only at time of birth, would it then be acceptable to kill the child immediately after birth? I suppose not, given that adoption would be an option, but adoption is an option for late-stage pregnant mothers as well, is it not?

Overall, I have no strong opinion either way, as people do what they can get away with and I hold beliefs that nothing ultimately really matters.

So just to be clear, a women starts to go into labor, however she gets last minute cold feet and decides she wants to abort -- that's included in the "no matter what" option, right?

I did have to tune it down a bit, yeah, which I recall being quite annoying. Mostly though, I found that the tune had moments were it couldn't be played solo, so I improvised my own version. I was probably on the Suzuki lessons book 6 or so at the time, and just turning a teenager, which actually made me one of my instructor's worst students.

Danse Macabre was one of the first songs I asked my violin instructor to teach me when I was a child.

Anyways, really loving the music tastes in this thread. The top 40 on my streaming service does not resonate at all with me; I am officially old I guess.

I do mainly listen to new music, but a classic tune that represents me fairly well is the following:

Thomas Jefferson was, it seems to me, just an A-Grade hypocrite and liar; a man who made a lot of filthy lucre for himself and his cronies through protecting the slave trade in the US over many years — Dachshund

It's hard to defend someone who owned 200 slaves, as he himself admitted that slavery corrupted all men. Jefferson did inherit 52 slaves by his father's will and another 135 slaves from his father-in-law's will. He did however face constant debt problems and in his death 130 slaves were sold to pay those debts. In some sense the banks were the ones who owned the slaves; this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition.

Despite this, he did free some of his slaves, some of which only after they had been trained and were qualified to hold employment. Jefferson seemed to believe that the outright freeing of slaves would be dangerous for everyone, and that training and gradual integration was the correct course of action. Jefferson proposed a national plan to end slavery by the federal government via purchasing African-American slave children for $12.50, raising and training them in occupations of freemen

The hypocrisy of Jefferson signing the declaration of independence, while still owning slaves, was not lost on people even then though. "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." It was a time of transition, with cumbersome legacy baggage to account for, but a solid foundation for the future was still being laid at least.

In the end, Jefferson led the effort to criminalize the international slave trade, which ultimately can be considered a good thing. He was one of the good guys in my opinion, despite his blemishes.

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regardless, the notion that people are born with equal ability, equal opportunity, equal Independence, or equal value seems to me to be pretty ludicrous. I suppose the growth of the government into aspects of society outside of simply ensuring the basic rights previously detailed has carried with it the belief that equality should be found elsewhere as well; and enforced. There is no shortage of novels written about such dystopic worlds where these attitudes run into the extreme.

That's not to say the declaration of independence was perfect though. Women's rights were not equal those of males, and the more modern argument is that they should be. There is an argument that perhaps they shouldn't be though, as under the law a man going topless and a women going topless have different perceptions. We also have male circumcision and female circumcision differences. Clearly, men and women are born different, and even under the law, they have different rights and freedoms. It becomes a slippery slope to play that game though.

Well, there are differences of course.

Cancer generally will continue to spread, often killing the host. An embryo however usually becomes independent and leaves the host, with the exception of some Millennials I suppose. In the past, mothers often died during pregnancy or delivery, so historically for some mothers there wasn't much difference from that or cancer. Both cancer and pregnancies have lower fatality rates these days mind you, so an excised cancer and an early abortion still share a lot in common.

Fortunately these days, most 20-week pregnancies these days are wanted, while cancer isn't generally wanted, but in the past and as per this discussion, that isn't always still the case. Sometimes a pregnancy is wanted about as much as cancer. Morbid as it is, abortions by coat hangers are a real thing. It's quite possible some one would prefer cancer to an unwanted pregnancy.

Technically, some fetuses will actually end up being exactly that, just tumors; "fetal tumor" is the actual name. Still births also are quite interesting, as should they be considered alive, dead, or just passive tissue?

It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. — LostThomist

In virology class, I recall the definition of life being a talking point. Is a Prion or Virus a life form? The general scientific consensus seemed to be that viruses were not alive, as they were dependent on the host; I believe they are dependent on reproduction and metabolism. It becomes fairly easy then to see how an unborn fetus could be seen as perhaps nothing more than a cancerous tumor, triggered by foreign DNA entering the body.

A retrovirus for example will inject itself into a human's genome, reproducing itself, and potentially leading to cancerous cell growth. We don't necessarily call that new corrupted lump of tissue a new life form -- it's just a tumor.

Newborns and toddlers still depend upon their parents to provide nutrition and a safe environment. Indeed, some third-world countries require children to be breast fed because formula is not available. Can a mother kill her newborn son because he depends on her body for nutrition?

Based on the principals of our society, the rights of the individual, on some level this is indeed the case. I do not legally need to donate blood, nor do I need to legally donate a kidney to someone who might otherwise die. Thankfully for unwanted infants, the child can be dropped off for rescue at a firestation or such zones without question. Since there is a viable option for mothers in a situation, choosing an action that would lead to the death of their child is negligence. Of course, deciding to keep the child as well binds you to a contract of responsibility, where failure to live up to those obligations is also seen as negligence.

If I'm taxed heavily, but I don't feel my contribution provides me adequate representation, I will simply flock to another country.

As a youth, banning guns outright seemed like such an obvious solution to violent shootings, such as those at Columbine. Leftist propaganda films, such as those by Michael Moore, only entrenched my beliefs more.

While I don't personally own guns of any sort, I've since self-taught myself enough about history to see the validity of the second amendment. As a result, I'm often surprised by how often those who say they understand the second amendment don't really know it beyond the phrase "the right to bear arms".

Arguments about AR15s being a fun pastime or a concealed handgun being needed for self defense at a dance club leave me questioning whether the correct debate is being had.

Anyways, years ago I wrote up a theoretical solution that I thought might stay true to the constitution, while tackling gun violence. It would never be adopted though, as everyone seems to hate the idea.

Briefly, the idea works like this. Virtually all non-discriminatory weapons would be banned from ownership, such as nuclear weapons, but virtually all other weapons could be owned. This includes fully-automatic, missiles, and even tanks. The catch is these weapons would need to be stored at organized militia depots, regulated armories, and police stations. The government would have very limited control over these facilities: generally just enough access to monitor.

Use or transport of such weapons however would need permits, which would be obtained on-demand by those already registered in an intelligent government database. Generally, you'd still need to demonstrate a need to obtain a free permit (hunting/occupation/gunrange), and even then the permit would be constrained by location, duration, and weapon. Ammunition would be tied to the permit as well, so generally unused ammunition would need to be returned when the permit expires. Machine learning is pretty powerful these days, so I'd trust it to red flag those in a database with odd permit requests.

While there would be some permits that would allow for extended at-home carry, mainly rifles out in country or for police officers, the vast number of permits would have limitations that exclude at-home defense. As a result, the second aspect of this all would be to allow for a second class of permit issuance that is for smart weapons. These are weapons that either lockup/alarm if taken off of the premise they are restricted to; also they may alarm if used or tampered with, and perhaps come fitted with a non-removable 10-round magazines, etc.

Such weapons would need to be developed, but if there were no other allowable options for home defense, they perhaps could see adoption. Government incentives would likely be needed to ensure the R&D into these weapons is seen as a low-risk investment by gun manufactures. Permits for such weapons could require the weapons be given maintenance yearly, to ensure they were not tampered with and to ensure they are still functional.

Anyways, that's the general idea; I wrote several pages more with added details. Ultimately, I believe if the goal is to given the population the means to defend itself from an evil government, it needs more than AR15's; the government doesn't just use muskets anymore -- it has drones and tanks. Smart weapons for personal defense I feel fills in a gap that made this idea a bit weak previously, but I also know that people really hate smart guns. Overall then, I doubt this idea would ever stick.

Taxation without representation likely won't end well.

Considering this though, those living off social welfare are not really being taxed... so do they deserve representation? Well, they obviously need some form of representation, but perhaps a different forum would be appropriate there.

Something like 45.3% of Americans don't pay [income] taxes though, due to tax breaks, liabilities, or lack of income. That's a group that is bound to include many of the mentally disabled. If you're an earner and paying taxes though, even if you are not the smartest, you will want a say with where your money goes. Even an idiot can point a gun.

Moving to a system where the wealthier have voting control may lead to greater risk of extreme inequality. Perhaps land ownership or completed military service would also be pathways to voting access. Only allowing those with an education and a high intellect is a concern to me though, as education does not always translates into economic sensibilities. #communism

any attempt to say that the woman has a right to remove the baby (even if the intention is not to kill the baby) is like saying that I have a right to eject a stowaway in my plane after I have taken off. Yes that action alone does not directly kill the person, but if I threw that stowaway out of my plane at 30,000 feet, I would be in denial if I said that I did not know that the fall would kill him. The same goes with babies. Saying that a woman has a right to eject the baby from the womb at younger than 20-24 weeks would most assuredly kill the baby and even after 25 weeks, it is not a sure thing that a prematurely born baby would survive even with our new and updated technology in NICU wards. — LostThomist

The hormone in some birth control pills changes the lining of a women's uterus so that implantation of a fertilized egg is much less likely to occur. Whether abortion by means of birth control pill at zero-day or at week 22, the logic applied seems fairly similar. One might argue though that the common birth control pill has resulted in a negative natural replacement rate of people, which could be argued as societal suicide and a biological sin; far more damaging than the results of week 20 abortions.

Death is a common symptom of life though, as is natural selection, so I don't look at death as being overtly bad or good. What I understand though is that as this society we have determined that individuality has been deemed more important than the group. Whether for good or bad, an individual's rights takes precedent so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. One may not inflict harm on another unless it's in self defense.

After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. The mother can not do harm to the unborn child at this point unless it threatens the rights (life) of the mother. Although removing the baby at this point may not lead to the child's successful birth, lets consider the classical Schrodinger's cat experiment. We do not know if the cat inside the poisoned trapped box is alive or dead until we open the box, but until we do, the cat must be considered both alive and dead. If alive, it must be treated with rights.

An added note, but it would seem justifiable to kill the baby if it threatened the life of the mother, although I chuckle that it may be just as justifiable to kill the mother to save the baby in such a case. As for pre-week 24 abortions, I suspect that any time a man has sex with a women who is on the pill, they are likely accomplices to abortions they may not even be aware of.