[trhway]

wrt. business decision. I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too. Even may be some forms of contraception. That will have more and more negative impact on that group of employees who would need such services. Also family planning becomes very dented at the "planning" part as getting pregnant one would have to accept the much higher risk of having to carry to terms even if say early genetic testing would show some serious defects, and that may result in delaying of the decision to get pregnant, less pregnancies overall, etc. especially for people who favors planning and consequences estimation based approach to live. That all would result in more stressed employees and lesser number of happy families, and that would negatively affect productivity.

(Note: i'm for abortion rules based on sentience level - i think that sentience level of cats/dogs/pigs is where we shouldn't be able to end the life at will while say fish level is ok, chicken is still ok though feels a bit uneasy, and that means as far as i understand about 3, may be 4 months cut-off for abortion in my view (incest and serious genetic defects a bit more complicated, and i think it warrants somewhat later cut-off))

[nyolfen]

> I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too.

do you have an actual reason for thinking this will happen? this is detached from reality, both of these procedures are meant to create babies which are carried to term, which is the fundamental goal of pro-life policies

[trhway]

At everyday level - dismissing extra fertilized eggs is killing new life according to the "life-at-conception". And IVF, contraception, eggs freezing, etc. gives more power/freedom to women which is abomination to the conservative forces. And it isn't some utility level power/freedom like guns or speech, it is the most fundamental power domain for any biological life - the power to determine the genetic makeup of the next generation of the species.

At the deep biological level - the fundamental goal of pro-life policies is to enforce r-selection, ie. more random based, whereis pro-choice is K-selection, ie. more managed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory), and like the abortion the IVF, egg freezing, contraception, etc. are all enemies of r-selection while they are tools of K-selection.

[nyolfen]

you should try talking to somebody who believes these things instead of projecting darwinian strategy fantasies onto them

[trhway]

it would be pointless. Most people don't recognize their deep internal biological drivers, and by its nature the

>darwinian strategy fantasies

are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level.

For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical manifestation of K- vs r-selection differences. The opening of "Idiocracy" is a nice funny commentary on that.

[trhway]

Also one can notice that the slight birth rate increase in the developed countries in the recent 2-3 decades came with the slight decrease in IQ while one the child policy in China resulted in the IQ increase - classic K/r.

[nyolfen]

k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review. this is like talking to an animist about the forest, you are mistaking the result for the agent. the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist, so i don't know why you even bother with presenting an argument.

[trhway]

>k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review.

that event is just a wrinkle in the history of our and other species. The natural selection laws didn't start with humans and hopefully wouldn't end with us.

>you are mistaking the result for the agent

in evolution there is no difference between the result and the agent - every agent is a result of previous evolution, and every result of evolution, ie. an individual with specific traits, strategies, preferences, is an agent of shaping of the further evolution. For example the tendency of elephants to have one baby at a time is a result of their evolution and it shapes their future evolution.

>the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist

classic anti-Darwinian argument. It is a fallacious argument in its nature as free will is a trait of an individual while Darwinian laws are of large group level.

[thatnerdyguy]

You wouldn't euthanize your dog or cat if it had some end of life condition and in pain everyday?

[trhway]

i would. That why i said that incest, serious genetic defects and the likes would warrant a later cut-off, definitely into cats/dogs/pigs level of sentience and may be in very serious cases even into monkey like level of sentience, though that is pushing as it starts to become closer to human euthanasia which is really tough and much more complex subject, and personally and as society we are definitely not able to handle it right.