@Shamar @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle does it scale to 7 billion people? I doubt that.

As for your other reply, I consider myself a philosophical zombie. If I suddenly cease to exist and a perfect copy of me is placed instead, would anyone know a difference? Nope!

@Shamar @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle but if another person looks like me, acts like me, feels like me, aren't they as much me as I am?

@newt
No, they aren't: you can't make an exact copy of a quantum system without destroying (altering) the original. Approximate copy — yes.
@Shamar

@amiloradovsky @Shamar is there a proof that consciousness is necessarily a quantum system?

@newt
No. Proofs may only be performed with a precisely defined notions, but consciousness isn't one of those now.
On the other hand, there is so-called Integrated Information Theory (#IIT), which aims to define it more or less rigorously.
@Shamar

@amiloradovsky @Shamar that's basically what I meant. Even if consciousness is quantum based, there's no way to inspect the quantum state, and I suppose there's no need because consciousness constantly changes. Myself today is different from yesterday. So it doesn't really matter.

@newt
My point was about copying: the only way to make an exact copy of something is to take the original…
And those minor differences matter: the evolution of such an unstable system must be very sensitive to the initial conditions (see the chaos/ergodic theory).
The change in time is not really a change of state (in a mechanical sense): e.g. pendulum is moving in time (swinging), although it's "state" stays the same, as long as nobody touches it.
@Shamar

@Shamar @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle you're boring

@Shamar @newt @Wolf480pl @noelle
> just like you accept
within some extreme cases
no one is saying abortion shouldn't be controlled or there shouldn't be a cap for how old the embryo can be
or that it's good when someone has to choose it
but yeah, you wouldn't sacrifice someone to save someone else, i would. it would have to be a pretty dire situation but i would.
i have nothing else to add

@Shamar @newt @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle and none of them are 100% effective, even when used 100% properly (which is generally difficult). Even abstinence.

By denying abortion, you are imposing a duty to reproduce in the cases where earlier interventions fail.

Human meat with the potential to become a person has no right to life, and reproductive control is not capitalist oppression.

@Shamar @newt @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle fortunately, the idea that a fetus has moral equivalence is losing favour everywhere. This makes your nightmare scenarios less likely, as we can focus on the real distinctions between aggregates of human meat with moral standing, and those without.

Although we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that bigotry needs an internally-consistent worldview to thrive. It does perfectly fine without one.

@Shamar @newt @grainloom @Wolf480pl @noelle sexual control is distinct from reproductive control, and many people do not have it. So yes, abstinence is not 100% effective. But it's by the by, since "oops" abortions have moral equivalence. There's no reason to avoid abortions in general.

I am definitely human meat, just like an embryo. Being human meat does not generate moral standing - that way lies absurdity, and as noted at the very start of this thread, is a modern invention