I am childfree 33, childfree both by choice and by economic circumstances. I have a intense aversion towards baby’s, doesn’t mean others shouldn’t get them. I used to think that instead of having kids, I could just be the cool uncle that babysits sometime. Turns out I really dislike babys. So, probably should never get my own.

Sometimes I get tempted by the wish, but then I am reminder that I prefer the risk of regretting not having children, then risking regretting having children. And while I do subscribe to the anti-natalist worldview, that only should dictate my actions, not those of other people.

I am very lucky to have a partner who is also childfree by choice.

Emotional problems often require solutions that work on the emotion level. In my experience, trying to self it yourself sets you up to try to solve it with rationality. But that often does not work, because the problem is not rational in nature.

This is where a therapist helps. It helps you to solve the problem at the emotional level. That is something a person cannot do by themselves. Asking for help is way easier than trying to do it all yourself.

I personally benefit a lot from https://healthygamer.gg/ as a stopgap measure. I still needed actual therapy, but this helped me through the rough times.

deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.

Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make

I disagree on that. It is a example of the emergency room variation of the trolley problem, as can be read further on here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem?wprov=sfti1#Variations

Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.

To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.

Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.

Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.

As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.

It just means that they called their browser “the internet” right? Or am I missing something here?

Lol I know that place. Funny finding it on here.

It is very easy to get hooked on a toxic ideology when you are desperate. No need to judge so harshly.

iPhone 8, I have been surprised by how long it has lasted so far. Still gets security updates every now and then.

Next phone is probably going to be a fairphone.

I too think it is justified. Simply not used to this tone on Wikipedia. Which is why I find it funny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Never seen Wikipedia this judgemental before