I was having dinner at a McDonald's last night when a thought came to me: Are abortion and suicide in coherence with the perspective of Informationalism?

Why was this important?

Informationalism cannot condone murder. Since the freedom of acquisition and distribution of Information are its foundations, one cannot kill another human being unless that human being is trying to kill the other individual. This is because people are the ultimate storage and generation areas of Information. Information is only significant if it is being applied to the individual, idle information is wasted information. Thus, if an individual tries to kill another for no reason other than desire, then they desire the destruction of a place where information is generated and stored. This is why only you, yourself are allowed to kill in defense of yourself.

Before I begin this discussion, let me state that the first and most important premise in these areas is to acquire information so that the destruction of Information is not necessary. Any destruction of Information is not desired. However, what must be done if the Informationalist is forced to act without the Information?

This is my opinion, and may not be shared by all Informationalists. What we agree on is the former statement in bold.

What about killing for a cause? If an individual isn't trying to kill you directly, but they are trying to destroy Informationalism, are you obliged to kill them?

No.

Killing is only justified when another party desires to destroy the individual. If they are attempting to destroy another person, then they must simply be restrained by force.

What if they cannot be restrained by force?

If the individual wishes to destroy the Information with such conviction that they cannot be restrained, then as I have said in another post: biology will take over and informationalism need not say anymore about the outcome.

Is this outcome good?

Beyond Informationalism, good and bad are subjective. As we acquire more information, the things that "work" will become more apparent. As the journey continues, we must regard this outcome as favorable, because biology has prevailed, and the Informationalist has survived. However, the death of any human being is always cause for remorse. Even if this human being seeks to destroy Information, it is regrettable that their desires were set up such that there was no way to coexist. As always, the ultimate goal is to acquire such Information as to make this occurrence unnecessary.

What about in War?

If Informationalists wage war, it must come with provocation. In a state of war, each armed party is trying to destroy each other armed party. Killing in this sense is the same as defending oneself. War does not seem favorable, however, because of the torrential loss of potential Information.

What about all the technological progress War has brought?

It cannot be denied that war drives invention. However, this inventive drive is a dangerous one. The stakes are very high. Also, while there is an increase in the sophistication of technology, there is a general degradation of the living standard. This type of activity cannot be continued indefinitely. Ultimately, the species cannot be sustained under a state of technological warfare.

How does this system work towards people who are not Informationalists?

For example, if we have information that another force Informationalist or Noninformationalist is going to attack us, should we strike first?

It seems highly unlikely that Informationalists would wage war against one another. It is antithetical to their goals. If Informationalists were to wage war, it would be because information suggested that one party was about to strike first. In this case the first strike party would no longer be Informationalist. This could possibly occur with a misunderstanding, but with the free distribution and acquisition of Information, there is little Informationalist incentive to wage war against other Informationalists.

For those who are not Informationalists, Informationalists must first to attempt to restrain the attacking party by no lethal means. If they persist, once again, biology will take over.

Suicide

Should individuals be allowed to kill themselves?

If an individual chooses to kill him or herself, they are destroying a place where information is acquired and created. But Informationalism makes way for a private sphere, does this fall within the public or private sphere?

If an individual wishes to kill his or herself it is not an Informationalist desire. If it takes place, another individual may desire to stop them. This is not Uninformationalist. However, if the individual rejects Informationalism on these person grounds, it is their choice and if they persist nothing Informationalist can stop them. It would be more advantageous to use Informationalism to understand this desire and learn how to alleviate it.

What about the terminally ill wishing to be killed?

The same with suicide.

How should this be legislated?

Both might initially be restrained by Informationalists, this is not required, it is a choice. This is a desire that does not fall within Informationalism, and if they choose this Uninformationalist approach, it is their choice.


Abortion

When a fetus is not yet an independent entity capable of acquiring and producing Information without the existence of its mother, it and the mother are essentially the same thing. Therefore the laws of suicide apply.

The current state is regrettable. As with Informationalism, the goal is to better understand why this detrimental state occurs by acquiring Information and working to alleviate the problem of this destroyed potential Information.

Conclusion

Suicide and Abortion cannot be outlawed. There simply is not justification to invade the private sphere without the proper information. The goal is to acquire such information as to make these personal acts of destruction unnecessary.