Pro-life Or Pro-choice?
| So, we should kill animals that belong to species we do eat, even if we don't have to? |
Obviously not.
| The issue with that is that if you think avoidable killing is unacceptable then most people would have to revise a significant portion of their lifestiles to avoid falling into a double standard. Basically switch to a full vegan lifestile. If it's only avoidable killing of humans that's unacceptable then that's special pleading. |
It's different. It's only natural to eat meat, that's why you'd have to go out of your way to plan your meals (to get similar nutrition) and spend more money if you want to switch to being vegan. It's highly inconvenient. If you have a baby, you literally just dump them at some place and you drive back home.
Again, killing to eat is much different. I do understand your point, if we avoid killing the infant because we can why don't we do the same with animals if we can eat other things. If we get down and dirty, there's ethics and convenience. You probably don't even want to kill the infant, and doing so is going out of your way (it's illegal!). As for animals, it's not convenient to try and change your diet like that. We kill them to eat and it's very natural. If we didn't have to for food, we wouldn't want to kill them.
| Is that because it can't, or because there's no air? |
Because it's like a vegetable.
| BS. So the fetus magically gains a soul when it exits the uterus? There's basically no difference cognitively between a newborn baby and a last trimester fetus. |
Yes, abortions at the last trimester is a slightly different thing and I do concede that it's more like an infant rather than a fetus. I've compared it before to having a heap of sand and constantly removing a single grain. Every time you remove a grain, it's still a heap of sand. However, if you do it until there's only one grain left, at which point did it go from being a heap of sand to not being a heap of sand? At this point, they could just have the baby (it's close to being born!) and give it up at birth but I don't know about getting rid of abortion completely. There's still the woman to consider.
An important aspect of this is that, as I've said before, an infant is also in a stage where killing it wouldn't be the same as waiting a few years. At this point, it's too underdeveloped to really understand or really care. This is more of a logical point than a moral one, which is what I find my morals based off of. If I base my arguments off my own morality I'd be saying, "Human or not, if they don't want the baby abort the shit of out!"
| Surely, it would depend on the method. |
With tweezers you have to start stabbing everywhere you think will lead them to death. You can also try to grab anything you think is important in there and pull it out with them. But be careful not to break the tweezers, you only get one pair!
| Obviously the baby, and that's what I was getting at. It's an irrational decision, not necessarily an ethical decision. |
Less ethical but more moral. We as humans will tend to value our own kind more. The ethics may play out in knowing that the more intelligent a species is the more "lifey" it's life is. Though I do understand your point.
| I don't have a womb, so I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other, so I take the default position that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as often as possible. |
While the woman is the one with final say, I always had this story in my head where I screwed up, got a woman pregnant, she can't have an abortion, and now we're both dealing with it! I'm really pro-choice for my own benefit, but it also makes the most sense to me. If I was the one going through pregnancy, I'd be pissed off if someone told me I couldn't do what I wanted because the fetus had rights that trumped mine. And technically speaking, all pregnancies carry risk of killing the mother, they should decide whether or not it's a risk they want to take.
The best of the best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlP7n9Amakw
Last edited on
| Obviously not. |
| It's different. It's only natural to eat meat |
| At [the last trimester], they could just have the baby (it's close to being born!) and give it up at birth but I don't know about getting rid of abortion completely. |
| An important aspect of this is that, as I've said before, an infant is also in a stage where killing it wouldn't be the same as waiting a few years. At this point, it's too underdeveloped to really understand or really care. |
| Less ethical but more moral. |
| While the woman is the one with final say, I always had this story in my head where I screwed up, got a woman pregnant, she can't have an abortion, and now we're both dealing with it! |
But in reality, what would actually happen in that situation (assuming neither of you want the baby) is that you'd have to weight the higher risk of going to a clandestine abortionist. That's probably the strongest counter-argument to a pro-life stance: just making abortions illegal doesn't stop all abortions, only some; women who still want to get abotions get them, and some of them end up dying as a consequence.
EDIT: One thing I forgot to ask: suppose a madman has devised a situation where you have to either sacrifice n adult humans or m newborn babies, and if you don't make a decision they all die. What are the values of n and m where you would have trouble deciding?
Last edited on
| What are the values of n and m where you would have trouble deciding? |
1)
Suppose we value potential
M has more life potential than N,
potential, M>N
Suppose we value who sets development back
N will likely use less resources, while M have an entire lifestime of resourses to use. Imagining they live that long
if you view this as un-ideal,
Resource, M<N
2)What would made decision difficult is realisation that the logical option is if no decision is made on your behalf
reminds me of the SAW Carousel
"Hello, William. Before you are six
of your most valuable associates,
the ones who find errors in policies.
Their findings result in over two-thirds
of all applications denied
or prematurely terminated.
Now you must apply your analysis to them.
And will you be able to find their errors?
Six ride the carousel.
But only two can get off.
The decision of which two survive
falls upon you.
But remember,
the mounted gun will continue to fire
until all six rounds are spent.
And if no decision is made on your part,
all six will perish.
To offer the two reprieves,
you must press both buttons at once
in the box before you.
However, in doing so
you'll give a sacrifice of your own.
Two can live, four will die.
Your decision's symbolized
by the blood on your hands."
Last edited on
| I wasn't talking just about diet. There's plenty of things we do that kill needlessly. Machine-based agriculture is surprisingly bloody, for example. |
A necessary evil I suppose. Perhaps it's a bit inhumane, but convenience tends to come out on top. There are movements about these things, but we people turn a blind eye and care less about things that aren't happening in front of them. So it isn't humane, but people don't care, especially against the bigger issue in their minds of energy renewal.
| Well, we're talking about ethics, not pragmatics. Suppose that for some reason the woman waited until then to decide. How late is it too late, and why? |
It should probably still be the woman's choice. While it is more like a newborn rather than a fetus, it's kind of a grey spot. There are still reasons to have an abortion at this time, and it's the stage where only a very small amount of women actually have an abortion. If we talk about ethics, it's a slightly different argument for the third trimester but a lot of the same points. I usually focus on abortion in general in my arguments.
| I have no idea what you're saying. |
If I came at someone with a knife, they're going to immediately recognize their lives are in danger and run or fight back. An infant doesn't even understand the concept. I was trying to get a reaction from this new born in all sorts of ways, it had a professional poker face. If at this stage I murdered it, it wouldn't really care as long as it was a quick death.
| Well, I wanted to stick to ethics because that's something that's deducible from first principles. If we argue morals I can just say "I don't agree" (and I don't) and we can't go anywhere. |
Well, an ethical case could be made, but it would still be mostly on morals when choosing between a monkey and a baby. The overall intelligence of the baby when grown up will trump the monkey's (hopefully) and we are always more humane to animals that show intelligence. If we had a cockroach and a monkey and try to kill both of them, the cockroach would run away yes, but the monkey would better understand the situation. It would be more cruel to the monkey.
| If the woman doesn't agree with you there isn't much you can do |
As long as it's not illegal, I'm sure I could likely pressure/convince her. However, if illegal, there's definitely no chance of that.
| That's probably the strongest counter-argument to a pro-life stance: just making abortions illegal doesn't stop all abortions, only some; women who still want to get abotions get them, and some of them end up dying as a consequence. |
While true, I don't make this argument. All they're going to say is, "So we should let people die so that they don't try to kill them illegally?" Or something to that effect. It's a very easy point for some blind fetus lover to shoot down. Perhaps if the argument was infront of a crowd that will judge us or a crowd that I'm also trying to convince, then it would be a good point to make.
| suppose a madman has devised a situation where you have to either sacrifice n adult humans or m newborn babies, and if you don't make a decision they all die. What are the values of n and m where you would have trouble deciding? |
My initial decision without much thought was the adult human. I thought about it a bit, and still found myself saying the adult human as long as they're not already too old. Most, I assume, would say the infant because it has a life ahead of it, but it's cruel to the adult to cut their lives short.
Morally, perhaps the infant is the better decision, but who could really say what is right or wrong? Ethically, the newborn isn't cognitive enough to understand or care, but the adult would. If instead it was like a 3 year old baby, then definitely the baby. It's started it's life and is just starting to understand things. It would be even more cruel to cut it's life short at this stage.
| It should probably still be the woman's choice. While it is more like a newborn rather than a fetus, it's kind of a grey spot. There are still reasons to have an abortion at this time, and it's the stage where only a very small amount of women actually have an abortion. If we talk about ethics, it's a slightly different argument for the third trimester but a lot of the same points. I usually focus on abortion in general in my arguments. |
| As long as it's not illegal, I'm sure I could likely pressure/convince her. However, if illegal, there's definitely no chance of that. |
| My initial decision without much thought was the adult human. I thought about it a bit, and still found myself saying the adult human as long as they're not already too old. Most, I assume, would say the infant because it has a life ahead of it, but it's cruel to the adult to cut their lives short. Morally, perhaps the infant is the better decision, but who could really say what is right or wrong? Ethically, the newborn isn't cognitive enough to understand or care, but the adult would. If instead it was like a 3 year old baby, then definitely the baby. It's started it's life and is just starting to understand things. It would be even more cruel to cut it's life short at this stage. |
| That's a lot of text to not have answered the question |
I assume you want my choice.
I would make no decision, so n+m will perish. Then know the help I have to earth, by reducing n+m mouths to feed.
that's if the death will be painless, If brutal, I will leave the adults to perish, for numerous say the newborn experience pain greater than adults. These reports don't come without reason, I presume.
Last edited on
| So, if an obstetrician performs a C-section on month 8 and then chucks the baby, is that an abortion or infanticide? Does it make a difference if something is done to the fetus so it dies in uterus? |
Technically it's not an infant if not born. The point here is that if you have to not have it, then go ahead with the abortion. There was a time where people would have the baby and leave it somewhere to die. Now you don't have to. However, lets say your at the last trimester and it has a crucial part of the brain undeveloped, or it's disfigured, etc.. Would an abortion then also be infanticide? The word itself is more of a buzzword to make abortion seem like a horrible thing. There can always be a legit reason for the abortion and I think the woman should decide, it's her situation after all.
| I'm not so sure of either of those. |
Depends on the approach and the woman.
| You misunderstood. n and m are quantities, not ages. You have to sacrifice either n people aged between 20 and 40 or m people aged 0. Roughly, what's the n:m ratio where the decision is difficult for you? |
Oh, that's an odd question. I'm not sure what kind of ratio it would have to be. If I say there's some point at which n amount of infants measure up to m amount of people, I'm not sure what kind of logic I'd use to get there.
| Fine, I assume you want my choice. |
What gave that impression?
Last edited on
| I would make no decision, so n+m will perish. Then know the help I have to earth, by reducing n+m mouths to feed. |
| Technically it's not an infant if not born. |
| If I say there's some point at which n amount of infants measure up to m amount of people, I'm not sure what kind of logic I'd use to get there. |
I'll say that for me the ratio is no higher than 1:10,000.
| What? So all those people whose mothers had C-sections are adult fetuses who were never born? |
By born I mean get out of the womb. That's when we say it's been "born" and when we would theoretically start the clock on its age.
| The question is about the relative worth of their lives in your opinion. I'll say that for me the ratio is no higher than 1:10,000. |
I understand, but what kind of logic would I use to get this number. It may be more for opinion rather than a logical approach, but I wouldn't know how to get to this opinion. For example, how did you get the number 10,000!? And why would a number like 12,000 be too much?
| What gave that impression? |
And even then, the option of refusal to make a decision is not valid. I feel it is logical it is not moral, but it is logical. that's N+M fewer mouths to feed!.
| If you didn't want to answer, why did you jump in? |
Most likely to make no choice
If not, i will sacrifice the adults, for babies feel pain, apparantly more sensitive than adults
least likely to sacrifice the infants.
EDIT: Zapshe, your last two posts in this topic have an hour gap exactly.
Last edited on
| By born I mean get out of the womb. That's when we say it's been "born" and when we would theoretically start the clock on its age. |
| I understand, but what kind of logic would I use to get this number. |
| For example, how did you get the number 10,000!? And why would a number like 12,000 be too much? |
| And even then, the option of refusal to make a decision is not valid. I feel it is logical it is not moral, but it is logical. that's N+M fewer mouths to feed!. |
Or, what if n is "all farmers on Earth"? Then you're not removing mouths to feed, you're destroying the food production infrastructure.
It's a retarded answer.
| If not, i will sacrifice the adults, for babies feel pain, apparantly more sensitive than adults |
Ability to feel pain is not the point of the question, it's about the relative worth of lives.
| It's a pathetic answer. |
| The killing method is hypoxia via nitrogen asphyxiant in a gas chamber. Death ensues painlessly in minutes, after losing consciousness. It's not unlike falling asleep. Ability to feel pain is not the point of the question, it's about the relative worth of lives. |
If one is oblivious to the demise of the other. I would pardon the younger of the fate. The adults life would likely improve less, and thus decline as life goes on, while most kids can only improve, as they will continue learning in great quantities, even if they eventually fall victim to these technological advances, the tests will get harder, the jobs will reduce and they will pioneer industry 4.0 ...probably
Last edited on
| That baby would have very probably been viable, but the pregnancy hadn't yet reached its end naturally. |
I put the consideration of a non-viable baby to address this. Lets say we even go through with the pregnancy and the baby comes out with bad mutations. Sure, killing it then is technically infanticide, but ethical.
So, even if an abortion that late in the pregnancy would be considered infanticide, there may have been cause for it. Most women don't get an abortion at that point. If the infant is viable, there should be strong recommendation against it. I'm not sure how far it should go in terms of how allowed it is during the last months or so. While it doesn't seem very ethical to kill a viable infant in the womb, the woman had their reasons for it and it's their body. Which should trump (especially since it's near pregnancy already, the mother wouldn't be waiting very long to give birth), I'm not too sure.
| I didn't ask for a reasoning, I just asked for a number. |
I don't know where I'd get the number from! I could say 1:100 , but that number doesn't really make sense. I guess 100 infants would be a lot compared to 1 adult. It would depend on the infants and the adult. Einstein might be worth 100,000 infants (?). If the infants came from families with a particularly weak gene pool, maybe an infinite number of those infants. I'm not sure how to make a generalization.
I'm not going to continue bothering with Vilch. They're too stupid to think abstractly.
You may assume that the victims are randomly and uniformly chosen from the global population. There may be Einsteins among the adults or not. There may be future Einsteins among the babies or not. We just don't know.
Okay, so now we're making progress. At 1:100 you'd sacrifice the adults.
What about at 1:50? 1:25? 2:25?
| Einstein might be worth 100,000 infants (?). If the infants came from families with a particularly weak gene pool, maybe an infinite number of those infants. |
| I could say 1:100 , but that number doesn't really make sense. I guess 100 infants would be a lot compared to 1 adult. |
What about at 1:50? 1:25? 2:25?
| I'm not going to continue bothering with Vilch. They're too stupid to think abstractly. |
You know Vilch is just Rascake right?
| You may assume that the victims are randomly and uniformly chosen from the global population. There may be Einsteins among the adults or not. There may be future Einsteins among the babies or not. We just don't know. |
| Okay, so now we're making progress. At 1:100 you'd sacrifice the adults. What about at 1:50? 1:25? 2:25? |
Perhaps between 1:50 and 1:100 . If this was actually happening, my decision in the heat of the moment might be completely different though. What's the point of this exercise; what's gained from knowing a ratio of how much I'd value an adult over an infant?
I guess the children are more likely to be of greater loss, to their family. So if all my previous answers are invalid in your book, then I reprieve the children. Regardless.
Strange, "Sorry, vilch, you can't take that way around. Make a proper choice and look apathetic"
Strange, "Sorry, vilch, you can't take that way around. Make a proper choice and look apathetic"
Last edited on
the horned guy on my shoulder says that being pro choice reduces the # of likely pro choice voters by attrition.
the winged guy on my shoulder is pro life.
and the sarcastic guy in the middle can't grok how violent criminals have more rights than an unborn child, which is how I see the liberal patform on that topic.
the winged guy on my shoulder is pro life.
and the sarcastic guy in the middle can't grok how violent criminals have more rights than an unborn child, which is how I see the liberal patform on that topic.
Last edited on
| and the sarcastic guy in the middle can't grok how violent criminals have more rights than an unborn child, which is how I see the liberal patform on that topic. |
My logical side says that following this logic means that a criminal would have about the same amount of rights as the woman!
The issue here is that someone HAS to deal with it during pregnancy. Realistically, a fetus is like the size of a tip of a pin at conception and isn't remotely human until about 7 months.
that's the whole debate really. When one considers the cells to be a person. Opinions vary on that, which is the root of most of the whole debate, and it pulls in everything from science to religion and more.
Last edited on