Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Titanium Dragon, on 06 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

People who we view as different or inferior still have the same rights and human condition as us. Isn't this the point of rights? And in my opinion, the modern evolution of the human race is more about advancing technology, and not so much about advancing the people by natural selection per se.

But still, I did consider your point, and that is why I didn't say resources only; I mentioned technology. And with that, I mean things like genetic engineering to the point of being able to correct disorders and crippling conditions on fetuses, to give them a fair chance at living a productive life.

You have the right to remain silent and I wish to the Flying Spaghetti Monster you'd exercise it.

Taeshi, on 03 March 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Without a moments hesitation.

Star did you really just say being completely Pro-Choice is absurd? You think it's absurd for people to be able to be allowed to make their own choice? Because damn.

Quote

Hey, the Nazis had tons of concentration camps.

I will also note that there is actually absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Just because the Nazis practiced something doesn't make it wrong. The Nazis were against smoking because it was bad for your health; I don't think saying that anti-tobacco campaigns are evil is very plausible.

The truth is, however, that eugenics, as existed in the early 20th century, had no basis in actual science or fact - even today, the best you can do is weed out large, obviously deletorious traits, as opposed to more subtle things. We don't actually understand the genetics of intelligence, though we do know that its about 80% heritable in first world countries.

Its doubly ironic given that Jews actually possess above-average intelligence - indeed, of all populations studied, Jews have the -highest- average IQ of any of them. Well, Ashkenazi Jews, anyway. Go figure.

Quote

Its not really a question of human rights, though perhaps the right not to exist exists in some capacity. Or maybe society has the right not to be burdened unduly? As do individuals?

Quote

If you aren't smarter than a pig then you aren't a person.

In any event, genetics are still highly relevant, given the high heritability of intelligence, which is what allows us to develop technology. ANd it is worrying that the smarter you are, the fewer children you have.

Quote

That's not particularly realistic. Far more realistic to just MAKE designer babies to start out with while filching a few superficial traits from the parents. Cheaper, too.

This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 07 March 2012 - 10:06 AM

Argument on definition of human:

Is intelligence the ONLY qualifier of humanity? We've got other traits that make us different as well. Compassion, for example, is a very human trait.

Many intellectually disabled people, that you would so rapidly euthanise, feel love like we do. Which one's more important? You can fall back to the bare, utilitarian response "they're worthless because they don't make money", but that's useless to *you*. If they're still human, you've done a moral wrong by killing them.

What if you lost your legs and arms in a car accident tomorrow, and needed to be cared for 24/7? Did you lose your humanity? You lost a huge amount of usefulness, does that justify me in killing you? It gets better though, what if you were still happy in your new state, and didn't want to die? Is it ok for me to still kill you?

When do you stop being human? When you've lost enough intelligence? When you're not useful to us anymore?

Why don't you execute old people who can't contribute anymore? They definitely aren't useful, and we're footing the bill for their medical care.

You're solution to all the ethical problems in the world is to define what's human and what's not based on some "objective" measure of their intelligence. This is flawed because:

1) My measure of intelligence can be different than yours, it lacks the hallmark of a scientifically valid measurement, repeatability between different observers.

2) It ignores the fact that humans have other unique traits, empathy, for example.

3) It ignores the fact that intelligence can change. The brain is constantly rewiring itself, and we're always learning. With the right help, lots of people you would so rapidly write off can lead happy and fulfilling lives. Recycling centres routinely hire mentally challenged people to count and sort cans, for example.

And one other thing:

You're saying the Nazi's had the right idea, but the wrong target?

At the end of the day, eugenics is a tool that *could* be used to make life better for everyone. It comes at a price though - it's an affront to everyone's freedom to give the government the power to come into your home, and subject you to an involuntary medical procedure. It also supports ideas like racism, and leads to a culture where you're pedigree or genetic makeup determines what you're worth as a person.

This video sums it up nicely.

Starwatcher, on 07 March 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Firstly, human is genetic. It is being a PERSON that is important. A toe is human, but not a person; an elf would be a person, but not human.

Quote

But not uniquely so. Compassion is found in virtually all sophisticated social animals - dolphins, wolves, and elephants all show compassion and empathy. Ergo, it is not what separates us from the animals.

Quote

They're useless because they consume unnecessary resources that could instead be consumed by normally able people who would have a higher quality of life. Moreover, the retarded person lowers the quality of life of their caretakers by forcing them to take care of a large, annoying animal that lives 70+ years.

Quote

There is a fundamental difference between being physically and mentally disabled.

Quote

When you've lost enough intelligence. A vegetable is not a person.

Quote

Because my argument hinges on intelligence.

Quote

Except not. There are indeed good ways to measure intelligence; IQ tests are fairly accurate.

Quote

As delineated above, empathy is far from a uniquely human trait.

Quote

Actually intelligence is at least 80% genetically determinant in first world countries.

Quote

I didn't advocate putting people in ovens. Are you illiterate?

Quote

Dolphins also have a very high intelligence, researchers wonder whether they are actually sentient. Whales even more so.

You would separate us from animals by removing empathy?

Quote

Putting a living thing in the ground because I want to drive a Lamborghini is only ethical in a utilitarian sense. If that's what you advocate, then fine. Be aware that utilitarianism comes with it's own set of problems, like putting

Quote

Caretakers can be family members who love them. Even mentally retarded people can show love back, this is a fact.

Quote

Not according to utilitarianism. You say that people who aren't useful, are a drag on society should be removed. This would include both mentally and physically disabled people.

Quote

By what standard? Usefulness? Productivity? Reducing the cognitive capacity of something as complicated as a human to a bare number is bound to contain approximations and flaws. The brain is so complicated, we've only begun to understand how it works.

Quote

Citation?

Quote

I never said you advocated ovens, but you do advocate euthanasia, and that's what their idea was.

Ovens or needles, I don't see a big difference save the suffering involved.

I am not illiterate.

I spend my time solving problems in quantum field theory, particle physics, and space physics.

Cool, verbosity.

Starwatcher, on 08 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Physically disabled people still have ideas, and ideas are the most productive thing we have.

About the nazi killing methods... if someone is no longer considered a person with rights, might as well make something useful with them while they die, right? Like experiments which advance technology, as happened with the nazis.

This post has been edited by Itu: 08 March 2012 - 04:07 AM

Quote

Firstly, whales are actually LESS intelligent than dolphins.

Secondly, I was pointing out that we cannot use empathy as what defines a person vs a "mere" animal, because things that are clearly not people (dogs, for instance) show empathy. And while it is true that it is only a trait found in -more- intelligent animals, it is found in things far, far below humans in intelligence.

Quote

Here's the thing - fewer people with a higher quality of life is a good thing. Our goal should not be to keep as many things alive as possible.

Quote

Dogs can love you too.

Quote

Hawking. QED. Also, my argument hinges on intelligence; being useless is a consequence of lack of intelligence, but intelligence is the distinguishing feature, NOT usefulness.

Nice straw man you've got there. Either that or you really just couldn't read/understand what I wrote.

Quote

You don't have to understand something very well to measure it. We know how strong Earth's gravity is, yet we don't actually even know why gravity exists, or how it functions.

Quote

http://en.wikipedia....itability_of_IQ

"Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[6] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[8]"

Quote

I advocate euthanasia of things that are not people. They advocated euthanasia of things which are people.

Quote

Well, your worth is already in large part determined by those things anyway - if you're born poor and stupid, you are never going to amount to anything. If you're born rich and stupid, you can get by. If you're born poor and smart, you can be successful. And if you're born rich and smart, chances are you'll do very well. Its horrible, but its the case. The idea that all men are created equal is more of an ideal than a reality, though I feel it is a good ideal.

What is interesting about eugenics on the basis of elimination of very negative traits (mental retardation, cystic fibrosis, ect.) that are genetically based is that you advantage future generations and quality of life by preventing people who are going to produce more miserable children from producing said children. I think it is enormously unethical to produce a retarded child, or one with a severe disability. If someone gets injured, so be it, but if someone is going to be born with a handicap, better to abort and reroll the dice.

I'm not really for eugenics of, say, trying to make everyone into nordic supermen, but I would say that mass genetic engineering would be good for society, and would also say that people who have severe genetic handicaps should not reproduce.

This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 08 March 2012 - 04:22 AM

Quote

So, both intelligence AND empathy are human traits. You need both, or some, or all to be human? Are you human if you have only intelligence and no empathy?

I maintain something without much intelligence still has humanity if it's got empathy. That's the kind of intelligence that really matters.

Quote

No doubt that fewer people would be a good thing. I don't take life after it's made though, I find that unethical.

Why don't we give people incentive to have fewer offspring instead?

Quote

I find their killing to be unethical as well.

Quote

They didn't define them as people either.

Quote

There's a reason wolves don't have iPhones. I'm pretty sure that much as people like to think empathy matters that much... no, its the kind of intelligence that lets you build shit that changes the world.

Quote

Life is irrelevant; life is all around us. Its people we need be concerned with.

And I do think that a policy that taxed people more per child would be a good thing.

Quote

Because they're cute? A dog is no smarter than a pig.

Quote

Yes, but they did so in a very arbitrary and unnatural fashion.

Titan you have such a boner for pigs, they always appear in your arguments. They're like the benchmark for intelligence.

Should I call you the titanium swine

And thus Titanium Dragon's (potential) title was born.

Taeshi, on 08 March 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

I'd use monkeys as an example but most people (including myself) get squicked out by people eating monkey meat.

Quote

I keep them as pets because they're cute. To be honest, I don't find the idea of taking any life at all for my own benefit ethical. That includes dogs *and* pigs.

Quote

That kind of intelligence gives us nuclear technology. It's neutral by itself, and I should hope we'd be smart enough in terms of empathy to not use it to kill people. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't tell us what the right thing to do is. We need something more for that.

Quote

For some targets, yes. For others, their qualifiers were similar to yours.

At the end of the day, whether you think it's ethical to kill mentally damaged people or not - the entire reason we would want to do this is because there are too many people around, right? There are so few mentally damaged people as compared to the rest of us, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on reducing *everyone's* offspring instead? Done equally, I have no problem with this.

Starwatcher, on 08 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Science can predict outcomes and allow us to determine which course of action is likely best given said end values.

Quote

Not really. I have an internally consistent definition of what constitutes a person.

Quote

Oh, reducing everyone's offspring is good, of course, but you want to reduce people with deletorious traits that should have been naturally selected against out of the population's contribution to the gene pool to zero to avoid negative genetic drift.

Quote

Exactly. Given the end values, we can accomplish things. Ethics decides what those values are, and I don't think science gives them to us all the time.

Quote

That's an affront to freedom and equality.

Quote

You aren't equal if you're mentally retarded, or born with no legs, or are forever blind. There's a reason we call it a handicap.

All men are created equal is a convenient lie and a nice ideal, but it certainly isn't TRUE in any meaningful sense.

Starwatcher, on 08 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

News post: Eating is now unethical. Good luck surviving from minerals, and make sure you remove all the bacteria before eating.

It doesn't even matter what kind of animal it is. Is it wrong to eat a cat, but ok to eat a pig? In some places they eat cats too. I personally don't like the idea of eating a cat, but by no means I think it's wrong. What's really wrong is abusing it for no reason, or making it suffer more than it is neccesary when killing it. But yeah, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. The problem being discussed is "Why them?"

----

Regarding the disposing of 'useless' people or pretty much any living being, I really can't decide on a stance of this. I guess it could be acceptable when the entity in question has lost the capability of even knowing what's going on (as in, a 'vegetable'), but not before. This is different from a dood in a coma though, as he might or might not wake up sometime later.

----

About cleansing the gene pool... exterminating people with genetic disorders or whatever is pretty much overdoing it and completely unneccesary killing. Not allowing them to procreate is another issue. On one hand, it feels cruel to take away the 'reproduce' step from the natural progression of "born-grow-reproduce-die"; it is a beautiful part of life. On the other hand, they are gonna keep bringing handicapped people to the world, taking resources that a person with better opportunities could have used instead.

There is no equality to these people from the get go, why keep bringing handicapped people who are going to suffer from the same as them?

Also, isn't it a bit selfish from them too? Fully knowing that their offspring will also very likely suffer from the same fate as them, they still want to procreate to have the pleasure of doing so. In these cases, the only people they are harming are their own kids.

It's fine if they want to have a kid for themselves though. Assuming their handicap doesn't keep them from taking care of a kid, they can always adopt a healthy one. There are a lot of kids looking for a home.

This post has been edited by ZoeStellan: 09 March 2012 - 07:28 AM

If you can prove he's dumber than a pig, I'll eat him.

He's not talking about exterminating people with genetic disorders. He's talking about testing for it, identifying it and eliminating it early on because, after that, it becomes a social problem. I don't think it's too much to say, "Wait and have a healthy baby." Hell, the whole supposition gradually increases the quality of life for everyone. In terms of allocating resources, these problems are a kind of pollution that drain the system on a large scale. And you have to realize I'm arguing from a point of chronic disease. If they could've identified it sooner, they could've aborted me. Hell, when I thought my physical problems were going to drag my family down financially, I had resolved to kill myself. It didn't get that bad, but I have a brother and sister and they need to graduate from college. My sister's headed off to medical school. Me? I'm not that smart. If our situation were that dire, I'd do the responsible thing and off myself.

Quote

I would have thought it was clear what I meant. I don't think it's ethical to eat or kill ANIMALS, as in things which can think and feel pain and even have emotions to some extent. Why would I kill, if it doesn't cost me anything not to?

Obviously I don't care about bacteria.

Quote

Equal in the grand sense, as in, we're going to treat you as a person just the same. We recognize that you're still one of us.

Quote

Not literally, no. (in most metrics, of course, you can define any number of quantifiers of human "worth", which is a problem in and of itself.)

Some people have advantages, some have disadvantages. If that's what you mean by better or worse, the statement is false.

I think that the "golden rule" is true though - we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. That's the sentiment the above statement tries to get at.

I don't agree with punishing people for something which isn't their fault, and is outside their control.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 09 March 2012 - 02:47 PM

While I definitely think forced sterilization takes things a step too far, that's only because it's mutilation. If I were to have kids, they'd have a 40% chance of developing schizoaffective disorder. On top of that, my family history tells me it WILL happen--my mother is also schizoaffective, and while she was never diagnosed, there is plenty of reason to suspect my grandmother was as well. Furthermore, my grandfather has flat out admitted to being mentally ill, though he hasn't told me what illness he has (he just says he's crazy). Other members of my family have mental illness as well; my father's a sociopath, two of my uncles are alcoholics, my aunt Penny is not normal in any sense of the word (though she's never even tried to get diagnosed, she claims to be bipolar), and that's just the ones I can prove. So the chances of my mental illness being passed on are *very* high.

Should I let the state cut off my genitals to keep me from breeding? Hell no. Instead, I choose not to have children. I know my disorder made my life hell, and I'm not going to have my kids suffer the same. Education on the risks of passing the disease on is good enough--at least let the parents be informed about the risks. You'll find those that can handle it will choose to reproduce, while many others will choose not to, usually for the reasons I did. Castrating me is mutilation, and taking it that far is selfish. For women, the solution is a histerectomy, which is a very risky surgery that has quite a few potentially life threatening complications. While these procedures are absolute, the risk outweighs the benefit, and unless the person's life is in danger or they choose it they shouldn't be an option.

Starwatcher, on 09 March 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

So basically... becoming vegetarian. I assume this means that you don't care about plant life either. I guess this is doable, as you could survive from milk from cows and never kill them. This is rather unnatural though, humans are omnivores; we eat meat. What you should be worrying about is to make them suffer as little as possible in the process (also they taste better).

Also, it does have a cost not to... animal meat is delicious. If you want to avoid eating animals because you need to kill them to do that, then do that yourself, but by no means it is wrong, and you shouldn't force or even expect others to follow through.

Carcharocles, on 09 March 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Just in case that was aimed at my post, I never talked about forced sterilization. The general idea is that they shouldn't breed, but I think that's rather something for them to decide. The best we can do is tell them why, and if they still want to go through with it... then alright. So it's basically about making them understand that the reason they want to reproduce, is for personal satisfaction, at the cost of bringing unhealthy people -- or people with higher chances of producing unhealthy people themselves-- to this world.

Quote

Murder was a natural thing for a long time, I think that many things natural are wrong.

My entire reason for doubting if it's ethical to eat meat was just that I really don't have to in order to live a long, happy, healthy life. It feels wrong to slay a living thing because it tastes good.

Why would I do harm to something which can feel if I don't have to?

Hey Starwatcher, ever hear of "Sponsor a Vegetarian"?

Quote

To be fair there are practical reasons not to eat carnivores - beyond inefficiency, the real flaw with eating creatures higher on the food chain is they have more concentrated toxins in their bodies, as they have the toxins of all their prey in them (well, those that don't pass through your system). Of course, if you feed them plant matter, it makes little difference.

Quote

When you lose the ability to take care of yourself, it is a very dehumanizing experience.

And if you aren't more intelligent than "lesser" animals then you aren't a person; its impossible to treat you like one because you don't act like one.
I believe you can chemically castrate people.

Quote

Plants are alive, as are fungi, bacteria, ect. No matter what, you're killing living things. There's nothing that makes an animal more important than a plant.

Chemical castration wears off if you miss an ejection, and it can be countered with an injection of testosterone. Really, you're paying hundreds of dollars over and over for a single injection. It's not a viable way to prevent reproduction.

It's interesting to see the toxin argument come up though in regards to eating carnivores; it's this reason that I don't eat much seafood.

Titanium Dragon, on 10 March 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

There is. They're closer to us, similar to us, and we can relate to them. Especially animals we're used to being close to like dogs or cats. Nothing makes a living thing more important than simple matter other than that same fact.

Itu, on 10 March 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

People raise chickens to eat them. Pigs and cows too.

And I rather value trees over a lot of animals.

You can genuinely bond with an animal. It's harder with a plant. It's dumb with a rock.

The universe doesn't care whether it's an animal or a plant, yes, but the universe doesn't care whether it's alive or not either. That's all I'm saying.

But no, I'm not supporting the idea that "eating meat is unethical". I was just addressing your point, there actually is a difference, as subjective as it is. That's why we have things like animal rights and not things like plant rights. We care about them, just not enough not to eat them when we're hungry.

This post has been edited by Itu: 10 March 2012 - 03:35 AM

Quote

Strictly speaking I guess the universe doesn't care about anything.

Quote

There's a huge difference. Animals can feel pain, some emotions, and can definitely suffer. Plants cannot. Exactly the same reason you say smart people are more important than retarded people applies to saying animals are more important than plants.

It's wrong to make things suffer without reason. We don't have a real reason to make animals suffer by eating them and using their fur, etc. Therefore, it's wrong to eat them and use their fur, etc.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 10 March 2012 - 03:38 AM

Starwatcher, on 10 March 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Exactly. So saying that animals and plants are the same thing because they're both alive is objectively true, but then a patch of dirt is also the same thing and nothing actually matters. Not really a good way to go about in a discussion about rights.

Starwatcher, on 10 March 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

It's wrong to kill them for nothing. It's arguable that our whims are worth more than their lives though.

This post has been edited by Itu: 10 March 2012 - 03:42 AM

No, certainly not.

I am just curious Star, do you know what Utilitarianism is? Are you perchance a follower of that ideology?

And I would say to both of you that you have quite clearly explained both your points and that any further discussion would just cement each others opinions. Unless you two (Starwatcher and TD) just want to get to know each other better I would argue that you might as well stop. Brilliant read on both of your posts.

Quote

Plants are not intelligent, but the idea that they cannot feel the equivalent of pain is a bit silly. They, like all living things, can sense damage to themselves; it is an essential part of the repair process, determining that there is something wrong in the first place.

Yeah, they don't have a CNS, but that doesn't mean they are insensitive. You can indeed "stress" a plant.

Quote

I do know what it is, and I do not subscribe to it's point of view.

Quote

What's the "equivalent" of pain? Does it "hurt"? Is it "unpleasant"?

Many systems, both alive and not, can sense damage and repair it. Not every one of them feels anything that we could imagine as "pain". Imagine a computer program which fixes a corrupted hard drive. It "senses" damage to it's system, and works to repair it. It would be insane to define this as pain in any meaningful way.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 10 March 2012 - 05:35 PM

Starwatcher, on 10 March 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Not really. Its the equivalent.

How do I know you feel pain? I don't know, I'm not you. Maybe I would find your pain pleasurable. It is vanishingly unlikely, but...

No, this is just attempted self justification. There's really little reason to imagine that damage responses in all living things would be anything other than unpleasant, because by being unpleasant it can alter responses. Of course, plants have no CNS, but I'm sure they find it unpleasant to have bits of themselves hacked off. They're not even remotely intelligent, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful in some way.

Quote

Flipping bits and executing lines of code is not the same as *feeling*. I'm not worried about feelings in the narrow "execute according to stimuli" sense. Even a virus can do that, and it's totally unreasonable to think that it can feel anything resembling "pain" in the sense that we do.

I believe that animals do have this capacity, because I can observe responses from them consistent with suffering as *we know it*. Facial expressions, electrical currents in the brain, it's all in very good analogy with what we see in humans. This is enough of a reason, for me, to argue against their exploitation. My pragmatic measurements indicate that plants do not have sensations the same way that we do. Without a brain, they're more like programs being executed.

Quote

You don't. The probability is high enough that I trust you wouldn't torture me and assume it was ethical though.

Due to the lack of hardware plants have, and the fact that animals and humans which feel the sensations in question *do* have common hardware, I argue that plans can not feel the same way that we, or animals, can.

I argue that it is very unlikely that they experience what we would call "pain", or "suffering", outside the narrow operational definition of damage reports and programmed responses.

Quote

This assumes that plants can even *have* "unpleasant".

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 11 March 2012 - 05:28 AM

You don't think that the pain that humans feel is NOT the execution of codes? Every organism is a code being executed, just with varying complexity. Only difference is we have the advanced association areas in our brains to be all "Oh man I can compare this to other stuff and that is bad"

I'll agree that many plants may not currently be complex enough to give off a level of pain that you believe to be unethical, but this line is blurred, no person can state which organisms are acceptable to inflict pain in, and which are not.

Quote

I don't know if we're just the implementation of circuits or not, but things like:

* hurting
* suffering
* sadness
* fright

are all complicated and I believe that they need animal level hardware to run on.

Quote

It seems to be a very clear, sharp line between what has a central nervous system and what does not. Plants can respond to damage, but that damage is not recorded or perceived in any central location. Pain as we know it is implemented as changes in a brain.

Plants are unimportant because of their lack of not just a certain level of intelligence, but their lack of ANY intelligence. You said it yourself, TD. If you don't have that particular understanding (I don't) then it's because no matter what plants feel we humans have this thing called empathy, and we know what pain as felt by a CNS is like, and so we feel sorry for the animals we eat. Me, I think it's foolishness. As long as nothing deliberately or preventably cruel was done to the animal I have no problems with eating a nice, fat, juicy burger. Veal, that's cruel. Pork, beef, dog, cat, not so cruel. Why are we having this discussion? Is is because TD is trying to press the idea that life is suffering without saying it outright?

If you cannot see the value of life, I cannot see the value of society if it exists to better our lives as a whole. If life means nothing, then society means nothing. Just because you think that there could not possibly be anything good that comes of a retarded person living a full life doesn't mean that they should be systematically eradicated one way or another. What is a reasonable level to set this I.Q. "lower limit to one's right to reproduce"? Should we castrate everyone who is mildly stupid and/or tests poorly? What if someone of superior intellect chooses to have children with someone just barely below this level? What about THEIR right to reproduce?

And "All men are created equal" refers to RIGHTS. It's not literal, it's an ideal we hold next to sacred in this country that you cannot arbitrarily decide the worth of people because of a category in a statistic book somewhere that says a person is a certain way and can never change. Whether it refers to one's skin color or I.Q. test results is no different. You cannot simply say that a class of the human species is wrong to exist.

This post has been edited by Biblioholic: 12 March 2012 - 06:56 AM

Quote

Yes, I said that, and I stand by it.

Aborting a fetus hours before it's born is absurd (barring extreme circumstances, like the woman is going to die if it is not aborted).

Abortion is an extremely complicated problem. Sitting on exactly one side of the "fence" seems to mean that you have to ALWAYS support exactly ONE course of action, no matter what the circumstances are.

I do not believe that simplistic ideals like "always let them choose" or "always let it live" can ever give answers that are satisfying in all cases.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 12 March 2012 - 02:16 PM

Starwatcher, on 12 March 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Always let them choose. It's a heavy economic decision and there are people who will do what they can to stall the mother to the point that it doesn't become her choice legally. Even if it can survive outside the body, there's plenty justification for terminating it. It would be just as humane as putting a dog to sleep. The only reason this isn't clear cut for you is because you let your emotions override your reason. Your bleeding heart crap is getting pretty God damn tedious.

I just had an interesting class where the theory of never aborting so long as people existed that want to adopt children were around was covered. So the idea that so long as people want these children to be born (Due to the wanting to adopt) we shouldn't abort them (excepting extreme circumstances, but even then if someone is willing to adopt). The idea was that when the eventual tipping point is reached and no one wants to adopt these children anymore (Due to them all having adopted children) then no one would care too much about aborting them then.

This makes a lot of sense to me, what do you guys think of it?

This post has been edited by Nik: 12 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

The question would then arise as to what to do with 'unadoptable' children whom a home could not be found for (e.g. severely handicapped children). Consider that in many animal shelters, animals judged as 'unadoptable' are frequently euthanized, due to limited resources available.

In any case, abortion should not be made illegal: some women simply do not want to go through nine months of pregnancy, nor should they be forced to. Though I do think some common sense should be applied, as in a woman should decide whether she wants an abortion before a certain point in the pregnancy (e.g. six months after conception, to pick an entirely arbitrary time). After all, there's little sense in carrying a baby almost to term and then deciding on an abortion. That late in the game, giving up the baby for adoption after birth would be a perfectly valid alternative.

(Canada is actually more liberal than that: there are no legal restrictions on abortion at all, not even time limits. This is due to the Supreme Court decision in R v Morgentaler. However, doctors in Canada will generally not perform third-trimester abortions unless the woman's life is in danger or the fetus has a genetic disorder warranting abortion.)

Nik, on 12 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

This can never be allowed to happen.

On the face of it this seems pretty reasonable, allow demand side effects to determine whether abortions should happen or not, but too bad it seems to completely ride roughshod over the entire concept of personal freedom and the right to choose. The suggestion seems to be that abortions wont happen if there is the possibility of adoption, that women wouldn't have any choice.

Also you would essentially be giving the state the ability and responsibility to actively manage the birth rate, and with policy drift being what it is this is way too dangerous to be entrusted to politicians.

Quote

90 percent of the time, I'm fine with this. It's when someone wants to abort a baby in the last 2 months, say, or even days before it's born that I don't agree with, UNLESS there is an undue risk to the mother.

There is a reason most Canadian doctors will NOT perform third trimester abortions. They find it unethical.

Quote

Economics doesn't decide what's right and wrong.

Quote

So, is it her choice or isn't it? You ask me to concede that women need a choice, which I do, but I ask in return that they have the will to make it before it becomes ethically questionable. If you can bend someone's choice so easily, why give them one at all?

Quote

Crushing something's head with forceps, especially when we *know* it can feel pain and suffer, is NOT the same as giving an animal a dose of euthanol. By NO standard can you equate these two things. One causes pain, the other does not.

Note that I'm arguing against *extremely late* abortions. That's why I'm mostly what you'd call pro-choice. It's these extreme edge cases that bother me.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 12 March 2012 - 06:04 PM

Quote

Quote

I'm saying there are extenuating circumstances that these doctors overlook where it's convenient to satisfy their bleeding hearts. As far as I'm concerned, this is tantamount to my mechanic personifying my flat tire and refusing to change it.

Quote

No, it only decides what's feasible. The only "right" decision is the one that takes resources into account. If they're spread too thin, no one gets the luxury of morality. It's pretty relevant since we're reaching that breaking point pretty fast. If it takes a woman 8 months and 29 days to pull her head out of her ass and realize this, it's no skin off my fetus.

Quote

Weigh it against the suffering of being born into a family that can't support it and I think you'll find a moment of pain trumps a lifetime of poverty. Or you could, you know, feed it to the clogged adoption system.

They should just make the Safe Drop chutes about ten feet higher.

Quote

Overlooking extenuating circumstances is wrong. You will get no argument from me about this.

Quote

Why isn't the baby worth more than the flat tire? One can think and feel and hurt, and the other can't.

Quote

A living thing shouldn't have to pay for someone else's stupidity with it's life, especially when it has to suffer. I don't know if this is just an American thing or not, but there are lots of places in the world which do *just fine* economically, AND are very left leaning, such as having socialized healthcare.

If you guys have so few resources down there, why don't you stop starting wars all the time?

Quote

Lots of adopted people lead good lives.

Quote

See, things like this make it seem like you're just playing with me. I can't tell whether you're making crude, weak jokes or if you actually believe the things you're saying.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 12 March 2012 - 06:47 PM