Pro-life Or Pro-choice?

Obviously not.

Never mind. That was a logical fallacy on my part.

It's different. It's only natural to eat meat

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. Another example: certain kinds of solar power cook birds as they fly through a death ray of concentrated sunlight.

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.

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?

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.

I have no idea what you're saying.

Less ethical but more moral.

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.

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 have considered that, but ultimately you would still have little control in that situation. If the woman doesn't agree with you there isn't much you can do (without falling into griveous bodily harm territory) regardless of the law.

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?

Sorry, if this was only directed to @zapshe, But I suppose it is a question

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

That's a lot of text to not have answered the question

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.

Okay, so I'm a bit confused by your stance. You already agreed that a third trimester fetus is basically an infant, but then go on to say that women should be able to abort even during that trimester. 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?

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.

I'm not so sure of either of those.

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?

That's a lot of text to not have answered the question

Fine,
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.

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.

The point of the third option is to force you to pick one of the other two, not to be a realistic option. If you didn't want to answer, why did you jump in?

Technically it's not an infant if not born.

What? So all those people whose mothers had C-sections are adult fetuses who were never 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.

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.

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?

When helios had the choice to not respond to my first answer, he chose not to. Now he gives me the choice to answer the question with a solid answer, not an analogy

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?

It is still a decision. It is an answer. Fine, I'll prioritise my choices high to low

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.

Then what were you getting at when you said that "it's not an infant if it's not born"? I must ask again: if an obstetrician performs a C-section at the eighth month and then chucks the baby, is it an abortion or infanticide? That baby would have very probably been viable, but the pregnancy hadn't yet reached its end naturally.

I understand, but what kind of logic would I use to get this number.

I didn't ask for a reasoning, I just asked for a number. I consider it a more refined version of your question about whether to kill a monkey or a baby. Both questions are about how we weight lives.

For example, how did you get the number 10,000!? And why would a number like 12,000 be too much?

It's not a hard limit. It's roughly the point where I start to think "maybe this is too many babies to sacrifice".

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!.

It's not logical, because you haven't given any limits to n or m, you just kill everyone regardless of how many you're killing. For example, if n is "the entire adult population on Earth" and m is "the entire newborn population on Earth" you'd be casually committing omnicide.
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

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.

It's a pathetic answer.

Fine, though when I answered, I though of N finite men and women in suits, ties etc, and M finite babies in a room full of small beds (what are those called?)

Ok, then I guess the kids are to perish. Their untimely demise will cause those adults to live their life, with gratitude for not being the snuffed candle, and innovate. Should this be vice versa, the kids may not be as able to see the value of their remit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, so now we're making progress. At 1:100 you'd sacrifice the adults.
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?

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"

Last edited on

jonnin (11333)

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.

Last edited on