Serafina wrote:Big point (and Serafina has made it several times): By LionEl's logic, if not existing really is worse than eternal torture, we had better get to having as many babies as possible, because otherwise all of those things (souls? I'm unclear on what LionEl thinks non existing things are...) will go on not existing! Save the non-existent! Bring life to the non-existent! Every sperm is sacred!
Actually, that doesn't work by his logic, either. Non-existance is inevitable anyway (because you inevitably die). Indeed, it would probably be more mercifull to not let those souls (without souls his argument doesn't work) be born at all - because then they will never know what they have missed. And if he believes in a hell, that's even more true - if you are never born, you can't go to hell!
So, according to his logic, aborting every embryo might actually be the mercifull thing to do!
Yet another reason not to follow it.
I know the "non-existence is a priori worse than existence" argument has been trashed already, but lets have fun with it anyway.
Thought experiment time!
Lets say that sometime in the future a mad scientist decides that for his next evil experiment he is going to make a ROBOT! And a sentient, sapient robot too boot. For the sake of argument just in case anyone wants to claim that traditional silicon chip robots have no souls we'll say that the mad scientist decided that a bio-robot would be extra-abominable. We'll call this robot "Mr. Frankenstein" (
).
Now, what's so abominable about Mr. Frankenstein? His prime directive! He desperately wants to kill himself. Every moment he continues to exist he is in horrible psychogenic agony, and at every moment he can spare he is either planning to commit, or actively committing, suicide.
(Now, of course, you
could attempt to reprogram him or drug him, but even assuming that it can be done or that this is practical, good luck securing his permission. Remember, this is his
prime directive you're to be arguing with. Its not like it takes precedence over every other thing in his life or anything)
Now lets say that before the Mad Scientist has a chance to flip the switch to turn this horrible crime against nature on, you discover the mad scientist's plans. Should you allow the creature to be created? Is it really better for Mr. Frankenstein to exist than to not exist?
According to
real utilitarian ethics (as opposed to Lion-El-Nutcase's butchering of it), the answer is
LIKE FUCKING HELL! At best, its a wash. At worst it would be an unthinkable crime akin to torture. Even if some external factor were to put its thumb on the utilitarian scales (say for example that Mr. Frankenstein is the only being capable of saving the world... somehow) as soon as that external factor is gone the only ethical thing to do is to either kill the poor bastard or reprogram him till he's unrecognizable. And that's assuming that the latter is possible, and that it doesn't require you to drug him for the rest of his life which (depending on the effects of the drug) may be considered in many people's opinion not really an existence worth having.
This thought experiment gives us further insight into why abortion is not evil even
if we grant fetuses value (and to be honest, I would. Not equal to a
living human, obviously; but the fact that most mothers mourn after a miscarriage shows that they have
some value, at least to the mother). Lets say that you are having a baby, but before its born (preferably while the baby is in the early stages of development) you get it tested for any birth defects, genetic illnesses, or other inheritable afflictions it might have like AIDS. Your doctor comes back with the test results to inform you of the worst: your baby has a rare genetic condition that will kill it before it gets to the age of ten, assuming it isn't stillborn. There is no cure known to modern medicine. The baby may be retarded, and it certainly won't have a pleasant life by any measure. Who could be blamed for having an abortion under those circumstances?
Or what if the mother is extremely poor? What if she knows that she will be incapable of supporting a family? Sure, she
could put it up to adoption. If she's lucky enough to live in a country where that is an option. But in the meantime, she won't be able to work. She will have to support the baby while its gestating. She may become a burden on her family, and may as a result become even
more poor. This is no trivial problem-- all you Europeans out there that live where the welfare system actually works should count your blessings. Again, who could be blame a mother in such a situation for deciding that her own needs are more important than the needs of a baby that isn't even bigger than her thumbnail yet?
Or what if on top of that the mother lives in a country that's poor and overpopulated? Lets not forget that when it comes right down to it abortion is just a form of birth control. Most of us don't have to see the consequences of overpopulation first hand, but that's not universally true. That too must be taken into consideration-- that the baby may not have a future even if its perfectly healthy, because there is just too damn many people on this planet.
That fundy retards like LionElJackass don't get this is just another example of them living in a fantasy world where God makes everything better, and the problems of the real world get ignored while their own reactionary bullshit agenda goes unscrutinized in their minds.
(note: this post is intended as a general argument in favor of abortion, rather than as a rebuttal to LionElJohnson specifically. If he wants to ignore it, he can go right ahead. I just thought it was interesting to think about)
. At least according to you.
"
