Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only reasonable option is to consider these characters on a sliding scale. IE. You have greater moral obligations to the creature which is capable of the most complex thought, or what have you.

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

Depends on how old the fetus is, though. After about 3 months, if I'm not mistaken, human fetuses are done forming everything and just concentrate on growth. So, because they have brains and all the architecture associated with the ability to feel pain, would we then not have moral obligations toward them?

No.

That happens much later in the pregnancy. The last month or two are growth centric. Feeling pain does not happen until at LEAST week thirty, if not later.

[bazymew]

No. Chickens are food animals. Humans have no moral obligation to them at all.

Red-Herring. But I will bite because it amuses me. Your anthropocentrist position is not consistent with either itself, or the universe. Here is why.

Humans are not special. There is nothing about humans that gives us some kind of special moral dominion over animals that exists as a metaphysical quality of human-ness. Humans do not have souls. We are not special. The universe did not cry when the holocaust happened.

I disagree. Humans are special, at least because of their intelligence.
(A point with which you do seem to agree from your subsequent statements)

Therefore you can only form a logically consistent ethical system using universal characteristics such as intelligence or relative ability to feel pain. However there is no ability to set a cut-off point for when these things "count".

The only reasonable option is to consider these characters on a sliding scale. IE. You have greater moral obligations to the creature which is capable of the most complex thought, or what have you.

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.
A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.

But you conveniently and in intellectually dishonest fashion, sidestepped the argument. That argument being that the argument from potential, no matter how you phrase it, is in itself a logical fallacy. But of course that takes thought that is too complex for your tiny brain.

I am uncertain as to how that would inherently be a logical fallacy.
Perhaps my brain is too small also.

I apologize I mentioned intent only as a part of my sentence to solidify the fact that human DNA recombined in a test tube will not progress to a full blown body. It can be ignored.

Except that it is not. You are either trying to dodge past your own argument which makes you dishonest, or you are just incompetent.

Let me dissect this for you

It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered.

This is the key part. You framed the exception to the Argument From Potential in terms of intent. Namely that stem cell research is conducted because there is no intent or expectation that an actual human will develop from it.

I agree with your reasoning here. There is a flaw in the intent argument.

DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

The implication here being that because there is intent and expectation that a fetus will develop into a human being, abortion is to be discourage or rejected.

The secondary premise here, contained in that sentence, is faulty for the reasons I laid out.

And of course you still dodge the argument that your entire argument is based upon a non-sequiteur. Even if I grant you that a fetus is a "potential" human being and this entails it... something... You still have not established the connection between that, and the idea that we should have the same moral obligations to it that we do a person.

I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.
(If, in fact, natural progression was the intended argument)
Yet your point is valid in that he has not yet established that the moral obligations are the same for a fetus and a born human.

I balk at child bearing and birth being as dangerous as most people say since, if it were, wouldn't most women die after having children?

Without medical attention, a lot of women do.

I have no argument here.

Shattering of dreams, where does that come into play? Social stigma and relationships?

Yes numbnuts. Do you not think that the psychological distress of being forced to carry a fetus to term (basically being enslaved for nine months) and having to dramatically re-adjust life ambitions, standard of living, potentially endanger relationships with others, is not a morally relevant thing? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that the ethical obligations you have toward a fetus that does not even have a functioning brain, outweigh the ethical concerns relating to the treatment of a women who is right in front of you? Your devaluation of women speaks volumes about your character let me tell you.

As for educating the populace... Education cannot override evolution. Read my prior posts in this thread as to how that works.

If it was established (which is not yet and may never be) that a fetus has the same rights as a born human, than surely you would not contest that the life of a fetus would be worth less than the psychological and sociological well being of another human?

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?






Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

[Rye]

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.

Neither can a retard. Let's eat the retards!

A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.

Why should it be assigned more moral worth now rather than later? There's no reason why, hypothetically speaking, a chicken couldn't evolve to be more intelligent, after all, several crows and parrots are far more intelligent than they ought to be. Some of them might even be more intelligent than our young children. The potential is there in both organisms, though the time and mechanism for that potential to be expressed is different, I don't see why that should have much of an impact. Potential awareness doesn't make me want to care about an unfeeling foetus more than I do for any animal I would put down out of mercy or because there's too many and people can't look after them (usually the same sort of reasoning for abortions).

I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.

You think that's in the best interest of society as a whole to force women into bearing potential children, even when they are unable to look after them (and likely conservatives have underfunded state adoption agencies and the like)? You think that's better than terminating pregnancies when the offspring is pretty much equivalent to a mushroom?

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?

Sure, there are no free lunches. Do they outweigh post-natal depression, vaginal tearing, anemia and the other dangers (not to mention 18 years of resentment in less than ideal economic conditions in the majority of cases) and the social repercussions of forcing all these kids to be born into families and systems that can't support them? This would have the net effect of flinging more kids into poverty and single parent broken homes and the adoption system, and given the background of most criminals, I doubt this would be good at all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I disagree. Humans are special, at least because of their intelligence.
(A point with which you do seem to agree from your subsequent statements)

No. Humans are very intelligent. But that intelligence is not in some manner metaphysically different from the intelligence of a dog, cat, lizard, or indeed a chicken. It is only a matter of degree.

One is incorrect in saying that animals do not possess human intelligence. The more correct thing to say is that humans possess a greater degree of animal intelligence.

A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.
A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.

Your conclusion is disconnected from both your premises. Thus you are committing a non-sequiteur.

I am uncertain as to how that would inherently be a logical fallacy.

Because it is a non-sequiteur.

Let me break this down.

Say there are two people. John and Stave. John exists currently, while Steve might, based upon the decision you make in the following scenarior. exist sometime in the future. He is a potential person.

Action A: You can alleviate the suffering of John. What this suffering is, it does not matter. As a result of this, Steve will not ever come into existence.
Action B: You can act to prolong John's suffering. As a result, Steve will eventually come into existence.

This illustrates an important point. The argument from potential operates on the implicit assumption that you are killing Steve, when in fact you are not. You are merely preventing Steve. As a result of this Steve does not suffer, no one who would otherwise have known Steve will miss him. The only way to justify the argument that we have moral obligations toward the non-existent is if we accept the premise that we should never take an actions which might prevent another person from coming into existence, which means we can never turn down sex (just to name one example). people who resist being raped under this set of premises are in fact doing something wrong. Clearly this is silly.

John does however exist, and provided we accept the axiom that we have moral obligations toward people who exist, it follows that we should act to prevent his suffering.

I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.

See above

If it was established (which is not yet and may never be) that a fetus has the same rights as a born human, than surely you would not contest that the life of a fetus would be worth less than the psychological and sociological well being of another human?

First off, I am utilitarian, I dont believe in rights. But if it were the case that I did, there are rights-based arguments that presuppose full personhood on the part of the fetus, and make the argument that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is in effect enslaving her, and that it does not follow that Personhood---> Abortion is Wrong

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?

Do you have evidence that this is a widespread phenomenon? And even if it was, does it make any sense to say

"I am going to prohibit you from making a choice about what you think is in your best interests, because there is a chance that you may regret it"

Come on, use your brain.

[Akhlut]

The only reasonable option is to consider these characters on a sliding scale. IE. You have greater moral obligations to the creature which is capable of the most complex thought, or what have you.

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

Depends on how old the fetus is, though. After about 3 months, if I'm not mistaken, human fetuses are done forming everything and just concentrate on growth. So, because they have brains and all the architecture associated with the ability to feel pain, would we then not have moral obligations toward them?

No.

That happens much later in the pregnancy. The last month or two are growth centric. Feeling pain does not happen until at LEAST week thirty, if not later.

I was mistaken in my interpretation of human development, then. I'm personally still a bit iffy about abortion past the 11th week (developmentally, not gestationally), but I am aware that most abortions are done prior to that (if I'm not mistaken) and I'd also not take away the option for a woman to abort.

I wish I knew where my brother's neurology texts are, though. I imagine I'd get a thorough answer from those about human brain development.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was mistaken in my interpretation of human development, then. I'm personally still a bit iffy about abortion past the 11th week (developmentally, not gestationally), but I am aware that most abortions are done prior to that (if I'm not mistaken) and I'd also not take away the option for a woman to abort.

I wish I knew where my brother's neurology texts are, though. I imagine I'd get a thorough answer from those about human brain development.

Well, I would advise you to read my other arguments in this thread

I would also ask why you are iffy about abortions after the 11th week of development?

[Akhlut]

I was mistaken in my interpretation of human development, then. I'm personally still a bit iffy about abortion past the 11th week (developmentally, not gestationally), but I am aware that most abortions are done prior to that (if I'm not mistaken) and I'd also not take away the option for a woman to abort.

I wish I knew where my brother's neurology texts are, though. I imagine I'd get a thorough answer from those about human brain development.

Well, I would advise you to read my other arguments in this thread

I would also ask why you are iffy about abortions after the 11th week of development?

Well, all the major organs are formed, if not completely done with their growth and finalized development, so the fetus is much more like a regular person in miniature than a gastrula or an embryo still developing all of its organs. Other than that, it's not so much an argument based entirely on rational argument as emotion.

However, in the greater scope of the abortion argument, I am firmly pro-choice, though I'd much rather prefer to realign resources to prevent the need for abortion in the first place (such as: greater access to birth control, economic justice, reducing environmental contamination, etc.). The 11th week think is just that I think that the fetus is more like a person than it is like the developing embryo and gastrula it was before.

[Akhlut]

Ghetto Edit: Also, I forgot to mention that 11 weeks (well, a bit early actually) wherein the developing human has gone over the hump in terms of likelihood of coming to term without being spontaneously aborted. So, in a bit more of an emotional rather than rational argument, it seems like it is stopping something that has already overcome some fairly significant barriers. However, just so it's clear for everyone: I support a woman's right to choose.

[Metatwaddle]

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?

Do you have evidence that this is a widespread phenomenon? And even if it was, does it make any sense to say

"I am going to prohibit you from making a choice about what you think is in your best interests, because there is a chance that you may regret it"

Come on, use your brain.

As far as emotional side effects of abortion are concerned, the most recent and comprehensive study on the matter, published by the American Psychological Association earlier this year, is this article. The APA's press release about the article is much shorter and more concise, and you can find it here. Their study concluded that women who had a single abortion had the same rate of mental health problems as women of the same age in the general population - or, in other words, a single abortion did not lead to mental health problems. They found that women who had multiple abortions had a higher instance of many mental health problems, but they did not conclude that the multiple abortions caused those problems, because in their words, "positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems."

In other words, bazymew is full of shit, and is spouting dumbassed arguments and trying to limit women's reproductive choices while using the mental health of women as a smokescreen. He is trying to curtail our freedom for our own good. This is so fucking insulting I don't even know where to begin.

However, in the greater scope of the abortion argument, I am firmly pro-choice, though I'd much rather prefer to realign resources to prevent the need for abortion in the first place (such as: greater access to birth control, economic justice, reducing environmental contamination, etc.).

Pro-choice people would love to allocate resources so as to reduce the need for abortions, too. Believe me, you'll find no greater advocates of widespread birth control use and comprehensive sex ed than Planned Parenthood and NARAL. But we also recognize that even with social and economic justice and excellent sex ed and free birth control for anyone who wants it, there will be a need for abortions. Even when used perfectly, condoms do not have a 100% success rate. Neither does the pill. And it doesn't matter how much economic support you give mothers, paid maternity leave, whatever - some women just do not want to be mothers. I would count myself among the women who, if I got pregnant, would get an abortion no matter what. There are simply no circumstances under which I would want to carry a child to term, let alone raise it.

[Lusankya]

As far as emotional side effects of abortion are concerned, the most recent and comprehensive study on the matter, published by the American Psychological Association earlier this year, is this article. The APA's press release about the article is much shorter and more concise, and you can find it here. Their study concluded that women who had a single abortion had the same rate of mental health problems as women of the same age in the general population - or, in other words, a single abortion did not lead to mental health problems. They found that women who had multiple abortions had a higher instance of many mental health problems, but they did not conclude that the multiple abortions caused those problems, because in their words, "positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems."

Well, women who have second or subsequent abortions are more likely to have a history of abuse than women undergoing a first abortion. There's a possible common cause right there.

[ray245]

I was wondering, is it better for women to give their child up for adoption as compared to abortion, if they don't mind carrying the child, but not raising him/her?

I was wondering if there has been research done on allowing the child to gestate inside a artifical gestation chamber or soemthing like that? Not only does it give women who do not want to carry a child another option, but pregnant women do not have to suffer some of the burden when they are carrying a child.

I seriously think that pro-choice supporters should provide more support in this field of research.

[Lusankya]

I was wondering, is it better for women to give their child up for adoption as compared to abortion, if they don't mind carrying the child, but not raising him/her?

That's the woman's choice. The key phrase there, though is "if they don't mind".

I was wondering if there has been research done on allowing the child to gestate inside a artifical gestation chamber or soemthing like that? Not only does it give women who do not want to carry a child another option, but pregnant women do not have to suffer some of the burden when they are carrying a child.

I seriously think that pro-choice supporters should provide more support in this field of research.

I don't know if any research has been done, but it would be insanely difficult. We don't have anywhere near the technology for that.

[Darth Wong]

I was wondering, is it better for women to give their child up for adoption as compared to abortion, if they don't mind carrying the child, but not raising him/her?

You're wondering if women who freely choose a certain path will be happy with that path? It seems likely. The problem with anti-abortion forces is that they don't want women to be able to make free choices in this area.

I was wondering if there has been research done on allowing the child to gestate inside a artifical gestation chamber or soemthing like that? Not only does it give women who do not want to carry a child another option, but pregnant women do not have to suffer some of the burden when they are carrying a child.

I seriously think that pro-choice supporters should provide more support in this field of research.

Yes, pie-in-the-sky solutions would be just wonderful. Especially since one of the most pressing problems facing humanity today is a lack of sufficient population, right?

[ray245]

You're wondering if women who freely choose a certain path will be happy with that path? It seems likely. The problem with anti-abortion forces is that they don't want women to be able to make free choices in this area.

I mean encouraging women to give their child up for adoption, even if abortion is allowed. That instead of outright banning of abortion, certain groups can choose to encourage adoption instead?

Meaning the choice of the women is respected, but more forms of social benefits can be given to women who choose to give their child up for adoption as compared to aborting them.

It's better than an out-right abortion ban.

[Metatwaddle]

I was wondering, is it better for women to give their child up for adoption as compared to abortion, if they don't mind carrying the child, but not raising him/her?

I was wondering if there has been research done on allowing the child to gestate inside a artifical gestation chamber or soemthing like that? Not only does it give women who do not want to carry a child another option, but pregnant women do not have to suffer some of the burden when they are carrying a child.

I seriously think that pro-choice supporters should provide more support in this field of research.

Bluntly, the pro-choice lobby doesn't care what you think, especially when you bring up a topic that has been the study of medical research for decades and act as if it's your own bright idea.

But it's not a big focus of pro-choicers. There's a limited amount of attention that can be given to any given issue by any given pro-choice lobby, and research on ectogenesis (that's what it's called) is fairly low down on the list for those lobbies with all the other anti-choice bullshit going on lately - HHS trying to define contraception as abortion, "conscience clauses" (i.e. a doctor or hospital could refuse to give abortions, even early ones, for religious reasons) even for medical facilities receiving federal funding. Since medical research is so expensive and nothing is guaranteed, and there are other threats to reproductive rights, ectogenesis research is pretty far down on the list.

There has been little research done on whether women would actually choose ectogenesis if it were an option. An Australian ethicist named Leslie Cannold interviewed a few women on precisely this scenario for her book "The Abortion Myth", which was published in 2001. She asked the the following question of women who would seriously consider abortion if they got pregnant now:

You are two months pregnant. You cannot raise the child and so must decide between having an abortion or carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. As you consider these options, a doctor approaches you and informs you about a wonderful new option. Thanks to technology, it is now possible for you to abort your fetus without killing it. Your fetus can be extracted from your body and transferred to an artificial womb, where it will be grown for nine months and then put up for adoption. "Are you interested?" he asks.

I can't get you the numbers because I haven't actually read Cannold's book. I know of her research from a professor of mine - though you can read a few parts of her book on Google Books here. According to my professor, a large majority of the pro-choice women Cannold interviewed actually said that they would prefer abortion over ectogenesis + adoption. I can't say I really understand this result myself. At all. Luckily, my applied ethics class (where I learned about this research) has an online discussion section, so I can quote some of my female classmates to explain their reasoning. Please excuse the bad writing.

I do not know whether I would pick this option if I were deciding, because it would be very difficult going on with life knowing you have a child born somewhere and under the care of someone and just not knowing who or where.

I would have to side with the majority of women in this matter. If I had to pull my fetus out of my body and take no responsibility for it whatsoever, I don't think I could live my life knowing I had birthed a child that I was never going to see or take care of. I think women would choose the abortion because it would relieve a sense of guilt from their conscience. They would not have to go through the entire process of adoption and giving up a fetus that could've turned into their child.

...so now we can consider that there are women who don't want to go through the realities of childbirth (eliminated by ectogenesis) and those who disapprove of their progeny inhabiting the earth without being included in said progeny's lives (not eliminated by ectogenesis, and relative to adoption cases).

Maybe many women prefer that all of their children be those that they can care for themselves. I don't know if this can be justified morally.

I think the reason women would choose ectogenesis would have the feeling that if they're going to get rid of the problem (pregnancy), they want to get rid of it completely in attempt to rid their conscious of what happened.

Living and knowing that your child exists would still, I belive, produce a feeling of responsibility. The responsibility is the big issue.

That's the vein that most of it is in. Like I said, I don't understand it. I wouldn't hesitate to choose ectogenesis myself if it were an option. But that's partly because a child of mine would have a good chance of finding a good home: I live in a first-world country, I'm young (so low chance of e.g. Down's Syndrome), I have no serious genetic diseases that I know of, and most importantly, I'm white. (White children have a good chance of being adopted in the US.)

I mean encouraging women to give their child up for adoption, even if abortion is allowed. That instead of outright banning of abortion, certain groups can choose to encourage adoption instead?

Meaning the choice of the women is respected, but more forms of social benefits can be given to women who choose to give their child up for adoption as compared to aborting them.

Um, nearly every woman who chooses abortion goes through counseling first. You're not the first person to think of this. And there are plenty of "crisis pregnancy centers" that exist solely to talk women out of having abortions. They are run by fundamentalist Christians and their modus operandi is to lie and exaggerate about the side effects of abortion.

You are proposing to provide abortions to women only after you have needled them and cajoled them to change their minds about a decision that was already tremendously difficult to make in the first place. Do you really think that women choose to have abortions lightly? If a woman is down at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it's because she has considered all the options and concluded that abortion would be the best thing for her mental, physical and emotional well-being. She doesn't need more pressure from well-meaning men who think she should have to carry a baby around in her uterus for nine months when she wants nothing to do with it afterward. Counseling should be and is provided for abortion patients, but it should be impartial counseling that considers her best interests first and foremost - far above the interests of an early fetus with no mental development, whose life is of extremely dubious moral value.

[ray245]

Um, nearly every woman who chooses abortion goes through counseling first. You're not the first person to think of this. And there are plenty of "crisis pregnancy centers" that exist solely to talk women out of having abortions. They are run by fundamentalist Christians and their modus operandi is to lie and exaggerate about the side effects of abortion.

You are proposing to provide abortions to women only after you have needled them and cajoled them to change their minds about a decision that was already tremendously difficult to make in the first place. Do you really think that women choose to have abortions lightly? If a woman is down at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it's because she has considered all the options and concluded that abortion would be the best thing for her mental, physical and emotional well-being. She doesn't need more pressure from well-meaning men who think she should have to carry a baby around in her uterus for nine months when she wants nothing to do with it afterward. Counseling should be and is provided for abortion patients, but it should be impartial counseling that considers her best interests first and foremost - far above the interests of an early fetus with no mental development, whose life is of extremely dubious moral value.

I know that counseling has been provided. What I hope to propose, or hope for someone to implement, is this. Perhaps some form of tax cuts or other kind of incentive to aid or help a women who choose adoption over abortion.

That the government will provide welfare benefits like free healthcare (not using insurence), bonus checks or something like that to cover a rather large amount of cost a pregant women has to fork out. Other than that, other forms of benefits from free transportation and so on.

One main issue some government should do this is to well, help and increase a decreasing or ageing population, and increase the birth rate.

If a government wants to encourage more births, even births from people with fiancial diffculty, the government should go the extra mile to encourage higher birth rates.

[Darth Wong]

Tax cuts? Why do you think society has an imperative to encourage the birth of more unwanted children?

[Metatwaddle]

Where the hell did you get the idea that the government wants to increase the birth rate? For fuck's sake, we've got a half-trillion dollar deficit, a positive population growth rate, and tens of millions of children without health insurance! You think having more unwanted children is going to improve things?

[ray245]

Not applicable in the US, but other countries, like Japan for example.

[Garlak]

Before I dive in, I have a question: what are your thoughts on medical care and life extension? Or treatment that saves people on the verge of death, or resuscitates them?


Also: this being a more general question. Do people who believe in pro-life legislation.. do they support life extension or not? Should they?


When I say life extension, I mean both keeping alive someone in a coma or otherwise vegetative state, or griveously wounded... AND extending a human's life span by, say, decades?

[bazymew]

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.

Neither can a retard. Let's eat the retards!

All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.

Why should it be assigned more moral worth now rather than later? There's no reason why, hypothetically speaking, a chicken couldn't evolve to be more intelligent, after all, several crows and parrots are far more intelligent than they ought to be. Some of them might even be more intelligent than our young children. The potential is there in both organisms, though the time and mechanism for that potential to be expressed is different, I don't see why that should have much of an impact. Potential awareness doesn't make me want to care about an unfeeling foetus more than I do for any animal I would put down out of mercy or because there's too many and people can't look after them (usually the same sort of reasoning for abortions).

That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.

You think that's in the best interest of society as a whole to force women into bearing potential children, even when they are unable to look after them (and likely conservatives have underfunded state adoption agencies and the like)? You think that's better than terminating pregnancies when the offspring is pretty much equivalent to a mushroom?

As of yet, I believe that it would probably be in the best interest of society as a whole to allow women to have abortions, but I am watching this topic for ideas and arguments to try to see if this is a wrong notion. Hopefully, all of us will figure this out for certain as I'm sure some of you have. To facilitate the finding of the truth of the matter, I am refuting parts of arguments that seem to be wrong, even if the argument is for my viewpoint. Playing the devils advocate, you might say.

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?

Sure, there are no free lunches. Do they outweigh post-natal depression, vaginal tearing, anemia and the other dangers (not to mention 18 years of resentment in less than ideal economic conditions in the majority of cases) and the social repercussions of forcing all these kids to be born into families and systems that can't support them? This would have the net effect of flinging more kids into poverty and single parent broken homes and the adoption system, and given the background of most criminals, I doubt this would be good at all.

I was not saying this as a good argument against abortion, rather I was saying this to as a counter to the claim that the psychological and sociological stress of carrying a child to term would be a reason for abortion. In other words I was trying to say that either way it's bad, so you can't say that because carrying the child to term causes bad effects, it's better to get an abortion.

It could be, though, that the negativity of carrying the child to term outweighs the bad psychological effects suffered by some from getting an abortion in most cases.



Anyway, I am just trying to keep the arguments accurate, so we can all come to the right conclusion.

[Darth Wong]

There is both psychological and (potentially serious) physical trauma associated with carrying a child to term, and an added harm of being forced to do so against your will (it is fairly well-enshrined in our legal and ethics systems that coercion itself is harmful). Many women suffer lifelong health consequences even from a seemingly healthy pregnancy. That is three forms of harm, as opposed to one form of potential harm which you cite for women voluntarily getting abortions.

As for the argument that a fetus will "naturally develop" into something more intelligent, it will not actually do so without extensive effort from the mother. Left by itself, it would rapidly die. Now you could say that this effort is also "natural", but this leads to the question of why we are attempting to assign some moral value to our perception of nature's intent, or why nature itself is assumed to be ethical. The behaviour of most animal species would be considered highly unethical if humans acted that way; why is "natural" necessarily ethical?

[Garlak]

Hmm.... Maybe because "natural" means tried and true for millions of years? That is to say, certain biological processes and/or reactions have evolved through brute force trial and error, but what's left is what WORKS and what is useful. Screwing with the genetic code, or just simply with peoples minds or bodies, without knowing what you're doing is risky and dangerous. But now that we're learning, we can experiment and push the boundaries of the possible and achievable.

For the record, I see intelligence and all it has brought as an extremely useful evolved, er, trait. The ability to improve *yourself* and to pass on both knowledge and goods to future generations is an incredible advantage. Sure, evolution improved future generations by weeding out what didn't work, but being able to work out what you want and to *prepare* rather than simply react... meh, ya'll get the idea.


Bottom line is: "natural" is good because it is tried and true and effective over an extremely long period of time. But sentience and intelligence is one of the greatest "natural" benefits/advantages there is, and stifling it should be a crime.. or tragedy.

If there was any way of making a commissar look scarier, it was to make him look like a drowned, undead commissar rose from the ocean depths, not even death keeping him from kicking ass.

Moving on to abortion.. I'm for having that option. For the simple reason that I'd want to be able to exercise that option if I were a woman in such a situation. (I think the arguements against the option of abortion are a bit.. silly, or fallacious, but since I adequately answer them, I'll go with the simpler reason or empathy.)


Annother semi-related question! Say, within several decades, or within this century (or whenever), mankind creates artifical intelligence. It's sentient, self-aware.. but it's safe, and it's not kick-starting a technological singularity. There would be many issues, moral and ethical, with that discovery but I'll just stick to the more relevant one; having created sentient computers/AI, can you justify "caging" them? Can you justify keeping the rest of your electronics "dumb"?

One of the issues brought up in this discussion is that chickens are animals meant to be eaten. So are mushrooms, except they're not animals. Regardless, these things serve a very familiar role in our lives and while we may care for animals, we don't treat them the same as humanity. But how do we/can we extend such distinction to AI? Do you stop using "dumb" computers and let them improve themselves?

(Hope I'm not throwing everybody too off-track here..)

[Metatwaddle]

Hmm.... Maybe because "natural" means tried and true for millions of years? That is to say, certain biological processes and/or reactions have evolved through brute force trial and error, but what's left is what WORKS and what is useful. Screwing with the genetic code, or just simply with peoples minds or bodies, without knowing what you're doing is risky and dangerous. But now that we're learning, we can experiment and push the boundaries of the possible and achievable.

The fact that something is useful or adaptive doesn't mean it is inherently good. What has evolved through natural selection is not what is most ethical. It doesn't mean most efficient (see also: the human eye vs. octopus eye). Hell, it doesn't even mean what's in the best interest of a species, or even an organism. If something has evolved, then it is in the best interest of a piece of DNA. This is not morally relevant.

For the record, I see intelligence and all it has brought as an extremely useful evolved, er, trait. The ability to improve *yourself* and to pass on both knowledge and goods to future generations is an incredible advantage. Sure, evolution improved future generations by weeding out what didn't work, but being able to work out what you want and to *prepare* rather than simply react... meh, ya'll get the idea.

Bottom line is: "natural" is good because it is tried and true and effective over an extremely long period of time. But sentience and intelligence is one of the greatest "natural" benefits/advantages there is, and stifling it should be a crime.. or tragedy.

It's an advantage, but it's not the only advantage, or even the greatest one. The only thing that makes it evolutionarily successful is that it allows us to survive and reproduce, but there are plenty of things that do that for other species. The ability to photosynthesize is a far greater evolutionary benefit than intelligence. You need to accept that killing a plant is seriously wrong, or give reasons to value intelligence that do not appeal to its evolutionary benefit.

Moving on to abortion.. I'm for having that option. For the simple reason that I'd want to be able to exercise that option if I were a woman in such a situation. (I think the arguements against the option of abortion are a bit.. silly, or fallacious, but since I adequately answer them, I'll go with the simpler reason or empathy.)

Actually, you didn't answer shit. Other people did all the lifting, like Alyrium.

Another semi-related question! Say, within several decades, or within this century (or whenever), mankind creates artifical intelligence. It's sentient, self-aware.. but it's safe, and it's not kick-starting a technological singularity. There would be many issues, moral and ethical, with that discovery but I'll just stick to the more relevant one; having created sentient computers/AI, can you justify "caging" them? Can you justify keeping the rest of your electronics "dumb"?

Yes and no, respectively. We are under no moral obligation to bring intelligence or intelligent beings into the world, but we do have an obligation to treat self-aware beings humanely. If we reasonably conclude that an AI is self-aware, we should treat it well.

One of the issues brought up in this discussion is that chickens are animals meant to be eaten. So are mushrooms, except they're not animals. Regardless, these things serve a very familiar role in our lives and while we may care for animals, we don't treat them the same as humanity. But how do we/can we extend such distinction to AI? Do you stop using "dumb" computers and let them improve themselves?

You're new here, but if you stick around, you will find that teleological arguments will not be received sympathetically on SDN. It's not permissible to eat mushrooms and chickens because they are meant for us to eat, it's permissible to eat them because they are not self-aware and, in the case of the mushroom, cannot feel pain or suffer. There are actually some decent arguments that we should not eat chicken that is produced through factory farming methods, because the chickens suffer during their short lives. I ignore these arguments because chicken is delicious.

[Alyrium Denryle]

All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

That is, in fact, not true. I have friends that work with the severely mentally retarded and chickens are in fact smarter than them.

That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

Same argument applies. The fetus is not yet intelligent.

Also: I would appreciate it if you at least attempted to address my argument

To facilitate the finding of the truth of the matter, I am refuting parts of arguments that seem to be wrong, even if the argument is for my viewpoint. Playing the devils advocate, you might say.

And you are doing so abysmally poorly by rehashing things that I have already ripped apart in this thread



Post subject: Re: Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation Reply with quote
Zuul wrote:
bazymew wrote:
Quote:
By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....


A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.


Neither can a retard. Let's eat the retards!


All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

Quote:
Quote:
A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.


Why should it be assigned more moral worth now rather than later? There's no reason why, hypothetically speaking, a chicken couldn't evolve to be more intelligent, after all, several crows and parrots are far more intelligent than they ought to be. Some of them might even be more intelligent than our young children. The potential is there in both organisms, though the time and mechanism for that potential to be expressed is different, I don't see why that should have much of an impact. Potential awareness doesn't make me want to care about an unfeeling foetus more than I do for any animal I would put down out of mercy or because there's too many and people can't look after them (usually the same sort of reasoning for abortions).


That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.


You think that's in the best interest of society as a whole to force women into bearing potential children, even when they are unable to look after them (and likely conservatives have underfunded state adoption agencies and the like)? You think that's better than terminating pregnancies when the offspring is pretty much equivalent to a mushroom?


As of yet, I believe that it would probably be in the best interest of society as a whole to allow women to have abortions, but I am watching this topic for ideas and arguments to try to see if this is a wrong notion. Hopefully, all of us will figure this out for certain as I'm sure some of you have. To facilitate the finding of the truth of the matter, I am refuting parts of arguments that seem to be wrong, even if the argument is for my viewpoint. Playing the devils advocate, you might say.

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

Neither does a fetus

Anyway, I am just trying to keep the arguments accurate, so we can all come to the right conclusion.

Save that I have already addressed every argument you are making. You are not indeed contributing anything to the discussion