Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Newme]

99.31% of Abortions Done for Convenience

The convenience of not burdening the world with an unwanted child, in the context of a world with 8,000,000,000 humans in it. And maybe it's also avoiding the birth of a child whose parents cannot afford to care properly for it. Convenient, indeed.

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

[Newme]

It’s amazing what mental gymnastics some will go through to justify ripping a child (developing human) apart, limb by limb and killing him or her. If you had to do it yourself, would you? Would you then be so supportive of KILLING CHILDREN?

[Newme]

2 reasons to oppose abortion murders:
1. It’s immoral to kill a child, especially in such painful torture
2. It hurts women

Utah was one of the first states to acknowledge this & require pain medication to be administered to older children, though doctors recommended it be given to you get children too - before killing them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

Genocide is an attempt to erase a species. With 8 billion of us, this hardly seems like a real risk.

[LuckyR]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

Genocide is an attempt to erase a species. With 8 billion of us, this hardly seems like a real risk.

Yet another "opinion" on abortion (an issue of two competing interests) that conveniently ignores the one that contradicts their pet side of the topic. Makes for okay political mudslinging but very uncompelling philosophical discussion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

Genocide is an attempt to erase a species. With 8 billion of us, this hardly seems like a real risk.

Yet another "opinion" on abortion (an issue of two competing interests) that conveniently ignores the one that contradicts their pet side of the topic. Makes for okay political mudslinging but very uncompelling philosophical discussion.

Thanks, Lucky. Insightful comments, as ever.

For myself, I strive to face my own opinions, and their ramifications and consequences, head-on. That I sometimes fail in this is merely a reflection of my real-life imperfection. But I do my best.

I don't see this as "an issue of two competing interests". I think it's more than that, and I think there are many more than two positions that one might occupy. It is a difficult and sensitive discussion to have, in which people hold deeply-entrenched ideas and beliefs, and they hold them just as sincerely and confidently as I hold my own (opinions). To achieve anything at all when discussing abortion, we have to acknowledge other people's opinions and genuine feelings, that are as deeply-held as our own.

I think throwing-in a charge of "genocide" is unnecessarily provocative; others may see it differently.

[Elindeque1992]

I would not. Once you cross that bridge, what else would you be willing to do to get what you want? What is to stop me from doing more despicable things?

[LuckyR]

I would not. Once you cross that bridge, what else would you be willing to do to get what you want? What is to stop me from doing more despicable things?

What would stop you? The same thing that stops you right now having NOT killed a baby with your bare hands, namely a combination of your personal moral code and your fear of consequences from the community.

[Newme]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

Genocide is an attempt to erase a species. With 8 billion of us, this hardly seems like a real risk.

Tell that to those killed in Rwanda & other genocides.

[Newme]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

I think throwing-in a charge of "genocide" is unnecessarily provocative; others may see it differently.

I think ripping a human being’s body apart, limb by limb as they silently scream under water - all based on age discrimination - is “provocative.”

[Pattern-chaser]

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

Genocide is an attempt to erase a species. With 8 billion of us, this hardly seems like a real risk.

Tell that to those killed in Rwanda & other genocides.

I made a mistake. Genocide doesn't mean quite what I thought. I only observed that our species is not at risk from these unacceptable and unjustifiable practices. I hope it was/is clear from my words that I do not in any way accept or condone genocide.

Sick to support genocide based on age discrimination, especially when you were allowed to live past that age.

I think throwing-in a charge of "genocide" is unnecessarily provocative; others may see it differently.

I think ripping a human being’s body apart, limb by limb as they silently scream under water - all based on age discrimination - is “provocative.”

The way we use "genocide" is often hyperbole. The events we refer to are vile and unacceptable without exaggerating what took place.

We do not disagree.

[Lagayscienza]

I wouldn't, couldn't, do it. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in punishment in hell after death. And yet I would not do it. And I am a moral anti-realist - objectively, moral right and wrong do not exist for me. And still yet, I could not do it. It would go against my core moral sentiments, instilled in me by evolution. The act of killing a child, the very thought of it, horrifies me. I just can't help the way I feel about it. I have no choice. It's hard wired.

In that respect I am similar to the author of the OP. I am comfortable with my moral sentiments. If I went against them I would feel... well, I don't think I could live with myself. The thought of it fills me with dread. So no, I would not do it. And I don't need to do any of the crazy aggregation calculations that a consequentialist would need to do. My decision would seem right to me immediately, it would be easy and I wouldn't need to think about it or question it. I would be satisfied that I had done the right thing. And I wouldn't be torturing myself about all the kids that would have been saved. It would not be my fault if they got cancer. Of course, it's terribly sad that kids get cancer, and so I would continue to donate to charities that fund scientific research into child cancer. I would do what I could to help save those children as long as it did not go against my moral sentiments.

I am very glad that a set of circumstances like those outline in the OP are counterfactual and highly unlikely to arise in real life.

[Shirley Labzentis]

Hi Scott,
No, I could not murder an innocent child. Even though millions of people around the world would be cured of cancer, I would not be able to do it. I could not live with myself, and I would constantly play the scenario repeatedly. I could hear the child begging over and over for their life. No, No, No! I couldn't do it!

[Good_Egg]

Hi Scott,
No, I could not murder an innocent child. Even though millions of people around the world would be cured of cancer, I would not be able to do it. I could not live with myself, and I would constantly play the scenario repeatedly. I could hear the child begging over and over for their life. No, No, No! I couldn't do it!

Hi Shirley.

Perhaps fortunately, none of us are actually facing this dilemma; we're only imagining it, as a thought-experiment.

And it seems like the way that you're imagining it is that the child gets to look you in the eyes, knowing what you intend, and gets to beg for mercy. While all the millions at risk of cancer are a distant abstraction, who don't get to communicate with you at all. Which seems like a biased way of imagining it.

What happens if we imagine it differently ?

Suppose the child is inside your house, mutely looking at you, waiting for you to decide. And the ten million people who die of cancer in one year are standing outside your house, mutely looking at you, waiting for you to decide.

Roughly speaking, if your house was in the middle of an empty plain, they would take up all the space for a mile around your house in every direction. All looking at you.

You look at the child, and you look at the people outside.

Is your answer the same ?

Maybe it is. But at least that's an equal-opportunity scenario in which they've all had something closer to the same chance to plead for their lives.

[Lagayscienza]

That's an interesting new slant on the scenario. I'll give it some more thought.