Reproductive Rights vs Future Child Rights

[chris logan]

The point is that it is cruel to assume that a fetus will not regret being disabled when it is born. It went from nonexistence (no feelings whatsoever) immediately to a state of deprivation. It would not be "less than human" but it would have less potential and less opportunities.

 

it's equally cruel to assume that it will have regrets and it won't have good friends, good times, hopes, dreams... it deserves a chance. Less potential and less opportunities ( debatable) but opportunities none the less.

[knownothing]

Dumbbloke, you don't need to assume when feeling and consciousness comes about. There is a pretty good biological understanding of the development that a fetus goes through. Besides, you are missing the point. This topic is not about abortion, it is about heritable traits that will decrease a humans quality of life significantly.

 

 

The point is that it is cruel to assume that a fetus will not regret being disabled when it is born. It went from nonexistence (no feelings whatsoever) immediately to a state of deprivation. It would not be "less than human" but it would have less potential and less opportunities.

it's equally cruel to assume that it will have regrets and it won't have good friends, good times, hopes, dreams... it deserves a chance. Less potential and less opportunities ( debatable) but opportunities none the less.

 

It's not cruel at all. Who are we being cruel to? You could make the argument that we are being cruel to the parents, and I would concede that you could be right. As far as the unborn person is concerned, they are not being deprived of anything by not being conceived (or by being aborted).

 

A person who is never born cannot possibly be worse off than a person who is born. Don't you understand that when you are talking about being cruel to this person, you are referring to someone who does not exist? As I said, this person is only an idea.

 

If it is a fetus, then it physically exists, but there is no identity or consciousness to make a person.

Edited June 6, 2013 by knownothing

[dumbbloke]

<it is a fetus, then it physically exists, but there is no identity or consciousness to make a person.>

 

I dissagree with this, and believe that the inteligence which develops and occupies that body for life (the thinking/feeling part of us) is already present in the body. It may be in a primitive state of development, but it is able to feel and think.

 

BTW: I'm certain that your skills as a clairvoyant would be most usefull to many, IFF you can accurately predict the future for such as an embryo. My crummy crystal ball needs more power than I have to work, and Urims and Thumims are rare. As for anyone judging whether a life was worthwhile, that is only a teensy bit easier than pre-judging the matter. Neither is given to either of us.

[knownothing]

I dissagree with this, and believe that the inteligence which develops and occupies that body for life (the thinking/feeling part of us) is already present in the body. It may be in a primitive state of development, but it is able to feel and think.

 

At what point does this intelligence begin? Surely you would not say that an egg or a sperm has intelligence. A fertilized egg does not suddenly take on this intelligence, either. Since there is no magic point where personhood suddenly enters into a developing human, it seems to me that you must acknowledge that it is not "already present." Are you are talking about a soul or something like that?

 

BTW: I'm certain that your skills as a clairvoyant would be most usefull to many, IFF you can accurately predict the future for such as an embryo. My crummy crystal ball needs more power than I have to work, and Urims and Thumims are rare. As for anyone judging whether a life was worthwhile, that is only a teensy bit easier than pre-judging the matter. Neither is given to either of us.

Let me explain why I think the way I do. As far as I can tell, there is no God, karma, fate or purpose in life. With this understanding, we should understand that nobody has a right to be born, and there should be no point in continuing the human species unless it will be for our own pleasure. I am not claiming to be able to judge what a person's life is going to be. I am just saying that it is cruel to bring someone into the world as a seriously disadvantaged person. You have not done them a favor, as you did not satisfy a want or need that they had prior to existing. They have entered into a pointless existence in a state of deprivation. The pleasures in life are rarely as plentiful as the pains, and there is a lot of evidence for this. And this is true even for those who are not disadvantaged. Basically, I disagree that there is any good reason for living other than to experience pleasure. All other reasons have been fabricated so that humanity can hide from disappointment and existential hopelessness. This doesn't just refer to religious people, but rationalists, too, who value silly things like their "legacy". It's fine to have subjective meaning, I am just saying what my beliefs are.

 

Look at it this way: Should an assembly line knowingly produce flawed products because they reckon people will still like them? Only in the case of a human, it is much, much worse to produce a "flawed product".

Edited June 8, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

EDIT: Oops, I didn't notice there was a page 2.

 

---

 

First, law enforcement isn't the only means for inducing ethical behavior. Merely by discussing the ethics, we can change people's attitudes toward this sort of abortion.

 

Law enforcement presents a host of other problems, and the following three points highlight potential problems with enforcing limitations on reproduction.

(1) A function of law is to maintain order by giving a sense of security. The proposal seems to go against that general guideline by threatening the right to reproduce. On the other hand, the law doesn't bring comfort to anyone. For those of us who have already been born (i.e. all of us), there is nothing to worry about.

(2) Once regulations on reproduction are used, they can be misused. In the U.S., politicians like to write up laws that serve their own ends under the guise of serving other functions. When the other politicians look over the law, everything looks fine to them. They don't realize that, let us say, a broad funding cut will incidentally make it more difficult for college students to get affordable birth control.

(3) Other nations might follow suite, but with less compassionate intentions. Governments may be more reluctant to put a stop to it if they already have similar laws in place.

 

---

 

jp255 proposed that the offspring sue their parents for their suffering. This is more interesting. First, it does serve to comfort someone, it comforts the diseased person. Suppose the diseased person has medical bills to worry about if they are to sustain a satisfactory life (or life at all). However, if the parents aren't helping to pay such expenses, it's probably because they don't have the money for it. What do you do then, throw them in jail? That doesn't help anybody.

 

What would be the standard definition of a satisfactory life? We could say that an unsatisfactory life is a life that's not worth living. That's not a clear definition, but it does seem reasonable. After all, from a strict utilitarian standpoint, a life not worth living is the only thing worse than not living at all, and the mother wasn't under any obligation to pop out a child in the first place.

 

Also, we shouldn't automatically link an unsatisfactory life with suicide. There are other reasons for choosing to continue life. Maybe the person hopes things will improve; doesn't want to let anyone down; wants to do good things while they're here; fears eternal hellfire; etc. Plus, there are other contributory causes for suicide: lapse of judgement, anger, etc.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[knownothing]

A function of law is to maintain order by giving a sense of security. The proposal seems to go against that general guideline by threatening the right to reproduce. On the other hand, the law doesn't bring comfort to anyone. For those of us who have already been born (i.e. all of us), there is nothing to worry about.

I disagree. People feel that we live in very dangerous times despite the continuous decline in crime ever since the 1990s. I think that the true function of law is to provide negative and positive incentives for all people (mostly negative). It sure does not provide security for someone who wants to use illegal drugs or hire/become a prostitute. The law is already criminalizing a lot of stuff that does not threaten anyone other than competent consenting adults, so I think that we have set the precedent for a sort of dictatorship by the majority. I think that, if people got it in their heads that possible humans have rights, they would not have a problem passing a law. If, for instance, the Democrats made it part of their platform, it would be law in no time.

 

As for comforting people, the point is prevention of grief rather than alleviation of grief.

 

Once regulations on reproduction are used, they can be misused. In the U.S., politicians like to write up laws that serve their own ends under the guise of serving other functions. When the other politicians look over the law, everything looks fine to them. They don't realize that, let us say, a broad funding cut will incidentally make it more difficult for college students to get affordable birth control.

If they made it ridiculously long like they are fond of doing, I'm sure they could stick stuff in there, but you can say this for many other scenarios as well. I think it is more indicative of a flawed legislative system and not necessarily a problem with regulating procreation.

 

Other nations might follow suite, but with less compassionate intentions. Governments may be more reluctant to put a stop to it if they already have similar laws in place.

I don't really know why this is a concern. Most dictatorships don't take after Western Society too much. Regimes have never needed approval to do drastic things. Just look at China's policy on population control.

 

What would be the standard definition of a satisfactory life? We could say that an unsatisfactory life is a life that's not worth living. That's not a clear definition, but it does seem reasonable. After all, from a strict utilitarian standpoint, a life not worth living is the only thing worse than not living at all, and the mother wasn't under any obligation to pop out a child in the first place.

 

The way I see it, and this is just my opinion, there are certain kinds of suffering that a good life cannot make up for. If someone lived the absolute worst life imaginable for one half of his life and then lived the best life imaginable for the second half, his life as a whole would not be worth living. It wouldn't even balance out. This is because of the evident asymmetry between pain and pleasure. This does not mean that life should be terminated, but it

means that life becomes a task to be dealt with as opposed to a gift to be enjoyed. It is yours to do what you want with it, and it only makes sense that people will modify their paradigm so that they think they have many reasons to be happy.

 

I am sure you are familiar with positive thinking, which in many cases is as arbitrary as thinking "glass half full." It is not hard for a person to be tricked into thinking that life is beautiful. I think it would be nice if people did not have to believe in religious or positive thinking to be happy; they would live a life that is actually evidently good. We should not create humans and have to tell them that life is good in an abstract way even though they are diseased and crippled. If life is only good in the abstract, you might as well be a Christian.

 

My idea of a life that is worth living is one that is apparently good and does not need to rely on abstractions to keep from being unsatisfactory.

 

Also, we shouldn't automatically link an unsatisfactory life with suicide. There are other reasons for choosing to continue life. Maybe the person hopes things will improve; doesn't want to let anyone down; wants to do good things while they're here; fears eternal hellfire; etc. Plus, there are other contributory causes for suicide: lapse of judgement, anger, etc.

 

The point is that suicide is not the feared outcome. The feared outcome is a person wishing they were dead. In this case, it would actually be better for this person if they complete suicide. If they end up spending multiple days a month wishing they were dead, they are living a fate worse than death.

Edited June 11, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

I disagree. People feel that we live in very dangerous times despite the continuous decline in crime ever since the 1990s. I think that the true function of law is to provide negative and positive incentives for all people (mostly negative). It sure does not provide security for someone who wants to use illegal drugs or hire/become a prostitute. The law is already criminalizing a lot of stuff that does not threaten anyone other than competent consenting adults, so I think that we have set the precedent for a sort of dictatorship by the majority. I think that, if people got it in their heads that possible humans have rights, they would not have a problem passing a law. If, for instance, the Democrats made it part of their platform, it would be law in no time.

 

I think we can reconcile these points of view. The government provides us with goods, and security is one of those goods. However, the government makes us work for those goods as the incentives. In other words, the government doesn't necessarily provide a person with these goods, but it does provide that person with the (illusory or real) possibility of attaining these goods.

 

"As for comforting people, the point is prevention of grief rather than alleviation of grief."

But providing a sense of security (comfort) promotes order. If government officials went around killing citizens, the citizens would grow anxious and rebel. Likewise if government officials went around aborting foeti.

 

 

The way I see it, and this is just my opinion, there are certain kinds of suffering that a good life cannot make up for. If someone lived the absolute worst life imaginable for one half of his life and then lived the best life imaginable for the second half, his life as a whole would not be worth living. It wouldn't even balance out. This is because of the evident asymmetry between pain and pleasure. This does not mean that life should be terminated, but it

means that life becomes a task to be dealt with as opposed to a gift to be enjoyed. It is yours to do what you want with it, and it only makes sense that people will modify their paradigm so that they think they have many reasons to be happy.

 

I think we need to distinguish between happiness and pleasure. These terms overlap, but they aren't identical.

Much of the time, being happy means being okay with the way things turned out. In that sense, happiness is a statement of opinion regarding one's life in the abstract, i.e. one's life as they look back on it.

"Pleasure" typically refers to an affective state. The affective state changes frequently, so pleasure doesn't have the same regularity as happiness.

 

I am sure you are familiar with positive thinking, which in many cases is as arbitrary as thinking "glass half full." It is not hard for a person to be tricked into thinking that life is beautiful. I think it would be nice if people did not have to believe in religious or positive thinking to be happy; they would live a life that is actually evidently good. We should not create humans and have to tell them that life is good in an abstract way even though they are diseased and crippled. If life is only good in the abstract, you might as well be a Christian.

 

You may have a good case for pessimism. Maybe we can convince people that "pretending to be happy" is actually a counterproductive delusion that changes a person's behaviors and ultimately lowers their quality of life.

[knownothing]

But providing a sense of security (comfort) promotes order. If government officials went around killing citizens, the citizens would grow anxious and rebel. Likewise if government officials went around aborting foeti.

I think that it would only happen in the US if the liberals made it part of their platform. I admit though, that it is hard for me to imagine how it would look if a woman was unwilling to get an abortion. Suddenly we have some very nasty business happening with forced abortions. It is such a delicate issue that I don't know if it would ever be supported by very many people. It's all well and good for me to sit behind my keyboard and talk about this stuff, but it would sound very bad coming from a politician's mouth and it would be political suicide.

 

"Pleasure" typically refers to an affective state. The affective state changes frequently, so pleasure doesn't have the same regularity as happiness.

I think that happiness has to be continually stoked. This is unlike unhappiness, which can last for years purely from the echoes of a traumatic event or the mere knowledge that you could have a better life. You never hear of people experiencing post orgasmic glee disorder, because positive experiences do not affect us as profoundly as negative ones.

 

But I do agree that happiness and pleasure are different. Most people cannot naturally attain happiness (and rightfully so since it is not required for the species to survive). It is very easy, however, to attain pleasure. You can walk into a store and buy tasty food. You can masturbate, use drugs or watch a movie. But you can do all of this and be miserable at the same time. That is not to suggest that forms of pleasure that are harder to acquire bring happiness, either. Pleasure doesn't seem to have all that much to do with happiness.

Edited June 12, 2013 by knownothing