Look who would be aborted!

[Angra Mainyu]

Why abort them? Why not wait until they are seven or eight, and murder them then, when they are starting to show the first signs of psychosis and you know you have a potentially dangerous person? I mean, the same risk factors are there either way, but a lot of people do make it out of the ghettoes without turning out to be horrible people... your system of euthanasia will be much more precise in its targeting if you wait for the first string of juvenile offenses to decide who to kill.

Whose euthanasia system do you have in mind, and how does it work?

 

[Politesse]

Why abort them? Why not wait until they are seven or eight, and murder them then, when they are starting to show the first signs of psychosis and you know you have a potentially dangerous person? I mean, the same risk factors are there either way, but a lot of people do make it out of the ghettoes without turning out to be horrible people... your system of euthanasia will be much more precise in its targeting if you wait for the first string of juvenile offenses to decide who to kill.

Whose euthanasia system do you have in mind, and how does it work?

This clever system of killing dictators/scientists in the womb.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why abort them? Why not wait until they are seven or eight, and murder them then, when they are starting to show the first signs of psychosis and you know you have a potentially dangerous person? I mean, the same risk factors are there either way, but a lot of people do make it out of the ghettoes without turning out to be horrible people... your system of euthanasia will be much more precise in its targeting if you wait for the first string of juvenile offenses to decide who to kill.

Whose euthanasia system do you have in mind, and how does it work?

This clever system of killing dictators/scientists in the womb.

But I don't see anyone proposing such a system, or describing how it would work (e.g., how to detect them) so I don't understand what you were trying to say.
Your alternative system appears to be much worse because it involves murder rather than abortion. Of course, I know you didn't seriously propose it, but I don't understand how that's supposed to make a point. I'm asking for clarification, because I don't get what your post is about.

 

[Politesse]

This clever system of killing dictators/scientists in the womb.

But I don't see anyone proposing such a system, or describing how it would work (e.g., how to detect them) so I don't understand what you were trying to say.
Your alternative system appears to be much worse because it involves murder rather than abortion. Of course, I know you didn't seriously propose it, but I don't understand how that's supposed to make a point. I'm asking for clarification, because I don't get what your post is about.

I find the whole idea of deciding whether or not to kill someone based on the person they might turn out to be profoundly disturbing, the more so because almost all of the people on the list were candidates for abortion precisely because of the difficult stances of their early life. It smacks of euthanasia and classism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I find the whole idea of deciding whether or not to kill someone based on the person they might turn out to be profoundly disturbing, the more so because almost all of the people on the list were candidates for abortion precisely because of the difficult stances of their early life. It smacks of euthanasia and classism.

I disagree that killing an embryo (all of the examples provided here) would be an instance of killing someone. I think that would be an instance of killing something. Also, I don't see why that would be classism or euthanasia - the motivation seems different in your scenario.

But even granting all of that for the sake of the argument, no one was suggesting aborting embryos because of their future actions if they were to grow into people. Rather, lpetrich was criticizing an argument against abortion by providing other examples. I don't think that's the best counterargument, but I don't see anything in his post suggesting killing a fetus or embryo on the basis of what kind of person the fetus or embryo might become. I don't see any similar suggestion in any other post in this thread, either, and that's why I couldn't understand your post in this context.

 

[fromderinside]

If end states were legally important research on life extension would be paramount. Its not. End of discussion.

 

[Politesse]

I disagree that killing an embryo (all of the examples provided here) would be an instance of killing someone. I think that would be an instance of killing something. Also, I don't see why that would be classism or euthanasia - the motivation seems different in your scenario.

Really? When the "somethings" have names and careers and moral judgements attached to them throughout the discussion? That sure sounds like an admission of personhood to me. Things don't have agency or names or a place in history, they aren't "good" or "evil".

But even granting all of that for the sake of the argument, no one was suggesting aborting embryos because of their future actions if they were to grow into people. Rather, lpetrich was criticizing an argument against abortion by providing other examples.

Examples of.... people who ought to be aborted (based on their poverty or non-traditional family structure) thus "balancing out" the people who shouldn't (benevolent affluent scientist types). How is that not a eugenic argument?

 

[Jobar]

Look at it this way. Out of that universe of possible people, God could have selected the greatest and the wisest to be born, and assured that they would *not* have been aborted. So the fact that it's we, in our ordinariness, that exist- and the fact that monsters, murderers, and morons *are* born on a regular basis- is further evidence that no God exists.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Really? When the "somethings" have names and careers and moral judgements attached to them throughout the discussion? That sure sounds like an admission of personhood to me. Things don't have agency or names or a place in history, they aren't "good" or "evil".

My assessment that killing an embryo would not be an instance of killing a person does not depend on whether other people in the thread believe that killing an embryo would be an instance of killing a person.
Also, as I said, the motivation you stated for the killing - namely, killing it "based on the person they might turn out to be" (I would say "to become", since I reckon those aren't persons - would not be an instance of either euthanasia or classism. Euthanasia is a killing intended to prevent suffering, but that's not what the motivation in your scenario involves. As for classism, also there is no such implication. Of course, you might add to your scenario a condition that it's a killing because the embryo would become a person of such-and-such social class, but you would have to explicitly say that or something that implies it or makes it probable, etc.

Examples of.... people who ought to be aborted (based on their poverty or non-traditional family structure) thus "balancing out" the people who shouldn't (benevolent affluent scientist types). How is that not a eugenic argument?

I have not seen any posts stating that some people ought to be aborted (though embryos aren't people, but regardless), let alone that they ought to be aborted based on their poverty or non-traditional family structure. Rather, lpetrich gave examples of cases in which, if someone had had an abortion, then a bad person would not have come into existence, mirroring the argument he was criticized. The reasons for the abortions were not offered as involving any sort of moral obligation to abort them. Moreover, the reasons were not of the form 'because the embryo might become such-and-such person'.

That aside, even if lpetrich had claimed that those women ought to have aborted, that would not have been an instance of the hypothetical scenario that you brought up, and that I was assessing when I said it did not sound like euthanasia or classism, namely cases in which the abortion happens "based on the person they might turn out to be". If you take a look at the stated motivations in lpetrich's scenarios, I don't see a single one of them that is based on the person the embryo might become.

That said, if you had someone else's post or posts in mind, please let me know and I will address that.

 

[Playball40]

And if someone DIDN'T have that abortion, their lives are forever altered and the daughter they would conceive two years later that finds the cure for diabetes never comes into existence.

 

[Rhea]

If end states were legally important research on life extension would be paramount. Its not. End of discussion.

This is a valid acknowledgment.
Moreover, if end states were legally important, then universal health care, compassionate immigration, gun control, free outstanding education and abhorrence of war would also be paramount. They’re not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Really? When the "somethings" have names and careers and moral judgements attached to them throughout the discussion? That sure sounds like an admission of personhood to me. Things don't have agency or names or a place in history, they aren't "good" or "evil".

My assessment that killing an embryo would not be an instance of killing a person does not depend on whether other people in the thread believe that killing an embryo would be an instance of killing a person.
Also, as I said, the motivation you stated for the killing - namely, killing it "based on the person they might turn out to be" (I would say "to become", since I reckon those aren't persons - would not be an instance of either euthanasia or classism. Euthanasia is a killing intended to prevent suffering, but that's not what the motivation in your scenario involves. As for classism, also there is no such implication. Of course, you might add to your scenario a condition that it's a killing because the embryo would become a person of such-and-such social class, but you would have to explicitly say that or something that implies it or makes it probable, etc.

Examples of.... people who ought to be aborted (based on their poverty or non-traditional family structure) thus "balancing out" the people who shouldn't (benevolent affluent scientist types). How is that not a eugenic argument?

I have not seen any posts stating that some people ought to be aborted (though embryos aren't people, but regardless), let alone that they ought to be aborted based on their poverty or non-traditional family structure. Rather, lpetrich gave examples of cases in which, if someone had had an abortion, then a bad person would not have come into existence, mirroring the argument he was criticized. The reasons for the abortions were not offered as involving any sort of moral obligation to abort them. Moreover, the reasons were not of the form 'because the embryo might become such-and-such person'.

That aside, even if lpetrich had claimed that those women ought to have aborted, that would not have been an instance of the hypothetical scenario that you brought up, and that I was assessing when I said it did not sound like euthanasia or classism, namely cases in which the abortion happens "based on the person they might turn out to be". If you take a look at the stated motivations in lpetrich's scenarios, I don't see a single one of them that is based on the person the embryo might become.

That said, if you had someone else's post or posts in mind, please let me know and I will address that.

I'd like to add a couple of points on the first part:

Really? When the "somethings" have names and careers and moral judgements attached to them throughout the discussion? That sure sounds like an admission of personhood to me. Things don't have agency or names or a place in history, they aren't "good" or "evil".

In addition to my previous point, I don't think that's an "admission" of personhood (it wouldn't be an admission even if it were an implicit assertion of personhood, because it would be incorrect, but that aside). Apart from the fact that not only persons have names (e.g., many dogs do, and so do storms, ships, volcanoes, diseases, etc.), not only persons have a place in history, and while only persons are morally evil or good persons (obviously), other things are also bad or good things (e.g., Ebola outbreaks are a really bad thing), in this particular context, using the name of a person the embryo would be for the embryo seems to me like an implicit assertion of identity as an organism, but not of personhood - there appears to be no implicit belief that the organism in question is, at that early stage of development, already a person, and is not said to be morally evil in the sense a person can be, again not at that stage.

However, if that were an assertion of personhood, you might as well make a stronger argument and say it's immoral to kill a person just because one does not want a child, making a general argument against the pro-legalization position, at least from those asserting personhood, instead of narrowly focussing on the motivation of killing it because of the kind of person someone might become - which they did not endorse in this thread, and may well not endorse in other contexts, either. But then again, a counter to that would be as follows: if the word "person" is such that embryos count as persons (which does not seem to be the case), then it's not true that it's always immoral to kill a person just because one does not want a child. The assessment that killing an embryo for that reason is not immoral is made by one's sense of right and wrong, and it's not going to change because of the terminological convention in the use of the word "person".

 

[Ramaraksha]

So how does the OP explain all the mass murders in holy books? Entire people wiped out - in fact, the entire population of the earth was wiped by some powerful being? The same being killed all the new born babies of Egypt?

But to his point, some of the poorest and backward areas of this world are muslim-dominated areas where abortions are not promoted. Single-income large families having lots of babies, they have little money for education and so they remain poor and backward. That's the catch here

It is costly to have a baby nowadays - back in the day people had little and had few expectations, besides lots of babies died during birth or soon after, aborting a baby was crazy. But today times are different - it's not just about having a baby, that baby must have a loving home, get an education and that is costly

The OP throws all these names at us as to whom could have been aborted, but just because these people are born does not mean that they get to grow up to be who they are - Obama might have been born along with a few other siblings, but his parents might not have had the money to spare to spend on his education, since they now have so many mouths to feed and clothe, so he never goes to school, never becomes President

That's life, right? Would you rather have a well-made product that works well and does not break down but is very costly or would you rather have something that is dirt cheap but you know it might not work after the first start? Parents of today are forced to choose wisely, they can either have a bunch of kids and not give them a future or have a few kids and give them a bright future

This is not rocket science - this is what all parents do

And not one word on the effect that all these births would have on the mother - they say that for each birth, the mother's life expectancy gets reduced - i don't have the numbers with me but giving birth is not easy on the mothers body. And we have not even touched on what would happen if the father dies or runs out, how the poor mother is going to feed, clothe and bring up this huge brood?

Over the over women have complained that fat, old, white men get together and decide what is best for them. Want to take any bets that the writer of the OP is one?

 

[ronburgundy]

. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?"

About 70 million people killed was the overall effect of Hitler's existence, which infinitely overshadows any incidental positives to the world of his existence. There is no moral argument that doesn't favor killing Hitler at any stage of his existence.

And the reality is that violent people and others that make the world a worse place are actually far more likely to be aborted than are future useful scientists.
About 50% of abortions in the US are by the 13% who live below the poverty level. Those born into such poverty are far more likely to do harm to others and society and far less likely to be scientists or make notable contributions. Plus, those that get aborted are not only mostly poor but likely to be in especially shitty circumstances if they were born, because those shitty circumstances of parents who do not want them and cannot care for them, not having a viable father and/or no other social support are what make the mother more likely to choose abortion. In-depth statistical analyses make a strong case that legalized abortion in the 1970's led to a large increase in abortion rates which then led to a large drop in crime rates from the mid-1980's to the late 1990's because many of children that would have grown to be teen and adult criminals by the 1990's were aborted. Similar analyses support the same abortion-reduces-crime relationship in many other countries.

Every abortion that is coercively prevented increases the probability of crime, murder, and almost all forms of suffering and harm in the world.

 

[fromderinside]

. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?"

Every abortion that is coercively prevented increases the probability of crime, murder, and almost all forms of suffering and harm in the world.

Two people, the two quoted above, making claims that overreach anything they could divine from permitting or preventing births is akin to saying dark energy loves God.

Let me illustrate:
Hitler's existence suppressed a lot of people thereby reducing good and bad in a lot of people.
Every abortion decreases probabilities of things happening rather than increases them.

 

[ronburgundy]

. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?"

Every abortion that is coercively prevented increases the probability of crime, murder, and almost all forms of suffering and harm in the world.

Two people, the two quoted above, making claims that overreach anything they could divine from permitting or preventing births is akin to saying dark energy loves God.


Let me illustrate:

You are only illustrating a lack of coherent thought and internal logic.

Hitler's existence suppressed a lot of people thereby reducing good and bad in a lot of people.

If you think that killing millions without moral justification doesn't make the world worse on balance, then you have no morality at all, so the entire discussion of any moral issue is moot, and you might as well be a serial killer.

Every abortion decreases probabilities of things happening rather than increases them.

Wrong. The abortion of a person more likely than average person to become a murderer decreases the probability of murders but increases the probability of all the things those potential victims will now do since they will not be murdered. Also, since sons of wife beaters are more likely be a wife beater, abortion of a wife beater's fetus decreases the probability of future wife beating, but increases the probability of the things that woman will do that would have been prevented via violence from marrying that person.

It is a undeniable statistical fact that the fetuses who get aborted would be far more likely than non-aborted fetuses to be born into factors that are predictive of crime and harm to others and negatively predictive of things like being a scientist or cancer-curing physician. Any single fetus, if born, could (has a non zero chance) go onto do anything that humans are capable. But the impact is not at all random because the situations that lead to abortions are not at all random and those situations also are well known to have large causal impact on child development and what children grow up to do in the world.

So while we do not know the actual impact of a given random individual being aborted (note: Hitler is not a random individual), we do know the impact on the aggregate probabilities of types of events happening. Just like we do not know the actual impact of a given person smoking, yet we know the impact on the probability of them getting cancer.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, some fellow liberals are likely squeamish about acknowledging the reality that legal abortion is a net benefit to society.
This is in part because it requires acknowledging the greater criminal actions of the poor. But this is only a problem if you presume this is rooted is some inherent nature of the people born into poverty, which I do not. If poverty is an unfortunate circumstance that shapes who people become (an idea quite compatible with a liberal viewpoint), then the net positive impact of legal abortions is just partially a byproduct of these effects of poverty. I say partially because bad circumstances to bring children into are clearly not limited to the poor, just more prevalent. For example, abused middle class women who are free to abort the fetuses of the asshole fathers will also produce a net benefit to society over those fetuses being coercively brought to term.

Another reason I suspect some liberals balk at arguments like my above post is that it sounds to the uncritical ear like some rationale for eugenics. But it is actually the opposite. The benefits to society of selective abortion are precisely tied to that selective choice being made by the parents only, whose decision to do so is impacted by the very same factors that will impact their child (and thus society), if they choose to bring it to term. The only thing anyone but the parents should do is try to make it so that those factors are the one's that the parents consider rather than unrelated coercive pressures related to religious or political coercion or political/economic obstacles created by others to abortions more difficult.

 

[Politesse]

BTW, some fellow liberals are likely squeamish about acknowledging the reality that legal abortion is a net benefit to society.
This is in part because it requires acknowledging the greater criminal actions of the poor.

Believe me, the eugenics tinge and implicit racism of most pro-abortion arguments has never been lost on me.

But it is actually the opposite. The benefits to society of selective abortion are precisely tied to that selective choice being made by the parents only, whose decision to do so is impacted by the very same factors that will impact their child (and thus society), if they choose to bring it to term.

Yes, because the poor have equal freedom of choice about parenthood or termination as the wealthy.

 

[WAB]

If you think that killing millions without moral justification doesn't make the world worse on balance, then you have no morality at all, so the entire discussion of any moral issue is moot, and you might as well be a serial killer.

Seconded.

 

[Rhea]

BTW, some fellow liberals are likely squeamish about acknowledging the reality that legal abortion is a net benefit to society.
This is in part because it requires acknowledging the greater criminal actions of the poor. But this is only a problem if you presume this is rooted is some inherent nature of the people born into poverty, which I do not. If poverty is an unfortunate circumstance that shapes who people become (an idea quite compatible with a liberal viewpoint), then the net positive impact of legal abortions is just partially a byproduct of these effects of poverty. I say partially because bad circumstances to bring children into are clearly not limited to the poor, just more prevalent. For example, abused middle class women who are free to abort the fetuses of the asshole fathers will also produce a net benefit to society over those fetuses being coercively brought to term.

Another reason I suspect some liberals balk at arguments like my above post is that it sounds to the uncritical ear like some rationale for eugenics. But it is actually the opposite. The benefits to society of selective abortion are precisely tied to that selective choice being made by the parents only, whose decision to do so is impacted by the very same factors that will impact their child (and thus society), if they choose to bring it to term. The only thing anyone but the parents should do is try to make it so that those factors are the one's that the parents consider rather than unrelated coercive pressures related to religious or political coercion or political/economic obstacles created by others to abortions more difficult.

Thiis is all quite acurate.

Believe me, the eugenics tinge and implicit racism of most pro-abortion arguments has never been lost on me

The irony for the anti-abortion crowd is that the SAME societal benefit can be realized without abortion by widespread freely avaialble, reversible, long term birth control. But they are squeamish about people enjoying sex and so they are happy to let the “eugenics” continue instead of preventing it by low-risk sex.