GENIUS FORUMS

ExpectantlyIronic,

Thanks for the research, it was very interesting and bears careful thought.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:If death simply is the end of consciousness, then we can view it as somewhat neutral insofar as it concerns things like pleasure/pain, happiness/sorrow, etc; and without knowing details about any given individual, I don't know that I can make a judgment call on whether or not the potential joy an individual may experience or bring to others would tip the scales in life's favor.

Fair enough - I don't know what, if anything, happens after death either. But regardless of that, I still maintain that murder, despite its being sudden and immediate, is wrong: it's about respect. If you don't believe that individuals should have their freedom of choice regarding their own lives respected then this argument is going to have no weight with you - anyway, if that's the case then I can explain why I believe it to be necessary but it would bloat this current response too much. But I will proceed assuming that you do believe in respect for freedom of choice regarding one's own life. Now each individual is (with rare exceptions) free to weigh up the evidence, throw around eir options and decide whether to continue living is better than to die. And (if you agree with me, then) it is that person's decision to make. To murder a person in other than self defence or some equally very, very sound justification is to deny that person eir freedom of choice.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:The dead aren't going to regret getting deprived of life in such a case. To me, it seems that something is only wrong if it harms someone, and I don't see how an individual can be harmed when they can't feel anything.

Nitpick: you seem to be forgetting your earlier assertion that you're "not exactly certain what death entails" - isn't it possible given that assertion that the dead might regret being deprived of life?

But to your main argument: it seems that to you, for harm to be substantiated there is a requirement for feeling: but why need this be the case? Can we not view harm from a more philosophical perspective, where the complete destruction of a life - something precious and wonderful being reduced to nothing - is a very great harm?

Laird: Are you trying to argue "it can't happen to me anyway so I don't care"?

ExpectantlyIronic: No. I'd like to think I'm not that much of a dick.

That's what confused me because you present as a decent guy.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:What I'm saying is that we harm people if we cause them fear, and whereas murdering people can cause fear, abortion really doesn't so much.

So loss of imminent potential doesn't count as harm? Destruction of a complex, living organism isn't harmful?

Laird: But to make laws for our societies we need to have generally-agreed-upon morals. So yes each person is going to have their own opinion, but as a community we need to decide too.

ExpectantlyIronic: I don't think you need everyone's views to conform to do that. The 'public reason' would seemingly only be harmed if everyone thought the same, given that to be able to make any decent decisions you need to look at matters from multiple points of view.

Yes, I wasn't trying to argue that the generally-agreed-upon views need be 100% agreed upon - majority representation in a considered democracy works pretty well.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:but all of that would only work in a society that was wiser than the one that would create these horrid conditions of unwanted pregnancy anyway.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Non-medically necessary abortion is only necessary under certain circumstances because society is insane.

I think that where I'm coming from is an idealistic perspective where people "do the right thing", so I relate to what you're saying and implying in those two quotes. I don't resile from idealism though.

average wrote:

whorlywhelk wrote:We are all going to die. None of us "deserve" or have "a right" to live.

suicide is your only option then. If you're going to talk the talk, then you have to walk the walk...

If you don't see anything wrong with murder than you haven't thought enough about the subject and its consequences.

How does that follow?

I'm not claiming to have a right to be here. If someone kills me I definitely won't claim injustice. That doesn't mean I can't protect myself if I want to.

Ryan;

It’s a basic self-protective response though, it responds to stimuli with a rudimentary flight/fight response. It has no subjectivity as far as I’m concerned.

Well, I do know that I have a strange notion of “subjectivity”, and accordingly, although I see it as a response to stimuli, I also see it as a responsive fight against a recognizably not self to begin with. It has to necessarily be aware (through differentiation) if any kind of response is to occur, OR a stimuli is to be felt in the first place.

It is like claiming that plants are subjectively aware because they grow towards the sun, its absurd!

Surely it is absurd as you put it, but the question is, did I claim such a thing?

Elizabeth;

Indeed. With that nod comes deeper (although superficially more ridiculous) questions about whether or not it would be moral to kill humans at any stage of development if they lack sufficient consciousness, and by what exact level of consciousness is considered above "just reflexes" enough to be considered enough consciousness that it is no longer okay to kill them like ants... and that's even glossing over whether consciousness really exists, and if it does, what makes that more worthy of life (or not)... and what morality really is, anyway.

Well, I can’t say much about consciousness having any thing to do with reflexes on this forum, since the other 99.99 percent of that which I think is conscious, is considered “unconscious”. What can I say… :D

As far as morality goes, I believe that it necessarily arises out of self-centeredness, and every one creates his own circle of morality according to ones own justifications, which keeps fluctuating in size according to self-centeredly perceived situations. Even a self-destructive act is a self-centered one; since it mentally satisfies a self according to ones justifications, say as in sacrificing a self for the good of others.

The bottom line for me as far as rational morality goes; don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t like done unto you, to the best of your knowledge according to whatever one comprehensibly understands or means by “I”. I could extend the meaning of life all the way down to existence itself, but one has to necessarily draw a line for logical practicality, and according to me that dictates, as I mentioned earlier, abortion can be legalized through understanding and accepting the brut facts involved as per situation. Prevention is of course better than cure, but all do not necessarily follow that logic however. The human frailty in and of self-restrain is quite strong.

Ryan R wrote:So for all you intellectual women out there in genius land, the offer is on the table – to make a difference, simply come to Nova Scotia

Ryan of course doesn't mention that his only likely option for supporting you and the kids is via his low paying job as Zamboni driver at the local hockey rink. In Canada, on that kind of income, all you're gonna be able to eat is donuts and moose meat.

Sapius wrote:The bottom line for me as far as rational morality goes; don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t like done unto you, to the best of your knowledge according to whatever one comprehensibly understands or means by “I”. I could extend the meaning of life all the way down to existence itself, but one has to necessarily draw a line for logical practicality, and according to me that dictates, as I mentioned earlier, abortion can be legalized through understanding and accepting the brut facts involved as per situation. Prevention is of course better than cure, but all do not necessarily follow that logic however.

Soo "don't do unto others what you wouldn't like done unto you" doesn't really work in abortion does it? What are these brut facts that should be accepted?

The human frailty in and of self-restrain is quite strong

English please

Faust

Soo "don't do unto others what you wouldn't like done unto you" doesn't really work in abortion does it?

No, not necessarily; that was pertaining to morality as in general.

What are these brut facts that should be accepted?

Prevailing religious or traditional beliefs about contraceptives; poverty where contraceptives are more expensive than a loaf of bread; poor sexual education; rape; false ego and pride; loss of proper income in first world countries may change a once justified decision since a couple may not be able to afford a child any more; etc etc…

S: The human frailty in and of self-restrain is quite strong

F: English please

Yep, I know I still have to work on it. What I mean is that self-control in the face of a naturally strong sex drive is very weak and fragile, and that such a weakness is generally quite strong, and it may over ride even an otherwise "logical" person. For example, a man may thing “what the fuck, I may not get a better chance for a fuck” and a woman may think “what the fuck, I will abort it, just in case”. Both hope for the best. What is generally on a man’s mind is pussy, because the dick overrides the brain here, (since most of the blood is drained form the brain and directed to the dick I guess) and what is generally on a woman’s mind is marriage and security. So I would say that an added logical need of women generally makes her weak enough to give in, IMO.

Cory wrote:

Ryan of course doesn't mention that his only likely option for supporting you and the kids is via his low paying job as Zamboni driver at the local hockey rink. In Canada, on that kind of income, all you're gonna be able to eat is donuts and moose meat.

Funny illustration, but you got it all wrong, I happen to work as a security guard, making a whooping $8.30/hr part-time. So eat your heart out Bill Gates! And I think I’m one of the more talented workers in Canada, it takes a lot of skill to sit still unoccupied for large amounts of time.

And I just might force the little kiddies into my profession too because lets face it, you have to pass the pride torch down to each new generation...

Ryan R wrote:Cory wrote:

Ryan of course doesn't mention that his only likely option for supporting you and the kids is via his low paying job as Zamboni driver at the local hockey rink. In Canada, on that kind of income, all you're gonna be able to eat is donuts and moose meat.

I happen to work as a security guard, making a whooping $8.30/hr part-time. And I think I’m one of the more talented workers in Canada, it takes a lot of skill to sit still unoccupied for large amounts of time.

Ryan, as you should know, has been the subject of a great deal of research and heated debate over here in Nova Scotia, not only by our scientists, but by his higher ranking security officers as well: they have been perplexedly gathering and discussing reasons for firing him for years now. Personally, I don't see him lasting that much longer. Trust me, he'll be on the Zamboni before we know it.

Cory wrote:

Ryan, as you should know, has been the subject of a great deal of research and heated debate over here in Nova Scotia, not only by our scientists, but by his higher ranking security officers as well: they have been perplexedly gathering and discussing reasons for firing him for years now. Personally, I don't see him lasting that much longer. Trust me, he'll be on the Zamboni before we know it.

You better not wish for that, because if I do end up on the Zamboni, guess what? I’m going to need a trusty sidekick, someone to do all the hard work, and take the fall for me when I mess up – you’ll be wishing you were back at Aliant because after you spend one day working with me boy, you’ll actually discover what hard work really is.. (grunt.. grunt..)