An Ethical Question

[Dementor]

A mother and father-to-be discover their child will be gay, so the decide to get an abortion.

Is this okay?

(this is assuming there is a genetic test for homosexuality with a very small margin of error)

[Freemason]

Good thing you waited until Anyee left before posting this. ~worried the OTF is going to burn down~ :scared:

Aborting homosexual babies will happen when such a test becomes available. Who it will be may suprise you.

Southern Baptists is the first group that comes to mind. Except they don't cotton to abortion too well. Yes they'll take the test. But I doubt they'll abort the child. Instead they'll devote their lives to "curing" their child.

Catholics is the next group. I doubt they'll take the test. The Pope is likely to proclaim the test to be a sin. Obviously there will be much ignoring of said proclaimation. The resulting guilt of parents of homosexual babies will result in all sorts of highly amusing criminal cases. The likes of which I'm not going to speculate on. Just be satisfied it'll result in many dead horses and worn out sticks.

I believe it'll be the atheist left that will abort the homosexual babies. Don't ask me why, it's just a gutshot reaction. If I'm right, the reaction will be bigger than you can imagine.

Picture this. Abortion of homosexual babies become available. Who's going to start opposing abortion the greatest? Homosexuals. Suddenly it's going to be possible to, for lack of better words, commit genocide. As homosexuals cannot have children on their own, the regressive gene will slowly be eliminated from our DNA. Fewer and fewer people with that regressive gene wil be born. Eventually homosexuality would be eliminated entirely. Do you think the homosexual lobby is going to sit by and allow this to happen? Not a chance in hell.

Abortion would become illegal within a couple years of such a test becoming available. While I'd like to see abortion on demand eliminated (keep it for medical necessities and rape victims), doing it through impending genocide isn't the way to do it.

[Dementor]

This is exactly why I asked this question: get some some people thinking on how they would react if two closely-held beliefs come into conflict.

The fact is, most of the people who are anti-abortion are also anti-homosexual (or anti-homosexual marraige/normalization/adoption and stuff) and vice-versa.

So what happens when these two oppose each other.

[SaroDarksbane]

Abortion effects the rights of another.
Homosexuality effects no other person's rights.

Society is bound, then, to denounce one action, but uphold the other, respectively.

[Sage the Mage]

I just assume people would ignore the test believing that people aren't born gay.

[Dementor]

I just assume people would ignore the test believing that people aren't born gay.

This is based on the assumption that people are, and there is a good test for it.

[HR_Hellfire]

Usually people who are against homosexuals are also against abortions.. so I can't see it working. This isn't always the case but it does effect the question.

[Volja]

Im not sure, the same question can be applied too other things. If the parents know the child is to be born disabled or "retarded" is it ok to have an abortion? Right or wrong some people would rather have a disabled child than a gay one.

My gut instinct says both of these situations are wrong but its really down to opinion, some people may only have children to continue their gene pool, and some people cannot afford to raise children with special needs.

[MixedVariety]

Last I knew, you couldn't call homosexuality a birth defect any more than heterosexuality or aversion to broccoli.

I wouldn't even consider an abortion.

[XaToM]

The test would be a bad thing, we are running out of room on this world and the more people in homosexual relatitionships and not having children (that is until the science become popular) My Two Copper

But that would make the world a less diverse and interesting place :mad72:

Some of my idols are gay:
Stephen Fry
Sir Ian McKellen

And the thought that they might not have been born, simply becasue they what they do in private they do with men instead women, sickens me deeply.

[Ash Housewares]

this is based on the assumption that homosexuality is genetic, which smeg should realize a good majority of religious groups will refuse to accept and continue to uphold that it is a choice

[koredump]

this is based on the assumption that homosexuality is genetic, which smeg should realize a good majority of religious groups will refuse to accept and continue to uphold that it is a choice
Actually, the more progressive Christians have no problem with homosexuality being genetic. It is further proof of the inherent sin that exists in all humans due to the fall of Adam. The idea that all sin is passed from human to human is nothing new to Christian belief. Genetics, from my perspective, doesn't seem to oppose this belief.

[Anyee]

As homosexuals cannot have children on their own, the regressive gene will slowly be eliminated from our DNA.

I can't have children of my own? So long as I'm willing to break out a turkey baster or get some poor bloke and myself really drunk, I can have plenty of kids. Just because I prefer the other white meat to...um...the hairy white meat doesn't render any of the important equipment non-functional. It actually functions quite well!

When the right wingers start aborting gay fetuses, I think they will naturally fracture along moral lines. Abortion for so many of them is anathema, even if a pregnancy kills the mother.

[toader]

I can't have children of my own? So long as I'm willing to break out a turkey baster or get some poor bloke and myself really drunk, I can have plenty of kids. Just because I prefer the other white meat to...um...the hairy white meat doesn't render any of the important equipment non-functional. It actually functions quite well!Did you really not understand what he meant? Did you really not understand that he meant that they cant reproduce 'with each other'. Is there really a need for stupid crap like this, playing with semantics, or lack of semantics? You know what he meant by what he said, I know that for sure.


This is a good question though. I like these fun fictional questions that break general logic. Fun to hear people think.

[Volja]

What i dont understand is that alot of what lesbians do is artificially simulating what a man normally does

[Anyee]

What i dont understand is that alot of what lesbians do is artificially simulating what a man normally does

Aye, some of them, but there's not a big smelly hairy useless man attached to what they're using. They get all the benefits of penetration without all the drawbacks of dating a guy. Plus, you can put it in a drawer and forget about it while you do other things. Did you really think that being a lesbian was limited to what you do with your genetalia? Oh, and most men I know can't finish off a girl the way I can, so I've been told by the girls and my irate neighbors. ;)

I love this arguement, by the way. Does that mean men who like blow jobs are actually gay?

Did you really not understand what he meant? Did you really not understand that he meant that they cant reproduce 'with each other'. Is there really a need for stupid crap like this, playing with semantics, or lack of semantics? You know what he meant by what he said, I know that for sure.

Gay man sperm + lesbian egg. Oh noes, teh gays are br33ding!!11one! You'd be surprised how many people mean that gay people cannot have children under any circumstances...

[Volja]

Aye, some of them, but there's not a big smelly hairy useless man attached to what they're using. They get all the benefits of penetration without all the drawbacks of dating a guy. Plus, you can put it in a drawer and forget about it while you do other things. Did you really think that being a lesbian was limited to what you do with your genetalia? Oh, and most men I know can't finish off a girl the way I can, so I've been told by the girls and my irate neighbors. ;)

I love this arguement, by the way. Does that mean men who like blow jobs are actually gay?





Hehehe fair enough. I wasn't arguing with it, i was stating my confusing, which you have now cleared up, for which i thank you.

So, what if its the perfect man? Generous in bed and life, caring, extremely attractive totally pussy whipped and completely hairless?

Not that he exists but what IF?

Well to go make your last statement/argument itself a bit stronger what about the men who like anal sex and/or to have a finger in their bum?

[rutty]

I was initially completely against giving this option to a couple. I'm against people cherry-picking their kids to be "perfect" by this method. Abortion should be reserved for those times when the baby would be severely disabled or if the mother just couldn't cope/doesn't want a baby at all. Pro-choice and all that. I have no religious leanings to deny women that right.

Then I got to thinking about that pro-choice. How far do we want to go with that? If you go to a sperm bank, can't you pick through the profiles to find a suitable "mate"? Isn't this suggestion just an extension of that? Some people don't want to have homosexual kids, just like they might actively want an intelligent girl, say. Shouldn't they have the right to chose?

Personally, I think they should just take their chances like everyone else. Some of the most brilliant people in our society are gay, certainly most of the best dressers and dancers. Some of the most brilliant minds of our kind find attraction in their own sex. So what? Some societies actively PROMOTE homosexuality.

http://www.gettingit.com/article/56

I don't think this argument should stick with only homosexuality. If you're OK with aborting babies because they're going to be gay (assuming they can get a test for that) then you should be OK aborting babies because they might be short or blonde or suffer from halitosis.

That's just going too far against nature for me.

[Morica]

we are running out of room on this world


http://www.prb.org/images/e-01(world_pop_growth).gif

As you can see from this chart, world population in more developed countries has declined. While we are not in danger of becoming extinct, it is my belief that population drives economy. That is another topic though. I will refrain from commenting on the abortion / gay issues. I'm old and wise enough to know you don't ever change peoples minds on these subjects. Always glad to present facts though.

http://www.prb.org/images/e-02(world_pop_distr).gif

Source: http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

[Morica]

suffer from halitosis.

That made me think of one of my favorite riddles:


Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which
produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little,
which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad
breath.
.
.
This made him ....what?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis

:uhhuh:

[Amyss]

If the parents want to abort a child...let them.

[Dementor]

I was initially completely against giving this option to a couple. I'm against people cherry-picking their kids to be "perfect" by this method. Abortion should be reserved for those times when the baby would be severely disabled or if the mother just couldn't cope/doesn't want a baby at all. Pro-choice and all that. I have no religious leanings to deny women that right.

Then I got to thinking about that pro-choice. How far do we want to go with that? If you go to a sperm bank, can't you pick through the profiles to find a suitable "mate"? Isn't this suggestion just an extension of that? Some people don't want to have homosexual kids, just like they might actively want an intelligent girl, say. Shouldn't they have the right to chose?

Personally, I think they should just take their chances like everyone else. Some of the most brilliant people in our society are gay, certainly most of the best dressers and dancers. Some of the most brilliant minds of our kind find attraction in their own sex. So what? Some societies actively PROMOTE homosexuality.

http://www.gettingit.com/article/56

I don't think this argument should stick with only homosexuality. If you're OK with aborting babies because they're going to be gay (assuming they can get a test for that) then you should be OK aborting babies because they might be short or blonde or suffer from halitosis.

That's just going too far against nature for me.

Exactly the sort of respone I was hoping this thread would produce. Someone who makes a rational, thougt out, progression to where one belief (pro-choice) wins out over another (pro-homosexual)

Good stuff.

I can't have children of my own? So long as I'm willing to break out a turkey baster or get some poor bloke and myself really drunk, I can have plenty of kids. Just because I prefer the other white meat to...um...the hairy white meat doesn't render any of the important equipment non-functional. It actually functions quite well!

Anyee, you can't argue, however, that homosexuality is an impediment to reproduction, even if it doesn't totally negate the possiblity. In the natural world where man evolved, this is a trait that would have been weeded out by natural selection (with the help of social evolution, since, as you noted, homosexuality is likely only influenced by genes, not determined by them.)

Also, I don't think I've seen an answer of the question at hand from you in this thread, and yours was one of the opinions I was most curious about. As a very strong Pro-Choice advocate, as well as a strong Pro-Homosexual (and a homosexual yourself), this would seem to be a kunundrum for you. Wondering what you voted in the poll.

-Dementor

[Anyee]

So, what if its the perfect man? Generous in bed and life, caring, extremely attractive totally pussy whipped and completely hairless?

Not that he exists but what IF?


I have some really awesome guy friends whom I love and who are not bad looking at all. We've even been single at the same time. I'm just not into guys. *shrug* I could say the same to you: what if a hairless, great-looking man with a great personality who home-brewed your favorite beverage came on to you. How would you react?

Back on topic: abort what you want. I'd rather a religious family abort a gay fetus than bring a child into the world who will be instructed, from birth, that he is a disgusting abomination that God hates or has a terrible secret disease that needs curing. We don't need more tortured little kids.

[Volja]

I have some really awesome guy friends whom I love and who are not bad looking at all. We've even been single at the same time. I'm just not into guys. *shrug* I could say the same to you: what if a hairless, great-looking man with a great personality who home-brewed your favorite beverage came on to you. How would you react?



Ive already stated somewhere that i believe everybody is slight bi-sexual, including myself. I find some men attractive but i dont think i could actually go through than anything more than kissing (already done.) O and i have much hair hehe so the hairless or hairy part does not bother me. On a girl, yeah it does.

Im not sure if thats naturally how i feel or not wanting to be different un-manly mental conditioning type thing.

Im starting to think the reason homo-sexuals are so good at certain things is because their so much more comfortable with themselves, therefore reaching their full potential without hang ups. Social interaction for example, women LOVE gay men, and i can't blame them, they dont get all nervous and weird when they talk to them, like most straight guys do.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Being "gay" or not-gay is just a label. It's not your identity.

Back on topic: abort what you want. I'd rather a religious family abort a gay fetus


I don't think that "being gay" is strictly nature (I'd think it is more nurture), but I won't present an argument. Anyway, question is, what religion? Not mine.


than bring a child into the world who will be instructed, from birth, that he is a disgusting abomination that God hates or has a terrible secret disease that needs curing. We don't need more tortured little kids.

God doesn't hate anyone. Gay people aren't abominations, and one is what one is. However, God calls us all to "perfection".

[Volja]

Anyway, question is, what religion? Not mine.

God doesn't hate anyone. Gay people aren't abominations, and one is what one is. However, God calls us all to "perfection".

The fact is far too many parents try and force their kids to believe what they want them too, and be what they want them too be. Causing mental problems.

In my eyes religion is a great idea, and God is pretty cool, like all things, its the people that ruin it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The fact is far too many parents try and force their kids to believe what they want them too, and be what they want them too be. Causing mental problems.


On the other hand, you have the media, pop culture, other kids, and a million other things forcing kids to be what they want them to be. Which is right?


In my eyes religion is a great idea, and God is pretty cool, like all things, its the people that ruin it.

I don't think God is "cool", I'd say that God is God. There's an element of substance to that. Also, we can't just live in a vacuum apart from the rest of humanity. I can only do that playing WoW :happy14:

[Volja]

On the other hand, you have the media, pop culture, other kids, and a million other things forcing kids to be what they want them to be. Which is right?



I guess so but perhaps the media thinks its choosing but is indirectly just showing what the people do want to see/hear/be told. I cant explain it very well.

The simpsons did it pretty good (although it may be stolen from somewhere else)

President Bush just recieves some money from a king of an African Country.

Bush: "This will make my bosses very happe"
African King: "Your bosses?!!"
Bush: "Yep, all 79 million of em"

Ok so maybe it doesn't explain it well, lol i hope u know what i mean :surprise:

Ah **** it why do i have to think so complexly? What happened to good old.

Sleep. Eat. Work. Play. Mate. Eat. Sleep. Repeat

[Anyee]

God doesn't hate anyone. Gay people aren't abominations, and one is what one is. However, God calls us all to "perfection".

Ever seen those great camps they have for retraining homosexuals? Tell me what God thinks after going through one of their brainwashing summers. Parents send their children away to be reprogrammed. I find it sick.

I'd rather murder them in infancy than slowly kill them now.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ever seen those great camps they have for retraining homosexuals? Tell me what God thinks after going through one of their brainwashing summers. Parents send their children away to be reprogrammed. I find it sick.

I'd rather murder them in infancy than slowly kill them now.

I wouldn't know.. I'm not privy to what goes on south of the border (and sometimes in my own backyard, for that matter :p).

[Amyss]

I gave you life...and I can take it away, too.

[Maxxim]

I gave you life...and I can take it away, too.

TAG.......

[Amyss]

./shakes fist\. I SHALL GET YOU!!!

[PlagueBearer]

Ever seen those great camps they have for retraining homosexuals? Tell me what God thinks after going through one of their brainwashing summers. Parents send their children away to be reprogrammed. I find it sick.

Summer camp for retraining homosexuals? I wonder if they seperate cabins by gender? Maybe they shack up one gay boy and one lesbian girl. I guess they, what, make them watch porn all day? Maybe they have mandatory heterosexual make-out sessions, where instructors punish kids who don't seem to be enjoying themselves.

That is harsh.

So, uh, are there forms I sign, or what?... :creep:

[toader]

Anyee, just because theres some religious fanaticals out there doesnt mean you should lump all us christians into the same boat.

Theres many christians (in fact the majority of us most likely) that are very accepting to the gay community. We dont think they're abominations, or any of the other horendous things.

Theres extremes and fanatics in every group of people, and you shouldnt pick and chose to look at extremes to pigeon hole the rest of the community they 'associate' themselves with.

You dont HAVE to have an enemy. You can just live your life and try and get along with anyone, any group, etc....including christians. Sure, you will always run across some asshat who punks you for your beliefs, etc...but no group is excluded from that kinda treatment, including 'normal' christians like me who get punked all over these forums for having religion and being christian.

[XaToM]

'normal' christians like me who get punked all over these forums for having religion and being christian.

Now that is true, but this is straying otf even for the otf forum This was a debate about wheiter it is "RIGHT" to abort a unborn child due their surpposed sexaulity not about reglion and who from these supposed groups who would do it or wouldn't.

[nuclear rabbit]

yup i think its fine.

[Eiger]

As homosexuals cannot have children on their own, the regressive gene will slowly be eliminated from our DNA. Fewer and fewer people with that regressive gene wil be born. Eventually homosexuality would be eliminated entirely.

Basically the premise is false. The majority of homosexuals do not currently reproduce themselves. Most homosexuals are born of heterosexual parents. Might as well move on to a different sub topic.

But for the record, I would not abort a fetus because I knew that it was going to be homosexual. I might abort it, but homosexuality would not be part of the decisionmaking process.

[Andarcel]

I would say it is unethical to abort a fetus for its sexual orientation (or any other trait that will not cause it great suffering in life). It is unethical not because of harm done to the fetus but because it indulges a prejudice in a pretty extreme way. It is a declaration that all the joys and love you might experience with this child would be outweighed by a pre-determined quality. Doesn't mean the goverment can legislate against it, though.

BTW, I think sexual orientation is like handedness. Neither an inheritable trait nor under the control of the person.

[Dementor]

I would say it is unethical to abort a fetus for its sexual orientation (or any other trait that will not cause it great suffering in life). It is unethical not because of harm done to the fetus but because it indulges a prejudice in a pretty extreme way. It is a declaration that all the joys and love you might experience with this child would be outweighed by a pre-determined quality. Doesn't mean the goverment can legislate against it, though.

Curious to know how you feel about abortion in general. Isn't getting an abortion because society says you're too young to be having kids like saying that the negative social ramifications outweigh "all the joys and love you might experiance"?

[Andarcel]

Curious to know how you feel about abortion in general. Isn't getting an abortion because society says you're too young to be having kids like saying that the negative social ramifications outweigh "all the joys and love you might experiance"? If you're getting an abortion because you don't want to be saddled with a kid, sure. If you're getting one because you believe that finishing high school before having children will allow said children far happier and more productive lives, then no. As with all morality, why you do it matters more than what you do.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

As with all morality, why you do it matters more than what you do.

I tend to take a more objective stance in regard to morality. While motive is certainly important, the act itself is an intrinsic moral evil. There are degrees of moral culpability, but the act itself is an evil one.

[Dementor]

If you're getting an abortion because you don't want to be saddled with a kid, sure. If you're getting one because you believe that finishing high school before having children will allow said children far happier and more productive lives, then no. As with all morality, why you do it matters more than what you do.


What if you feel that having children that are heterosexual will "allow said children far happier and productive lives?"

[Andarcel]

I tend to take a more objective stance in regard to morality. While motive is certainly important, the act itself is an intrinsic moral evil. There are degrees of moral culpability, but the act itself is an evil one.

First, a clarification: if a man boils his child alive becuase he's delusional and thinks the child is a lobster, he is to be pitied, not condemned. The moral character of an act lies entirely in the will of the actor. This is what I meant by motives being what count.

While some willed actions may never be right (about which I'm dubious - raise the stakes enough and even the evil of murder can be trumped by the consequences of not committing murder) almost all actions we regularly contemplate can be called for by some moral principles but condemned by others which we hold, and the winner is not always obvious. Thus, a moral dilemma. I take the view that generally a sin of omission should count for less than a sin of commission. You cannot murder one innocent to save two, all other things being equal. But this only goes so far: if you are entirely convinced that murdering the one innocent will save ten thousand, I think morality requires that you murder the one.

What if you feel that having children that are heterosexual will "allow said children far happier and productive lives?" If you are sincerely convinced of that, then there is no ethical argument to be brought against you. There are any number of factual arguments, of course.

[LunarSolaris]

I believe that if this scenario were to be true (that they could do some sort of "test"), that it would be eventually banned to be used for abortions as it would be considered genocide. The human rights implecations alone are tremendous.

Then again... be beliefs are that abortion is wrong as it is (not for religious reasons). I think that abortion is only acceptable in certain circumstances (i.e. rape, incest, or where the mother and/or child's life is in serious jeopardy).

As it stands now (at least in the U.S.), abortion is legal. Therefore, the connundrum is that the law would prevail... or be changed.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It would be nice to see a nationwide referendum on the legality of abortion.

[Dementor]

I thought it was interesting; there was a guy on NPR today discussing differences between male and female learning capabilities, and when asked about homosexuality, he described the genetic link to homosexuality as "something we know" and he also mentioned a differnece in the hypothalmus between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and that this differnece occurs durning pregnancy.

[Dementor]

There is a notion that aborting children with various genetic disorders is an acceptable practice. Homosexuality could well be considered a genetic disorder by some...

Discuss?

[SaroDarksbane]

I take the view that generally a sin of omission should count for less than a sin of commission. You cannot murder one innocent to save two, all other things being equal. But this only goes so far: if you are entirely convinced that murdering the one innocent will save ten thousand, I think morality requires that you murder the one.
An interesting view.

If a cliched Hollywood-style villain demanded that I shoot innocent person X, or he would launch a nuclear attack on, say, New York, do I have an moral obligation to kill that person?

I would argue, no. Why? Because murdering an innocent person is wrong. The strict utilitarianism of the situation changes nothing.

"But didn't you in effect kill all those people by your inaction?"

No, actually. They were killed by the villain. My hands are clean in the matter.

[Sage the Mage]

There is a notion that aborting children with various genetic disorders is an acceptable practice. Homosexuality could well be considered a genetic disorder by some...

Well, does it condem you to a short life of pain and suffering? I'm assuming that's the criteria for what you're talking about. Minus the random guy making fun of you, I don't think there's anything making it intolerable. A gay child could even be seen as natural population control, which is beneficial. So, the government should obviously be giving every family that has a gay child a tax credit.

[Andarcel]

It would be nice to see a nationwide referendum on the legality of abortion.

It would be strongly in favor of the pro-choice position. According to a Gallup poll conducted in June 2003, 23% support legal abortion under any circumstances, 57% under some circumstances, 19% never. 66% support completely legal abortion in the first trimester. 53% believe Roe v. Wade is a good thing, as opposed to 30% who take the opposite view.

If a cliched Hollywood-style villain demanded that I shoot innocent person X, or he would launch a nuclear attack on, say, New York, do I have an moral obligation to kill that person?

I would argue, no. Why? Because murdering an innocent person is wrong. The strict utilitarianism of the situation changes nothing. What if you just had to lie to the person? Or how about knocking him unconscious? And what about the people of New York, what would they think of your action? I suspect they would call it squeamishness at best, high-minded selfishness at worst.

"But didn't you in effect kill all those people by your inaction?"

No, actually. They were killed by the villain. My hands are clean in the matter. In New York in the seventies a man stabbed a woman numerous times. He left her screaming for a half hour, then returned to finish the job. 20-some people witnessed the crime; none called the authorities for its entire duration. I believe, and I think you'll agree, that their action was evil. Not to prevent evil when possible is to become complicit in it.

Turning to the earlier example: just because you yourself do not pull the trigger does not mean you then get to ignore the outcome. The people of New York have a claim on you as fellow human beings. If they were being assaulted by a genocidal dictator, you would feel that some intervention was morally obligated, even if the intervention itself would kill some innocent people. The obligation does not disappear simply because someone is asking you to commit murder. To allow millions of men, women, and children to perish in the serene conviction that your hands are clean seems to be to indicate a moral system that prizes your personal virtue over the concerns of all the rest of humanity. But I don't think you would have a clean conscience. I think you would be wracked with guilt whichever way you went, but substantially more so if you chose to let New York go up in flames. You would feel responsible for those deaths for the simple reason that you could have averted them, and chose not to.

I think the temptation of moral absolutism (the view you espoused) is that it allows rational rules that give clear and unambiguous results in all situations. But I don't think such rules can ever capture morality fully. There will always be situations where our moral intuition militates against them.

I believe that if this scenario were to be true (that they could do some sort of "test"), that it would be eventually banned to be used for abortions as it would be considered genocide. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but if you believe some of the evil of genocide is the deliberate effort to exterminate a type of humanity, and not just mass slaughter, then you might be on to something. I don't think I agree, but it's interesting to contemplate.

[Dementor]

Well, does it condem you to a short life of pain and suffering? I'm assuming that's the criteria for what you're talking about. Minus the random guy making fun of you, I don't think there's anything making it intolerable. A gay child could even be seen as natural population control, which is beneficial. So, the government should obviously be giving every family that has a gay child a tax credit.

Homosexuality is an impediment to normal reproduction.

[SaroDarksbane]

In New York in the seventies a man stabbed a woman numerous times. He left her screaming for a half hour, then returned to finish the job. 20-some people witnessed the crime; none called the authorities for its entire duration. I believe, and I think you'll agree, that their action was evil. Not to prevent evil when possible is to become complicit in it.
I remember that story from psychology (An example of the diffusion of responsibility if I remember correctly, not neccesarily evilness, because in a situation where any one of those people was the ONLY person who could help, they most likely would have). Calling the police is hardly the same as murdering someone. I fail to see the connection.
Turning to the earlier example: just because you yourself do not pull the trigger does not mean you then get to ignore the outcome. The people of New York have a claim on you as fellow human beings.
No one has a claim on me. Just as I do not expect other people to commit crimes in my favor, no matter how utilitarian they might seem.
If they were being assaulted by a genocidal dictator, you would feel that some intervention was morally obligated
Probably.
even if the intervention itself would kill some innocent people.
But not if this was the cost.
To allow millions of men, women, and children to perish in the serene conviction that your hands are clean seems to be to indicate a moral system that prizes your personal virtue over the concerns of all the rest of humanity.
Actually, yes. If it had been as simple as calling the police to stop the attack, I would do so immediately. What if he told me to nuke a rural town instead of New York? Do I have an obligation to do that too because less people would die there than in New York? Where does it stop? Is killing 1 person worth it to save 1000? Is 500 worth it to save 1000? Is 900 worth it to save 1000?

It's people who think in those terms who scare me. The people who think some people have to be sacrificed for the "good" of the rest, and can do it with a sense of absolute moral conviction and righteousness.
But I don't think you would have a clean conscience. I think you would be wracked with guilt whichever way you went, but substantially more so if you chose to let New York go up in flames. You would feel responsible for those deaths for the simple reason that you could have averted them, and chose not to.
Never assume that my moral standing is based on the actions of someone else.

[Sage the Mage]

I remember that story from psychology (An example of the diffusion of responsibility if I remember correctly, not neccesarily evilness, because in a situation where any one of those people was the ONLY person who could help, they most likely would have). Calling the police is hardly the same as murdering someone. I fail to see the connection.
So, are you saying there's no moral guilt for not doing anything in this situation, while there's a moral benefit for doing something?

Next thing I see is that you may or may not be totally against war.

[SaroDarksbane]

So, are you saying there's no moral guilt for not doing anything in this situation
It costs me nothing (nor does it require me to commit a morally repugnant act) to fix the situation, so I would feel guilty for not helping her, yes.

I was saying the people who didn't call were not necessarily evil, just lazy, because each one expected "everyone else" would call the police. The point of the story in psychology was to illustrate the fact that the more people are around you, the less likely it is for any one person to try and help you. That is, you are more likely to get help from a passerby if your car breaks down in a rural area than in a big city, because in a place full of people, the responsibility people feel to help is diffused by the large number of other people who "probably will".

EDIT:

Furthermore, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. When I said: "Calling the police is hardly the same as murdering someone. I fail to see the connection."

I was referring to his comparison of the two situations. He basically said that not calling the police in the case of the woman was the same as me refusing to shoot an innocent person to save the city in my scenario, and carried the same moral implications.

I simply pointed out that calling the police in his scenarios and killing an innocent person in my scenario are not remotely the same thing morally.

[Andarcel]

But not if this was the cost. That right there is the great hairsplitting of natural law. You can conduct a medical operation on a pregnant woman that will kill the fetus in order to save the mother's life, but you can't directly abort the baby to do the same thing. You can launch an invasion you know will kill innocent people, but not order an assassination that will only kill one to achieve the same end.

I was saying the people who didn't call were not necessarily evil, just lazy, because each one expected "everyone else" would call the police. A distinction of degree, not kind. They were clearly in the moral wrong; evil just identifies a certain level of moral trespass. At the point where you take no action, even one of very little consequence to you, to ensure a murder victim gets help, I think it's well into the actively evil territory.

No one has a claim on me. Just as I do not expect other people to commit crimes in my favor, no matter how utilitarian they might seem. All people have a claim on you by virtue of their humanity. This is the source of the rule against murder.

What if he told me to nuke a rural town instead of New York? Do I have an obligation to do that too because less people would die there than in New York? Where does it stop? Is killing 1 person worth it to save 1000? Is 500 worth it to save 1000? Is 900 worth it to save 1000? 1 person would be worth it save a thousand under most circumstances. 500 to save 1000 might be if you were in the position of legitimate authority over a nation, which requires you to make these sorts of calculations. 900 to save a thousand, never without some immense difference between the 900 and 1,000.

The people who think some people have to be sacrificed for the "good" of the rest, and can do it with a sense of absolute moral conviction and righteousness. True utilitarianism is very scary. So is absolutism, there just is less occasion for it to be played out to the extremes you endorse. Each finds situations where they dramatically conflict with our basic moral intuitions.

Never assume that my moral standing is based on the actions of someone else. Never assume that your moral standing is based only on what you do, and not on what you fail to do.

I was referring to his comparison of the two situations. He basically said that not calling the police in the case of the woman was the same as me refusing to shoot an innocent person to save the city in my scenario, and carried the same moral implications. Come now, you can do better than this. I did not say that not shooting an innocent person was "basically" the same as not calling the police (whatever that means). What I used the example to illustrate was that people can be morally accountable for failing to avert evil. You haven't been able to give a convincing reason why this isn't so. What disturbs me so much about your position is not the course of action you advocate but the fact that you believe you are udner no obligation to respect the welfare of millions of people in your deliberations. This is the attitude that let Naziism triumph in Germany - the moral indifference of its decent people to any suffering they were not personally inflicting.

[SaroDarksbane]

A distinction of degree, not kind. They were clearly in the moral wrong; evil just identifies a certain level of moral trespass. At the point where you take no action, even one of very little consequence to you, to ensure a murder victim gets help, I think it's well into the actively evil territory.
"Evil" is such a loaded word however, and the people were not adverse to giving her help, they had just figured she was already getting it. If any one of those people had been the only one around, I have no doubt that they would have helped, so I hesitate to shout "EEEVVVUULLL!" at them.
All people have a claim on you by virtue of their humanity. This is the source of the rule against murder.
I'm not seeing the connection. Keep going with this.
1 person would be worth it save a thousand under most circumstances. 500 to save 1000 might be if you were in the position of legitimate authority over a nation, which requires you to make these sorts of calculations. 900 to save a thousand, never without some immense difference between the 900 and 1,000.
Are you kidding???? That's 100 more lives you could have saved! If you don't do it, you might as well have murdered a hundred people!!!111
Never assume that your moral standing is based only on what you do, and not on what you fail to do.
Darn, I failed to murder an innocent person, so I guess that makes me . . . guilty?
What I used the example to illustrate was that people can be morally accountable for failing to avert evil. You haven't been able to give a convincing reason why this isn't so.
You haven't been able to give a convincing reason why people can be morally accountable for not committing a morally reprehensible act.

It comes down to the golden rule. If I was bleeding on the street, would I want someone to call the police for me? Yes. If a madman was planning to blow me up if some other innocent person wasn't killed, would I want someone to kill said person to save my life? No.
This is the attitude that let Naziism triumph in Germany - the moral indifference of its decent people to any suffering they were not personally inflicting.
Ahh, the first Nazism reference. Congrats. Can I invoke Godwin's Law already?

[Andarcel]

I'm not seeing the connection. Keep going with this. Murder is not wrong simply as itself; it is wrong because it terminates a thinking, feeling being. This in turn is wrong because you are enjoined to respect the interests of thinking, feeling beings - not to inflict gratuitous harm upon them, to alleviate or prevent their suffering when possible. This is the principle of general beneficence, the strongest of the moral principles in our culture.

Are you kidding???? That's 100 more lives you could have saved! If you don't do it, you might as well have murdered a hundred people!!!111 This could be called the principle of moral conservatism. As I said before, a sin of commission counts for much more than a sin of omission. But not infinitely more.

You didn't respond to my earlier question about whether you would knock someone unconsious to prevent the destruction of NY, or if you would tell a lie. (Or I missed it) If you answer "no" to these, then I have nothing more to say. There's nothing logically wrong with that position, and though virtually all of humanity would oppose your stance, there's nothing fallacious about it. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would do these things, then you admit that you would do something morally wrong in order to prevent a much greater wrong. And then it's just a matter of degree.


Darn, I failed to murder an innocent person, so I guess that makes me . . . guilty? You haven't been able to give a convincing reason why people can be morally accountable for not committing a morally reprehensible act.Nothing irks me quite like deliberate stupidity. Your failure to save millions of people makes you guilty.

It comes down to the golden rule. If I was bleeding on the street, would I want someone to call the police for me? Yes. If a madman was planning to blow me up if some other innocent person wasn't killed, would I want someone to kill said person to save my life? No. Which works very well when it's just your life vs. one other person at stake. Here's a question for ya: if you knew millions of people would die if someone didn't kill you, would you want that person to kill you?

There are other problems here, but I don't have time to get into them. Just consider this: hat if the person who would die would prefer to die in order to keep you from being exploded? It's no more altruistic than your position.

Ahh, the first Nazism reference. Congrats. Can I invoke Godwin's Law already? If you can find a more apt historical example of my point. Good luck. In the mean time, try answering it.

[SaroDarksbane]

Murder is not wrong simply as itself; it is wrong because it terminates a thinking, feeling being. This in turn is wrong because you are enjoined to respect the interests of thinking, feeling beings - not to inflict gratuitous harm upon them, to alleviate or prevent their suffering when possible. This is the principle of general beneficence, the strongest of the moral principles in our culture.
Hence my reluctance to blow away a thinking, feeling being.
This could be called the principle of moral conservatism. As I said before, a sin of commission counts for much more than a sin of omission. But not infinitely more.
That doesn't really answer my question. Are you trying to say that killing the 900 yourself carries a greater moral injustice than allowing the 1000 to die by not killin the 900? Just curious, but exactly what percentage does morality do a polarity shift?
You didn't respond to my earlier question about whether you would knock someone unconsious to prevent the destruction of NY, or if you would tell a lie. (Or I missed it) If you answer "no" to these, then I have nothing more to say. There's nothing logically wrong with that position, and though virtually all of humanity would oppose your stance, there's nothing fallacious about it. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would do these things, then you admit that you would do something morally wrong in order to prevent a much greater wrong. And then it's just a matter of degree.
A very good point. I might tell a lie, depending on what the lie was. If it is something that will get someone else killed, for instance, I obviously wouldn't. A lie I could set straight at a later date? Probably. A lie that harms only me? Probably.
Nothing irks me quite like deliberate stupidity. Your failure to save millions of people makes you guilty.
You being on the internet now means you're spending money that could be used to buy food for a starving child in Africa. Your failure to save these people pronounces you guilty. I hope I can trust you to turn yourself in.
Which works very well when it's just your life vs. one other person at stake. Here's a question for ya: if you knew millions of people would die if someone didn't kill you, would you want that person to kill you?
Quite possibly, but then, I support legalized suicide too. It's your life, you do with it what you want. If I decide I'd rather die myself than have the bomb go off, it's well within my rights to do so. Only if you consider murder and suicide equivalent can you make the two scenarios equal.
There are other problems here, but I don't have time to get into them. Just consider this: what if the person who would die would prefer to die in order to keep you from being exploded? It's no more altruistic than your position.
I don't ask people to make sacrifices for me. What he does with his own life is his decision?
If you can find a more apt historical example of my point. Good luck. In the mean time, try answering it.
You sure? I figured the Nazis were out to serve the greater good by committing genocide on their "enemies", the Jews. Sure, some people die, but it's for the greater good, you understand.

[Sage the Mage]

You being on the internet now means you're spending money that could be used to buy food for a starving child in Africa. Your failure to save these people pronounces you guilty. I hope I can trust you to turn yourself in.
Yes, but is it as morally significant as directly allowing a person to die? There's a much greater degree of seperation between you and those Africa than say you and a person standing right next to you choking.

[SaroDarksbane]

Yes, but is it as morally significant as directly allowing a person to die? There's a much greater degree of seperation between you and those Africa than say you and a person standing right next to you choking.
So if the madman was going to nuke a city in China instead of New York, my obligation to kill the innocent would be lessened?

[Sage the Mage]

Well, are you standing right next to the person with the nukes? How much time is between you two? How effective will your attempt be than another person's attempt?

[Andarcel]

That doesn't really answer my question. Are you trying to say that killing the 900 yourself carries a greater moral injustice than allowing the 1000 to die by not killin the 900? I'm suggesting that killing 900 yourself is more wrong than failing to save 1000. Just curious, but exactly what percentage does morality do a polarity shift? For this, we must appeal to the same authority that tells us we shouldn't kill people in the first place. Moral intuition.

A very good point. I might tell a lie, depending on what the lie was. If it is something that will get someone else killed, for instance, I obviously wouldn't. A lie I could set straight at a later date? Probably. A lie that harms only me? Probably. But why not the first kind of lie? Someone else would presumably be doing the actual killing, so why doesn't this fall under the same defense you would make about your innocence with regards to a nuclear bomb? Anyway, you seem willing to commit a small moral violation to avert major harm. As we increase the amount of harm averted, shouldn't the violation you would be willing to undertake also increase?

You being on the internet now means you're spending money that could be used to buy food for a starving child in Africa. Your failure to save these people pronounces you guilty. I hope I can trust you to turn yourself in. I am indeed guilty, and as a Christian I believe I will have to answer for that one day. Goodness, did you think morality was practical? It's impossible. (Note that this doesn't mean that the most moral thing for me to do at this moment is to help the people of Africa. I have other duties to people close to me - and also to my own development as a human being. General benficence is a powerful principle, but not the only one that counts.)

Quite possibly, but then, I support legalized suicide too. It's your life, you do with it what you want. If I decide I'd rather die myself than have the bomb go off, it's well within my rights to do so. Only if you consider murder and suicide equivalent can you make the two scenarios equal.

I don't ask people to make sacrifices for me. What he does with his own life is his decision?

All right, I'll go more in depth. There are three ways we can interpret the Golden Rule:

1) Exactly what it says: I should do unto others as I would like them to do unto me. If what I enjoy is a hard beating every day before breakfast, then I should strive to serve that to everyone around me

2) Taking my likes in a broader sense, I should respecy the desires of other people (as I would like them to respect mine). In this view, the desires of a sadist do count, but are outweighed by the desires of his victim unless his victim is a masochist.

3) I should respect only the moral interests of other people.

Now, 1 I think we can dispense with. 3 simply begs the question of what morality is, which is what the formulation is supposed to be answering. I think we can agree 2 is the best available.

Now, under 2 you can't simply consider your own particular desires. You have to consider what it is the people in question themselves want. And it's highly improbable that even a majority of people in New York would willingly explode to save another human being individually, let alone allow most of the people they know be killed in the bargain. So to allow them to die does not respect their wishes at all. The question then is, why should the golden rule as applied to a single individual outweigh the rule as applied to ten million people?

Of course, if all the people in New York would agree in saintly unison to martyr themselves for the sake of one selfish soul, it seems to me even less plausible that we should allow them to perish for the sake of the one. So I would dispense with the Golden Rule altogether and return to my formulation of general beneficence: you are obligated to respect the interests of others, of which life is always one except in cases of extreme suffering.


So if the madman was going to nuke a city in China instead of New York, my obligation to kill the innocent would be lessened? Yes. This is the principle of special beneficence (which is based on social structures, not geographic distance BTW). In this case, I think it wouldn't make much difference in the degree of obligation unless you were an elected official, but yes, you owe more to your fellow Americans than you do to other nationalities, more to your own parents than other people's parents, more to your own children than other people's children, etc. This is how we justify, for example, not spending our entire budget on foreign aid.
You sure? I figured the Nazis were out to serve the greater good by committing genocide on their "enemies", the Jews. Sure, some people die, but it's for the greater good, you understand. A common misconception about Naziism. The most frightening thing about the movement was that it had no moral justification. It was a Nietzchian revolt against morality as a shackle made by the lesser to prevent the great from realizing their greatness. Nazis - at least the core idealogues who held the true form - didn't believe that exterminating Jews contributed to moral good; they just thought it benefited the Aryan race. If you've played KotOR, the Sith code is a good example of this philosophy. Ayn Rand comes quite close herself, though she generally avoids enunciating a clear stand on anything so it's hard to tell.

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm suggesting that killing 900 yourself is more wrong than failing to save 1000. For this, we must appeal to the same authority that tells us we shouldn't kill people in the first place. Moral intuition.
Ah, so who decides what level of utilitarianism is proper? I don't want to kill 50 people to save 1000 and get thrown into jail because the proper cut-off is exactly 37.
But why not the first kind of lie? Someone else would presumably be doing the actual killing, so why doesn't this fall under the same defense you would make about your innocence with regards to a nuclear bomb?
Point taken.
Anyway, you seem willing to commit a small moral violation to avert major harm. As we increase the amount of harm averted, shouldn't the violation you would be willing to undertake also increase?
Not necesarily.
Goodness, did you think morality was practical?
Actually, yes.
It's impossible.
Morality is impossible? Why are we having this discussion?
Of course, if all the people in New York would agree in saintly unison to martyr themselves for the sake of one selfish soul, it seems to me even less plausible that we should allow them to perish for the sake of the one.
But if a person in NYC decides he'd rather have the innocent in question die rather than himself, suddenly he's correct? Why doesn't it work both ways?
you owe more to your fellow Americans than you do to other nationalities
Why? How much more? Who decides this?
more to your own parents than other people's parents
Why? How much more? Who decides this?
more to your own children than other people's children A common
Why? How much more? Who decides this?
Nazis - at least the core idealogues who held the true form - didn't believe that exterminating Jews contributed to moral good; they just thought it benefited the Aryan race.
But in the end, the result was the same. Or is the population of NYC surviving not a "benefit", in your mind? The argument "But their intentions were different!" has never held much weight for me.
Ayn Rand comes quite close herself, though she generally avoids enunciating a clear stand on anything so it's hard to tell.
Ayn Rand is in the middle between Selfishness and Selflessness. She advocates neither sacrificing yourself to others, nor requiring sacrifices of others.

[Andarcel]

Ah, so who decides what level of utilitarianism is proper? I don't want to kill 50 people to save 1000 and get thrown into jail because the proper cut-off is exactly 37. Law/=morality. That's a whole different debate.

Not necesarily. Elaboration?

Morality is impossible? Why are we having this discussion? Perfection is always impossible; we always fall short. That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to do the best we can.

But if a person in NYC decides he'd rather have the innocent in question die rather than himself, suddenly he's correct? Why doesn't it work both ways? I was sloppy. I meant that if the people of New York were so saintly that they would in theory give their consent to mass martyrdom, that would make it eve less plausible that they should die for one selfish individual. If they actually did give their consent, it gets really complicated.


Why? How much more? Who decides this? First and second question, see above re: moral intuition. The third question seems to be becoming a recurring theme, so here it is: no one says, no one decides. Morality cannot rest on an external authoritative figure.

But in the end, the result was the same. Or is the population of NYC surviving not a "benefit", in your mind? The argument "But their intentions were different!" has never held much weight for me. You have no diea if the end result would have been the same if Naziism had been fueled by moral considerations. It surely would not have been the same, however, if the moral people under their rule had concerned themselves more with the evil committed by others.

Ayn Rand is in the middle between Selfishness and Selflessness. She advocates neither sacrificing yourself to others, nor requiring sacrifices of others. The relationships most integral to human happiness require sacrificing yourself for others and allowing them to do the same for you. Friendship and love without sacrifice freely offered are neither friendship nor love.

[SaroDarksbane]

Alright, we're going in circles here. Here's what I want to know:

At exactly what % does the sin of commission outweight the sin of ommission? 50%? 75%? I want an exact figure and your reasoning to back it up.

If you instead say that the % is a product of your "moral intuition", my answer will be that my "moral intuition" says the appropriate amount is 0%, and we will have been wasting our time in a game of "Why? Because I say so!"
Perfection is always impossible; we always fall short. That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to do the best we can.
You didn't say moral perfection was impossible, you said morality was impossible. Big difference.
I was sloppy. I meant that if the people of New York were so saintly that they would in theory give their consent to mass martyrdom, that would make it eve less plausible that they should die for one selfish individual. If they actually did give their consent, it gets really complicated.
My point was, what if each of the people in New York wanted the one man to die? Wouldn't they be the "selfish" ones in that case?
You have no diea if the end result would have been the same if Naziism had been fueled by moral considerations. It surely would not have been the same, however, if the moral people under their rule had concerned themselves more with the evil committed by others.
And we are neglecting a further distinction in the Nazism case. If I knock out a mugger who is shaking down a man, I have acted in defense of that man. If I kill a Nazi officer who is killing Jews, I have acted in defense of the Jews. If I kill the innocent person in our example, I am not acting in defense of New York, because the man in question holds no power over the New Yorkers; only the man with the button has that power.
The relationships most integral to human happiness require sacrificing yourself for others and allowing them to do the same for you. Friendship and love without sacrifice freely offered are neither friendship nor love.
Sacrifice in the Rand sense is narrowly defined to giving without receiving anything in return (even a "good feeling" for helping someone is considered receiving something). If you're going to tell me that your significant other treats you like garbage, hates you fully, and makes your life a miserable crap-hole day after day, and yet you stick around and shower her with gifts and affection, I will not laud your "sacrifice", I'll call you a loon. o_O

[AgeOfAbnegation]

At exactly what % does the sin of commission outweight the sin of ommission? 50%? 75%? I want an exact figure and your reasoning to back it up.

If you instead say that the % is a product of your "moral intuition", my answer will be that my "moral intuition" says the appropriate amount is 0%, and we will have been wasting our time in a game of "Why? Because I say so!"


Be it omission or commission, both come from being in a state of sin, so one can't really put a figure on it. There are however degrees of sin, or, the extent that one can be steeped in the state of sin. This state will precipitate sins of both ommission and commission.

[SaroDarksbane]

Be it omission or commission, both come from being in a state of sin, so one can't really put a figure on it. There are however degrees of sin, or, the extent that one can be steeped in the state of sin. This state will precipitate sins of both ommission and commission.
I'd be interested on hearing your opinion on our little dilemna. Would you kill one person to save a hundred? A thousand? A million?

[Andarcel]

If you instead say that the % is a product of your "moral intuition", my answer will be that my "moral intuition" says the appropriate amount is 0%, and we will have been wasting our time in a game of "Why? Because I say so!" I would think you could have already guessed that's what I would say, based on, oh, I don't know, the last three posts? And if indeed you said 0%, I couldn't say any more to you. If someone insists that the moon is made of green cheese or this text is really magenta, there's nothing I can say. Not that this would perturb me; there's a flat-earth society, after all. Random nuts and people with serious sensory deficiencies are not really good arbitors of morality.

Fortunately we aren't at this impasse, because, as I said above and apparently just dropped from your consciousness, you don't believe it's 0%. You think there are some evils worth committing to avert other evils. You would lie to save someone. You would probably cause some sort of physical harm, although you repeatedly slide past that question. Your illogic lies in your failure to follow the consequences of those decisions to their conclusions. You believe that you should never resort to murder for a really great and certain good, but you can't explain why you could resort to lesser violations to secure lesser goods but suddenly this calculation stops with murder. I don't have to persuade you of my premises; you share them, at least in outline. You just don't follow the logic of them all the way through.

You didn't say moral perfection was impossible, you said morality was impossible. Big difference. No difference. Moral perfection is simply the complete following of morality. Unless you thought I meant that no moral behavior at all was possible? I hope not, it would really damage my generally high opinion of you.

And we are neglecting a further distinction in the Nazism case. If I knock out a mugger who is shaking down a man, I have acted in defense of that man. If I kill a Nazi officer who is killing Jews, I have acted in defense of the Jews. If I kill the innocent person in our example, I am not acting in defense of New York, because the man in question holds no power over the New Yorkers; only the man with the button has that power. But resistance movements are rarely faced with such easy moral situations. Often the person involved is two or three times removed from any killing of Jews. In any case, the example was designed to illustrate the moral apathy of the bulk of the citizenry. They didn't resist, not because of a moral calculation but because they could leave the responsibility with others - precisely the diffusion of responisbility you appeal to to absolve you of any obligation to New York.

Sacrifice in the Rand sense is narrowly defined to giving without receiving anything in return (even a "good feeling" for helping someone is considered receiving something). If you're going to tell me that your significant other treats you like garbage, hates you fully, and makes your life a miserable crap-hole day after day, and yet you stick around and shower her with gifts and affection, I will not laud your "sacrifice", I'll call you a loon. o_O This is Ayn Rand in meaningless mode - the interpretation in which nothing she says is objectionable (so why bother saying it? Search me.) The other interpretation has her condemning the people who went up the WTC on 9/11 to rescue others.

Allow me to anticipate a possible response. You might claim that they experienced powerfully good feelings when they contemplated being a martyr. When you interview them, you will find that is not the case according to their own testimony. People under that kind of stress do not think in terms of what makes them happy. Nonethelss, you will probably insist that, whatever they say, really deep down they felt a warm glow which makes it all ok.

My answer to that is: BS. You're claiming that in the face of all the evidence to salvage a sloppy and improbable philosophical stance. If you are committed to truth, you either have to 1) believe the rescue crews in 9/11 were reprehensible, or 2) abandon Ayn Rand, not 3) invent absurd psychological scenarios because they save your opinions from refutation.

It's like when the first guy created a vacuum. People at the time insisted it couldn't be so, so they invented the first incarnation of ether, an oderless, untouchable, invisible substance that would seep through the glass and thereby prevent a real vacuum from existing.

[Sage the Mage]

I'd be interested on hearing your opinion on our little dilemna. Would you kill one person to save a hundred? A thousand? A million?
Recalling abortion threads, AoA's answer would be no.

[SaroDarksbane]

And if indeed you said 0%, I couldn't say any more to you. If someone insists that the moon is made of green cheese or this text is really magenta, there's nothing I can say. Not that this would perturb me; there's a flat-earth society, after all. Random nuts and people with serious sensory deficiencies are not really good arbitors of morality.
I could say the same about your views, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.
Fortunately we aren't at this impasse, because, as I said above and apparently just dropped from your consciousness, you don't believe it's 0%. You think there are some evils worth committing to avert other evils.
A point which I gave you. Why couldn't it be:

The sin of commission for killing one person is greater than the sin of ommission for killing any number of people.
The sin of commissian for telling a lie is less than the sin of ommission for killing any number of people.

But then again, I'm not sure I agree with the whole "sin of ommission" premise in the first place. I'm just explaining which I would do and which I wouldn't.
No difference. Moral perfection is simply the complete following of morality. Unless you thought I meant that no moral behavior at all was possible? I hope not, it would really damage my generally high opinion of you.
Well, prepare to be disapointed. I hadn't though we were talking about moral perfection, so your statement was rather odd. You basically said, "Morality isn't practical. Morality is impossible." which didn't make much sense in the context with which I took it.
But resistance movements are rarely faced with such easy moral situations. Often the person involved is two or three times removed from any killing of Jews. In any case, the example was designed to illustrate the moral apathy of the bulk of the citizenry. They didn't resist, not because of a moral calculation but because they could leave the responsibility with others - precisely the diffusion of responisbility you appeal to to absolve you of any obligation to New York.
I wasn't appealing to the diffusion of responsibility. That would imply I expected someone else to kill the innocent man for me, which I certainly don't.
This is Ayn Rand in meaningless mode - the interpretation in which nothing she says is objectionable (so why bother saying it? Search me.)
She simply makes a hard distinction between a trade and a sacrifice.

If it was worth the rescuers life to do as they believed, how can I condemn that?

For instance, with that definition, Jesus's death was not a sacrifice; It was a trade. He valued the eternal lives of us higher than his own mortal life and his own physical pain. Heck, the Bible even specifically states "You were bought with a price."

I just take her stance against people who say that for an action to be moral, it must be completely devoid of any value received.

[SaroDarksbane]

Also, as a followup, why is perfect morality impossible?

The only time I can think of perfect morality being impossible is in a contradictory or no-win situation, which you seem to view this example. You are forced to sin one way or the other, in this viewpoint, so "sin the least" is your advice? I don't believe this. (Indeed, I would find it hard for any Christian to stomach. God's up there going, "Hehe, I've screwed him! It doesn't matter how he chooses, he gets to suffer my wrath!")

And as for Jesus as a perfect example of morality, as any Christian believes, I would find it hard to imagine Jesus blowing some guy away to avoid the "sin of ommission" you seem so determined to push.

[Andarcel]

Why couldn't it be:

The sin of commission for killing one person is greater than the sin of ommission for killing any number of people.
The sin of commissian for telling a lie is less than the sin of ommission for killing any number of people. You're avoiding the quantitative nature of morality. It's all right to tell a lie to save a person, but how about if it has a 50% chance of saving a person? 30%? 5%? 1%? Doesn't the critical percentage change as the number of people saved changes? And is it ok to undertake an action that has a 50% chance of killing someone to save 10 million? 10%? 5%? And this percentage too changes as you add weight to the other side of the scale.

It would be nice if morality was a tidy and compartmentalized thing that came with easy rules we could just follow. But it doesn't. Like everything else in life, it imposes on you the obligation to weigh and judge the messy and unclear.

I wasn't appealing to the diffusion of responsibility. That would imply I expected someone else to kill the innocent man for me, which I certainly don't. But you did, way back in first reply when you said you would support an intervention that would almost certainly kill some civilians to save New York. I's ok if the soldiers do it, as long as your hands don't get dirty.

In any case, you're abdicating your responsibility for New York to a madman, according to you with a clean conscience. A better parallel with Nazi Germany is hard to imagine. The guy who said "I wash my hands of you" and just let it all go down? Not a Christian hero.

If it was worth the rescuers life to do as they believed, how can I condemn that? Oh bullhooley. We've moved from "has to make you feel good" which at least had some glimmerings of significance to "you have to think it's worth it." As opposed to the millions of people who do things they don't think are worth it? Under this even your example of the incredibly abusive girlfriend is permissible if I happen to think it's worth it, which is the only reason I would ever put up with it. It is impossible for a human being to volunarily violate this precept, ever. We've ascended at last to the very pinnacle of truistic innanity.

Also, as a followup, why is perfect morality impossible? Try it and see. The last guy who did it got crucified for his trouble.

You are forced to sin one way or the other, in this viewpoint, so "sin the least" is your advice? I don't believe this. (Indeed, I would find it hard for any Christian to stomach. God's up there going, "Hehe, I've screwed him! It doesn't matter how he chooses, he gets to suffer my wrath!") 1) I didn't say morality was logically impossible, just practically so given the weakness of human beings. 2) This is exactly the view held by the vast majority of Christians for the vast majority of history. It's only recently that our hedonistic culture has decided that it really can't put up with such demands and has, with some success, attempted to castrate Christianity into a nice, safe, fairly undemanding excuse to have Sunday get-togethers where we dwell on old-timey religion without exercising our brains about it. 3) I'm sure God was laughing real hard when He died on the cross to redeem us from our - wait for it - evil.

And as for Jesus as a perfect example of morality, as any Christian believes, I would find it hard to imagine Jesus blowing some guy away to avoid the "sin of ommission" you seem so determined to push. We don't know. Jesus was never faced with a circumstance where he had to make that kind of call. I do know, however, that virtually the only person he offered unqualified praise to was a Roman centurion, who would have had to make these decisions all the damn time. Do you believe that a first-century Roman commander would have hesitated to kill an innocent to save a city?

[SaroDarksbane]

And is it ok to undertake an action that has a 50% chance of killing someone to save 10 million? 10%? 5%? And this percentage too changes as you add weight to the other side of the scale.
Quantify something or drop the line of argument. When your entire argument rests on the premise of "You have to decide for yourself, based on your moral intuition, what the percentage between the two is", you don't get to ***** about people who come up with different percentages than you. It's as simple as that.
It would be nice if morality was a tidy and compartmentalized thing that came with easy rules we could just follow. But it doesn't. Like everything else in life, it imposes on you the obligation to weigh and judge the messy and unclear.
Given. But I don't believe morality is contradictory and nonsensical. That is, I don't believe there is ever a scenario in which you must commit a sin to avoid a sin. Our burden, then, is to think.
But you did, way back in first reply when you said you would support an intervention that would almost certainly kill some civilians to save New York. I's ok if the soldiers do it, as long as your hands don't get dirty.
Can you quote what I said?
In any case, you're abdicating your responsibility for New York to a madman, according to you with a clean conscience. A better parallel with Nazi Germany is hard to imagine. The guy who said "I wash my hands of you" and just let it all go down? Not a Christian hero.
Not necesarily. Who says I don't try to stop the madman myself? You seem to be under the presumption that not killing an innocent person is the same as standing around and doing nothing. I might try my damndest to prevent the catastrophe, but still refuse to commit an action I consider immoral to "take the shortcut". If I fail in the end, and the city is destroyed, I can rest easy knowing I took every moral means to stop it.
Oh bullhooley. We've moved from "has to make you feel good" which at least had some glimmerings of significance to "you have to think it's worth it." As opposed to the millions of people who do things they don't think are worth it?
You've never heard someone claim that the only true moral action a person can take is the action they have absolutely nothing to gain from?
Try it and see. The last guy who did it got crucified for his trouble.
Too late to reach perfect for me, I'm afraid. =)
1) I didn't say morality was logically impossible, just practically so given the weakness of human beings. 2) This is exactly the view held by the vast majority of Christians for the vast majority of history.
Agreed. But then your comment makes no sense at all in the context of our discussion. The impossibility of being perfect in no way diminishes our responsibility to do as we know is right. And since you and me disagree as to what we know is right, pointing that out brings nothing to our conversation.
It's only recently that our hedonistic culture has decided that it really can't put up with such demands and has, with some success, attempted to castrate Christianity into a nice, safe, fairly undemanding excuse to have Sunday get-togethers where we dwell on old-timey religion without exercising our brains about it.
Completely agreed.
We don't know. Jesus was never faced with a circumstance where he had to make that kind of call. I do know, however, that virtually the only person he offered unqualified praise to was a Roman centurion, who would have had to make these decisions all the damn time. Do you believe that a first-century Roman commander would have hesitated to kill an innocent to save a city?
That same roman commander probably committed some sin in his life, right? Therefore, by your logic, Jesus was praising that sin? It doesn't follow logically.

[Andarcel]

When your entire argument rests on the premise of "You have to decide for yourself, based on your moral intuition, what the percentage between the two is", you don't get to ***** about people who come up with different percentages than you. It's as simple as that. Um, I was asking a question. I don't know what you were reading, but I don't think it's what I wrote.

But I don't believe morality is contradictory and nonsensical. That is, I don't believe there is ever a scenario in which you must commit a sin to avoid a sin. You don't think lying is a sin? Or you don't think lying in service of a good cause is a sin? If the former, you're contradicting yourself here. If the latter, this statement does not illustrate any difference between us.

Our burden, then, is to think. No. It is to act rightly. Thinking is required insofar as it allows us to act rightly. Eventually, though, you will reach a wall.


Quote:
If they were being assaulted by a genocidal dictator, you would feel that some intervention was morally obligated

Probably.
Quote:
even if the intervention itself would kill some innocent people.

But not if this was the cost. Now, I take you to mean that it is permissible to launch a military intervention in a genocide with the unavoidable effect of killing innocent people, so long as it isn't a "cost" (whatever that means). Otherwise, you would have to be a pacifist, which I suspect you aren't.

You've never heard someone claim that the only true moral action a person can take is the action they have absolutely nothing to gain from? Gain from... worth it... gain from... worth it... you simply aren't distinguishing between these two, and they're entirely different. Some one doesn't gain anything by diving on a grenade, but they feel it's worth it or they wouldn't do it. Stop equivocating and pick one.

Agreed. But then your comment makes no sense at all in the context of our discussion. The impossibility of being perfect in no way diminishes our responsibility to do as we know is right. And since you and me disagree as to what we know is right, pointing that out brings nothing to our conversation. Go back and follow the line of argument on that point. It arose because you complained that what I should be doing right now, according to my own logic, was helping people in Africa.

That same roman commander probably committed some sin in his life, right? Therefore, by your logic, Jesus was praising that sin? It doesn't follow logically. He presumably didn't dedicate his career to that sin as he did to the "sin" of dealing with moral dilemmas.

[SaroDarksbane]

You don't think lying is a sin? Or you don't think lying in service of a good cause is a sin? If the former, you're contradicting yourself here. If the latter, this statement does not illustrate any difference between us.
You forgot option 3: I'm a hypocrite.

I'm not entirely sure if I would lie in this case, but I'm guessing I would. People do odd things in stressful situations. That doesn't prove that it's right, however, it only proves my weakness under pressure.
No. It is to act rightly. Thinking is required insofar as it allows us to act rightly.
That's where I was going, but thanks for pointing out what we both knew. =P
Eventually, though, you will reach a wall.
And then what? You go to "feeling"?
Now, I take you to mean that it is permissible to launch a military intervention in a genocide with the unavoidable effect of killing innocent people, so long as it isn't a "cost" (whatever that means). Otherwise, you would have to be a pacifist, which I suspect you aren't.
Are you targetting innocent people? This particular argument comes up all the time in Iraq war/anti-war debates. If you don't think targetting innocent people is any different from killing innocent people accidentally, you see no difference between terrorism and outright war. (Which is a valid viewpoint, that many share, I must point out, so I'm not saying it's wrong.)
Gain from... worth it... gain from... worth it... you simply aren't distinguishing between these two, and they're entirely different.
Are they really different? In your grenade example, perhaps the person gains the survival of people he cares for? Or perhaps he gains recognition as a hero? In either of those cases, he thinks it's worth it because he gains something out of it.
Go back and follow the line of argument on that point. It arose because you complained that what I should be doing right now, according to my own logic, was helping people in Africa.
Ah, and now I catch your meaning, but I still disagree. My failure to sell everything I own today to feed the people in Africa for another meal is not a sin on my part. You regard it as such, and chalk it up to perfect morality being impossible.
He presumably didn't dedicate his career to that sin as he did to the "sin" of dealing with moral dilemmas.
Passage?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'd be interested on hearing your opinion on our little dilemna. Would you kill one person to save a hundred? A thousand? A million?

Morals must be kept in perspective, and as such, cannot be a numbers game. The lives you save will eventually be slain by time. This problematic is only a quagmire for those who assume that this finite existence is all that there is, thus taking a particular aspect of existence and projecting it to be universal. As for giving up your own life to save many, thats your own choice. Yet, one cannot make that choice for another.

[SaroDarksbane]

Morals must be kept in perspective, and as such, cannot be a numbers game. The lives you save will eventually be slain by time. This problematic is only a quagmire for those who assume that this finite existence is all that there is, thus taking a particular aspect of existence and projecting it to be universal. As for giving up your own life to save many, thats your own choice. Yet, one cannot make that choice for another.
A simple "no", would have sufficed. ^_^

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A simple "no", would have sufficed. ^_^

Yea but then I'd have everyone prodding me afterward so I thought I'd try to pre-empt that.

[Andarcel]

I'm not entirely sure if I would lie in this case, but I'm guessing I would. People do odd things in stressful situations. That doesn't prove that it's right, however, it only proves my weakness under pressure. Oh, come now. It's not odd at all. It's your conscience overriding a bad principle in extremity.

And then what? You go to "feeling"? You go to sensory perception, the ultimate source of all synthetic truth. Because moral prescription and neutral description have nothing in common, you cannot develop morality from the normal five senses. You can only see situations in which morality applies. To get actual moral content, you have to rely on that inner compass. You can shuffle is all day without ever getting ought.

Because this is the authority on which you must base your moral principles in the first place, it makes no sense for you to then ignore it when it comes in conflict with principles, any more than it makes sense for a member of the Flat Earth society to decide he must be hallucinating when he goes into space. What he - and you- should do is adapt his beliefs to the new information.

What I see you doing here with the lying example is the opposite. Having finally decided that you can't allow yourself to lie to save a person and really be consistant with never murdering someone under any circumstances, you are finding excuses to discard the information provided by your conscience in order to preserve the principle.
Are you targetting innocent people? This particular argument comes up all the time in Iraq war/anti-war debates. If you don't think targetting innocent people is any different from killing innocent people accidentally, you see no difference between terrorism and outright war. (Which is a valid viewpoint, that many share, I must point out, so I'm not saying it's wrong.) Sdie note: no one's ever been able to explain to me what "valid" means in this sort of context. It's right, wrong, or there isn't enough information to decide.

In this case, it's wrong, but not because of some supposed difference between states and terrorists with regards to targeting civilians. In WWII both states bombed civilians all the time, but I would refer to neither as "terrorists." Neither would I say that al-Quaeda bombing a US warship in the Persian Gulf is any less a terrorist act than 9/11. The distinction between terrorism and war is simply that one is conducted by states, the other by individuals.

If you want the moral distinction, look back at my statements about the principle restraining moral calculations (sins of commission, etc.) I noted that it made a difference if you were in charge of a nation, say. As a head of goverment you are entrusted with decisions for those under your care that require you to make maximizing moral calculations of the sort ordinarily forbidden. Heads of state have to be utilitarian, or at least much more so than ordinary citizens. If the president of the US were truly convinced that a preemptive strike on Beijing were the only way to prevent a global nuclear war, then he should order it. (I can't really imagine a scenario where that would be the case, but the point holds).

Are they really different? In your grenade example, perhaps the person gains the survival of people he cares for? Or perhaps he gains recognition as a hero? In either of those cases, he thinks it's worth it because he gains something out of it. He's going to be dead. He doesn't get anything out of being a hero or having his friends survive after he's dead by any use of the word I know. In any case, of Ayn Rand can't come down against the guy who dives on a hand grenade, then she can't come down against anyone, and as I said before that makes her, not wrong, but certainly inane and pointless.

My failure to sell everything I own today to feed the people in Africa for another meal is not a sin on my part. You regard it as such, and chalk it up to perfect morality being impossible. Go back and read what I wrote in parenthesis right after my reply to Africa. You have obligations to yourself as well. But I think we can pretty much guarantee that there's some more worthy thing we could be doing right now than sitting at a computer.

Passage? More useful would probably be a military history of the Roman empire.

You're dropping a crucial point here, which is the action that has a % chance of killing an innocent man. Your prior position depends on making killing indivisible. If we allow probabilistic murder, it falls apart.

[Sage the Mage]

So, is there a formula you can use to determine which option is more 'right'?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So, is there a formula you can use to determine which option is more 'right'?

I think your own frustration in seeing this in terms of forumlas further lends to the truth that it's not about forumula.

[SaroDarksbane]

Now we're getting somewhere, I think. Or at least we aren't going in circles anymore. =P
Oh, come now. It's not odd at all. It's your conscience overriding a bad principle in extremity.
I disagree. People make odd decisions under emotional strain all the time. Heck, I can't go a single abortion debate without finding someone that thinks no man should have an opinion on abortion one way or the other, since he can't understand the "emotional strain" that a woman goes through. As if a person in emotional distress always makes the right decision or understands the consequences simply because they are emotional, and a bystander not in emotional turmoil cannot make a decision because they have only logic. What a person does under duress does not constitute a higher moral ground than what reasoning dictates.

I am pro-life to the core, but if I were a woman faced with that choice, would I have one anyway? I don't know. But I do know, regardless of my eventual decision in that case, that the correct course of action is NOT to have an abortion. My being a hypocrite does not change this determination of morality.

It's the same concept here.

In this case, it's wrong, but not because of some supposed difference between states and terrorists with regards to targeting civilians. In WWII both states bombed civilians all the time, but I would refer to neither as "terrorists." Neither would I say that al-Quaeda bombing a US warship in the Persian Gulf is any less a terrorist act than 9/11. The distinction between terrorism and war is simply that one is conducted by states, the other by individuals.
Carpet bombing was a symptom of the lack of precision weapons. If you wanted to destroy a factory, you had to level the whole block. When weapons were designed that we could guide, we stopped carpet bombing. Why? Because we wanted to reduce civilian casualties.

As for the USS Cole, I might argue that it wasn't terrorism, because it targetted military personnel and NOT civlians. Of course, this brings up the question of "declared" war . . .

If the president of the US were truly convinced that a preemptive strike on Beijing were the only way to prevent a global nuclear war, then he should order it. (I can't really imagine a scenario where that would be the case, but the point holds).
Ahh, but two questions remain:
1. Can you, in self-defense, be pre-emptive?
2. Would Beijing have been destroyed in said war anyway?

Let's change our scenario to one with exactly two people in danger. Either you choose one person to live, or both die. Is that really the same scenario as before? In the first, you had to decide to kill the man, or he would live. In the second, you have to decide which would live, or both would die. I think they are fundamentally different problems, with fundametally different answers. I might apply the second to your Beijing question (as I would apply it to a case of a dangerous pregnancy; either you save the mother by terminating the pregnancy, or both die anyway.)
He's going to be dead. He doesn't get anything out of being a hero or having his friends survive after he's dead by any use of the word I know.
I'm certainly not going to see a penny of it, but I think I gain something by having life insurance, don't you?
as I said before that makes her, not wrong, but certainly inane and pointless.
The fact that you think so only means you reject the rubbish she is attacking. =)
You're dropping a crucial point here, which is the action that has a % chance of killing an innocent man. Your prior position depends on making killing indivisible. If we allow probabilistic murder, it falls apart.
It really doesn't change anything. If our scenario was exactly the same, except the requirement to save New York was that I pulled a lever, and 50% of the time the man in question died, I would still not pull the lever. (Of course, per my previous comment about Beijing, if the man in question was located on the exact spot the bomb would drop anyway, it becomes not an exercise in deciding which group is "worth" more, and the lever must be pulled.)

[Andarcel]

I disagree. People make odd decisions under emotional strain all the time. OK, I'll put it this way. Which decision would you find it easier to live with? The one that involved you lying? Or the one where people died because you didn't? Fair warning: if you answer the former, I'm really not going to take you seriously. ;)

When I have the time, I'm going to develop another line of argument which will perhaps better illustrate how we can use thought experiments combined with our moral sense to get answers to sticky situations.

Carpet bombing was a symptom of the lack of precision weapons. If you wanted to destroy a factory, you had to level the whole block. No, at least not for a lot for the later bombing campaigns. Carpet bombing was designed to do exactly what it did, which was kill a lot of civilians. See Dresden.

Anyway, even if a nation today carpet-bombed another, we wouldn't call it terrorism (or perhaps you would, in which case, see below). The distinction is still a matter of actor, not intent.

quote]As for the USS Cole, I might argue that it wasn't terrorism, because it targetted military personnel and NOT civlians. Of course, this brings up the question of "declared" war . . .[/quote] Then you would be using "terrorism" in a completely different way than everyone else does, and according to that definition I wouldn't see any moral distinction. If a commander orders an operation he knows will kill ten people, it doesn't matter if those people are the target or just inevitable causalties. If I remove an annoyingly slow driver in front of me by forcing him over a cliff, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I wanted to murder him or just to get by. I knowingly ended his life for my own purposes. The rest is rationalization.

1. Can you, in self-defense, be pre-emptive?
2. Would Beijing have been destroyed in said war anyway? 1 is irrelevant - most of the people of Beijing are quite innocent. I think we both agree that you are not authorized to kill bystanders in self-defense, so the only justification for ordering the strike would be securing a general good. Let's suppose that Beijing would most likely have survived the war intact, capable of sustaining a decent quality of life.

I'm certainly not going to see a penny of it, but I think I gain something by having life insurance, don't you?No. I think your designated beneficiaries get the benefit from life insurance. Unless you define "benefit" as "the satisfaction of desire," in which case, as I pointed out all voluntary actions must be aimed at benefits because all voluntary actions are motivated by desire of some kind, and once again Ayn Rand is giving us trite truisms as moral injunctions.

The fact that you think so only means you reject the rubbish she is attacking. =) Otherwise known as Mr. Straw Man, because it is impossible for anyone to believe said rubbish.

It really doesn't change anything. If our scenario was exactly the same, except the requirement to save New York was that I pulled a lever, and 50% of the time the man in question died, I would still not pull the lever. How about 1%? .5%? At a certain point I'm going to tell you that you routinely engage in behaviors with that probability of killing someone (immediately, not as a result of chaos theory dynamics far down the road). And once you decide on an approximate tipping point, my next question will be "ah, but wouldn't you change that if more was at stake?" And I think you would have to say yes, because it really just doesn't make sense that that limit should have no connection with the other side of the equation. You can risk someone's life a great deal more to save a city than to save a butterfly. And then I have you. Maybe it would take more lives than exist on this planet to bring you to the point of 100% (and maybe it should - our moral sense has difficulty dealing with issues on this scale, and the answer is very hazy at best).

So, is there a formula you can use to determine which option is more 'right'? Well, I used the term "moral intuition" and synonyms, like, 50 times, so I think it's fair to say, "No."

[Sage the Mage]

I think your own frustration in seeing this in terms of forumlas further lends to the truth that it's not about forumula.
I was referencing an earlier statement giving abolute limits to certain actions, but effectively anything that's been discussed now has been some sort of function. The parameters are just different.

[SaroDarksbane]

When I have the time, I'm going to develop another line of argument which will perhaps better illustrate how we can use thought experiments combined with our moral sense to get answers to sticky situations.
Start a new thread. I'll be interested in reading it. =)
Let's suppose that Beijing would most likely have survived the war intact, capable of sustaining a decent quality of life.
I myself? I wouldn't push the button. But then again, I'm not the president . .
How about 1%? .5%? At a certain point I'm going to tell you that you routinely engage in behaviors with that probability of killing someone (immediately, not as a result of chaos theory dynamics far down the road).
I'd be interested in hearing a couple that have anything to do with the problem at hand.
Well, I used the term "moral intuition" and synonyms, like, 50 times, so I think it's fair to say, "No."
To be fair, you even used the word "equation" in your last post. =P

[Andarcel]

I'd be interested in hearing a couple that have anything to do with the problem at hand. You getting in the car and driving.

[SaroDarksbane]

You getting in the car and driving.
Har, I knew that would be the one you would offer up.

I don't see the situations as being directly comparable though. Many of the factors have changed, including the inital acceptance of risk by all parties involved, my own involvement in the consequences should the worst actually happen, and the general level of care I put into the exercise in the first place.

And on that note, I'm going to flagrantly put the lives of innocents at risk by going home. =P

[Andarcel]

including the inital acceptance of risk by all parties involvedPedestrians may have "accepted" the risk, but how much choice could they be said to have?

my own involvement in the consequences should the worst actually happen, I suppose you could get charged with manslaughter, but I'm hard put to see how this changes the morality of it. If you're talking about helping the injured or comforting a widow, you could do this after pressing a button as well.

and the general level of care I put into the exercise in the first place. No matter how carefully you drive, you still add a risk of killing someone that would not exist (or be greatly diminished) if you walked.

So there you have it. You are guilty of a crime worse than allowing millions of people to die every single day. Good heavens, you're a monster!

[SaroDarksbane]

Pedestrians may have "accepted" the risk, but how much choice could they be said to have?
Sidewalks and roads alike are created by the state for use. Everyone on them accepts some amount of risk. If you don't want to accept the enormous, blood-curdling risk of walking on a sidewalk, you should probably move somewhere without them.
I suppose you could get charged with manslaughter, but I'm hard put to see how this changes the morality of it. If you're talking about helping the injured or comforting a widow, you could do this after pressing a button as well.
As in, everyone else endangers me as well, even pedestrians. (Although less so than SUV drivers) =P

It's a mutual agreement.

I our little example, if he agreed to the chance, then that lever is getting pulled.

"Hey, if I pull this lever, it looks like you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting squashed. If I don't, New York City gets nuked. Should I go for it?"

[Andarcel]

Sidewalks and roads alike are created by the state for use. Everyone on them accepts some amount of risk. If you don't want to accept the enormous, blood-curdling risk of walking on a sidewalk, you should probably move somewhere without them. And by living in a major city, you run the risk that some madman will threaten to destroy it unless a third party murders you. A lesser chance to be sure, but really, this is just silly. All events are possible, and by your logic therefore all events must be accepted risks voluntarily entered into by members of society, which in turn means no one is ever at fault. This line of reasoning would at the very least eliminate "manslaughter" as a criminal conviction, and quite possibly every other crime along with it.

In any case, many people do not have a viable option for living somewhere without cars. Urban poor, for example, aren't equipped to go and live off the wild. Most people do, however, have the option of making a living without driving themselves, and in fact it's cheaper than using a car.

As in, everyone else endangers me as well, even pedestrians. (Although less so than SUV drivers) Ah, so if you were to force a stranger to fight you to the death when you had clear superiority would be ok?

[quote]It's a mutual agreement. So if I were to ask people on the sidewalk if they had, by electing this mode of transport, voluntarily accepted risk of severe injury or death resulting from accidental collisions and had furthermore forefeited all rights to redress in the case of said collisions because other parties involved would not be at fault, I'd get a lot of "yes" rejoinders, would I? Or maybe I'd get "It's a tiny possibility, why worry about?"

In our little example, if he agreed to the chance, then that lever is getting pulled. ...under threat of starvation because he would be unable to travel in public areas. You might as well put a gun to his head.

[Duinhir]

A mother and father-to-be discover their child will be gay, so the decide to get an abortion.

Is this okay?

(this is assuming there is a genetic test for homosexuality with a very small margin of error)

What if the moon was made out of green cheese and ruled by a bunny wearing fuzzy human slippers?

I hate hypotheticals. They usually end up being rather unproductive and just produce a lot of heated arguments that lead nowhere ultimately.

1) Murder is wrong, no matter what side of the birth canal the human is on.
2) Homosexuality has NOT been determined to be genetic, and so it's pointless to create a question that makes that assumption.

[Andarcel]

What if the moon was made out of green cheese and ruled by a bunny wearing fuzzy human slippers?

I hate hypotheticals. They usually end up being rather unproductive and just produce a lot of heated arguments that lead nowhere ultimately.

1) Murder is wrong, no matter what side of the birth canal the human is on.
2) Homosexuality has NOT been determined to be genetic, and so it's pointless to create a question that makes that assumption.
The purpose of the question was to force people to deal with a possible inconsistancy in their views. Since you don't appear interested in elaborating or examining your opinions, I'd say you weren't the target audience.

[Duinhir]

Forcing someone to deal with an "inconsistency with their views" when the question is not founded in reality is a straw man argument... Therefore, it's pointless for ANYONE to participate in such a discussion.

Want a productive discussion? Then let's deal with facts, not hypotheticals. I'm more than willing to "elaborate and examine" my position if you ask me a question that actually has merit...

[Ash Housewares]

the whole thing was based on an absolutely absurd assumption

might as well have said

WOULD YOU KILL YOUR GAY KID?

and gotten to the point

[Andarcel]

Forcing someone to deal with an "inconsistency with their views" when the question is not founded in reality is a straw man argument... Therefore, it's pointless for ANYONE to participate in such a discussion. You don't apparently understand what a "straw man" argument is. A "straw man" is a deliberate mischaracterization of a person's position in order to make it appear absurd. Putting a hypothetical question to a person can never be a straw man fallacy. Misusing their answer can be.

The idea that you have to limit questions to actual events is just silly. If you ask someone if they would commit murder if they could get $1 million out of it, they can't tell you it's a straw man argument. It's a perfectly legitimate question.

Want a productive discussion? Then let's deal with facts, not hypotheticals. I'm more than willing to "elaborate and examine" my position if you ask me a question that actually has merit... Here's the logic behind the question (Dementor can correct me if I'm wrong). It runs like this:

1)Do you support the complete right to (early) abortion?

2)If yes, that implies you consider any reason for abortion acceptable; otherwise, you would limit that right. That being the case, do you support abortion in Case X (where Case X features an abortion most pro-choice people would find appalling).

3)But if you find Case X appalling, then you don't really support the complete right to early abortion, do you? You want to limit acceptable reasons for abortion after all.

And from there you can talk about other, more common instances - aborting a fetus for personal convenience, say, which are common.

This sort of exercise, incidentally, is the basis of physics. You come up with fantastically improbable physical scenarios, which we call "experiments." So unlikely are these scenarios that it takes millions of dollars of lab equipment to set them up. You have to make them this unlikely, however, in order to isolate the operating principles and test them individually. Just so, an extremely unlikely case in ethics can isolate a particular principle or two and let us examine them closely. We can apply our discovery to more probable, more complicated cases. If we find that a particular instance of abortion is morally repugnant, that might call into question the moral status of abortion.

might as well have said

WOULD YOU KILL YOUR GAY KID? Nobody here is likely to support murder, so that's not a terribly interesting question. A whole lot of us support abortion, however.

[Dj Ozzy]

Thats something that should never be done. they allready have one showing if its a boy or girl, and few parents do get abortions if its a girl and they want a boy, or vice verca. who knows what else they will test for. if 2 white people are going to have a black babie (through parents DNA duh)
or if they can tell if the kid will be more popular?
Its a form of Genocide, and its just not right

[rgirty]

Who is the supreme power that says what is right and wrong? Is this person God to you, Jesus perhaps, Allah maybe or some other religious figure?

What is ok to one person is simply not the case for another.

The answer to this question will simply rely on the beliefs of the individual who answers the question. There is not a right or wrong answer.

[Seeo]

I'm against abortion, period... unless it's purly medical.

I don't care if the girl was raped.
I don't care if the baby will be retarded.
I don't care what the reason is unless having the baby will either kill the mother or the baby. Then ok.

Bottom line: Babies are innocent, even babies born from rape. I guess you need to be a father, and witness the birth of your son to understand the innocence of a baby.

If you were raped... have the baby, put it up for adoption. Everyone wins.

I think that women who get abortions in the case of rape are AS BAD AS THE RAPISTS THEMSELVES! And I don't give a flying **** what anyone has to say about that! And the women should get thrown in Jail for getting an abortion.

Now coming to the gay thing. My best buddy in the whole ****ing world is gay. I'm as straight as you can get, but I'm not affraid, I accept everyone the way they are.

If someone could accept this kinda of test, and proceed in getting an abortion, which should already be outlawed, because their child is gay... Should get tied up, force fed till the day the baby is born, then PUT TO DEATH BY FIRE!

Cuz if you actually agree with something like this... you deserve to burn.

Burn alive.

Filthy Human Scum.

[rgirty]

Seeo so what you are saying is that you believe you should be able to burn people to death if they do something that is currently legal here in the world where I am?

Or was the put to death by fire a joke?

[Valas Azuviir]

If you were raped... have the baby, put it up for adoption. Everyone wins.



Respectfully, you really do not seem to know what you are talking about and I rather hope that you never acquire that knowledge either, because if you did gain it, then you'd end up very very ashamed of yourself and what you said in this post of yours.

[Mr_Teatime]

Wow. This seems like an amazing discussion. At the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through the entire thread (made it to page 4, and I would like to read the rest eventually).

My stance on abortion, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, is that being pro-life is mostly a religious-stemmed thing. Whether or not you have a baby is up to the decision of you and your spouse. If you don't want one, be careful during sex, first of all. But I think any anti-abortion law should never be passed, because the government does not and should not have the power to say "You must have this baby!" (I know over in China they do something like this, but I'm talking about America exclusively).

Of course this brings up the whole, "why don't people just not be careful during sex and keep getting abortions?" Well, I think anyone who's stupid/drugged up enough to keep getting knocked up should just be locked away. But just as people keep killing despite anti-murder laws, if abortion is banned then people will just grab coat-hangers and chlorene bottles and do the dirty business themselves, as people have done in the past.

To the person who mentioned adoption...I personally would rather be killed at a young age, then be brought into a world that is not ready for me. I think adoption is mainly for kids who've grown to an older age by the time they're left without parents. I can't speak for anyone else here, this is just personal preference.

On religion...this is an iffier subject. I personally am fairly strong Anti-Christian, but I've had to deal with a lot of the very hardcore ones all my life, and they've left me with a bad taste in my mouth for religion in general. So I think, for now, I'm going to step away from that subject.

I had something else to bring up, but it's late and I think I started rambling a while back.

[Seeo]

Seeo so what you are saying is that you believe you should be able to burn people to death if they do something that is currently legal here in the world where I am?

Or was the put to death by fire a joke?
Obviously it's a joke, I was pissed when I wrote that.

Respectfully, you really do not seem to know what you are talking about and I rather hope that you never acquire that knowledge either, because if you did gain it, then you'd end up very very ashamed of yourself and what you said in this post of yours.
Actually, maybe the fire bit was harsh...

And I'm not ashamed. Actually having read that simple little post of yours, I would feel ashamed of myself if I were you. I believe rapists are even worse than murderers. And if I could, I'd through them all in the middle of the sea. I don't want you to think I'm taking the side of the bad guy.

And I do know what I'm talking about. I obviously can't say that I (me) has gone through this, but one of my friends has, a very very close friend. Do yourself a favor, please don't endorse or encourage murder. And you can't argue, abortion = murder, hence girls that get abortions are almost as bad as the rapist themselves.

The point was trying to make, the one you obviously did not get, is that babies are innocent. They are the most innocent little creatures on the face of the planet. They know NO evil. Why would you kill something like that? If you don't want your pet hamster anymore, do you bring him outside, run him over with the car a few times, then chuck him in the garbage?

I know rape is probably the most difficult thing to deal with, but if the chance so happens that a pregnancy occurs, an unwanted pregnancy, why kill that baby? Why punish that innocent little kid? Just because a girl was raped and impregnated, does she have to act almost as cold-hearted as the rapist? If she does, then she's weak... and I would not associate myself with a girl like that.

@the person that said they'd rather die then have been adopted.
I was adopted, I'm actually very happy. You know what? The people that are on a list to get a child, do you realize how happy they are when they actually get that child? They treat that kid like the most precious little jem. Since they can't have kids of their own, this is their chance to shine.

Healing your mental wounds through 2 acts of kindness is basicly the case here. Maybe that will help? Maybe not... but abortion isn't going to solve anything besides the girl feeling even worse.

I guess if you had a kid or two you'd understand.

[Seeo]

Lemme just add in, I'm not commenting on this anymore.

It will never end, ppl have their point of views and will argue them to death.

[rgirty]

I believe rapists are even worse than murderers. And if I could, I'd through them all in the middle of the sea.

Ok, so If I read this right if you had the authority to do so you would cast off all murders in the middle of the sea? Pirate style maybe have them walk the plank?


Do yourself a favor, please don't endorse or encourage murder.


I know you said you weren't going to post anymore I was just a tad confused here and wondering if you were for or against murdering people and just what they have to do to deserve being murdered? If you don't post again I understand and I am in no way taking exception to your views I'm just trying to understand them better.

[Seeo]

Ok, so If I read this right if you had the authority to do so you would cast off all murders in the middle of the sea? Pirate style maybe have them walk the plank?



I know you said you weren't going to post anymore I was just a tad confused here and wondering if you were for or against murdering people and just what they have to do to deserve being murdered? If you don't post again I understand and I am in no way taking exception to your views I'm just trying to understand them better.
Ok 1 last comment since you weren't attacking my opinion.

No, even tho I said I would, I wouldn't murder murderers. It's a very touchy subject. I'm against capital punishement, but at the same time, how can you punish someone for something so terrible? And rape, in my mind is even worse. Its easy to have the "feeling" of wanting these people dead, but actually rationalizing, analyzing then acting upon those feelings is absurd.

Just for the record, I'm not an abortion fanatic, nor am I religious in any way, I won't go parading down the street with pictures of babies that have been litterally ripped apart. That actually sickens me. But I am still against abortion, and I view it as murder, if done for anything other then life-threatning medical reasons. As you can see, there are no religious beliefs behind what I'm saying.

I've heard about too many 14-15-16 year old girls, using abortion almost as a birth contraceptive... when these girls haven't even realized the gravity of what it is they're actually doing. These healthy girls could be giving the world to a couple, but instead, they not only kill a living, breathing being, but they just made that couple possibly wait another unknown ammount of time. Thats why I said, in the end, it's a win-win situation (regarding ONLY the baby)... if rape was the case, then the girl would still have the emotional trauma to heal from.

Another thing, I was 16 when I had my first baby, we put it up for adoption, I don't regret it for a second. I remember my 14 year old girlfriend wanted an abortion. I fought for that babies rights, and I won, yes, the FATHER won. She didn't have the choice but to have the baby, then we put it up for adoption. I met the family that the baby went to, they both were uncontrolably crying for joy, something that even though might have been a mistake for us (me and my g-f), that mistake turned into the most precious little bundle the 2 others had ever recieved in their lives.

[rgirty]

Seeo I wouldn't attack your opinion, I just wanted to know your views. You gave your experiences which were touching.

I am anti death penalty and from your earlier posts thought that you were pro death penalty and I was just trying to understand your viewpoint.

I believe much can be gained in hearing others experiences, thanks for the responce.

[Valas Azuviir]

Actually, maybe the fire bit was harsh...

And I'm not ashamed. Actually having read that simple little post of yours, I would feel ashamed of myself if I were you. I believe rapists are even worse than murderers. And if I could, I'd through them all in the middle of the sea. I don't want you to think I'm taking the side of the bad guy.

And I do know what I'm talking about. I obviously can't say that I (me) has gone through this, but one of my friends has, a very very close friend. Do yourself a favor, please don't endorse or encourage murder. And you can't argue, abortion = murder, hence girls that get abortions are almost as bad as the rapist themselves.

The point was trying to make, the one you obviously did not get, is that babies are innocent. They are the most innocent little creatures on the face of the planet. They know NO evil. Why would you kill something like that? If you don't want your pet hamster anymore, do you bring him outside, run him over with the car a few times, then chuck him in the garbage?

I know rape is probably the most difficult thing to deal with, but if the chance so happens that a pregnancy occurs, an unwanted pregnancy, why kill that baby? Why punish that innocent little kid? Just because a girl was raped and impregnated, does she have to act almost as cold-hearted as the rapist? If she does, then she's weak... and I would not associate myself with a girl like that.

@the person that said they'd rather die then have been adopted.
I was adopted, I'm actually very happy. You know what? The people that are on a list to get a child, do you realize how happy they are when they actually get that child? They treat that kid like the most precious little jem. Since they can't have kids of their own, this is their chance to shine.

Healing your mental wounds through 2 acts of kindness is basicly the case here. Maybe that will help? Maybe not... but abortion isn't going to solve anything besides the girl feeling even worse.

I guess if you had a kid or two you'd understand.

a) Have another talk with that friend then and say the exact same things, I suspect you won't have her as a friend for long.

b) Rape is one of the hardest things to work through already, to be then physically forced to carry the result of what was done to you for 9 months. You just, to me at least, seem completely unaware about how much additional trauma this can cause to the person who was raped. It's punishment upon punishment. (A wanted pregnancy is already fairly draining, it can seriously weaken a woman's body and leave her permanently in poor health. Because of modern medicine, we've managed to alleviate a lot of the issues, but not all. Toss in the psychological pressure of it being an unwanted pregnancy. It's essentially little different from torturing that woman).

c) Adoption is a double edged sword, yes it's great that everything turned out ok for you. Lot of other kids though, they end up wanting to know where they came from, they start looking and prying. And when they then find their mom. Wham. Old wounds get torn back open and fresh ones get made. Mom is reminded what happened to her, kids get angry because mom wants nothing to do with them, in short one hell of an emotional mess.

d) In addition, there are a lot of kids sitting in homes awaiting adoption, but no, everyone wants a cute baby, rather than take in a slightly older kid who needs a home and a loving enviroment. Your solution does nothing for them. They are still left in the cold.

e) Depending upon when the abortion occurs, you cannot speak of a baby and it being innocent. It's a clump of cells, in some ways its behaviour really differs little from a cancerous growth. Harsh thing to say?? Undoubtably, nevertheless from a purely biological aspect, it's very much true. Try asking a physician, if you doubt me.

f) As for the kids comment. I'd like to be a dad a great deal, I've had a damned lot of comments by female friends that I'll make a great dad someday. Unfortunately, due to a brush with cancer, I cannot have kids of my own. So unless my partner has kids from a previous relationship, then we'll be looking at adoption as a way to make that happen.

That still doesn't change the fact, that I am in no way what so ever qualified to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I'm not the one who is going to have to lug it around for 9 months. I'm not the one who'll be risking my health trying to give birth. That other person isn't my property that I can do with as I please. She has to make her own choices in her own life. If, I feel that I cannot in good conscience support her choices, because they're anathema to the very principles I believe in, then it's better to end the relationship and walk away. (Love also entails respecting that other person, even if you disagree with them. Still, in order to be able to love another, you also need to be able to love yourself. And sometimes that may mean having to make the hard decision to end the relationship, because it's just not going to work, because the two people involved hold ideals which are too much in conflict with one and other to be able to reach a compromise point.)

In addition. this issue is even further compounded, by the fact, that I know how damaging a rape can be to a woman. I've held one too many female friends in my arms, as she bawls her eyes out recounting what happened, this despite the fact that the rapes were not recent events, but things which occured long before they met me. But all that time later, they still carry the scars, they are still healing.

One of them did tred the path that you suggested I might add, (the others were "lucky" enough that they didn't get pregnant), this was long before abortion was legalized in the US. That ordeal did little for her state of mind, she had to endure the whispers and gossiping, that she was a floozy and a hussy. That she'd spread her legs for any man that wanted her. All of this regardless of the fact that she was raped. All, the people saw, was no ring on her finger and a pregnant belly. She did experience it as punishment upon punishment, even though she had been the innocent one. And as I mentioned before, a lot of years later, the kid did come looking for her. It wasn't a happy reunion to say the least. And that too left additional scars, upon a person who never deserved any of that (insert rude word).

But, if you wish to believe what you do, then by all means. It's your life and your decisions. Just keep in mind that your right to swing your fist around ends where someone else's nose begins.

[Seeo]

a) Have another talk with that friend then and say the exact same things, I suspect you won't have her as a friend for long.

b) Rape is one of the hardest things to work through already, to be then physically forced to carry the result of what was done to you for 9 months. You just, to me at least, seem completely unaware about how much additional trauma this can cause to the person who was raped. It's punishment upon punishment. (A wanted pregnancy is already fairly draining, it can seriously weaken a woman's body and leave her permanently in poor health. Because of modern medicine, we've managed to alleviate a lot of the issues, but not all. Toss in the psychological pressure of it being an unwanted pregnancy. It's essentially little different from torturing that woman).

c) Adoption is a double edged sword, yes it's great that everything turned out ok for you. Lot of other kids though, they end up wanting to know where they came from, they start looking and prying. And when they then find their mom. Wham. Old wounds get torn back open and fresh ones get made. Mom is reminded what happened to her, kids get angry because mom wants nothing to do with them, in short one hell of an emotional mess.

d) In addition, there are a lot of kids sitting in homes awaiting adoption, but no, everyone wants a cute baby, rather than take in a slightly older kid who needs a home and a loving enviroment. Your solution does nothing for them. They are still left in the cold.

e) Depending upon when the abortion occurs, you cannot speak of a baby and it being innocent. It's a clump of cells, in some ways its behaviour really differs little from a cancerous growth. Harsh thing to say?? Undoubtably, nevertheless from a purely biological aspect, it's very much true. Try asking a physician, if you doubt me.

f) As for the kids comment. I'd like to be a dad a great deal, I've had a damned lot of comments by female friends that I'll make a great dad someday. Unfortunately, due to a brush with cancer, I cannot have kids of my own. So unless my partner has kids from a previous relationship, then we'll be looking at adoption as a way to make that happen.

That still doesn't change the fact, that I am in no way what so ever qualified to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I'm not the one who is going to have to lug it around for 9 months. I'm not the one who'll be risking my health trying to give birth. That other person isn't my property that I can do with as I please. She has to make her own choices in her own life. If, I feel that I cannot in good conscience support her choices, because they're anathema to the very principles I believe in, then it's better to end the relationship and walk away. (Love also entails respecting that other person, even if you disagree with them. Still, in order to be able to love another, you also need to be able to love yourself. And sometimes that may mean having to make the hard decision to end the relationship, because it's just not going to work, because the two people involved hold ideals which are too much in conflict with one and other to be able to reach a compromise point.)

In addition. this issue is even further compounded, by the fact, that I know how damaging a rape can be to a woman. I've held one too many female friends in my arms, as she bawls her eyes out recounting what happened, this despite the fact that the rapes were not recent events, but things which occured long before they met me. But all that time later, they still carry the scars, they are still healing.

One of them did tred the path that you suggested I might add, (the others were "lucky" enough that they didn't get pregnant), this was long before abortion was legalized in the US. That ordeal did little for her state of mind, she had to endure the whispers and gossiping, that she was a floozy and a hussy. That she'd spread her legs for any man that wanted her. All of this regardless of the fact that she was raped. All, the people saw, was no ring on her finger and a pregnant belly. She did experience it as punishment upon punishment, even though she had been the innocent one. And as I mentioned before, a lot of years later, the kid did come looking for her. It wasn't a happy reunion to say the least. And that too left additional scars, upon a person who never deserved any of that (insert rude word).

But, if you wish to believe what you do, then by all means. It's your life and your decisions. Just keep in mind that your right to swing your fist around ends where someone else's nose begins.
Keep convincing yourself of that...

I read it all...

I have 1 word that sums up what you said.

Psychopath.

[Seeo]

Keep convincing yourself of that...

I read it all...

I have 1 word that sums up what you said.

Psychopath.
Wow sorry, I just re-read that and I sounded too harsh, sorry about that.

[Baal]

No, it's not right... not at all. What a sad day when "parents" (they don't deserve to be called that if they'd do something like this) would abort their child because of their sexual preference... What an insignificant thing to end a life over (although, ending a life is never a good thing, really).

[CMK]

Abortion is well within a parent's right IMO.

Whether or not it's right to abort BECAUSE they will be gay...that's an entirely different matter. But it's their choice, and I won't try to say that just because they want to abort because it will be homosexual, they're wrong. I just couldn't wrap my brain around somebody wanting to do that.

[ninjakoi]

Is it ethical to abort a child because they are gay? No. However, it's also not ethical for the government to involve itself in a woman's private health care decisions. So yeah, bit of a brain twister there. Very very interesting discussion.

Oh, and I'm a mother. Three times over. I've had life-threatening complications with my pregnancies. My youngest is disabled. I personally would NOT have an abortion under any circumstances that I can currently forsee, because while I'm not particularly religious, I do believe that all life has value. But having been through all that makes me feel even more strongly that I cannot make that choice for another woman. Just can't.

If we want to stop abortion, we need to do the things that a lot of pro-lifers seem to not be in favor of. Expand social programs. Work as a society to remove the stigma from having a child out of wedlock. In short, make parenting a viable and valued choice, regardless of whether someone is rich or poor, young or old, married or single.

[Atoz]

instead of aborting the baby, how about kill the parents that produce the genes......

[Dementor]

Wow, this thread is still around!

I think it's interesting how people are contradicting themselves on these issues.

Very interesting indeed.

[Freet]

Wow, this thread is still around!

Well, it wasn't until you performed necromancy on it. :rolleyes:

[Bryant]

Abortion is a parents choice. You will not find a right or wrong answer here, because this question can vary on opionion. What you think is right, or anybody else thinks is right, is not right for everyone (Unless you're a liberal. :rolleyes:)

In my opinion, no baby should be aborted, but instead put up for adoption if the case arrises that you cannot care for it. Disconnect yourself from the baby if you want, but for all you know that baby is the next person to cure cancer.

[KalziEast]

1. Abortion is completely F'ED up. 2. You won't know if the child is going to be gay in the womb, or anything like that. 3. They may become gay EVENTUALLY, but there's no way of knowing when. 4. If my child became gay, they wouldn't live in my house, plain and simple.

[SaroDarksbane]

4. If my child became gay, they wouldn't live in my house, plain and simple.
Interesting. Explain.

[Wasabee]

*puts down 10 foot pole...
*picks up 20 foot pole...

I'd ask a few more questions before ranting (as tempting as it is to just "go off").

1. In the time and space continuum that this situation exists, can they also test for other physical/mental/emotional conditions?

2. Are the "mother" and "father-to-be" a "long term couple", "married", "divorced", "relatives", or a "one-night-stand?"

3. When they make this decision what social, family, and friend influences did they have? Where they both in agreement or did one take a majority role in the decision making?

4. This child that is being produced, is it in the mothers womb or in a test tube? (Abort could be a euphemism to "terminating" the pregnancy...)

5. What is the margin of error in the testing?

On the humorous side:

Only cynics and pessimists would abort a child that would be found to be born with a future of being "happy". Terminating the pregnancy would only prove the cynics point and the pessimist ideology that hapiness is not possible.

[Raynor]

Hi all,

Being in my final year of Biomedical Science, I can say clearly now that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that there is a gene related to homosexuality. Being close to up-to-date news relating to genes etc, genes do not determine the actions of a particular individual. Genes are related to the "look" of the individual and any mutated genes relate to genetically inherited diseases.
Being attracted to a particular sex is predetermined by how much testosterone and oestrogen one has within the body. Those who are born with both male and female reproductive organs are those who are born with a defect and must be treated with the utmost care for it is highly distressing being born with both male and female sexual organs.
As for homosexuality studies have shown that this is not due to the effect of a gene, but through the lifestyle one leads.

So to conclude, to abort a child believing that it will grow up to be gay, is completely wrong since studies in America and United Kingdom have proved this wrong.

[Zorrk]

What if it was possible to determine if the unborn were to grow up being a bad parent, or a murderer, terrorist etc.. Would it be okay to abort then?