abortion/population control

Debate on Abortion/Population Control

Affirmative (freetrader@aol.com)

Thesis statement: There are some wrong reasons for aborting, and when the reason is wrong, the abortion, even though legal, is still unethical.

Negative (Porkloin@aol.com)

"Wrong" and "unethical" are in the opinion of the entity perceiving them. If it is desired that all human conceptions result in births of people, then from that standpoint, abortion is wrong. That is not the desire of all people, though, and abortion is not wrong for many people, who do not share that standpoint.

There are many other perspectives, with different things that are desired/not desired, and in the opinions which stem from there, abortion is again wrong for some people, and right for some people.

My premise is not that ALL human conceptions should result in births. Birth is not desired if the infant would be born unhealthy. But YES, if the infant would be healthy and would likely become a contributing member of society, it is good (from everyone's standpoint) for it to be born rather than aborted.

(However, this good could be offset by the pain/inconvenience to the pregnant woman, who could make an ethical choice to abort for that reason.)

If this one extra healthy human does not have value (for us all, for society generally), or is not desirable, then why not give all parents the discretion to have their infants euthanized? or kill their infant if it cries too much (as long as they do it painlessly)?

What is the loss if that extra healthy human had no value? and if there is no loss, why should euthanizing it be illegal? Would it be okay to euthanize all abandoned infants? Why not, unless that infant possesses a good or a value which would be lost?

It is not a question of it being right for this person but wrong for that person. I contend that one extra healthy human, at least if s/he has good genetic traits, is good for the human race generally, and thus it is best (for us all) if a reasonable effort is made to protect that life, or to take its potential value into account.

Even excluding the unhealthy, there is no guarantee that it would be a "contributing member" of society. What is "contributing"? As above, different things are desired here, by different people. Is it being a taxpayer? Being merely a non-criminal? Devoting a certain number of hours to other people or "the community"?

One thing it contributes for sure is another addition to the population, and the growing population is a problem in many people's eyes, making them less likely to think it good that a pregnancy be continued if the mother/father are not really for it.

It is not good, from everybody's standpoint, that such an unwanted pregnancy be continued. A saint can be born or aborted, just like a tyrant.

There is no objective position on euthanasia, either way. While people's morals on abortion are divided a lot, the opinion on killing born persons is overwhelmingly against it. It's illegal because there is sufficient opinion (and more) that it be illegal.

That is not to say that it would necessarily be that way. Value judgments can change, even those of a society. China's population pressure has given rise to rules and practices that many other countries would find excessively harsh, perhaps until those countries too feel the same pressure.

Euthanasia is a value judgment, and on an individual basis, the opinion may be against the law. An example is where the law restricts "pulling the plug" on an elderly comatose patient, where the patient's relatives wish it were more easily achieved. If the lawmakers judge that there is indeed a loss of value, then they likely will make laws in accordance with that opinion.

I think it indeed is a question of things being right for one person, and wrong for another. Some would choose euthanasia, some would not. Same for abortion.

I contend there is no objective reason for more people on earth -- that in some ways, the six billion plus here now are already a net negative for the earth, and for the human race, by the effects the population has.

Our one hypothetical birth could be a Mother Theresa, or a Hitler. We don't know beforehand. But we do know that we don't need more people on earth for the sake of increasing the population faster than it's currently growing.

"Guarantee"? No, but reasonable predictions can be made. And in the future it will become easier to make such predictions. We should make decisions based on our ability to make reasonable predictions.

______________

All the above, and other similar things. You obviously already know what "contributing" means. And these are all good and desirable and make the world better.

______________

They're wrong, assuming the newcomers are healthy and will become contributing members of society. More good-quality people are not a "problem." Who are these "many people" anyway? Are they too a "problem"? If so, why not do away with them as well? No, the newcomers are no more a "problem" than the ones already here.

______________

Some individuals are a net negative, others a positive. Our goal should be to increase the positive and reduce the negative. If the overall quality of the human species can be improved, then the planet could well sustain ten billion, or twenty billion. Improving the quality of the species is the key, not an across-the-board meat-ax approach.

Surgical strike, not slash-and-burn.

______________

If it is a healthy fetus with good prospects, good genetic traits, then it is good overall for the pregnancy to be continued. (But this benefit could be outweighed by the pain and inconvenience to the woman, which is the only appropriate reason to abort.)

______________

Forget the opinion polls. What is YOUR opinion? By your logic, it might be good to choose 20 or 50 thousand people at random per year and eliminate them. Suppose such a law were proposed. Would you favor it or not?

______________

We can reaonably predict. If it is healthy and will live in a free society with opportunities, it will probably turn out for the better. The work we need to do is organize society so as to better make use of everyone born into the world.

Using a meat-ax approach to limit population only delays this needed work, or even cancels it completely, while the human species devolves and society deteriorates.

______________

For more healthy educated good-quality people, yes there is objective reason for more of them. As long as we can assume there is reason for more of the good and less of the bad, then there is reason for more good-quality people.

More quality, not smaller quantity.

"Even excluding the unhealthy, there is no guarantee that it [one extra human] would be a 'contributing member' of society."

Well, that's just it -- though the unborn fetus may be healthy, we still don't know if it will develop into a saint, or a tyrant. And, at this time, with "all other things being equal" (we don't know what kind of contribution will be made) there is no objective reason to increase the population.

______________

"What is 'contributing'? . . . being a taxpayer? Being merely a non-criminal? Devoting a certain number of hours to other people or 'the community'?"

Yet we don't know if those "good" contributions will be made, in an individual case, and we do know that population pressure is having bad effects on our world, and on each other. People have babies because they want them.

If a pregnancy is not desired to be continued, and is ended, there will still be plenty, if not too many, babies born.

______________

" . . . the growing population is a problem in many people's eyes . . ."

Healthy people still pollute the environment, consume natural resources, commit crimes, etc., and in no way necessarily "contribute" in a good way. The number of people, "good-quality" or otherwise, already is a problem.

China feels the pressure, and it has resulted in changing policies there, with respect to having children, abortion, etc. The "many people" are those who perceive the depletion of resources, pollution, and other detrimental influences of the sheer number of people on earth. Some of them choose not to have kids, or not to give birth to a baby at a certain time.

When space and resources were perceived as unlimited, there was not the recognition of population pressure that now exists.

Yes, they [those already here] are part of the population pressure themselves, but there is not a significant amount of opinion that favors doing away with them. That's "why we don't do away with them as well."

There is no absolute about such things, and in times of famine and other hardship, human tribes have elected to "put out" their elderly and/or sick. That's not seen as good at the present time, yet everybody would draw the line somewhere, and the effects of population influence where the line gets drawn.

______________

" . . . in some ways, the six billion plus here now are already a net negative for the earth, and for the human race, by the effects the population has."

There are plenty of people, period. The "net negative," above, is not on an individual basis -- it is all the born people. I'm not saying slash-and-burn. I'm saying lessen the need, by not increasing the population beyond the births that are really wanted.

The U.S. consumes 40% of the world's resources, for 6% of the population. If the U.S. has 280 million people, the world could only sustain 700 million, at that rate of consumption.

The average family on earth has the equivalent of a small wooden shack, with one 40-watt lightbulb in it. Increasing the numbers of people does nothing to increase the quality of life. If anything, it does the opposite.

______________

"It is not good, from everybody's standpoint, that such an unwanted pregnancy be continued."

Why do you say it is good overall? There is no lack of people now. Decreasing abortions would only add to the rate of population increase. There are plenty of people with the "good" stuff now. But they, and those with the "bad" stuff, all are part of the population pressure that we already have.

If the pregnancy is wanted, fine. But if it is not wanted by the parents, there is no objective, external reason for it to be born, and no opinion more important than that of the parents. Our world is no better with 6 billion than it would be with 3 billion, and higher numbers than 6 billion bring no benefit, above what we have now. Again, if anything, more people is a net negative.

______________

"While people's morals on abortion are divided a lot, the opinion on killing born persons is overwhelmingly against it."

Well, you asked, "why should euthanizing it be illegal?" It's not my opinion that determines the legality of it. My opinion is that if a person is of "sound mind," then they should be allowed to terminate their own life, or arrange for it to be done.

If one doesn't have that kind of consciousness, then it's up to the people involved -- relatives, doctors, perhaps the state. On a case-by-case examination, I would look at, "Is it really worthwhile for this life to continue?"

For the unborn, who certainly don't have that type of consciousness, I feel that the current laws are fine -- usually restricting abortion during the last trimester, when a good argument can be made for the fetus being substantially similar to a newborn, full-term infant.

______________

I wouldn't favor it. Killing born persons is not the same as terminating pregnancies. Random population reduction is not the same as not increasing population any faster than the current rate.

By my logic, less people/less population pressure (or at least not adding to it) is good, yes. But the lives of those 20 or 50 thousand people are valued more than the gains to be had from killing them. They are wanted.

______________

"Our one hypothetical birth could be a Mother Theresa, or a Hitler. We don't know beforehand."

We cannot predict, no way. "Probably turn out for the better," yes ("probably" still reflects that we don't know)-- but the problems with so many people still remain, "better" or not. I agree that it is good work that gives better lives to people, but a greater number of people does nothing to help this.

Well, that is totally subjective. Deterioration occurs with too much population -- that is a fact. You can say, "If we organize society....it is a good thing...", but that is true regardless of the number of people, and more people does nothing to aid that.

I'm not saying take a meat-ax to the population, I'm saying don't increase the population unless the birth is really wanted.

______________

" . . . there is no objective reason for more people on earth . . ."

Allowing abortions when the pregnancy is not wanted IS NOT making for a "smaller quantity," other than reducing, by a bit, the amount of increase.

If the rate of population increase from 1990 to 1995 is maintained, the earth will have 300 billion people by the year 2150. That's fifty times the current figure, and no amount of "adding quality" will make up for the loss of quality due to such population pressure.

The rate of increase will likely not continue, but 300 billion is not required to reveal what happens to quality of life when there are too many lives -- that's already evident in many places.

The operative thing right now is that people of all "qualities" contribute to population pressure. "More people," alone, does not bring us anything we want. There is no objective reason to increase or decrease the population, nor alter the rate of change.

But there are many things that are desired. If increasing population meant better quality of lives for all, or "the average" person, then I would have no problem with it. It still wouldn't be of more value than overriding the parents' desires, in my opinion.

As things are now, just the opposite is the case. Not only is there no value sufficient to override the parents' opinion, increasing population also means less quality of life.

The average healthy human fetus normally develops into a net positive or beneficial contributor to the world. Few saints, but still a net positive. If this is not so, but most are a net negative, then it would be good to take collections of humans randomly and eliminate them, thus making the world better overall.

______________

You mean beyond its present rate of growth. Perhaps. But there is a need for more increase in healthy higher-quality humans and for a decrease in unhealthy and lower-quality humans.

______________

We don't need to know for every individual case. We know generally that the healthy fetuses will turn out to be a net positive. We can be more certain if they have good genetic traits. And other indicators too give us a basis for reasonable prediction.

______________

Not bad enough that we should eliminate healthy fetuses with good traits and with good prospects to make a positive contribution later. Of course we must deal with the population pressures. Eliminating more of the unhealthy fetuses is one way, and (dare I say it?!) also deformed and diseased infants. But not healthy ones.

______________

Perhaps, in most cases. Let it be the woman's choice, as a practical matter. But it is a mistake to say that the woman's choice is always the right one, no matter what. In some cases the choice to abort could be the wrong choice.

As an extreme example, the fetus is known to be healthy and to have good genes for intelligence and creativity etc. etc., and yet the woman aborts it because she doesn't want to raise it herself and fears that it would have an unhappy life as an adoptee. In such a case as this, the decision to abort is likely the wrong choice.

______________

Again, if this is true, then it would be good to eliminate large random collections of humans. Perhaps mass murderers and serial killers are doing a favor for the human race. (Especially serial killers of females, because this eliminates not only the female victims but also any offspring they would have produced.)

Perhaps this is the rationale behind the mass shootings at schools and other places.

You cannot deny it. By your logic, random eliminations of humans are good. Also natural disasters, and plane crashes and other accidents. Preventing such population control events is harmful.

Do you agree that your position is based on the premise that the average normal healthy human is probably a net harm in the world? and that the opposite view (that this average human is a net benefit) then leads logically to my position (that one more human could be a net benefit, in which case his/her elimination is a net loss?

______________

Average people, or random, including both some good-quality and bad-quality. Again, this means random annihilations are a benefit. And that there are not enough of these random annihilations at present. And so it would be good for a million or so to be annihilated from time to time. Why would it not be good, given your premise?

______________

But despite public opinion polls, why wouldn't it be good for random annihilations to take place in order to relieve the population pressure? You're not going to weasel out of this dilemma.

______________

Nevermind what is "seen as good" (or misperceived). What really is good is the issue. Yes, by my premise, some should be eliminated. But selectively. The less productive, more costly ones. While the higher-quality ones and more productive should be preserved.

But by your premise, it should be random eliminations, without selection.

Let's call it "pruning". Selective pruning vs. random pruning.

Obviously neither of these is "seen" to be right in our society. But which one really is right -- selective pruning or random pruning?

I would point out that with selective pruning, the total sustainable human population on the planet would be immensely greater, because the higher-quality humans would do the work necessary to improve the conditions for sustainability.

______________

As a practical matter I am saying much the same. But the basic principle should be to improve the quality of humans, to favor the birth of higher-quality healthy humans while discouraging that of lower-quality and unhealthy humans. Thus, not every abortion is necessarily a good thing. Some (maybe only a small number) are a net harm or loss.

______________

Numbers like these can be twisted around and interpreted to mean anything you want. However you interpret it, if the U.S. is doing something wrong, then it should stop it! But if what it is doing is not wrong, or is right, then all other countries should do the same (or try to). So, this has nothing to do with population control.

I personally believe that all other countries could do the same as the U.S., for the most part, and the whole world would be more productive and more prosperous as a result. But if not, if only one country could possibly consume as much as the U.S. does, then the U.S. is guilty of something somewhere and should stop it.

Any form of population control is irrelevant to this point. No one nation or race or other elite group is entitled to ingratiate itself at the expense of all the others.

They are entitled only to what they earn or produce, which means contributing as much as they consume (or more) and thus leaving the world at least as well off or better for having been in it. Anything other than this is immoral and should be stopped.

Population control has nothing to do with it.

______________

It does increase the quality of life if the increased people are high-quality people. To not think so your premise would have to be that good-quality people can do little or nothing to increase the quality of life.

______________

"If it is a healthy fetus with good prospects, good genetic traits, then it is good overall for the pregnancy to be continued."

Because it will likely develop into a high-quality human who will end up making a total net positive contribution to the world. (Nonetheless, this value could be offset by the pain and inconvenience to the woman, and so it should be her choice whether to make that sacrifice.)

______________

Yes, in a sense. But that doesn't change the fact that an increase in good-quality people would still make the world better overall.

______________

Yes, but if those unaborted fetuses are healthy ones with good traits, the resulting population increase would be an increase of good-quality humans, who would make the world better despite the higher population.

But are they (the high-quality humans) a NET harm? You can't look at only the negative part (population pressure); you must also consider the beneficial part. If even the best humans are a net negative harm, as you seem to imply, then again, mass annihilations, done randomly, would be a benefit.

______________

Probably not. Their choice should not be overruled. But that isn't the same as saying that their choice is always the right one. In some cases their decision to abort could be the wrong choice. The world could have experienced a net benefit from that offspring, if it had a good potential to contribute.

______________

At this time, I contend, more is a net positive. I agree that a line is finally reached at some point where it turns negative with more people.

If your argument is that the 3 billion who live are themselves better off with the smaller number, and therefore it's a better world, I think you commit a fallacy. This argument ignores the lost good which the other 3 billion would have experienced.

Even if the 3 billion population would have had more happiness per capita (without the other 3 billion), the world is not thereby a better place, because in order to produce this higher happiness per capita, you had to eliminate all the happiness of living which is taken away from the other 3 billion.

The proper measure of a better world is the total happiness of all those living in it, not the per capita happiness. If you argue that it is the per capita happiness that counts, then you might argue that only a small handful of humans should exist ideally, maybe a few thousand. And this condition would produce the highest happiness per capita.

But clearly it would not be the best world if only these few thousand humans inhabited it, even if their per capita happiness was a thousand times that of the 6 billion. No, what you have to show is that the total sum happiness of all the humans begins to diminish at some point beyond a certain population number.

So if 3 billion is just as good as 6 billion, then those 3 billion must have twice as much happiness per capita as 6 billion would have.

I don't see how you could believe that. Yes, they might have a somewhat higher happiness per capita. Maybe. But not twice.

______________

But the question is not whether it is illegal or what determines this. Rather, the question is whether it should be legal for the parents to euthanize their infant. And by your logic it should be. It should be legal for any parents to euthanize their infant. Because it will help reduce the future population pressure.

But by my logic, it should be legal only if the infant is diseased or deformed or otherwise will be an unusual cost burden on society or the family.

Both these views are rejected by society at this time, but that's not the point. If society changes and allows selective infanticide (my position), it will lead to the best results. But your logic (infanticide "on demand") would lead to many healthy good-quality humans being euthanized who would otherwise have made a net positive contribution.

(I know you are avowedly against any infanticide, but still, your logic favors it.)

______________

But doesn't your logic dictate that, given any human life, it precisely is NOT worthwhile for it to continue, because it contributes to pollution and population pressure? True, you wouldn't say this for all human life, all 6 billion en masse. But for any given individual taken in isolation, wouldn't your answer have to be 'Euthanize it!'?

______________

Why? Shouldn't abortion be totally unrestricted by your logic? Even at the last minute before birth, it threatens to eventually grow into an adult which will add to pollution and population pressure.

"By your logic, it might be good to choose 20 or 50 thousand people at random per year and eliminate them. Suppose such a law were proposed. Would you favor it or not?"

But it would lead to the same desirable results. I.e., relieving population pressure. If this is the reason to allow abortions, why not do other things which would serve the same purpose?

But the rationale for doing either is the same. The desired results are the same.

Do those lives have value? But what about the future value of the aborted fetuses? Why should the value of a present life get priority over the value of a future life?

But the ones aborted would have been wanted in the future. They would have the same desirable qualities in the future which the present lives have now. Why is this quality or value so important in a present life that it must be protected, but not in a future life?

Isn't it ethically required to protect future value as well as present value? If not, why worry about pollution and depletion of resources, for example?

______________

Don't be so sure. With enough good-quality humans to do the work, there will be colonies on the Moon and on Mars and on asteroids, and there will be space cities orbiting the Earth and maybe other planets. There's a lot of room out there for the new billions of humans.

But not if, in our haste to abort fetuses, we end up aborting the future scientists and engineers who will accomplish this.

Though across-the-board abortion may be the easiest course to choose in the short run in order to relieve population pressure, it is far from being the most efficient course.

Executing a million criminals would be more efficient than aborting a million fetuses at random. This would surely lead to an overall increase in the quality of living humans, while relieving population pressure by a million humans.

But aborting the million fetuses would eliminate a significant number of future high-quality humans who would have helped solved the world's problems.

But quality of life will deteriorate also if too many high-quality humans are aborted.

" . . . though the unborn fetus may be healthy, we still don't know if it will develop into a saint, or a tyrant."

It is not that "most are a net negative," it is that humanity as a whole is a net negative, with regard to humanity's effects on the Earth. Reducing abortions would increase the rate of population growth. Why would we want to do so?

End of page 1

continue to page 2 of this debate.

Return to Debate Club opening page.

Good Message Boards

good debates, philosophy, politics, economics, social issues

Here are some good message boards which are easy to get into. You have to register, but it's easy and you can post right away. These ones are open to all viewpoints. They don't kick you off or censor you arbitrarily as long as you obey the reasonable rules of politeness, etc.

The improved message boards now let you move from one post to another on the same topic without needing to click to another page. You can just scroll down through multiple messages which address the topic and argue with each other. These are a great debate forum for people who like to argue. Arguing is good.

FreeStateProject.org
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over."

3rdParty.org
Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor" (message board) which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the best positions on all the issues.

XAT.org
Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light, butterfly wings, etc. But open to all viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But you can disagree and offer your own theories.

LibertyForum.org
Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics, easy to get lost.

More sites will be added to this list. This listing will be limited to high-quality message board sites only which allow easy access and are open to all viewpoints on the announced topics.

Here are some other pages/topics of interest:

PoliticalPlatform.net
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, move over! Here is the "Best Political Platform" for the U.S.

FreeTradeForever.com


    ***********************************************************

Oh Hell! Get the Truth FAST -- ALL the Truth, in one fell swoop:

Yes, all the Truth you really need is right here in the Utterances of SRI QUACKANANDA, your handy-dandy Shortcut to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, spoken inerrantly and transmitted directly to you through your Pwaxl Pores. At last -- New Age Enlightenment made to order for those on the go in today's push-push world!

    ***********************************************************

Meanwhile, back on the material plane:

Neolib.net What is a "neoliberal"? Have you heard this term being thrown around? What is neoliberalism? Is this a political philosophy someone is promoting?

Night Owl Mk. II Philosophy of Life Good arguments, "Agree with me or show me where I'm wrong"

Minimum Wage Law Who is made better off by a minimum wage law? If such a law is good for society, why not increase the minimum wage to $30 or $40 or $50 per hour?

SocialContract.com

Labor Theory of Value Does anyone really defend the labor theory of value anymore? Where are you Marxists? Come and defend this theory or admit that Marxism makes no sense. Have you all jumped ship?

Write-in.net

That's a Lie! A listing of lies popularly told and accepted in society. Know any good lies? Add your own example(s) to the list.

OK2Kill When is killing right and when is it wrong? Capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.

Eugenics.net

ForbiddenIdeas.com like those just above. Do you know of any good "forbidden ideas"? ideas that make some people (the mindless idiot types) want to call you a commie or nazi or worse, just for mentioning them? Have some fun -- get called something evil by adding your own "forbidden idea" to the list. You haven't lived life to the fullest until you've been called a dirty name by some idiot.

WhyTheyHateUs.net The "war on terror" // Militant Islam vs. the West

DebateClub.net

Extensive list of minor political parties (You might have to scroll down a little to get past the 2 major parties.)


Shorter list of alternative political parties (These are some of the more serious ones.):

The Third Party

The Revolution

Constitutionalist Party

Multicapitalist Party

Do you know of a good website that should be listed with the above? The best kind are those that are controversial and give some invitation to visitors to get their own opinions posted in response.

click here to give your suggestion. Also, if you have your own web page, we might trade links.

1