Rebuttal (porkloin@aol.com) continues:
" . . . 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?
Going beyond that, what if we not only permitted abortion on demand, but actually kept the population at a constant level? What lack do you see in doing that? If the parents do not want to continue a pregnancy, what "net positive" not taken care of by all the hundreds of millions other births yearly do you see being absent, and important enough to override the desires of the parents?
In the opinion of many, the sheer numbers of people on earth is indeed a negative. Yet people with that opinion don't necessarily advocate random elimination. There is a big difference in how many of us value born people and unborn zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. Again, preventing some additions to the population is not the same as eliminating people already here. "Zero-population growth," etc., has many followers/believers, few, if any, of whom would go for the random elimination.
______________
"there is no objective reason to increase the population."
I mean there is no objective reason to increase the population, period. 6 billion people doesn't mean that the average person is any happier than they would be with 3 billion, or 1 billion, or 5 million, etc. Who would determine the standards for "Higher-quality" humans? This sounds like it wouldn't gain enough approval to work, to me.
______________
"Yet we don't know if those 'good' contributions will be made, in an individual case, . . ."
Exactly what "net positives" do you see, that would be absent with current abortion rates? We do know that lots and lots of people are being born. There being no shortage of people (far from it..), if the parents don't want to continue the pregnancy, what is more important than that? I think you are taking an absolutist point of view here -- that there ARE more important things than what the parents want. Sounds like saying the desires of the parents should be overridden because, "It's a sin," etc.
______________
" . . . and we do know that population pressure is having bad effects on our world, and on each other."
"We" are not eliminating the fetuses. We are allowing the parents to choose if they want to do so. And by doing so, we lessen the harmful effects of the sheer numbers of humanity.
______________
"If a pregnancy is not desired to be continued, and is ended, there will still be plenty, if not too many, babies born."
"Wrong" in your opinion. In my opinion, some parents are wrong for having kids in the first place. But your and my opinions obviously aren't shared by a given woman or set of parents, necessarily. I acknowledge the huge population already here, and think that if a woman chooses not to add one more, fine, regardless of her reason.
"Wrong" only from the standpoint that the possibility that the fetus will bring things of greater value than its share of the population pressure, and of greater value than the woman's choice. I see no evidence that the world needs one more person more than it needs to allow women the choice of abortion.
______________
"Healthy people still pollute the environment, consume natural resources, commit crimes, etc., and in no way necessarily 'contribute' in a good way."
You are still assuming that random elimination of born persons is viewed the same as allowing people the choice of abortion. It is not. The experiences and interactions that born people have mean much more to most people than the mere potentiality of a fetus.
Decreasing the harmful effects of so much population is a good thing, yes. But that does not mean that it's not outweighed by the perception that born people have a right to live.
Wrong -- by my logic, random elimination is not good, but allowing people the choice of abortion is. Born people are not necessarily valued the same as unborn embryos. etc. When abortion is chosen, the unborn embryo is almost certainly not valued in the same way.
______________
I don't agree that "it's a net harm", period (without qualification). That is without a frame of reference. As far as the detrimental influence of humans on the world, then yes. But this "average detrimental influence" is less important than the desire of parents to have a child. It is when there is no desire for a child that the detrimental influence becomes a consideration -- "This fetus is not wanted, so why add yet one more person to the earth's population?"
______________
"The number of people, 'good-quality ' or otherwise, already is a problem."
That the numbers of people are a problem does not mean I favor killing born people. It means that there is no objective reason to continue an unwanted pregnancy simply to increase the population further.
Annihilating a million people would certainly decrease the population/slow its growth, but it is not good because it is not desired. It may be a problem to rake leaves, but that does not necessarily mean that one would advocate cutting down all trees within a mile.
______________
"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.'"
No dilemma here. Relieving population pressure is not the only consideration. There is no "good" outside of opinion/perception. If our only goal is to reduce population pressure, random killing would work. But that is not the case.
______________
" . . . 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, . . ."
You are still equating eliminating born people with unborn zygote-embryo-fetuses. That is not my premise at all. I mention no eliminations (random or otherwise) from the population at all. I mention not adding to the population when the parents do not desire to do so.
You say, "what really is good," but no such thing exists, objectively. It's all desire -- all what is valued or not valued. Currently, most of us on earth think the "right to life" of born persons is more important than population control, and more important than eliminating the "less productive, more costly" etc.
A higher sustainable population is not "good" in any objective way. Neither is a smaller population. No objective good/bad/right/wrong, from the beginning. Even in the subjective realm, I fail to see any good in a larger population.
______________
"I'm saying lessen the need, by not increasing the population beyond the births that are really wanted."
That "basic principle" does not reflect the reality of numan nature. People that want a kid are not going to forego it because you deem their fetus "lower-quality" or "unhealthy." Likewise, people that do not want a kid are not going to have one because of your concerns about "improving the quality of humans."
The "net harm" you mention is in your opinion, and with respect to abortion, the significant opinion is held by the parents, almost always.
______________
"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."
No twist -- just the observation that only a relatively few people can consume as we do. If we are talking about "quality of life," goods and services have a huge impact. Here too, there is no "right" or "wrong," outside of opinion.
If we desire that everybody on earth consumes the same amount, then the U.S. is doing "wrong." But that is not an opinion that carries much weight. Neither is there great desire for every country on earth to be the same as the U.S.
There are not the resources for 6 billion+ people to consume as we Yanks do. Many people around the world desire our standard of living, but it's not possible, and attempts in that direction only increase humanity's detrimental effect on the earth. We are guilty of consuming a lot, but it's only "wrong" from the viewpoint that there is a "too much" to be considered.
Population control has to do with quality-of-life. Too many people on earth means lower quality of life. Increasing the population, from current levels, means worse conditions, all other things being equal. The concept of selecting "higher-quality" people is not enough to overcome that, and in addition -- won't be instituted to any meaningful degree, unless population pressure becomes so severe that a real sea-change in opinion occurs.
Now, sure, "too many" is subjective, just as is "good quality of life," etc. The U.S. really is "gorging" itself, yep.. yep.. yep. Is it at the expense of others? To some extent, yeah -- but that's human nature for you. "Immoral?" Some say no, some say yes.
This hypothetical equation of contributing as much as is consumed doesn't reflect what really goes on. We don't contribute crude oil back into the ground or contribute plant life back into existence, on a cumulative basis. We don't contribute pollution back out of existence -- we only continually add to it. All this is in line with "More people are not objectively better than less."
____________
"Increasing the numbers of people does nothing to increase the quality of life."
My premise is not that good-quality people can do little or nothing good. My premise is that despite whatever good stuff they do, their numbers contribute to humanity's harmful effects on earth, and sometimes on humanity. There are plenty of "good-quality" people now, and no reason to overrule the parent's desire not to have a child.
This "high-quality" selection you mention is not going to be implemented, the way things are now. If anything, compelling people to continue a pregnancy would predispose that born baby to have less than ideal conditions from the get-go.
______________
"Why do you say it is good overall?"
"Total net positive" is a big maybe. What is not a maybe is that pain on the woman's part, and opposing her desire, is negative, for her, and in the perception of many. Enough so that humanity has acknowledged that the value of the choice of abortion not only "offsets" opinions such as yours, but that it outweighs them. This has been true even when abortion was technically illegal.
______________
"There is no lack of people now."
That is no fact -- that is your opinion. More people, by itself, has negative consequences -- the same old population pressure that we already feel the effects of. I further think that implementation of your "higher-quality" standards would be seen as making the world "worse overall" enough that it won't come about.
"Decreasing abortions would only add to the rate of population increase."
Well, that's an "if" that's not going to come about, not the way things are now. That "better" remains subjective -- who knows how many would feel that way?
"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."
Overall, no, the "high-quality" are not a net harm. But that does not mean that the potential for a fetus being a "high-quality" person outweighs the value of the parents' choice combined with there being no objective reason to increase the population.
"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."
Well, some people say their choice should be overruled. That is all opinion, just as "the right one" or "the wrong one" is.
"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."
But "humanity as a whole" cannot be a net negative unless most of the individual humans are net negatives. Each individual is a small increment of the whole of humanity and contributes to the total good or bad.
Make up your mind: Either "humanity as a whole" is a net negative, and so the average human is a net negative, which the world would be better off without, or "humanity as a whole" is a net positive, in which case an additional human of good quality is also a net positive.
______________
We needn't reduce the total abortions. But we should target the abortions more toward the offspring which will likely be inferior in quality. And we should be less eager to abort high-quality humans. We should want to do this because some of the aborted high-quality humans would have been a net positive for the human race.
______________
The lack is essentially the same as would have been the case if our ancestors 100 years ago had decided to freeze population at its current level then. It's good that they didn't do that, because most of us who would have been eliminated (prevented from ever being born) are a net positive and the world is better because we exist.
It is unfair to deprive potential future offspring of the opportunity to exist, as long as their existence would result in a net sum increase in the total happiness rather than a net sum decrease. Otherwise, you could argue that the world is just as well off with only a few hundred or a few thousand people in it. And thus, a mass annihilation of humans would not be a bad thing.
______________
Usually none. Perhaps 99% of the time. But there could be an occasional case where the offspring would potentially become a high-quality human who would benefit the world in the future. Usually this cannot be known in advance. But in the future there will probably be more knowledge of how a particular fetus/infant will turn out later.
The elimination of that one high-quality fetus would not be "taken care of" by other high-quality ones which are born, because the latter would not be born in replacement of the eliminated one but in addition to it. The more high-quality humans the better.
______________
Then they are being inconsistent. To be consistent they must believe that it would be good if a large random number were eliminated. This elimination would reduce the problem of the sheer numbers.
How can you call something a "negative" but not mean that it would be good if it didn't exist or if it were reduced? When you say it's a "negative" don't you mean somehow that it's bad for it to be there? And so, why wouldn't removing it be a good thing? What sense does it make to say, "This thing is bad, but I don't want to eliminate it or reduce it."?
______________
Perhaps, generally, but it doesn't follow that all fetuses have no value or that they (and not any born people) should be eliminated. Also, by your logic, any given born person has a net negative value as a contributor to overpopulation and pollution. And further, some born people, such as criminals and some mentally retarded, have less net value (more negative value) than an average fetus.
So if it is OK to eliminate that which is less valued, many born people are more appropriate to eliminate than fetuses. In other words, you cannot lump all born humans into one category (as regards value), nor all fetuses either. Some have more value than others.
And if it's appropriate to randomly eliminate 5 million or so fetuses a year, then perhaps 1 or 2 million born people should also be randomly eliminated. The smaller number eliminated takes into account that the born people generally have more value (so fewer ought to be eliminated).
Actually, selective elimination is far more rational, both in the case of fetuses and born humans.
Yes, there is a difference of degree between born humans and the unborn. But it is extreme and simplistic to say that all born persons have some positive net value, no matter how costly they are, while all the unborn have a net negative value and are fair game for arbitrary elimination.
We should focus our thinking more on the dichotomy between low-quality humans and high-quality humans, and less on the dichotomy between the born humans and the unborn. The latter thinking is a narrow-minded kind of bigotry of the in-group against the out-group, or the old-timers vs. the new-comers.
Those with "seniority" are not entitled to exclude newcomers just because they were here first and have more power to get their way. Merit should be the guideline and not seniority.
______________
No, but since the latter accomplishes the same goal, you can't say the former is good while the latter is bad. If eliminating fetuses is good because it helps achieve a lower population in the future, then eliminating some already here must also be good for the same reason.
Because they are inconsistent. And they are prejudiced against newcomers and biased in favor of those with "seniority." The fact is that random eliminations of born humans would also help achieve "zero-population growth" just as much as birth control and abortions.
______________
Yes there is. If we could produce another Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci or Beethoven, it would be worth spawning another several million humans randomly. The several million average people would be, at worst, a small price, a small net negative, in return for the large positive benefit we get from the occasional genius.
The trick is to figure out how to produce more of the geniuses, and more above-average or higher-quality humans, and fewer of the lower-quality ones. With more science advancement this will become possible. And then a higher population will be objectively beneficial.
______________
Perhaps. But 6 billion happy people is better than 3 billion happy people. More total happiness is better than less. And though some are made individually less happy by the larger total number of humans, others are made happier from the larger number.
Again, your logic assumes that the only thing that counts is the happiness per capita. By your logic, a total world population of 100 would be better than a population of 10 million, as long as the average happiness per person is a little higher within the 100. The truth is that more people is a good thing, provided that the total sum happiness is greater. Even if the per capita happiness is lower!
______________
All of us. Society. In the same manner that we determine what is a good education, what is good health, what is a clean environment, etc.
"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."
I don't necessarily claim the current rate should be reduced. But I am saying there are probably some abortions which are not good, because the fetus would have grown into a high-quality human, and so the world was deprived of someone who would have made a large net positive contribution.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the overall abortion rate should decrease, because at the same time there are some fetuses which were born which should have been aborted, and these additional abortions would increase the rate back up. The key is to abort more of the low-quality unhealthy fetuses, but to abort fewer of the high-quality healthy ones.
Perhaps it is difficult to identify which particular abortions are the more appropriate and which ones less. But in some cases one might make a reasonable prediction that this offspring would have turned out good. And such predictions will be made easier in the future. So, it is not correct to say that the woman's choice is always right, no matter what.
______________
But there IS a shortage of high-quality humans. The parents should decide. But they should take into account the offspring's future possible contribution. Failure to do this could cause them to make the wrong choice. (The choice NOT to abort could also be wrong, if the fetus is unhealthy or has bad traits.)
That's not "absolutist." Absolutism is to insist that only one thing matters and nothing else. I.e., anything the parents (or the woman) chooses must be right, and anything else must be wrong. No, "right" cannot be defined as "anything the parents choose."
No, this is saying that when a decision to abort is the right choice, it is right not because the woman chose it, but rather, she chose it because it was the right thing to do. And likewise the decision not to abort. The choice itself is not automatically right. The "right to choose" does not imply that the choice actually made is automatically always the right choice.
______________
"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."
In the context above, it means the same. "We" are eliminating the fetuses indirectly. "We" are encouraging the abortions in various ways. "We" must take responsibility for "our" role in the abortions.
This implies that every aborted fetus would (if not aborted) have grown into an adult which would have produced harmful effects. But if that's true, then every one of us humans is also producing harmful effects and is a net burden on the world. And thus, random eliminations of people would be a good thing.
There is only one logical escape from this conclusion. And that is that not all abortions are necessarily good. Some humans are a net positive, and when these are aborted, it is a loss, not a gain for society. Only when lower-quality humans are aborted is it a net gain.
The logic of abortion should not be that any abortion chosen by the parents is automatically right, but rather that some abortions are desirable (if the fetus is unhealthy or low-quality) while others are not good. And hopefully the parents will make the right choice in a particular individual case.
______________
"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."
That's also true -- you're right. Sometimes the decision to abort is wrong, and sometimes the decision NOT to abort is wrong. It depends on the individual circumstances.
Yes, and that woman or set of parents could be wrong. I agree that they should make the decision, not anyone else. But their decision could still be wrong in some cases. Just like people should have free speech, even though some speech is wrong.
______________
I agree, except instead of "fine" I say her choice is legal and is hopefully the right one.
______________
"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."
I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed this choice. I agree that her freedom to choose overrides the world's need for one more healthy high-quality human. However, her choice, to abort or not to abort, could still be the wrong one. Hopefully she will make the right choice.
Of course, many cases are borderline, so it is not clearcut, and it could never be determined for sure which choice was the right one. Nevertheless, it is mistake to say that the woman's choice is automatically right in all cases.
______________
"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."
______________
End of page 2.