Debate on Abortion/population control, cont'd

Thesis statement (freetrader@aol.com): There are some wrong reasons for aborting, and when the reason is wrong, the abortion, even though legal, is still unethical.

______________

response from porkloin@aol.com:

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

As I specified, it is humanity's effect on the Earth that is a net negative. With regard to that, the world would indeed be better off without humanity. Well, no significant amount of people want to kill off humanity. Yet the human population remains confronted by humanity's destruction of the environment, overcrowding, pollution, etc.

Population pressure does not exist in a vacuum, with respect to abortion. My point all along has been that when an abortion is desired, there is no need to overrule that desire simply for the sake of increasing the population.

If we look at things from the sole perspective of improving the average genetic quality of the human race, then many abortions would be "wrong." From the sole perspective of reducing humanity's harmful effects on earth, the abortions would be "right." Your thesis did not specify any single such perspective, but merely said, "There are some wrong reasons for aborting." If you had defined "right" as increasing the genetic quality of our race, then I would not argue that some abortions are wrong.

______________

"Reducing abortions would increase the rate of population growth. Why would we want to do so?"

"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."

"We," as in humans, don't by and large think about notions of that "quality" or net positives (even if such were certain) to the race. We think about whether we want to have a kid or not. Saying we "should" be less eager to abort "high-quality" humans disregards the fact that it's almost always the mother or the parents doing the choosing, not a committee whose aim is bringing up the genetic average among the race.

______________

". . . 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?"

"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."

The world is not "better," in terms of the damage done to it by population pressure. If you mean the total amount of human happiness on earth, that is rarely much of a consideration when one chooses to have an abortion, or addresses the desire for zero population growth. We want to be happy, and we want those we care about to be happy.

Whether the "total happiness" on earth comes from six billion or is slightly greater and comes from six and a half billion is of little, if any, concern to almost all of us.

"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."

You are comparing living and conscious people, with "future potential." A woman wants an abortion. She doesn't care about the "total happiness" on earth that might be adjusted, up or down, if she continued the pregnancy.

______________

"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?"

"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."

In the remaining 1%, the parents still don't want to continue the pregnancy, and the "rightness" of preserving the "high-quality" human potential to genetically better the race at the cost of the parents' choice would not be supported by much of the population.

______________

"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."

"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.'?"

Not inconsistent, but human. They see the harm to the earth, but value some or all of the people already here enough that mass elimination is unattractive. There is value perceived in population control, yes, but not enough to overcome the value lost by the mass eliminations. The people are wanted, not wanted to be eliminated.

It is the effect of population pressure on the earth that is the negative, not the existence of the people that contribute to it. Again, those people are wanted. This differs from when abortion is chosen, where the "future potential person" is not wanted.

"There is a big difference in how many of us value born people and unborn zygotes, embryos, and fetuses."

"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."

It's not that fetuses are not valued, period. It is that often they are not, and abortion is chosen, and society values the individual having the choice. As opposed to killing born persons, where society values due process. Born people indeed have negative value by my logic, with respect to population pressure, but I do not say they have a net negative value, period.

"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."

By being "born people" alone, regardless of other considerations, they are valued by the law, Constitution, etc., above unwanted fetuses. Could I find certain criminals that I think would be less of a loss to humanity than certain fetuses? Sure - but I'm not the mother saying, "I don't want this fetus to be born."

"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)."

"The fetuses are not eliminated at random, as they are in the "not wanted" group. Within society, among born persons, some are not wanted enough that they are legally executed, again, not at random. Random killings, whether person or unborn fetus, would have little support indeed, I imagine.

"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."

So who does the selecting? I do agree that not all born persons are a net plus. And of course not all unborn have a net negative value - most are wanted. You want some fetuses for their genes. Some of them have mothers/parents who want to terminate the pregnancy. Whose want is most important?

______________

"Again, preventing some additions to the population is not the same as eliminating people already here."

"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."

Nowhere do I say the former is an unqualified "good." The point is that value is more often perceived in born people versus unborn zygote-embryo-fetuses. I also do not say that the unqualified elimination of fetuses is good. It is when we combine the fact that a given fetus is unwanted with there being no objective need to increase the population that considerations of if or how its genes will be good for humanity or how the total amount of happiness in the world might change fall by the wayside for almost everybody.

" ' Zero-population growth,' etc., has many followers/believers, few, if any, of whom would go for the random elimination."

"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."

They are not prejudging the unborn - they are merely acknowledging that many of them are not wanted, while born people are wanted, short of legal execution. They are consistent across the following valuation: "Zero population growth is desirable, and so is having the choice of abortion. Zero population growth is not desirable enough to warrant random eliminations of born people.

______________

"there is no objective reason to increase the population."

"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."

Increasing the population brings the Hitlers along with the Einsteins. And they all contribute to population pressure on earth. The value of the right of abortion, the value of not increasing the amount of people on earth, and the possibility of avoiding a Hitler are stacked up against the possibility of getting an Einstein. Which are most people going to be in favor of?

______________

"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."

"Perhaps. But 6 billion happy people are 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."

By that logic, eleven times the current population would be desirable, even though the average person was only one-tenth as happy.

"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 are a good thing, provided that the total sum happiness is greater. Even if the per capita happiness is lower!"

10 million is not objectively better than 100. A population of 100 would not necessarily care that there were not 10 million, just as we don't wish there were 600 quadrillion. If people are less happy in general, especially those being asked, who really cares about the "total sum happiness"?

______________

"Who would determine the standards for 'Higher-quality' humans?"

"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."

Well, we've already determined the "rightness" of abortion, and the good of "improving the race" comes out behind the good of abortion as currently permitted.

"Yet we don't know if those 'good' contributions will be made, in an individual case, . . ."

"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."

In the individual case where the abortion of a healthy fetus is desired, your argument that the birth would be a "net positive" would hardly be accepted by the mother/parents, and by society, at this time.

"Exactly what 'net positives' do you see, that would be absent with current abortion rates?"

"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."

Sure, some aborted fetuses would have grown into high-quality human beings. Is it right to force the continuance of the pregnancy? Not enough people say "yes" for it to be implemented, right now. And - sure, some pregnancies carried to term result in lower-quality people. Is it right to force the ending of those pregnancies? Same deal - not enough people think so, right now. The "right" of the woman's choice is firmly there, compared to the alternatives.

______________

"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?"

"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.)"

Very often, the parents don't care one whit about the "possible contribution." The parents do not want the kid. Your opinion about what is right/wrong or the fetus being "healthy" or "unhealthy" does not matter to them.

"I think you are taking an absolutist point of view here -- that there ARE more important things than what the parents want."

"That's not 'absolutist.' Absolutism is to insist that only one thing matters and nothing else, i.e., anything the parents (or the woman) choose must be right, and anything else must be wrong. No, 'right' cannot be defined as 'anything the parents choose.' "

It is just as absolutist as saying, "Abortion is a sin and abortion is murder." Murder does not apply to abortion since it's legal, and the sin/wrongness of abortion due to conflicts with opinions about religion or improving the race lie entirely in those opinions themselves, not in any external or objective area.

You might think that a given pregnancy should not be terminated because of the genetics, and Joe Blow might think so because Joe's been indoctrinated with certain fundamentalist views, but beyond such things, the abortion is not "wrong."

"Sounds like saying the desires of the parents should be overridden because, 'It's a sin,' etc."

"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."

It is saying that a given abortion can be "wrong" because the person later to be might improve the world, just as some would say the abortion would be wrong because "It's a sin." There is no objective "right thing to do." Only within sentient opinion do such things exist, in the first place.

______________

" . . . and we do know that population pressure is having bad effects on our world, and on each other."

"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."

The value in dealing with population pressure plus the value in the choice of abortion far outweighs the need for a given fetus to be fully gestated, in defiance of the mother's/parents' wishes. Again, for now, the far greater "right" is seen to be with allowing the parents to choose.

" ' We' are not eliminating the fetuses. We are allowing the parents to choose if they want to do so."

"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."

We do allow the elimination of some fetuses, and this is seen as a good thing, for the parents do not want to continue the pregnancy. Forcing the continuance of the pregnancy is seen as worse than any loss to human genetics, your opinion notwithstanding.

"And by doing so, we lessen the harmful effects of the sheer numbers of humanity."

"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."

As a race, we do produce harmful effects, and are a burden on our environment. That is not to say that people are not desired, and hence, not saying that random eliminations are wanted. The difference is that the fetuses in question are not wanted.

"There is only one logical escape from this conclusion [the desirability of random eliminations]. 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."

I am not saying that any abortion is "automatically right" according to everybody. No such thing exists. If the parents of a healthy fetus do not want it, their opinion of what is right does not agree with yours. Society is on the parents' side, for now, anyway. As population pressure increases, I can only think that society will be increasingly on the side of abortion, as in China now.

______________

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

"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.

"'Wrong' in your opinion. In my opinion, some parents are wrong for having kids in the first place."

"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."

"But your and my opinions obviously aren't shared by a given woman or set of parents, necessarily."

"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."

That is just saying that people have different opinions. If your thesis had been, "I think some abortions are wrong because they prevent the existence of some people who would be of benefit to humanity," I could well understand it. Yet saying they are wrong in any objective sense is incorrect.

______________

"I acknowledge the huge population already here, and think that if a woman chooses not to add one more, fine, regardless of her reason."

"I agree, except instead of 'fine' I say her choice is legal and is hopefully the right one."

You mean hopefully in agreement with what you think. Sometimes that will happen, but mostly not, as we're dealing with unwanted unborns.

______________

"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."

"'Wrong' only from the standpoint of 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."

"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 clear-cut, 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."

Her choice could be the wrong one from the perspective of human genetics. Your thesis did not state that perspective.

______________

"Healthy people still pollute the environment, consume natural resources, commit crimes, etc., and in no way necessarily 'contribute' in a good way."

"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 are still neglecting that large random collections of born humans are wanted, while the unborn in question are not.

"You are still assuming that random elimination of born persons is viewed the same as allowing people the choice of abortion."

"No, I'm not assuming it is VIEWED the same, but rather that it IS the same with respect to the bad results you cited (polluting, consuming resources). If the benefit of aborting fetuses is to prevent them from later polluting and consuming resources, as you imply above, then some of those already born should also be 'aborted' in order to achieve the same benefit."

Less population pressure is but one benefit of allowing abortion. Population pressure is only one facet of the argument, and the whole of abortion is not the same as the whole of killing born persons.

"And since the abortions are totally random, irrespective of the good which some of these fetuses would have produced later, then random 'abortions' of born humans should also produce the same benefits. As long as you insist that healthy fetuses will all eventually become a net negative, because of their eventual pollution and consuming of resources, then you must say the same about humans already born, and these latter are just as fit for elimination as the former."

If abortions were indeed random, I imagine the resistance to them would be similar to random killings of born persons. But they are not.

"You have not shown how those already here should get a free lunch, while those en route are fit for elimination. Yes, it's always easy to side with the group to which you belong yourself, and also to favor the strong over the weak. But the easy way is not necessarily the right way.

"You keep trying to tapdance around this problem, but you have not given a reason why those already born should be judged by a different standard than the unborn. You cannot religiously defend the one group as having a sacred right to life while writing off the other as expendable."

There are no such "shoulds," and I don't believe in "sacred" anything. It is not that the born "should" be judged by different standards, it is that they simply are judged by different standards. When human nature changes and this is no longer so, get back to me on it.

"I think you could make the argument that those already born have a stronger claim to a right to life than the unborn. But this is a difference of degree. And your logic would require that random annihilations, if not desirable at the present time, will soon become desirable, when the world population increases beyond a certain point. The desirability of random eliminations of fetuses would logically come shortly before that of random eliminations of born humans."

The "right to life" is entirely a matter of perception. At this time, neither random killings of fetuses nor of born persons are desired by a significant percentage of the population. Could this change? Yes.

"The experiences and interactions that born people have mean much more to most people than the mere potentiality of a fetus."

"Rubbish! You know that virtually all healthy fetuses will eventually have experiences and interactions with future people just as adults today have and will mean just as much to other humans as present people do. By your logic, we should plunder the planet today, because only the life existing today has value, while any future life is only a "mere potentiality."

Not rubbish - it's the truth. When a fetus is not wanted, it's potential is not wanted. I'm not talking about what could be, I'm talking about what is. "Future people" are not the ones deciding what is right and what is wrong.

"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."

"In other words, because born people have a general perception that born people have an absolute right to live whereas unborn people do not, therefore it must be so. This is how we decide who has rights and who doesn't? We take a poll among the group to which we belong, and however they vote determines what's right?"

It doesn't have to be a poll. It doesn't have to be group opinion. But yes, we have rights at the sufferance of others.

"I can agree that born people should get some degree of preference over the unborn, but not for the kind of reason you give here. You'll have to do better than this. You have to show objective, impartial criteria for judging what is right. You cannot write off a category of humans who are not present to cast their vote. Again, by that logic, we could plunder the earth today and lay it waste for future generations."

There are no objective criteria for what is "right." A given desire can be effectively/practically pursued, but it is in no way objectively "right" or "wrong." If there was sufficient opinion in favor of "plundering the earth," it would be done. It all starts with wanting.

"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."

"Wrong -- by my logic, random elimination is not good, but allowing people the choice of abortion is."

"But you're not just saying people should be allowed to abort. I agree with that. You're also saying that their decision to abort is always right, never wrong. I'm saying that a decision to abort, even though it should be legal, can be the wrong choice in some cases. While you insist that it can never be the wrong choice.

"Why is it always the right choice? Why can't it sometimes be the wrong choice?"

It can be the wrong choice from a qualified perspective. But it is not "wrong" while the choice itself is considered to be "right." If your thesis was, "Abortions can make for the loss of potentially valuable humans," I would not disagree.

"If all fetuses are that fit for elimination and are that undesirable, then I suggest all born persons too are undesirable. Both the born and unborn pollute and consume resources. There is nothing undesirable about all the unborn which cannot also be said of the already-born. Everything you fear from the unborn is already being done by the born."

I did not say that all fetuses are fit for elimination. We are talking about unwanted fetuses, where the mother/parents do not wish to continue the pregnancy. Neither I nor society want all fetuses killed.

"Born people are not necessarily valued the same as unborn embryos. etc."

"They are valued the same as future humans will be valued. When you eliminate a fetus today, you are eliminating its future value. The value which it would constitute in the future is being snuffed out."

Future potential value does not matter, or does not matter enough for a change of choice, to those who desire an abortion.

"That snuffing out of future value is no less real than the snuffing out of a born person today. Less value is less value, whether that value would be realized in the year 2000 or in 2050 or 2100. Delaying this loss to a future time does not make it less real."

Yes it is less real, for future value is not necessarily perceived as present value is. It is not wrong for a couple to choose to remain childless, whether it be by preventing conception or by having abortions. If the future value was perceived the same, it wouldn't be "future," and far less people would agree with abortion.

"When abortion is chosen, the unborn embryo is almost certainly not valued in the same way." (In the same way that a born person is valued.)

"No, not at the time of the abortion, but its future value being snuffed out would have been just as important in the future as the present value of a born person today."

Who cares? Potential value or not, it's not wanted, when abortion is desired.

______________

"The number of people, 'good-quality ' or otherwise, already is a problem."

"You mean 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. 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?"

Population pressure is a fact, yes, but this is not to say that a lot of people want random killings, population or not. (Random killings would put themselves at risk, for one thing).

"That the numbers of people are a problem does not mean I favor killing born people."

"Again you are contradicting yourself. If this 'problem' can be partly solved by killing some unborn, why not also by killing some already-born? Your goal is to reduce the number of people. Right?"

No contradictions here. The goal is to be happy. Many more people are happy with the right of abortion than are happy with the right of killing random born people. Population pressure is but one more reason why abortion/birth control are good choices to have. Abortions are not about "reducing the number of people." Less population growth is one desirable effect of birth control and abortions, not the totality of benefits.

"It means that there is no objective reason to continue an unwanted pregnancy simply to increase the population further."

"But there could be a reason in some cases. The fetus could be healthy and have good traits which will make it just as valuable, or more valuable, than some of those already born. If there is reason to 'continue' these less valuable born humans, then why couldn't there also be an objective reason to 'continue' that healthy fetus?"

There are no objective reasons for continuing or discontinuing the healthy or the unhealthy. It's all desire. People sometimes desire the unhealthy, and sometimes do not desire the healthy.

"Annihilating a million people would certainly decrease the population/slow its growth, but it is not good because it is not desired."

"If it would achieve the same desired result as aborting a million fetuses, why wouldn't it be just as desired? How can one action be good and another bad, and yet both achieve the same result?"

Nobody that I know wants to "abort a million fetuses." An individual having the choice - that is 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."

"Cutting down some adult trees would make at least as much sense as eliminating some of their offspring, or restricting the spawning of new trees. If curbing the reproduction of new trees is seen as a partial solution, why not also some random elimination of present adult trees? If anything, the latter would do more to solve the problem."

I said nothing about cutting down some adult trees, etc. Just an analogy that though leaves may be viewed as a nuisance, trees may still be appreciated, same as though population pressure is a real bummer for many people, they usually do not advocate killing a bunch of born humans. If less new trees grow, that may be fine, same as with some people choosing abortion.

______________

"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 you go again taking polls, finding out what's popular and then defining 'right' to be whatever 51% say they want. And meanwhile, behind the scenes, you are crusading to get people to vote a certain way. How do you decide which cause to crusade for in the first place?"

You see no crusades here, just an observation about how things really work. Your thesis did not specify according to whom "right" or "wrong" was to be. If you want to qualify it, fine, but in lieu of that, what do you think "right/wrong" is? Though you brought it up, often the majority does define it, and in this case you asked "Why we don't do away with them as well?" It's because not enough of us want to.

"Cut out the polling. You know this is an invalid form of argument. If this is all you have to fall back on, you must admit you have a weak argument."

On the contrary, it is unassailable. If there is not a significant amount of opinion that favors doing away with them, then there is not a significant amount of opinion that it is "right."

"There is no 'good' outside of opinion/perception."

"Sometimes the opinions/perceptions are wrong, because they are biased or illogical."

Aside from logic, "wrong" only in the equally subjective opinions of other entities. If it is a concrete matter of logic, I would say it is an objective matter. True/untrue is not always the same as good/bad.

"Yes, ultimately 'good' and 'evil' must be perceived or must have a perceptual effect on people. But a mere opinion poll about who should live and who should be eliminated is not the proper point at which 'good' and 'evil' can be defined."

If not from the poll, then from whom?

" . . . 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."

"No dilemma here. Relieving population pressure is not the only consideration. . . . If our only goal is to reduce population pressure, random killing would work. But that is not the case."

"That's the only goal you've identified so far. What other purpose is served by eliminating fetuses (future humans)? The woman's choice? Why this choice and not others? Like the choice of a mass killer to eliminate some people? Isn't a mass killing also an example of combining population control plus the right to choose?"

The main purpose, of course, is eliminating the unwanted zygote-embryo-fetus. This choice is permitted because sufficient people are for it. If there was sufficient opinion for the mass killer to do his thing, it too would be permitted. Yes, mass killing is such an example of combination, but at this time not enough people think the mass-killer should have that right.

"We need a principle here. The only one which makes sense, which is logical and consistent is: We need more high-quality humans and fewer low-quality humans. We need selective population control, including selective abortion.

"The woman's right to choose is valid if it is based on this principle. Hopefully she will make the right choice. But you cannot make a religion out of choice per se. You cannot say that her choice is always the right one, no matter what."

No religion, just me saying that the choice is good. If she wants it, who are you to say she's wrong? Whatever the contributing factors, if a woman does not want to have a baby, that desire itself is plenty of reason for me to think her choice of abortion a good one. In other words, I think all babies should be wanted.

There is nothing necessarily logical about permitting abortion and not the killing of born persons. That's just the way things have worked out, based on human perceptions.

______________

" . . . 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, . . ."

"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."

"What really is good" is an unqualified impossibility. No such absolutes. Good according to whom? According to what? It's all perception. You've seen nothing from me advocating random eliminations.

"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."

"But it favors random eliminations to condone all decisions to abort without distinction, to applaud all such decisions as being automatically right. This is a form of random elimination because you totally disregard whether some fetuses have better prospects than others."

Not random - but specific to unwanted pregnancies. Neither I nor the woman choosing abortion cares about the future "prospects" of the unwanted fetus. If somebody does not want to give birth, I think they should not.

"The woman's choice should be guided by considerations of whether the fetus will likely turn out to be healthy and have good traits. If such considerations are totally disregarded, then the choice could be a mistake."

How many women, wanting an abortion, do you think care about what "good traits" their offspring might have? Traits and all, it is not wanted.

"I mention not adding to the population when the parents do not desire to do so."

"But what if all the prospects for that offspring are good? What if it is healthy and has good traits and it would likely have a good home and good opportunities? Why should these parents feel guilty about adding another human to the population? This addition would likely be a good one. The decision to abort would likely be a mistake in this case."

If an abortion is desired, those choosing it don't care about prospects, health, traits, opportunities, etc. They don't feel guilty about adding to the population - they don't want to do it in the first place. You say it's a mistake, but that is only from the perspective of "selectively improving" the human races, a perspective not stated in your thesis.

"If you're saying a mere whimsical impulse to 'not add to the population is a good reason to abort, always, then effectively you are saying random eliminations are good. Just because you're uncomfortable with the term 'random elimination' and don't endorse it explicitly doesn't change the fact that you are condoning random eliminations."

It is not whimsy to not want to have a baby. There is nothing random about focusing on unwanted unborn zygote-embryo-fetuses.

______________

End of page 4.

Continue to page 5 of this debate.

Return to Debate Club opening page.