Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I'm pretty progressive in most things. I'm very Left wing, pro-gay rights, pro-trans, pro-abortion, all that.

That's the first time I've heard a leftist say "prp-abortion".

Alright, I don't particularly care, but whatever.

Well, saying you support the very act of abortion is different than saying you support the right to choose.

I think abortions are swell and more people should have them. Lower the population, don't raise kids you can't and abort all the "broken" fetuses like the ones with down snydrome and that.

Stem cells?

Broken? Hmmm. Please stay out of my government. 

I can see Steve's closer than ever to gaining your trophy. Lol.

Haha front runner for sure. 

Catch-all term, couldn't think of a better one as I was tired.

I thought yours was fantasy.

I don't really want to be the slippery slope cliché, but I'm sure Hitler thought he was very progressive too! I worked with a lot of Down's Syndrome kids for a year, and they were all incredibly lovely.

Yeah I'm sure they are, but I don't see the point in having someone with a reduced quality of living when you can just not.

"I don't really want to be the slippery slope cliché, but..."

"slippery slope..."

Yeah, and let's not let the gays marry, because sooner or later you'll be marrying animals!

The slippery slope argument, of course, relies on numerous assumptions. This is the case with many arguments, if not all except possibly 'cogito ergo sum' (even then, radical skepticism can probably worm it's way in there and refute it on some ground). Sure, just because a slippery slope has happened in the past, it doesn't mean that it will apply to this situation, or even a very similar situation. However, the fact that it might happen is dangerous enough to make it a good argument where human life is concerned, especially in light of evidence from the 20th century. I don't see your leap from gay marriage to beastiality as applicable, as you could say the same with straight marriage (or 'having intercourse with a fellow human' would lead to 'having intercourse with another species'). Also, I haven't seen any widespread reports on gay people suddenly moving to animals.

One could easily argue that the allowance of gay marriage removes the sacredness of marriage by allowing it to be something it's not and once that's gone it means nothing. Many of the same arguments for gay marriage could be made for beastiality. There's no victims if the animal wants it, the government should stay out of the bedroom, they probably love their bestial bride in some way.

I really fail to see the issue with my argument, anyhow. If one takes the principles as trying to improve the human standard of life, I don't see how that's getting to anything bad.

Okay, and I could point out that your argument assumes that marriage is sacred. I could state that marriage is not present in all cultures, and its cultural relativity suggests it isn't in fact sacred. Also, even if marriage is sacred, as long as gay people adhere to the rules of marriage, they wouldn't be committing sacrilege. You may want to argue the following: "Gay marriage undermines certain Christian beliefs on marriage, such as in Catholicism." However, I could attack Christianity (Freudian 'obsessional neurosis', Flew's 'Death by a Thousand Qualifications' deeming God to be unfalsifiable by Popper's standards and therefore meaningless to talk of (and therefore undermining the reliability of the Bible, where ideas of sacred marriage stem), etc. None of which, by the way, I necessarily believe myself) to attempt to refute that argument. Of course, there are many counter arguments to all of mine, and it would come down to my opinion on religion against yours. 

Alternatively, I could take the empiricist stance and ask you for evidence on how marriage is sacred, what sacred actually means (well... more of an a priori distinction), and what evidence there is for gay marriage undermining sacred marriage (unless it is undermined by gay marriage by the definitions you give). I'll stack my bets in empiricism being a generally better approach to knowledge than any intuitionist/rationalist approach you might take. My evidence is aforementioned in 20th century history.

Furthermore, marriage doesn't necessitate sex. Marriage and sex are different acts, and so it is an assumption to say that marriage (one act) will lead to sex (a separate act). I'm pretty sure that's Hume's Fork, I might be wrong/. It's a good argument, as the relationship of causality is not actually observable (assuming again we both take an empiricist stance), just a chronology of events in time. However, the same argument could be used against my claim at the slippery slope. Of course, I'm not saying it will definitely cause a slippery slope into WW2-esque eugenics, but I'm arguing that it's best to hedge your bets on not aborting DS foetuses for the sole reason they have DS, just in case it does lead to that situation.

Finally, if we were to the Christian ethics perspective (say, Catholism, given your ironic role as the Devil's Advocate playing gay-hater), you most certainly wouldn't be orthodox in saying you support abortion, let alone abortion of those with DS. following Thomonian Natural Moral Law, Catholic heavily believes against abortion on the grounds of Sanctity of Life.

What I'm saying is that even if you try to improve the standard of human life, it may end up leading to some horrible dystopia where people are killed in droves because they don't meet some standard. Even if it was 'genetically engineer the DS out of them' (which, to my knowledge, isn't possible yet because it involves removing an extra chromosome instead of swapping or splicing individual genes. I may be wrong), I could argue that's it's only a matter of time before all people have to conform to some 'perfect' standard of looks. This may lead to a dystopia as in the film Gattaca.

Well if marriage is only culturally relevant, there's no reason to not allow bestiality. Also, really wasn't going to argue for the Christian perspective there.

You could ask for evidence, but as you haven't provided any for why abortion makes it more likely we kill people rather than just fetuses.

Not sure what the relevance of that is here. Animal marriage could have no sex in it. You then say that you'd just be hedging your bets, which I don't know why you wouldn't do that for gay marriage causing bestiality.

Not Catholic, not going to argue that point.

You've made that your summary, yeah, but I've not seen any actual points against the abortion. You're not presenting why abortion would make us any more likely to harm people rather than fetuses, or why genetic engineering would make us more likely to force conformity on aesthetics purposes. I can show you countries where abortion has been legalized and it's done incredibly often because of birth defects where there's been no push towards killing people.

Well, if you're an adovocate of extreme cultural relativism, you're correct. However, this quickly degrades to moral nihilism- the idea that there are either no objective moral truths, or none that can be known to humans. This is a very dangerous ethical stance in my opinion, as it can be used to justify anything. Chances are, you're not that morally extreme, and you probably agree that it is fair to argue that beastiality shoudn't be legal, as animals can't consent to sex. I suppose you could say if a dog tries to start humping your leg it's 'consent', but there's no explicit way of knowing, and animals obviously aren't capable of the kind of rationale humans are in terms of considering a future event and the consequences it may have. They're driven by drives.

So, discarding my argument from relativism, as it's hazy where the line between enough and too much lies, I still have others.

I explicitly gave my evidence just in case you argued that I have none, which you did anyway. "My evidence is aforementioned in 20th century history." "WW2-esque eugenics..." The slippery slope of Nazi Germany is a classic example. 

Again, animals can't consent to marriage. I'm sure that would go against the ethical code of many cultures, as you would be taking advantage of a vulnerable creature, though you could still argue from extreme relativity. However, my nihilism argument still stands, and this is moving repidly away from abortion into a discussion of whether beastiality is ethically okay, so it's becoming irrelevant.

I'm hedging my bets on not advocating abortion for eugenic purposes because there is actually evidence for the slippery slope in terms of eugenics, but none for the slippery slope you propose (that I know of).

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against all abortion. All of my points are directed against abortion for eugenics specifically. I am pro-abortion if the quality of life is assessed to be very bad: i.e if the foetus will develop into a person who will live in considerable suffering. Also, if the mother's life is at risk due to ectopic pregnancy or something, and a load of other specific scenarios (though abortion is, by far, one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas to reason about in my opinion). The quality of life of people with DS is actually very good though. From my experience, they seem much happier than many people without the condition.

Well I'd say if a dog tries to mount a person they're consenting, but whatever. 

Oh, apologies, I thought that was evidence for how homosexuality didn't lead to bestiality. My mistake. Anyhow, I'll point to countries where this does happen. In Iceland, the vast, vast majority of fetuses with likelihood of down syndrome are aborted. In Britain, it's 90%. These countries aren't slipping towards sterilization or WW2-esque eugenics at all.

Homosexuality also goes against the ethical code of many cultures. Animals can't consent to being owned by other people, but we allow that. I don't see how marriage would be any worse.

And again, there's really not, as there's many countries where this is OK.

Alright, so you're pro-Abortion if the quality of life is very bad, which seems to me means that this slippery slope argument you've been pushing works against you just as well as it does me. I think that down syndrome people are a burden, not only on their parents but can be on their siblings and other family members, as well as society in general. This isn't there fault and I think we should do more to help care for them, but that still means it's a burden I'd prefer prevented.

Yes, homosexuality does go against many cultures. I'm not trying to argue that homosexuality should be universally held as morally acceptable, even though I believe that would be good, but rather that homosexuality wouldn't slope towards beastiality, and thus your argument by analogy is wrong. Another Humian argument would be that an analogy is only as strong as it is similar to its comparison. The more similar, the stronger the argument. Your analogy of the gay marriage leading to interspecial marriage (I guess that's a word??) doesn't particularly resemble mine on eugenics, and so isn't a successful refutation of the slippery slope. I would say, however, that my analogy of Nazi Germany's eugenics compared to abortion eugenics is fairly similar, as both systematically seek to eliminate certain characteristics. 

If you're still not convinced by mah boi Hume, how about this: you could just as easily state that heterosexual marriage slopes to interspecial marriage, which there is no evidence for. As gay marriage is a very good analogy to heterosexual marriage, you'd expect the same to be the case for gay marriage. However, I doubt that it's well documented this is the case (there is a substantial collection of married people, I'm sure the correlation would have been found ages ago if it existed).

I suppose it is consent, but I'm also sure that animal would be doing that solely based on instinct to procreate. To take advantage of that for your own pleasure, I feel, is wrong. Furthermore, you can't know when the animal is in pain easily, as not all animals are very vocal. This is one reason why beastiality has recently been illegalised in places like Denmark. However, your argument about animals not being able to consent to being owned is pretty strong, though I still feel it's becoming irrelevant. I could counter by saying that, from a Utilitarian perspective, keeping animals keeps them happy (as they are warm and well fed hopefully!), and owners happy (the joy of having a pet, along with research that stroking animals helps reduce heart disease etc.). Overall, it could be said to be in the best interests of both. Beastiality, however, may hurt the animal, and so isn't justified.

Yes, the slippery slope argument works against me, which is partially why abortion is such a difficult topic. The line is very blurred. However, abortion on the grounds of quality of life, I think, is a fairly uncontroversial view. It's about avoiding unnecessary suffering, not seeking to avoid having people who are different just because they don't have the same mental faculties as most (which I assume is your reason for wanting to abort DS foetuses, because it certainly can't be on grounds of poor quality of life). I think this is where intention is key. Intention to conserve quality of life is not what concentration camps in WWII were based on, but intention to select those who don't appeal to some ideal standard was.

However, it may be the case that the UK is undergoing a slippery slope. "Between 2011 and 2013, there has been a 17.8% increase in the submission of HSA4 Abortion Notifications for Down’s syndrome. The Department of Health will continue to work closely with RCOG and other organisations in implementing the recommendations where possible." From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

This is a government report, so I'm pretty sure it takes an objective stance. 

However, you could refute this by arguing that, as gender equality seems to be on the rise in the UK and more women are professionally active, this is because women are generally having babies later. Later pregnancies lead to an increase in rates od DS, as the eggs are exposed to more net radiation and so are more likely to mutate.

Then again, it may not be this factor. I'm sure there are a huge number of socioeconomic factors which play into this alone, so it's really hard to isolate one and state it's effects without cherry-picking. Therefore, I don't know if the UK is sloping, and I doubt you do either. Again, this comes to my hedge-your-bets argument (which isn't a particularly good one but is, I would say, the safest approach to the issue just in case it goes balls up and does form a slippery slope). I have seen this 90% abortion rate you said with a quick online search, but only from what seem to be fairly opinionated sources. I'm a bit sceptical about them, so I'm having a look on the NHS website.

"However, improvements in the screening process has led to a decrease in the number of Down’s syndrome births due to a high rate of terminations. The study also suggests that the rise in Down’s diagnoses is associated with a rise in the number of women putting off having children until later in life.

Antenatal screening and subsequent terminations of pregnancy resulted in an overall 1% fall in the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome (752 in 1989-90 to 743 in 2007-8). This equates to a decrease from 1.10 babies per 1,000 births to a current rate of 1.08 babies per 1,000 births. The research estimates that if screening had not been in place the actual numbers of live births with Down’s syndrome would have increased by 48%, from 959 to 1,422. This estimated rise appears to be attributable to the fact that couples are starting families at a later stage in life."

This is from the NHS choices website: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/10October/Pages/Down-syndrome-termination-rate-screening.aspx

So nothing on the actual stat of those born with DS : those terminated, which I'm a little surprised about. Who knows if the UK is sloping? I hope not! 

Your burden argument also might apply to any disability that requires social funding by it's own reason. That's another reason it might become a slope.

The compromising of culturally morals by allowing homosexuality weakens those morals and could lead further to bestiality, it could be argued. I'd absolutely argue that they're similar enough, as both seek to expand the definition of marriage to further give rights to individuals where no one is hurt.

No, because straight marriage has always been acceptable in our culture, so it's continued existence doesn't damage the moral system that stands against bestiality unlike homosexuality does.

Yeah, that's also the reason people tend to have sex, because their brain tells them to. I don't see how its wrong to "take advantage" of that at all, because its what the dog wants and the person wants. I don't see at all how them being owned is irrelevant, as its the exact same as putting them in a position , one being as a pet and the other as a spouse. At least in the latter it's not as unequal. I'm sure if you married an animal you'd keep it warm and well fed, and if you're being very gentle with the animal you wouldn't be hurting it, so there's no problem.

So then your entire position of supporting abortion is compromised, as yeah, your own slipper slope argument destroys your position as we can just kill people for lowering the quality of life.

That's not a slippery slope argument for it being more OK with killing people, that's it being more OK with abortion. The fact that more gay marriages are happening doesn't mean it's sliding towards bestiality. I can quite easily say it's not going towards the sterilization or killing of people, because we're not seeing anything. Your slope argument isn't that more down syndrome fetuses will be aborted, it's that it will start effecting people who are already born, which you're not providing evidence for, you're just conflating "Rise in abortions" with this other thing that isn't happening. The principle of my argument are very clear. Each person has rights that should not be broken, but fetuses do not and thus their elimination isn't a negative thing. You've shown no evidence for how this would slip into something akin to WWII eugenics, which did not share this same core principle, instead only sharing the issue of abortion, which you yourself are OK with.

Well I would argue that a moral code which states that homosexuality is wrong makes assumptions which can easily be picked apart. For example, if it is on religious grounds, I have mentioned near the start how I could respond to such claims. If you were to take the stance of the extreme relativist, again, I would reject that by stating that extreme relativity, which is it very similar to (if not a form of) ethical nihilism, is a dangerous, impractical, and unverified approach to ethics. This can stem into meta-ethics and what is deemed as 'good', if good exists at all. However, I don't think you would back the extreme relativist approach, you probably think there are objective morals such as 'murder is wrong'. So I refute your argument that homosexuality weakens an ethical code, which could slip into beastiality on the grounds that morals which state homosexuality is wrong are, themselves, incorrect, and so if homosexuality were to be allowed in such a culture, it would be as a result of realising the assumptions made through homophobia. I would say this strengthens the moral code, as the ethical code becomes more logical, rather than undermining it and leading to beastiality. Furthermore, as I've said before: there is no evidence for gay marriage slipping to beastiality. However, I have pointed many times to evidence for abortion eugenics leading to WWII-like eugenics. No, this isn't a concrete proof for a cause and effect relationship, but I never stated it was. It's just safest not to go there, just in case it happens, as I said before.

No, I don't think they are very similar. And even if I were to say they were similar analogies, I would say my analogy of abortion eugenics is more similar to WWII Nazi Germany than your one of gay marriage being comparable to beastiality. As I think my analogy is more similar, my argument is stronger. It may come down to us agreeing or disagreeing whose analogy is stronger, so I'll explain why I think mine is. 

Abortion of foetuses with DS is terminating them with the intention of selecting out those who don't meet a standard. Concentration camps attempted the same thing, with the same intention (select out gays, the disabled, etc.), for similar reasons to why you're proposing to abort DS foetuses: so they're not a burden on the government etc (though I'm sure you believe in a few different reasons, such as it being hard for the family to deal with emotionally etc.). The intentions are pretty similar (select out), and the means are similar (terminate). However, your argument compares marrying two consenting people (who give explicit, verbal consent) to two members of different species having sex (a different action and different intentions: the intentions of marriage is love, the intention of sex is to get rid of a drive, though can be out of love too. If out of love, it would be a one way love from human to animal. This is still dissimilar to the two way love of gay marriage). The animals can't give explicit consent, and may not have the faculties to be aware enough of the situation to see that the person trying to have sex or vice versa isn't another dog. People having sex just as a drive do so knowing the consequences of their actions, hopefully with explicit consent. Animals can't do so.

Anyway! I was saying it's irrelevant because this is getting onto whether beastiality is okay (with you playing, I really hope, Devil's Advocate on the pro-beastiality team), and not whether we should abort DS foetuses.

No, I don't think the slippery slope destroys my position. It can definitely be used to threaten it, as the slope argument can be used to threaten all but the pro-life stance. However, I would say that as long as strict laws are given, such as having two doctors assess the mother and determine whether the quality of life of either mother or potential child are at risk, it should keep the slippery slope from happening. It might not, but your stance is at much greater peril from the argument, as the intention completely changes to one very similar to WWII. You said: "You've shown no evidence for how this would slip into something akin to WWII eugenics..."  No, I can't show a direct causation, hence my 'hedge-your-bets' argument, which I think is the safest approach.

"That's not a slippery slope argument for it being more OK with killing people, that's it being more OK with abortion."

By the same logic: "It's not a slippery slope argument for being more okay with killing gay people, that's just more okay with killing gay people". That doesn't refute the slippery slope. 

But if you start aborting DS foetuses just because they have DS, why not do it to kids who won't be the gender you want them to, or who'll have cystic fibrosis, or who'll have a malformed foot and so on... It might not be long before it's enforced to abort any kind of defects, leading to genetic oppression.  

You said: "Your slope argument... [states that aborting DS foetuses] will start effecting people who are already born." I'm not arguing that it will affect those already born (I don't know where you got that from), but more like that it will lead to abortions of foetuses for not having the right eye colour or selecting in the 'perfect characteristics', which leads to genetic oppression. 

Again, I'm not disputing that foetuses have no rights (my belief on that is irrelevant), just the eugenics stuff! I can't stress that enough.

The exact same reasons you use to justify homosexuality could be used for bestiality.

There's no evidence for abortion leading to eugenics.Show me a time where the introduction of abortion led to proper WW2 Eugenics. Abortion was a tool of eugenics, yes, but it wasn't like we had abortions and thus it led to them.

The means are far from similar. One is the termination of a person, the other is the removal of cells with no consciousness. Meanwhile, love isn't necessary for marriage and even if it were, I think you can easily say social animals can feel an emotion like love for people. Plus, as you said yourself, sex isn't a necessary component either.

You fail to show in any way how having two doctors assess it would stop the slippery slope argument.

I wasn't refuting your argument with that, I was refuting your evidence that the amount of abortions increasing in Britain was indicative of the slope, when it isn't. Yes, there is a rise in abortion, but that's not the slope you're suggesting. You're suggesting that it would lead to stuff happening to actual people, which this isn't evidence for a slope of any kind. The fact is, there's no evidence for a slope as you say yourself, abortion has never been the cause of a slope and the principles this argument is based on wouldn't allow for such a thing, and we can see examples where there's no evidence of the slope.

Yes, those arguments could be made against religious and relative arguments against beastiality. There are lots of other arguments I am in favour of against beastiality though, i.e my whole thing about consent and the fact that animals don't have the faculties to know the consequences or that the thing they're trying to get laid with isn't another one of their species. I really cba to go into a discussion of me saying why beastiality is wrong, and you arguing back though, Plz!

I've said this a few times: I accept that there's no causal evidence. There is correlation evidence though, and though it may not mean necessarily that your anti-DS society will fall under the next Reich with a meglamanoic xenophobe at its forefront, I believe it's best not to go there just in case we get a modern Hitler (I couldn't deal with the Twitter beef, it would destroy me). You might disagree, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying that two doctors assessing a mother would necessarily keep a slippery slope from happening. However, maybe 'should keep a slippery slope' was bad wording. 'Could' would be better! On the contrary, I don't think either of us are qualified to say whether or not the UK is undergoing slope, as I'm sure there are a huge number of variables (%DSBIRTHS, for example :D) I'm not trying to prove or disprove a slippery slope, just that it's a potential in what you envisage.

Ah, my bad. Okay, but I never stated it was indicative of a slope, as I said above. I was just trying to show you that, even with statistics (like your 90% DS abortion rate in the UK), you can't tell if there's a slippery slope present probably without thinking about it and objectively looking at stats for a very long time, until you think and understand all of the different variables that participate in why people are aborting DS foetuses. Even then, people may be unwilling to tell you their real reasons. I'd say it might be evidence of a slope, or maybe not. It's irrelevant to my arguments.

I'm not sure what you're saying here because of a critical spelling error, so I'll wait for clarification..

You've said that, but without evidence, your claim has literally no base other than your own personal fears, to which I could respond just in kind that I believe homosexuality will lead to bestiality.

If there's no evidence for something, we have no reason to assume it exists. T

Well then we have literally nothing in your argument without evidence or examples, so there's no reason it applies in this case.

Don't know what spelling mistake I made: cba means 'can't be arsed' if you were on about that. 

The difference between my slope and yours is there is evidence to support mine, though not prove a causal relationship, though none to even support yours. I think I have more reason to fear mine than you with yours.

Also, if there is no evidence for or against something, the safest thing to say is you don't, or potentially can't, know whether that thing exists. This does apply to the ever illusive slope.

My mistake, didn't get that. Very well, moving on.

What evidence? You've shown none and said yourself you can't provide evidence to show a slope in the examples of this occurring I've set out.

And when there's such a thing, we act as if it doesn't exist. We don't constantly watch the skies for Russel's tea pot to come crashing it down after it breaks free from its orbit, or check for fairies.

This is starting to go around in circles. The evidence I have to support (but not prove) the slope is WWII Nazi Germany. I deem that good enough not to advocate abortion eugenics just in case. The evidence you have to support your slope doesn't exist, so I believe it is more logical to hedge my bets on my slope rather than yours.

True, we may act as though it doesn't exist, as it is a waste of time to try to verify every thing a person makes up (Swinburne's black crows also suggest it isn't possible), but it is the safest approach to ontology to say that you can't be certain whether the thing exists or not, and so the most logical conclusion as it the best proof against radical skepticism. 

And as I said, that was not a case of abortion sliding into eugenics. This was Evolutionist theories sliding into eugenics. Abortion was only a tool that would eventually be used by this theory, not in any way the cause.

So if we have no evidence, we act as if it doesn't exist, and thus you have no argument against my premise here. We might not be able to say 100% we know it doesn't exist, but we can't say that about anything but ourselves, so that's irrelevant.

No, I know that wasn't abortion sliding into eugenics. It's an analogy (and a close one) to the mindset of "These people are different, eliminate them to propagate the 'ideal' human.", which is common to both aborting foetuses on grounds that they have DS and killing people based on ethnicity etc. As one system sloped (Nazi Germany), so could the other. My argument isn't 'abortion slid into eugenics in WWII', but rather 'abortion of DS foetuses to encourage some 'ideal' person is a similar motivation to that of WWII Nazi Germany. As WWII Nazi Germany underwent a slippery slope, the same might happen for aborting DS foetuses and therefore it is safest not do so.'

Okay, to clarify the evidence point. It started by you saying: "If there's no evidence for something, we have no reason to assume it exists." after saying I had no evidence for the slope. It was irrelevant to my argument (as my main refutation was that I do have evidence) and pretty unnecessary of me to clarify that the safest thing to say is that you don't know whether or not it exists, because you were right in saying that. Sorry!

No, it's not. Fetuses aren't considered people and killing people based on ethnicity isn't common to both at all. This is the equivalent of saying that the legalizing of gay marriage will lead to some libertine level of horrible immorality because they're both based on sexual freedom.

No bother.

So again, we don't have any examples of this happening, the times where this has been put into place there's no sign of any slope, and the analogy is so tenuous is doesn't hold up.

The ethnicity example was just that: an example. I wasn't literally saying that aborting foetuses based on DS is equal to doing so because of their ethnicity. 

I think this just leads to us having to agree to disagree. I would say my analogy is close (based mainly on the intentionality and reasons for aborting such foetuses), but it seems you're not convinced.

Ah, my mistake.

Yeah, you can say that, but it isn't. The libertine movement and the gay rights movement are both based around giving sexual freedoms to people, so their intentionality and reasons are very similar, but that doesn't mean the gay rights movement will lead to that. Eating animals is based on the intentionality that it's OK to eat living things, but it's not leading to cannibalism.

Just to throw fun facts at you because I had to live with several dogs once:

Dogs and wolves and most other social canids don't have sex just to procreate. They attempt to have sex with one another to establish a pecking order. If a dog can get some pussy under the nose of the upper dog, it calls into question the authority of the dog that previously had dominance over him. So, when a dog is new to a place and wants to know where he's at on the pecking order, he'll try to have sex with whoever isn't hanging out with the guy who's probably alpha, and if somebody stops him, they're probably in charge of him. And if someone stops them, they're in charge of that dog, and so on and so forth, until there's a ladder of dogs who are in charge of each other. You know why dogs don't like hugs? Because bringing your paws down on their back denotes your authority because it's similar to the feeling/action of when one dog shoves them off of another dog. Petting is different, because it feels like grooming, which dogs love. This is also why they try to hump new people that they meet in the legs, they want to know if they can be in charge of this new person or not.

So yeah, they don't have sex just to procreate. It's just a thing that they do in general. You're just probably going to get behavioral issues if you let him finish doing what he's doing, because it means he's in charge of you.

*grabs popcorn* I really hope this thread is going to be as entertaining as I expect it to be. Judging by what's already happening, I bet it will. 

I'm confused as to why you'd support specifically aborting all the Down's Syndrome kids. I mean, they're naively optimistic, live wonderful happy lives most of the time, and they don't even have to kill themselves at age 30 when you think life goes all downhill, since health complications already do it for them. So, y'know, it's kind of like an admit-one happy life guarantee for one kid. Sometimes I wish I had Down's Syndrome honestly. Sure, I'd lose my cognitive shit, but all that ever seems to do is make me pissed off and give me trouble sleeping at night. Sometimes I'm just not sure being superior to everyone around me is worth it.

They're an abomination. That's why.

Says the autist.

Having Asperger's makes me superior, more efficient, in some ways.

It makes you a sociopath without social skills, in your specific case. Yeah, you're good at your hobbies and utilitarian logic and you don't have to feel some social pains that other people tend to deal with needlessly, but it's pretty well balanced out by how incongruous it is. A society entirely of people with Aspergers wouldn't work very well. (See Dwarf Fortress when Tantrum Spirals were a thing.) At the same time, a society made entirely of nuerotypical people wouldn't advance very much, since abberants either innovate or create the necessity for innovation. Then again, everyone has everything to a certain degree, and things only tend to become disorders when they've particularly affected the ways people live and their mental features are out of whack, so nuerotypical is impossible to define. All the same, the notion that this disorder makes you superior is still laughable.

I'm late responding to this, but I'm curious about why you people think I'm a sociopath.

He also said "broken" which probably means any sort of physically or mentally impaired fetus.

So yeah, basically Steve's just being a shitlord as usual.

Or in this case, a progressive shitlord. Lol.

EDIT: And Danaos agrees with him. Always a good sign!

I'm with Steve, sorta. We should most certainly purge all of those humans that are born with such problems. They hurt humanity as a whole because they eat up our resources and contribute so little to society. They, like inmates, should be used as test subjects that work for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

So basically you and Steve both agree on eugenics and hating Muslims.

Glad you guys found common ground at last.

Eugenics is great. At its core, breeding up positive traits is what reproduction is all about. It's just when you start killing and castrating people that shit goes wrong.

Again, not a fan of killing and castrating people, unless you consider fetuses people or whatever.

Ah, wait, you're right.

Well, fuck. Now I can't argue with you properly.

Sorry Stephen Hawking. These geniuses say you are worthless. Sorry Hank Williams Sr, you are worthless. Sorry Stevie Wonder, FDR, and Helen Keller, these kids need their pop tarts. 

To be fair, everyone you've described except Hank Williams developed their disabilities from diseases after they were born, and Hank Williams probably didn't really have any signs pointing out spina bifida as a fetus.

Dyslexia is over-represented amongst CEOs. I regrettably cannot find the exact article again (came across it a couple years ago), but dyslexic people both think differently (as in their train of thought does not follow many conventions), and they've often been bullied so much while growing up that they're pretty comfortable with fear and risk which translate into great decision making. Famous CEOs with dyslexia? Richard Branson, Henry Ford, Bill Hewlett (of HP), Steve Jobs. Kill 'em all right? The world definitely can't feed more people, who by their existence MUST be holding back the wise, brave, noble, uber human in the world from nirvana, right? Relevant articles

Now, here's the rub. I've survived one of the most challenging Masters programs in my country, and arguably the world (it was meticulously designed that way, the curricula planned out assignments and courses knowing full well how many others they were on any given day, and student free time was a systematically rationed commodity). My peers had always been the highest scoring of the highest scorers while growing up, if you were to go to their schools and hometowns, everyone would remember these people by reputation. When the term started, a lot of them (who had never experienced not being the best at any point in their lives, mind you) were of the opinion that underperformers were a sorry lot who deserved nothing, were not worthy of attention, and should yield and make way for 'enlightened high performers with great work ethic' such as themselves. It was an MBA program, so within the next few months they were pummeled with courses they had never seen before, requiring skillsets very different from what they were strong in. Around 6 months in, when most people reach their breaking point (it actually gets worse from there), I overheard a guy, one of the frontmen in expressing the 'this world is only for the worthy' argument telling his friend "You know, when I came here, I thought only the best should get everything. Then I realized no one is the best at everything, and while it's easy to put others down when you're ahead, it feels like shit when you're the one behind. And whether you admit it or not, one day you will be behind." [Conversation with in Hindi, translated to English, so it doesn't flow as normally as an intentionally designed sentence] Basically, Danaos' entire argument makes a lot of sense, until the moment you're on the other side, receiving the brunt of what you've set up. Then you realize that 'success' determined rule makes being abnormal a really terrible thing and conformism a virtue.

But Dyslexia isn't really a big cognitive defect the way that Down's Syndrome is. Not to say that I'm not against negative eugenics in all its forms, but these disabilities you're all bringing up aren't exactly on the level that Danaos is describing.

To which my second point, it's easy to put others down when you're relatively better off than them, but then a day comes when you're at the receiving end of it. Also, I doubt dyslexic people would consider their condition 'lesser' in any way, considering it precludes them from living the idealized 'normal' life that Danaos seems to be defending so passionately.

Thing is, life has a sense of humor, and it's fairly creative in bringing people down when it gets to it. I just hope the world on the lower half is something you're comfortable living in when you reach there, when your actions and statements helped build it the way it is. People who can afford healthcare in a nation that does not provide universal or cheap healthcare will laugh and mock those who cannot. Then when the day comes when they cannot afford it, tough luck. Things, however, shouldn't have to come to that. Is caring for other humans really that costly a commodity?

Yes, life does have creative ways of bringing people down, and someone with one particular disadvantage can end up having a really shitty time of it. At the same time, an inability to comprehend letters for whatever reason sort of pales in comparison to deadly health complications and the inability to comprehend adult concepts and advanced thought in logical and meaningful ways. Dyslexic people can be very productive, and have a much higher probability of getting the opportunity to be productive, whereas people with, say, Down's syndrome, have far fewer applications in a lot of contexts. As you've said, Dyslexia is very overrepresented by CEOs, but have you seen any people with legitimate intellectual disabilities getting to any similar point of achievement? I get where you're trying to go with this, and I agree with your point, but this is Danaos. You're going to have to appeal to the sheerly utilitarian side of the argument if you want him to think you've won the argument.

As far as your second paragraph goes, I wasn't exactly involved in that decision, nor would I care to get involved in the labyrinthian H.R. Giger clusterfuck that is the healthcare issue, but that whole point was probably pointed more at Dan than me.

To be honest, no I have not. However, if you're to take a utilitarian view, I'd argue than many 'advantaged' people will contribute just as much to society. Should we be doubling taxes on people who do not 'contribute,' say, enough (below average for this discussion) taxes? Clearly if others can give more tax revenue to the government, those people who pay less are cheating the system and should be brought to 'justice.' (Note: Strong sarcasm)

Being capable of something and doing something are two radically different things, and if someone has a crippling infirmity, well my stance is that I measure society's growth in how it accommodates differences. A society that can support differently abled people is significantly more advanced than one that cannot. A society that regresses from supporting others to caring only for itself is a travesty to its people and it's ideals. Also, has no one grown up around the elderly? Does no one appreciate that even if things are all right for now, if they live to an old age things will definitely not be? The entire 'I'm so strong I can handle it, if you can't you're weak' fails the moment you cross the age curve where you go from being entirely independent to dependent on others for help.

That's what the healthcare system does to a lot of the elderly patients with age-associated mental diseases : put them in nursing homes when the family don't want to help out anymore, and then off them when the nursing homes don't want to take care of patient X anymore.

At least, that's how I've been seeing it in the US.  It's always kinda been a utilitarian society, just not blatantly so.

Wonder what the hell's up with the healthcare in my area, then.

With the new administration cutting everything and everyone for moar dakka, though, I'm not sure about how the conditions in nursing homes will be within the next 4-8 years.

See, but that argument won't apply to Steve, because he's going to kill himself when he's 30.

None of them do, I don't want to start oppressing people who already exist.

Stephen Hawking, Stevie Wonder, Hellen Keller and FDR got the disease in later life, was born premature with some other condition in the hospital, contraced an illness and got Polio, respectively, so none of those work.

Hank Williams Sr, who I've never heard of but quickly googled, seemed to have lived in pain his whole life because of his condition and resorted to drug and alcohol use, so again, not really the best.

Even if they were, I'm not sure what your point would be. I can easily pull up a lot of great people whose parents weren't trying to get pregnant, that's not an argument against condoms.

If we should abort people that are born with disabilities, why not go all the way? Aren't war veterans and stroke victims etc. etc. all burdens on society? How dare they take our welfare! How dare they act weird on the streets! It pains me to see all our tax payer monies wasted on the inferior.

I don't get the difference between someone born with down syndrome and someone who developed alzheimers or someone who bumped their head a little too hard into the pavement. Their quality of life is pretty low. Please explain why we shouldn't 'abort' them too.

Are you pro-life, then? Because I'm quite easily not. I don't consider fetuses people, so it's no loss to abort them. After birth though, they're people, so they shouldn't be killed.

I honestly don't have a position on the matter since Aus doesn't do anything. I guess it depends on your definition of 'people' then, and where the cutoff for abortion should be. Can we abort a baby minutes before it's out of the womb? I'm inclined to believe that they should be considered people. Before this becomes a whole 'nother issue in itself, aren't we aborting them because they would/have the potential to lower their quality of life? Why does being born have anything to do with getting rid of people like that? 

*Just figured out that I'm pro-life while typing this, thanks.

I'd say past birth is a definite point of personhood, but I haven't studied it, so I wouldn't know how late or early into the pregnancy I'd decide on. The reason the principle doesn't continue on into personhood is because I don't killing a person reduces their standard of living, I think people deserve their right to continue living, but I wouldn't consider abortion killing them, I'd consider it preventation of a kid.

I think it would be useful for you to find out wat you consider a person before you settle on such a hardline stance. Or don't, it's just a suggestion.

It's a blurry line, so it's hard to decide on a firm point. The fact that I haven't found the point in no way diminishes my argument. I'd say in the first and second trimesters are definitely pretty safe zones to operate in.

Even in light of this, why shouldn't we abort the disabled? If you believe that they threaten the quality of life so adamantly, to the point where you'd remove the 'potential of a kid', what's stopping us? According to you, "The reason the principle doesn't continue on into personhood is because... I think people deserve their right to continue living..." 

You haven't explained why it is so important to maintain the sanctity of life for these people - seeing that they would weigh down the rest of society like those down syndrome kids. They haven't forsaken their right to continue living, so why is it appropriate to 'discontinue' the life of broken fetuses when they have the misfortune to be missing a chromosome.

I also wanted to ask you, what is this 'quality of life' you're talking about? Is it the disabled person's quality of life? Their family's quality of life? Society's? Point to me an instance of disabled people killing the liveability of an area. If you can, answer my first question.

You mentioned that we could use abortion to "lower the population". That's effective if we kill off an entire generation of people, not just broken fetuses. I'm assuming this isn't a throwaway line but if it is, oh well.

To sum it up, I can't see why we have an obligation to preserve the life of the disabled if we're willing to abort the life of a broken fetus. In the end, aren't they the same thing? I also can't see how doing so would solve our problems, if we have such problems in the first place.

What? Yeah, abort the disabled. That's cool, there's no issue with that. Unless you mean "Kill disabled people", which I'm against, because that's murder. You remove the potential of a kid when you wear a condom, nothing wrong with that. I see abortion as little more than that. 

Fetuses aren't people, and I don't give a shit what happens to them. You're getting really caught up on this, when I presume you're not against condoms. I could easily ask you why you'd support condoms preventing kids you don't want, but not just killing off kids who have already been born to parents who don't want them. The line to me is I don't think it's right to take lives from people, but to prevent them is fine.

Well just personally, I have very close family friends who are forced to give up a large part of their lives to take care of their sister who has down syndrome, which is a heavy financial burden on them as well. I also think the person with down syndrome themselves have a worse, less fulfilled life than if the parents had aborted them and tried again, in which case they'd likely have had a child without down syndrome. I don't see how you can disagree that having a person without down syndrome is preferable to one with it.

Yeah, it'd certainly help. If you're pregnant with a kid you don't want, as many people are, abort it. That'll help lower the population, which is certainly an issue. Again, I don't consider them people.

No, they're not. Far from it. A fetus isn't a person. Once someone is a person, they have certain rights that we should protect, but I don't extend those rights to fetuses. 

I'll ask you this, to try help clarify my position: Do you think it's OK to wear a condom so you don't have a kid you don't want? If so, why is preventing that child from being born not justification to kill kids already born to parents that don't want them?

Welp, this is just going to wind back into the 'are fetuses people?' thingy, which boils down to people disagreeing with each other and nothing happening. I don't see a distinction between preventing the 'potential to have a kid' with killing a kid but whatever. That doesn't extend to me being anti-contraception, because it's obvious that a piece of protein isn't a human being. Whether we can apply that to a fetus or not, will just bring us back to the aforementioned issue. Until either of us brings any substantive other than "I consider this to be _ and not _," we can only agree to disagree. 

On the whole 'lower the population' thing, people are already aborting their children because they don't want them. People probably already abort broken fetuses for all I know. Even though this is our status quo, I don't see our exponential growth being curbed. The only solution I can see to that, is distributing our resources equally (at a global scale). We have enough food to feed around 20 billion people (or some other absurd number since I'm recalling info from a year ago), but 90% of it goes to the top 10% of our population. I'm not sure about other resources. Looking at our current state, I have very low expectations for the future - but remain hopeful for something to happen.

The reason I brought up the whole "why don't we kill the disabled as well" point was to follow through with your logic. If we are aborting broken fetuses because they have the (likely) potential to dramatically lower their family's quality of life, we should also euthanise/kill anyone that brings their family such strife. Obviously what I'm proposing is outlandish, but you haven't explained why they deserve these rights if they are, in the end, 'achieving' what a broken fetus has the potential to 'achieve'. I still haven't heard why one deserves to live and not the other apart from, again, "I don't consider fetuses to be people and therefore they don't have the same rights." This is why I thought it would be useful to find a cutoff point for when a fetus is considered a person, hence me getting "caught up" on the whole issue. I also don't know if you're proposing that it should be mandatory to abort broken fetuses, since that suddenly infringes on the parent's freedom to choose. But then, If it's not mandatory, how will aborting these people even dent our current population growth?

Since we know there's a spectrum to these disorders, we'd also have to find out where you'd establish the cutoff point - that is, unless this is a blanket statement. Is it even possible to discern where on the spectrum you are before birth? If not, the damage is already done isn't it?

Admittedly, I have strayed from the whole 'abort disabled people' to 'abort people' issue, but these topics are so intertwined that we'd probably need to go into both of them to resolve anything.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't think fetuses are people, that's the center of our debate here. You keep bringing it up like abortion is killing people so what's the difference between killing actual people, but I don't think the fetus is a person.

I disagree completely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3709011 That shows some pretty interesting information about population growth and abortion. I don't really know how you can think having less kids is helpful to controlling population.

Again, you're missing the point here. People have rights. Fetuses do not. You've agreed that it's OK to wear a condom to prevent kids you don't want, but that doesn't mean if we follow through with your logic we need to start murdering people we don't want. My logic is that people have rights and need to be taken care of, but fetuses do not, just as yours is that people and fetuses have rights that need to be taken care of, but sperm cells do not. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think the evidence shows it doesn't need to be mandatory, as given the choice the vast majority of people choose to abort. Either way, I don't understand how you don't think that more abortion and thus less birth will have an effect on the population.

I don't think there should be a cut-off point, as such a thing would be ridiculous as each case is unique and should be examined.

Looking at the site you provided, it justifies how reducing the population to 1% is only realistically achievable via abortion. I'm just saying that we currently have the food resources to provide for over twice our current population, and considering the shift to GMOS, this issue comes down to a matter of distribution, not population. It doesn't help that this article was written in 1986 either. Sure, having less kids (via abortion) would bring down our population - but this isn't the only solution. I'd like to know where you found the whole "vast majority of people choose to abort" thing, since I haven't heard of anything like this and the fact that abortion is such a controversial topic indicates there's a sizeable opposition to this notion. Obviously the status quo isn't working anyway since we're talking about this right now.

The logic I went with was made as a comparison point. I wanted to hear why there's a difference between the two other than: one is a person and has rights and one has the potential to become that person but doesn't have rights - which leads back to that mess. Which is why we need to actually find or make a definition of what is a person (god that sounds so dumb). Then we could make some headway there.

You've admitted that it would be ridiculous to establish cut-off points because each case is unique and should be examined. Doesn't that contradict your sentiments on aborting the disabled before they're even born? 

So? How is that a bad thing? It might not solve the issue entirely, but it's a massive step in the right direction. It's not the only solution, but who cares? It's a solution, and you've yet to show any down sides.

I don't care about the potential to become a person. I doubt you do either, as every sperm cell has the potential to fertilize an egg, a position held by the Catholic Church for a long time, if not still.

Ridiculous to establish cut-off points on how disabled gets you aborted, not when. You're misunderstanding what I said.

Biggest point here is considering how we can abort that many people. That article was released thirty one years ago and the global population is a heck of a lot greater now. It doesn't matter if it's done in the US, this needs to be global. Yet, you're admitting that aborting the disabled shouldn't be mandatory. Point is, this solution is just as or more unlikely to be employed. There's your down side. Wouldn't putting our efforts into distribution of food be more beneficial in the long-term? World peace and all that? There's a massive step in the right direction.

Without proposing any actual reasons for why this is/isn't the case, this whole point is moot. Extrapolating our definition of a 'person' to a sperm cell isn't helpful at resolving anything is it? I'm pretty sure you can agree that a fetus is at least in the ball park of being a person, whilst a sperm cell is a protein. There's no comparison there because, unlike a fetus, a sperm cell doesn't think or do anything remotely human (because fetuses do develop minds during the process, this goes back to figuring out what a person actually is etc.etc.). What does it matter if I do or don't care about the potential to become a person? I proposed it to figure out a mere definition of 'a person' (ARGHHHHH).

Can we determine where on the spectrum a fetus is? If we can't, and you admit that we shouldn't establish cut-off points on the spectrum, how can we know who is too 'broken' or defective? The whole 'when do we establish cut-off points for abortions' comes down to, again, defining what a person is (ARGHHHHH).

More unlikely or just as as what? We're already seeing it employed in the UK, US and Iceland where we're aborting disabled kids. The distribution of food isn't going to help lower the population, and even if it did it's not one or the other. You're acting like we have to choose between having abortions or world peace, as if that's in any way a reasonable choice. The fact is that abortion has been shown to have a positive in this, and the fact that there's other things with positives isn't a refutation of that.

No, I don't. You've not shown how fetus is deserving of personhood anymore than a sperm cell. The fact that one's further along than the other isn't an argument. Again, I'm not entirely sure when to endow personhood, but for the purpose of debate I'll say it's around the 25 week mark with the first serious brain activity, but I'm up for debate on if it should be later.

Yeah, there's not a spectrum to down syndrome, and with others we can definitely determine if it's very serious.

Well, I intended to support my point on the alternative solution thing, but I guess it came off as dismissive of the abortion thing. Even so, how are we going to put this abortion thing into countries that aren't the UK, US and Iceland. Linking me to how these countries are fixing their population problem in this way would be helpful.

I can agree to whenever they develop serious brain activity (which is a reason as to why being a fetus at that point is comparable to a person, and a sperm cell isn't).

I'm going to take your word for it.  

How? The same way the UK, US and Iceland started, obviously.

Yeah, a fetus is further along towards personhood than a sperm cell, but that doesn't matter in where you're cutting the line. The point is, you can have aborted the fetus before week 25 because it has down syndrome.

Yeah, alright.

That's why I want to know how. Parts of this program that are tailored to the US won't necessarily work in Africa or China or India would it? Knowing what the differences between these countries and how this program accommodates for these differences is key to actually implementing them successfully.

I don't know, I haven't studied these programs. It seems at this point you're just being pedantic is asking me how the fundamentals of a system of abortion clinics would operate, to which I don't know. We already have abortion in China, though.

Fair enough, thought this was a special program that had more to it other than open abortion clinics. Yeah China has abortion. And? Don't bother answering it's stupid.

You said the US abortion system wouldn't work in China, I was saying it wouldn't need to, China already has abortion.

Which was based off an assumption that this program was more than the current abortion system, since mentioning Iceland, UK and US was rather specific.

Ah, well it is not, it's just Abortion Clinics with screening. Glad that's sorted out.

Alright, so let's say it's first trimester, and a mother is told her baby, if it's even successfully brought to term, will live at most a few weeks due to a horrifying nerve disease that leads to it living out a tiny but miserable existence. The father wants it to be terminated, but the mother wants to let it live and go through that for spiritual reasons. Would you agree with that? Is there no responsibility to not let a child be born into a painful, short and miserable existence?

It's only her legal right in some countries, not mine for instance, but that's not what I asked. Should that be her legal right?

[EDIT]

We grow enough food for 10 billion people. My bad. The whole 10% eating 90% is still a thing though. My point still stands, GMOs will save us. We just need to increase the already exorbitant amounts of food grown with GMOs more and distribute it with common sense. It'll probably never happen anyway, but one can hope.

Food isn't the only issue. Energy is even more important. Plus with the way we're growing, it's not going to stop at 10 billion magically.

I swear if this goes into our use of fossil fuels and renewable energy...

Yeah, we're depleting our use of fossil fuels.

And moving into renewable energy (never mind how inefficient and unwieldy it is right now). We'll figure it out with some crazy technology. Scientists and other people like that are supposed to be smart.

That's an absurd response. "We'll sort out the issue" is just wishful thinking.

I can't predict the future, but I do know that the push for GMOs is contributing to our sustainability in the future. I'm not a scientist or an inventor so I can't propose any actual technology that can be used. 

I was talking about energy, so that's not relevant in the slightest.

Build a shit ton of tidal generator thingys. Forgot the full name. Problem solved. With all the support for renewable energy, it's a safe bet that we'd become more efficient with producing that energy.

No, it's not. The sheer cost of building and maintenance of that would be insane. You're taking an incredibly childish look at the energy crisis.

Emphasis on smart people and efficient. And yeah, tidal thingys won't fix it.

Energy production will probably be more efficient, but it won't be efficient enough to deal with the rapidly growing population, seeing as we already have serious issues today. We already have some of the brightest minds working on this problem, and you pushing it aside and acting like it will just magically disappear is very ignorant.

I have no suggestions on what we can actually do because I'm not one of those people working on this problem. I can only leave it up to them. What's your solution?

Deal with the population so the need for energy is lessened would be a good start, but I don't know, it's a huge issue I can't solve, but I don't act like it will be and we don't need to worry about it.

I have an attitude of apathy towards this whole energy thing because it is, likewise, a huge issue I can't solve. There really is no use worrying about it if I can't provide answers with my current knowledge. Perhaps in the future, who knows.

Well the don't act it's a problem that can be solved or overpopulation isn't an issue.

Overpopulation's an issue. There's some solutions that should be considered to fix it. I'm not saying it isn't an issue.

I don't get the whole 'don't act like it's a problem that can be solved' because it is a problem that can be solved. Now we're talking about hypotheticals.

It might be able to be solved, but your extremely downplays the significance of the issue. Your response to my bringing up overpopulation was "GMOs will save us" and you literally at one point said "Problem solved", which clearly shows you're not taking the seriousness of the issue into account. 

Okay.

Fetuses don't have an inherent right to become a person, so that should only happen if they have parents who are sure they're ready and able to raise a child, and if they've decided that, better to get rid of a defective fetus and try again. It's a really simple system, I'm not even sure on what point you're disagreeing with me.

All fetuses aren't people, and some people are born in less desirable circumstances, which could be avoided. Simple as.

Not entirely sure what your question is, to be honest.

Oh, misunderstood. What else could we possibly do after the disabled? We can hardly tell if the fetuses are going to be idiots who liked Alien: Covenant or anything.

Yeah, the parents should have the choice, I'm not saying we should take it away from them, but I'd advise they get rid of the defective fetuses. Sure you can't calculate everything, but I don't think it's a stretch to say the parent would prefer to have a non-defective child.

Agreed. Most lives are probably more suffering than happiness: think about how much time you spend in mild discomfort compared to happiness and comfort. Without wanting to sound too cynical, it seems people stress more than they laugh, so you could say that we should abort everyone and just top ourselves for maximal quality of life. Hmm... 

How depressing is your life that it's more suffering than happiness and you think all others are?

Please, I'm the only Council Member who's not horribly depressed all the time. I love myself and everything about me.

That doesn't bum me out though, if anything that just makes me more happy to be me.

Haha, yeah that does make me sound really depressed actually! However, I think I'm a pretty happy person generally, I like to keep a positive attitude. You might not believe that, seeing as I do think that life has more suffering than not. Just think about it for a second: there's always stuff you want. The more you get, the more you want (generally this is the case with people): Maslow's pyramid. Even disregarding the majority who live in poverty, it's very often than not that people are slightly more uncomfortable than comfortable: doing a shitty job, being a bit cold, having a painful back. Sure, it doesn't stop making life a blast though.

Maslow's Pyramid has nothing to do with wanting more when you get more.

Isn't that the principle of the pyramid? Might be thinking of something else, I'll check.

EDIT: Sorry, wrong pyramid! Damn it, I can't remember the name of it then

EDITING THE EDIT: Actually, pretty sure it is the right thing! Once you've secured the first level, you crave the next to feel good and so on, until it's unsustainable?

No, Maslow's hierachy of needs is about needs, sure, but nothing about sustainability or anything. The idea is that a human being's most basic needs are the physical ones like food, water, shelther. Once those are secured, we need security and stability. After that, friends and acceptance. Then self-esteem. Finally, you realize your own true potential. Maslow's idea of self-actualisation was an ultimate goal to be reached, not an unsustainable thing.

The reason it's a pyramid is because we can't achieve a level without securing all those beneath them. You don't care for stability when you don't even have food, or look for self-esteem when you don't have security.

Ah, okay, but it backs my point either way: people always crave the next level. There's always wanting for the next thing above what you have, at least in my society it seems. Who knows, maybe it really is common to all human nature.

You're thinking of a pyramid scheme, but with emotions.

It's not really that depressing. The fact of the matter is that real happiness tends to be 90% Perspiration, 10% the other thing that sort of rhymed when Edison said it.

What the hell is "real" happiness?

The kind that makes you feel productive and whose memories provide a decent shot of dopamine when recalled, I suppose.

That seems like a stupid definition. When I'm out on a boat in the sun, I sure as shit don't feel productive.

Yeah, but you have to either work to get the money to be on that boat, or work to get the money to buy and support that boat, as well as keep it clean and maintained in working order, fueled, etc. wait for the right weather and season, know boat safety in either case, etc. etc. There's a lot of productive shit you have to do to be in that boat that you're probably not thinking about when you're in it, but it's there.

Either way, unless you're fighting pirates, fish, or other boats, boats are completely boring and therefore you can never be truly happy in one.

Alright, when I lie on the beach in the sun.

Barring the notion that one can never be truly happy on a shitty Irish Private-Ryan-ass beach anyhow, you had to work for money to get the beach tickets, assuming your beaches are owned by public organizations. Or a towel, if you brought a towel, or drinks, if you brought/bought drinks there. You also have to work afterwards, washing the sand off all your shit, and paying taxes so that street cleaner trucks will pick up the whales and seagulls that wash up there and you don't have to deal with the overpowering stank of dead shit on your beaches.

My beaches are not bought by public tickets, because we're not a shithole place. Plus, the fact I do other things at other times to support my lifestyle doesn't mean true happiness is productive, just that we all work to exist. At this point you're stretching so much everything requires work and thus its not a way to distinguish "true happiness" from anything else.

Yeah, I've poorly worded myself into a corner here, lemme rearrange shit real quick.

There is no happiness without work going into it, and from a sheerly quantitative persepective, people spend more time working for things that make them happy than they do doing things that actually make them happy, unless they have a job they really like, which will cut out a big portion of that work time. But not everybody's lucky enough to be paid to do things that they want to do. Does it mean that working to exist isn't worth it? No. It also doesn't meant that you have to be miserable the other 90% of the time you're working to exist and be happy, though.

I disagree. I enjoy working the vast majority of the time, or school the vast majority of the time, or most things.

I guess that's where you and I differ. I personally find most employment and school abysmal most days, but they support my ability to do things that I actually want to do, so they're great in that regard. I don't feel like my life is depressing just because most of it is shit. Most of everything is shit, but the good parts make up for it.

And yeah, a life where the majority of things are abysmal sounds incredibly depressing to me, going back to my original point.

Yeah, but it's not, so there.

If you say so.

There are few places more amazing than on the deck of a Frances 26 out on the water.

That's a pessimistic outlook. I'd say the happy times outweigh the sad times. Unless you have a really horrible life. More than child soldier levels of horrible.

Yeah, I think you're right. In terms of meaning, I'd say the happy outweighs the sad, too. However, in terms of quantity of pain/suffering/unhappiness against pleasure/happiness, I think there's more of the bad stuff (especially physically) than the good. Focusing on the good is important though, of course:)

Not to get all philosophical here, but what really is the meaning of life.  I think that saying "happiness" as Plato says misses the point of life as a whole.  When writing or reading any story and even our own life stories, I find the cliché saying "the journey is more important than the destination" to ring true.  We are born to grow and to learn not to die.  Sometimes suffering is part of our personal growths.  A little bit of suffering can move a person to be broken down or to grow into their greatest self, but why not give them the chance to learn.  

This is why I am against abortion.  Whether you are a person who sees people as nothing more than a body, a coincidentally grown group of cells that somehow works together on a spinning rock, you too are nothing more than a group of cells that was lucky enough to be here somehow.  Any fetus has just as much right to be alive than you do.  Or maybe you believe in spirit.  This coincides even more with my theory because our spirits should be given the chance to grow in our suffering, especially those who are born into much suffering, because that is the only point of even existing at all.

Now I see your argument forming right now.  Then we should just let people suffer because that will make them grow the most? Well, that is cruel and lacks all compassion.  This is true, we should not turn a blind eye as people suffer, but it is part of our own growth that we realize that others are not so different from ourselves and we develop these traits of compassion and love.

I don't think Plato said that it's happiness. Plato believed in objectivity and the pursuit of knowledge and truth. We aren't really born to grow, or do anything, anyhow. We're born without purpose. You don't really define what you mean by personal growth, so I'm not really sure how to argue against it.

Not really. If you value sentience or consciousness, the most essential trait to humans, then a fetus has no right to live, it's not conscious or sentient, and thus is lacking the traits in humans that make us important.

If all humans lack purpose, then there is no reason for any of us to exist at all.

Yes. Welcome to existence.

That's not an argument against what I said.

I don't want to argue against what you said because it will not benefit either of us.  I will say that I feel like there has to be a purpose though, but it is difficult to find with all the distractions of the world.

Alright, you'd be wrong to think that, there is no meaning. The fact that you don't want that or can't handle it is irrelevant, and unless you have evidence it's just wishful thinking.

"Not to get all philosophical here, but what really is the meaning of life."

What has this thread become.

[EDIT]

I am back to having no particular stance on this issue, since I sympathise for both sides of the argument. If I had to, I'll still side with pro-life as a default.

Well once they get to a certain point they're people, and at that point absolutely need society's full care and assistance, so not exactly agreeing with you there.

... No.

Ever the witty response, Tim. As you're responding to the initial post, I'll presume you're just mad I like gays.

Nah, I just think you're a liar-liar-pants-on-fire guy.

Didn't lie, so that's not accurate.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced that you're a progressive person.

Or left-winged at all, actually.

Why not? I guess depending on your view I might not be progressive, there's some really SJW type people who I'd think take way too far, but none of the things I said I support I don't, and I'm sure as fuck left-wing.

Why did we decide to split this off when I wasn't arguing and had gone to bed?

Figured it would be a nice surprise for you when you woke up.

Honestly, people are bitchier than I thought. I'm pretty sure everyone was pro-choice at the very least when I had that survey question, now no one's pleased.

Edit: Yeah, most people wanted it legalized.

Well yeah, if you can't afford to take care of a child you shouldn't raise them, but if you're a shitty person who doesn't like kids or whatever, like you for instance, don't have kids. If you have genuine concerns for your ability to raise a child, maybe don't.

There's more options, however, than aborting the child. For example, there's adoption such as what happened to Michael Bay and Steve Jobs. Even if the child is not adopted and stuck in an orphanage, he or she could end up like Babe Ruth. There's also giving the child to the grandparents to raise such as Bill Clinton and Eric Clapton, or the child could be raised by other family members (like aunts or uncles) such as John Lennon. Lastly, there is foster care which includes the likes of Marilyn Monroe, Malcolm X, Edgar Allen Poe, and Louis Armstrong.
Yeah, these people were able to live highly influential lives. I believe that other options are applicable if one does not want to or shouldn't raise a child.

They could, but there's already too many kids who need to be cared for and too many people on the planet in general, so better to abort them.

Sure, some influential children were adopted or whatever and would've been lost to abortion, but the same can be said for condoms. I'm sure there's many influential people who wouldn't have been born if their parents had worn a johnny.

Let's abort all the gay fetuses, they're obviously defective from the norm.
 

Sorry Steve, but I have the right-wing side. Not judging you though!

Alright then, new person, that's OK.

So far I like the new guy.

Alright, who the fucking hell are you and what did you do to Steve?

Well that's deep

Wait, has anyone ever asked what's Steve definition of a person?

Well, I'd give personhood between Week 25 and birth, that area. Not entirely sure where, but before Week 25 is definitely not and post-birth definitely is. Unless you meant whether I count someone with Down Syndrome as a person, in which case yes.

Honestly not sure why people made a big deal about this, given that many of them were pro-choice so they don't care about the fetuses, but the thought of targeting fetuses with down syndrome is "bad" all of a sudden.

Guessing that a lot of people are on the fence about "when" is a person a person and since abortion mainly pits the right to life against the freedom of a mother.

Yeah, but people act far more shocked than if I just said I'm pro-Choice, and many were also pro-choice if I recall.

Because it defers the ultimate responsibility to the mother for lack of having a strong opinion either way?

What?

Maybe people are pro-choice so people don't have to say outright that they believe what is ambiguously a person should deserve to live or die.