3 ms·

> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reas

> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. > genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics It may make populations less susceptible to disease. It's extremely unlikely that homogenisation of genes would lead to increased resistance to epidemics. > I'm actually dead serious. That's what's most frightening.

Nasrudith 8y ago
It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  You're still confusing disease and epidemics.
zeroname 8y ago
> It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. ...which is a contradiction! Legislation like that arises through conflicting requirements coming from different directions. So, if you want to fire someone based on their race, you must not disclose it, but you can still do it. It obviously doesn't make sense, it just happens to be the law. I'm not talking about the law anyway, I'm talking about ethics. Really the argument I am making is that maybe abortion for any reason isn't ethically defensible, but if it is, then all kinds of other things become defensible on that platform.
dkersten 8y ago
> It does not follow. But in many places with legal abortions, you are allowed to abort because you don't want it.

Nasrudith 8y ago

It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
You're still confusing disease and epidemics.

zeroname 8y ago

> It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. ...which is a contradiction! Legislation like that arises through conflicting requirements coming from different directions. So, if you want to fire someone based on their race, you must not disclose it, but you can still do it. It obviously doesn't make sense, it just happens to be the law. I'm not talking about the law anyway, I'm talking about ethics. Really the argument I am making is that maybe abortion for any reason isn't ethically defensible, but if it is, then all kinds of other things become defensible on that platform.

dkersten 8y ago

> It does not follow. But in many places with legal abortions, you are allowed to abort because you don't want it.