8 ms·

> I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born By the same token, wouldn't it b

> I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born By the same token, wouldn't it be unethical to not have as many kids as possible all the time? After all, those kids will be glad that they were born.

malfist 4y ago
Let's take it a step further. Shouldn't women be broodmares for the state, producing as many children as possible since all those kids will be glad that they were born. Their sacrifice during their childbearing years is worth it for the utilitarian benefit of more happy children. This is obviously not a serious suggestion, just calling into question the right of unborn children to have claims of an adult (or sometimes non-adult) woman.
Grustaf 4y ago
Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. That said, there are plenty of people that would agree with the idea that we should have as many babies as we can. Utilitarians for example, and many traditional Christians.
- malfist 4y ago
  > Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. I don't think anyone is advocating killing children. Aborting a fetus, sure, but a fetus isn't a child any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    Ah you got me. If we call it a foetus then killing it clearly has no moral implications. Naming makes all the difference.
    - malfist 4y ago
      Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?
      - Grustaf 4y ago
        Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants. Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when you harvest them. But almost nobody thinks that is an issue, since they are not even sentient.
        malfist 4y ago
        So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted. Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.
        Grustaf 4y ago
        > So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying your analogies are idiotic, since acorns don't correspond to foetuses - almost no acorns end up as trees. > Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. It was your analogy, not mine. If potatoes are only harvested when dead, how could eating them possibly be murder? Getting back to the actual question, I don't think a baby is more alive or more human because it has left the womb, or because you've cut the umbilical cord. If someone stabs a pregnant woman in the belly so that her foetus dies, but she survives, would you agree that he has killed her baby, or has he only harmed her?
hellojesus 4y ago
There is a difference between a conceived person and an unconceived one. We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. An unconceived person doesn't exist at all, so there is no moral/ethical issue in not conceiving them. The exception maybe is biology, but there is still an upper limit to personal resources which one wouldn't want to exhaust due to the impact on their other (if any) children 's quality of life.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. A clump of cells doesn't have enough coherence to have a preference. In fact, babies don't have the kind of brain development necessary to comprehend this question, let alone form a preference until years after being born.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences. Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

malfist 4y ago

Let's take it a step further. Shouldn't women be broodmares for the state, producing as many children as possible since all those kids will be glad that they were born. Their sacrifice during their childbearing years is worth it for the utilitarian benefit of more happy children. This is obviously not a serious suggestion, just calling into question the right of unborn children to have claims of an adult (or sometimes non-adult) woman.

Grustaf 4y ago

Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. That said, there are plenty of people that would agree with the idea that we should have as many babies as we can. Utilitarians for example, and many traditional Christians.

malfist 4y ago
> Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. I don't think anyone is advocating killing children. Aborting a fetus, sure, but a fetus isn't a child any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  Ah you got me. If we call it a foetus then killing it clearly has no moral implications. Naming makes all the difference.
  - malfist 4y ago
    Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?
    - Grustaf 4y ago
      Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants. Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when you harvest them. But almost nobody thinks that is an issue, since they are not even sentient.
      - malfist 4y ago
        So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted. Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.
        Grustaf 4y ago
        > So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying your analogies are idiotic, since acorns don't correspond to foetuses - almost no acorns end up as trees. > Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. It was your analogy, not mine. If potatoes are only harvested when dead, how could eating them possibly be murder? Getting back to the actual question, I don't think a baby is more alive or more human because it has left the womb, or because you've cut the umbilical cord. If someone stabs a pregnant woman in the belly so that her foetus dies, but she survives, would you agree that he has killed her baby, or has he only harmed her?

hellojesus 4y ago

There is a difference between a conceived person and an unconceived one. We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. An unconceived person doesn't exist at all, so there is no moral/ethical issue in not conceiving them. The exception maybe is biology, but there is still an upper limit to personal resources which one wouldn't want to exhaust due to the impact on their other (if any) children 's quality of life.

falcolas 4y ago
> We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. A clump of cells doesn't have enough coherence to have a preference. In fact, babies don't have the kind of brain development necessary to comprehend this question, let alone form a preference until years after being born.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences. Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]