Kudos @malinay. “Life” is a bullshit word. Semen is also alive, are they going to make flushing a load in some toilet paper illegal? Or make it a crime to have a period because every egg is alive and your uterine lining is alive? The 90yo with the failing heart and kidneys is alive and so is the 20yo with the crushed skull who will likely never wake up again... so do you have to pay $4k+ a day to keep them on a machine because they’re “alive” too? Even vegans eat plants that are “alive” and bugs and microorganisms that are “alive.” Try- “sentient” “autonomous,” a bunch f other words that mean more than “alive.” If something doesn’t meet that burden then being alive or not isn’t the primary concern is it?
This seems to be more of another potatoes to carrots comparison than a potatoes to potatoes.
While yes there is a similarity of sorts between that of a terminally ill person and that of an unborn child; it becomes less so when talking about outcome. The outcome for that of a terminally ill person is generally a slim to none chance of life. Though in the case of an unborn child generally they have a decent shot at living. Though we can argue against that stating that an unborn child is just that unborn and it's quality of life is in imaginary variable that can't be stated. If we argue that then we must ask "well what constitutes a high enough quality of life in order for that child to 'be worthy' of living"? At that point we could easily see having children being reserved for the elite of society. This, yes, would probably solve the issue of overpopulation but would easily and inevitably lead to a distinct lack thereof...
If we follow that line of thought we could easily see the "keys of life" being handed over to the government. As they would more than likely be the ones to dictate who should be allowed to bear children. That to me would be a fairly scary thought.
That would definitely be a scary thought, guest. I think everyone can agree with you there. I would venture that a lot would need to happen for the government to have total control over whom can procreate and whom cannot.
,
Philosophically, you touch on a decision-making process to decide if someone is worthy of life. I'm interested to know what you think: should this be decided a case by case basis, or should the government should decide all of the cases at once with a law?
I don't think either of those solutions would work out well in the long run.
Let's start with the case by case scenario. Naturally one of the largest obstacles in this suggestion would be fairness. What is fair? If we qualify a life in a case by case scenario we will without a doubt do things that aren't considered fair. We would have to consider parameters what groups/cultures/ethnicities/religions have to have at least this weight/size/brain activity/hair color/etc and will they pass on these hereditary detriments. If we do this case by case naturally given that we are humans there will always be a certain level of bias present. There are too many variables that would have to be overseen. It would be incredibly costly unless we have an AI of sorts to cross reference all the necessary requirements and to adjust for any margins of error. This would basically leave all the lives that are borderline worthy in a lottery system.
Welcome to funsubstance!
,
Just so I have it straight, you are proposing that we code an algorithm that decides when abortion is an option and not illegal; and exceptions will be programmed in to the algorithm to decide borderline cases in a random manner?
@bluefrost51- welcome to FunSubstance. We can book the odds of a “reasonable quality of life” for fetus vs whatever- but here’s the question that raises: Are we then saying that the definition of wether murder is a crime is based on the statistical probability of what will most likely happen in the future? So I can pull the plug on a vegetable with a low chance but not a fetus with a high chance based on what it might likely become... so then- can I execute a person who has a high chance of becoming a murderer? Imprison those statistically likely to become criminals?
Do we judge a thing on what it is or what it may be? If I steal your laptop, erase it, and sell it, do you owe you the replacement cost of the laptop, or do I owe you $75million your awesome screen play that only existed on the laptop would have made you if I hadn’t stollen your laptop? So the odds are something to be considered by the person making the decision, not in the right to make it.
The algorithm or literary system etc has theoretical potential but is rife with peril, that I won’t comment on though because you haven’t had the chance to explain your idea so you may have it figured out or be speaking pure theory.
@jasonmon @guest_
Thank you all for the warm welcomes.
Yes, in order to remove human bias from a decision making process to decide the life of an unborn child. (I am only taking this stance in the hypothetical as I am a Christian and am against abortions generally speaking) But I don't believe in programming it to assess borderline cases in a random manner. I am only saying that they would appear random in that specific section of decision making. In other cases where it is highly likely or unlikely for the child to live it would be more easily understood. Most of what I speak is purely theory.
That second question is a very interesting one. I will have to think more on that question as right now I don't know the answer or the theory to support and answer.
I can understand the sentiment. I don’t believe in cheating, recreational drug use, driving vehicles that are not appropriate for the majority of a persons skill or use case but are wasteful and dangerous, Piercings, Tattoos, Veganism, “gluten free,” and any number of other things. I generally abstain from these things because of it. However- I do not necessarily begrudge others for it, and certainly wouldn’t seek to remove their ability to do these things as suits them. Their beliefs may be very different from my own. In my view it is no more right for me to forbid others from doing these things than it would be for them to force me to follow them.
An “algorithm” which decides who can and cannot be born- what if it did in fact prevent many abortions- but it also could legally force a person to have an abortion? If it prevented 1,000 people who wanted to abort from doing so, but forced 100 people who believe abortion is wrong to have to abort- would it be worth it or just? If it instead used some hypothetical technology to simply “license” conception negating the abortion part- how do we stop people from circumventing that? And if they do- what are the consequences? Do we take a child from the parents and punish the parents? That still likely effects the child- so do we punish the child for being born? That doesn’t seem much better philosophically. If we don’t punish anyone- then why would anyone bother to follow the rules?
When we dig down deep it all falls apart. Abortions were a thing long before they were legal, and without doctors or even a friend with a long wire- chemical means such as poisons and medicines used since antiquity, drinking alcohol or physical exertion or harm have all been used to induce miscarriage, and where they do not have higher risks of birthing a baby with defects- and in both cases are far more dangerous to the mother.
I sure as heck don’t approve of heroine abuse. However methadone clinics work and are a kindness. Most religion doesn’t support heroine use either- but if a person cannot be cured or refuses to quit- what’s a more likely scenario for Jesus- that he’d shun those people to die alone of overdose, disease, and infection, or that he’d open methadone clinics so that they could be safer and could have access to resources and people who could listen and if not help them quit- at least help them lead productive and otherwise good lives?
But here is the root of the issue- there are more than 600 laws of Moses in the Old Testament. Many are superceeded, revoked, and many more added in the New Testament. There is not 1 passage anywhere in the Bible which specifically deals with abortion. What is in the Bible? Well- "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
It goes on to note that if the woman herself is killed- that the man shall be put to death. What we are reading basically says that if a man hurts a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry a fetus, that it is simply assault. If he kills the adult woman- it is murder. Clear as day- the death of the fetus here is not murder and isn’t punished as murder- but with a fine as though it were assault- and only assault specifically in the case where the man is trying to hurt the woman herself. Pretty strong precedent there. Of course- the Bible also says “that shalt not kill.” Well...
Strictly speaking it’s “murder,” not “kill.” The Bible often speaks of killing, killings are often righteous, or even demanded as an act of the pious. The Bible speaks of the killing of children. The first born of Egypt, the 42 kids who mocked a prophet, etc etc. but even if we were to classify abortion as murder despite the precedent in the Bible that a fetus is not “murdered” if it was never birthed, we still must ask of a fetus is counted as a living human.
Precedent again leans biblically towards the drawing of breath- not the presence of a heart beat or merely existing as a formation of cells. There is again- no reference specifically to the status of a fetus asides the aforementioned passage stating that a fetus isn’t murdered in a forced miscarriage, and what we can infer from other sources.
But- what does it matter to an individuals beliefs? Realistically 5 different people can walk away from the same Bible passage with 5 different impressions what it means. Beyond the abrahamic faiths largely with the same god and many shared narratives but often radically different views of what those things mean- there are thousands plus sects of each which all think they are following god right and no one else is, and then down to individuals who believe what they believe. No living person I’ve ever met follows the Bible with complete reliability 100% as written, every passage and rule to perfect adherence without interpretation or justification of why they feel certain things don’t have to be followed.
We project our own beliefs into our religions as much as religions project their philosophy into us, and even those with no religion do the same secularly. So we believe what we believe- and if you believe abortion is wrong- you do. I wouldn’t want to have an abortion. But- I’ve never been in a position (and as a male likely wouldn’t) where I’d have to worry about what I’d actually do. Faith is more than faith in a higher power or ideas. We have to have faith in our fellow humans as well. I have to have faith that if someone decides to get an abortion- that they have considered and delegates and consulted, and for them and their circumstances they are making the what they believe to be the best decision they know how to.
And that’s key. That we give people the decision. If God wanted to- humans could have been perfect, never sinned, never disobedient, never wrong or wicked. God could blink and Satan would never have existed. Yet- here we are. We were given a choice and we made that choice. So if even God all powerful would give us the choice to do things not approved of- who are we to take that choice from another human being? Who are we to say that we know better than God what god wants and plans for each one of us? If abortion is wrong in the eyes of God- then those who participate will have to have that reckoning someday.
The New Testament way- the Jesus way, is one of love. Is one of understanding and an olive branch. One can speak against abortion, one can offer people options and council and try to change their minds- but one cannot force it. Even God didn’t force it. God who could turn the whole of Egypt from idolaters and slavers to “perfect Christians” did not- it was not in the plan. God who could have simply made the hearts of the people love and worship and follow, could make the gospel an overpowering natural instinct we couldn’t ignore- did not.
God the all wise and all powerful says that you must choose to be with God and follow God and those who make that choice will be rewarded. But it is a choice. So Christians and the like may be compelled by conscience and duty to show the love and welcoming of their gods, to open their arms and try to show people what they believe is the way- but not only is it a secular humanitarian and philosophical nightmare, but antithetical to religion itself to try and force people down a path they do not choose to walk. We cant “help” god and it is blaspheme to think we can. Likewise- a secular nation can’t be ran on religious dogma. The people must all choose for themselves- and those who cannot morally oblige that- the precedent is to start ones own nation in dedication to God where the rule of God is law.
While yes there is a similarity of sorts between that of a terminally ill person and that of an unborn child; it becomes less so when talking about outcome. The outcome for that of a terminally ill person is generally a slim to none chance of life. Though in the case of an unborn child generally they have a decent shot at living. Though we can argue against that stating that an unborn child is just that unborn and it's quality of life is in imaginary variable that can't be stated. If we argue that then we must ask "well what constitutes a high enough quality of life in order for that child to 'be worthy' of living"? At that point we could easily see having children being reserved for the elite of society. This, yes, would probably solve the issue of overpopulation but would easily and inevitably lead to a distinct lack thereof...
,
Philosophically, you touch on a decision-making process to decide if someone is worthy of life. I'm interested to know what you think: should this be decided a case by case basis, or should the government should decide all of the cases at once with a law?
Let's start with the case by case scenario. Naturally one of the largest obstacles in this suggestion would be fairness. What is fair? If we qualify a life in a case by case scenario we will without a doubt do things that aren't considered fair. We would have to consider parameters what groups/cultures/ethnicities/religions have to have at least this weight/size/brain activity/hair color/etc and will they pass on these hereditary detriments. If we do this case by case naturally given that we are humans there will always be a certain level of bias present. There are too many variables that would have to be overseen. It would be incredibly costly unless we have an AI of sorts to cross reference all the necessary requirements and to adjust for any margins of error. This would basically leave all the lives that are borderline worthy in a lottery system.
,
Just so I have it straight, you are proposing that we code an algorithm that decides when abortion is an option and not illegal; and exceptions will be programmed in to the algorithm to decide borderline cases in a random manner?
@guest_
Thank you all for the warm welcomes.
Yes, in order to remove human bias from a decision making process to decide the life of an unborn child. (I am only taking this stance in the hypothetical as I am a Christian and am against abortions generally speaking) But I don't believe in programming it to assess borderline cases in a random manner. I am only saying that they would appear random in that specific section of decision making. In other cases where it is highly likely or unlikely for the child to live it would be more easily understood. Most of what I speak is purely theory.