Bitcoin Forum

In the UK, you can get an abortion for almost any reason in the first 5 months of pregnancy.  Except for 1 reason...if you don't want a little girl, you are not allowed that as a reason for an abortion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103839/Scotland-Yard-launches-investigation-into-doctors-who-agreed-to-illegal-abortions-of-baby-girls.html

Now we have a scandal that doctors are allowing women to don't want girls get abortions.  The health minister says “Carrying out an abortion on the grounds of gender alone is in my view morally repugnant”  Interestingly all religious figures say nothing at all about this - presumably the priests are busy looking at nice new dresses to wear on Sundays.

Let's think about this a second.  If you got to a doctor and say "I am pregnant and do not want a baby" abortion is legal and no-one passes judgement on your morality.  But add the word "girl" to the end of that sentence and you not only are committing a crime, you get government ministers saying its "immoral!"

Does this make any sense at all?

People are all up in arms seeking vigilante justice after watching a kitten tortured on YouTube. They are of course comfortable with eating burgers while doing that. Same phenomenon.

let's not forget that in India in some town lots of very young girls were forced to sexchange operations just because of some fucking traditions where a male child is more desirable than a girl.

This is just fucked up.

As for the future mom that doesn't want a baby GIRL. OK. Abortion aproved. Any posibility to have another child denied. This would be the best punishment

The problem with central governance is that when you equip them with powers, there is no taking it back. I don't like the idea of abortion one bit either, but I wouldn't prefer the other evil. On the other hand, I'm an outspoken critic of abortion, but the sheer number of people around me who took that step makes it a hopeless endeavor. There is no perfect solution I guess...

Yes, because the government doesn't already have enough control over our lives!   ::)

As much as I abhor the fact that people kill little babies who haven't yet been born, I am still unsure whether it is my moral obligation to speak out against it or stop them.  I feel like I am being judgmental of people if I do so.

Then again, the US invaded Germany to stop them from killing people, and no one outside of Germany thought what Germany was doing was right, so maybe it IS appropriate to use force to stop mass genocides.

 ???

Who says population needs to drop? Does earth have a set capacity for our species and if so how would you even start to work that out?
Also a parasite gives nothing to its host and I’m not so sure you can say that for a future human being.
 
Edit: Birth permission..Do our goverments really need anymore power than they have already? Nope didnt think so.

Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.

Such laws are not really about protecting the animal or the fetus, they're mainly about protecting your Right Not To Be Offended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnSByCb8lqY).

The OP gives an interesting dilemma.  My thinking goes like this:  I would have not minded if my mother had decided that it was best for me to not be born.  Hence, I am pro abortion choice.  (I would also not have minded if my parents used contraceptives. Same reasoning.  I am pro contraceptive choice.)

However, aborting just girls upsets the gender balance for the living.  This I would object to had I been a female and my mother used this as the reason for my abortion.  This would be detrimental to society for just selfish reasons.  I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.

+1

Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong.  But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.

Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.

Not equal? Yes, they are different things. So tell me, if you had to choose between being tortured for entertainment (and let's suppose, consequently let go), or being killed, what would your choice be? And what's the kind way of killing someone? EDIT: A better way to put it: By which method would you prefer being killed and how much of a difference does it for you compared to the full worth of your life?

Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.

I can't speak for dayfall, but...

Yes. The difference, to me, is that sex-selective abortion will cause serious social problems like what is happening in China. Not having any children at all (or having them equally) is preferable to contributing to a sex imbalance.

And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?

EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?

Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat.

Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.

I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?

It is equal from the perspective of the animal. Do you really think the animal cares, or understands, why it is suffering?

And if the perspective of the animal is irrelevant, the whole concept of "animal rights" is irrelevant too.

The only difference between cock fighting and battery hens is that one offends HUMAN cultural norms and the other one doesn't.  Cultural norms are subjective.

Objectively, both are cruel.
 

Way to miss the point. I didn't once say killing animals is absolutely bad now, did I? It's all relative (or subjective, one might say).

The question is not that the behavior is not natural, it is your cherry picking of what's natural and what's not. Evidenced by you dismissing my question about the "naturality" of violence within a certain species. You can't have one and leave the other. Typical naturalistic fallacy.


This is a common fallacy with ethical reasoning, and the same kind OP is referring to. It is sick, because you perceive it as sick, and the more people perceive it as sick, the more deviant the behavior will be, and who's more deviant than sick people. Mind you, I really do think that generally sick people torture animals, but I don't identify them as sick because they torture animals, but because in general, only sick people are that deviant. There was a time when torturing animals was a common entertainment, and those people weren't sick little serial killers in the making, they were ordinary people like you and me, looking for fun.

This is kinda like condoning arbitrary killings committed by your national army but criticizing conditions of prisoners of war. Or turning a blind eye to indiscriminate murdering of civilians but get on the high horse when it's considered a "genocide". Or condoning abortion of fetuses for random reasons but intervening when the reason is gender-related.

You're the one not getting it. But I'll give you a second chance. If you're so certain what my viewpoint is, then please clarify it for me so that I know what I'm defending. Please do tell me what I advocate and what I don't advocate. Be precise.

Wow, your erect style is so cool, I'm shivering now. Please let me bite this one. Please find weak spots that are irrelevant to the topic but would still put me in a vulnerable position.

You think that predator-prey relationship is necessary for life on Earth. You think people who torture animals are sick. Your conclusion is, killing of animals can't be wrong (or not an ethical question at all) because it's a natural necessity, but torturing of animals is bad because it is a gateway to antisocial behavior.

Now, it's only fair that you tell me what my objection is. I'm saying this not to appear flaccid, otherwise I don't care. I don't think you can, actually.

Yes, as life has evolved, not as it might have evolved given different conditions billions of years ago. If you disagree, feel free to explain.


Yes. They are either mentally sick, or just plain mean fuckers. Do you disagree?


Incorrect. Killing of animals can be wrong. Consider the mean fucker who kills animals for fun. Is this too difficult for you?

You can remove anything from your own body, even if it's another person.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that you weren't fair. ;)


Nope, I don't disagree at all. Please refer to a description of naturalistic fallacy for my objection. I actually gave a sample question for you to make the distinction.


Nope, I don't disagree at all, and described in detail why I don't. Basically the causality is reverse.


For you, the act of killing itself isn't wrong, but the intention of having fun while doing it is. Actually for you, you don't have to kill the animal at all to be bad/sick/evil/whatever. So my description (or at least intended description) of your point was correct.

To stay on-topic, I think the analogy is perfect. People tend to overlook what they are accustomed to and make ethical judgments based on patterns they are trained to recognize. For our generation, gender-related unfairness stands out. Totally arbitrary when you consider the whole affair.

Although you could assume that it's your right to use violence against an intruder to your dwelling, it's not the same situation when you have invited them as a guest, knowing in advance what they would demand. So yes, there is a case that can be made for unintended pregnancies actually. That's why making laws against abortion is not the right way to go, you can never know if it's intended or not.

On the other hand, I have a friend who has aborted 7 times, all intended, mostly as a means to form a relationship. When the relationships changed color with the potential offspring, she decided to abort. So, I don't think it's clear cut, and in most cases the burden falls on the ones who made the decision in the first place.

If I invite my leech of a brother-in-law to stay in my basement for 2 weeks knowing full well that he'll want to stay there for 9 months, I have the right to evict him, even if he'll die because of it.

You have that right because either the state upholds said law, or, within the context of no state, you have that right because you're confident you can overpower him and keep him out. In the former, you are under the umbrella of laws in which eviction is legal, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether the destruction of a fetus is legal or fair. In the latter, it's pointless to compare them, as it's mostly just a matter of how you personally choose to behave.

That is correct.  If she "spares" the boy for selfish reasons (i.e. her and her son will be better off (defecting) at the expense of the fair mothers (cooperating)) then yes, it is shameful.   Those women are essentially playing a tragedy of the commons or a prisoners dilemma.  The "spare" my boy but not my girl women is making a sucker of the other women.  If everyone was to do the same, then we would be in bad shape. obviously.  Hence the woman is immoral as she can not wish everyone do the same as her.

If it doesn't put the lotion on the skin, whose fault is it for getting the hose again?

This is quite convoluted. The ethical consideration comes down to a simple factor. To make such a decision, we must judge one gender to be less desirable, and that is a statement against all members of that gender; how would you feel about a mother with an unplanned pregnancy who tells you that if the father was white she'd probably have kept it, but because the father was black she's getting an abortion.

It is also viewed as a frivolous abortion; if a mother wants two children, she will be stopping at two; with the gender-selection abortion (when IVF could have achieved the same), she will stop at two desirable children, and abort until she gets there. A genetic disease carrying or malformed embryo who will never have a full or independent life can be selected against by abortion, and this is reasonable to all but the wacky deity fearers; are girls as bad as microcephalic CF kids with their hearts on the outside?

It's pretty ordinary for a woman to prefer to have a baby boy. And if you can abort a baby because you aren't "ready yet", why can't you abort it because it's not what you have dreamed of? Maybe you have a daughter already? Maybe you have daddy issues? Maybe you have always wanted to have a daughter-in-law? Do you have to raise four kids to finally be able to have a son? Seen it happen.

It's true that while androcide is usually associated with wars, femicide is historically done through selection at birth. Now with new ultrasound technology, you can kill them even earlier! Yeah, but I don't really believe that the same reasons apply in the modern day UK. I wouldn't expect it to be dominantly about (dis)respect for a gender even in developing nations. I suspect the bias is formed usually by mere economical reasons, in patriarchal societies in which the greater family lives together, where you'd expect a male to start working at an early age and bring more money than a female.

Also, the maxim doesn't apply very well. If there were more males than females, females would be more valuable. Attitudes between genders tend to differ with varying ratios of male/female through different regions, but that's only my personal experience.

No of cause not.
Hey, it is a law, not intended to make sense (in everybodys eyes), just meant to stick to for those who fall under it.

If this law is crap it shouldn´t be too difficult to change it, we talking about UK here. They are changing laws for centuries over there, so very experienced on that topic.

Playing YOUR ROLE?  Wow, just wow.

How is defecting rational?  Geez, remind me not to send you any Bitcoins for goods or trust you at all for that matter.  BTW, should I defect against you?  Would that be rational of me?

In general, I would say it is her choice of what color baby to have.  However, these willy-nilly abortions would likely end up causing bad social problems if taken to far.

What if she uses a condom on a black guy but not a white one?  I see no difference.  I would want a child my own color, but not because the others are less "valuable".

In any case, I think you are wrong.  There could be valid reasons to value one gendered children higher.  I doubt the OP's scenario had such a justified female.  Only a selfish one.

It's rational for an individual, assuming they are acting out of self-interest.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/rationalselfinterest.html

If you don't have a reason to trust someone, DON'T send them Bitcoins! Either send to people/businesses with a reputation to protect, or use an escrow who has a reputation to protect.

Or we could just not cheat each other.  But, ok if that is the world you want, that is the world you will get.

So let me get this clear, in the tragedy of the commons it is rational for the farmer to add one more cow than his share assuming no repercussions from the other farmers?  And you are proud to be this type of rational.  And in a situation where there are no repercussions it is rational to steal and cheat?

"the economist's notion that people act “rationally” merely implies that people try to act in ways consistent with their own objectives"

And you say you are proud to be rational?  How do you get pride from this?  Do you tell people you meet "I am proud to act in ways that are consistent with my objectives."  Well, if this is how you justify any selfish actions as moral (what I was talking about) then so be it.  But I don't think you are being rational.  When you said "rational" I thought you meant something different having to do with consistent judgement for actions, non-arrogance, and general philosophy.

I was arguing yesterday whether a businessman or humanist would make the best president.  I think I'll know after you answer my first question.

Yes, this would be rational. I don't see it as something to be proud of, since it's not much of an accomplishment. We should create social pressures to discourage such behaviors, so that rational people act in accordance with the common good. It's irrational to steal and cheat if everyone will hate you for it.


I'm not clear as to why pride should decide my actions, as opposed to what promotes all my values including pride. I'm merely saying that any solution to this problem needs to correct the incentives of selfish individuals so that they promote the welfare of others. Morality is more complex than just cooperating in every prisoner's dilemma. Sometimes defecting even helps pressure a fix for a broken system.

I am NOT claiming that all rational actions are moral, or vice-versa. In fact, I completely agree with you regarding the morality of sex-selective abortion. The fact that the moral action is not the rational action IS the problem.

It is only a problem to you, because I think moral actions are rational actions. 

Unless you wish your opponent to defect against you, yes, morality is as simple as cooperating in the prisoners dilemma.  Fixing the dilemma so that even a sane but immoral person chooses the moral option is the best solution for the real world.  I agree.  But if your goal is to fix a broken system then I don't think you are playing the same game because your end goal is to create a system so that not even yourself can cheat and profit.  This would be irrational according to that economist.  The "rational" fix is to make the system so that you can defect and profit but the majority of others cannot sanely do so.

I have never heard anyone rationalize theft that simply increases your wealth.  If you rationalize any theft then I bet that theft is actually moral.

Are you saying it's rational to cooperate in a prisoner's dilemma? Are you universally applying superrationality?

I can certainly imagine situations where I would rather someone defects, even against me. For example, we want Bitcoin miners to defect against one another, not conspire to keep profits high! If I can do more good overall by defecting against you I'll do it, and I hope that you would adopt a similar policy. Wouldn't you betray me to cure cancer?

Two questions that must be addressed before talking about the morality of abortion:

1)  Who decides what is right and what is wrong?
2)  How do you know if the decision maker is correct?

I would say that anybody can decide what is right and what is wrong.  The 2nd question is a whole different ball game.

I must say though, I think the Golden Rule is a WONDERFUL ethical principle.  It is Universal (distributes to everyone) at the same time that it takes into account individual circumstance and/or perspective.

For tough ethical questions like these, I follow the Golden Rule.  To me, it seems as if the Golden Rule is the most comprehensive ethical model around.

Isnt' that avoiding the question? 

Let me remind you of it: if its morally OK for a woman to have an abortion that kills any unborn thingy inside her, how can it be immoral for her to have an abortion that only kills female unborn thingies.

The golden rule says you are allowed to intervene to stop someone doing something wrong.  My question was how can abortion on demand be OK if abortion to select a sex is wrong?

I sort-of avoided the question because my previous post implies the possibility of simultaneous right/wrong states according to the Golden Rule.  Two people can abide by the Golden Rule and reach entirely different conclusions.  I think it's entirely possible that someone can think it's OK for a woman to have any abortion, but think that it's not OK for a woman to have an abortion given that she knows the fetus is female, and be completely right about it.  

I personally don't hold that view   :D

If the expected consequences from one rule are good, and the expected consequences from another rule are bad.

Yes, I do say so.  I can certainly rationalize it.   It is not superrationality but maximizing the overall good.  Aborting the female child does not do this.  The woman is irrational to conclude she should have the extra male at the detriment to society.

I would prefer us miners dropped the difficulty to a level high enough to just secure the network.  It is a waste (al la tragedy of the commons) for anyone to mine higher.  Please explain why you want up to keep difficulty higher than required for network security.  (keeping difficulty high for security sake is not defecting)

Well, it isn't exactly betraying you if you just said you wanted me to do it.  And in the scenario you mean ("more good overall"), we could talk it over and someone agree to be the "sucker".  For instance the defector can split the profits fairly amongst the cooperators. 

Why? It's precisely your norms of society that postulate this. How can you assert that your metrics are universal?

Besides, it's cherry picking, since conflicting norms can be discovered for other reasons of abortion. What makes this stand out?


Precisely. But I don't think the gist of Hawker's point depends on the golden rule, but on consistency in ethical reasoning.


I partially agree, but I think some issues are conflated here. We want them to defect against one another, because the system is built upon a descriptive reality that they would do so. If they don't, the system wouldn't work efficiently. So it's specific to the technical context. In a grander context, we would prefer the miners to keep mining even if it's unprofitable, since it would help the network. This won't work of course, but it's still desirable.

I'd like to defend dayfall here, because I agree that acting towards an enlightened self-intrest is rational, mostly because of transcendental issues. Not overreaching towards something above your life does not make much sense, and you are not doing it anyway. Even if you are a reptilian bastard, what you call immediate self-interest would still serve something greater than your life, be it continuation of your genes, or your attitude itself. So, while you're at it, why not work towards creating a more coherent perspective? The reason I don't agree with dayfall is, that this resulting perspective does not need to conform with his/her particular world view.

I'm not certain I understand so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting:
An enlightened self-interest is one that values abstracts like not defecting more highly than specifics like familial success. So if your goal is to maximize utility on a situation-by-situation basis, then defecting is always irrational.
Yes?

No, I don't agree with that. Hmm, actually after reading the history of the debate, I think I mostly agree with you. I thought you said defecting is always rational. I'm merely saying that it depends on whether there is a greater good attained by not defecting. Good here of course is what you deem to be good (maximizing utility could come into play here depending on your ethical preferences). For instance "not betraying" can by itself be a moral for you, and you might value it higher than your life, it's perfectly rational. So, in essence, surviving doesn't happen if what survives isn't you.

It is not because it's my "norm", I was assuming a disproportionate ratio would be harmful.  If you think it would cause a better society then advocate it.  If my premise is faulty then this case would no longer stand out. 

If it is rational to believe having 10 males to 1 female is best, then they need a lottery or some such.  This would invalidate my argument because the woman would no longer be defecting; she would actually be helping herself and her society.  However, it is likely that this belief is not actually rational.

My point is, what's a better society is not an objective judgment. It depends on what you think is good, what your ideal society is. I'm sure we'd agree on this or that superficially, but without us agreeing on fundamental values, there's no point in discussing actions. As an extreme example, if I believe that ultimate elimination of sexes from the human species would be a good thing, where would we start debating? Certainly on the desired results, and whether they themselves are good according to our respective values. Ordinary examples are a lot more subtle and convoluted though...


Two things here. First, even if we shared the same goals, we still wouldn't know what's best, we don't have the science. Second, we don't share the same goals.

We could judge if the abortion is justified in case by case basis, but there are many leaps one needs to take in order to accept that these cases are "less" justified than other elective abortion cases.