ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: There are actually non-collapse interpretations, which I in my layman's way tend to lean towards due to the problem of defining an "observer", but they're all weird in their own ways.
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
Emy wrote:
Quote:
reality is just waves of probability which change when we look at them

I thought they collapsed, rather than changed?

The wavefunction collapse being a type of change. Hint: I was trying to emphasize the "weird" qualities of the Copenhagen interpretation. Don't go reminding people how mathematically well-defined it all is and ruin my fun :P


EDIT: Well, damn- page'd. I'm not trying to derail the thread, honest!

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:35 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
To take it back on topic:

I think it would be much handier to be willing to call a spade a spade: Something that is carrying a distinct 46 human chromosomes is human, something that isnt, is not. To come at it from any other approach is less than scientific.

Does this mean we can never have ethical abortions? Absolutely not. The law of the land is utilitarianism. Eskimo ethics allow for the abandonment of people in favor of survival. Most ethical systems allow for abortion in cases where both the mother and the child would not likely survive birthing.

Incidentally, most ethical systems also allow capital punishment, which is the removal of an individual from existence for utilitarian reasons.

The question you really have to ask yourself is "What is REALLY the value of a human life?" For extra credit, ask yourself "What is REALLY the value of ANY life, and is that value affected by how similar the organism is to me?"

I have no problem with abortion per se because I have no problem with discriminating utilitarian killing, per se.

The next, and deeper, question is abortion on the justification of a life not worth living. Would this baby grow up to be poor, enter a life of crime, and eventually be put to death by society or the state further down the road? Is this a life not worth living? Now we get tricky. Consider children who will never be independent due to physical or mental limitations. Can we justify aborting them solely on these grounds?

I say yes, you are free to disagree with me point by point.

What if these things develop later? A child at the age of 4 is found to have permanent, unalterable brain defects, and will almost suredly degenerate until they are completely incapable of automatic motion, personal decision making, etc. Can we put this child out of his misery now? If you answered yes earlier and no now, youre going to have to come up with something a lot more convincing than the fact that the other kid was still in somebody's belly and this one is not.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:39 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
CinderyRabbit wrote:
The law of the land is utilitarianism.


The law of which land, hm? The law of Saudi Arabia is the Shari'a. The law of France is the Code Napoleon. The law of Britain is the thousand-year collection of parliamentary acts and judicial procedures which comprise the "unwritten constitution". None of those laws is particularly utilitarian: the Shari'a was built upon a combination of the Qu'ran and truly ancient north African Arabic traditions, the Code Napoleon was based upon Roman law and French Enlightenment ethical theory, and British jurisprudence is ... extremely complicated. Oh, but you're an American, Australian or Canadian? Sorry, you're stuck with British law, anyway. Aha, you're a German or Russian? Code Napoleon again.

Or -- do you mean that the law should be utilitarian? If so, I would direct you to another topic elsewhere on this forum server. Utilitarian ethics are filthy -- just ask the citizens of Nagasaki what they think of Harry S. Truman's utilitarian decision-making.

Tamayo, who ought to know better than to post here :-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:33 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Tamayo wrote:
CinderyRabbit wrote:
The law of the land is utilitarianism.


The law of which land, hm? The law of Saudi Arabia is the Shari'a. The law of France is the Code Napoleon. The law of Britain is the thousand-year collection of parliamentary acts and judicial procedures which comprise the "unwritten constitution". None of those laws is particularly utilitarian: the Shari'a was built upon a combination of the Qu'ran and truly ancient north African Arabic traditions, the Code Napoleon was based upon Roman law and French Enlightenment ethical theory, and British jurisprudence is ... extremely complicated. Oh, but you're an American, Australian or Canadian? Sorry, you're stuck with British law, anyway. Aha, you're a German or Russian? Code Napoleon again.

Or -- do you mean that the law should be utilitarian? If so, I would direct you to another topic elsewhere on this forum server. Utilitarian ethics are filthy -- just ask the citizens of Nagasaki what they think of Harry S. Truman's utilitarian decision-making.

Tamayo, who ought to know better than to post here :-(

I'd say that was more "law of the land" as in law of people/universal law rather than "law of the land" as law of a specific *nation*.

...

And maybe "law of the land is utilitarianism" as meaning utilitarianism is the basis upon which all people make decisions and so forth. Which, last I heard and likely totally irrelevant, got replaced with rational expectations. Hopefully everyone'll soon give up on assuming that humanity is rational.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:00 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
Vass is right. All social law eventually comes down to that which allows (or at least that which is believed to allow) the most survival for a culture.

Thank you for clarifying.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:17 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
CinderyRabbit wrote:
I think it would be much handier to be willing to call a spade a spade: Something that is carrying a distinct 46 human chromosomes is human, something that isnt, is not. To come at it from any other approach is less than scientific.
The debate isn't really what's human on not, but what's alive or not. I don't think that very many abortions are because the child wouldn't have a "life worth living," but more because that the mother (and perhaps family) aren't in a position to offer that child a life that is as good as it can possibly be.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
arwing wrote:
very many abortions are because the child wouldn't have a "life worth living," but more because that the mother (and perhaps family) aren't in a position to offer that child a life that is as good as it can possibly be.


Really? The gals that have had them done at my college were because of irresponsible sexual practices. I fear that more abortions are being undertaken due to improper planning and risk assessment rather than rape or sexual assault. I have no problem with choice, but if that choice becomes an out for irresponsibility then I can no longer support it.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:16 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
Marjin wrote:
arwing wrote:
very many abortions are because the child wouldn't have a "life worth living," but more because that the mother (and perhaps family) aren't in a position to offer that child a life that is as good as it can possibly be.


Really? The gals that have had them done at my college were because of irresponsible sexual practices. I fear that more abortions are being undertaken due to improper planning and risk assessment rather than rape or sexual assault. I have no problem with choice, but if that choice becomes an out for irresponsibility then I can no longer support it.
This is probably the case most of the time but the reason I stated still applies.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:45 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
arwing wrote:
CinderyRabbit wrote:
I think it would be much handier to be willing to call a spade a spade: Something that is carrying a distinct 46 human chromosomes is human, something that isnt, is not. To come at it from any other approach is less than scientific.
The debate isn't really what's human on not, but what's alive or not. I don't think that very many abortions are because the child wouldn't have a "life worth living," but more because that the mother (and perhaps family) aren't in a position to offer that child a life that is as good as it can possibly be.


What you have just described is the "life not worth living" argument

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:47 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
CinderyRabbit wrote:
arwing wrote:
CinderyRabbit wrote:
I think it would be much handier to be willing to call a spade a spade: Something that is carrying a distinct 46 human chromosomes is human, something that isnt, is not. To come at it from any other approach is less than scientific.
The debate isn't really what's human on not, but what's alive or not. I don't think that very many abortions are because the child wouldn't have a "life worth living," but more because that the mother (and perhaps family) aren't in a position to offer that child a life that is as good as it can possibly be.


What you have just described is the "life not worth living" argument
Aborting a pregnancy because a family is not in a position to support the potential child as well as they'd like is different from aborting a pregnancy out of mercy for the potential child because it's life would not be worth living.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:44 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
Its actually all the same argument.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
Obviously the end result is the same, but I'm saying that if the child will have a "life worth living" is not always a considderation. This is because the embryo is not necessicarily alive at the point of abortion and therefore whether or not it will have "life worth living" is not really an issue. The real debate is over when an embryo becomes "alive," not when it is human. We don't treat every chunck of cells with our particular 46 chromosomes the same. If we did, we'd have to hold a funeral every time we skinned our knees. You're saying that all abortions besides those for the health of the mother and those due to deformities of the child are because the child might "grow up to be poor, enter a life of crime, and eventually be put to death by society or the state further down the road." I'm saying this is simply never the case. I think that most abortions are justified by rationale similar to "I'll probably be able to provide for my child better if I were to finish college rather than have to drop out to take care of him." This is why most propogandists call it "The right to choose" rather than "The right to euthanise."

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:21 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
I'm giving you a textbook definition. Its not a debateable point. Its a fact. Whether its retardation or a life of poverty its still a question of 'life worth living'

And by biological definition a new entity is created during conception. The question is whether or not it gets the rights accorded to babies.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:05 pm 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Any life is better than no life at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
Tamayo wrote:
just ask the citizens of Nagasaki what they think of Harry S. Truman's utilitarian decision-making.


Considering our other option, I think Utilitarism worked.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
nick012000 wrote:
Any life is better than no life at all.
This was kinda what I've been trying to allude to but not say outright just to be clear what side of the issue I'm on. I honestly think that most people feel this way and that a utilitarian view is not something you can apply to this debate in support of either side. A "life worth living" is so incredibly subjective that it is impossible to ever come to concensus on what the criteria would be for a "life worth living." I hope that there is never a concensus on that issue because it would lead to selective breeding and other creepy things that shouldn't happen in a free society that is "worth living" in. The stupid but somewhat relevant saying "It takes all kinds to make the world go round" applies.

All that being said, I want to make clear my stance on the issue of abortion. I think that in general killing a healthy person is wrong, self defense among other things excluded of course. I oppose capital punishment, but I support physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, and abortion under strict circumstances. I don't think that killing a bunch of cells amounts to the cold blooded killing of a person. I think that it is possible to scientiffically prove when a patch of cells amounts to a person, and that abortions should be legal before then and only in extreme circumstances (the mother's health; alien or demon impregnation etc.) afterwards. I think that a woman should (I really do hate to pull out the propaganda honestly) be able to choose if she wants to have a child before it becomes a child. Though of course I'd hope that the first step taken to avoid getting pregnant wouldn't require more than an embarassing trip to a gas station.

Honestly though Rabbit, what text book are you talking about? Is it that you are talking hypothetically and I'm talking about reality that our cogs are not meshing, because I still don't know what the hell you're trying to debate with your short "duck season" style replies. Please elaborate a bit <strike>for great justice</strike> so I understand it.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:48 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
It is also referred to as the "Fetal Interests" argument and would have been covered either by that name or by "Life Worth Living" in your general ethics class. Some ethicists who have done writings on this in the 80s include J. Glover and R. Sherlock.

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:56 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
I see now. You were arguing about a term put forth by some ethicists which you had failed to mention or define until this point, whereas I was arguing over the term at face value. I was putting it in quotes because I was quoting Rabbit.

-edit- after a good night's sleep and an early afternoon's googling and reading the relevant bits of http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/aad5.asp redarging the "Fetal Interests Argument," I find that the argument, in that context at least, is based on the asumption that you are going to be "killing a baby," which my point all along has been that this is not necessicarily true. Like I said, I support abortions before the "fetus" (the term used in the same manor as WI was using it) is formed enough to be a seperate living person. I say that the interest of the fetus before it is a seperate living person are irrelevant because it has no interests.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
arwing wrote:
I say that the interest of the fetus before it is a seperate living person are irrelevant because it has no interests.


Actually researchers have found they do dream. But I suppose that doesn't matter to anyone. People need to quit having recreational sex.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:28 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Newton, ma
Define 'separate person'. Here I would look up the "Good Samaritan" vs the "Splendid Samaritan" arguments for what constitutes a 'separate person'

_________________
Cute, fluffy and burning


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group