Conquer Club

Let's get philosophical.

Here's the scenario:

In the future, the price of an abortion would be the same as the Eviction Procedure, which includes evicting the fetus and rehabilitating it to a fully developed newborn.

For the sake of argument, and to skip past all these objections about unknown future costs and benefits to society,* assume that the distribution of newborns is perfect. In other words, let's assume that all the evicted newborns are shipped to loving families in the peace-loving and wealthy land of Newbornistan, where they experience a totes awesome life. Therefore, there are no costs to society in which the eviction occurs, and the family who evicted that fetus experiences the somewhat similar costs of "losing" a child.

What is evicting a fetus? The fetus is like an unwanted tenant, who is evicted from one's property. In other words, the fetus is removed in any trimester but is "rehabilitated" into a fully developed new born.

Now then,
Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

*If you still adhere to this argument, then you must use your objections to undermine your own stance on the current issue of abortion. In other words, the potential costs/benefits argument and its unknowns currently apply to your own position on abortion in the real world. If you rely on such premises and conclude that you can't answer the question, then you must also conclude that you can't hold a position on abortion in today's world.

If you object, you can argue about it here.


The main point of the OP is to hold certain variables constant in order to unravel people's actual opinions on this matter when faced with a price change.

What's "evicting a fetus"? Sending it away straight after birth, or..?

-rd

BigBallinStalin wrote:In other words, let's assume that all the evicted newborns are shipped to loving families in the peace-loving and wealthy land of Newbornistan, where they experience a totes awesome life.

You added more information to the scenario

Therefore:

Now then,
Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

No.

But dont read that as a concession: You have isolated everything therefore the only point of difference is the termination of the fetus; anything after is irrelevant.

The lump of cells only has to have some value just above 0 to make my decision make sense (since termination automatically moves the fetus value to 0 based on your simple scenario - and that is the counterfactual). I personally would give it some value; though compared to many things (such as established human life) that value is low (until it has developed more - I dont believe in souls or things like that).

rdsrds2120 wrote:What's "evicting a fetus"? Sending it away straight after birth, or..?

-rd

The fetus is like an unwanted tenant, who is evicted from one's property. In other words, the fetus is removed in any trimester but is "rehabilitated" into a fully developed new born

(good question, added to OP)

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:In other words, let's assume that all the evicted newborns are shipped to loving families in the peace-loving and wealthy land of Newbornistan, where they experience a totes awesome life.

You added more information to the scenario

Therefore:

Now then,
Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

No.

But dont read that as a concession: You have isolated everything therefore the only point of difference is the termination of the fetus; anything after is irrelevant.

The lump of cells only has to have some value just above 0 to make my decision make sense (since termination automatically moves the fetus value to 0 based on your simple scenario - and that is the counterfactual). I personally would give it some value; though compared to many things (such as established human life) that value is low (until it has developed more - I dont believe in souls or things like that).

I'm glad you'll agree with me in the future!


So, let me rephrase your cost-benefit argument about abortion in general (re: today's real world):

1. The fetus has no intrinsic value (no soul, god-given value, etc.)
2. The fetus is not a human being.
3. If the fetus/lump of cells has some value above 0,
4. then abortion is not justified. (correct?)
5. However, there are factors which affect the value of that fetus, which will determine the justification for aborting it.


If the above is correct, then what are these factors? Whose values (i.e. costs and benefits) matter? Values to society, which isn't a decision-making entity? Or values to the mother, family, peer groups, future human-from-fetus, etc.?

Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

Justified? That's an interesting word to use.

Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason

Yes, abortion can be justified alongside eviction. The purpose of both is to rid the mother's body of the fetus. The fetus, not being a human, is never denied anything by being aborted vs evicted, since it never had privileges that humans get, it can't lose those privileges either. Instinctively, however, we're all hard-wired to do what preserves the most life. Assuming that Newbornistan can sustain any amount of people, we'll probably all opt for evicting.

Neither answer to me is correct or incorrect if presented with the situation.

-rd

rds, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, BBS, does the Eviction Procedure actually exist (in theory, at least)? That sounds very interesting.

Army of GOD wrote:rds, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, BBS, does the Eviction Procedure actually exist (in theory, at least)? That sounds very interesting.

That's usually a scary question, but it can be answered by this: When it's no longer a fetus. I'm not sure when this is, medically, but I know it's after birth. Fetus and person are mutually exclusive terms.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:rds, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, BBS, does the Eviction Procedure actually exist (in theory, at least)? That sounds very interesting.

That's usually a scary question, but it can be answered by this: When it's no longer a fetus. I'm not sure when this is, medically, but I know it's after birth. Fetus and person are mutually exclusive terms.

-rd

So then do you support abortion during any time between conception and post-birth-human-becoming?

Army of GOD wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:rds, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, BBS, does the Eviction Procedure actually exist (in theory, at least)? That sounds very interesting.

That's usually a scary question, but it can be answered by this: When it's no longer a fetus. I'm not sure when this is, medically, but I know it's after birth. Fetus and person are mutually exclusive terms.

-rd

So then do you support abortion during any time between conception and post-birth-human-becoming?

Yes. I think that it may be instantaneously a fetus into a person as soon as it pops out, but I'm not sure.

edit: Just to be clear, I support the right to choose abortion -- I don't support it in the sense of sitting by a doctor, rooting as he does it. The question was technically worded that way.

-rd

I thought it was pretty neutral but whatever, at least you're consistent.

Army of GOD wrote:rds, at what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, BBS, does the Eviction Procedure actually exist (in theory, at least)? That sounds very interesting.

In theory, it does. I'm espousing Walter Block's Evictionism (see youtube), but I'm not focusing on the property rights aspect.

Army of GOD wrote:I thought it was pretty neutral but whatever, at least you're consistent.

Back to Nov 10th for the compliment.

-rd

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm glad you'll agree with me in the future!


So, let me rephrase your cost-benefit argument about abortion in general (re: today's real world):

1. The fetus has no intrinsic value (no soul, god-given value, etc.)
2. The fetus is not a human being.
3. If the fetus/lump of cells has some value above 0,
4. then abortion is not justified. (correct?)
5. However, there are factors which affect the value of that fetus, which will determine the justification for aborting it.


If the above is correct, then what are these factors? Whose values (i.e. costs and benefits) matter? Values to society, which isn't a decision-making entity? Or values to the mother, family, peer groups, future human-from-fetus, etc.?

Man I nearly slipped into Sym-mode and started ranting about how I never said the fetus is not a human being; I said its a potential human being... blah blah blah... PHEW GLAD I CAUGHT THAT!

1 through 4 is correct under your scenario, but thats a pretty limited little hypothetical. But whatever, not your point...

One thing I would like to correct is its not about the value of the individual fetus; what I am concerned with is the total welfare* of the system.

The total welfare of the system can be maximised (with respect to abortions) via solving for the optimum position between the two opposing objectives 1) ensure every child grows up in a loving family vs 2) Maintain an appropriate (ethically/morally) value of human life within our society.

My view is a person evaluation of that subjective optimum: Allow first trimester abortions; heavily restrict any abortions past this time.

* not welfare in the usual sense of the word, but the all in value metric of the system - for example we use a welfare maximising model of the electricity system to support decision making; this basically is just a complex model that solves a number of optimisation problems; in this case: minimising fuel burn in the thermal generation equipment, and minimising spill (ie waste) from the hydro generation equipment.

Plenty of people in this world use "abortion" as a form of birth control. My views over the years have changed ever since I had my son. All I know is, I heard my sons heart beating at a very early stage and it was weird considering I was pro-choice. I guess I still am in a sense in cases of rape or incest though at times, I'm torn with that. A very Intersting topic yet very complicated as well.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I thought it was pretty neutral but whatever, at least you're consistent.

Back to Nov 10th for the compliment.

-rd

anyway the point I'm sort of trying to make is that you and I have varying definitions of what it means to be human. I feel as if there has to be a significant and discrete point in time in which the change from there just being a gathering of cells to a straight-up human (you know, to avoid argument of the beard). I guess you define it as when the fetus exists the mother and I define it at conception.

I like the idea of the Eviction Procedure though because there are times where a pregnancy is not only unwanted but the mother is mostly innocent (in times of rape) so we'll essentially be able to have our cake and eat it too.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

Justified? That's an interesting word to use.

Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason

Yes, abortion can be justified alongside eviction. The purpose of both is to rid the mother's body of the fetus. The fetus, not being a human, is never denied anything by being aborted vs evicted, since it never had privileges that humans get, it can't lose those privileges either. Instinctively, however, we're all hard-wired to do what preserves the most life. Assuming that Newbornistan can sustain any amount of people, we'll probably all opt for evicting.

Neither answer to me is correct or incorrect if presented with the situation.

-rd

You're overlooking natty's favorite word, the opportunity cost. You could pay to terminate it, but you'd incur the opportunity cost of letting it live. Or you could pay the same amount to let it live, and incur the opportunity cost of terminating it. Each option reflects a value in your decision-making. The opportunity cost is the foregone value of the second-best choice.


At the moment, it's not cost-effective to remove fetuses at early stages, so given that reason, abortion is currently justified. In the future, when the price of letting it live is equal, then the cost-effectiveness argument no longer applies. The goal of my OP is to discover how people value these two options. You apparently think either is justified.


So, here's an analogy.

You have $10 ,000 which you want to invest, and in this world there's only two options--because circumstances have limited you to this.

Option 1: Invest $10,000 in plan A which intentionally ruins the project, or
Option 2: Invest $10,000 in plan B which intentionally allows the project to become productive, profitable, enjoyable, you name it, you get it.


You're saying that option 1 makes sense. Why?

I agree with your argument BBS but that's a poor analogy. I bet a large portion of parents (if not most) that go through with the Eviction Procedure will never bother to see the project after the procedure.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Since the prices of an abortion and of an eviction are the same, then is aborting the fetus justified?

Justified? That's an interesting word to use.

Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason

Yes, abortion can be justified alongside eviction. The purpose of both is to rid the mother's body of the fetus. The fetus, not being a human, is never denied anything by being aborted vs evicted, since it never had privileges that humans get, it can't lose those privileges either. Instinctively, however, we're all hard-wired to do what preserves the most life. Assuming that Newbornistan can sustain any amount of people, we'll probably all opt for evicting.

Neither answer to me is correct or incorrect if presented with the situation.

-rd

You're overlooking natty's favorite word, the opportunity cost. You could pay to terminate it, but you'd incur the opportunity cost of letting it live. Or you could pay the same amount to let it live, and incur the opportunity cost of terminating it. Each option reflects a value in your decision-making. The opportunity cost is the foregone value of the second-best choice.


At the moment, it's not cost-effective to remove fetuses at early stages, so given that reason, abortion is currently justified. In the future, when the price of letting it live is equal, then the cost-effectiveness argument no longer applies. The goal of my OP is to discover how people value these two options. You apparently think either is justified.


So, here's an analogy.

You have $10 ,000 which you want to invest, and in this world there's only two options--because circumstances have limited you to this.

Option 1: Invest $10,000 in plan A which intentionally ruins the project, or
Option 2: Invest $10,000 in plan B which intentionally allows the project to become productive, profitable, enjoyable, you name it, you get it.


You're saying that option 1 makes sense. Why?

In your example, the evicted thing went elsewhere, assumably to never be seen or heard from again (Newbornistan). That is a really poor analogy for what AoG said and because it's not your original question, and is actually far from it.

-rd

Army of GOD wrote:I agree with your argument BBS but that's a poor analogy. I bet a large portion of parents (if not most) that go through with the Eviction Procedure will never bother to see the project after the procedure.

That may be true, and I agree that apathy would result in people choosing option 1; however, such apathy and disregard for the consequences of a potential human being do not justify denying such an outcome. Why? Because consequences for potential human lives matter.

If apathy and ignorance of consequences is justifiable, then what else would be justifiable?

How about I implement a public policy which affects millions of people only because the paper smelled so good and because I don't care about consequences? Is my action justifiable? Not to any normal human being, it isn't. How about I swing my arms around like a bafoon, hit people in public, and disregard the consequences? Does my apathy of consequences justify my own decisions? No.

Consequences for the potential of future human beings matter.

*insert AoG argument about subjective morality here*

*insert argument ad absurdum against vulgar relativism/moral subjectivism*
*the advocate of vulgar subjectivism must conclude that he's being absurd*

There are standards for legitimate decision-making.

Doing "whatever you feel like cuz moral subjectivism" doesn't meet the standards.


At least explain your argument. Why not start with explaining why ignoring the consequences of your decisions on future human beings is justified?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I agree with your argument BBS but that's a poor analogy. I bet a large portion of parents (if not most) that go through with the Eviction Procedure will never bother to see the project after the procedure.

That may be true, and I agree that apathy would result in people choosing option 1; however, such apathy and disregard for the consequences of a potential human being do not justify denying such an outcome. Why? Because consequences for potential human lives matter.

If apathy and ignorance of consequences is justifiable, then what else would be justifiable?

How about I implement a public policy which affects millions of people only because the paper smelled so good and because I don't care about consequences? Is my action justifiable? Not to any normal human being, it isn't. How about I swing my arms around like a bafoon, hit people in public, and disregard the consequences? Does my apathy of consequences justify my own decisions? No.

Consequences for the potential of future human beings matter.

Potential human being =/= human being. You're kind of jumping around here. It's like this -- Person A is promised $100,000 for some reason from Person B. Then, for some other reason, Person B can no longer give Person A the money. While this may make Person A upset, it was never his money to begin with, the transaction never occurred, and he can't say "All of that money I lost!" because it was never under his ownership.

In this analogy for me, the fetus is person A (lol irony) and Person B (the mother) by hosting offers life/personhood (100k). However, the fetus never had it because it never made it that far. We can't get tangled up because it "could have been", but never was.

-rd

But why overlook the cause-and-effect relationship here?

I'm not saying that a potential human = human. I'm talking about the consequences of one's decisions on the lives of others.

Clearly, choosing Option 1 (abortion) causes the non-existence of a human being (or reduces the chance of the creation of a human to 0%).
Choosing option 2 (eviction + rehab) causes the series of actions which converts a fetus eventually into a human being--according to the whichever definition and timeline is applied.

No one is promising anything to anyone here because there can't be consent without two human parties, so I'll agree on that part, but it's not relevant. It's about the consequences when faced with two choices of equal prices.