That goddamn pregnancy thaaang...

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Aoibheann, nobody can predict the future with certainty. Both may die, or neither, but I prefer to go on whatever the odds are estimated to be. Hindsight is 20/20, after all. My guesses at numbers were precisely that, guesses.
As for rape cases, they are unfortunate (to put it very mildly) but the child is not at fault, and adoption is an option.

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately the odds aren't always the ones stated, but then again I'd assume you'd probably have to think again if they were to be different, for example if the mother's chance of survival was much lower, etc?

As regards your second point, I *think* I agree. It's what I've always thought I would do myself, should I ever be in that situation (and I really, really hope I won't. I wouldn't wish that scenario on anyone). But how can you be certain, unless you're in that predicament yourself? I don't think we can ever entirely judge what someone else chooses to do in this kind of case, if we haven't been through it ourselves. We don't know what we'd do, we can only have a certain idea in our heads that we'd like to do.. But when it comes to it, we just don't know.

EuropeanSon

Randy, did you just imply that I'm not human? :P

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately the odds aren't always the ones stated, but then again I'd assume you'd probably have to think again if they were to be different, for example if the mother's chance of survival was much lower, etc?

As regards your second point, I *think* I agree. It's what I've always thought I would do myself, should I ever be in that situation (and I really, really hope I won't. I wouldn't wish that scenario on anyone). But how can you be certain, unless you're in that predicament yourself? I don't think we can ever entirely judge what someone else chooses to do in this kind of case, if we haven't been through it ourselves. We don't know what we'd do, we can only have a certain idea in our heads that we'd like to do.. But when it comes to it, we just don't know.

I don't know what I'd do, to be perfectly honest. I am not trying to figure that out. What I'm trying to decide is what is the RIGHT thing to do, morally.

Pygmalion

randylonghorn wrote: »

Humans don't approach moral arguments involving life and death with nothing except logic, even less so when they're talking about abortion.

They can't, actually, because they're involved on an emotional level simply by virtue of being human.

No human can be entirely dispassionate about such matters, or claim to be totally disinterested or unbiased. If you think about it, for anyone to claim that they can is quite illogical in itself.

Are you claiming that you can't be passionate/emotional if you take a logical approach to something?
You don't have to be a robot to take a logical approach.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Any point must of course be arbitrary, but I prefer to draw it at the point where rather than doing something to make it happen (ie. Having sex) you must do something to prevent it happening (ie. Have an abortion).

So you're saying that you see the line being drawn at sex, once you have unprotected sex (or the condom breaks) it's unethical from that point on to take measures to prevent life?
Would the morning after pill then be unethical in your opinion?

Aoibheann

randylonghorn wrote: »

That's in a mathematical universe, not one involving humans.

I think I've pointed this out to you before!

Humans don't approach moral arguments involving life and death with nothing except logic, even less so when they're talking about abortion.

They can't, actually, because they're involved on an emotional level simply by virtue of being human.

No human can be entirely dispassionate about such matters, or claim to be totally disinterested or unbiased. If you think about it, for anyone to claim that they can is quite illogical in itself.

If I could thank this 100 times over, I would. I used to see the world as pretty much the "mathematical universe" that randy mentions. I never saw the grey areas that cropped up, everything was in black and white. Because I assumed everyone would automatically deal with things the way I thought I would - in a logical, well-thought out manner. In reality, I had little to no experience of the things I was assuming I would deal with in a certain way so I really didn't have a clue of how I would go about things should they actually occur.

However, I never did deal with anything quite how I thought I would. Emotions do come into play, they change everything. It's impossible to be purely logical in a case like abortion, euthanasia, etc, when you're involved in it yourself. How could it be? We're not robots (I'm praying Davidius doesn't jump in right now to correct me >_>) and like randy points out it would be illogical for us to not be dispassionate about such matters.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I don't know what I'd do, to be perfectly honest. I am not trying to figure that out. What I'm trying to decide is what is the RIGHT thing to do, morally.

We all have our own beliefs and morals, so what one person finds morally right isn't necessarily what the next does.

Nothing is ever as clear-cut as we'd like (us maths types anyway! :pac:).

Davidius

Aoibheann wrote: »

But then, if she does die, and the child lives - you've chosen one life over the other any way. Even worse, if they both die, you've chosen one life over the other, and it's all gone completely wrong.

With regard to choosing the child over the mother I think it really comes down to how you assess the value of one person's life relative to another's. In general the mothers would die sooner than the child would. I'd generally be in favour of the option that is expected to lead to the longest life expectancy from that point.

With regards to killing both, that's just the risk. You'd probably have to make an assessment as to which is life is more 'valued' factoring in the risk of both of them dying if you were to go through with the delivery.

randylonghorn

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Randy, did you just imply that I'm not human? :P

No, though sometimes I think that you would cheerfully swop with Data in Star Trek, let him be human and happily nestle into his positronic brain and revel in instant computational power and millions of calculations per second.

I may, however, have implied inter alia that until that swop is achieved, you are deluding yourself in believing that you, any more than any other human, can totally divest yourself of emotion, experience, socialisation, nurture, etc., and be entirely dispassionate and logical about such topics.

In fact, to achieve what you seem to feel would be that nirvana of hard cold dispassionate logic (and which sounds like hell to me tbh) would, almost by definition, be to surrender your humanity.

Aoibheann

Pygmalion wrote: »

Are you claiming that you can't be passionate/emotional if you take a logical approach to something?
You don't have to be a robot to take a logical approach.

Logic often doesn't come into play in these scenarios, even when one would usually be the sort to take a logical approach. It'd be very unusual if there weren't any emotions involved though, because by nature it'd be quite the emotional process. Hormones much? :P Not to mention the fact that pregnancy has a huge effect on the two parents, a lesser one on family, friends.. You can't apply logic to everything, Pyg, much as I wish you could! Other people being involved make it too awkward.. ¬_¬

Edit:

Davidius wrote: »

With regard to choosing the child over the mother I think it really comes down to how you assess the value of one person's life relative to another's. In general the mothers would die sooner than the child would. I'd generally be in favour of the option that is expected to lead to the longest life expectancy from that point.

With regards to killing both, that's just the risk. You'd probably have to make an assessment as to which is life is more 'valued' factoring in the risk of both of them dying if you were to go through with the delivery.

Another problem here: risk assessment isn't the only thing that comes into play here. You guys are forgetting those precious emotions all over again. :P

But I do see where you're coming from, and in a way it's a perfectly fair point to make. But you raise another one. How DO you assess the value of one life relative to another? One way is of course the life expectancy. But again, that's a logical approach to an emotional scenario and one that isn't necessarily fair.

The problem is, nothing's fair in these situations and someone will come off the worse for it.

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

Are you claiming that you can't be passionate/emotional if you take a logical approach to something?
You don't have to be a robot to take a logical approach.



So you're saying that you see the line being drawn at sex, once you have unprotected sex (or the condom breaks) it's unethical from that point on to take measures to prevent life?
Would the morning after pill then be unethical in your opinion?

Yes, I suppose that's what I'm saying. Obviously it follows from that that the morning after pill is unethical. I wouldn't have thought of it as so before (though tbh I never went into quite such a detailed discussion before), but clearly, it is so.


Aoibheann, I get what you're saying, but I am not discussing what I *would* do, but rather what one *should* do.

EuropeanSon

randylonghorn wrote: »

No, though sometimes I think that you would cheerfully swop with Data in Star Trek, let him be human and happily nestle into his positronic brain and revel in instant computational power and millions of calculations per second.

I may, however, have implied inter alia that until that swop is achieved, you are deluding yourself in believing that you, any more than any other human, can totally divest yourself of emotion, experience, socialisation, nurture, etc., and be entirely dispassionate and logical about such topics.

In fact, to achieve what you seem to feel would be that nirvana of hard cold dispassionate logic (and which sounds like hell to me tbh) would, almost by definition, be to surrender your humanity.

I see the distinction now.
However, though I admit that emotion would play a large role if I myself were in the situation, right now, discussing it abstractly as I am now, I am not being emotional.

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Aoibheann, I get what you're saying, but I am not discussing what I *would* do, but rather what one *should* do.

And I get what you're saying, but there are no *shoulds* in this kind of case, realistically. No shoulds, unless you have a lot of exceptions to your rule, and that would essentially render it pointless.

/semi logical way of explaining

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote: »

And I get what you're saying, but there are no *shoulds* in this kind of case, realistically. No shoulds, unless you have a lot of exceptions to your rule, and that would essentially render it pointless.

/semi logical way of explaining

Not if the exceptions are adhered to rigidly, it wouldn't. Then they are merely subclauses in the rule. And I don't think there would be a huge amount.

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Not if the exceptions are adhered to rigidly, it wouldn't. Then they are merely subclauses in the rule. And I don't think there would be a huge amount.

There are many. I've only raised 2 specific examples from the top of my head, but even when you go in-depth into those cases, there are further sub-cases which are ever-so-subtly different to the previous one - but they differ enough for the specific clause governing the previous not to apply.

And again, you're thinking too mathematically. How could these things be adhered to rigidly when ever single case is somehow different from the last - be it a slight change in circumstance, different people involved, different place in the world.. So many things make every case different from the last, and I doubt you can find a rule to govern each and every case.

randylonghorn

Pygmalion wrote: »

Are you claiming that you can't be passionate/emotional if you take a logical approach to something?

No, ofc I'm not.

I'm rejecting the stance evoked by this: "Moral arguments approached logically should always end with everyone on the same page, if people can bring themselves to engage the topic dispassionately." ...

... that there is one universal right answer, and if we could only think out of logic alone, and set aside all emotion and socialisation and empathy and all that pesky stuff, we could actually reach that point where everyone was in complete agreement on a *logical* answer.

I'm all for a bit of logic in the mix ... believe me, I spend a lot of my life wishing there was more of it about!

But I have no faith in the power of pure logic, and only pure logic, when it comes to moral arguments about right or wrong for that matter ... nor, indeed, any belief in the ability of humans to be purely logical and unbiased. Probably just as well, tbh. Pure logic applied to our planet would probably suggest some appallingly horrendous solutions (from a human / moral point of view) to some of the environmental issues which face us.

Pygmalion

Aoibheann wrote: »

Logic often doesn't come into play in these scenarios, even when one would usually be the sort to take a logical approach. It'd be very unusual if there weren't any emotions involved though, because by nature it'd be quite the emotional process. Hormones much? :P Not to mention the fact that pregnancy has a huge effect on the two parents, a lesser one on family, friends.. You can't apply logic to everything, Pyg, much as I wish you could! Other people being involved make it too awkward.. ¬_¬

Another problem here: risk assessment isn't the only thing that comes into play here. You guys are forgetting those precious emotions all over again. :P

But I do see where you're coming from, and in a way it's a perfectly fair point to make. But you raise another one. How DO you assess the value of one life relative to another? One way is of course the life expectancy. But again, that's a logical approach to an emotional scenario and one that isn't necessarily fair.

The problem is, nothing's fair in these situations and someone will come off the worse for it.

I'm not sure it's fair to say you can't make a logical decision, and I'd also not sure everyone is agreed on what logical means in this instance, emotions definitely come into it but as I said it's not like logical means robotic.
When I said (actually implied) a logical approach should be taken I was suggesting that one should attempt to consider all relevant information (emotions, past experiences and personal beliefs included) and try to come up with a solution that minimises suffering, not that someone should punch a bunch of numbers into a computer and abort if main() returns a non-zero value.
And definitely not that someone should pick a stance and stick with it no matter the circumstances they find themselves in.

Emotions get in the way of this, and I wouldn't entire consider myself to be perfectly rational in this situation but it doesn't mean the approach should be abandoned.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Yes, I suppose that's what I'm saying. Obviously it follows from that that the morning after pill is unethical. I wouldn't have thought of it as so before (though tbh I never went into quite such a detailed discussion before), but clearly, it is so.

That's kinda the opposite response than I was hoping for, but at least you're being consistent in your reasoning :P, many people aren't.

Aoibheann

Pygmalion wrote: »

I'm not sure it's fair to say you can't make a logical decision, and I'd also not sure everyone is agreed on what logical means in this instance, emotions definitely come into it but as I said it's not like logical means robotic.
When I said (actually implied) a logical approach should be taken I was suggesting that one should attempt to consider all relevant information (emotions, past experiences and personal beliefs included) and try to come up with a solution that minimises suffering, not that someone should punch a bunch of numbers into a computer and abort if main() returns a non-zero value.

Emotions get in the way of this, and I wouldn't entire consider myself to be perfectly rational in this situation but it doesn't mean the approach should be abandoned.

Aha! Now I understand what you were getting at. I'd like to think I'd attempt the same myself - i.e. try to cause as little suffering as possible. Obviously, emotions would come into play, but one could hope that they would still attempt some form of approach such as that you'd explained. That's definitely a fair point, Pyggy, apologies for misconstruing it before.

Insect Overlord

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Aoibheann, I get what you're saying, but I am not discussing what I *would* do, but rather what one *should* do.

And that is probably what caused all that trouble earlier!

I think most people came in to this thread intending to discuss the former, rather than the latter. We're living out a phenomenon where generations are rejecting the mechanisms that once dictated moral guidance. Political figures, church bodies, even the status of teachers in society, they've all been cast aside, ridiculed or just lessened in importance.

Expecting to be able to produce an objective truth to answer all queries, having just finished Secondary School, is both admirable and of great benefit from a philosophical point of view, but is likely to be fruitless in the short term.

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote: »

There are many. I've only raised 2 specific examples from the top of my head, but even when you go in-depth into those cases, there are further sub-cases which are ever-so-subtly different to the previous one - but they differ enough for the specific clause governing the previous not to apply.

And again, you're thinking too mathematically. How could these things be adhered to rigidly when ever single case is somehow different from the last - be it a slight change in circumstance, different people involved, different place in the world.. So many things make every case different from the last, and I doubt you can find a rule to govern each and every case.

No, you probably cannot. But for every new case, you can approach it with similar logic, and come up with an answer.

Randy, I am of the opinion that there is always a right answer, to any question. If it hasn't yet been found, people just need to look harder.

Again, I do not mean to suggest that I would follow these rules myself in the situation. I should, but I am not perfect, and don't always do the right thing, just like everyone else.

EuropeanSon

Insect Overlord wrote:

Expecting to be able to produce an objective truth to answer all queries, having just finished Secondary School, is both admirable and of great benefit from a philosophical point of view, but is likely to be fruitless in the short term.

I do not EXPECT to, but that doesn't mean I should not try.

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote: »

Aha! Now I understand what you were getting at. I'd like to think I'd attempt the same myself - i.e. try to cause as little suffering as possible. Obviously, emotions would come into play, but one could hope that they would still attempt some form of approach such as that you'd explained. That's definitely a fair point, Pyggy, apologies for misconstruing it before.

That is the basis of everything. I said I was trying to be moral, I assumed it was implied that the goal is to cause as little harm as possible.

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Randy, I am of the opinion that there is always a right answer, to any question. If it hasn't yet been found, people just need to look harder.

The Halting Problem.

Get on it.

Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.

randylonghorn

Davidius wrote: »

With regard to choosing the child over the mother I think it really comes down to how you assess the value of one person's life relative to another's. In general the mothers would die sooner than the child would. I'd generally be in favour of the option that is expected to lead to the longest life expectancy from that point.

With regards to killing both, that's just the risk. You'd probably have to make an assessment as to which is life is more 'valued' factoring in the risk of both of them dying if you were to go through with the delivery.

A logical approach, certainly, and I can see where you're coming from.

I think you've left out some factors though.

If you favour the life of the child over that of the mother (assuming it is straight choice) you thereby condemn that child to be born without a mother. Is longer life automatically more important than quality of life?

What if there are other siblings? ... a partner? (reasonably likely, under the circumstances).

Do their needs not come into it? (And I accept that whichever choice is made will have an impact on them)

I'm not saying you're right or wrong in your conclusion (honestly, I don't know ... and, in fact, I don't think trying to establish a universal "right" is possible or even desirable in such cases). I'm simply saying that these issues are never straightforward or simple, there's always a plethora of factors to take into account.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Not if the exceptions are adhered to rigidly, it wouldn't. Then they are merely subclauses in the rule. And I don't think there would be a huge amount.

And another Asimov is amongst us! :P

Pygmalion wrote: »

Emotions get in the way of this, and I wouldn't entire consider myself to be perfectly rational in this situation but it doesn't mean the approach should be abandoned.

I wouldn't disagree.

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

That is the basis of everything. I said I was trying to be moral, I assumed it was implied that the goal is to cause as little harm as possible.

I'm sure everyone's goal is to cause as little harm as possible. But again, there are so many types of "harm" here. There's physical trauma. There's what could be seen as killing a potential child, depending on your point of view. There's emotional trauma.

You will always cause harm in this case, no matter what you do. But your view on minimising harm will not always be the same as everyone elses'. One may value the life of the mother over the child, one may value the life of the child more. Either way, you're causing harm and you may think one causes less, but I may think it causes more. Not everyone is the same person, of the same opinions and values, and that is a hugely important point here.

Edit: Oh, and Pyggy stole my general idea for finding an answer to everything.. >_> I wanted to specifically go the P vs. NP way though..

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

The Halting Problem.

Get on it.

Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.

That is quite different. Given a specific "possible program-input pair" an answer can be found. A one size fits all solution for each individual problem cannot. Every one can be answered though.

Davidius

I favour emotional detachment in coming up with policies that are as far-stretching as these. I know it seems quite cruel and dispassionate but I honestly think that's the only way to create the most workable solutions. People's emotions vary incredibly per case and it simply can't be reliably factored into it.

There needs to be some sort of consistent value system and laws/procedure should reflect that. Otherwise you start getting more blurred lines and grey areas.

With regard to a spouse/partner's feelings on the matter or being born without a mother: Both are survivable and as harsh as it is to say, people can get past it.

Aoibheann

With all that said, Davidius, do you think you would follow such an approach to the very last if you were in such a situation?

Guys, it's very very easy to think you'd have a perfect approach to a problem when you're on the outside looking in.


Edit: Oh wait, Davidius said policies. So ignore my first line. My second still stands though. >_>

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

That is quite different. Given a specific "possible program-input pair" an answer can be found. A one size fits all solution for each individual problem cannot. Every one can be answered though.

The proof seems to provide a program-input pair which by definition can't be answered.

randylonghorn

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Randy, I am of the opinion that there is always a right answer, to any question. If it hasn't yet been found, people just need to look harder.

I am of the opinion that there is always a right answer for each situation for each person / group of people who face it (well, for now anyway, it may change tomorrow!)

Ok, I'll admit to be slightly facetious there ... obviously, there are some right answers that most of humanity can agree on most of the time.

Most people will agree, for example, that to deliberately kill another human being is wrong.

Is it still wrong, though, if that human being is mortally ill, in agony, with no quality of life, and begging you to put them out of their suffering? Will you approach that problem differently if it is someone you never met before or if it's your mother? Will you be more sure that there's a "right" answer if you've never had to face that dilemma in person?

Is it still wrong if the person is about to kill your child? What if the person is about to harm your child, but the child will not be killed?

Moral absolutes are ... comfortable. Moral absolutes have also led to some of the most horrific chapters of human history. I am very suspicious of moral absolutes.

And yet ... it often concerns me that there seems to be a tendency to consider all moral absolutes or at least near-absolutes to be subservient to the cult of the individual in to-day's society. I sometimes feel we need more moral absolutes.

Which is paradoxical, isn't it?

And would probably cause Blue Screen Of Death to flash up in my brain, were it not that I have learned long ago that I don't even always agree with myself about the right answer, let alone with everyone else.

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote:

You will always cause harm in this case, no matter what you do. But your view on minimising harm will not always be the same as everyone elses'. One may value the life of the mother over the child, one may value the life of the child more. Either way, you're causing harm and you may think one causes less, but I may think it causes more. Not everyone is the same person, of the same opinions and values, and that is a hugely important point here.

That is why I am not presuming to write out specifics, but rather I am mainly talking in general, relatively broad terms. I do not presume to be able to resolve every issue. That would take many more minds than mine, and much longer than the few hours I have to spend.

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

The proof seems to provide a program-input pair which by definition can't be answered.

Unless I misread it, all it said was that one method of finding answers, applicable to all pairs, cannot be found. Given a specific pair, a method to find an answer, and thus an answer, can be found.