Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A litigious liberal Yankee. Figures.

Coincidentally, I did just receive $1.29 as part of a class action lawsuit settlement of which I had no clue I was a part until receiving the check. I don't think it's worth my time to even cash the damn thing.

[Az]

Dude, at least that way, you have a shot of saving the species. Without it, you're have nothing. Humanity >>>> rights of one woman.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Dude, at least that way, you have a shot of saving the species.

Why does saving the species matter enough to effectively murder the woman?

[Q Classic]

oh! i know a solution. drive the doctor continually until that mad scientist discovers how to populate the world with CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So you'd force the mother to die, interesting. And you're not a religionist. Why is the continuation of the human race so important that you'd force the death of the woman? I can understand a religionist's answer to that, but not an atheist's.

Lots and lots and lots of people > one person.

And MtG, about "choice" - do you agree that the government can draft people? And that those people can be ordered to, say "go over the top" where they'll likely die?

[Az]

a) I am appalled that you even ask.
b) From reasons of utility. If you kill humanity, there is noone to be happy any more, ever. That's the ultimate anti-utilitarian thing to happen.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Wait, you don't agree?!

Absolutely not. I have no intention of condemning an unwilling woman to death like that. If she wants the abortion, that's her choice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
Lots and lots and lots of people > one person.

Those lots of people don't exist yet, there's no guarantee they will exist, so I don't see why they should be considered in the equation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
a) I am appalled that you even ask.

Why? Let's say it was just the last enclave of white people, or black people, or whatever. Would they be justified in forcing the woman to die to save their race?

Frankly, I'm appalled you'd force the woman to die unwillingly for the sake of people who don't exist yet.

b) From reasons of utility. If you kill humanity, there is noone to be happy any more, ever. That's the ultimate anti-utilitarian thing to happen.

And you have absolutely no means of knowing this. Evolution has produced intelligent life once, there's no reason whatsoever to think it wouldn't do so again were humans to become extinct.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Those lots of people don't exist yet, there's no guarantee they will exist, so I don't see why they should be considered in the equation.

There is a 50% chance that they will exist, so if you look at it as a cost-benefit analyses, 50% of those people will exist, statistically. Thus, you still have a significant number of people

[GePap]

Better question for monotheists:

During the night you recieve a dream in which God tells you you must murder a man in order to save X amount of people. This man is not evil, he does not plan to do anything evil, but he will do something whose reprecussions will bring about X amount of suffering.

Now, you wake up, but are utterly unable to shake the conviction that this is NOT just a dream, but real.

NOW, what do you do? Do you go talk with some religious authority to see what they say? Would you follow their advice if they did? Would you ignore it becuase what is being asked is a crime?

[Japher]

If she is the only hope for the survival of humanity I'd say F-it, and be as "humane" as possible towards what little is left of humanity. Namely, let her decide.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
There is a 50% chance that they will exist, so if you look at it as a cost-benefit analyses, 50% of those people will exist, statistically. Thus, you still have a significant number of people

First, that doesn't necessarily hold true, because even if the the child is female there's always the chance that 1) she'll not survive to adulthood, 2) she'll not be able to reproduce herself, and 3) she won't want to reproduce.

Second, you're still talking hypothetical people who don't exist yet vs. living humans who do exist. Why do non-existent people matter more than an innocent woman who is alive and wants to stay that way?

[Boris Godunov]

I suppose my overarching question is why the survival of our species trumps the right of this woman to live. And does that survival apply in other situations, for instance, if the woman wasn't pregnant, just the only one left and perfectly fertile, but refused to breed with the remaining men. Would it be okay to rape her and force her to carry a child to term for the sake of species survival?

[Az]

Hey, Gepap, will you step in? He's ok with killing the human race. I hope you aren't one of those.

Why? Let's say it was just the last enclave of white people, or black people, or whatever. Would they be justified in forcing the woman to die to save their race?

No, because that comes out from a racist perspective. humanity will still exist, and that little utility that is the variety is negligble.

Frankly, I'm appalled you'd force the woman to die unwillingly for the sake of people who don't exist yet.

Not just people. Endless generations of people. Billions of people.

And you have absolutely no means of knowing this. Evolution has produced intelligent life once, there's no reason whatsoever to think it wouldn't do so again were humans to become extinct.

That's great, what does it have to do with humans, and your basic goal as an organism to continue the species.