Even infanticide is okay

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Where do you draw the line?

Do you allow parents to abort a pregnancy, if it's clear that the child is going to be severely disabled?

What about wearing a condom or being on birth control, when you don't want to have a baby?

"Firmly disagreeing with eugenics" is a big nothing burger.

The line I draw is bodily sovereignty.

And I draw that line absolutely.

If there is a baby in the womb of the mother, the baby relies on the mother’s body for its life.

But the mother still has absolute bodily sovereignty. And so, the power over the decision to abort or not, sits with the mother.

And she can make that decision for any and all reasons because it is a decision about her own body.

Every single person is the absolute god-emperor over their own body.

But with great power comes great responsibility.

When you have the power over life and death (as all pregnant mothers do and should under the law), then it’s very important that you know that the being that’s growing inside of you is alive and sentient once it gets past the first couple months.

It’s important not to self-deceive and say it isn’t.

But once a child is born and the cord is cut, then they are no longer under the dominion of their mother’s bodily sovereignty. And they have their own absolute bodily sovereignty.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Emerald

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The line I draw is bodily sovereignty.

And I draw that line absolutely.

If there is a baby in the womb of the mother, the baby relies on the mother’s body for its life.

But the mother still has absolute bodily sovereignty. And so, the power over the decision to abort or not, sits with the mother.

And she can make that decision for any and all reasons because it is a decision about her own body.

Every single person is the absolute god-emperor over their own body.

But with great power comes great responsibility.

When you have the power over life and death (as all pregnant mothers do and should under the law), then it’s very important that you know that the being that’s growing inside of you is alive and sentient once it gets past the first couple months.

It’s important not to self-deceive and say it isn’t.

But once a child is born and the cord is cut, then they are no longer under the dominion of their mother’s bodily sovereignty. And they have their own absolute bodily sovereignty.

That's fair.

So, I have the bodily sovereignty to leverage synthetic biology to biohack myself into the Übermensch and mogg all you pathetic mortals, yes?

[zurew]

1 minute ago, spiritual memes said:

Antinatalism sees birth as an inherently negative thing and their endgame is the extinction of the human species.

I only heard one good argument against antinatalism (that is working within the antinatalism philosophical framework, but paradoxically still makes them to be pro life for a random period of time). Ultimately an antinatalist wants to reduce the overall suffering in the world, if we start with that axiom, then we could argue that right now you can't kill all sentient life (that is capable of suffering or feeling pain).

The goal for these people would ultimately be, to kill all life (not just sentient life, because evolution will eventually produce sentient life from life) and to be able to do that, you need an incredibly advanced tech for that. Right now, we don't have such technology and trying to kill all life on this Planet would just cause unnecessary suffering, because you wouldn't be able to kill all life and sentient life would eventually develop again.

Therefore, an antinatalist right now should do everything in their power to help human development is such a way that we achieve the necessary technological development the fastest way, to be able to kill all life (at least on this Planet). Not having children and advocating for everyone not to have children would ultimately cause more suffering down the road compared to being okay with having children and helping humanity to advance technologically the fastest way.

[spiritual memes]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

That's fair.

So, I have the bodily sovereignty to leverage synthetic biology to biohack myself into the Übermensch and mogg all you pathetic mortals, yes?

lol good luck. 

[zurew]

Nilsi will turn into a butterfly in front of our eyes, by experimenting on himself with gene editing.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Nilsi will turn into a butterfly in front of our eyes, by experimenting on himself with gene editing.

This will be my final form.

U mad?

[zurew]

Just now, Nilsi said:

This will be my final form.

U mad?

A brain has its own brain (on the right side), now thats a metabrain or something.

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

to biohack myself into the Übermensch and mogg all you pathetic mortals, yes?

Jumping back to philosophical convos - Lets you could actually hack yourself in a way, where your brain would grow 4-5x the size compared to its current size, but you would immediately become 4-5x more emphatetic as well. Would you go with it, or would that destroy your ability to conquer this world?

[Carl-Richard]

This is giving me strong feelings of disgust.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Jumping back to philosophical convos - Lets you could actually hack yourself in a way, where your brain would grow 4-5x the size compared to its current size, but you would immediately become 4-5x more emphatetic as well. Would you go with it, or would that destroy your ability to conquer this world?

More empathy = more ways to psychologically exploit and manipulate others = profit.

In all seriousness - I'm actually a very nice and empathetic person behind all the madness.

[Danioover9000]

@LSD-Rumi

2 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

Conservatives are so up  their asses about abortion. I go beyond saying that abortion is entirely ethical amd should always be legal. I say even infanticide should be legal ( under some kind of supervision and court order) in certain circumstances when the baby is born with a deformity or a severe disease. And my argument would be, why not? Infants apperantly don't feel anything and are not even self aware. Why would I bring a deformed infant in to the world and make him suffer when I can bring healthy ones who would enjoy life more. And from an economical point of view, this will massively reduce expenses on such kids. 

Someone would say, how about I kill you? I would say If I am mentally retarded and nobody cares about me, go ahead and shoot me in the head. 

   Why would you impregnate a woman with your inferior genetics in the first place? Why would you make your GF/wife bare your problematic flesh?

   If abortion is okay with you, when would you abort the fetus? And what conditions must be met to justify abortion?

[Basman]

We operate on a social-contract of preserving the lives of societies members. The legal right to your life extends to babies, regardless of their ability to understand that. That is the simple reason why infanticide isn't acceptable. As soon the kid is out the womb, there's no room for doubt about its personhood. That's a person and its far too late for an abortion.

Even if there was legal juristiction to kill newborns with certain health issues or genetic defects, who exactly decides what is just or not? It's inherently subjective, therefor it is better to have the standard operating procedure of preserving life for its own sake as a standard operating procedure. Everybody has a chance of happiness in some way.

Also, cutting cost arguments can be a slippery slope, since it is easy to overstate the cost of anything that you don't care about.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

@Emerald I totally understand your position, but I also believe women are soft in general and don't easily adopt such extremes views.

My issue with your viewpoint isn’t that it’s extreme. There’s plenty of extreme viewpoints that are better than the moderate position.

My issue is that your viewpoint is inhumane and doesn’t belong in the contemporary world.

Infanticide is murder and an affront to bodily sovereignty. So, there should be no legalized killing of someone who isn’t capable of consenting. And that’s true no matter how painless the killing is.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Depends on what development stage we are talking about. If there is no formed brain or central nervous system what makes you think that the baby can feel or be consious of anything? - We know  for example, that if parts of your brain isn't working you can't feel pain.

In the first couple months in the womb, the fetus hasn’t developed the nervous system. So, it won’t feel anything.

But afterwards, there is pain that’s felt. This is important to realize for anyone who’s deciding to have an abortion.

But babies after birth (which is what I was referring to in the post you replied to) definitely have a fully developed nervous system and the capacity to feel pain.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

I agree with all of your points, but antinatalism has a deeper philosophy. Banatar's asymmetry argues that the absence of pain is a good thing but thr absence of pain is not bad. As long as no being is deprived of said happiness, then it is, as he puts it, "not bad"

I've been reading about it and a surprising number of philosophers are into it. Antinatalism sees birth as an inherently negative thing and their endgame is the extinction of the human species.

 

I disagree with that too.

I view existence as a good thing. I value life with all its pains and joys.

There is no need to wage war with life.

Those who are so resistant to pain that they’re unwilling to allow life to be are lovers only of death.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That's fair.

So, I have the bodily sovereignty to leverage synthetic biology to biohack myself into the Übermensch and mogg all you pathetic mortals, yes?

Your body, your choice… I guess. ?

[spiritual memes]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Those who are so resistant to pain that they’re unwilling to allow life to be are lovers only of death.

I guess that's what antinatalists are. I find myself getting super triggered by them but when I introspect, I find that a part of me is also just like them.

 

Do you think its acceptable to euthanise a baby if it has a really severe disability or genetic defect such that their life will be short and full of constant suffering? Surely it's the most compassionate option since by not doing so, you are dooming them to a life of horrific suffering?

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But babies after birth (which is what I was referring to in the post you replied to) definitely have a fully developed nervous system and the capacity to feel pain.

My bad, I misread and misinterpreted your post (I thought that you were referring to an early stage foetus). I somehow missed the word "infanticide" in his post and I disagree with that .

[Emerald]

Just now, spiritual memes said:

I guess that's what antinatalists are. I find myself getting super triggered by them but when I introspect, I find that a part of me is also just like them.

Do you think its acceptable to euthanise a baby if it has a really severe disability or genetic defect such that their life will be short and full of constant suffering? Surely it's the most compassionate option since by not doing so, you are dooming them to a life of horrific suffering?

That is a difficult one.

Overall, I don’t believe that you should be able to euthanize someone against their will. So, I wouldn’t be in favor of euthanizing a baby… even if they’re suffering.

I would, however, be in favor of palliative care for the duration of their short life.

[spiritual memes]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

That is a difficult one.

Overall, I don’t believe that you should be able to euthanize someone against their will. So, I wouldn’t be in favor of euthanizing a baby… even if they’re suffering.

I would, however, be in favor of palliative care for the duration of their short life.

Fair enough. I disagree but I understand your sentiment.

If I was somehow, trapped in a baby body with an extreme deformity such that my life was constantly suffering, I would want to be euthanized and someone keeping me alive would be doing it against my will. Its hard because you can't really understand the will of such a baby.

[Danioover9000]

@spiritual memes

17 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

Fair enough. I disagree but I understand your sentiment.

If I was somehow, trapped in a baby body with an extreme deformity such that my life was constantly suffering, I would want to be euthanized and someone keeping me alive would be doing it against my will. Its hard because you can't really understand the will of such a baby.

   Add to that minds don't merge together to understand fully the exact nature of how much a person suffers, already makes decisions to euthanize tricky. Majority of cases rely on self reporting and outer behaviors to determine if such a thing must happen.

   As every American loves and fight for freedom of speech, there should also be freedom of choice, to euthanize your own life if suffering is too much and long term/for the remainder of that person's life. There should be a legal right and legal process to allow such a thing to happen in certain cases as some people can suffer so much and some can't will power through that intensity and volume of suffering.

   Abortion is already even more trickier than euthanasia.