Clearly, the permitting process is an effective means of controlling behaviors.

Nobody has ever tried something like this before...

There is not a lot of difference. I can imagine a system that is not objectionable to me in which newborns can be killed by their parents and doctor. It seems tragic to do that in cases when the child could have been killed only weeks after conception - which I imagine is a simpler, less expensive, less dangerous procedure (but I could be wrong).

In case you weren't aware, the whole "crack baby" thing is basically a myth.

As noted by Original Position, there are people who hold such a position. But to bite the bullet in that manner does start you down a different slippery slope, especially as you've crossed over to the other side of the birth moment. What prevents you from sliding down further beyond "just born"? What if the child develops a disease at 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Do you hold to your justification?

You want a child to be born into that environment?

Ahhhh... classic non-sequitur.

OrP: Your characterization is false.
Mark: Do you want a crack baby?

Do you want fries with that?

Why kill them all off. Some can and do work so since they are not fully human just make them propriety of the state and bam free labor.

I don't know. If the parents and doctor all vote to kill a 1 year old, maybe it is ok. It is a slippery slope, but it isn't a problem that is generally solved for other points of view. For example, we kill criminals, some who are quite young, many who are semi-******ed. We kill women for having pre-marital sex or otherwise dishonoring their family. We allow people to die preventable illness-related deaths because society chooses not to divert the money train in their direction.

I don't have a grand unified theory of morality, but in trying to tackle this piece of the puzzle, it makes sense to allow people to abort DS fetuses, and I wouldn't frown at the mother or mother-in-law who suggests that her daughter abort her DS fetus.

Does it matter if I mention that one of my children exhibited a DS marker in the womb, and I elected not to do any additional tests to determine whether it had DS because I planned to keep it either way?

You're making a mistake of saying that "we" do something and hence it must be moral. That's clearly false.

"It makes sense" -- Why?

Not as far as the logic is concerned.

Hmmm. I can't make sense of this. You seem to be assuming that mark32607 is referring solely to some assumed effect on the foetus of in-utero exposure to cocaine and you link an article that debunks that and points out that environmental factors such as poverty are what are really affecting long term outcomes, when the comment you're responding to (" Kids born into poverty with crack head mothers who are on crack during the entire pregnancy is sick and disgusting".) mentions the environment that babies are born into before it mentions that the mothers were using Crack during the pregnancy, and even then that could as equally likely be a reference to the lack of care for the foetus that you could expect from someone using Crack during a pregnancy, than it is to do with the effect of exposure to cocaine on the foetus.

Uncharitable maybe?

No.

That is, I've nowhere characterized his position or argumentation either explicitly or implicitly. I'm merely passing on information that he might not know - it doesn't really affect the force of his argument at all.

I think the right response to this is to point out that all positions, except for maybe the most maximal no birth control views have the same slippery slope problems.

I disagree. There are many ways to stop the slippery slope problem when you introduce more robust arguments. My point here is that the logic of "the social systems are inadequate" is far from a sufficient argument in favor of abortion, without introducing problems to the position.

Two examples of barriers to the slippery slope problem are "moment of birth" (that the rules change the instant the child is born -- one I believe that you had suggested earlier) and the other is "viability" (that once the child is capable of living distinct from the mother, it should be considered a separate life). Both of these prevent the slippery slope argument from extending to 1 year old children.

That is not what I'm saying. What I wrote is that other points of view suffer equally with an incomplete answer, with loopholes, with potentially slippery-slopes and no ironclad defenses against them. So calling me out for those kinds of problems is not a particularly persuasive blow against my point of view. I would be much more interested in actual problems with it, not merely the idea that there could be problems if it is extended to other areas.

This doesn't strengthen your view in the slightest. It's almost a form of tu quoque (formal logical fallacy) except you're not quite accusing me of having an incomplete answer. At the root, you're not really addressing the criticism and avoiding criticism by pointing to others.

I also think the ones you pointed to, especially especially honor killings, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that your position should be considered to be solid. Most people reject honor killings, and so by categorizing your position like that, you're suggesting that your argument is "suffers equally" with something most people find morally grotesque.

Would you find it acceptable if the parents of a 10-year old and their doctor vote to kill the child on the basis of an illness that is non-life threatening? Maybe they tried to raise a DS child, and then after 10 years they're just tired of it and want to give up. Is that still morally acceptable on the basis of a lack of support systems for the parent?

It *is* an actual problem, at least if you think that reasoning should be consistent. If you don't think the reasoning you use should try to be consistent, then that's a completely different story. Citing an absence of support systems is simply not enough.

Your position would be a lot more consistent if you simply believed that all elective abortions are okay, regardless of the circumstances, so that all this discussion about DS is merely a red herring.

I realize this is the second recent nitpick, and I apologize for that, but tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy.

I think the reason why people think there is a slippery slope problem here is not because you can't pick a post-birth barrier (e.g. you can just pick an age), but because these barriers seem either morally arbitrary or inherently vague. One arbitrary line seems no better than another, so if you are going to pick birth or viability, then why not pick 1 years old, or 2, and so on.

Heh... I knew that, and that was a typo. Oh well.

Figured it was something like that.

Who is most people? My community loves honor killings. They are carried out frequently. Are we wrong? Am I supposed to take that for granted, or are you going to prove it?

What I actually think is happening is noncognitivism - you hit the nail on the head when you said people find it morally grotesque. Yucky = immoral.

Perhaps more later, can't comment more now..

People do surveys to find the answers to such questions. Here's one from Pew Research:



While this survey does not specifically show "morally grotesque" it does show that most people believe that honor killings are never justified.

Am I going to "prove" it? What measure of "proof" are you asking of me? What I will continue to assert is that most people find honor killings morally grotesque. Support for such behaviors is significantly smaller outside of the Middle East. For example:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/honour-crimes/

---

That's not moral noncognitivism. Moral noncognitivism means that the moral statements does not have a truth value. That is, when I claim that people find honor killings morally grotesque, I'm claiming that "Honor killings are immoral" is a true statement.

It represents moral noncognitivism. You may believe you are making a truth-apt statement, but I suspect you are expressing an emotional response to something.

The survey you posted shows that millions of people do not feel that honor killings are never justified. It really doesn't matter to me if millions of others disagree, unless you have some way of demonstrating that the one group is right or more right than the other.

I apologize for not engaging each of the points you have made in your last couple messages. I hope to return to them.

Not really. There are a many reasonable arguments against honor killings, many of which stem from some sort of belief in the value of individual expression.

Nice diversionary tactic. You asked me to support my claim, and I believe I have successfully done so.

But what are you looking for to "demonstrate" the "rightness" of one belief or another? Are you simply shoving your fingers in your ears and telling me that I can't prove you "wrong"?

I said my community supports honor killing, and you said many people find honor killing to be morally grotesque, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course you can find other ways of rationalizing that emotional reaction and say "honor killings go against my belief in the value of individual expression," but I don't think that is why people say something is morally wrong. They say it is wrong because it is grotesque. It speaks to them. They feel it in their gut, and then find a way to support that sounds like a logical argument, but all it really means is that-makes-me-feel-awful. At least, that is what I suspect is going on.

And I am not diverting. I said existing systems have problems with slippery slope, and they have murder after birth (as opposed to abortion), and so pointing out that my revised system (which is status quo + it is good to abort DS babies) suffers from these things is not troublesome for me. The fact that some people outside of my community don't approve of what the millions and millions of people across many nations do support and believe is right and moral does not somehow mean that existing moral systems do not entertain murder. It does not alter my original point that attempting to deal with DS fetuses as a "special case" and then merge it into a broader system of morals is reasonable, and not an illogical or ill fated project, simply because I don't know the answers to many other important moral questions.

And my 3 uninterrupted minutes to spend on this are once again depleted.