Derail: Pro-life religious debate

[marooned]

There's nothing wrong with abortion. It is actually much more moral to abort a fetus you can't care of as a normal kid then raise it in a world where it won't be supported. The parents won't/can't support or love it, so that means the State has to fill the void and we all know what a good job that will do.

Nature sucks. In nature the mother is always more important than her offspring. If she dies for them, they die too, and she will never reproduce again. It is death to a species. The offspring draws her energy and resources, and if she can't sustain that it's her choice to cut it off. But I suppose we can float the offspring down the river and say "you will have a chance."

Anyway, I don't like abortion, but once again, the world isn't nice, nature isn't sweet, life is hard. Etc.

I agree there is more than one argument that it is ethical in some cases (or perhaps entirely given human overpopulation).

[xerx]

..... on the other hand, s/he could be the next Adolph H!tler.

[nanashi]

..... on the other hand, s/he could be the next Adolph H!tler.

Yeah, but Minority Report showed us over a decade ago why that argument is trash-fire-ness.
We can't use the 'they could be ******' idea.
Ess unreasonable.



In addition to everything in the article below, it's ethically hypocritical and THERE IS NO PROOF it's effective AND no proof it's not WORSE for humanity

Brain flapping Science and scepticism
Time travellers: please don’t kill ******
In almost any science-fiction scenario involving time-travel, the default action is to kill ******. As terrible a human being as he was, there are many reasons why this probably isn’t a good idea

Dean Burnett

@garwboy
Fri 21 Feb 2014 02.15 ESTLast modified on Thu 22 Feb 2018 07.30 EST
Shares
4,380
Comments
1,085
A picture of Adolf ****** (1889-1945), the German fascist dictator, pictured saluting at a Nuremberg rally, 1934. (Photo by Popperfoto/Getty Images) Famous Swastika Nazi Heil
Adolf ****** at a rally, likely surrounded by time-travelling assassins in disguise. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images
If you find yourself suddenly gaining access to a time machine, what’s the first thing you’d do? If you said “kill Adolf ******”, then congratulations; you’re a science-fiction character. Actually, the whole “access to a time machine” thing suggested that already, but the desire to kill ****** clinches it. Any time-travelling sci-fi character (at least ones created by Western society) seems to want to kill ******, so much so that there’s a trope about how it’s impossible.

That attempting to kill ****** has become such a common sci-fi plot device speaks volumes. What about Stalin? He was arguably worse, killing 20 million of his own people to fuel his ideology. But no, Stalin went about his business unmolested by time travellers, all of whom are busy targeting ******.

Advertisement

It’s understandable. Who wouldn’t want to prevent the holocaust? It’s probably the worst thing in history. And I only say “probably” because I don’t know all of history, and the human capacity to be awful should not be underestimated. But as noble as it seems, killing the Fuhrer via time travel is a terrible idea, for real-world reasons, not just those in fiction. So should you get hold of a time machine and make plans to kill ******, here are some reasons why you shouldn’t.

Ethical quandary
Could you actually kill another human being? Despite what pop culture implies, humans generally aren’t predisposed to killing each other. This isn’t an absolute, of course. Abstract thinking about homicide is relatively common, and many humans end up taking the lives of others due to complex circumstances such as brutal upbringings/environments, or possibly psychiatric illness. And of course, some people are just evil. It seems challenging to reconcile these motivations with the mentality that plans to kill ****** as an altruistic act.


Sign up for Bookmarks: discover new books in our weekly email
Read more
But let’s assume you are willing to kill one to save millions of others. All of history to visit, and your first port of call involves killing. Fine. Whatever. When do you kill ******? As a child, ****** hadn’t done anything monstrous enough to warrant his murder, so would you be willing to take his life then? Minority Report struggled with this issue, and that was on a much smaller scale.

Maybe later, when the Reich is in place but he hadn’t committed genocide yet. But would this be too late? Once everything has been set up, would eliminating ****** change anything? This brings us onto another reason not to do it.

Wider context
Stephen Fry dealt with this superbly in his book Making History. Without spoilers, the problem is that many assume ****** was the sole cause of the second world war and all the associated horrors. Sadly, this is a gross oversimplification. Germany in the 1930s wasn’t a utopia of basket-weaving peace lovers who were suddenly and severely corrupted by ******’s charismatic moustache. The political tensions and strife were all there, results of a previous world war and a great depression; ****** was just able to capitalise on this. But if he hadn’t, say because he had been eliminated by an errant time traveller, then there’s nothing to say that nobody else would.

Problems rarely exist in isolation. Just like you can’t go in and rip out a tumour because it’s connected to the wider body which will react badly to such a blunt intrusion, elimination of the main figurehead won’t necessarily prevent events that were as much a product of the wider socio-political context. So if you did try it …

Chaos theory
There’s the oft-quoted example of the butterfly effect, ie very small changes in a very complex system can have very big effects. You can criticise ****** for many valid reasons, but one thing he wasn’t was “insignificant”; if he were, there’d be no desire to assassinate him. So even if you did succeed, given the impact he had on so many lives, you’d drastically alter the future/present, even if it panned out to be “better” without ******.

Say whoever replaced him was ineffectual and the war ended with reduced loss of life and destruction. In this timeline, maybe no German rocket scientists ended up in the US. The space programme loses some of its best minds, and happens more slowly (or not at all?) The space race resulted in a breath-taking amount of scientific advancement and spinoff technology, one strand of which eventually led to time travel. Now that you’ve changed things, time travel wasn’t invented in your lifetime, so either you vanish and the whole thing is undone, or your time machine does. So now you’re stranded in wartime Berlin. And you’ve just killed the beloved leader of one of the most powerful military machines in history.

Good luck with that.

Cultural reference
This may seem like a minor issue, but it’s not wise to dismiss how ****** and his actions shaped the society of those who opposed him. The Nazis are almost unanimously considered to have been the “bad guys”. The phenomenon of Godwin’s law underscores the cultural reflex of Nazis = evil and wrong. Anyone who agrees with them in present times is (quite rightly) condemned en masse. Without this stark and horrible example of how prejudice and fascism can lead to atrocities, would such things be as vilified as they are today? The existence of ****** likely served to unite his enemies at a societal level, which has considerable ramifications.

And let’s not overlook the consequences of the war that led to important changes in terms of equality and the like in society as a whole. This isn’t to say these things wouldn’t happen anyway, but it’s likely they happened a lot faster due to ******’s presence. It’s impossible to say how many may have suffered and died over the years, if people hadn’t banded together to fight ******. Is this something you’d risk changing?

****** lost
This is overlooked surprisingly often, so it bears repeating: ****** didn’t win. Whatever you think of the present, we don’t live in some bleak wasteland dominated by a global Reich. Because ****** and his armies lost. Although it was a costly victory, it was still technically a victory, so why risk going back and interfering with an outcome you favour? And arguably, it was due to ******’s incompetence as a strategist that the war panned out the way it did.

In a way, ****** had the perfect combination of drive, charisma, evil and incompetence to unite the world against him and ensure that his forces lost. It’s such an unlikely combination of factors that the only way to consciously make it happen would be to go back in time and remove anyone else who might have …

… oh. Oh dear.

Dean Burnett promises he is not a time-travelling Nazi. But then, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Keep an eye on him on Twitter, @garwboy

America faces an epic choice ...
... in the coming days, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last four years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth.


The future of abortion and voting rights, healthcare, climate policy and much more hang in the balance. Science is in a battle with conjecture and instinct to determine policy in the middle of a pandemic. At the same time, the US is reckoning with centuries of racial injustice – as the White House stokes division along racial lines. At a time like this, an independent news organization that fights for truth and holds power to account is not just optional. It is essential.


Like many news organizations, the Guardian has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. We rely to an ever greater extent on our readers, both for the moral force to continue doing journalism at a time like this and for the financial strength to facilitate that reporting.


You’ve read more than 25 articles in the last year. We believe every one of us deserves equal access to fact-based news and analysis. We’ve decided to keep Guardian journalism free for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This is made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers across America in all 50 states.


As our business model comes under even greater pressure, we’d love your help so that we can carry on our essential work. If you can, support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

[Grendel]

Nature sucks. In nature the mother is always more important than her offspring. If she dies for them, they die too, and she will never reproduce again. It is death to a species. The offspring draws her energy and resources, and if she can't sustain that it's her choice to cut it off. But I suppose we can float the offspring down the river and say "you will have a chance."

Anyway, I don't like abortion, but once again, the world isn't nice, nature isn't sweet, life is hard. Etc.

I agree there is more than one argument that it is ethical in some cases (or perhaps entirely given human overpopulation).

In humans it is. In K-selected creatures (which are an abomination for several reasons).

More often than not, the norm in nature is that the larvae crack out of the eggs totally self-sufficient, hunting from their first day of life, and never even need to see their own parents.


Nitpick. Your point does still apply for humans, though.