= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multiheaded comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1430)
The damage would've been already done elsewhere by that point. The parent would likely have already
1) seen their born, living infant, experiencing what their instincts tell them to (if wired normally in this regard)
2) made the decision and signed the paperwork
3) (maybe) even taken another look at the infant with the knowledge that it's the last time they see it
I feel that every one of those little points could subtly damage (or totally wreck) a person.
I'm afraid you may have your bottom line written already. In the age of ultrasound and computer generated images or even better in the future age of transhuman sensory enhancement or fetuses being grown outside the human body the exact same argument can be used against abortion.
Especially once you remember the original context was a 10 month old baby, not say a 10 year old child.
Then I might well have to use it against abortion at some point, for the same reason: we should forbid people from overriding this part of their instincts.
Upvoted for bullet-biting.
Why is overriding of instincts inherently bad?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/v0/ethical_inhibitions/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/v1/ethical_injunctions/
First, I'm understandably modeling this on myself, and second, it doesn't really make this speculation any less valid in itself.