= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MatthewB comments on One Life Against the World - 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 (81)
What I am going to say may be extremely unpopular,but everything you have stated about bringing a child to terms could well fall within the terminology used by Psychohistorian:
Even given all of the discomforts and difficulties you have mentioned, they are more about the Mother than the child, and as long as the puking, cramping, cranky, hormonal mother does not starve, the child should be delivered.
I think that most of what you have mentioned are just difficulties with the attempt to make certain the mother does not starve.
But, then, at this point, it's really all just semantics / terminology that we are talking about
It doesn't particularly bother me but you are mistaken.
Yes. All of which combined is harder than saving a life at the current margin.
Labour doesn't have much to do with not starving.
Taboo "difficulty."
Creating a human life doesn't require a lot of advance planning/willpower, while saving a life does require you to think about the problem in advance and decide on an inconvenient course of action when nobody's forcing you to do so.
The costs of creating a human life in effort, financial expense, suffering, and willpower, considered as a whole, are greater than the costs of saving a life.
Good medicine does a bit more than that. If the only thing you do is "not starve" the probability is somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 that the child will die. Quite possibly killing the mother as well.
ETA: Not doing things can also be hard, if the consequences are unpleasant enough