You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

siduri comments on An Abortion Dialogue - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: gwern 12 February 2011 01:20AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 February 2011 06:19:42PM 5 points [-]

I think the last part of the dialogue is unconvincing: the Apologist weasels away from addressing the slippery slope argument. He seems to be saying that children aren't "human" until sometime after puberty--when they can "act all the acts, think all the thoughts, and feel all the feelings people can." The obvious response for the Contrarian is to ask whether the Apologist is opposed to infanticide, and if so, exactly where he draws the bright line between infanticide and abortion.

Comment author: gwern 19 February 2011 09:19:14AM 2 points [-]

Fair enough. I already alluded to it and wanted to present my own novel slippery slope argument using parthenogenesis, but I guess it was a loose end.

I've added a little ordinary enough description of infanticide and acceptance. (Only really interesting thing is the Malthusian material.) The new material is at the bottom roughly where you'd expect it.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 March 2011 03:00:42AM 3 points [-]

Yep. The new material is internally consistent, but of course you're going to lose the people--and I'm pretty sure this would be a majority of all people--who have a strong moral intuition against infanticide.

Comment author: gwern 01 March 2011 05:00:30AM 2 points [-]

The new material is internally consistent, but of course you're going to lose the people

One of my unstated goals is to show that both speakers are wrong about personal identity; the pro-lifer is incoherent or absurd, and the other is consistent but as you point out infanticide clashes with naive intuitions. The second is 'less wrong', but that's still not 'all right'.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 January 2012 04:52:19AM 5 points [-]

Or perhaps you've illustrated that naive intuitions about infanticide are wrong.

Comment author: Pentashagon 05 April 2013 10:49:59PM -1 points [-]

Perhaps our naive intuitions about the babyeaters are also wrong.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 April 2013 03:14:43AM 0 points [-]

Well, at least some of my naive intuitions about babyeaters I'm fairly certain are wrong. Eating babies seems much much much worse than simply killing them, for example.