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.

JoshuaZ comments on Blues, Greens and abortion - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Snowyowl 05 March 2011 07:15PM

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

Comments (150)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 March 2011 10:32:20PM *  3 points [-]

painless euthenasia is a parental right up until the child is old enough to object IMO.

What constitutes an objection? Does crying loudly count? And what happens if they can object but then lose the ability to object (due to say brain injury)?

Comment author: endoself 06 March 2011 02:37:16AM 1 point [-]

If you meant this as an objection, the fact that we can be uncertain about morality does not make what is right any less right. If you just wanted clarification on the grandparent's opinions, disregard this comment. (The number of downvotes on the grandparent is evidence that you meant this as an objections.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 March 2011 03:33:23PM 2 points [-]

My point was that nazgulnarsil seems to be making large blanket statements with no justification other than apparent intuition. Exhibiting border cases is a good way to show that. I suspect that the reason he has been downvoted is precisely that- overarching assertions without any reasoning to back them up.

Comment author: endoself 07 March 2011 05:06:36AM 2 points [-]

This border is less arbitrary than birth. I am not sure if this is what nazgulnarsil intended, but I think the ability to understand death creates a natural barrier because at this point one's quality of life can suffer from understanding the possibility of euthanasia. Another natural barrier is the ability to have opinions on controversial topics, because at this point someone may want to kill you to suppress your opinions, leading to a suboptimal marketplace of ideas.

Comment author: Snowyowl 06 March 2011 03:25:59PM *  0 points [-]

And doesn't our society consider that children can't make legally binding statements until they're 16 or 18l?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 March 2011 03:31:51PM *  1 point [-]

And doesn't our society consider that children can't make legally binding statements until they're 16 or 18l?

That's a) an arbitrary rule that doesn't have any justification other than history and b) not even completely true. For example, children can be witnesses in court cases and if their parents are getting divorced their preferences in regards to custody can matter a lot. Similarly, in some jurisdictions, kids below 18 can get married if they and the parents agree.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 05 March 2011 11:18:03PM -1 points [-]

something reasonable, maybe, next of kin should be able to pull the plug unless there's some sort of prior signed statement.