= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
chron comments on 2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis: Part Four (Politics, Calibration & Probability, Futurology, Charity & Effective Altruism) - Less Wrong Discussion
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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (27)
Rather, the standard conservative argument against abortion, based on the fetus's right to life, isn't going to convince neo-reactionaries or fascists who don't believe in human rights. On the other hand, they might well be convinced by Margret Sanger-style arguments about aborting undesirables.
This is a good point, although I would partially agree with them - not only am I pro-choice, but I would strongly advice someone to abort if the child would have Down's syndrome for instance. It is the humane thing to do for all involved - you don't condemn a child to sickness and parents to possibly watching a child die before they do.
Ok, would you extend that logic to other undesirable traits, including ones that correlate with race?
Well, firstly I'm saying this should be voluntary, and most people are not going to try to commit genocide, especially against their own race. Secondly, do you realise that the number of kids people have already correlates strongly with race and religion? Although, the correlation is more that race correlates with religion and development which in turn causes fertility. I'm not claiming that race causes religion. Thirdly, aborting kids with horrible genetic deceases could actually raise the population after two generations, because the diseases would stop the kids from having kids of their own.
Generally, I don't find the argument "X is bad because it's affects correlates with race" to be plausible, because its so universal. It would stop you doing anything.