Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,563 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. newton: eliminating abortion would increase the number of children who needed to be adopted. Creating a population which would include a larger percentage of children who suffered from more complex health issues. Coupled with a effort by conservatives to eliminate the health safety net, this would make find adoptive parents willing to accept the financial requirement even more difficult.

    Good stuff, I think.

    But consider: from a “rights perspective” none of that matters. It’s the woman’s right or it isn’t. It’s the fetus’s right, or it’s not.

  2. walto: Thanks, dazz. What is it about those goals that makes you now think that it would have been good to have them earlier?More specifically, I mean, What about your life would have been better if you’d fulfilled those, rather than some other goals you now don’t care so much about?

    Some of those things might have changed my life dramatically, who knows if for the best or not. I guess it’s all a matter of expectations but also about moral accountability: some of those things I would still change them even if they costed me

  3. Mung,
    Given that you have my position backwards, I am relieved that you find my logic horrendous. I suggest you read what I wrote.

    And of course it doesn’t “follow” from what I wrote that there are not enough people who are willing to adopt. That’s a well-known and entirely uncontroversial fact.
    With that one famous exception.

  4. Mung: Leaving aside the fairness of the question, it’s a pointless question. A red herring. Because nothing follows from it either way.

    So was FMM’s, sometimes one herring deserves another.

  5. dazz: But what makes one goal better than another goal?

    This would be so much easier if we were talking about football

    But think about it. If there are no such things as natural rights, in order to tell whether abortion is allowable or not (or who gets to decide this or whatever), we have to know what’s valuable. Is it the mother’s preferences? The fetus’s likely future life as a human being? Some optimal societal result? If we don’t have any position on that stuff, we really have no idea what the basis is for our answer.

    Positing “rights” makes it easy. Without them, I don’t see that there’s any way to avoid doing some value theory (which, yeah, is hard).

  6. walto: But think about it. If there are no such things as natural rights, in order to tell whether abortion is allowable or not (or who gets to decide this or whatever),we have to know what’s valuable. Is it the mother’s preferences? The fetus’s likely future life as a human being? Some optimal societal result?If we don’t have any position on that stuff, we really have no idea what the basis is for our answer.

    Positing “rights” makes it easy. Without them, I don’t see that there’s any way to avoid doing some value theory (which, yeah, is hard).

    Ah, makes complete sense, thanks Walto.
    Seems to me even someone who believes in rights might be forced to decide which rights should take precedence (are somehow more valuable) in this case, unless they believed that unborns have no rights, but then I guess they would have no basis to criticize a woman that smokes and drinks while pregnant, for example

Leave a Reply