Threads by reaganaut1 and me.
...
Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
So why dont we make ourselves the Last Generation on Earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required we could party our way into extinction!
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations and it doesnt make anyone worse off, because there wont be anyone else to be worse off.
Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species thats a different issue. Lets assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No ones rights will be violated at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
__________________________________________________
NEW YORK, June 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the worlds foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea?
In a blog post for the New York Times entitled Should this be the last generation? Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the author of a fine book with an arresting title: Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.
To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her, explains Singer.
Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood.
A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book.
Singer explains Benatars antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: So why dont we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required we could party our way into extinction!
Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations and it doesnt make anyone worse off, because there wont be anyone else to be worse off, he continued.
Singer distances himself from Benatars conclusions, however, and says, I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singers work, responded to Singers recent article, saying, This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the Wests self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean.
Only the resulting mess isnt measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.
Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all, Smith wrote on his blog. This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."
Two threads by me.
LONDON, June 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) Figures released under Britains Freedom of Information Act show that an average of 80 children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other artificial means of artificial procreation, are being aborted each year in England and Wales. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates artificial reproduction practices, has revealed that some of those aborted were conceived by IVF treatments funded by the countrys tax-funded medical system, the National Health Service (NHS).
Former conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said that the figures showed children are being treated like designer goods.
If the law was applied properly, people wouldn't be able to get an abortion just because they changed their minds, Widdecombe said.
The figures show that about half of the abortions are performed out for mothers aged between 18 and 34, the age at which it is easier for women to conceive and carry children to term. The figures included those children aborted for selective reduction, in which one or more children are killed when too many embryos have survived implantation in the womb.
Prof. Bill Ledger, a member of the HFEA, said, I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions and each one is a tragedy.
IVF and other artificial means of procreation have been in use in Britain since the technique was pioneered with the birth of Louise Brown, touted in the media as the worlds first test-tube baby, in 1978. Since then, Britain has led the world in developing the new reproductive technologies, including cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos. The technologies have grown directly out of IVF research.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. By 1997, 1 in 80 children (1.2%) born in Britain was the result of IVF treatment.
__________________________________________________
The Times [London] reported on June 6, 2010 that the discovery has shocked many in the medical community, but not all who are abortion providers. Professor Bill Ledger, a member of Britains Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, pointed to the obvious: These women cant be surprised to be pregnant; you cant have an IVF pregnancy by accident.
Added to the scandal is the case that these abortions are classified as driven by social reasons. In other words, there is no medical issue at stake here. These are successful and healthy pregnancies that were sought by these women, even to the extent of seeking IVF treatments. Women who had sought such abortions after IVF told The Times that they decided after becoming pregnant that they just did not want to have the baby after all, that they terminated the relationship with their partner, or that the realization of impending motherhood was just too much.
Though there is a sense of outrage on the part of many in the public, it appears that much of the concern is financial, rather than moral. In its coverage of the scandal, The Times referred to the fact that young women are having abortions on the NHS (National Health Service) after expensive IVF treatment. In other words, the scandal is implied to be the waste of funds and the misuse of expensive and specialized high-tech fertility treatments.
Some observers responded to the report with no outrage at all. Ann Furedi, a prominent defender of abortion rights, told The Times, Sometimes, it is only when women get pregnant that they can allow themselves to ask the question about whether it is really what they want.
Come again? Ann Furedi appears to be saying that women need not even ask themselves if they really want to be mothers until they are actually pregnant. That assertion is about as morally shocking as can be imagined. Ms. Furedi also told the paper that she believes every abortion doctor sees at least one woman a year who seeks abortion after becoming pregnant through IVF technology.
Ann Widdecombe, a former Member of Parliament, said that women who abort after IVF treatments are treating babies as designer goods. On the other hand, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority insisted that it does not regulate abortions and sought to separate the IVF issue from the abortions in these cases. In an expression of classic bureaucratic banality, the HFEA said, All patients who undergo IVF are assessed, as are the implications for any child that might be born, in advance of the decision to treat.
Well, the implications for a significant number of these children are that they are killed in their mothers wombs.
What does this new scandal say about the human condition? In the first place, it tells us that we are turning ourselves into unabashed idolaters of the self. We are witnessing the elevation of personal autonomy, personal happiness, and personal fulfillment to levels that can only be described as idolatry. These women are seeking abortions just because they have decided they really do not want to be pregnant after all. Their concern is the solitary self above all.
Second, this scandal reminds us that the real issue here is the killing of innocent human life, and not the waste of expensive fertility treatments. The response to this report in some quarters is primarily about money, and not about the sanctity of human life. This fact alone should serve as a warning to us all.
Third, we must remember in light of this scandal that human dignity does not rest in any sense upon the circumstances of conception, but on the fact that every human being ever conceived is made in Gods image and is a life that is sacred and to be honored, protected, welcomed, and cherished. There are all too many women who conceive by natural means, only to make the decision to abort on the same basis as those described in this report. The scandal of the abortions sought after IVF treatments throws a dramatic light on the scandal of abortion itself. This new scandal just serves to make the murderous reality of abortion even more plain to see.
Americans should take note - we can be virtually assured that this scandal is present in this nation to a degree exceeding even what has been revealed in Britain. This nation lacks some of the protections and regulations found even in Britain. The United States is, as some foreign observers have noted, the wild, wild West of fertility treatments. Add to that fact the reality that women in the U.S. can demand an abortion for any reason or for no stated reason at all.
One might think that the most welcome place in the world for an unborn child would be the womb of a mother who would be so intent on getting pregnant that she would seek and undergo IVF fertility treatment. It turns out that in a significant number of cases, that assumption is proved wrong. How do we take the measure of that tragedy?