painless euthenasia is a parental right up until the child is old enough to object IMO. I don’t really grasp what sort of pragmatic approach pro-lifers propose. people are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not.
Was this downvoted just because people disagree? If people are going to do that, they should at least state their reasons for disagreement. I think this is an opinion that needs to be discussed more. Maybe LessWrong isn’t the place for it, but more (net) people downvoted this comment than downvoted the main post, and they discuss the same controversial topic, just from different viewpoints. Since yours is not a common opinion, it is more important that people read it because many will not have considered or even heard of this viewpoint before.
Also, I don’t think that a lack of a pragmatic plan is a valid argument against pro-lifers. If they were right than difficulty would be no reason not to try to do the right thing.
I think this is an opinion that needs to be discussed more.
Perhaps. But if so, we’d be better off if the comment that introduces it laid out some of the grounds for and implications of holding it.
Simply asserting it as an opinion about parental rights, with no sense of how the author even thinks about how to determine whether something is a right or not beyond a perhaps-relevant vague nod to pragmatism, sets up the discussion to be more fractious than productive.
Actually, having said that: I hadn’t downvoted it (I don’t downvote much), but having thought about it now, I suppose I ought to. All right, then:
I agree that it wasn’t a very good comment, but I don’t think it would have been downvoted as much if the topic matter were different. I think your reasons for downvoting it were valid.
Pavitra brings up a good point; the lack of capitalization could also be responsible for the extra downvotes.
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)?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
painless euthenasia is a parental right up until the child is old enough to object IMO. I don’t really grasp what sort of pragmatic approach pro-lifers propose. people are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not.
Was this downvoted just because people disagree? If people are going to do that, they should at least state their reasons for disagreement. I think this is an opinion that needs to be discussed more. Maybe LessWrong isn’t the place for it, but more (net) people downvoted this comment than downvoted the main post, and they discuss the same controversial topic, just from different viewpoints. Since yours is not a common opinion, it is more important that people read it because many will not have considered or even heard of this viewpoint before.
Also, I don’t think that a lack of a pragmatic plan is a valid argument against pro-lifers. If they were right than difficulty would be no reason not to try to do the right thing.
Bad capitalization offends me.
Perhaps. But if so, we’d be better off if the comment that introduces it laid out some of the grounds for and implications of holding it.
Simply asserting it as an opinion about parental rights, with no sense of how the author even thinks about how to determine whether something is a right or not beyond a perhaps-relevant vague nod to pragmatism, sets up the discussion to be more fractious than productive.
Actually, having said that: I hadn’t downvoted it (I don’t downvote much), but having thought about it now, I suppose I ought to. All right, then:
I agree that it wasn’t a very good comment, but I don’t think it would have been downvoted as much if the topic matter were different. I think your reasons for downvoting it were valid.
Pavitra brings up a good point; the lack of capitalization could also be responsible for the extra downvotes.
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)?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
something reasonable, maybe, next of kin should be able to pull the plug unless there’s some sort of prior signed statement.