Abortion in the The Twilight Zone

[SJM1970]

A abortion thought experiment based on the The Twilight Zone episode: Button, Button

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N4fs2yolE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbP-625 ... ure=relmfu



Orginal episode saw you push a button get $200000 and someone would die; I'd like to run through some variations on the above to see where our intuitions would take us. I've been thinking of a longer version but will try to cut it down to size & this is more about consistency than who is right or wrong. It is also a work in progress.

Plus if you cannot get into the spirit of a Twilight Zone thought experiment pls don't nit pick.

Draft 1

1. Say you push the button once a day and get $1000 but a person would die. Is that morally permissible? Y/N
2. You push the button you get the money with a random chance 1-100% chance some person will die? Y/N
3. Is even 1% fixed ever ok? Y/N

I think maybe most will say no even at 1%. If not at 1% it would seem even worse if say we fix at 15% which for the sake of argument will be picked as the chance a woman could get pregnant each time she has sex.

So 2. is now set at 15%


4. 2.+ What if it only occurred to a specific race, sex, sexual preference, nationality, IQ, income etc Y/N

5. 2.+ What if the person had no social ties/family? Y/N

6. 2.+ The person was created out of nothing with no memories or social ties or current desires to exist and would then live or die depending on the 15% chance? Y/N

7. 2.+ Instead of a human person, a non person human picked randomly from non viable foetus, baby, infant, adult with severe a Alzheimers would have a chance to die? Y/N

7a. 2+ The non human person picked randomly was from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

8. 2.+ Was restricted to a wanted non viable foetus & put in an artificial womb but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N

8a. 2.+ The foetus in the artificial womb was picked randomly from either 4. 5. or 6 with no social ties, but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N


Now instead of the 15% chance of dieing rather there is a 15% chance a random individual will be tranformed into a foetus(and upon birth revert to orginal form)- if not already - and end up in a artifcial womb inside the male button pusher or into a real womb if a woman. Birth by Caesarean if male. Males can have keyhole abortions.

The main factor we'd be interested in is whether one would push the button and then have an abortion or switch off the machine to get the money. Y/N

9. 2.+ A human person or non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- appear in a non attached artificial womb. Y/N

9a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. or 7? Y/N

9b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

9c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N


10. 2.+ A human non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- either appear in a real or artificial womb in the button pusher.


10a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

10b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

10c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCQDVkMY_o Theme Music

[SJM1970]

The extremes should be easy. Though i might be wrong

If you put bodily autonomy above all else you could push the button for every choice where something would end up in your body regardless as to whether it used to be a person or not.

If the individual took an extreme personhood view the even a healthy human foetus in a separate artificial womb could be killed, as would be a baby or infant.

If you combined a view that bodily autonomy is very strong and being a person matters then you still shoulnd have a problem causing infanticide as the baby or no person infant while not using the mothers body still isnt a person. Makes it worse if they think being unwanted or wanted shouldn't matter.

Thats enough for the night back at it latter.

[The Voice of Time]

The idea of the human being has worth by itself without being attached to a human, because if it always were to be attached to a human then people would not matter in their absence of our view.

Money however does not have worth unless applied to a situation where it is bound to something essential for us. Like: if I needed food for severely to continue to live, and $200 000 was the price, I would logically sacrifice somebody else to continue my own life except if it for instance was a girl I was insanely in love with I could sacrifice myself. Most likely however I would die unable to make a choice, I do not think high enough of myself emotionally that I could be able to reason my way out of it at least I think by experience.

The foetus scenarios become highly complex and I couldn't understand it, however, it would be easier to let go of a foetus than a living human being, but it is always relative to ones own emotional life, though I reckon I wouldn't let the prospect of my life go in the back of somebody already just waiting to die if I knew things with certainty.

On topic however: no, superfluous money is a waste of a human life. So all situation with the least loss to humans with a mostly initiated life but as much prospects for the future as possible.

[chaz wyman]

Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

[SJM1970]

The above is somewhat more formal but I think I can distill it down.

1. Would you push the button if there was a 25% chance a stranger with no social ties could die?

2. Would you push the button if there was a 25% chance a unwated baby could die?

3. Would you push the button if there was a unwanted foetus in an artificial womb would die?

4. Would you push the button if there was a 25% chance a stranger with no social ties would be tranformed into a foetus and it an a artificial womb appeared in your body? Would you then terminate that stranger?

5. Would you push the button if there was a 25% chance a baby with no social ties would be teleported into a artificial womb and it would appear in your body? Would you then terminate that baby?

If you say no to the above I fail to see why that doesn't also apply to non rape abortion.

I'm mainly interested in the point what moral responsibility do we hold for an action that places another moral agent in or attached to our body? As far as I can see it would be akin to kidnapping and would abrogate bodily sovereignty rights. & even if not, would still entail at the very least manslaughter or murder if you then kill that moral agent.

[SJM1970]

Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

[artisticsolution]

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

Yes, but the moral value could be considered when looking at how much harm can come to the people who's lives would be affect by the babies death vs. an adults death.

Most people share the thought that a baby's death is "worse" somehow, as it has never had a chance to live. However, even though tragic, I think more people would be "affected" personally... i.e.would "miss" or be deeply sorrowful if an adult they knew died vs. a baby... as an adult would be more involved in lives and there would be a sense of an absence...at least a little more than the thought, "what if" as such in a baby's case.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

AS: This is an interesting thought. What do you mean by 'We'. Did you support those who made the decision to 'do' these things you mention? By 'We', do you mean 'Them'?

[SJM1970]

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

Yes, but the moral value could be considered when looking at how much harm can come to the people who's lives would be affect by the babies death vs. an adults death.

Most people share the thought that a baby's death is "worse" somehow, as it has never had a chance to live. However, even though tragic, I think more people would be "affected" personally... i.e.would "miss" or be deeply sorrowful if an adult they knew died vs. a baby... as an adult would be more involved in lives and there would be a sense of an absence...at least a little more than the thought, "what if" as such in a baby's case.

First most abortions aren't because the mothers life is at risk. But say it was and you looked at Boonin's toxic waste argument and there was a risk the tenant would die. Would the fact that the tenant would be missed more and the infant not at all or very much less, mean that we should allow the infant to just die based on a popularity content?

[artisticsolution]

First most abortions aren't because the mothers life is at risk. But say it was and you looked at Boonin's toxic waste argument and there was a risk the tenant would die. Would the fact that the tenant would be missed more and the infant not at all or very much less, mean that we should allow the infant to just die based on a popularity content?

Are you talking about an infant or a fetus? You keep switching around so I am not sure.

As for the popularity contest...I think it is the infant that would win and the fetus that would lose against the tentant. Not that I think that killing anyone is moral.

[SJM1970]

First most abortions aren't because the mothers life is at risk. But say it was and you looked at Boonin's toxic waste argument and there was a risk the tenant would die. Would the fact that the tenant would be missed more and the infant not at all or very much less, mean that we should allow the infant to just die based on a popularity content?

Are you talking about an infant or a fetus? You keep switching around so I am not sure.

As for the popularity contest...I think it is the infant that would win and the fetus that would lose against the tentant. Not that I think that killing anyone is moral.

I did reference to my Toxic waste post sorry I wasn't clear. There it was a non person infant. You seem to talking about it being worse if the mother dies, but what I'm saying if the person, like in the Toxic waste argument, who actually is the offender -in that they cause dependency- does it matter if they are the more popular party when deciding if they should risk their life?

[chaz wyman]

Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

We are not talking about viability but actuality.

The case for or against abortion lies with the acquiescence of the the 'mother' to offer her body as a vessel for the person to become actualised.
Limits to temporal legal limits to abortion are otherwise based on whether or not the foetus might live outside the mother. Thus the button is not an abortion issue.
But more than that the foetus is always know the the mother and can never be a stranger (although she might feel it so). It is in any event up-close and personal.

The button is more like voting for the return of capital punishment.

[SJM1970]

Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

We are not talking about viability but actuality.

The case for or against abortion lies with the acquiescence of the the 'mother' to offer her body as a vessel for the person to become actualised.
Limits to temporal legal limits to abortion are otherwise based on whether or not the foetus might live outside the mother. Thus the button is not an abortion issue.
But more than that the foetus is always know the the mother and can never be a stranger (although she might feel it so). It is in any event up-close and personal.

The button is more like voting for the return of capital punishment.

"We are not talking about viability but actuality." No, as far as I see both are actual and regardless viability doesn't enter into the equation as morally relevant anyway. Moral value is supposed to be based on morally relevant capacities and living unattached isn't one of them.

I don't think acquiescence comes into it as strongly as you think, society does force situations on individuals that severely impact on what you can do with your body and while we don't have a direct precedent; as pointed out in the Toxic waste analogy the underlying principle of compensation is still there. It’s just people aren’t used to dealing with or thinking about it in this way.

Next any moral systems wants consistent and relevant moral precepts and frankly viability and RvW are seen by many, -even including Pro-Choice philosophers- and legal experts as flawed.

Viability is bandaid philosophy. So with due respect I'm still waiting for you to explain why something like a dog hasn't got full moral value and a baby does, neither are persons and both are capable of unattached existence.


The beauty of the Button thought experiment is that it highlights the central themes and flaws in people’s stances in the abortion debate, but crucially IMO highlights the question can you put another being with full moral value in your body and then expect to kill it just because you claim bodily autonomy?

Do you think we can?

If you then say a foetus doesn't have full moral value then you have to explain why Post Birth Abortions aren't an option. Viability just doesn't do it.


The point of strangers is more to do with highlighting lack of social ties personally and societally. Can you kill someone just because no one cares about this individual? No. It also questions those accounts that think a mother assigns moral value to her offspring; if she can assign she can also withhold. Nor are family ties relevant by itself.

I don't think capital punishment comes into it, rather the Button asks the question can a offender/kidnapper avoid negative consequences of their actions by killing the victim?

Lastly could you let me know how you answered my short version of Button Button?

[chaz wyman]

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

We are not talking about viability but actuality.

The case for or against abortion lies with the acquiescence of the the 'mother' to offer her body as a vessel for the person to become actualised.
Limits to temporal legal limits to abortion are otherwise based on whether or not the foetus might live outside the mother. Thus the button is not an abortion issue.
But more than that the foetus is always know the the mother and can never be a stranger (although she might feel it so). It is in any event up-close and personal.

The button is more like voting for the return of capital punishment.

"We are not talking about viability but actuality." No, as far as I see both are actual and regardless viability doesn't enter into the equation as morally relevant anyway. Moral value is supposed to be based on morally relevant capacities and living unattached isn't one of them.

Of course it is, if you want to maintain ant relevance to the button.

I don't think acquiescence comes into it as strongly as you think, society does force situations on individuals that severely impact on what you can do with your body and while we don't have a direct precedent; as pointed out in the Toxic waste analogy the underlying principle of compensation is still there. It’s just people aren’t used to dealing with or thinking about it in this way.

None of which objection relates to the button issue - which is supposed to be the point.

Next any moral systems wants consistent and relevant moral precepts and frankly viability and RvW are seen by many, -even including Pro-Choice philosophers- and legal experts as flawed.

So what?


Viability is bandaid philosophy.
Gibberish
So with due respect I'm still waiting for you to explain why something like a dog hasn't got full moral value and a baby does, neither are persons and both are capable of unattached existence.

Abortion is not related to babies, as babies are persons. Foetuses are not persons, as they are not separate from the mother and have not reached personhood.
But even babies cannot survive alone, so the relationship to the button is far from clear even here.


The beauty of the Button thought experiment is that it highlights the central themes and flaws in people’s stances in the abortion debate,

Not in the slightest. It bears no relevance and I am still waiting for you to say how you think it does.
The button sets a question: would you take financial advantage from the death of another. If you do so then who is to say that the next person will not end your life in the same way.
Fuck all to do with the abortion debate.



but crucially IMO highlights the question can you put another being with full moral value in your body and then expect to kill it just because you claim bodily autonomy?

That relates to no moral situation extant and nothing to do with the button.
Pregnancy does not 'put a being with any moral value in your body.' does sperm have moral value? Does a miscarried egg have moral value - no and no. It is a legal matter to assess at what point the process attracts the status of a moral question, and that is parallel with the notion of personhood - NONE OF WHICH is hinted at in button, let alone an analogy for it.


Do you think we can?

If you then say a foetus doesn't have full moral value then you have to explain why Post Birth Abortions aren't an option. Viability just doesn't do it.

Are you on drugs? "Post Birth Abortions" is a contradiction in terms.

The point of strangers is more to do with highlighting lack of social ties personally and societally. Can you kill someone just because no one cares about this individual? No. It also questions those accounts that think a mother assigns moral value to her offspring; if she can assign she can also withhold. Nor are family ties relevant by itself.

All of which goes to show how irrelevant button is to abortion.

I don't think capital punishment comes into it, rather the Button asks the question can a offender/kidnapper avoid negative consequences of their actions by killing the victim?

The reason this might be apposite is that none of us have to face pressing the button, but we are none the less asked to choose if a stranger dies because we think that we and the rest of society will be advantaged by the death. The question being a person not personally known. When crime and punishment is nearer to home attitudes change as they are more personal.

But a better analogy is the so-called War-on-Terror which has claimed innocent victims that are not known to us, in the name of our own benefit and security. The analogy with button would be; are you willing to die randomly for the sake of another's benefit - which was the implication of the last scene of the programme.

Lastly could you let me know how you answered my short version of Button Button?

see following

[chaz wyman]

A abortion thought experiment based on the The Twilight Zone episode: Button, Button

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N4fs2yolE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbP-625 ... ure=relmfu



Orginal episode saw you push a button get $200000 and someone would die; I'd like to run through some variations on the above to see where our intuitions would take us. I've been thinking of a longer version but will try to cut it down to size & this is more about consistency than who is right or wrong. It is also a work in progress.

Plus if you cannot get into the spirit of a Twilight Zone thought experiment pls don't nit pick.

Draft 1

1. Say you push the button once a day and get $1000 but a person would die. Is that morally permissible? Y/N
2. You push the button you get the money with a random chance 1-100% chance some person will die? Y/N
3. Is even 1% fixed ever ok? Y/N

I think maybe most will say no even at 1%. If not at 1% it would seem even worse if say we fix at 15% which for the sake of argument will be picked as the chance a woman could get pregnant each time she has sex.

So 2. is now set at 15%


4. 2.+ What if it only occurred to a specific race, sex, sexual preference, nationality, IQ, income etc Y/N

5. 2.+ What if the person had no social ties/family? Y/N

6. 2.+ The person was created out of nothing with no memories or social ties or current desires to exist and would then live or die depending on the 15% chance? Y/N

7. 2.+ Instead of a human person, a non person human picked randomly from non viable foetus, baby, infant, adult with severe a Alzheimers would have a chance to die? Y/N

7a. 2+ The non human person picked randomly was from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

8. 2.+ Was restricted to a wanted non viable foetus & put in an artificial womb but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N

8a. 2.+ The foetus in the artificial womb was picked randomly from either 4. 5. or 6 with no social ties, but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N


Now instead of the 15% chance of dieing rather there is a 15% chance a random individual will be tranformed into a foetus(and upon birth revert to orginal form)- if not already - and end up in a artifcial womb inside the male button pusher or into a real womb if a woman. Birth by Caesarean if male. Males can have keyhole abortions.

The main factor we'd be interested in is whether one would push the button and then have an abortion or switch off the machine to get the money. Y/N

9. 2.+ A human person or non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- appear in a non attached artificial womb. Y/N

9a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. or 7? Y/N

9b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

9c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N


10. 2.+ A human non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- either appear in a real or artificial womb in the button pusher.


10a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

10b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

10c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCQDVkMY_o Theme Music

I think this seems to trivialise the question by turning it into a gambling game rather than a moral test.
You are asking if you would jettison the moral question based on the probability of the outcome. This is not morality but a maths test.
I'm guessing you are from the US.

[artisticsolution]

Can you kill someone just because no one cares about this individual? No.

Actually, you can...as in the case of Terry Schiavo. Here we have legal precedent that it is actually lawful to kill a human being. And popularity wasn't even an issue. Half wanted her to live and the other half wanted her to die. She was killed by starvation. It took her 13 days to die.