That means it’s cheaper and possible to do in greater volume—not easier. It’s probably uncommon indeed to save lives by accident, let alone while actively trying not to, which happens in the creation department all the time. Easier certainly doesn’t mean cheaper, or people would behave differently with credit cards.
Having established that, would you say that a pregnancy (or several, since the average pregnancy produces less than one child) is easier or harder than mailing a check?
I’d distinguish here between “difficult” as in requiring discomfort and “difficult” as in requiring optional effort. By optional effort, I mean effort that one could feasibly take the null action rather than exert. None of the effort expended in carrying a baby to term is really optional at the time. If I were to get pregnant, I could at no time say to myself, “Well, I’d really rather not vomit right now, so I’ll take the null action.” Even if there were something I could have done earlier to enable the null action at that time, once it gets to that point, it’s happening whether I like it or not. Similar with labor. I don’t think anyone will perform an abortion when one is literally about to extrude an infant, practically speaking, so although labor is an immense effort, it is not an optional effort once it’s gotten to that point. Taking Plan B, going through with an abortion, and yes—mailing a check, are all optional effort.
I think Alicorn’s point was that being pregnant might be more unpleasant/expensive/”difficult” than mailing a check, but getting pregnant is much, much easier. So easy, in fact, one can do it accidentally.
I think the crucial point here is the disparity between sexes. The amount of effort required for a man to induce a pregnancy, the cost of the dating&mating game, is certainly not “easy”. I expect this is also the case for some (least-generally-attractive) women.
Barring spontaneous miscarriage or starvation, it is the default. A woman has to refrain from taking certain actions, but, once she’s pregnant, she doesn’t actively have to do much but not starve.
Let me talk to some of my female friends and get back to you. I’ll see how many comments along the lines of “labor is easy” and “Vomiting off and on for months on end? Yeah, but it’s just a default.” it takes until I get slapped. I argue that default or not it is easier to abort a child than to carry it to term and give birth. That human instincts cry out to us to produce offspring at huge cost doesn’t mean it is easy.
Falling down a hill is quite painful. However, once you start falling down a hill, you’re going to keep falling until you reach the bottom, unless you make a conscious and coordinated decision to stop yourself, if you are even able to. In that sense, once you start falling down a hill, it is very easy to keep falling, because it’s what happens if you don’t try to change things.
In the same sense (and I apologize for the unpleasant metaphor) pregnancy is easy; once a woman is pregnant, barring miscarriage, she’s gonna have a kid. It’s going to be painful and at times miserable, but it’s going to happen. I agree with you that there’s less disutility experienced if she has an abortion, but she has to make a conscious choice to do that, go to a clinic, and pay a bill. It may be the more pleasant way out, but, in this context, it’s not easier; it doesn’t really happen by accident (excepting spontaneous miscarriage, which is admittedly fairly common, but besides the point).
Everything you describe is something she endures; there’s no willpower to it. This is in contrast with saving a life as discussed earlier, which requires a deliberate, conscious decision, negotiating some mild bureaucracy, and writing a check. If you get pregnant and do not actively choose to do something about it, you have a kid. If you get a checkbook and do not actively choose to write checks to charities, you don’t save any lives. That’s what easy means.
ETA: You also assume that abortion has no cost beyond its monetary cost. For women who believe it is wrong for whatever reason, it may be far, far more unpleasant than having the child.
What I am going to say may be extremely unpopular,but everything you have stated about bringing a child to terms could well fall within the terminology used by Psychohistorian:
once she’s pregnant, she doesn’t actively have to do much but not starve.
Even given all of the discomforts and difficulties you have mentioned, they are more about the Mother than the child, and as long as the puking, cramping, cranky, hormonal mother does not starve, the child should be delivered.
I think that most of what you have mentioned are just difficulties with the attempt to make certain the mother does not starve.
But, then, at this point, it’s really all just semantics / terminology that we are talking about
as long as the … mother does not starve, the child should be delivered.
Good medicine does a bit more than that. If the only thing you do is “not starve” the probability is somewhere between 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 that the child will die. Quite possibly killing the mother as well.
ETA: Not doing things can also be hard, if the consequences are unpleasant enough
What I am going to say may be extremely unpopular,but everything you have stated about bringing a child to terms could well fall within the terminology used by Psychohistorian:
It doesn’t particularly bother me but you are mistaken.
Even given all of the discomforts and difficulties you have mentioned, they are more about the Mother than the child, and as long as the puking, cramping, cranky, hormonal mother does not starve, the child should be delivered.
Yes. All of which combined is harder than saving a life at the current margin.
I think that most of what you have mentioned are just difficulties with the attempt to make certain the mother does not starve.
Creating a human life doesn’t require a lot of advance planning/willpower, while saving a life does require you to think about the problem in advance and decide on an inconvenient course of action when nobody’s forcing you to do so.
The costs of creating a human life in effort, financial expense, suffering, and willpower, considered as a whole, are greater than the costs of saving a life.
That means it’s cheaper and possible to do in greater volume—not easier. It’s probably uncommon indeed to save lives by accident, let alone while actively trying not to, which happens in the creation department all the time. Easier certainly doesn’t mean cheaper, or people would behave differently with credit cards.
Having established that, would you say that a pregnancy (or several, since the average pregnancy produces less than one child) is easier or harder than mailing a check?
I’d distinguish here between “difficult” as in requiring discomfort and “difficult” as in requiring optional effort. By optional effort, I mean effort that one could feasibly take the null action rather than exert. None of the effort expended in carrying a baby to term is really optional at the time. If I were to get pregnant, I could at no time say to myself, “Well, I’d really rather not vomit right now, so I’ll take the null action.” Even if there were something I could have done earlier to enable the null action at that time, once it gets to that point, it’s happening whether I like it or not. Similar with labor. I don’t think anyone will perform an abortion when one is literally about to extrude an infant, practically speaking, so although labor is an immense effort, it is not an optional effort once it’s gotten to that point. Taking Plan B, going through with an abortion, and yes—mailing a check, are all optional effort.
I think Alicorn’s point was that being pregnant might be more unpleasant/expensive/”difficult” than mailing a check, but getting pregnant is much, much easier. So easy, in fact, one can do it accidentally.
I think the crucial point here is the disparity between sexes. The amount of effort required for a man to induce a pregnancy, the cost of the dating&mating game, is certainly not “easy”. I expect this is also the case for some (least-generally-attractive) women.
But getting pregnant is not enough to make a child.
Barring spontaneous miscarriage or starvation, it is the default. A woman has to refrain from taking certain actions, but, once she’s pregnant, she doesn’t actively have to do much but not starve.
Let me talk to some of my female friends and get back to you. I’ll see how many comments along the lines of “labor is easy” and “Vomiting off and on for months on end? Yeah, but it’s just a default.” it takes until I get slapped. I argue that default or not it is easier to abort a child than to carry it to term and give birth. That human instincts cry out to us to produce offspring at huge cost doesn’t mean it is easy.
I’m 99% sure you’re missing the point.
Falling down a hill is quite painful. However, once you start falling down a hill, you’re going to keep falling until you reach the bottom, unless you make a conscious and coordinated decision to stop yourself, if you are even able to. In that sense, once you start falling down a hill, it is very easy to keep falling, because it’s what happens if you don’t try to change things.
In the same sense (and I apologize for the unpleasant metaphor) pregnancy is easy; once a woman is pregnant, barring miscarriage, she’s gonna have a kid. It’s going to be painful and at times miserable, but it’s going to happen. I agree with you that there’s less disutility experienced if she has an abortion, but she has to make a conscious choice to do that, go to a clinic, and pay a bill. It may be the more pleasant way out, but, in this context, it’s not easier; it doesn’t really happen by accident (excepting spontaneous miscarriage, which is admittedly fairly common, but besides the point).
Everything you describe is something she endures; there’s no willpower to it. This is in contrast with saving a life as discussed earlier, which requires a deliberate, conscious decision, negotiating some mild bureaucracy, and writing a check. If you get pregnant and do not actively choose to do something about it, you have a kid. If you get a checkbook and do not actively choose to write checks to charities, you don’t save any lives. That’s what easy means.
ETA: You also assume that abortion has no cost beyond its monetary cost. For women who believe it is wrong for whatever reason, it may be far, far more unpleasant than having the child.
What I am going to say may be extremely unpopular,but everything you have stated about bringing a child to terms could well fall within the terminology used by Psychohistorian:
Even given all of the discomforts and difficulties you have mentioned, they are more about the Mother than the child, and as long as the puking, cramping, cranky, hormonal mother does not starve, the child should be delivered.
I think that most of what you have mentioned are just difficulties with the attempt to make certain the mother does not starve.
But, then, at this point, it’s really all just semantics / terminology that we are talking about
Good medicine does a bit more than that. If the only thing you do is “not starve” the probability is somewhere between 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 that the child will die. Quite possibly killing the mother as well.
ETA: Not doing things can also be hard, if the consequences are unpleasant enough
It doesn’t particularly bother me but you are mistaken.
Yes. All of which combined is harder than saving a life at the current margin.
Labour doesn’t have much to do with not starving.
Taboo “difficulty.”
Creating a human life doesn’t require a lot of advance planning/willpower, while saving a life does require you to think about the problem in advance and decide on an inconvenient course of action when nobody’s forcing you to do so.
The costs of creating a human life in effort, financial expense, suffering, and willpower, considered as a whole, are greater than the costs of saving a life.