Through the magic of CINEMAAAA?
Yeah, I was kind of wondering that, too. I read the book but it was years ago, didn’t see the film, but I’m not sure what was going to happen. I think it was a boy–were they going to wait until it was old enough to re-impregnate mom? Blech.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Most people, I suspect, would approve of stealing in that circumstance. Who gives a shit if it is against the law or not?
When the survival of humanity is at stake, vs. stealing to feed one family? I don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
For what it’s worth, this exact question was raised in an episode of Battlestar Galactica. For background, humanity has been reduced from billions to about 50,000 in a massive sneak attack, so the reason for the threat to humanity’s existence is not that women have decided en masse to not have babies. They end up outlawing abortion, but it’s an extremely unpopular decision.
The number was a reference to Les Miserables, if that helps.
And I am dubious about the morality that goes beyond saying that it’s a “necessary evil” all the way to saying it’s not a sin. That’s not just reluctantly accepting the necessity, that’s embracing the lawlessness. Hey, look, there’s a national disaster on! It’s lootin’ time!
I guess I’m just not a “the end justifies the means” kind of guy.
No, it’s not acceptable. If that’s what it comes to, the other species out there will get along just fine without humanity. We are not necessary and our drive to continue existing doesn’t justify atrocities.
I think the idea was, “It is over!!”. It was an entirely unexplained phenomenon that women the world over couldn’t get pregnant. Finally, after 20 childless years or so, a baby is born in the world again. It implied a return of hope to humanity, and perhaps a return to childbearing and eventually regular life.
If for some reason dams worldwide ceased to exist, and people were plagued by floods for decades, I imagine the first engineer to design a workable dam would inspire the world and fill it with hope, even if everyone was still dying and losing their property in floods in the meantime.
I just look at it as it’s a very slippery slope, deciding what could be “extinction.” Is it when one culture starts to die out? Is it three quarters of women of childbearing age who can’t conceive? Half? One in four?
And if we decide, it’s okay to make her give birth, where do we stop? If we’re in a society where a woman has to give up rights for the greater good, then is it worth it to carry on anymore? We’re talking about a world where there are people who already think women are lesser–imagine if there’s a founded reason to do so. It’s not such a great stretch to imagine that people who can control when a woman gives birth can control what she wears, what she does, where she goes, what she says.
So in other words humanity was still doomed, but most everyone would die happy, assuming they died pretty quick before people caught onto the fact they were still screwed.
Hollywood logic. Got it. Thanks!
Seconded.
I see no reason why people willing to force women to give birth to save the human race wouldn’t also force them to get pregnant in the first place, through rape or strapping them down and artificially inseminating them. As jsgoddess pointed out, that doesn’t seem like a society worth saving, especially when you consider that the female children they will have can expect the same lovely fate as soon (or if) they are able to reproduce. If the women are not on board, I don’t see why they wouldn’t commit suicide (assuming they’re not prisoners).
“I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn’t screw to save its species.” - Fight Club
I also vote no, but just because if we’ve come to that point, well, we deserve extinction.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yes; you are basically talking about creating a society composed of rapists and rape victims. And society would have to be dominated by woman haters to even begin to go down this route, because otherwise they’d just offer incentives. It’s not like women have as a group opposed getting pregnant after all; it can’t be that difficult to convince the vast majority of women to get willingly pregnant to save humanity. Especially if you start throwing in perks and privileges and cash.
No.
I can’t consider the failure for a woman to give birth to be an evil under any circumstances, because there’s literally no person harmed by it. There IS a person who is harmed by a forced pregnancy though.
One woman on earth getting pregnant would do jack all to save the human race.
No, for moral reasons outlined above, but also, because (IMO) it’s not very important if the human race fizzles out.
If the human race was on the brink of quiet extinction, would it really matter?
I mean, it’s not that I wish destruction on any human - people that exist and have lives are valuable. But people that might exist at some point in the future? - does it matter if that never happens?
In this thread I argued that, if “it’s my body and I can do whatever I want with it” is the fundamental argument behind the pro-choice group then the same argument can be used to say that the draft should never be used.
This is because the draft prevents people from exercising 100% control over their bodies (“You *must *go to war and kill people”)
So, if we agree that the right “it’s my body and I can do whatever I want with it” is unconditional and inviolable, then we should outlaw the draft.
If we agree that the draft is sometimes necessary, then we are admitting that it is not an inviolable right. And therefore there are cases when it’s OK for society to force you to do something with your body that is against your will (e.g. not abort the baby)
I would say no. Of course in this case Natural selection would basically be telling us that compassion is not a useful trait for survival, which is probably true.
Agreed.
Yep, we should.