What do you think about the singerian stance on abortion ?

what do you think about the singerian stance on abortion ?

i specifically mean the notion that birth is a arbitrary ponit to grant a baby human rights and that we should consider the possibility of "aborting " children even shortly after their birth

If that isn't degeneracy, literal infanticide, then nothing is.

>academic creates edgy version of an existing moral position
>people who are against existing moral position more generally publicize the academic heavily in an effort to conflate a position that nobody believes with a more moderate position that people do believe in
>academic thrives on the publicity and gets dat tenure and dat publicity
>moral guardians get to feel smug

While abortion does make human life worthless and arbitrary to women and the State, I'd argue that once a child is born the State has a vested interest to keep a potential healthy and law abiding citizen alive even if the cunt mother doesn't want it.

>moderate position

What the fucking moral hoop jumping that is.
>child is wanted but under the age of viability - precious human life
>child is not wanted and under the age of viability - Not human, clump of tissue, Muh body Muh choice, kill it with a vacuum
>one day over viability - human, unless the State says women can kill viable babies. Then it's not human.

It's a hypocritical clusterfuck

>governing large groups of people with an impartial legal code requires arbitrary legal distinctions

Congratulations, you have now progressed to a 6 year old's level of understanding the world.

not an argument

it doesnt matter if its a "human" a vocabulary doest make it valuable

the baby has not built any relationship it has not invested any effort into his life, it doesnt have wishes hopes or any future plans

the only thing that makes it valuable is the emotional attachment of the mother,her wish to make it into her child - so the mother should be able to have the choice to abort it

the singerian stance of this issue is philosophically consistent i think, the newborn baby does not have the traits i described earlier that make human life valuable but i think its practically impossible because you cant demand of any nurse or doctor to kill a newborn

He only says that for disabled babies though. I should have thought that is getting rarer and rarer anyway since screening means they are aborted before birth.

If that the case then you'd support a father or hell the fucking mother being allowed to smother a newborn to death without legal action?

Of course. It's their decision.

goddamnit

you're arguing from consequence here it's one fucking yuge consequence. some ancient cultures practiced infanticide right? how'd they make it work?

>birth is a arbitrary ponit to grant a baby human rights

Any point can be arbitrary to *grant* anyone human rights.

If he thinks that the sole reason people don't kill each other is because of socially constructed positive rights, he's retarded.

Besides, any argument that can be used to murder babies that are outside the womb, can also be used against adult humans.

Why are morals so often brought up in abortion debates? Abortions have happened for thousands of years, probably as many years as marriages has. And all through those years people have continued to do it, or try.
The difference now is we have safe, sterilized medical equipment to do it instead of poisonous weeds or rusty spades. If you ban abortion, you only allow it to flourish in seedy back alleys, or in foreign countries which allow it. You may as well provide the safest alternative to prevent spread of disease, death, and general human misery.
Personally I find the idea of abortion very chilling, but I don't think in terms of medical applications people's ideas on it matter. Maybe if the adoption services were less awful people wouldn't feel it necessary to abort. I think the longer term effect of not allowing it is worse.

you legalize it; you moralize it; you enable it

>Besides, any argument that can be used to murder babies that are outside the womb, can also be used against adult humans.

Why?

You may disagree with it but his argument is based on preferences and the truth is that newborn babies simply don't have any and an adult human does.

But its enabled no matter what. Like I said, people have illegally getting abortions against their gods and religion and society for thousands of years. Why do you think keeping it illegal now would stop abortions? Only instead of clean abortions, poor women get some guy named One Eye Tony to do it, while rich women go to foreign countries where it's legal. Laws and morals haven't done shit except kill more babies and women

Do you also support legalizing child molestation?

>The breakdown of outdated and highly flawed "morals" is considered "degeneracy" instead of "evolution"

What a dumb notion
I'll abort you

>reverting back to ideas from antiquity of parents killing unwanted children without moral qualms
>evolution

No, because the child obviously has to have been born, and being molested can cause horrible psychological repercussions, including growing up to molest children. There is no "safe" alternative for molestation.
However, I think perhaps some kind of substitute would be fine. Give all pedos a loli-sex bot to molest then that solves the problem. The robot is designed to be molested. It hopefully couldn't feel like it had been raped.

no you don't nigger. social stigma hampers 'degenerate behavior. it's not a yes or no question. you only hear about faggots fucking even if it was considered immoral you don't hear about closetfaggots who stayed 'straight' 'cause people like to pretend those don't exist. social stigma curbs socially unacceptable behavior it doesn't completely stamp it out 'cause that's impossible.

Why are morals so often brought up in Child Molestation discussions? Child Molestations have happened for thousands of years, probably as many years as marriages has. And all through those years people have continued to do it, or try.
The difference now is we have safe, sterilized condoms and lube to do it instead of going in bareback. If you ban child molestation, you only allow it to flourish in seedy back alleys, or in foreign countries which allow it. You may as well provide the safest alternative to prevent spread of disease, death, and general human misery.

goddamnit

How does aborting a baby leave it with lasting psychological repercussions and make it a danger to the rest of society?

nigga abortion is traumatizing to the parents. just because they agreed with it doesn't they didn't go through emotional hooplas to go with it. most parents will never choose to kill their own babies. most who do are forced by their shitty socioeconomic situation. the risk for depression is fucking high.

Raising a child with severe disabilities is highly psychologically traumatising.

There's already social stigma associated with abortion, retard, and there always will be. Abortions are going to happen no matter what. So we might as well make them safe rather than dangerous. Your opinion on whether or not it's immoral doesn't change that one fucking iota.

Abortion of boys should not be legal in any circumstances.

ANY point is arbitrary, therefore we might as well stick to one that's both generally accepted and as clear as possible.

Pro-lifism is DJ Racemixer's agenda.

No mentally sane woman would want sex with nigger/arab but they get raped. Pro-lifers then don't want to abort the children resulting in rapes because they want to destroy the white race.

This. The overwhemling majority of aborted babies are minorities, too. I have a black friend who calls it the "ongoin american holocaust" - the only reason why the black population in america is actually declining, while every other demographic is growing!

>So we might as well make them safe rather than dangerous.
Why? If that whore dies after trying to kill a baby she deserve it.

>things I don't like are degenerate

back to /pol/, faggot

>Killing babies because woman fuck so much,that the small % of contraceptives failing happen to them is not degenerate.
Fuck,if that is not degeneracy,I dont know what it is m8.

>if I use a buzzword enough maybe they'll just "know" what I mean by it

It removes the duplicity I guess

Or you could not promote delayed childbirth and prevent pricey abortions to begin with.

I think aborting a baby at that point is pretty fucking pointless. Prior to birth, removing it from the mother's body is legitimate, but after that there's simply no need.

Women having children later statistically is more likely to cause birth defects but it is nonsense to claim that is the most significant or only causal factor. Having children too early also has significant health effects on the mother.

Less so and it should be every bit as harasses about as smoking is or fatness should be.

Why do you draw such a distinction? Aborting a child one day prior to birth or killing it the moment it comes out of the womb are effectively the same thing.

stop mansplainin'
my body, my right.

>based on preferences

What does that entail exactly? A baby is a living system that tries to stay alive just like any other system, it might not have a very good ability to do so.

What you're essentially saying is that it's ok to kill anything that can't take care of itself.

>Peter Singer

have you told your parents you're gay yet

You really wouldn't need to abort it prior to birth. Simple removal would be sufficient. But there is a huge difference in this case: it's still in the mother's body.

>abort it one day prior to birth

That's an important distinction.

I for one believe that children should have the chance to be aborted up to the age of four, which is the approximate age of them becoming self-aware.
I am very glad that there are other people that think so, too

Minorities getting all the abortions they want whenever they want is fine by me.