What are the ethical implications of getting an abortion?

Murder.

Realistically w/r/t ethics? None unless you're working for a religious group that frowns on that sort of thing. Most professional codes of ethic have no comment on medical procedures. Think you're thinkin' of morals.

"Pro life" is usually just lip service in terms of political reality. Most legislators (not all) who pound on this concept more or less assert you're shit out of luck and need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps once the kid pops out. They only care that the child is born, not that his has any sort of opportunity or life-quality.

>is alive to experience existence, consciousness, and even pain.
>whines on Veeky Forums about how everyone else must be a robot because babby's first existential angst

Man go roll down a hill or something, have some FUN

I would say one has an ethical obligation to get an abortion of one is not able and willing to be a good parent.

>if you're really anti-murder you ought to be socialist
Really makes you think.

>who will more than likely consume more than they will ever produce in their lifetime.
>What ends up happening is their kid(s) end up becoming burdens of the state in some way or another (prison, child services, etc) and/or raising a set of their own shitty kids who will perpetuate the cycle.

Bad arguments. They sound meaningful but the impacts aren't solidified or consolidated. Red herrings. You're appealing to contingent variables to address the ethical validity of an action, obfuscating and evading to address the action itself, rendering any examination into the moral content of the action itself useless.

>I'm fine with it as long as society doesn't have to suffer because of her poor choices and the squeamishness of moralfags.

This point is assuming the validity of the other arguments, which, aforementioned, are not solidified.

And who gets to decide what is good or bad for society?

The Malthusian theatricality is always employed by the utilitarian to avoid accepting the fundamental imperatives underlying their defenses: killing of another entity. Smells of cruelty!

>>if you're really anti-murder you ought to be socialist
???
I think that if you believe in the sanctity of human life and the dignity thereof it probably shouldn't end at birth.

Providing therefore can be done under socialism. Can also be done under Calvinist(ish) sorts of charity-economies (charity removed from revenue earning as a statement of moral trajectory) like ours.

It just usually doesn't get done in either.

Human life can be sacred while not being devoid of suffering.

The opposite is like christian theology 101 i think, that as a christian you're meant to suffer

most abortions occur in the case of

rape babies
born from people to poor/young to actually raise the damn kid

so all you'll get is fucked up children that will probably die anyway, and since society isn't going to care about the baby after it is born you're not going to get lawful and productive citizens out of it.

>"Yeah, fuck the Earthly Kingdom, my prosperity theology pastor told me poorfags deserve their suffering and it builds character!"

I, uh, don't think I agree.

This. Relfags forcing their bronze age memes on other people.

Depends on the stage at which the abortion is carried out and the manner in which it's done. The closer to birth, the more the collection of cells begins to resemble something capable of the essential qualities of humanity we tend value (an intentionally broad qualifier, because we often can't agree on what those are).

We think nothing of killing a microbe and little of killing an ant, allow for the killing of foxes when they impose on us, allow for the killing of sheep and cattle provided they're not mistreated and provided they're put to use after death, forbid the killing of dogs and humans. We have a pretty clear operational range to work with on the ethical spectrum. Bias it a little towards the conservative, because, hey, these are potential humans, and you get a fairly reasonable range of outcomes.

Perhaps more important is the idea that lower classes/cultural non-conformists could theoretically be encouraged to engage in self-genocide by allowing them ready access to the procedure and intentionally engineering repressive economic policies to make the chance their kids might have happy, comfortable lives seem less distant. Which would be fairly horrific.

Really, I think abortion will be thought of, in future, as something uncivilized, but contextually important as a precursor to the widespread implementation of safe, effective contraceptive options that are long-term, but reversible.

>forbid the killing of dogs
every city in america has a building dedicated to killing excess dogs

In my mind, it's simply killing. A baby was going to be born, so you crushed its skull inside you, and vacuumed it out of your vagina. It's killing, no two ways about it.

If we can be adult enough to understand this, then we can talk about if a killing is justified.

Grendal pls go

Most certainly- I admit fault in saying so. That this is done does not change my central point, however. After all, in 31 states in America, it's considered acceptable to kill humans when they are deemed to have transgressed beyond the point of social reparation. But I would not construe that as a social propensity to find it acceptable to kill humans; merely an exception, born primarily of a lack of ability and efficiency in preventing such behaviours ethically (or administering appropriate correction).

The general point still stands- there are deducible circumstances under which we allow or disallow the destruction of life, and one of those metrics happens to be the extent to which that life has developed intellectual capacities which have the potential to mirror our own. This alone should not be sufficient, of course, in determining the worth of a life- there are other considerations- but this seems a fairly basic and universally observed principle.

I mean it is "killing," but so is masturbating or washing your hands. I think an "adult" would not use pointlessly inflammatory language, but that's just me.

Fault in saying otherwise, rather. My bad.

Honestly, I don't think it's ethical. But many things aren't ethical, but they are still legal to do.

>I think abortion will be thought of, in future, as something uncivilized, but contextually important as a precursor to the widespread implementation of safe, effective contraceptive options that are long-term, but reversible.

You could have perfect contraception and abortions would still be widespread.

Not if this theoretical perfect contraception was distributed perfectly.

But we are, of course, speaking of perfection, and therefore of an impossibility. To suggest that better contraception, implemented more effectively and made more readily available, would not reduce the abortion count is, I would think, somewhat disingenuous.

It implies that you're too stupid to use a condom. That's about it.

you write like you wear a pocket protector. saying mundane shit with lots of words doesnt make you smart

Even if you reduced it to rapes and people being to stupid to use this perfect contraceptives, I would still doubt that abortion wouldn't be common enough for people to think of it as uncivilized.

Did he make you feel stupid with his big words?

Americans don't understand maxillofacial development, sad!

>You could have perfect contraception and abortions would still be widespread

That's empirically incorrect. Better access to contraception demonstrably lowers abortion rates.

So the underlying reason behind an abortion doesn't matter? All abortions ate cruelty for cruelty's sake because they involve the killing of another entity? How about abortions done to save the life of a dying mother, is that also cruelty?

How about this then: it doesn't matter to me for what reason someone gets an abortion as there is literally no reason to continue having children. The biological imperative of every being is apparently to ensure the survival of its species and this goal has been pretty much achieved by humanity. So why have kids?

>killing a child is the same as letting your kid eat a cheese burger

now THIS is how you bait

Saying mundane shit with small words makes you no smarter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then, I suppose. I do believe that abortion is a terribly imperfect solution born primarily of inefficiencies we deem acceptable because they are, by and large, the best we can manage with what we have in the present time. It is, after all, somewhat counter-intuitive as a solution when the problems lay in areas like mental health, economic prosperity, cultural normativity, etc etc.

But I also think it's a necessary strategy to employ while we go about acknowledging and addressing the greater causes- in selective cases, at least. I'm not overmuch a fan of abortion being employed strictly as a delayed contraceptive.

>society of kids raised on cheeseburgers
>heart disease #1 cause of death
dur its fine

Who?

Er, cultural normativity of contraceptive methods. I can never be bothered to proofread myself.

Honestly, abortion is a hell of a lot more ethical than what humanity used to do.

HES GOING ALL OUT!

If I wash my hands, I kill bacteria, not humans. I am openly biased on my human v bacteria preferences.
Sperm, left alone, simply dies.
Fertilized human egg in the womb, left alone, becomes you and I.

A fellow solipsist

Well now you're already moving the goalposts. Do you see that? Do you agree "it's simply killing" was a pointless thing to say?

>You and I left alone simply dies

Really makes you think

I promise you sperm do not need any special intervention to fertilize an egg. So "left alone" the egg and sperm will join and eventually become a human. Therefore, condoms are murder. Or perhaps, the "if left aline etc" condition is ad hoc and arbitrary?

I can't stand arguments like this. You can totally feed a kid on fast food and not get them fat. Portion control and exercise are both free.

>So the underlying reason behind an abortion doesn't matter?

Of course reasons matter. However, I think the points you brought up are fallacies because they aren't solidified. We could argue over them and never come to an agreement on principle: it sets the moral question up to be dependent on those variables.

If I provided evidence of a non-Malthusian nature, the argument would extend to the particular methodology of both of our evidence, obfuscating the issue; and let's say that I succeeded in eliminating one of them: instead of rendering abortion immoral, another contingency will arise up. We never be able to address the moral validity of X (abortion itself), because we'd be setting it up to be reliant on the moral validity of Y, Z, or A, etc. It is likened to a hydra, and therefore if we are to discuss it meaningfully on a level of principle, we cannot use arguments such as those - we've got to address the foundation.

Further, my arguments don't prove that abortion is necessarily immoral. It just demonstrates appealing to the conditions you used for the moral legitimacy of abortion are slippery slopes and red herrings.

>How about abortions done to save the life of a dying mother, is that also cruelty?

Unfortunate circumstances.

>[I]t doesn't matter to me for what reason someone gets an abortion as there is literally no reason to continue having children. [...] [T]he survival of its species [...] has been pretty much achieved by humanity.

What metric or standard are you using for the survival of the species? If we start failing to meet this metric, will abortion become bad again?

Thanks

Great post so well articulated

In fairness, the sperm and egg isn't being left alone because it's being sustained by the womb in which it grows. It is a very special, and very constant, intervention which allows for the conditions by which a human can come to be.

But, of course, you and I would also die in this arbitrary vacuum that's been constructed where nothing may interfere.

>I promise you sperm do not need any special intervention to fertilize an egg.
Did you drop out in elementary school?

>child abuse is none of your business
>animal cruelty is none of your business
>domestic violence is none of your business

really made me think

It's murder of a child. You waive or alienate your right to bodily integrity when you engage in consensual sex thus taking on the duty of being a a guardian to a dependent.

If you don't think murder is wrong, then I guess it's fine.

Alot of ends justifying means going on in this thread

>You waive or alienate your right to bodily integrity when you engage in consensual sex
fucking kek. Whose ass did you pull this out of

It's only murder if it's illegal.

"Should I store the stem-cells in case of my own medicinal need, or should I sell them now?"

>le legal positivism

every individual has a natural right to life

killing another individual not in self defense is murder

murder is intrinsically wrong

not an argument

if you dont believe guardians have a duty to take care of the biological needs of their dependents then fine, but if you do you must be logically consistent

When I adopt a child, I am taking on the duty of being a guardian. I am criminally negligent if I let my dependent starve.

When two consenting individuals engage in sex, they do so with the knowledge of the outcome of sex: reproduction. To engage in sex is to take responsibility for the consequences of sex which is the formation of a dependent.

>To engage in sex is to take responsibility for the consequences of sex which is the formation of a dependent.
This is a completely different claim than saying "you waive your right to bodily integrity" when you have sex. If that were true, any random woman would be justified in biting off one of your fingers while you were having sex with her.

>ethical implications

ok

>every individual has a natural right to life
"Natural rights" don't exist. You accuse me of legal positivism and then hide behind something that is also socially constructed.

I was just correcting those posters because they used the wrong term.

>I feel so alone in feeling this way.
You're not the first to think this way, read Arthur Schopenhauer.

What really upsets me more than the potential that by creating someone you could create an unhappy person is that once they are created they don't even have the option to end their own life without causing more suffering.

>"Natural rights" don't exist.

An overwhelming majority of the western world disagrees with you but I guess a NEET on Veeky Forums is wiser than Locke, Aquinas, Bastiat, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and John Jay

"rights" are a spook

So the majority decides what is factually correct, eh? If that's the creed you live by then I hope you're ready to go with whatever the mob sways to.

neither of these posts are arguments

Neither was the post we responded to.

Neither is an appeal to mass opinion.

appeal to authority isn't an argument either

not an argument

my argument is "rights" as a whole are a spook

a claim is not an argument

Its status as 'not an argument' is acknowledged, but said status is also not relevant to the discussion being had. A person can contribute meaningful information that corrects information or the course of a discussion without directly opposing the core stance.

You don't have an argument either, dude.

>inb4 "not an argument"

Are you gonna stop trolling or are you admitting that you're wrong about abortion?

first claim - natural rights exist
argument supporting it: [appeal to authority]

counter claim: all rights are spook (don't exist)
argument supporting it: it's a spook

not an argument

It makes sense why Christians would be staunchly against it.

As the Romans tell us, Christians would pulverize and cannibalize infants in a sacrifice of body and blood.

Abortion is nothing but a waste. Those babies could make a nice Eucharist one day.

moving the goalposts how? would you like me to clarify that we're killing humans in an abortion as opposed to bacteria, or are you going to continue to be obtuse?

we all die, but not all from the will of others

well the sperm and egg have to make contact to fertilize, and that usually happens with sex. the condoms stop the contact from happening. yea, that's getting in the way of the sperm, but it prevents the fertilized egg. the fertilized egg in the womb because a human, sperm alone does not.

People are robots...
The whole world is literally built on "memes"

The people are "the government"
A government that does those things has to be a very undemocratic authotitarian, because people wont vote/choose that alternative