Can we have a conversation on the philosophy and ethics of abortion?
To clarify I'm from a country (Ireland) in which this topic is very in vogue because its nearing legalization. I'm completely for it however I'm noticing those in the pro-choice camp have a great deal of absurd understandings of science and ethical positions surounding it.
In my opinion a fetus is essentially a human life. I simply see no reason not to kill it despite that fact since sanctity of life is a spook.
Other urls found in this thread:
cambridge.org
oxfordbibliographies.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Plato in Theaetetus describes it non-chalantly
Augustan law outlawed it and Roman Jurisprudence considered an Unborn person by all profits a born person.
This page has the most scholarly respected works on the philosophy on abortion:
If it can't live without being physically attached to its mother its not a life
Remember that maniac who made the badselfeater website countdown thing with all the weird dollar bill art and the surprise was just him getting on his soapbox about how abortion is human sacrifice?
That was an apex wew if I ever experienced one
Thats all fine and good, until someone pulls this shit.
en.wikipedia.org
Legally this law and something like Roe v Wade or whatever the fuck the Paddys are going to enact should not be able to coexist.
>If it can't live without being physically attached to its mother its not a life
This is an entirely arbitrary designation
>If it can't live without being physically attached to its mother its not a life
That's a retarded definition of life.
Check out David S Oderberg. He's one of the best contemporary philosophers on ethics.
Humane Vitae is also probably an essential read.
Abortion is contrary to every philosophical basis laws allegedly have, as you said, from even before Justinian to the modern natural law (which has been replaced by arbitrary human rights declarations which have no basis in anything substantial, MacIntyre is very interesting concerning this topic.).
>If it can't live without being physically attached to its mother its not a life
So in the future if artificial wombs are possible should abortion be illegal again?
why do women get abortions
why did they get pregnant in the first place
women are irresponsible
This is of course true, which is why we are having this discussion about how we as men should control them
This isn't literature, there's not even a book mentioned. Take it to Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums or /pol/
He is asking for sources, which were given to him here and here . Anything below this point will surely be more recommendations, or people sperging their own opinion
He did ask for books and got a few recs.
Let us not shit up OP's thread by /r9k/
>we're not allowed to talk about important things if /pol/ talks about them
Science problem science solution. Have scientist form a consensus (if they haven't already), about when a fetus mind develops human conscious and apply that to abortion.
Spirituality should have no claim in politics.
What horseshit. Not applying philosophy and theory politics results in a technocratic despotism that can make decisions without compassion or deference to basic human rights.
An atheist who rejects the notion of the soul can still say "when we abort a viable embryo, we remove all of its potential, all the good and evil it can do, we take away everything it will be, we take away everything from it".
the moral philosophy of pro-lifers is childish
It's also based in the longest standing philosophical tradition, vastly superior to marxist, kantian or utilitarian counterparts.
Quoting people on twitter you don't agree with to prove your point is definitely more childish.
So strong and powerful. :DDD
All you need to do is read Might Is Right by Ragnar Redbeard
>muh feels
Social Darwinism is the longest standing philosophical tradition
I take a somewhat nuanced perspective on this, as someone who is neither very pro-choice or pro-life. I try to play devil's advocate when it comes to pro-lifers however:
1) People opposed to abortion are not just 'old white guys who want to control women's bodies.' A lot of the opposition actually comes from women themselves, especially mothers (who may have actually been in favour beforehand). The simple fact is that for pro-lifers, 2 lives are involved in the equation. The preservation of an unborn life NECESSARILY means limiting certain freedoms of the life already born (that is, the one carrying it). This, however, is chiefly a coincidental consequence of preserving that unborn life. The preservation requires, a priori and without any ulterior motive, that a woman's control over her reproductive faculties be limited. You can still argue against this, and disagree with it, but it must be acknowledged that in most cases the chief motive is not merely to 'control women.'
2) Term limits are being revised quite often, relative to technological advances. An abortion that took place prior to the term limit of 30 years ago, for example, might be classed as infanticide now. Hypothetically speaking, if and when technology reaches ever higher heights in this field, we could reach a stage whereby a foetus could survive beyond the womb at ANY stage, and perhaps not require a womb at all, thereby eliminating this idea that a foetus is merely a parasite. Until we get to that point, however, there is another subtle argument: bearing in mind that term limits are subjective and subject to change, one must concede that there is at least a point at which, once passed, we encounter a grey area whereby the unborn baby/foetus may indeed feel pain during its death in an abortion. This raises a moral question that most do not want to think about: are you prepared to gamble on the fact that the foetus you are killing may be fully aware, and sensitive to, the procedure of its own death?
>A lot of the opposition actually comes from women themselves
Most actually.