I am against abortion. That is where me and the stoics differ...

I am against abortion. That is where me and the stoics differ. I don't know why but one of the reasons is that it puts all the power into the woman. She can decide the fate of my child. She can deprive me of an heir. And what is scary is that the government will back her. The thought of my life being in someones hands who is supposed to love me makes me sick. It's the governments job to protect me from these uneducated mass. Oh how I'm making a new ideology. No longer am I a stoic.

Other urls found in this thread:

faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

nice blog, m8

Coward

How about you deal with the emotional and physical burdens of carrying a lifeform inside of you and then undergoing a horrifically painful and deadly procedure for the sake of medieval ideology?

lol why can't you just find another bitch, bitch boy

I imagine you'd feel at least a little differently if it was yo that had to bring the child to term; to have your body's resources diverted to stone quasi-foreign entity growing within you; to have your normal behavioral patterns reconfigured to suit the needs of this thing; to have the social expectation that one this thing is removed from your body you'll then STILL be accountable for its needs and desires for an indefinite period of time.

But you're a fucking magician, mate, so who cares? You created LIFE, dude. How fucking sick is that? Fuck that crazy bitch trying to destroy this piece of you, this creation of your loins.

No-one
Cares
What
You
Think
Dood
You
Will
Never
Change
Anything
Especially
Not
By
Posting
In
This
Dustbowl

If I eat chocolate there is a chance I could develop a cavity.
If I drink alcohol there is a chance I could get liver disease
If I have sex there is a chance I may get pregnant (assuming I was a female who could ovulate)

Would it be too much to ask someone that if they choose to indulge in a pleasure that they know of the risk and that they'd live with the possible consequence of their actions? Allowing abortion means that women would get the child aborted for petty reasons. But that doesn't matter. Once conception happens, the child is considered a child by the state. Women aren't allowed to kill their child. If someone punches a pregnant lady and it kills the baby, they are tried for murder. If a mother hired a hitman to kill her son, it would be murder wouldn't it? So a pregnant lady who pays a doctor to abort her child should be guilty of murder. No?

If I stop a sick person from recovering and therefore he dies, should I be guilty of murder?
If a doctor doesn't give the patient a drug to save him and he dies, should he be guilty?
Then preventing life should be the same.
I argue a woman doesn't own the life.

>I'm against fetus murder because my heir.

the enlightenment was a mistake

Children should not be risks. They are human beings and if they are born into suffering their birth should be prevented.

You must also understand the difference between a child and the idea of a child, or the possibility of a child existing. One is real and capable of feeling pain, the other is abstract and experiences nothing.

As for your heir, by what right do you own the future?

>if they are born into suffering their birth should be prevented.

t. useless whore

Good job OP won't ever impregnate anyone anyway.

In the biological process of reproduction our role stops when we cum. A woman has to go through shit for the better part of a year that is strenuous, career-affecting, personality-changing, and may threaten her health.
You're also ignoring the incredibly widespread trend of the father just up and leaving during those months. Single-parent households make fucking terrible children, if we're being honest here.
Your thread has nothing to do with literature and should be deleted.

ROASTIES AND HEDONISTS BTFO FOREVER

faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf

Not everyone is born into suffering but it would be wrong to ensure future suffering when it could be delayed if you have children later (or not at all in some cases).

I mostly take umbrage at the argument that children are a risk. It is more dehumanizing to children than performing abortions. You reduce a child from a living pain to an object of punishment for the parent. It's morally wrong to think like this.

dumb frogposters

All humans suffer risk. So should we all be aborted? Because suffering is apart of life.

And death is inevitable and comes sooner or later. Tomorrow is never guaranteed by anyone. So what right do we have to unborn children without their permission as an act of "saving them". Are we Gods? It is murder and not just.

Please debate me more or at least tell me logically why my argument is retarded.

PUT YOUR KNIFE IN ME

Why do women have sex knowing full well the possibility of the man leaving, getting pregnant and/or dying. Should a woman be pitied who got fat for eating junk? Or dying of an overdose for doing heroin? Or getting aids? It's a risk and it is her choice to do them. It is irrelevant the suffering the woman endures because that is the price to pay to be able to live.

>All humans suffer risk. So should we all be aborted? Because suffering is apart of life.
Humans suffer risk but to debase a human to a risk is what you are doing. Children are not a risk, they can not be reduced to objects because they are living and thinking beings. This is especially important in Abrahamaic doctrine because life in itself is good, not in relation to the objects it resembles (the Greek idea of forms and categories is what I mean by objects, they are ideas and not even air).

An embryo is not a child and should not be treated the same because it does not posses the ability to suffer, think, or act.

We generally pity those in unfortunate situations so yes.

Should Bill Gates be pitied for making so much money? Should Tom Brady be pitied for throwing so many touchdowns?

>And death is inevitable and comes sooner or later. Tomorrow is never guaranteed by anyone. So what right do we have to unborn children without their permission as an act of "saving them". Are we Gods? It is murder and not just.
There are no unborn children, there are just unthinking cells that may or may not end up becoming people, indistinguishable from objects. There's no difference between letting a child be born, and aborting only to have another kid later.

The obvious solution is for women to not have careers. A woman's first and foremost goal in life is to give birth, this "don't have kids until you're 35 at least" shit had to stop.

Ok, sure, it's a risk. You can talk about chastity and immorality all you want though, there will never be a way to get rid of premarital sex. It is endemic to humanity. So the question is, should a woman be punished with a child for that choice? You say the answer is yes, which I can accept. I say the answer is no, especially since illegal abortions can and will happen anyway.

>especially since illegal abortions can and will happen anyway.

they certainly will. I'm just coming at a moral view. I dont care and can't afford to care about the affairs of the masses.

Love is just chemicals. So why do people put so much stock on love when it doesn't matter it's all biological. People are just a bundle of cells constantly replicating themselves. Anything can be degraded.
I've come to the conclusion that I know nothing and never will. It frustrates me but the more I ask questions the more angry and sad I get. I can't control what other people do. I don't even know what's right or wrong!
I'm trying to think what I would do with my wife if she wanted an abortion. Legally and illegally what she does is outside of my control. I'd ask her not to abort because I would like a child to raise. I don't know if I'll drop dead the next day, the next year or if my dick will be blown off in an accident. Suffering is inevitable so as long as I can provide adequate shelter, food, parents and education then I will always be against abortions.

>its morally right to kill a child that will *probably* have a life of suffering
>forgetting suffering is arbitrary
Kids with a low standards of living in North America/Europe are still better off than most kids in Africa. Should everybody in Africa get abortions because their life will be "suffering"? There are so many holes in the logic of your argument.

Well… I mean… Not to detract from your argument, but…

To be fair those examples increase in risk, especially liver disease, mainly out of continual abuse, misuse, or other means.

Those things aside, what you say is pretty solid; I like it.

Good use of the dialectic, unlike . I'm not sure if it's OP but nonetheless a good point.

Although, I personally would have preferred to be born into suffering than to never have existed at all. I mean, you can always kill yourself later if you change your mind; however, most people will see a meaning to it all, and live for living's sake. Why? Because sometimes suffering is what gave us the reason to live in the first place. Suffering should not be seen as a reason to end life, but as a way of life, as a reason to keep living, to overcome.

Ergo, and I realize this is anecdotal, but oh well, I would say that any potential suffering you may end by ceasing a potential child's existence would be of little to no consequence because regardless it will be worth it to give them the opportunity to suffer and decide for themselves like the rest of us, much like would say.

Causing suffering is not always the wrong thing to do. Suffering can also be an agent for good, to motivate and drive us.

In the modern age, the effects of childbearing on woman's health, especially when birthing, have been greatly mitigated, although not eliminated. With many orphanages and other places to care for the newborn and unwanted, there is no need for single parent households, or abortion as a mitigation to the personal and financial harm to a woman.

Christ on a crutch that's a brutal argument.

I think we confuse allowing suffering with being the cause of it. Risk is there, yes, but children should not be considered a punishment. Indeed, they are a blessing and we should do everything we can to ensure their survival, wether we know of their existence or not.

Good point.

Who's to say that this is not another way we play God? By determining what shall come to pass, and who we allow to exist, weather they exist in the present or not.

Reality does not justify itself, and I'm sure you know this.

Interesting take.

I know that there will be holes in my logic. I hope you will point them out to me.

Where would people on here (pro-choice/pro-life) draw the line between not yet human and human? Conception? Birth?

conception, a part of human-becoming

The only problem I can think of letting a child come into the world and deciding whether or not life is worth living is that they would inevitably be full of questions. And demand answers. As we all were. And lets say he had no parents. Or his parents were idiots. He would be filled with dangerous information and not directed to philosophy. I would unironically tell my child to start with the greeks. Else he wouldn't know that everyone is full of shit and doesn't know any better than anyone else. The ancient greeks didn't stop my suffering but they did give me a reason for it. If that makes any sense.

But I stick with my point. What people do is outside of our control. We would have to use deadly force, brain wash and big brother type shit to stop people from doing something I thought was wrong. And even if I could do that somehow, I wouldn't. And it wouldn't even work.

Actually, I think the only thing that would work would be to take in every child into the state.

But why? Why go through all the trouble? For the benefit of the people? There is no point debating about it because society is inevitably heading in the direction of designer babies. That's our new 1984. Everyone's gonna look the same physically. No more racism, sexism. And when artificial wombs exist, women will be not be needed by the state as they are not as physically strong as men and therefore a cost in a time of war. That's what I think anyway, what do you think the future would look like in 200 years?

>deprive me of an heir
*tips fedora*