ABORTION

If you want to care about "human life in general" then you also have to take into account the mother and possibly father of the foetus and how it's going to affect their lives. Caring for "human life in general" does not lead toward pro-lifeism so easily.

It's not so much human life in general. I don't have any emotional sympathy towards adults because they have the capacity to deal with their own actions. It's more the act of "killing" the fetus without any emotional guilt that has me confused. I'm questioning whether my acceptance of ending a fetus' life without any sort of moral conscience is normal.

Humans are cattle. Killing unwanted cattle is fine.

No you don't, because killing a child because it might be a burden on the parents is the opposite of caring about human life. Say a 12 year old is now a burden to the parent but before wasn't. Why shouldn't they have a right to kill the child then? You're ending a life on both accounts. Maybe you're a burden on my life or other lives, so maybe we should kill you. The "think of the burden on the parents" is emotional appeal and not based on logic.

Don Marquis has a rock-solid secular argument against the practice
faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf

abortion on niggers is ok

>2017
>unironically believing in moral realism

Wow...

Abortion is not the actual point of debate, you are being misguided by the discussion to talk about it in those terms. The controversy around the topic has more to do on whether the state should be punishing women who abort or not. Some people think they should, because abortion is a crime equal to homicide and so on. The other side noticed the fact that since to have an abortion is not necessarily an act of villainy (as a homicidal act towards its victim), the reasons women have an abortion are not touched upon by the punishing of it. In order words, to punish women for abortion does not diminishes the number of abortions, but augments the number of unsafe abortions. That's why in this case, it is particularly important to stress out how the legal discussion does not equal the moral discussion (you don't proihibit something just because you think it is bad). In places in which it was legalized, there were less abortions, because women who want to abort have to address specialized clinics, had psychological support, legal security, social assistance and access to information on it. And the abortions that were happening, were safer and women simply stop dying from it. No is actually pro-abortion, no one wants "more abortions", people who defend the legalization of abortion are actually the ones that acknowledge how abortions are serious and traumatic events and that it should be dealed with as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue. With the approach through health it is also possible to visualize the reasons why women get in the situation in which they want to abort, it helps denouncing abuses and potentially save them from worse.

Well, moral relativism is the most popular ethical theory from those who are uneducated, while the educated believe in an objective morality. You're using an unoriginal meme like a child, so I'm making the educated guess that you're uneducated, thus moral relativism would indeed appeal to you.

>2017
>Not understanding the definition of "moral"

This isn't true wtf

Complete bullshit. In every single place where abortion has been legalized the number of abortions has greatly risen.

>the educated believe in an objective morality

This is so strange to me, especially given that they have such a lower religiosity rate. Got a source?

I think that abortion is wrong at an individual level, but it is ethical for government to permit it for criminalizing it would cause much more misery than simply discouraging it.

>FOETUSES HAVE RIGHTS THEY DESERVE TO BE BORN
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU NEED HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS BABY YOU COULD NOT TAKE CARE OF SO MADE THE RESPONSIBLE CHOICE AND TERMINATED IT BEFORE IT EVEN HAS A BRAIN

:thinking:

Use some logic. The number of reported abortions rose. Coat hangers were always an option.

nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

>A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

>Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

Yeah, that is totally backwards. The uneducated tend to believe in objective morality (divine command, religious law, etc.) while the educated are more likely to be relativist (cultural or otherwise). That doesn't mean that they are correct, but that is how it is.

This is basically the entirety of the abortion debate:

Pro-Lifers use this argument.

P1: All innocent human beings have a right to life
P2: A human foetus is a human being
C: Therefore a human foetus has a right to life


For the Pro-Lifers it's as simple as that. This is their only argument.

Pro-Choicers recognise that both P1 and P2 are questionable. It's rare to have concrete views on where you "draw the line" but they accept that there are always exceptions. Abortion is arguably an exception because [insert shit-tonne of thought experiments, hypotheticals, and statistical evidence here].

Pro-Lifers are Platonist absolutist purists. Pro-Choicers are pragmatists, non-realists, and particularists.

it's bollocks mate
for a start he appears to assume that a foetus is magically "alive" and "human" the moment it is created and is unchanging until the moment of birth
i suspect he knows little about the actual biology of foetal development

It's what my ethics professor said, and it's what's basically said by the Rachels in their book The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Moral relativism is seen as a joke in academia, or it's just a thought experiment to put on freshmen.

No, Pro choicers don't necessarily have to think rights to life are questionable or if the foetus is a human being. They are usually talking about what good does it do to arrest women who abort. That's precisely what makes them pragmatic. And realists.

He's not totally respected here but I think Singer has one of the most intellectually honest defenses of abortion:

>Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

>In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

However, his line of thinking, while consistent, has some disconcerting implications

>Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[37]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[38]

I was the first user who replied to you, and that's not what I was saying was wrong. Your first sentence is what's false.

He's also supportive of killing physically and mentally handicapped. His philosophy is pragmatism to the extreme.

I wish I could show you how much I don't give a fuck about what you think.

Is that why none of them carry signs around saying they have a moral right to do what they want with their bodies re: abort? Wait ...

srsly tho you're right that one could be for legalising it while having a negative or no opinion of it morally, but there is obviously a huge moral dimension because that's the only leg pro-lifers have to stand on. And even thinking that a piece of morality can be overridden by practical consideration says a lot about one morally.

Also I should have said anti-absolutist instead of anti-realist.

>source the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group

And in the New York Times to boot. Fake news at its purest.

Pedantic, but utilitarianism is not pragmatism. Pragmatist ethics, although having a lot of overlap with utirilitarianism, is its own thing.

Generally if something is "extreme" then it isn't pragmatist.

Right, thanks for correcting me.

>right to life
>"practical" ethics

I said they don't necessarily have to think that. Not that most of them don't.

The morality is not overridden and the point is not that one would have a negative opinion and then support legalization. It doesn't have to be that way. The problem can be approached without touching on morality, without addressing it. And it would be fine. Because that is the original problem: whether it should be a crime or not. And if people looked at this problem throughly, you'd see there is nothing there to question on whether a baby has this or that right, or is life or not. That latter aspect of debate diminishes the issue to whether we validate or invalidate the life of the baby and takes the spotlight from the mother and abortion as a legal status. A prohibition is not the same as abolishing something and a legalization is not endorsing it. This is not some vague abstract play of words, but something that you can see if you look at statistics and if you look at the whole issue of abortion from a social and political view.

I don't think we're in disagreement

Well let's make a distinction between Academia and educated people. Most proponents of Neo-liberalism are educated (even highly), but very few exist in academia.

Also, from my experience most academics are skeptical of full-blown amoral relativism, but many believe that context shapes the contours of morality.

Sure is reddit in here.

The only thing that makes the idea of complete moral convergence uncertain is uncertainty about whether the universe is finite or not.

If you have ANY goal, then, given sufficient logical ability, pursuit of that goal will be subsumed by instrumental goals. Instrumental goals are the same for every actor. If the universe is infinite, then primary goals can be phased out completely, leaving all actors playing purely towards instrumental goals, resulting in convergence. But having any sort of timeframe keeps primary goals in the picture.

If you've heard about artificial general intelligence thought experiments, then this should sound familiar. The question is whether or not an AGI would eventually replace its own utility function with an "empty" one that leaves it only pursuing instrumental goals. If this happens, then every AGI, regardless of what its original function was, will coverage.

If you want to troll pro-choicers mention that abortion is an inherently eugenic practice whose original proponents wanted to sterilize black and poor communities, both of which are still most heavily impacted by the practice.

Its about bodily autonomy you fucking nutcase. If someone needed to be sewn to you neck to keep their head alive, no one could legally force you to. Same thing with a baby.

If you want to troll liberals, say literally anything.

exiting a birth canal magically grants personhood? That's a much more superstitious thing to believe than anything Marquis

What's the difference between a dependent child and a fetus in this case of burden? The mother should have to wait till birth, then have the child under government care for both cases, like CPS; otherwise, they should face legal consequences for negligence. You're taking a human life in abortions. Just because the parent was too retarded to use protection shouldn't affect the life of another being, because the fetus isn't the mother despite the dependence.

I'm not sure what AI has to do with human morality, because the instrumental convergence thesis doesn't apply to intelligent agents. Even then this doesn't have anything to do with my statement. Such instrumentalist ethics are not commonly held among most academics, especially ethical philosophers.

The difference the the fact they even if they wanted to give the baby away immediately they would be forced to lost their bodily autonomy until they risk death popping out a parasite. You want to get rid of a child, you hand them over immediately, and you should be able to do the same to a fetus, which is no more human than a coma patient that a family can decide to put down.

Abortion is literally sacrificing children to foreign gods and the devil himself. It's an abomination to God. Society will pay dearly for its iniquities. Repent your sins before it's too late, fellow anons.

Anime is a sin too you fuck face.

My problem is that it's a human life separate from the mother. The mother shouldn't be able to decide if her offspring should be killed since it's a separate being. Birth does have slight risk of death, though that's not the fault of the fetus or necessarily the mother in all cases, but this doesn't mean the killing is justified. There's a risk I might develop lung cancer from secondhand smoke, but I'm not going to kill the smoker. If you birth a child you're responsible for it's life. I say you're responsible for it's life during birth.

The problem is
Abortion only causes inconsistencies in your morals if you're retarded
BUT
If you're in a situation where you need an abortion, you're probably retarded

Really rude and hurtful post

this

on a scale of zero to zero how self-aware are you?

Except this is more like killing a coma patient that has a probable chance of waking up within the next few months.
Speaking of indifference for human value
>parasite

what would stirner's stance on abortion be?

Why would he bother having a stance on it

You don't really need to read literature on it. Do you believe that taking the life of a human who has committed no crime is immoral? Then, yes, abortion is immoral. Pretty simple stuff.

>being cucked by a speck

Wow, you really have it all figured out. How could an answer so simple have eluded humanity for centuries?

Except the coma patient is a person with ideas, memories, aspirations and relations. A fetus is not

>I don't know what cuck means

People are dumb, news at 11.

Shut your whore mouth

>i don't know what human means

Until it isn't in the body anymore a fetus is a parasite, though. Then it's either a baby, or dead tissue.

Parasite. Noun. An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Guess what a fetus does? It attaches to the lining of the uterus and derives nutrients from the host via the placenta. Mammalian animals (and other viviparous species also) are so weird for having this particular method of incubating offspring. What sort of bizarre set of evolutionary pressures meant that it made more sense to carry around one or more of your young around inside an organ in your body while they leach nutrients from you until they reach a point where they are mature enough to survive outside?

If, for whatever reason (be it rape, be it a broken condom, be it the failure of oral or internal contraceptives, be it a simple case of misinformation) a woman wants an abortion prior to the week where the fetus gains viability, she deserves that right.

And if she's after the stage where the fetus has gained viability but there is a medical or ethical reason why she should abort regardless (severe deformity, product of rape), then she should still have the right to abort.

Thank goodness that we have you, our savior, to enlighten us mere mortals with your superhuman intellect ... on Veeky Forums.

Why would any egoist (self-aware person) bother taking a stance on it, unless said egoist impregnated someone or was pregnant?

This debate is nonsense. Or, in Zizek's terminology, this debate is pure praxis of ideology.

I don't understand how species works

>In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species,

Hold on, are you suggesting that people start off as a different species? Do tell me what species humans start off as.

I've been seeing this dumb "fetuses are parasites" arguments thrown around a lot across different boards. Is that what is taught in feminist circles in community college these days?

>Veeky Forums will defend this

DON'T OPEN THE WEBM LADIES, AVERT YOUR GAZE AND RECITE THE SACRED WORDS:

Fetuses are parasites
They are just clumps of cells
They are not human
Abortion is not murder

Down with the patriarchy!

>Veeky Forums will honestly try to defend this

You feel for it because it looks human, but it has none of the qualities you associate with a human being. It's less aware than a damned chicken. There is no person to destroy there

As a conscious being, I prioritize the well-being of fellow conscious beings. That includes women pregnant with unwanted fetuses. However, the fetuses themselves are not conscious and thus I don't give a fuck about them.

These thoughts have been reassuring as my practice murders hundreds of fetuses a month.

YES THIS REMEMBER, IT IS NOT A HUMAN
REMEMBER THAT IT ONLY LOOKS HUMAN
REMEMBER THAT IT ONLY LOOKS LIKE ITS IN PAIN
DON'T LET THESE MEN *spits* FOOL YOU, BABIES AREN'T PEOPLE

you seem pretty emotional

...

Throw your tantrums, if you like

Some people just get dumber as they age, you are one of them.

Is this why Aristotle was right about the good life?

That is a human. Pic is literally a human, and it's not a "potential human," it's 100% human. Unless you disagree with scientific consensus.

...

No, those are human cells, not A human

Semantics. You know perfectly well what I mean

Then you're going against scientific consensus on the matter. Good luck to you.

At what point does it become a human?

It's literally a human. Sure it's not an adult but it's still a human.

>scientific taxonomy holds exclusive license over the definition of human

try harder, neocons

Semantics are important, otherwise you're arguing with emotional appeal rather than logic.

So it's not scientific consensus that those are human cells?

lol

No it's not a human, anymore than skin cells are a human

Yeah, fascists and communists used their own definitions of what a human is to validate their atrocities too.

ALL THESE FUCKING RETARDS COMPARING THE FETUS TO 12 YEAR OLDS FUCKING SUCK AT ARGUMENTS.

The real question is, why don't we take all the money we spend on medical processes to keep old people alive for so long, and use that to help people bring new kids into the world?

Why do we hold onto old fucks and refuse delightful new people?

Is a spermatozoa a human?

I'm saying it's a human being. Yes, they're cells too. Here's an article on the issue.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

How many chromosomes do humans have?

it's easier to relate to old people who have emotions, thoughts, memories then to fetus'

we don't know what the fetus will turn out to become, we know what the old people are