Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Vagueabsolute]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

Additionally, how would you compare these concepts with murder, is abortion morality differentiable from killing a more developed life form?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life.

Little to no drama sprout around the subject of abortion between people who agree with your first sentence.

One big reason there is so much debate about abortion is because many people strongly disagree with your first sentence.

To many people, your first sentence is as absurd and unsupported as it would be to assert that from a consequential perspective the difference between infanticide (i.e. murdering an already born baby) and not mating in the first place seem nonexistent.

Many people look at abortion as being on par with one conjoined twin murdering their twin sibling.

With that said, I think the topic of abortion law is not nearly as divisive as most people think, as shown with my 3-option poll about abortion law. The vast majority of people agree in that poll. The vast majority of people disagree with both the extreme pro-life option and the extreme pro-choice option. Almost all people fall near the peak of the bell curve in the middle.

[Vagueabsolute]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life.

Little to no drama sprout around the subject of abortion between people who agree with your first sentence.

One big reason there is so much debate about abortion is because many people strongly disagree with your first sentence.

What I’m trying to unravel in this thread is the reasoning behind disagreeing with my first sentence. What value do those opposing abortion find in a foetus, that they don’t see in the prospect of having a child?

[Vagueabsolute]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life.

To many people, your first sentence is as absurd and unsupported as it would be to assert that from a consequential perspective the difference between infanticide (i.e. murdering an already born baby) and not mating in the first place seem nonexistent.

I would argue that a mother committing pain- and stressless infanticide, is close to synonymous with deciding to not have a child in the first place. It may go against some peoples nature, but the outcome is nearly the same. Both these scenarios can be considered tragic, because they both hinder a being from experiencing and interacting with our world.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

The latter is preferable to the former. Abortion is putting right a mistake, as promptly as we can. The mistake is where the problems start, not the pregnancy or the abortion. Humans being human, people have unprotected sex even though they know they shouldn't, and have access to contraceptives. This is undesirable, but it happens. A lot. So we need to face the practical facts, and deal with them.

The authoritarian view might say "they made the baby, now they can damn well deal with the consequences!" But this punishes the (innocent) child, which is unwanted, and (quite probably) the parents are not equipped to raise a child, financially, emotionally, or in a multitude of other ways.

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

The latter is preferable to the former. Abortion is putting right a mistake, as promptly as we can. The mistake is where the problems start, not the pregnancy or the abortion. Humans being human, people have unprotected sex even though they know they shouldn't, and have access to contraceptives. This is undesirable, but it happens. A lot. So we need to face the practical facts, and deal with them.

The authoritarian view might say "they made the baby, now they can damn well deal with the consequences!" But this punishes the (innocent) child, which is unwanted, and (quite probably) the parents are not equipped to raise a child, financially, emotionally, or in a multitude of other ways.

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should not be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

Sorry about the typo! This is the correct version.

[Vagueabsolute]

So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should not be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good.

With this, i agree. Tragic as the lack of certain individuals may be, we can’t afford more people to walk this earth right now.
A possible solution to which may be legally limiting conception to 1 per person. That way a couple could have a maximum of two children, and because far from everyone would have even that many children, the population would steadily decrease. There are of course lots of potential issues surrounding this solution. For example, some would surely try ridding themselves of their previous offsprings in order to have new children, maybe with new partners. It does also compromise freedom of choice, but such restrictions are probably a necessity in this state of the world.

[Ecurb]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

I assume you don't actually mean this, but perhaps you should avoid writing things you don't mean. "Unwanted additions cannot be accepted, or even tolerated"? Break out the gas chambers! Send "additions" to the showers! "Anything that helps ease that (over population that is destroying the world) is good"? So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

[Vagueabsolute]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

I assume you don't actually mean this, but perhaps you should avoid writing things you don't mean. "Unwanted additions cannot be accepted, or even tolerated"? Break out the gas chambers! Send "additions" to the showers! "Anything that helps ease that (over population that is destroying the world) is good"? So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

I don’t believe Pattern-chaser is referring to living fully conscious humans, but rather unintentional new life. That, at the very least, is how I interpret patterns words.

[Vagueabsolute]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

"Anything that helps ease that (over population that is destroying the world) is good"? So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

I believe the upside of pandemics is something worth discussing. It is obviously far from an optimal solution, but for now, pandemics serve a relevant purpose.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Vagueabsolute,

Thank you for your reply!

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life.

To many people, your first sentence is as absurd and unsupported as it would be to assert that from a consequential perspective the difference between infanticide (i.e. murdering an already born baby) and not mating in the first place seem nonexistent.

I would argue that a mother committing pain- and stressless infanticide, is close to synonymous with deciding to not have a child in the first place. [...] Both these scenarios can be considered tragic, because they both hinder a being from experiencing and interacting with our world.

I suspect your topic here is going to get derailed by people debating whether abortion is more similar to infanticide (i.e. murdering an already born baby) or more similar to killing some sperm cells (e.g. wearing a condom when having sex).

I suggest you put aside abortion altogether, cut your losses on this topic, and start a new one with the following title: How do those disapproving of infanticide view abstaining from conceiving at all?

In the new topic, I suggest you make it clear you are talking about the killing of an already born baby, not about abortion, and I suggest that in the first post of the new topic (i.e. the OP) you explicitly request respondents avoid talking about abortion at all, to avoid the topic getting derailed.

With that said, your question is an interesting one: How is killing a young baby that is already born different or more objectionable than simply choosing to not get pregnant in the first place, since in a way both deprive the would-be person from having and getting to live a full life? Is it preferable to live a few days and then be murdered by your own mom, or to have never been conceived in the first place? It's an interesting question. I think it's one of countless examples that illustrate the absurdity of utilitarianism and/or moral consequentialism.

In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of money.

Even human egg cells can be sold for a good amount of money.

So wasting either is like flushing money down the toilet.

If you have either and don't want them, you can sell them. It's a kind helpful way to make some money.


Thank you,
Scott

[Pattern-chaser]

We can’t afford more people to walk this earth right now.
A possible solution to which may be legally limiting conception to 1 per person...

The trouble with an authoritative solution is that you are forced to enforce your own rules, and soon you are the worst sort of dictator. What if a couple break your prohibition? Will you kill their baby? Will you kill one or both of them? How will you prevent your 'law' from degenerating into nothing because it is ignored?

Yes, we do need a solution to our population problem, but which solution will actually work the best, in practice? Not an authoritarian one, is my guess.

[Pattern-chaser]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

I assume you don't actually mean this, but perhaps you should avoid writing things you don't mean. "Unwanted additions cannot be accepted, or even tolerated"? Break out the gas chambers! Send "additions" to the showers! "Anything that helps ease that (over population that is destroying the world) is good"? So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

I don’t believe Pattern-chaser is referring to living fully conscious humans, but rather unintentional new life. That, at the very least, is how I interpret patterns words.

I made my comments out of passion over the issues of abortion and over-population. I regret that it seemed I was advocating violent action(s), which I did not intend.

So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

OK, I got a little carried away with my vocabulary, but this straw-man drivel is a bit much! Have I offended you in some way?

[Pattern-chaser]

In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of money.

Even human egg cells can be sold for a good amount of money.

So wasting either is like flushing money down the toilet.

If you have either and don't want them, you can sell them. It's a kind helpful way to make some money.

Wow! Even though they are taken out of the context of your post, these are, er, surprising sentiments. Only an American would see profit as being relevant to a discussion like this one? Just: Wow!

[Ecurb]

OK, I got a little carried away with my vocabulary, but this straw-man drivel is a bit much! Have I offended you in some way?

I specifically said that I thought you didn't mean what you wrote, but of course what you wrote offended me,. It would offend any decent person. That has nothing to do with "the vocabulary". It offends due to your statements that "unwanted additions cannot be accepted or even tolerated" and that "anything that helps ease (over population) is good." These sentiments are obnoxious, even evil, and responding to exactly what you wrote can hardly be described as addressing a straw man.