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?
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Scott wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:20 pmWhat 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 wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Scott wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:20 pmI 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.Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 amSorry about the typo! This is the correct version.Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 amWith this, i agree. Tragic as the lack of certain individuals may be, we can’t afford more people to walk this earth right now.Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 amI 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
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.
Ecurb wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 1:16 pmI 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.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 amI 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
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.
Ecurb wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 1:16 pmI 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.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 am"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
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.
Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:00 amI 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).Scott wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:20 pmI 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.Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm 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.
Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:57 am We can’t afford more people to walk this earth right now.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?
A possible solution to which may be legally limiting conception to 1 per person...
Vagueabsolute wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 9:14 pmI 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.Ecurb wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 1:16 pmI 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.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 11:13 amI 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
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.
Ecurb wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 1:16 pm So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PCOK, 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?
Scott wrote: ↑March 8th, 2023, 2:23 am In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of 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!
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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2023, 10:32 amI 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.
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?
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
Sensation happens in the brain. I think you c[…]
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve […]