Why do people call women evil just because they want the right to abortion?

[Anonymous]

Of course a teenage girl who was raped and became pregnant and doesn't want her child to live a miserable life is the most evil thing in the world.

[nightdrot]

The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.

A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.

We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.

This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.

Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.

Suffice to say it is best to argue these questions on a philosophical and moral plane and to refrain from name calling. Thus calling a woman evil is perhaps needlessly pejorative and does not allow for the simple fact that a woman (or a man) can be in error - even serious error - without being evil.

However, at the very least, the pro-choice position conduces to an ethically and morally problematic outcome. That cannot be called good.

[Regmorus]

Very deep analysis! Briliant! I don't know yet if I can fully agree with the final conclusion - meaning I am not sure yet what exactly would be the optimal regulation, but the thoughts you wrote down must be considered.

[nightdrot]

@Regmorus Many thanks for your generous compliment and the thumbs up. It is exceptionally kind of you to say that I at least left you with some food for thought.

[Regmorus]

Certainly, certainly! Thank YOU for writing this answer to the question.

[Derekk]

If I can offer a rebuttal to this argument:

Inherent to your main point and every point that follows is an assumption that a fetus is a human life, regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Or at the very least, you don't appear to make a distinction between a fertilized ovum and a baby who is one day shy of his/her delivery date.

You make several mentions of historical philosophers and speculate at length about the meaning of these quotes as it applies narrowly to concerns of reproductive health, but do very little to define your terms properly or to back up your implications regarding how slippery this slope leading to anarchy really is.

Consider also an argument from a similar principle that values human existence (whatever that may be) over the existence of any other concern of liberty or self-determination. If you find yourself strapped to a bed while maintaining the life of another human being on life support, do you believe that you have a right to tear the equipment off and leave the hospital, thereby ending the life of this other person? If not, why not? The common rebuttal to this is to invoke the idea of personal responsibility, and that "those who create life must sustain it", but this isn't self apparent to me and should be argued with the same degree of philosophical rigor that you claim to apply to your own analysis of the evils of abortion.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk To start with the first point, a thing cannot be other than what it is. A baby must be a human from the moment of conception as it will not become a duck or a horse. We make distinctions - zygote, fetus, baby, teen, adult - as a convenience and not to identify distinct beings

In any case, the burden falls then upon those who would say a fetus is not. They must answer - to the precise second - when the fetus becomes human and then articulate the exact moral, philosophical and scientific distinction between the fetus one second before it becomes human and one second after. Get it wrong, and you leave the state to sanction the killing of life at the will of another when the other is guilty of no crime other than the fact of its' conception - for which it was not responsible.

As to your latter point, it is not parallel. No option exists for the child, options exist in the case you articulated. The life of the injured person may be addressed and moral alternatives exist that facilitate the balance of life and freedom. Whereas in the case of the child, it is made an object and is de-humanized. It being held to account for actions of which it was not responsible and for which it is innocent while the mother and father are absolved of the moral obligations that attach to their actions.

This, suffice to say, leading to a society that makes, as noted, freedom not a means to an end but an end in itself, and which severs the connection between action and obligation. Needless to add that we have already had a whiff of what such a culture looks like.

[Derekk]

I'm not sure that I understand your first point. I agree that a fertilized egg will not become a duck or a horse, and I agree that distinctions between zygote, fetus, baby etc are basically scientific constructions that allow us to refer to things in a specific form or something that closely approximates that form. What I don't understand though is why life can be fundamentally valued when a life is stripped of all that which normally must apply for a life to be a life or a life worth living. What is a life without consciousness? Without thought or feeling or emotion? Without a sense if identity, memory, or a sense of justice about it's fate? A human is a human yes, just as a human is a life. But we as a society seem perfectly willing to condone the killing of some lives over others, I. e cows, chickens, pigs. If these animals are disposable on the basis of a lack of cognitive faculties, then it seems as though you're forced to accept that it applies to a human in a poor developmental state or even a poor state altogether in some cases.

This results in my issue with the second point. I don't believe that it's up to the pro-choicer to delineate between acceptable life unacceptable life, particularly when others shirk responsibility in deciding what species of animal is alright to kill. For the record, I'm not a vegan or anything, but this point is important to the argument and important on its own merits I think.

I agree with you that my case isn't directly parallel, but there are cases in which it theoretically could be. Suppose you were the only match for a kidney donation and your kidney could save a life that would otherwise perish. Regardless of the idea's plausibility, the reaction or discussion following it can be helpful in illuminating distinctions in abstract thought. Particularly when discussing broad categories like "life", "right", "wrong" etc.

[Derekk]

My reply was too long so I need to add one more bit here. I concede that there are circumstances in which parents are morally accountable to their children, but I believe that any notion of accountability that applies to a form of life that lacks any descriptors of sentience is one that should be suspect. Though obviously this point would only be sensible to you if you accepted my previous point about what sentient life even is.

[Regmorus]

@Derekk I read your message out of curiosity. Well, I don't see in your claimed rebuttal anything that would somehow apply to the mentioned dangers. You ask for rigor and properly backed up implications whilst you yourself deliver only a theoretical example that isn't comparable - from logical point of view - to the real situation because the natural intuitive response of any (or almost any) human being to an artificially constructed thought experiment that is build to threat their fundamental needs severely will of course be the elimination of the threat (situation) if they are honest. So I'm inclined to claim that your request that something should be backed up and present itself rigorously can be only justified after you explicitly pointed out every point that isn't backed up properly in your opinion and every place where you believe to find lack of rigor. I agree that there are some moments that aren't that simple. BUT the main idea of the posting which was that abortion can endanger or does endager moral and valuative foundations of society by allowing looser consideration of value of life wasn't mentioned in your response in any way - let alone disproved or shown to be not substantial. Maybe you interpreted the premise in a way that wasn't suggested by the posting as far I see - it doesn't matter whether what is being aborted is biologically considered a living being or not what it is biologically considered is a question of definition - the concern about possible decline of life validation is based on the meaning of the action to people (maybe such that they aren't conscious about it) not on a scientific analysis what the biological science has defined to be life and what not.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk In brief answer to your first point. You write: "What is a life without consciousness?" Indeed, so the man in the coma should be dispensed with. You have decided that its' worth is contingent not on any inherent worth but on what the conscious person decides its value is.

Indeed, that standard has been tried in various other ways and the history of that approach has been very bloody. The instant that the value of life is judged by a criteria or standard outside of itself you open the gates of hell. (To cite the most lurid example, it did not take much for the National Socialists to judge that Jews did not meet the criteria for a worthy human life.)

You then write, " I don't believe that it's up to the pro-choicer to delineate between acceptable life unacceptable life..." However, of course, that is exactly what you are doing. You are inserting into the law and culture the idea that life is acceptable or unacceptable according to the criteria that those with the power to enforce it.

Again, a VERY brutal history there. Indeed, why do you think the law has been turning handstands to avoid establishing the moment that life begins - and why the standard has moved from third trimester to viability and so on? The law does not want responsibility for determining the criteria by which life has value. So the border keeps moving - detached from any objective standard.

You cannot have it both ways. The pro-choicer is, by default if not consciously, deciding when a life is acceptable - that is it meets the convenience of the pro-choicer, and when not.

As to your last point, the theoretical is too abstract from which to draw a practical conclusions. We make the rule according to the practical standard, not the theoretical exception. Apply your standard and all rules become ephemeral.

[Derekk]

@Regmorus If the main idea of your reply was simply that a looser evaluation of life in the context or abortion could lead to a moral decline, then I really don't think I can dispute it. It's an incredibly complex and loaded assertion that is likely filled with plenty of true assumptions as well as untrue assumptions. Take for example the idea that "video games cause violent behaviour" or "porn causes long term brain changes or patterns"... you can't really deal with something like that because the assertion or experiment would need to be so deliberately unpacked that it would take ages to really agree on how to do it. Is there a man or woman out there who may interpret a lax abortion policy to be an explicit message to mean "abortion is birth control. sex without condoms is fine because you can end the pregnancy later"? Yeah probably. How many people? I have no idea. Would it screw up society? Who knows? The references to broken homes, foster parents, out of wedlock babies my have as much to do with religious decline, technological innovation, multiculturalism, relaxed parents, lesser concerns with premarital sex, as anything specifically related to abortion. And even if I grant all of these points, does there exist a legitimate solution to these problems that doesn't involve severing reproductive freedom to a rape victim for example?

The assertion is too complicated to really discuss and probably relies to heavily on subjective interpretation than any other hard fact pointing to a definitive relationship.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Not following you at this point. My argument was that the gravaman of the pro-choice argument is that the value of life is purely subjective and to be left to the discretion of the individual. That further this relativistic standard should then be encoded in law.

As we shape the law and then the law helps to shape the culture, we then embed a standard of the relativistic and subjective value of human life - indeed, even the definition of what is human life becomes subjective.

This then not only flies in the face of science - a baby cannot be anything other than human from the moment of conception - it also inserts into the culture a relativism on a very slippery slope. When those with power are free to decide the value of life, then anything that derives from life, including the most basic human and natural rights, become subject not just to control by a select group, but literally the very fact of the existence of those rights comes ti be defined by those with the power to define their existence.

The historical record of such reasoning, suffice to say, has not been pretty.

[Derekk]

I have decided that the man in the coma's life is predicated on the existence of outside mental attributes exactly to the extent that you have decided the life of a cow is permitted to be sent to the slaughterhouse without a blink. Unless of course you are consistent in your application of the value of life and are consequently a Vegan, which I very much doubt. To be fair, neither am I, but my point here is not so much that I'm inventing standards, it's that these standards already exist and are practiced daily by those who scaremonger about the slippery slope leading to hell and the political history involved with writing off human beings on the basis of their personal qualities or lack thereof. Of course, Hitler based his decisions not on the lack of sentient thought on the part of the Jews, but due to qualities in them that supposedly existed but that which he could not demonstrate scientifically.

My reply to the other responder above made mention of the fallacy in assuming cause and effect or established relationships without properly studying the relationship between the two subjects in question. The brutal political regimes of decades past can easily be explained without reference to a philosophy of mind or sentience.

I also believe that an explanation for the law's meek approach to the topic is as easily explained by voter differences as it is by a serious and thoughtful concern about the proper cutoff point for life. In fact I would assume it would be MORE so but I won't claim that it's true.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk So a man and a cow are the same thing?

Pace Aristotle, can the cow transcend his nature as man can? Does the capacity of the man to transcend his nature suggest something inherent in the man that distinguishes it from the cow?

You keep digging this hole deeper and deeper. If man is nothing more than biological, then indeed his rights are ephemeral and can be - with justice - taken away by whatever standard those with the power have the ability to define and impose.

It is in fact that which distinguishes man from beast - that unique capacity to transcend his nature - that makes him unique and inheres in him rights that exist in no other creature.

[Derekk]

You quote Aristotle and Burke and use plenty of multisyllabic words, but you seem to think that I'll accept a Lockean or Natural Rights theory of justice and human rights without anything aside from an aggressive provocation. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are every bit as studied and read as Locke is. You can disagree with anyone you want, but writing a contrary point to a philosopher requires more than what you're providing.

I don't believe for a second that the average man is greater in value to the average cow. But I don't think you really care what I think about men and cows.

[Regmorus]

@Derekk I agree. But that's how it can be with truths sometimes the existing conditions or the frame of formal systems that are in theory avaliable as means to deliver a proof will require impossible amount of work or of time. I can't prove to you that this idea is true in any currently availiable logical or knowledge system - yes, I should confess. So from your point of view it could be true it might be not. Yes.

[Regmorus]

My thinking and observations confirm to me - in a way that can't be completely approved of by rigorous evaluation of logical or scientific consistency - that it is true. I assume that the main idea of the original posting was similar to the mentioned one however by my first reply to your comment I missed the great reflections and elaborations of nightdrot of how the decline of life value moral could (will) work more precisely (if assumed now the idea is true) and what structure exactly could be used to construct the effects in theory - I took only the abstract simple idea for the reply. So I saw something that could be regarded as a theoretical follow-up and more accurate foundation of my own ideas and suspicions (however not evolved by reflections about abortions but about topics with similar meaning) and of course I think that the analysis made by nightdrot is legit exactly because it shows great deal of similarity with my own thoughts. But that is exactly what human beings do - no matter from where they have their thoughts from science experts, from books, from own observations... In such an argument it's 50/50 anyway so each debatant will stick to what occures the most "familiar" / reliable to them because of countless factors that can't be all accounted for. So to me this idea and it's more precise description and the frame constructed by nightdrot that incorporates this idea in the concrete form he gave to it to me it all seems very much consistent. But again I get that it doesn't to you because you simply have different mental preconditions since different life.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Not sure of the point. The pedigree of Burke's ideas may be traced back through Aquinas and thence to Aristotle.

As to Locke and Mill. The former believed that rights inhere in man of his nature. That there was something unique in man. There would appear to be nothing in his thinking that deviates substantially from my own. Indeed, his social contract was unique to humans.

As to Mill, a problematic figure. When to the greatest number of Germans the Jews were assumed to be a problem, they pursued the greatest good through the camps.

Finally, you write - "I don't believe for a second that the average man is greater in value to the average cow. " Indeed, and thus man is mere cattle - and you so treat them. Then eccentrically accusing me of not caring for men.

Suffice to say that there are more than a few problems with your argument. When man is no better or worse than cattle, he is apt to be treated as such.

[Derekk]

I wasn't challenging the pedigree of Locke or Burke. I'm saying that if you want to codify a specific philosophy of life into law, you need to do better than half-hazard references to the Holocaust. Could it not be assumed that Hitler thought the Jews forfeited their claims to Lockean human rights due to some quality that separated them from other sentient beings, rather than a Utilitarian calculus? Bad things happened in history and the complex reasons behind those events are not as simple as "Mill's ideas or Marx's" ideas did it. You have to account for intent, interpretation, context, etc. No historian operates like that.

Anyways, as for my comment about men and cows. That was a typo. I meant to say that I don't believe cows and men are equal because I actually believe men to be superior, though not because the of the reasons you state. And I say and by my comment that you probably aren't interested in my reasons anyways.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Well, I hardly have the space in 4,000 character increments to spell out in detail the nuances of my argument and the sources from which I draw. If it helps, I have a dual degree in political philosophy and communications, and I know whereof I speak.

Suffice to add that I miss the point, as you did earlier, of objecting to "fancy words" in one paragraph and in the next demand that I go into a detailed pedigree of the ideas that I was using to substantiate my points. If you don't like big words now, I sincerely doubt that such an exploration would improve your mood.

As to the last point, we can just chalk up your type-o to a Feudian slip. Fair enough? Because whatever your subsequent assertion, the logical derivation of your argument amounts to an effective equivalence.

[Derekk]

It doesn't amount to an equivalence and you know that. Assuming that I'm taking a Utilitarian approach to a moral comparison of animal and human life, you should know as much as I do given your degree that a capacity for suffering is tantamount to consideration in any Utilitarian calculus. Given the complexity of human emotion and sensation as opposed to that of a chicken or a cow, it's pretty reasonable to assume why a human life could have greater moral consideration to that of a pig. Even the animal rights ethicist Peter Singer would agree with that.

The accusation and irritation with big words has a lot more to do with a projection of my own experiences than anything else. I have dealt with a lot of unusual and unique people in my short life and one thing that I've learned to be skeptical of, it's the rhetorician with a complex vocabulary who can name drop philosophers and then proceed to misrepresent their ideas in argument for some ridiculous counter point to an argument that they don't even follow. I apologize if you don't fit that mold and for assuming the worst.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk On the last point, I cannot know of what your experiences with others have been. As for me, as noted, I have academic work in political philosophy, have worked in politics for nearly 40 years and have been published - either my own name or that of my employer - in The Washington Post, the Washington Times, the (now defunct) New York City Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and a host of other lesser known publications.

For what it is worth.

As to your first point, so now that you have asserted, to oversimplify a bit, that the human trumps the animal in a moral calculus, you must now consistent with that explain at what point the human - guilty of no act, even the fact of its own conception, forfeits those rights inherent in its humanity. Indeed, that the state ought act as if those rights are no more than the equivalent those extended to the cow.

[Derekk]

Well given your credentials, I'm happy that you've found the time to talk to me given that the most prestigious publishing credentials I've amassed is limited to a reddit post.

I still don't buy the argument though. It assumes that I agree with the idea that all human life or existence in all forms is equally morally important, and I don't agree with this. If it's true that a capacity for suffering in a physical sense is a prerequite for moral consideration, I don't understand why I have to explain why a fetus does not deserve the same moral consideration as a fully developed human being.

Your request also assumes that once I accept that human life is superior, it must be for the same reasons as you believe it to be true. And therefore you expect me to follow your reasoning past the conclusion that I agree with given my own moral framework. Once again, Natural Law theory is a widely-held, widely respected way o interpreting legal and moral status. But it isn't the only one. I find it harder to reconcile natural law theory with intuitive moral judgment than I do Utilitarian ideas.

[Derekk]

If what you're asking is: at what point does a living biological entity become worthy of respected as human life, I would answer by saying that it doesn't matter. Because regardless of what I want to think or what I do think, legally speaking, I believe that a mother has a say in when she decides to end life support to another human being. Whether it be a grown man, a child, or a baby. If you assert that responsibility implies a moral obligation to see the pregnancy through to the end, then the onus is on you to explain it, given that my stance claims no such thing. As you rightly point out, nobody is called upon to prove a negative.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Well, I will spare you where your thinking puts you in historical equivalence - other than to add that once upon a time African-Americans were deemed an inferior form of life and thus were considered mere property.

Bottom line, you must then establish when that life earns the protections of a human life and thus of the state and then articulate a consistent standard by which you assess the moral/philosophical/scientific difference between that life one second before it earns those protections and one second after. Until you have done so you are, at best, practicing the moral equivalent of Russian roulette with human life - and then enshrining that flip of the coin in law.

In that you are quite wrong. It matters a very great deal as without it you enshrine in law that power and random chance determine the value of all life - not least your own. Not so sure that is good for society or for yourself, frankly.

[Derekk]

I appreciate the respect you have for objective government and protecting the dignity of human beings, but can you at least spare my own dignity and stop comparing me to Jim Crow and Hitler? Yes African Americans were once considered an inferior form of life. Why? Likely poor science and empirical observation coupled with faulty interpretation. If the Founding Fathers of the United States declared that all men are created equal, and then proceeded to declare that some men were less equal than others, that's a break in consistency which is as good as a positive assertion. Because in reality, you're making a positive statement about others being lesser than yourself. That requires a defense which the racists of yesteryear and today fail to provide.

Anyways. As for the Russian Roulette point, I would reiterate that even granting human life at the point of conception, it doesn't change my perspective. Because if I believe that a person can resist the obligation from a state to submit their bodies to maintain the life of another person, (a view you are no doubt sympathetic to), consistency dictates that I permit abortion. Yes the child is not responsible for their creation, but nor is the hospitalized patient requiring a kidney transplant responsible for his failing kidney.

[Derekk]

Having said all of the above, my visceral reaction to a mother aborting her child a week before her due date would not be one of "oh ok". So don't confuse my legal opinion with my emotional instinct.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Well, you may not like the comparisons, but you flee from the implications of the pedigree of your own ideas. You cannot articulate a premise and then fail to both look backward at inspires those ideas as well as ignore their practical ramifications.

The examples I cite are the most lurid, but their is an intellectual and philosophical relationship between them.

As to the state, you submit to the state in all manner of things. You are prohibited from wantonly murdering for personal gain. The state is as natural to man as the air he breathes and here again you neglect the logical implications of your reasoning.

As to the last point, that is well and good. However, your feelings are irrelevant. What matters is not what we feel as that is subjective and transitory. What matters rather is the intellect and the application of practical - as opposed to abstract - reason. This latter having to be rooted in objective data and practical experience and thus only altered or changed by an examination of the same.

[Derekk]

I do agree completely that the implications as well as the premises are crucial in evaluating a perspective. My problem isn't that I'm evading them, it's that I believe you're mis-attributing the cause of historical events and ascribing them to things I believe or things you think I believe. As I said before, it is entirely possible to conceive of a genocide in which a Lockean framework of rights is the foundational construct of any given society. You simply have to believe that you're a human being because you can have quality A B and C, and that Jews or African Americans have no such qualities. Therefore we don't care about them. That's not a difficult idea to process. The closest monster of history that I would accept in criticizing a Utilitarian theory would be Stalin and even that I wouldn't accept.

I also agree that a person must submit to the state. I just also happen to believe that the state ought to be consistent in applying certain principles and ideas pertaining to when it is acceptable to interfere in human life.

I also agree that feelings are irrelevant to political or legal debate. That's why I'm explicitly ignoring my own prejudices. If I enshrined those into law, we'd probably have a legal framework similar to what er have to today. Which is not good enough to me.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk On the first point, I am not certain how I am mis-attributing them. Slavery was born of the inconsistent application of the standard of defining a man. Fascism, National Socialism and Communism were all attempts to supply a sense of identity that had been stripped away by the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment having defined man as radically alone, divested of any social relationships. Hobbes did so brutally, Locked diffidently, but both - as Burke said, reduced man "to his naked shivering nature" by depriving him of those "pre-rational" moral principles and identities that were not strictly related to abstract reason.

Man so deprived then being able to re-conceive himself in any number of way. His value then being subjective and relative. This, whether you recognize it or not, is the well from which you are drinking.

How is the state NOT consistent? If it say that life has an inherent value and that rights inhere in that value, then there is nothing inconsistent in forbidding abortion on demand. Indeed, if anything, it then calls for a re-examination of other laws.

However, once the value of life is relativized - this leaving aside the cultural and social ramifications - the ambit of the law becomes elastic. It becomes applicable only restricted to the relative nature of the being it seeks to govern.

[Regmorus]

I am by far not as educated in philosophy (actually almost the opposite of educated) as you both are, but I'd like to suggest for consideration the idea (surely formulated with lack of any explicitly expressed rootedness in some greater conceptions) that the decisions and opinions based only on intellectual reasoning by disregarding the emotional and empathetic component - which is actually one of the things that the humans have almost all in common and hence an important unifyiing factor i. e. some of foundations of possibility of objectivity - that this kind of thinking consequently needs the assumption that the intellectual reasoning always gives results in accordance with the needs (at least) of the majority of people. This is doubtful to me since it can't be guaranteed that the intelligence leads to the same resulting conception and world view by one and another person. I would even dare to express the conjecture that the emotional likeliness of human beings is much more a foundation for any objectivity and hence for any results that are beneficial to the majority than the intellectual ones since emotions and emotional reasoning are directly linked to biology and hence must be very similar by the majority of people, whereas the ways of developing intelligence are many and the variety of possible results of this development is large and the ways and results differ from individual to individual. So of course I'm not objecting the importance of intelligence, but I'm suggesting that the most important thing from such things that allow any objectivity is in our emotions and feelings and hence this part can't be disregarded by questions of conception and consideration,

[Regmorus]

I'm suggesting that maybe this part is in a sense (or should be) the foundation of any intelligent reasoning when it is wanted to be objective, while by all that the emotions shouldn't be allowed to take over in some (many) cases, they serve as a kind of conductor by the way. intelligent reasoning and it's objectivity. If you take all the emotions and feelings from the underlying levels of consciousness away you'll end up with a machine fixed most probably in autonomous way on personal gain and personal survival. Pure intelligence could lead one on the way of hitler's medical experts who evaluated without any emotion how soon people will die from scarce nutrition and analyzed killing methods as if it was a normal every day business. I'd like to emphasize what the conlusion would be if this reflection can be regarded as logically satisfying: That the intelligence leads one person a way that is beneficial for and not harming to others does not necessarily mean that it does the same by any other person or at least by ot less than a half of the humanity. So feelings and emotions, empathy shouldn't be disregarded by such questions since it can't be guaranteed that pure intelligence in other people would let them be the same as people whom intelligence makes worthy of this title.

[Derekk]

Slavery WAS born of the inconsistent application of a standard of man. But what is that standard and why can a materialist utilitarian framework produce a prejudiced or corrupt society while a natural law society somehow exempt from ever producing historical mistakes? You can inconsistently apply either idea, as demonstrated earlier.

With the association between the end of the Enlightenment and the rise of 20th century nonsense, I find the comparison to once again be overly simplified. You accuse the Enlightenment of resulting in a fertile landscape for ideological oppression on the basis of Burke's idea that somehow losing "pre-rational" faculties is A) a direct consequence of Enlightenment thinking and B) a consequence so dire that it overwrites the otherwise positive effects of the Enlightenment. A direct and provable result being a natural skeptical attitude towards authority. The French Revolution to begin with. Unless you view government and ideological systems pre-enlightenment to be preferable, even in the absence of the Democratic societies we have managed to build since then.

[nightdrot]

@Regmorus You postulate an either/or when in fact it is a balancing act. The truth is, however, that if we BEGIN the discussion at the emotions, then reasoned discussion becomes problematic if not impossible.

To simplify it a bit, the ideal is "A life guided by reason but inspired by emotion." The problem at the moment that the current debate is all rooted in emotion and reasoned analysis goes by the boards.

[Derekk]

The state is not consistent for reasons that I've already mentioned. You say that accepting your position and enshrining it into law may call for a serious rethinking of other laws and attitudes. I agree with this. Let's begin with my scenario involving medical transplants or the sale of human bodies. Do you agree that the state should be able to ask you to submit parts of your body for the sake of saving a life, or do you not? If not, we're back at the original point of explaining why the scenarios differ. I've explained why I believe they illustrate the same moral principle at work, and I haven't been satisfied by what you've said in opposition to it. The value of life becoming relative is not an idea that anyone (myself included) would ever want to reckon with. But once you realize that any framework defining man's rights, no matter how impartial it pretends to be, came from the mouth of a human, it loses credibility unless it can be sincerely demonstrated to be absolutely impartial and not motivated whatsoever by transient subjective human concerns. I'm not convinced that this is the case.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk On the second point, I can hardly cover two centuries in 2000 character replies. Suffice to say that you need only read Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" to see that the problems with the age of Reason did not begin in the 20th century. There is a consistent idea from France, 1789 to Russia, 1917, to Italy, 1922, to Germany, 1933 and on.

As to your former point, the standard was the inherent value of human life. It was not a thing to be determined by man, but - to borrow a phrase - "all men are created equal... that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights..."

It took a civil war and 650,000 dead to begin to apply that principle consistently. Moreover, imperfect beings are not apt to act always perfectly or consistently. However, there, in the Declaration of Independence - and there are other documents - you see the essence of the principle.

[Regmorus]

@nightdrot this formulation of yours "Life should be guided by reason and inspired by emotion" is very accurate! Exactly, that's what I wanted to mean but expressed in length.

[nightdrot]

In response to your last - and then I apologize but I will have to be on as I hear the pitter patter of three pairs of little feet who call me Daddy suggesting that my house has awakened - as I noted man will not always be consistent. Imperfect beings will not be perfectly consistent.

However, it is axiomatic, an error at the premise will lead to crimes at the end. You start from the position of the relative value of life. That will not - indeed historically HAS not - ended well.

As to you analogy to a body part, that is an odd comparison. Because you cannot mandate a person to donate their liver you therefore have the right to extinguish their life till some subjective and arbitrary point in time? That is, to say no more, an apples to oranges comparison.

At any rate, before I head out I do want to say that it has been a pleasure. You are a thoughtful and pleasant fellow - whatever my assessment of your intellectual inconsistencies. Polite and easy to debate with.

A tip of the hat. Now if you will forgive me, but three little Munchkins are calling for the Family Tickle Monster. Duty calls.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Saw your last post as I was signing off. We begin with emotion but reason must govern emotion, not the other way around. Gotta run.

[Derekk]

@Regmorus The problem with rejecting reason as a universal standard of measuring ideas or informing our actions comes from the necessary part of using some means of expressing ideas that don't rely on it. It's a common problem in any philosophical discipline, whether it be ethics, language, or math, to refer to a statement in a system using the rules of the system. A common example is "This sentence is a lie", is it? Or isn't it? That's sort of the problem with sidelining reason as a universal standard of judgment. I see your point in assuming that human emotion is biological, and therefore might be a better way of approaching objectivity, even if the feelings or sensations or whatever don't approximate reality... but the same can be said for the faculty of logic. And unlike the results of emotional consideration, whatever that may be, reasoning at the very least attempts to describe the world as it exists, even if it fails at doing so each and every time. There are more people that agree that 2 + 2 makes four than there are people who agree that stoning women to death is wrong. That's pretty damning to our collective social instinct relative to our rational instinct.

[Derekk]

Having said that though, reasoning without a motive isn't even possible. "Emotion" as we call it, will always precede what we call "thought", although what we mean when we talk about these things completely depends on the topic, the frame of reference, the person, etc. I argue politics because my instinct and emotional force guides me into wanting to fix society and make it fairer for people. No amount of pure reason would lead me there.

[Derekk]

I have to be on as well. The sun is up and I have things to do.

I appreciate the time spent talking with me and thank you for maintaining the same attitude of spirited but polite debate. I never would have expected in a million years to be talking about John Locke on a website like this. Have a good day and good luck staying awake with kids after not sleeping.

[Regmorus]

@Derekk My point was exactly that logic and anything like logic might be not objective at all when applied to describe the reality. Logic is just a system with rigid rules, what people agree on are the rules, but applying to reality always suggests personal interpretation. To apply logic to models of real world issues you have first to build an abstract model and to establish (knowingly or unknowingly) some axiomatic connections in your mind (which might be even not directly expressed in form of thoughts). That's where the rational objectivity - especially by discussing questions concerning the foundations of moral and similar topics that can't be formalized without certain subjectivization - is predestined to find it's end. The concrete presumptions of two people are always different unless you both are arguing in a rigidly formalized system like abstract mathematics where the way of expressing and the things that can be expressed are very much limited. Moreover not only the presumptions even the connections two people see between two different facts might be different or the respective priority they assign to each of this connections. As I mentioned two minds, two consciousness, two worldviews semm to me to be to much dependent on countless uncertain non-fomalizable variabless as though there could be a possibility for some measure commonness (on the most fundamental levels) without which any discussion is pointless. Thus the emotions (considering the reasons I named in a comment above) appear to me to be much more reliable source of commonnes or when projected on higher levels of mind objectiveness, in fact they may even appear to me the only possible source of this unification - because as I said any agreement on logical systems looses much of its validativeness as soon as we go outside the system and apply it to real world.

[Regmorus]

Exactly like you say what we mean is unknown to others and I would add maybe even unknown to us (to some degree). That is why reason or intelligence as source of objectiveness meaning property of discussion to be led in a way so that it transcends the respective subjective seems very doubtful to me. On the contrary the foundation of this objectiveness in our feeling or emotions seems to me a very consequent "guess", only that as I scratched the objectiveness is a result of emotions conducted to the upper levels of consciousness and transformed on the path.

[betaTester]

@nightdrot regarding the original post, here is a "reasoned analysis" of someone who teaches analytic philosophy (I'm not gonna read everything below it), long chain of posts with harsh words incoming:

1. About the logic:

1.1 Your main argument is logically invalid

Legalizing abortion does not entail "power over rights" or "Life becomes a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will" or "How ought we to live is nobody's business".

You are going from a specific edge case to a general claim, that is not a valid logical argument. Someone who preach about "reasoned analysis" shouldn't make this mistake and they should at least understand what a valid argument means. Here is a very first lesson in logic: https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false".

Your premise: abortion is legal

Your conclusion: "power over rights" or "Life becomes a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will" or "How ought we to live is nobody's business"

Is it impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false? No. There are many countries with legal abortion (your premise is true), and at the same time you don't have "power over rights" or "Life becomes a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will" or "How ought we to live is nobody's business" etc.

So your main argument is by definition an invalid argument, it's not even a valid inductive argument (because most existing examples are counterexamples). It's a theatrical hyperbole.

[betaTester]

1.2 Political arguments are often full of these logical fallacies.

Guys, if you want an actual analysis, do not readily leap into grand issues (like objective reality lol) without making clear which steps the argument took to get there. What you are doing does not help clarifying the issue.

As you can see, even the small step is already invalid. If you want to connect abortion to Aristotelian ethics or the genocide in Cambodia or slavery or the Nazi or whatever, you will need to fill a huge gap. I'm sure if someone can assign abortion as the cause of the impending doom of Western civilization that person should write to the presidents of various Western countries they might give you a special prize.

Here is a general assertion in very simple terms: When you build a house, if you use a hammer on a nail (a specific case), it does not mean the only thing you can do to build your house is pounding everything with a hammer (mistakenly apply specific solution to general case), that's silly.
Laws to build society, like tools to build house, need to be appropriate for the objects they act on in order to be useful.
If someone criticize you when you hammer a nail, citing argument that "a house cannot be built by a hammer", they are making the same logically invalid hyperbole nightdrot is making here.

[betaTester]

@nightdrot (continue)

2. About the Ethics:

2.1. There is an irony here

You are using Aristotle as your moral authority on this issue about what women can or can't be legally allowed to do. I hope you at least understand that Aristotle view women as subhumans en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_views_on_women
I hope you actually read his books and not just some parrot I often see on here.

2.2. You are ignoring a large part of the issue

To view the choice of going through abortion only in terms of "the freedom to have some convenient choice" is such a childlike naivety rarely seen in older people, I would have overlooked it if it were a teenager's view. There is a long process leading to giving birth with a lot of suffering involved that is completely missed here. No sir, the issue is not simply a "convenience according to the satisfaction of another's will", it's also about the willingness of another human being to suffer mental and physical damage for an extended period of time to give you - some random person - a "moral satisfaction". There are more than one life involved here, I'm afraid the morality of this situation is not as simplistic as portrayed.

All of the lengthy sentences you wrote started from the premise about some grand historical issues of nations while ignoring the woman carrying the child completely, that's a wrong starting point for abortion. The event literally happens inside the body of a human, by definition, if you want the State to have authority and "collective judgement" over how individuals use their internal organs, you need a better argument than a hyperbole.

[betaTester]

3. About the reality

"pro choice" is just a slogan, read the actual laws behind this complex view from various countries. The fact is you have spent so much energy arguing against two words, (that you derive your superficial understanding from), jumping from one hyperbole to the next. Time to get back to reality.
The actual implementation of the law in many countries does not say you can go through abortion whenever you like, however you like. Look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#National_laws

What have we learnt? In civilized countries there is a process here, safety of the mother (which your wall of text completely missed) is taken into account. In countries with legal abortion, "human life" did not become a "mere instrument", there is no collapse of Western civilization like you are fantasizing about.

[Regmorus]

@betaTester It's funny to watch application of means and rules of a special formal system to some discussion that wasn't meant to be held in the framework of this particular system, more precise of this special kind of the particular system known to you. I don't know if nightdrot considers his original posting as something that doesn't contain "might" and "could" in it's conclusions. It's unlikely that he does - at least to me. You should definitely read the rest, to understand what was the frame of discussion set by silent agreement. Otherwise it looks like criticism of mathematician toward some calculation in physics. You first have to adapt to a set frame , if you want to enter, and then there is a chance for fruitful discussion. Disregarding something because it doesn't fit in some rigid constructions although it wasn't constructed with the special purpose to fit in them could be wrong. But what do I know... What is weird that it comes from someone TEACHING analytical philosophy, this kind of unawareness of situation and it's conditions is stunning.

[Regmorus]

I shall elaborate that it is stunning to me, because I directly assumed you are professor at a university. But maybe I am wrong, maybe not.

[betaTester]

4. Grading and remarks

Sorry, I might have come off as insulting in the above 3 points, but all of my insults are preceded by sound reasons. Your writing frequently uses flowery language with big words and you make authoritative claims with no link or references whatsoever. So I really doubt you have ever done "academic work" on this issue, or "academic work" at all. As someone from academia, and I'm sure other people from academia would agree, it's very annoying to read flowery words and big claims with no reference, no source to verify whether it's a genuine interpretation or plagiarism. There is a huge literature on the ethics of abortion, that's a fact.

It does sound like you write to impress, and not to honestly make a philosophical point. So I will not reply. I am not looking for a "discussion" because:

a) I don't think you are equipped to discuss this in terms of understanding about Ethics or logic, which led to some huge misunderstanding about Enlightenment philosophy. You are perhaps some sort of political writer, and you learned about these issues from reading other people's political arguments. Philosophical arguments are more honest and to the point, with less logical errors. And then we will keep talking in circle and veer off into tangential issues with no valid logical connection, like what has been going on.

b) From this extremely long chain of posts it does not look like you will learn anything regardless of what philosophical argument I or other philosophers make.

I'm speaking from experience of teaching philosophy to first year students. If you want academic standard, here it is:
Essays that write a lot but say little dont get good grades. This essay makes a simplistic logically invalid hyperbole argument ignoring a large part of the issue while making no reference to the relevant literature of abortion ethics: C+ for the effort.

[nightdrot]

@betaTester Unfortunately I am on Daddy duty so I can only give the briefest of reply. You got it backward, we are governed by an ethic that the value of life is relative and that has conduced to the legalization of abortion on demand.

This then having a reinforcing effect on the ethic. That ethic itself having evolved over time and in fact having its origins in certain strands of Enlightenment thinking.

In short, your premise is mistaken.

Forgive me, I apologize but, as noted earlier in another point of this discussion, my children are up and I am on Daddy duty so I won't be able to get back to this. However, it would have been a pleasure to chat with you.

[betaTester]

@Regmorus To make a logically valid argument is a standard from philosophy. It's not just about formal "system". Formal logic is something more specific. Most of my points don't deal with formal logic.

If this is about philosophy, you should at least understand there are typically deductive and inductive arguments:
the original argument given is deductively invalid by applying the definition.
It's inductively invalid by looking at the counter examples.

I find it funny that you think the issue has to do with formal logic. I hope you don't find it "stunning" that philosophers use logic. Logic as a "set of rigid rule" is another childishly simple view of logic, yes it is a set of rules, but it is more.
It is something if you violate you will end up with something that betray common sense, vague, both true and false, which leads to endless debates. The rules are designed to agree with natural language en.wikipedia.org/.../Propositional_calculus

Your comparison on mathematicians criticizing calculation in physics is silly.
Yes, mathematicians can point out mathematically wrong calculation by the physicists, regardless of the meaning of the symbol, if someone goes from mv^2/2 to mv, then it's wrong.
That's what should be done. what's your point?

Yes you can add "could" or "might" to weaken your claim, but then that's all you have done. Why "could" it not be a different way?

[Regmorus]

@betaTester I heard of attempts to translate language to logic that are widely accepted and serve well in the most common opinion. Well they serve well enough for many things, but it's just obvious that they can't when it's about morale and human values. I won't argue about that. It is completely obvious to me, if it's not obvious to you, then we hardly can discuss about it (while I might be wrong of course probabilistically speaking).

By addition of could and might I do not disregard another could's and might's. Yes they are alternative possibilities by such kind of reasoning. It's completely clear.

I don't mean formal logic, I mean any formal rigid system that tries to embrace discussions about morale in it. By the way I doubt that the formal system of predictional analysis has as it's foundation something different than a bunch of basic axioms. Language and thought as a continous struction can't be explained or formalized by means of a discrete structure without loss of some amount of information (information like information in physics), it'll be an approximation - that is obvious to me again yet, but here a valid argument could convince me that I am mistaken.

I am myself a mathematician who happened to have issues with physical formalism before learning to be a physicist more or less. You can believe me when a mathematician tries to argue with a physicist in most cases he is not right (I can explain precisely why that is the case, it has to do with assumptions - fomalized and not formalized used in physics and mathematics to summarize shortly) When he is right, a contribution to physics or improvement of already known physical theory arises.

[betaTester]

@Regmorus The reason I numbered my points 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4 is to avoid this sort of nonsensical discussion that keeps jumping to a different issue where people don't actually know what they are talking about but try to argue endlessly. You spend all of your efforts on point 1.1, fine. You want to talk about philosophy, but you also want to include logically invalid arguments into it, fine.

Now you have jumped to "the limit of logic" in discussion about morality. You understand that this is an entirely different issue right?

Final attempt:

1. I am not saying logic is enough to discuss moral issues at all.

You cannot rely sole on logic to find answer to a moral issue, but that doesn't mean you can make logically invalid arguments either.

How do you call this "obvious", but here we are, I have to actually explain this difference:

Logic is not enough to discuss moral issues, because logic does not help you choose your moral values, but only through logic you can act consistently with your values. If you act consistently with your moral values, you are already following logic. That's literally what the rigid rules in logic means. It's a process of reasoning consistently.

[betaTester]

2. Of course formal systems are based on axioms, again, this is a different point, as if following axioms is a bad thing? No one who understands what terms such as "logic" means should have this idea. No formal system tries to capture "information" from other domains. And "predictional analysis" is a word salad. I have no idea where you get this confused mixture of words from.

Here is an example of logic:
P -> Q is true when it is impossible for P to be true and Q to be false.
Whether P and Q are true or false it obviously depends on the domain, P and Q could be statements about physics, or math, or abortion. But logic ends when you reach the symbols P and Q, it does not try to "capture" information from other fields. You are defending an argument that relies vitally on P -> Q being true when we have many instances of P being true and Q being false. This actually violates Aristotle's syllogism too. This reasoning just makes no sense to thinkers from Aristotle to modern era.

[betaTester]

3. Again you have jumped to a different issue with this mathematicians vs physicists nonsense, I'm surprised that you would pursue this hopeless analogy by jumping from mathematicians criticizing the "calculation" in physics (quote above) to mathematicians criticizing the formalism of physics. How frequently a mathematician is right or wrong in an argument with a physicist is, ONCE AGAIN, yet another completely irrelevant point.

If you want your physics to be consistent then it has to follow the logic of mathematics, even if that means the physics betrays common sense, that's where most people have difficulty with when they learn advanced physics like quantum mechanics or relativity. Because the surprising things follow from "the math" + the postulates.

Examples:
From postulate of speed of light, following the math, it leads to the conclusion that simultaneity is relative.
From two matrices being non-commutative - the math, it leads to the conclusion that you can't measure position and momentum at the same time.
These are all conclusions that physicists missed for thousands years.
So? mathematicians can criticize calculations in physics that don't follow the math.

Me criticizing the basic issue such as an invalid implication is like a mathematician telling a physicist he makes basic algebraic mistake like mv^2/2 = mv. You don't see it happens often because the analogy is silly. Physicists don't usually make basic mathematical mistakes at that level.

But why do I have to explain all this? and no, I do not believe you're a mathematician, lol

I did not expect my posts earlier to end up being buried in a bunch of lengthy explanations about basic issues in logic, math and physics to a really confused person, which has literally nothing to do with Ethics of abortion.

Again, I try to keep my words, I'm not here to discuss anything. I will stop here. I'm definitely not gonna spend more time convincing someone that they should use logically valid arguments, lol.

[Regmorus]

@betaTester Well, I am not the author that's why I didn't react to messages that directly adress the text. As I said to me this text from the very beginning is a suggestion of a thought pattern, a beatiful and thought through one in my personal view when considered being a suggestion. I have never considered it to be some argumentation like assignments philosophy students might have to hand in. So to me the original text can't be compared with a rigor logical proof - that's why all your argumentation about it is only amusing to me, because I don't see any purpose or need for evaluating a suggestion of thought pattern like that and I don't get how it's possibly to even think to start this approach given the circumstances. Well maybe if one first assumes that the author is convinced that the original text is written on the level of a to grade student assignment from philosophy course and then want's to show the author that he can't be right. It's completely ridiculous to me. And I am not just saying it, I mean it. I don't get your very premise for doing or reacting. My first comment in response to you had the purpose of telling you exactly that, that I don't think your actions are any productive and that they seem weird to me - because of unimaginable unawareness of situational conditions (conditions implicitly or explicitly stated regardless).

[Regmorus]

I haven't jumped at all. Our discussion was a parallel one. I solely replied to your comment addressed to me. I explained to you why I don't think logic is a suitable foundation for formalizing the language in response to your point about prepositional calculus.

Having sent my previous message I think it is clear that your presumption of logically invalide argument doesn't seem valide to me. I think we are just trying to discussed having completely different axiomatic views about the situation. One of my axioms is: the original text should be regarded as a literary work not as philosophical essay concerning it's logical structure. It's completely obvious but anyhow.

By saying obvious I just mean: if we had to discuss about the point marked by me with obvious, it is very unlikely that we'd reach any consensus because my thinking regards it as axiom. However even thinking axioms can be changed since they aren't axiom in a true sense. But I just don't believe that you'll be willing or even able to deliver a rigor argumentation that would show insubstantiality of these axioms. Tricks like playing with my words won't count. Since I am not an educated philosopher I can eventually make some mistakes by discussing due to lacking experience and you could use them to prove something wrong. That wouldn't convince me - I would just see that you use some imperfections of form to disprove the content. If you managed to disprove exactly the content of such axiom then I would accept it - no doubt. I could replace "obvious" by "about that it'll be objectively very difficult to argue with a patient like me".

I don't agree with your last statement. A skilled logician and manipulator could prove to you things that have nothing to do with sound reasoning I think. Due to some iintrinsic freedom of interpretation.

[Regmorus]

And again you could deliver some logical argumentation. But the connection of this argumentation with our ideas about morale will be subjective. No matter what you do. (I'll admit that I am wrong here if you describe some "algorithm" how to translate a moralic question into this framework without losses. ) So your axiom is "logic always gives THE right results by any kind of discussion if the modelling of reality was done correctly before applying it" if I understand right. My axiom is "the modelling of reality can't be done correctly (in the sense of your axiom) by some kinds of discussions". Here we should begin. By axioms (only such immediately relevant to our discussion). Otherwise it's all for nothing. I don't know if I you can see your axioms (not meaning formal ones o. c.). I am trained to see mine and can point them out any time when it's needed.

[Regmorus]

@betaTester Exactly the same impression. I have to explaint to you very simple things and you don't get them. Exactly the same impression. That happens when we don't agree on axioms first. Lengthy postings don't help at all. I am not going to discuss further before we don't start a discussion that discusses one point in time. I did it wrong until now just like you. And by one point I mean exactly one point, one logical statement if you want. If you are not going to discuss, well, that would be the only way. Because what you say is complete nonsense to me and what I say is complete nonsense to you as it seems. You don't see pretty basic things about physics about mathematics about their connections. But well. We start a real discussion driven by the goal to understand each other or we cease.

[Stoner710]

As someone who is pro life rape is a case where I would support a women’s option of having an abortion

outside of the cases of rape I believe that it is the responsibility If both man and women not to have sex until there married or choice to have kids outside of marriage. If your having sex with your boyfriend or out partying and get pregnant by some random guy it’s not the child’s fault that you made a mistake and you shouldn’t kill the unborn baby because you Mad a bad choice, If your not ready to be a parent then adopted is an option but I don’t see how you can justify killing someone regardless if you called it fetus or a unborn baby it’s still is a potential human life and it is your obligation to at least carry the child until it’s is ready to be born and if you want to sigh away your rights as a mother and give it up for adoption that’s your choice. Killing the baby should never be an option in normal Circumstances

(also if it going to kill the mother than you can get an abortion I would be against that) but again that’s not normal circumstance)

[Tiffany_Taylor_Made]

Opponents of abortion often believe that aborting a fetus is "murder," despite the fact that the fetus is only developing and not yet born. A fetus isn't guaranteed to develop fully and be born. Miscarriages happen for various reasons and mothers could have underlying conditions that negatively affect childbirth. Because of this, a fetus is not a "person," so terminating a fetus should never be considered "murder." By that logic, men commit "murder" when they masturbate because it kills sperm cells, which are also living things that, along with egg cells, help create the fetus in the first place. It should only be considered murder when a person unlawfully kills a person that has already been born. Until that fetus is fully developed, it's nothing more than a temporary extra body part (not unlike sperms and eggs) in that woman's uterus and women should always have the right to make decisions regarding their own body.

In addition, women could suffer from health issues that could result in their death should they give birth. If so, a woman should definitely be allowed to terminate the development of her fetus to save her own life. Also, as you mentioned, the possibility exists that a female could become impregnated by rape. If this happens, especially if the female is underage and/or unable to properly care for the child, she should also be allowed to terminate the development of the fetus. If she is forced to give birth, then she would likely need welfare to support herself and the baby, which means more of your tax dollars spent. Some say that most pregnancies don't occur by rape, but that doesn't matter. It still happens and therefore requires a solution when it does. Something should not be required to become an epidemic for people to take it seriously. If anything, it's wiser to tackle problems before they actually do become more common because solving problems when they aren't too major compared to other problems is easier.

Lastly, if abortion is illegal, it wouldn't actually prevent abortions, just like weed being illegal (in most places) doesn't actually stop people from smoking weed. Instead, women would just visit the black market and get unsafe "back alley abortions," which could be harmful to their overall health. More harm to their health means additional tax dollars being spent for healthcare and for putting them in jail should they and the illicit abortion doctors be arrested for it. With abortion being legal, women could undergo safe abortions with trained medical professionals on their own dime. This doesn't mean that we have to encourage abortion, but the option should still remain. It should be like how we treat tobacco smokers. We shouldn't encourage people to smoke because it's bad for us, but if people still want to anyway, the choice should be theirs. Thus, the best option for abortion is to allow women to make their own choice to give birth or abort.

[TraceyByrd]

Blah blah bullshit truth is whores are retarded these days

[Tiffany_Taylor_Made]

@TraceyByrd: Not everybody that gets an abortion is a "whore." Even if they were whores, they should still have the right to choose whether or not they want to abort. Like my answer mentions, if you make abortion illegal, you basically force women to give birth even if it could kill them, can't support the baby, or if they were raped. That's only going to force them to get illegal abortions, which isn't safe.

[CrossfitKristen]

Difference in moral philosophy or definition of "human life". Pro life people aren't all stupid and they aren't all calling their opposition evil, just like not all pro choice people.

If the most rational minds on both sides sat down and had a long, honest, respectful conversation on their perspectives, I think the outcome would largely amount to: "let's just agree to disagree." which ultimately is a pro choice stance. Choose for yourself and don't choose for others. Its a tired mantra at this point but no one (at least in america) will ever force you to have an abortion. If you disagree with it on deep philosophical level, you are free to avoid it and have as many children as your womb can stand, then keep going even though it's bad for you and for the rest of your kids.

[razelove]

Probably the having cake and eatting it, women control whether children are born are not, and more often than not get custody with child support which a man has no input on in a legal sense. Combine that with a woman can put a man's name on a birth certificate and proving that a child is not his does not constitute grounds to stop paying child support and, yeah, not having any input on a process that does take two chaps a lot of asses.

And no, being pregnant from a rape isn't the most evil thing in the world, I'd put ethnic cleansings up there myself, they happen all the time but don't make the news nearly as much.

[OlderAndWiser]

Most abortions are not performed on girls who are pregnant due to a rape.

[OlderAndWiser]

. . . and I have never heard anyone call a girl "evil" because she had an abortion.

[CrossfitKristen]

Haven't met too many Pentecostals then, or southern baptists, or Catholics.

[OlderAndWiser]

@CrossfitKristen Bad assumption. Very bad assumption. I live in north Florida in an area dominated by the Southern Baptist church. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church but I am now a Lutheran. All baptists are not like those who do stupidly newsworthy things, and all portrayals by the anti-Christian media are not accurate.

[CrossfitKristen]

You have heard SOME christians call women who have abortions evil. You are 65 years old, you're not ignorant of the world and what SOME people are like in the Christian community. Why lie?

[OlderAndWiser]

@CrossfitKristen I am not telling a lie and I refuse to allow you to continue calling me a liar. That is a very poor reflection on your character and you are not worthy of continuing any discussion.

[betaTester]

It would be quite insane if the law only caters to a "large percentage" of a population. Imagine how dumb this argument looks when you talk about race issues. Again I'm not surprised most people here don't see this.

[OlderAndWiser]

What is the original question to which I responded?

[cth96190]

I would call them evil.

[OlderAndWiser]

I would call them self-absorbed perhaps, or maybe misguided. We are supposed to love each other, not marshall the forces of hate.

[Antto]

It was an example. Not all accidental kids have started because of a rape. Unplanned child is unplanned child, and it's too much trouble for someone who hasn't prepared for raising a child. It has nothing to do with hate.

[MzAsh]

It’s a shame tactic. People can shame you, but you can refuse to be ashamed.

[007kingifrit]

well no matter what you should be ashamed to get an abortion. no matter what the circumstances unless its rape or incest you did something wrong

you were too poor to raise a child, or too stupid to use contraception properly, or just lazy. something is wrong with you if you get an abortion

[MzAsh]

You have the right to your opinion but I firmly disagree.

[betaTester]

Pro life people are typically philosophically illiterate, and they don't understand that they are looking at half of the issue, they focus on the unborn life but not the suffering and damage to the host of the unborn life. Their slogan is "save the life regardless of the host's physical or mental damage".
Their contradiction shows when you ask the pro lifers whether they are willing to go through a surgery to remove their kidney (or any similar organ they can live without) while staying awake (similar to childbirth) in order to save a life. See how many of them would change their tune. If you are "pro" life, note that the people who need your redundant organs to live are people with families and jobs, not just an unborn life.

[Kimdracula9]

Im neutral on abortion. I personally wouldn't do it (even though my opinion was different before I had my baby) but I dont judge other girls who have one. When I do start judging is when girls use abortions as a form of birth control. I will say those women are evil. Cases of rape and incest are the very small minority of reasons women do that and those women wouldn't be considered evil in my eyes.

So again, to be clear, its only evil if you think abortion is a form of birth control and take no precautionary measures to avoid having to do that.

[PinkMichae]

Most abortions don't happen because of rape. Most happen because of an irresponsible choice a man and woman made to get their jellies off. And to then kill her unborn child because of their irresponsibility is messed up.

Some cases the father would have stepped up to raise the child. But the mom can't even put herself out for 10 months in order to have the baby so she aborts it. Can you imaging if the roles were reversed and it was you that wanted to raise your child but someone killed it instead?

I'm not sure how anyone can rationalize abortion. Even if I became pregnant after being raped my child is innocent and still a part of me. Life found a way to conceive that child for a reason. I doubt it was so people could end the unborn childs existence.

[PinkMichae]

*jollies

[Djaay]

You are definitely mother material. And by GODS standards. Your mention reminds me of Bible story about moses and his mother. She also , as rare as it would be then... made sure her baby lived and prospered

[PinkMichae]

Thank you. My heart breaks for all the little conceived lives that were purposely discarded or that were unavoidably miscarried.

I would love to see people who are ok with abortion by saying it's just a fetus to go tell their loved ones who miscarried that they shouldn't consider it a baby lost because it's just a fetus.

It is so disheartening to think so many people justify abortion. Doesn't matter that it has nerves and a heartbeat. Doesn't matter that they decapitate it and rip it's limbs.

And it's worse that they are ok doing late term abortions when they fully know it will suffer.

I mean they know how babies are made so why have unprotected sex knowing full well they could end up pregnant and will choice to just abort it. No big deal.

I bet if we put into law that if you get an abortion you have to have a procedure done to sterilize you so you can never have children, how fast people will stop ending up pregnant from unprotected sex and want abortions.

[G3tAClue]

No one ever talks about what the woman went through in the process or making that decision. It’s not completely selfish. Maybe she knows that the child will have no father and rather than raising a child in poverty by herself OR in foster care, she chooses abort.


I don’t agree that a miserable, poor life is better than no life at all. That is pretty ignorant to say. If an unborn baby’s life is so important to you but you have no interest in helping BORN children who are living in foster care or in need of parents, then you are a hypocrite.

[Dchrls78104]

That's what irresponsible young brats should think about before opening their legs!

[G3tAClue]

Also guys, guys should think before they come in someone they don’t know.

[PinkMichae]

It's selfish because the couple didn't protect themselves in most cases. It's rare for a woman to be on birth control and a man using a condom for them to conceive. You see abortions in most cases are unnecessary if the couple was selfless enough to prevent the pregnancy.

[Buttface82828]

I dont say that and im male.
infact im totally for abortion!
i think people who say its evil are jus mentally retarded,
they aren’t intelligent enough to realise that something that isn't born can't feel pain or care, cos its not even in this world yet, how could it possibly care u retards? Its not grown enough to even have those thoughts

also... i may say its more evil to keep a child in this world, life sucks, i would appreciate if my mum aborted me, its evil to keep me here to live shitty life

[Akachan]

Who wants to be inconvenienced by a child when you can barely feed yourself, and pay your bills. Y'all want women and straight up kids to keep having children but don't think about them! Ever! "PRO LIFE PRO LIFE" but are only thinking about a 3 week old fetus in a fully developed woman's body!

Damn a teenagers body can't even handle having a baby which is why they end up being premature most of the time. And premis need extra care equaling more money for someone who isn't even out of highschool. And even they are an adult you don't know why someone is having an abortion and they don't need to tell you, mind your own fucking business and worry about your own pathetic ass life.

Also "rape doesn't account for most abortions" ok so we're suppose to ignore them because it barley happens? "90% of adult rape victims are female" should we ignore men who are raped because it barley happens?

(This is not directed to you asker)

[Akachan]

Also it is so obvious some of you are just pro baby and not pro life. And that is fucking disgusting!

[Licia_hersheys]

I don’t agree with abortions 100% but I also feel like if a woman isn’t ready to care for a child it’s her choice. I feel as if it keeps from putting a child in a traumatized situation in life. Some kids have to suffer because of their parents lack of good parenting, it can bother the child forever in most cases. Some women get their kids taken away from them, they abuse their kids, kill them, etc. I also feel like a man really can’t have a say so in it because some men don’t even want to be a father for the child that they helped create!

[worldscolide]

I have no issues with abortion... What i have an issue with is states making laws where the woman can have an abortion right as the baby is coming out during labor (virginia comes to mind here).. and some states pushing to make post birth abortion a thing.. They call it live birth abortion.. I have never heard anyone call women evil for wanting or having an abortion.. And if you want to get real on this, you need to look at your own gender.. More women are pro life than men are..

This is from the first table in the following link..

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

[worldscolide]

i love how some coward downvoted me for supporting it and calling out some truth...

[Anonymous]

I would never call someone evil for having an abortion. I think it's probably one of the hardest decisions you have to make as a woman. I am pro choice and believe we should actually make abortions easier available. There are still way to many women dying because of illegal abortions especially in poorer countries and in countries where abortions are not available. Those abortions are dangerous for the woman and the fetus. However I think we also need to make sure that every women can choose. Things like having no money, family members or partners pressureing women into have an abortion are still a huge issue.

[Shamalien]

Is it right to call people evil for killing their own child?

Yes, yes I daresay it is. I know many women, even my friends, who will vehemently disagree with me on this, but anyone with a true, spiritual understanding of morality knows that this is just plain wrong. Nothing could be more unnatural.

"oh but a tiger eats it's own cubs" WE'RE NOT FUCKING TIGERS IF YOU WANNA BE A TIGER GO WEAR A TIGER SUIT AND EAT LITTLE TIGER SHAPED CRACKERS I DON'T GIVE AFUCK WHAT TIGERS DO

sorry, but I just know I'm gunna get some retard using animal behavior as a way to justify human behavior, which when you think about it, is a really retarded excuse to do anything, but that's what we see passing for philosophy in the modern day.

[elite665]

No idea I totally am for choice when it comes to abortion my best friend is against choice. His arguments make no sense he just if I g set a girl pregnant and I want my son she should not be able to take him from me. And I’m just like but if she never agreed to getting pregnant You should not be able to force her to have a kid for you...

[Daniel3035]

Evil because you had the complete ability to have contraception even if the guy had a condom why wouldn't you take a pill? Fact is you control the prevention today. But mistakes were made now you instead of dealing with you're mistake decide to kill the baby. Who are you going to kill when you end up in debt to solve your issue, you caused? What if you've been kidnapped and are about to be murdered how would you feel? You'd be begging for your life "No please don't kill me"
Now imagine how a baby would feel?
Why because you the woman who had an option of contraception or just choosing no didn't ended up with this mistake and now instead of facing it wants to kill a baby for it you can sugar coat it and say it's not really alive it's still a life or a possible life how would you feel as the baby because your mother is too irresponsible or careless?
And I know there's a rape argument coming fact is you got raped are you going to kill a baby for it?

[imbidealwithit]

Its the girls body, their choice.

[Pachomay]

Not a baby it's a fetus, I don't know if you know but condoms and birthcontrol are not 100%.

I wouldn't feel anything as a fetus cause I'm fetus and don't know those words and literally have like no brain activity

The kidnapping analogy is bs, I can talk a fetus can't. I mean if the fetus says that to me guess I'll have no choice but to stop.

Am I going to kill a "baby" of a man who forced his way inside and traumatized me, yea

[Daniel3035]

@imbidealwithit In Law the girl's body does not grant rite to consent the girl has equal capacity to the man to give consent but you need the man's consent. One could equally argue it's actually the babies body and the babies choice.
Otherwise, a murderer would say to your mother you choose for your daughter's life is that fair to you?

[Daniel3035]

@Pachomay Yes I know it's not 100% but condom + birth control = 100% in fact it's so rare it would be basically impossible.

Actually yes you would because by the time the baby is ready to be aborted the fetus would have developed fully functioning nerves. Although not sure why it matters if it can feel it or not? The brain has not nerve ending does that mean it's ok to damage it?

Not too sure how it's bs yes a fetus can't talk and neither can you when you're gagged a killer isn't going to kill you while you're screaming unless he enjoys that.

You can do as you please, however, no man will look at you the same strong women choose the easy way out sensational women don't that's what makes them sensational.

[imbidealwithit]

Wow this is actually funny 😂

[Daniel3035]

@imbidealwithit Really why? Most girls who call something funny say it because they have no other relevant points to combat the counterpoint against them eventually you get the hysterical laugh which tells us she's in full psycho mode.

[Pachomay]

Both of the comments you made, made me laugh

"Condom + birth control = 100%" no

A fetus doesn't have a sex, a lot of abortions happen before 18 weeks

Damn you should've said I am gagged, but I wouldn't beg for my life. I already know I'm gonna die so what's the point.

"Baby is ready to be aborted the fetus. . . developed fully functioning nerves"
You can have an abortion at any time except for after 24 (depending on where you are) weeks unless it's medical because by that time the fetus has a lot more brain activity and nerves have been delopleved. Use the internet it's here for a reason

I also don't give a fuck what a man will think of me, I would've done what i had to do to keep me sane and healthy.

"Most girls who call something funny say it because they have no other relevant points to combat the counterpoint against them"
No we just think you're stupid and don't wanna waste out precious time giving you an actual response

[Daniel3035]

@Pachomay Ummmm yes actually it is 100% please do not spread misinformation that we then have to spend millions on to correct and educate the public if you are not a scientist or anything like it then don't talk about what you don't know you say your laughing at my comments I wonder why is it because the truth is getting to you so bad you have nothing left to say so you start to laugh in disbelief? Wouldn't surprise me you're not the first girl.

A fetus doesn't have sex? Yes and?

Gagged or not you say you wouldn't beg and yet you girls do any situation you scream and fumble your hands in the air.

Use the internet now that is funny no DO NOT use the internet use something us academics called primary research that is 100% false you cannot have an abortion until the body has developed the body tissues is not strong enough to be pulled out where did you get this information from a cereal box?

Trust me that man feels the same unlike you however a man takes responsibility he sacrifices his sanity and health for his baby any day anytime that's the difference between men and women you take the easy way out think you are strong then when it comes to it, you turn to the man and go "what do we do?" says it all really. Any decent mother would die for their child you there's no helping you.

Oh really because right now all I'm seeing is stupidity "use the internet that's what it's for" how many
times has the internet been correct next time you see your GP you go tell him you have cancer because you saw it on the internet good luck.
If you don't wanna give an actual response then clearly that's because you don't have one precious time my ass you seemed to have enough precious time messaging me multiple times on here that's how I know your talking bs.

[Nalix]

Because abortion rights are not being used primarily for rape victims. If they were, there'd be basically no complaint about it. The main problem with this debate is how polarized it is, which makes me think that it's not really about abortion at all. One side says abortion for any reason, and the other never abortion for any reason. I think most sane people come in between those two extremes.

The question really comes down to is the fetus a person or not. If it is, then when is it okay to kill people? If not, then when does it become one?

Why are women called evil for wanting this? Because the people calling them evil see them as unapologetic murderers.

[Anonymous]

Guys get angry because they don't get to vote about it.
People are angry in general because you killed something that could be a baby.

People get angry because most of the abortions are because of irresponsible behavior, not using pills or condoms. Or trying to use the pull back method... it doesn't work people! Pulling back isn't a anticonception method!

I agree if there was rape involved I fully agree they should be able to get it removed.
I'm also not against abortions because children shouldn't be born unwanted, they would have a terrible life that way.
But I do feel like a lot of abortions could be prevented if people started using their brain before using their dick or their vagina.

[Dchrls78104]

Abstinence IS.

[Laprass]

Well in my opinion it should be legal but not open for public use, what i Mean with that is if there is a legit reason for it, it should be allowed, if the Mothers healthy is in risk, rape, or similiar reason but if the reason is someone got pregnant because of it feels better woth out a condom or something Like that, No i do not think it is rights for it. Sex is Nice and enjoyable and there is a ton og things you can use to make it safe. But Even so if it happens you need to be old enough to take resonsability of the action made.

[SenseiSeptred]

Even if abortion becomes a not allowed thing, A child that gets a much better grasp on the meaning of why they are alive with the God residual purpose in the person's soul across multiple reincarnation lives is a very powerful aspect to behold no matter the version of Ningen-Do that it happens on. So give great chance for the child to become a great member of any society to happen to be a part of, because they very well could become the equivalent of a member of the social caste hierarchy even in a democracy called the Kuge in whatever from gets earned.

[Dargil]

Why do people call women evil just because they want the right to abortion?
*There is no "right" to abortion. Women who choose abortion are killing sovereign human beings.

Of course a teenage girl who was raped and became pregnant and doesn't want her child to live a miserable life.
*The unborn baby does not need to be informed of the circumstances of it's conception. His or her mind should be left uncorrupted. Surely you agree.