Bleh, I go beyond those who want to say abortion is fine until X months (an arbitrary number) I am for eugenics by either parent if the baby is born with serious defects. I am even in favor of infanticide for any reason if either parent parent wants it within a period of 2 months after birth (my arbitrary number); I would prefer it be done humanely by a doctor, but the laws aren’t there yet.
Any argument for the life of the fetus does nothing for me, because I do not consider a baby a human, let alone a fetus. No one considers thousands of sperm flushed out a condom to be human, and there is no evidence fetuses or any living things have “souls.” The intelligence that defines humans does not fall into the lap of a baby overnight; it requires years of growth before the thing can even utter a word, by which point its intelligence is still about on par with the pet animals which owners euthanize for minor ailments all the time.
I draw my inspiration from Spartans and Athenians who had such practices. I consider infanticide (a scary sounding word) a natural thing. It was widespread in the ancient world out of necessity, and it will become justified again when we stop believing in superstitions about babies have souls.
Many indigenous tribes do not give a child a name until months or years after its birth, because it could still die and you do not want to be attached to it. The child is therefore not considered human until it has reached the point where it begins to show 1) signs it is healthy and will live 2) personal characteristics that make it easier to choose an appropriate name for the child.
I also believe sexual equality is better enabled when the woman is allowed to have an abortion at any time. It neatly kills the issues with rape victims raising babies as single parents, teen pregnancy, genetic defects leading to suffering for life, drug babies, single parents on single parent income, discrimination towards unwanted single parents, overcrowded foster homes, incest, and women being at a biological disadvantage in enjoying sex without consequence. It’s half the cure to the MRA, and feminists who want more privileges during a divorce than men.
Abortion is the cure to half of the current maternal issues. It is held back by spooky morality, and illusionary arguments for the duality of mind and body that were refuted centuries ago.
> The moment of conception argument is, if anything, even more clean cut than the 12 week one. There are good points arguing for either of these two, but anything arguing for an abortion after 24 weeks is clearly immoral from my view.
Morality is a spook- an illusion. For everything you say is immoral, I (or at least a philosopher) could surely find an exception.
The point of conception is cleancut, but if morality weren’t a buzz word, we could actually wait to see if the baby is healthy before giving it a name and bestowing it with rights. 6 motnhs or a year after birth might actually be a safer, if doctors and policy makers could have a level-headed discussion once the idea was accepted. The founder of 8chan was born crippled, and wrote an article about why he wish he was not born, and is in favor of eugenics.
By the way, anti-abortionists are on the wrong side of history. Only their side has terrorists, and is irrational enough to repeatedly murder doctors with bombs (and in the process mothers and the babies they say they want to protect.)
Yeah it’s another stupid debate that defies logic. What can you do when we were born too early into a stupid time, and these are the political issues average people want to debate? You can either engage in the debate and practice your skills at argumentation, or hardly debate anything. This isn’t Ancient Athens; you can’t expect anyone to take the time to read philosophies and debate deeper issues which could lead to better insights for posterity.
>Regardless of whether or not you believe that a fetus is a human life, the fact remains that it will at some point become a human capable of standing on equal ground with you.
But you don’t know that it won’t die. Every single sperm and egg has the “potential” to become a human. Why aren’t you making as many babies as you can like an old-fashioned Mormon to give all those unborn souls bodies?
>An entire life of choices taken away on a whim, simply because someone wanted to shirk taking responsibility for another’s life.
See above. What makes you optimistic enough to think the parents or society still won’t shirk responsibility after the child is born? If a baby is born genetically impaired, even though you knew it was likely or even certain to happen, you have condemned the child to a lifetime of suffering, for the child and your pocketbook. Why not instead save your resources and have healthy kids when you want them, without denying having sex?
>It just doesn’t sit right with me and it’s one of the few things I consider truly evil.
You’ve been spooked. “It just feels wrong” is always a bad reason to base your principles and logic off of. Historical case in point: “X is gross. It feels wrong therefore we should outlaw it.” (Insert homosexuality, lolicon, any sexual position other than the missionary position, legalized divorce, cohabitation, etc.)
I have not seen a good argument against abortion because they always boil down to, “It feels wrong.”
>Any developed society will support the kid from that point until they’re adopted or reach the age of maturity.
This costs money, and usually tax payer dollars. What if a woman with terrible genes and a drug/alcohol habit they can’t kick loves having unprotected sex with her brother/someone who tests positive for a gene that causes cystic fibrosis? She is legally barred from having abortion, and expects society to pay for all of them. Furthermore, she has an IQ of 80 and is a bug chaser. In the long run this ban would create much worse genes. Moreover, instead of letting society’s resources for adoption go to fewer kids so they are treated better, the resources are spread thin.
>On the extremely off chance I ever conceive, it’s very likely that my child will be born with potential defects, I would still however, choose to carry it and raise it with the faith that at some point medical technology will have advanced to the point that their condition can be cured or treated.
This is hopelessly optimistic and escapist. We’ve known about cancer and many diseases for decades now…where are the cures? I cannot imagine having a child when I knew there was no current cure for its suffering, if I had the option to prevent it.
>Taking a life is an act that goes against nature, at least in regards to our own species, since biologically we exist to continue the propagation of our species.
Your fallacy is appeal to nature, or more generally the is-ought fallacy.
>This includes everyone from adults, to children, to those yet to be born.
This line has been used against any contraception (condoms/birth control pills, the “withdrawal method”), homosexuality and female masturbation. If you had not said you were Catholic I would be perplexed by the Maoist rush towards more children. If Earth’s resources are finite, then there is a lot to be said for anti-natalism and quality over quantity. I see no reason to believe the human species is in danger of dying out for not having enough babies.
>Now that we live in a society where we have the means to support those who are unable to support themselves, there’s absolutely no reason to continue the practice of weeding out those who aren’t born perfectly healthy.
It’s a drain on our wellfare resources and lowers the quality of life for everyone including ill/retarded babies.
See this baby? It was born without a brain and is a total drain on our resources.
>Every insert example you gave, I agree with. There was no reason to outlaw any of those things; but none of those involved killing anything living.
Unless you’re a vegetarian you indirectly kill animals all the time.. Even if you are one, how many million micro-organisms/ bacteria do you kill everyday just by breathing, walking, or doing your dishes. What gives you the right to take those lives?!
And if we didn’t have Fredrick Brennan, we wouldn’t have 8-chan or the instrumental place it played in our current culture war. Life is what you make of it.
Someone else would have probably made it in his place. A lot of people were pissed at the time, and look what happened in the end? Moot sold out to the guy who ruined 2ch.
>You know? For someone who keeps snarking at morality, you sure seem to like going for the moral high-ground. So then, if you want to go down that road, the pro-abortionists are actively advocating for fascism and mass murder on a level that puts Hitler to shame. Now then, wasn’t that fun? How about we quit this game before it escalates into a senseless shouting match, it really can’t go anywhere but in circles.
There are worse things than being a hypocrite. But the death of a doctor is much worse than the death of some unborn child composed of unknown variables, and I’ll explain why:
We hear a lot in wars about how its so terrible when kids die in it. But what is actually worse are when the adults die. Picture a 30-40 year old who has finished at a university, has worked hard toward his dream, done many sacrifices and is just about to get his dream and them-bam! He’s shot it all fades to black. That is a bigger waste than a barely sentient boy dying.
You might say to abortionists, “You could kill Beethoven or Einsten!” but we don’t know that. It’s just as likely you killed Hitler or Stalin, a 50-50 (or worse if the child is born into a bad environment.) It’s just a call to the imagination. What we do know is those who zealously oppose it have killed smart, educated, and hard-working people who had successful lives. There is a world of difference between the uncertainty of “potential,” and “proven potential.”
We need to wrap up all objections to abortion when the child is not predisposed to lead a good life, so that better debates can be won. Future debates will lead to stem-cell research, genetic engineering, and genetically engineered catgirls for science.