The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Lemmingwise]

That's irrelevant to a discussion of morality.

The retards' argument is that we are reneging on our duty to feed some stranger's baby. No such duty exists.

The viability of a course of action is necessary for the discussion of morality. If a course of action is not viable, then it can't be immoral to not take it.

If I'd steelman the pro abortion arguments made, I'd say that is underlaying to the welfare argument, too. I can't take it all the way, because there are always viable paths there. But if there were no options of adoption, no options of family helping, no options of receiving charity, no places for orphans, then I'd agree that some births would be unviable and that it would justify killing.

(Much like I think the killing of rape babies is justifiable for another reason).

 

[Eris!]

The viability of a course of action is necessary for the discussion of morality. If a course of action is not viable, then it can't be immoral to not take it.

Completely disagree. Viability and practical concerns are irrelevant to morality. A thing that is wrong is wrong, simple as.

But if there were no options of adoption, no options of family helping, no options of receiving charity, no places for orphans, then I'd agree that some births would be unviable and that it would justify killing.

I wouldn't. Evil options don't magically stop being evil just because you don't have any alternatives.

 

[ChikN10der]

Yep, although there's a big difference between 21 weeks and 9 months.

My big problem is people that want to unconditionally ban abortion.

Lol you're a pro lifer.
You're taking a stand against a super fringe position that isn't at all relevant to current abortion law, or any law being proposed in the legislature.

Why do you want to control women's bodies? Why do you have a problem with an abortion at 9 months?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Completely disagree. Viability and practical concerns are irrelevant to morality. A thing that is wrong is wrong, simple as.

I wouldn't. Evil options don't magically stop being evil just because you don't have any alternatives.

I know that's what you think, it's not hard to see what you believe.

Conversely I believe your example of the starving man in the desert is also immoral. After all, it's immoral for a water store owner not to save a life that he could with the tiniest of gifts (a bottle of water). It's like a two trolley experiment with one guy on one track and none on the other and you still won't pull it. Why wouldn't it be immoral to let someone die?

Why do you want to control women's bodies? Why do you have a problem with an abortion at 9 months?

No he was responding to my statement about 9 months. He was right to correct me, even if I already laid the groundwork for that correction in my long post

 

[Eris!]

it's not hard to see what you believe.

Apparently it is since Hogan still can't figure it out.

After all, it's immoral for a water store owner not to save a life that he could with the tiniest of gifts (a bottle of water).

Why? What right has he violated? What duty has he failed to meet?

It's like a two trolley experiment with one guy on one track and none on the other and you still won't pull it.

I feel autistic when people ask the trolley problem. I genuinely don't see the problem or how it's a dilemma to anyone. If you pull the lever you're a murderer. If you don't pull the lever you aren't. Don't pull the lever.

Why wouldn't it be immoral to let someone die?

Because 50 chinks died while you typed this sentence and you let it happen. It's an absurd idea that means everyone on earth is guilty of genocide. It even makes the dead guilty, since they're letting it happen too. Any system that makes inaction without obligation immoral is absurd. The necessary conclusion to "it's immoral to let someone die" is abject totalitarian communism where it's illegal to own bread if anyone on earth is hungry.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Why? What right has he violated? What duty has he failed to meet?

The duty to save human life when possible.

I feel autistic when people ask the trolley problem. I genuinely don't see the problem or how it's a dilemma to anyone.
If you pull the lever you're a murderer. If you don't pull the lever you aren't.
Don't pull the lever.

You can make the trolley problem with different results.

What I was proposing
The train is hurtling towards a man. You can pull the lever and send it down a path where you know it will hit no man.

You're not a murderer if you pull the lever, instead you save a life.

It would be immoral not to pull the lever.

It even makes the dead guilty

Prescribing moral duty to the dead. Mmmkay.

Because 50 chinks died while you typed this sentence and you let it happen.

Did I have an easy opportunity to save them?

 

[Eris!]

The duty to save human life when possible.

No such duty exists.

What I was proposing
The train is hurtling towards a man. You can pull the lever and send it down a path where you know it will hit no man.

You're not a murderer if you pull the lever, instead you save a life.

It would be immoral not to pull the lever.

Anything that would happen if i didn't exist at all cannot attribute me as its cause, and therefore I cannot be held responsible for it. It would not be murder, nor would it be immoral. In fact, it wouldn't be anything. I took no actions which can be judged in the first place. I did nothing.

Did I have an easy opportunity to save them?

Morality is not dependent on your opportunity.
If you do not have an opportunity to feed your child you are still obligated to do so.

 

[Lemmingwise]

No such duty exists

The duty exists both by law in certain cases (common law in anglosphere in any case). Legally either if there is a special relationship (emergency medics, firefighters, parents towards children, employers towards employees, spouses towards each other, I'm skipping over a few and also in 10 states you are obligated to notify emergency services if someone is in dangerbof dying.

Morality is not dependent on your opportunity.
If you do not have an opportunity to feed your child you are still obligated to do so.

Sure it is. When you've done everything in your power to feed your child and you failed, you have not done anything immoral, even though the obligation still exists.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

Because wealth redistribution is unjustifiable, and because people are responsible for feeding themselves.

if people are responsible for their own crap, then leave them alone and quit bitching about abortion if you love freedom so much.

You REALLY want to have your cake and eat it too. "abortion bad welfare bad! Muh taxes! But let me control women's bodies! Fetuses are people!"

 

[Eris!]

Fetuses are people!

This makes the rest of it make perfect sense. Fetuses are people. Murder is wrong.
This is not having your cake and eating it too. This is perfectly coherent and reasonable. There is no contradiction which you can actually describe.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

This makes the rest of it make perfect sense. Fetuses are people. Murder is wrong.
This is not having your cake and eating it too. This is perfectly coherent and reasonable. There is no contradiction which you can actually describe.

They're not people. They have never existed in society nor had a life. You want to save them? Go become a medical engineer, figure out how to make artificial wombs so no fetus is ever killed.

 

[Eris!]

They have never existed in society nor had a life.

...So? They're people who have never "existed in society" nor had a life yet.

You want to save them?

No. It's not about them. It's about murder being wrong.

figure out how to make artificial wombs so no fetus is ever killed.

I don't care if it's killed.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

No. It's not about them. It's about murder being wrong.

I don't care if it's killed.

What?

dude... pick one

 

[Eris!]

What?

dude... pick one

Both.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Lol you're a pro lifer.
You're taking a stand against a super fringe position that isn't at all relevant to current abortion law, or any law being proposed in the legislature.

Why do you want to control women's bodies? Why do you have a problem with an abortion at 9 months?

I don't. I was trying to meet you guys half-way as a compromise

 

[Eris!]

I was trying to meet you guys half-way as a compromise

Why? How can there be compromise on infanticide?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Why? How can there be compromise on infanticide?

You're one to talk, given you don't care if infants starve,

 

[Eris!]

You're one to talk, given you don't care if infants starve,

Telling me my own coherent positions is not an argument. Your sad attempt to make me feel shame about it is a deflection from your complete inability to actually argue about anything. Stop being mad at the internet, use your thinky brain, and write a coherent argument, or coherent counterarguments to the arguments of others. I know you can do it if you try!

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Telling me my own coherent positions is not an argument. Your sad attempt to make me feel shame about it is a deflection from your complete inability to actually argue about anything. Stop being mad at the internet, use your thinky brain, and write a coherent argument, or coherent counterarguments to the arguments of others. I know you can do it if you try!

I am pointing out your autistic hypocrisy.

You're against infanticide (your word, not mine), but you also don't care if they die due to lack of accessible and affordable healthcare or starve to death because their poor mother couldn't afford it.

You're worse than I am in that regard.

 

[Eris!]

I am pointing out your autistic hypocrisy.

No you aren't. You're just declaring that it exists. You are decidedly NOT pointing it out. I have been asking you and the other guy to point it out for pages now. You've refused. In order to point out hypocrisy, you need to point out some professed belief of mine that I am not applying consistently. You have not done this. You cannot do this.

You're against infanticide (your word, not mine), but you also don't care if they die due to lack of accessible and affordable healthcare or starve to death because their poor mother couldn't afford it.

There is literally nothing hypocritical about this. Please explain your actual argument.