The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Eris!]

We get it, you're an aspie and can't conceive of someone else's point of view, but just try for us here.

Like I said, it's you who has to try, not me.

Everyone's morals are different

Everyone's opinion on morals are different, just as everyone's opinion on the sun could be. The sun is still there.

it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line.

No actually, it's extremely easy. The line starts when the human starts: Conception.

but it seems immoral to just forget about what happens afterwards no matter what led up to pregnancy or what happens after

Are you thinking about my wellbeing right now as we speak? Did you put food in my pantry? No? By your logic that is immoral. I see nothing immoral about not personally actively caring about the wellbeing of a total stranger.

What if the baby is just neglected afterwards?

Then the mother is a bad mother and bears moral responsibility for that.

would've just been easier and less cruel to abort

"What is easiest?" and "What is least cruel?" are not factors in my decisionmaking.

1. Is it morally permissible?
2. Do I want to?
If it passes both steps, I do the thing. That's the whole thought process. Literally everything else is not relevant. Abortion fails step 1.

and leads to less problems overall

I am not a utilitarian. Utilitarianism is evil, and this is exactly why. Utilitarians reason themselves into committing evil because its results are positive. Moral people know that the results are not relevant.

It's just way more immoral to simply ignore a living child that's suffering

It's not immoral at all. You're doing it right now. How many children on earth are suffering while you type this?
Their suffering was not caused by you, and you have no personal relationship with them that obligates you to care for their suffering. They are strangers, thousands of miles away, whose names you don't even know. It is not immoral for you to not give a shit about them. It would be weird if you did.

It eventually will be your problem through taxes, crime, or otherwise.

Then we deal with the problems that arise as they arise, and we deal with them without violating the inviolable.

It makes no sense to me about how murder is immoral but letting something basically suffer is cool.

"Letting" anything happen is inaction. Unless you have some specific responsibility your inaction neglects, inaction can never be immoral.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

No, but you're still comparing apples to oranges.

You're mistaken on what's relevant.

We're discussing your appeal to legality, since you contend that abortion cannot be murder because the law does not define it as such. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that were and are legal that are morally objectionable-- slavery, for example.

Sentience is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that slavery was once legal, but we don't regard it as moral now. As such, it's nonsensical to use it as a justification for any particular thing in a largely philosophical discussion of "ought". After all, concepts such as murder according to the law are only codifications of concepts that predate those laws. Not only that, but there are jurisdictions-- whether within or without the States-- that regard the child as a human being and its termination of life murder inasmuch as the prongs are met. The citation of the legal definition of abortion is myopic in multiple ways, and is frankly lazy.

You are still taking away her choice.

This isn't a response to anything that I said.

 

[Eris!]

Sentience is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that slavery was once legal, but we don't regard it as moral now. As such, it's nonsensical to use it as a justification for any particular thing in a largely philosophical discussion of "ought". After all, concepts such as murder according to the law are only codifications of concepts that predate those laws. Not only that, but there are jurisdictions-- whether within or without the States-- that regard the child as a human being and its termination of life murder inasmuch as the prongs are met. The citation of the legal definition of abortion is myopic in multiple ways, and is frankly lazy.

I bet 10$ that you will receive no coherent reply to this.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Whose responsibility is it other than the mother's?

Thank you for agreeing with me on this point.

I will comment on those papers you linked when I have time to read them.

Looking forward to it.

 

[KEKleon]

It's not immoral at all. You're doing it right now. How many children on earth are suffering while you type this?

If I had the means to help those kids, I would, because they matter and less suffering means less mental illness, physical issues, and whatever else to deal with later. But most people don't care because it "doesn't affect them" when they do have the means. And that's fine, that's your choice, but what about the child's choice? They never asked to be brought into the world to be given a shit life and they can't do anything about it because kids have no rights basically and need adults to help them. And many of those adults fail them.

If a child isn't guaranteed a loving home, why should they be brought into the world if they're unwanted? Forcing someone to keep them hurts the kid especially, parents, family, and others in the community. No one wins.

I can't solve the world's problems rn but would it hurt to let someone have a choice to prevent more suffering?

 

[Eris!]

If I had the means to help those kids, I would, because they matter and less suffering means less mental illness, physical issues, and whatever else to deal with later.

Go right ahead. I would do nothing because I don't care.

but what about the child's choice?

Is the child asking you to kill them? No. You're making the choice for them, which is a violation of their rights. They, and they alone, can wave their right to life. You cannot wave it for them. Your hands are tied. You have no option to solve their suffering which is morally permissible. Say "So it goes," and move on.

they can't do anything about it because kids have no rights basically and need adults to help them. And many of those adults fail them.

What does any of this have to do with me?

If a child isn't guaranteed a loving home, why should they be brought into the world if they're unwanted?

They were already brought into the world. You can't take that back. You can't make them un-exist. It's too late. As for being "guaranteed a loving home," literally no one is guaranteed that. The only thing in life that is a guarantee is death. Everything else is something you want, and must get.

Forcing someone to keep them

This is incoherent, we've been over this.

hurts the kid

No, it does not hurt the kid. It permits the kid to be hurt. Those are not the same thing. In one case you caused it, and are responsible for it. In the other case you literally did nothing. You are as morally culpable for it as people who don't even exist are, because you both did the same thing: nothing at all.

No one wins.

I don't care if anyone wins or loses. I care if anyone did anything immoral. If not doing immoral things causes everyone to lose, then everyone loses.

I can't solve the world's problems rn but would it hurt to let someone have a choice to prevent more suffering?

No. In fact, it would dramatically help. But we don't get to do immoral things just because they have good outcomes.
This is why all of the "But the outcome though..." arguments have been met with "that's irrelevant."

 

[KEKleon]

Go right ahead. I would do nothing because I don't care.

Is the child asking you to kill them? No. You're making the choice for them, which is a violation of their rights. They, and they alone, can wave their right to life. You cannot wave it for them. Your hands are tied. You have no option to solve their suffering which is morally permissible. Say "So it goes," and move on.

What does any of this have to do with me?

They were already brought into the world. You can't take that back. You can't make them un-exist. It's too late. As for being "guaranteed a loving home," literally no one is guaranteed that. The only thing in life that is a guarantee is death. Everything else is something you want, and must get.

This is incoherent, we've been over this.

No, it does not hurt the kid. It permits the kid to be hurt. Those are not the same thing. In one case you caused it, and are responsible for it. In the other case you literally did nothing. You are as morally culpable for it as people who don't even exist are, because you both did the same thing: nothing at all.

I don't care if anyone wins or loses. I care if anyone did anything immoral. If not doing immoral things causes everyone to lose, then everyone loses.

No. In fact, it would dramatically help. But we don't get to do immoral things just because they have good outcomes.

Just curious, but why is this - abortion, or by your terms murder - immoral to you? Morals exist due to perceived outcomes, but you claim you don't seem to care about outcomes so I really don't understand.

Just saying it's immoral doesn't explain why it's immoral. What specifically makes it wrong?

 

[Eris!]

Morals exist due to perceived outcomes

No. That is pragmatism, not morality. Morality is derived from obligation. You have an obligation not to violate the rights of others.

What specifically makes it wrong?

You are violating their rights. You are destroying their property.

 

[Shady Attorney]

You are violating their rights. You are destroying their property.

Are you referring to their body as their property?
What about the mother’s property?

 

[Eris!]

Are you referring to their body as their property?

I am referring to their life as their property.

What about the mother’s property?

You are entitled to your mother. The baby has a right to be there, and she has no right to refuse it, no different than how she has no right to refuse to raise it once it's born. Kicking your kid out of the house is immoral.

 

[Jaimas]

I believe there's more common ground on this issue than people like to believe.

 

[ChikN10der]

You are missing my whole point. If a woman gets pregnant, you are forcing her to have it. That's force.

Nobody could possibly miss your point that you're repeating over and over and over and over.

We see it. It's a dumb argument, you're wrong. Repeating this exact argument won't change this.

 

[ChikN10der]

If I had the means to help those kids, I would, because they matter and less suffering means less mental illness, physical issues, and whatever else to deal with later. But most people don't care because it "doesn't affect them" when they do have the means. And that's fine, that's your choice, but what about the child's choice? They never asked to be brought into the world to be given a shit life and they can't do anything about it because kids have no rights basically and need adults to help them. And many of those adults fail them.

If a child isn't guaranteed a loving home, why should they be brought into the world if they're unwanted? Forcing someone to keep them hurts the kid especially, parents, family, and others in the community. No one wins.

I can't solve the world's problems rn but would it hurt to let someone have a choice to prevent more suffering?

Should we just kill all orphans not adopted by a certain age? What about fucked up kids who had something Trumaumatic happen so they have ptsd? Should we kill the homeless to prevent their suffering?

 

[KEKleon]

Should we just kill all orphans not adopted by a certain age? What about fucked up kids who had something Trumaumatic happen so they have ptsd? Should we kill the homeless to prevent their suffering?

My whole point is to keep that from happening in the first place.

 

[ChikN10der]

My whole point is to keep that from happening in the first place.

Well abortion is currently legal, but we still have orphans, traumatized kids, and a growing homeless problem.

If killing people is the solution to society's woes then shouldn't we kill these people to spare them from living lives that you have declared aren't worth living?

Why prescribe antidepressants instead of just killing depressed people? Ideally we'd just abort anyone who might turn out not to be happy enough, but a few are bound to slip through the cracks.

We all know going to prison fucks you in the head for life, so let's abolish that, death reward for any crime that would normally result in prison time.(it's a good thing remember?)

There are shitloads of people who were adopted, who were born with birth defects, were not wanted, but if you ask those people the extremely vast majority will tell you they don't want to be dead. Why do you know better?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Well abortion is currently legal, but we still have orphans, traumatized kids, and a growing homeless problem.

If killing people is the solution to society's woes then shouldn't we kill these people to spare them from living lives that you have declared aren't worth living?

Why prescribe antidepressants instead of just killing depressed people? Ideally we'd just abort anyone who might turn out not to be happy enough, but a few are bound to slip through the cracks.

We all know going to prison fucks you in the head for life, so let's abolish that, death reward for any crime that would normally result in prison time.(it's a good thing remember?)

There are shitloads of people who were adopted, who were born with birth defects, were not wanted, but if you ask those people the extremely vast majority will tell you they don't want to be dead. Why do you know better?

Yes, would that not be easier, and less cruel?

 

[Eris!]

My whole point is to keep that from happening in the first place.

Keeping it from happening by literally doing it?

Yes, would that not be easier, and less cruel?

When facing a choice between less cruel and less immmoral, it is a weak and pathetic man who chooses less cruel.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Sentience is irrelevant to the argument.

No, it really isn't. Pro-lifers prioritize the welfare of non-sentient beings. Case in point below.

You are violating their rights. You are destroying their property

You outright said that a 12 year old who was raped by her uncle should carry to term! What about her rights?

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

As regards to abortion, on behalf of peace and the care which you can entertain for the people, I place myself willingly and conscientiously at the service of babies; and I rejoice in our traditional positions with this subject, from which my efforts on behalf of the babies will derive the necessary support. Trusting in God and in our traditions of our people, I confidently hope that it will be granted to us for a long time to come to foster and consolidate, by peaceful labour, what was won by Donald Trump.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

No, it really isn't. Pro-lifers prioritize the welfare of non-sentient beings.

You're failing to keep even your active arguments straight, at this point.