Morality in Abortion

I can agree to that being the only real question if we have for the sake of the argument established that it is morally wrong to kill a being outside of oneself and not part of oneself.

I meant that it is not a philosophical deadlock.
Nor is the question whether infidels should be killed or not a question for philosophy to answer.

By the way, I would say the baby is not part of the woman since she doesn’t feel pain when it is wounded. If there is pain in the first place, which seems likely, it feels its own pain.
It is not wired into the mothers nervous system.
If the woman would feel the pain of the death, it would be a kind of partial suicide, which it isn’t, it is in the terms I just gave closer to homicide.

What is the philosophical consensus?
Generally I don’t involve myself in topics such as these, so excuse me if I am out of touch.

An interesting argument.

However, neither man nor woman feels the pain of their own e.g. liver degeneration until it has passed a certain point of damage. Do we therefore conclude that the liver is not part of the man or woman because they don’t feel pain when it is wounded, at least up until a point? Perhaps a liver is only part of them after this point? Please excuse my rhetorical phrasing. A liver does not feel its own pain though, nor does a zygote or any stage of development before sufficient development of a nervous system. Are we to say this is the deciding factor? A nervous system? Before which, homicide is impossible?

It’s a homicide to be sure.

Let’s be clear about this though.

I’ll use an analogy I used in another thread and then some…

When you gently fondle the genitals of a one month old baby… does it REALLY have any grasp of it being sexual assault??? No!! Only small kids (not infants) and adults think something is wrong. So really? How much consent does a fetus really have?

But I’ll take it a step further… if your mother and father don’t want you, what kind of narcissistic arrogant prick would you have to be to not give a shit, heartless!!

You folks want the baby to have true agency … then treat it like an adult!!! If my mother didn’t want me (and I am an adult now) then FUCK NO!! I wouldn’t want to be born!!!

That’s called the adult integrity argument for fetuses being aborted. You fucking whiners hate that you might have never been born. GROW UP!!!

If my mother wanted to travel back in time and abort me, I’d let her!!

Act like adults and stop being so damned selfish to this regard. I love my mother enough to give her that right. All you pro lifers don’t give a shit about your mothers!!

Does the human species need you selfish pricks, NO, so fuck off.

drops the mic on “prolifers”

i’m amused by the abortion debate because its one of the best existential nuggets there is for proving, beyond any doubt, that despite every attempt to either rationalize or condemn it, it remains forever unresolved. its one of those bitch-of-a-situations that demonstrates the vanity of both science and philosophy in claiming to provide any guidance (vis-a-biggs). there aren’t many of these… unresolvable dilemmas, i mean… that accentuate the real absurdity of man’s existence. it’s one of those most important problems that you’d think nature would give us a break with, ya know? capital punishment- not so difficult. women’s suffrage- easy, no problem. homelessness- duh. draft dodging- nah that totally makes sense. minimum wage- absolutely. abort the fetus- fuck.

for a thousand more years thinkers will provide some variation or another of the same basic lines of reason which have to date been used to either support or not support it… and still there will be no closure.

i support abortion, but i’m a nihilist, so being moral or not is never a question for me. if i ever got pregnant i would not hesitate to terminate the little miscreant.

But what if… The fetus is a soul?
Then that is drastic an no political twist can argue against it.

Oh not the argument of a crystal soul, of a maggot, or a rook, not the experience of politics, but, that inversion as fun, and thereby the insane woman can claim symbiosis with it, …
Could the fetus or the mother be severed by lobotomously?

The fetus as soul can gain
conscious right to life , in any case.
Who would fight for their rights?
No one would dare, no one can care!!! And no one would be able to.

Who fears for the crucified?
He was crazy , to give up his god given right to life, for whom?
The swine for whom pearls of wisdom
are as convenient as faux innuendo for and by the unknown, by the soulless ghosts of the invisible twilight, that’s it.

And that is unforgiveness!

I just solved it in the post above. Treat the fetus like an adult.

Problem of induction though?

Perhaps another identity error between t1 and t2?

You have declared it solved, but let’s see if you can incorporate here any of the lessons we’ve been discussing on the “3 Christs” thread here.

The reason I generally “don’t involve myself in topics such as these” is because of what promethean said.
I offered the Dave Chapelle inspired angle because it translates the fundamental philosophy beneath the topic into the Individualism that anti-abortionists usually support in other aspects of their lives, such that they ought to be forced to re-think their stance on abortion in light of this and their own consistency.

This angle throws into ambiguity the classification of the act of abortion as homicide. And in following it, I don’t think there’s any doubt that after birth, it would be homicide to murder a baby.

You seem to have little aversion to stances such as Antinatalism, from what you’ve said - but Antinatalism in hindsight is obviously problematic: you can’t assume the hindsight in foresight. Hence the problem of induction and identity error.

The object of topics like these may be to identify exactly why it can’t be solved, and I think those issues are at the centre of this. Solving is sometimes solving unresolvability.
Assuming it can’t be solved, this is in direct conflict with the apparent political desire to make a law either way - which of course is the whole problem.
Maybe Dave Chappelle’s joke can be translated into an argument that dispels this political desire.

My argument is simple:

If anti abortionists want to treat them like adults, than do it! Let’s not fuck around!

I’m an adult. I love my mother. If she literally could and wanted to go back in time to abort me, I’d let her.

I hate these narcissistic fucks who don’t give a shit about anyone but just want to be here.

And those fucks should hate themselves.

I get angry about this, because, I don’t think anyone who doesn’t consent to their abortion doesn’t deserve to be here.

Now think about this for a moment. Who do we really want here in this species?

“I hate these narcissistic fucks who don’t give a shit about anyone but just want to be here.”

The truth is I shoulda ended up as a brown stain on the mattress, E, but I didn’t. I’m here… and godammit I gotta finish it.

I’m a “pill baby”, (mother was on the pill) - I shouldn’t have even been born. My father even wanted my abortion… my mother decided to have me anyways. The odds of me being born are minuscule – but here I am, pissing a lot of people off by saying true things.

Well, it does.sound as a.project, but really who cares or a.stays around OR leaves, if it wasn’t for morality everyone would wish they had.never been borne, some are sticker son’s and love.the pressure cooker of imagined and well thought out imaginary outcome, but some fetus souls couldn’t care less, especially upstaged neophytes.

Indirection calls further direction.
That’s what used to call an imaginary optimist.

Pleasure in that ? Like making love.and dealing with inconvenient consequences.

The mother even, would hate that. regardless.

Please spare the child! (In all of us)
But don’t ruin the rod.

Btw: I’m not an anti natalist

I don’t think the brain has pain receptors. Lobotomies were relatively painless and that was around the eye. Brain tumors can cause pain if they cause high intracranial pressure affecting parts of the head with pain receptors, but they can even do incredible damage without pain, especially the tumors that are more like webs than balls.

Interesting. I think there’s an intermediate position, because why would a soul choose a womb that doesn’t want a child. But once that child is here, she has options. But I’m with Ecmandu as far as 'who are these entities that wanta come in via people who will not appreciate it?

Its not a question of philosophy, so no consensus, no deadlock.

Well this goes for any body part. We don’t feel pain until a damage threshold is crossed.

The “up to a point” part is not part of my fetus-proposition, so I think your objection here is disqualified?

Yes, because the fetus cant speak for itself it will always remain a speculative issue.

Im the opposite value-wise. However I respect your straightforward thinking.

:-k

At least here’s an original perspective.
Let me think about that.

But the thing is more than a brain.
You can surely kill a person painlessly but that is still murder.

Yes, Ecmandu has a point here.
They are entities like Ecmandu though, apparently. (he posted that he was unwanted pregnancy)

Actually, my point is aimed more at distinguishing between a frame of mind rooted in dasein – “I” as an existential contraption – than in any particular argument that philosophers – deontologists, utilitarians, consequentialists etc. – might propose.

But only to the extent that the arguments are aimed at exploring the moral parameters of a particular abortion in a particular context. And not on what is said to be true given the philosophical parameters of one or another theoretical contraption.

In other words, all individual philosophers have one or another existential rendition of the trajectory I note here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

So, when someone asks them for their views on the morality of abortion, to what extent do they intertwine their theoretical constructs in the experiences that they have had with regard to abortion.

That’s where I aim the discussion.