Morality in Abortion

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.

Abortions could happen in my worldview everyday across the clock if only we did this - CLONE 1000 EINSTEINS!!*

Through the power of science and human ingenuity, we can end this disruptive conflict, and bring the right kind of brain into the world, everyday.

I mean laws like murder would say that Einstein’s life is the same as Natalie Portman, but really, Einstein is of the Jews, is a chosen Prophet of God - HERE HIM!!*

I think cloning is way overrated, unless we presently may be clones.

Personally I do not think that the electric grid that supports our individual psychic energy , does have some relation to our material manifestation, but that view is modified by our current devolution toward ideal types.

That temporality is so inditerminitive as as to make human lifetime relatively a short term affair like a blink of cosmic time generating immense and colossal mixtures of personae, while indifferent to singular and social numbers indifferently, while at the same time effecting infinite individual senses, of almost unending depth.
The energy grid contains both, and what one expects of a monumental colossal channel of consciousness , does not account for less then infinite possibilities and approaching
astounding and revealing near miracles.
Appearances are almost certainly merely mere reflections and shadows of constant change.
Abortion and murder are mere transmigrations , overcoming actual coming to be and ceasing to experience.

Okay, so please provide us with your own intertwined recollection of theory and practice here. In the manner in which I provided you mine in my signature thread.

Let’s try this…

Given what you construe philosophy does, what are the limitations imposed on serious philosophers in regard to assessing and then evaluating what an individual believes about the morality of abortion; and what can be disclosed here using the tools that are available to philosophers. With religion of course it all comes down to Scripture.

We clearly have a different take on philosophy here. If philosophy, as many construe it, is the search for wisdom, what constitutes wise behavior when confronting moral conflicts? What can we know here? And how can what we think we know be expressed to others logically, rationally, objectively?

You will either take your own “technical” understanding of philosophy here there or you won’t. That’s entirely up to you. Assuming that 1] we are in possession of free will and 2] you take into account the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here.

You say…

“No, thats not how my world works. I see different interests, not ‘wrong’ or ‘right’”.

How then are your own perceived self-interests in regard to the morality of abortion not in turn but the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in your own rendition of dasein derived from the life that you lived? Or is all of that existential stuff simply dismissed as beyond the reach [or concern] of the serious philosopher?

Okay, if that works for you, fine. And if this is how you insist serious philosophers should approach conflicting goods in the is/ought world, we can just agree to disagree regarding both the relevance and applicability of philosophy down in the “for all practical purposes” realm of actual human interactions.

Suppose a serious philosopher does become involved in a context in which an abortion is involved. How would he or she go about acquiring the necessary experiences to adequately judge the character of the woman choosing an abortion; and how would he or she go about assessing her short and long term interests? Or does he or she go up to the woman and say, “I’m a serious philosopher, so there’s not much I can tell you.”

That, in turn, the arguments of folks like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant etc. are of limited value to her? Depending entirely on how many personal experiences they themselves had with abortion?

Before we get to God, please respond to the point I raised about moral laws being used to regulate our behaviors.

Is there an actual set of objective criteria able to establish if one speaks of God seriously? Or does that more or less come down to others speaking of Him as you do?

If God is invoked in a discussion of the morality of abortion, how does the serious philosopher go about assessing the worth of the arguments?

Let’s bring that down to a particular context.

You raised Creation here. You will either connect the dots between what you mean by it, how you construe the meaning of philosophy, and your own personal assessment of the morality of abortion or you won’t.

In other words, I would be most interested in witnessing someone making the point you do here to folks outside an abortion clinic. Explaining to those both for and against abortion the philosophical implications of “morality always being tyrannical.” Making certain they are familiar with exactly what philosophers can and cannot tell them about killing the unborn.

What does any of this have to do with what I am asking of you above? And these experiences do pertain to the manner in which you construe objective truth, right?

How would you explain value ontology to those who are in fact interested in connecting the dots between philosophy and the morality of abortion?

Let’s take this argument to a context in which those who condemn abortion are confronting those who support it. Gauge their reaction to it. :wink: