/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13961659]

What Philosophical works can I read about abortion? Pro choice and pro life, please. I would like to understand both sides before making a decision.

[Anonymous No.13961674]

>>13961659
If you're pro baby murder that means you don't find inherent value in life, and your own convenience (ie. hedonism) is the highest "good". If you follow a life of pleasure, you will ironically end up miserable.

Basically it depends if you want to end up chronically depressed and suicidal, or accept the gift of meaningfully raising a new life and doing the best you can.

Your choice.

This wouldn't have happened if you waited until marriage.

[Anonymous No.13961697]

>>13961659
Kill the fucker

[Anonymous No.13961701]

>>13961697
>>13961674
duality of man

[Anonymous No.13961708]

>>13961674
oh by the way i meant making a decision on if abortion is immoral or not i didnt impregnate anyone

[Anonymous No.13961917]

>>13961708
If you accept any coherent moral system then it's immoral. If you don't, it's irrelevant anyway. The fact you even have to ask the question means you probably follow some part of a moral system, or value its importance over just doing whatever you want.

tl;dr Logically if you care about this question at all, then you are pro life, you just may not yet realise it.

[Anonymous No.13961944]

imo most of the works specifically on abortion are shit i think it would be better for you to read on general theoretical ethics rather than practical ethics and then apply them yourselves to the problem of abortion. so read a bunch of classic ethicists - aristotle, spinoza, hume, kant etc etc etc

[Anonymous No.13962235]

>>13961659
The literature is pretty shit on it. Even most common arguments against abortion are like "it's a babby" and for are like "it's a tumor and muh womyn's rights"

At the end of the day all that matters is if you believe human life has an end/purpose/telos.

If there is, abortion is an evil, disgusting act and all life is beautiful. If life has no purpose, do whatever the fuck you want, and you should probably kill yourself in the most fantastic way possible.

[Anonymous No.13962241]

>>13962235
This is a more concise and well worded version of this. And it's correct.

>>13961674
>>13961917

[Anonymous No.13962540]

>>13961659
Stop being a dimwit cuck stuck in liberal politics anon

[Anonymous No.13962547]

I can boil it down real easy like for you
time to be pro life:
>when it is a white couple trying to have an abortion for their white baby

Time to be pro-choice:
>literally any other time

[Anonymous No.13962625]

>>13961659

[Anonymous No.13962662]

>>13962235
This, and is obvious for anyone with both rational and empirical knowledge that for a fact life is not beautiful and have not inherent meaning

[Anonymous No.13962680]

>>13961659
I think what ot comes down to is do we value the rights of people who are pregnant to their own bodies and future, or do we consider the thing that won't have abstract thought for 13 years a person when it cant even survive on it's own, and also cant guarantee the funding will be there to care for it? I cant find any pro life arguments that arent based in religion
>but-but waiting for marriage
Ignoring rape babies and dangerous pregnancies, marriage is a religious tradition and is nothing more than a piece of paper. Telling people they cant have sex until they give the church/state money is retarded

[Anonymous No.13962694]

>>13962662
>This, and is obvious for anyone with both rational and empirical knowledge that for a fact life is not beautiful and have not inherent meaning

hurr durr my worldview is self-evident

shut the fuck up faggot

[Anonymous No.13962696]

>>13962662
Empirical Knowledge can't contain meaning. You have a form of autism called Scientism which shuts off parts of the brain, preventing you from experiencing life, leading to depression.

[Anonymous No.13962713]

>>13962680
I disagree

[Anonymous No.13962714]

>>13962696
>>13962694
Shut the fuck up boomer!

[Anonymous No.13962720]

[Anonymous No.13962723]

>>13962680
But that exact same argument can be applied to ethnic minorities. Most Blacks and Arabs never achieve meaningful sentience, is simple extermination acceptable for them?

[Anonymous No.13962739]

>>13962680
>nothing more than a piece of paper
You are wrong. Waiting for marriage proves both parties are serious and vastly impacts the rate of divorce. It's a form of sacrifice for your own good, like fasting.

[Anonymous No.13962743]

There's still no """pro-choice""" argument which can't be used to also justify infanticide.

[Anonymous No.13962795]

>>13962743
This, including any kind of eugenics.

[Anonymous No.13963118]

>>13962694
I didn't say it was self-evident dipshit, that why you need rationale
>>13962696
>Muh scientism muh depression
Oh anon you saw right through me, if only I would have know earlier I was just very sad, thank you I have seen the light
>Empirical Knowledge can't contain meaning
If that were true it would help my thesis

[Anonymous No.13963152]

>>13963118
Anon means "observed truth-values/phenomena" by "Empirical Knowledge".

Meaning is derived by reason acting on knowledge. You get wisdom, meta-knowledge, etc.

[Anonymous No.13963155]

Infanticide should be legal provided both parents whish it adn no other entity is willing to take responsibility for the child and by that to say provide for it among other things. For practical reasons the woman should have the right to kill the baby as long as it is in the body. Any dilemma that pits the woman's autonomy against something must be resolved in the practical way. To grant other claimants to the child's life rights to it at the point when the baby could efortlessly exist outside of the woman is also reasonable.

An obvious alternative to this is of course to hold the cacricity of life above all else and go full no kill.

I hold that murder can be moral.

[Anonymous No.13963274]

>>13963155
Props for taking it to the logical conclusion.

May I suggest you tighten your definition of murder. Murder is the extrajudicial killing of another human being outside of self defense. Other killings are different.

Murder is morally reprehensible always.

[Anonymous No.13963423]

>>13963274
You're right, I agree, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13963435]

>>13962625
Should we be doing something?

[Anonymous No.13963442]

>>13962720
This is unironically the sadest thing i have seen in months.

[Anonymous No.13963476]

>>13961701
kek

[Anonymous No.13963523]

>>13963435
There's nothing we can do, Caesarism doesn't start until 2200, and collapse is centuries after that, so unless you plain to live into 2500 learning Spanish to try and take advantage of the New Barbarians is pointless.

At best, take up hobby autism and join the NrX sphere to try and figure out how to make a good government when people can actually engage in politics again in a few centuries.

[Anonymous No.13963538]

>>13961659
As others have mentioned the contemporary literature isn't particularly good. I believe this is twofold: that the issue is contentious and relevant, and so there are a lot of small commentaries, and secondly because it is so contentious a lot of arguments are coloured by bad faith.
Additionally, the state of modern academia is rather shit.

I believe for abortion the following must be understood:
When is it OK to kill a human/sentient entity?
When is the subject of abortion a human/sentient entity?
If it is OK to kill a human/sentient entity based on non-human contingencies (economic factors etc), then what are the non-human contingencies involved in the subject of abortion?

I think 'A Defense of Abortion' by Judith Thompson is pretty good. For a pro-life stance, 'Why Abortion is Immoral' by Don Marquis exists.

I'm not familiar with any extensive treatises on the issue. It seems to me though that everything should follow from more basic ethical principles, so other than sorting out particular contrivances, if you have a solid ethical framework you should have the means to resolve the issue yourself.

[Anonymous No.13963548]

>>13961674
Its more nuanced than that

>>13961659
Maybe start with Judith Jarvis Thomson

[Anonymous No.13963556]

>>13961659
The categorical imperative is all you need.

[Anonymous No.13963598]

Abortion supporters are mentally ill. Pic related.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13963605]

Reminder
Ancient Greeks practiced extremely late term abortions when forced to. By exposing infants to the wilds

[Anonymous No.13963612]

>>13961674
But what if you’re not in a good enough position, emotionally or financially, to have a child?
Is it not kinder to keep a child without cognition out of the world, rather than bring him in to definite, possibly unending, suffering?

[Anonymous No.13963614]

>>13963274
>>13963155
what about the day after pill?

[Anonymous No.13963616]

>>13963605
Trannies practice late term abortion also.

[Anonymous No.13963633]

Path of Psueds:
Read up on Theseus' ship and never really come to any definitive stance
Path of big brains:
Follow the dominant religion's teaching in your country
Path of smol brans:
Read works on antinatalism and female autonomy
Path of Galaxian brain:
Strongly pro-abortion in cases of rape, incest, when the life of the mother is in danger, or when there's a 20% chance a genetic reroll would result in a better character sheet

[Anonymous No.13963776]

>>13962720

[Anonymous No.13964196]

>>13962720
I was having a good day until I saw this

[Anonymous No.13964248]

>>13962720

[Anonymous No.13964260]

It just let's irresponsible people off scott free. Rape, and contraception mishap babies are the extreme minority iirc. Honestly they should be talked too about just making optionally wit the womens consent to be made barren after their procedure. If you care this little about the life inside you than it's likely once you're """"ready""" you probably won't be either. I honestly wouldn't really want a child with a women who has had a an abortion, let alone several. Not even religious at all

[Anonymous No.13964324]

>>13964260
>I honestly wouldn't really want a child with a women who has had a an abortion
Doesn't it lend to complicating future births as well? Just another reason not to.

[Anonymous No.13964404]

>>13963598
>mfw white women cherish killing their own children while caring and crying for the children of the brown races

I don't even have a face for this, you whitoids are so done.

[Anonymous No.13964426]

>>13964404
Don't remind me.

[Anonymous No.13964456]

>>13964426
I have seen the weirdest and most deranged shit in 4chan that I won't even mention to not get put on a list by some wordfilter or something.
And while reading that I have never felt as this, a combination of surprised, scared, unescapable horror. I think pic was it more or less.
How can someone be so mentally ill?

[Anonymous No.13964495]

>>13964456
the ones that don't get aborted are subjected to this.

[Anonymous No.13964500]

>>13964495
and this

[Anonymous No.13964521]

>>13963155
>For practical reasons the woman should have the right to kill the baby as long as it is in the body. Any dilemma that pits the woman's autonomy against something must be resolved in the practical way.
But those are highly presumptuous statements. You assume three things,
1. People have a general and specific autonomy,
2. People ought to have that autonomy,
3. That there exists a defined practicality enough to govern that autonomy
4. That applies to women having the practical autonomy to murder their own children.
Not only are these propositions unsupported, they're not natural or logical. Persons are not wholly autonomous beings. A marginal few can sustain themselves without society. Few have the ability to form wholly unique and critical ideas, they are largely developed through the social mind and culture around them, and their own predispositions.
But with this presumption comes the idea that people have an autonomy that can't be violated by others. Then why isn't the baby granted the same autonomy?
And this also assumes this practicality to some end of higher good. Why? What defines any practicality is an arbitrary division unless given some higher end to the mean. Is it practical for society? It consumes less resources on society for the woman not to copulate to begin with. The autonomy of anyone to such a degree is a worthless consideration to the practical goals of a society. But if you argue that the woman has some inherent right to copulate anyway, then the practicality only functions as a means to the higher end of her sex life. How can sex be a higher good than the human that experiences it? And if that human has some higher good, to be given some abstract notion of a right to autonomy, then that human must have something in of itself. So to kill that baby, in the womb or outside, is to violate a greater good for a lesser one.

Abortion is evil, and the people who support it will pay dearly in hell. Almost any argument revolves purely around emotions and baseless presupposition, post hoc reasoning, animal impulse, and extremely subjective values applied universally. It's a self refuting point to say a woman has some higher right, when what she does by aborting makes the notion of having any higher rights void to begin with.

[Anonymous No.13964542]

>>13963598
Bruh why do white women get these kind of tattoos, there's no rhyme or reason to them. It's like the stickers on that dive bars bathroom

[Anonymous No.13964547]

>>13964495
>>13964500
Those new Dark Souls bosses look dope senpai

[Anonymous No.13964562]

>>13964521
based

[Anonymous No.13964752]

>>13964521
>But with this presumption comes the idea that people have an autonomy that can't be violated by others. Then why isn't the baby granted the same autonomy?
Different anon here. I believe that the woman has the right to remove the baby as long as it is in the body at any point of the pregnancy. If there's no way for the baby to survive outside of the woman, it would mean kill the potential baby. When the technology is advanced enough to sustain and develop a 3 months old fetus(by an incubator or whatever), I'll believe it's no longer ethical to abort. Both the potential child and the woman would have the same autonomy that way.
With that said, abortion is indeed morally wrong.

[Anonymous No.13964759]

>>13961659
Ignore the pure ethicist fags. Read stuff on personhood.

[Anonymous No.13964831]

>>13962720
Now OP you know the answer

[Anonymous No.13964849]

>>13961659
/thread

[Anonymous No.13964854]

>>13964752
So your criterion for murder is if its convenient to the person who sustains the life?

Pretty arbitrary desu.

[Anonymous No.13964855]

Reminder
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

[Anonymous No.13964886]

>>13964855
>only a tiny portion of all the abortions in use since '73 are blacks

[Anonymous No.13964948]

>>13964854
It's not arbitrary at all, the woman has absolute control over her body and can physically remove the potential baby with the minimal violence necessary for any reason. If minimum violence still implies in death, so be it.

[Anonymous No.13964965]

Reminder : you can't be for abortion and against eugenism.

[Anonymous No.13964974]

>>13964965
Funnily enough, yes you can. They will gladly abort white babies but if you suggest that other races should get abortions you'll get impaled.

[Anonymous No.13964981]

>>13963605
you'll never be a woman

[Anonymous No.13964987]

Post I replied to got deleted but I still want to know what Anti-aborts counter-argument to this is >>13963612

[Anonymous No.13965006]

>>13964987
You sell him into slavery obviously.
Or give it up into adoption.
Or give it to the state.

[Anonymous No.13965015]

>>13963523
Is it wrong to say I'm both disgusted and excited to see how everything works out?