/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15174230]

books that discuss the ethics and legitimacy of abortion from philosophical perspective?

[Anonymous No.15174305]

Aborting retards and people with severe deformities is fine
Aborting healthy fetuses is a crime.

[Anonymous No.15174315]

>>15174230
the dragons of eden by carl sagan

[Anonymous No.15174323]

>>15174305
How do you define "retards" and why is it okay to abort them?

[Anonymous No.15174335]

>>15174230
"A Defense of Abortion" - Judith Jarvis Thomson, probably the most common anal phil account.

Idk much more about it, nor do I care

[Anonymous No.15174344]

>>15174230
i've got this weird book i picked up from a buddhist temple

[Anonymous No.15174349]

>>15174305
>killing healthy children because of their low intelligence.
kys. The only time abortion is defensible is if the fetus has near zero chance of of surviving once born.

[Anonymous No.15174356]

How early is it possible to know if your kid will be deformed or have the downs?

[Anonymous No.15174370]

>>15174335
>nor do I care
coward

[Anonymous No.15174375]

>>15174370
no not the heckin fetuses
not the womens righterinos

[Anonymous No.15174381]

>>15174356
about 12 weeks i.e. around the end of the first trimester. the fetus is about 2 inches.

[Anonymous No.15174384]

>>15174349
>down syndrome baby is detected early in pregnancy
>sensibly gets aborted
>NOOOOO! You have to raise the barely conscious person that will drain on your life and society for their entire existence!
>>15174305
Based

[Anonymous No.15174391]

How do normies justify to themselves that eugenics bad but aborting "defective" children is okay?

[Anonymous No.15174399]

>>15174391
they dont understand what the word eugenics means

[Anonymous No.15174402]

>>15174384
just to be clear I wasn’t describing the foetus as “barely conscious” like a leftist, I was describing the Down syndrome child as barely conscious because it’s true

[Anonymous No.15174407]

>>15174391
The average person doesn't think about eugenics every day. Only nazis and lib journos who hate nazis

[Anonymous No.15174412]

>>15174391
why don't you go out and ask one

[Anonymous No.15174421]

>>15174381
Ah nice, not even a little rat. I was scared it would resemble a human.

[Anonymous No.15174436]

>>15174391
the average person probably does support eugenics, just not a state-run program of it

[Anonymous No.15174460]

>>15174323
IQ under 60.
Incapable of fending for themselves or of realizing most basic tasks without the assistance of others

[Anonymous No.15174477]

>>15174460
Why not just have a state retard sanctuary?

[Anonymous No.15174479]

The only defence is form super egoism
Hehe baby life is a spook and I will feel bad for 9 months so I will kill it lel.

[Anonymous No.15174481]

>>15174477
Sure, as long as Christians get exclusively taxed for it.

[Anonymous No.15174490]

>>15174479
more like 18 years

[Anonymous No.15174493]

>>15174481
>I want to live in your society and enjoy the benefits but I don't want to contribute and support the less fortunate

[Anonymous No.15174500]

>>15174230
Here's a redpilled argument pro-abortion: it can be used as a lo-key eugenics program.

[Anonymous No.15174513]

>>15174500
hmmmm I wonder which group of people have the highest rates of abortions

[Anonymous No.15174522]

>>15174460
How do you give a fetus and IQ test? That aside, I think it would be better if we aborted every fetus with an IQ under 86.

[Anonymous No.15174525]

>>15174391
If you think about it, the way woman selectively choose their partners is a form of eugenics. By avoiding undesirable men, they are essentially saying that their genes would be no benefit to the human race.

Eugenics is literally natural. The only reason people claim to hate it so much is because it got really bad PR from the Nazi's.

But a women rejecting a guy for being ugly and/or stupid, and instead chooses a handsome intelligent one, is literally eugenics. Since she is seeking (albeit subconsciously) to have the kids of a man who is more likely to provide better genes. And telling the one with inferior genes to die and never propagate.

[Anonymous No.15174529]

>>15174493
The reverse. You want to live in a society that socializes your good conscience, that makes you refuse a reduction in the number of people born "less fortunate".

Abort all tarts, abort all cripples, sterilize genetic dead ends, enforce genetic health in the populace. We also enforce bodily hygiene afterall. A fetus without human awareness does not yet have rights.

[Anonymous No.15174539]

>>15174522
We'll be able to calculate a fetus IQ score from genetic testing pretty soon.

[Anonymous No.15174557]

>>15174513
African-Americans

[Anonymous No.15174560]

>>15174230
I wish you were aborted OP

[Anonymous No.15174563]

>>15174230
You never intended this thread to be about literature. Also I seem to remember an Australian philosopher a while back getting shit because he argued that once we have continuity of identity is when we start living, so you could kill your own 1 year old without it being morally objectionable.

[Anonymous No.15174571]

>>15174557
woah das racist

[Anonymous No.15174575]

>>15174370
like all sociological(feminist) thought so far, it's not a serious issue worth investigating philosophically, and will eventually be looked down upon as the angel-pin dancing of our times

[Anonymous No.15174585]

>>15174557
wtf I love abortions now

[Anonymous No.15174593]

>>15174563
There are 3 arguments that make sense to me depending on your premises

1. Don't abort at all, it is a human from conception
2. Don't abort once nervous system is operating(this one sort of implies that you shouldnt kill animals either though you could add a clause that it is the combination of being human and having a nervous system together that matters)
3. Infanticide is permissible in the early years.

[Anonymous No.15174596]

>>15174490
Babys get adopted instantly. As long as you give up all rights.

[Anonymous No.15174623]

>>15174529
Why is it necessary to enforce "genetic health" and why do you extend these eugenic measures to those who couldn't possibly reproduce anyway like those with Downs syndrome? If you're concerned about dysgenics the answer isn't to guide human evolution in a specialised direction, that would just make an equally maladapted species, the problem is how our economy makes having children prohibitively expensive unless you're willing to survive on welfare or are very rich. The most productive and able members of our society are already expected to work long hours for probably less than they're worth and households where both partners must work full time are now common. These are solvable causes of dysgenics.

> We also enforce bodily hygiene afterall. A fetus without human awareness does not yet have rights.
A. We don't enforce bodily hygiene
B. Why do you say rights are intrinsic to human awareness? Do you not have rights when you're asleep?

[Anonymous No.15174629]

>>15174593
I think with 3 it's arguable that we shouldn't do that for two reasons. One being it would be pretty traumatic for ourselves, and two as like a safety gap between when abortions happen and when we think awareness begins, kind of like having the weight limit on elevators higher than what the elevator says.

[Anonymous No.15174649]

>>15174629
>I dunno, man, I'd feel bad if I killed this baby. Should have killed it a few months ago, then my conscience could be at peace.

[Anonymous No.15174651]

>>15174629
Infanticide has been practiced by quite a few cultures so I don't think it would necessarily be traumatic. And the stopgap you're referring to should really set in around age 4 or so for the 'continuity of self' concept.

Im sure even fetuses are aware if by that you just mean theyre feeling sensations, as far as we know that's just a function of nervous systems no matter how primitive.

[Anonymous No.15174684]

>>15174623
>those with Downs syndrome
Ruin the lives of their parents and drain on society, everybody feels uncomfortable around them for a reason.

[Anonymous No.15174700]

>>15174684
>everybody
You mean yourself?

[Anonymous No.15174720]

>>15174596
of course they do anon. orphanages are a myth

[Anonymous No.15174732]

>>15174649
I'm not advocating infanticide, but let's say as a society we agreed that the existence of the self begins with continuity of identity (I know we dont). Then while it would be rational to allow infanticide up to a certain age, I'm arguing that it would be conceptually difficult for most people as we are pretty hard wired to want to protect adorable babies. Because of /lit/'s ongoing Catholic larpers phase, I'm going to assume that you believe that humans are ensouled upon conception. If that idea achieved universal concensus then naturally abortion would be a terrible crime.

[Anonymous No.15174804]

>>15174700
Yes, and every other normal person I’ve met, the only people I know who pretend there’s nothing strange are leftists who pretend that everyone is special

[Anonymous No.15174854]

>>15174804
>I feel uncomfortable around visibly disabled people and anyone who doesn't is only pretending
You make it sounds like they give off some sinister evil energy when really you're just a middle-class fag fighting off the impulse to stare.

[Anonymous No.15175041]

>>15174720
That is of you don't give up all rights. Because then the mother can get her child back at anytime.

[Anonymous No.15175050]

>>15174230
>discussing abortion by ethics and philosophy
cringe
>discussing abortion by teleology
based

[Anonymous No.15175153]

>>15174623
Genetic health is a preventative measure. Hair and skin colour is irrelevant, but something like hereditary allergies or poor eyesight can be fixed in future generations. We humans function according to the same rules as any of our livestock. Why shouldn't we use some of the techniques that keep our herds health, on ourselves?

Btw, downies can have kids. The first downie/downie couple that had a kid was in the news a few years ago.

We do enforce bodily hygiene. Socially via shaming and rules. By law if a person is so filthy that they're a health hazard.

A sleeping human is still a human with his awareness intact. Except that one time in their lives, humans wake up from sleep.
The point about awareness and abortion isn't about human rights being linked to awareness. It's that a fetus doesn't have the capacity to mind if his rights are infringed upon. So no harm done, really.

[Anonymous No.15175262]

>>15175153
Because if you govern mankind like a herd it will be a herd. Selectively bred species are universally done so to further domesticate them and make them docile for exploitation. A wolf in the wild, adapted to his natural habitat, will live a healthy and fruitful life. A purebreed dog is just likely to be adapted to no environment but human society and incapable of living freely.
>Btw, downies can have kids
As a result of having an abnormal number of chromosomes people with Downs syndrome are generally sterile. Them having kids is like mules having kids, it has happened but it's exceedingly rare and unlikely.
>We do enforce bodily hygiene. Socially via shaming and rules. By law if a person is so filthy that they're a health hazard.
Bro, peer pressure isn't equivalent to legally enforced eugenics.

>Except that one time in their lives, humans wake up from sleep.
Precisely, and in a few months a fetus will be born. This is why awareness is an extremely poor indicator of personhood, it's a purely accidental quality that perfectly living people acquire and lose constantly throughout their life for varying reasons. Life alone is a better, more consistent and less arbitrary measure of when a person should be considered as such.

[Anonymous No.15175507]

>>15175262
Humans have self domesticated forever. Us being aware of the process and the mechanism behind genetics does not mean we will become docile or inbred once we develop tools to apply to ourselves. It only means we understand and apply a bit more.

>downies are generally infertile.
It's actually more in the vicinity of 30%. What I said was the first downie pair having a child.

>peer pressure
Eugenics can also be enforced via peer pressure, dude. Look at Iceland and what they managed to achieve with downs.

>awareness is a poor indicator of personhood
There's a difference between a pause and something that has yet to develop. Besides, a fetus lacking awareness means that it won't feel bad being aborted, not necessarily that it's not a person.

[Anonymous No.15175671]

>>15175507
Humans, at present, are a social species like other hominids that rely on networks of mutual co-operation. "Self-domestication" is the process of other species adapting themselves to human cooperation naturally. If you can't see how letting the government have supervised control over the future of human evolution isn't going to just lead to a species of serfs being ruled by a genetic elite then you have room temperature IQ.

>It's actually more in the vicinity of 30%. What I said was the first downie pair having a child.
Only women, men with it are almost universally sterile. So it's more like 15%.

>Eugenics can also be enforced via peer pressure, dude. Look at Iceland and what they managed to achieve with downs.
Bro, that's not eugenics. Eugenics is methodical selected breeding for specific traits. Not vague peer pressure to make sluts feel bad. And what they're doing in Iceland isn't that simple, rather they just abort virtually all the kids with Downs syndrome. Obviously the numbers go down if you kill them.

>There's a difference between a pause and something that has yet to develop. Besides, a fetus lacking awareness means that it won't feel bad being aborted, not necessarily that it's not a person.
And it's equally true a sleeping person won't mind if you shoot them in the head. This is my point as to why it's shitty reasoning. In all these cases these states of non-awareness are transient and otherwise that person is going to achieve awareness in the future, it is wrong to deprive them of that whether they are asleep or they haven't been born yet.

Just because the victim won't know is a terrible justification. It's not okay to cheat on your wife if she's never going to find out.

[Anonymous No.15175688]

Abortion is one of those subjects that perfectly demonstrates the state of the world around us. We live in a time so sheltered from the consequences of our own choices that we basically have the privilege to deny reality whenever it pleases us. Everything, even science and math, is run through a checklist of moral presuppositions before it is accepted as reality. If something conflicts with our moral presuppositions, it cannot be true. The results are rationalized away. Our ability to learn from and understand the world around us has never been greater and we are actively squandering this ability by pretending reality is contingent on man's moral scrutiny. We do this not out of a rigorousness sense of right and wrong, but laziness. We do this because our lives are so sheltered from consequences. It is a greater inconvenience for the tame, sheltered, neutered, socialized modern man to be made morally uncomfortable than it is for him to live a lie. An AI tells you something uncomfortable about race? Must be bad programming. A study suggests females aren't suited for a particular profession? You must hate women. The way we defend our moral assumptions, you'd think it we were obsessed with morals. But abortion? It's one of the least ambiguous things imaginable, yet somehow the obvious moral stance is circumvented entirely. And for what? Convenience. They tell you it's about health/safety, but abortions are performed almost exclusively for mothers who couldn't be bothered to use any of the plethora of safe sex options available and don't want a baby cramping their style (over 99%). Abortion legislation is invariably designed not to make abortion more targeted, but more convenient. The rape victims and the health risks are the poster children, but this is a lie. A conscious lie. Our morals are a fucking lie used to justify our constant pursuit of instant gratification and convenience, and abortion is the most blatant example of it.

[Anonymous No.15175720]

>>15175671
>"Self-domestication" is the process of other species adapting themselves to human cooperation naturally.
That's just plain wrong. We have domesticated ourselves to be the way we are today.

>If you can't see how letting the government have supervised control over the future of human evolution isn't going to just lead to a species of serfs being ruled by a genetic elite then you have room temperature IQ.
If you can't see that groups that are genetically aware will outcompete the unaware, you have fridge temperature IQ. Also, there's quite the difference between enforcing genetic health and the government controlling human evolution. You jumped a lot of steps there.

>Bro, that's not eugenics. Eugenics is methodical selected breeding for specific traits.
Or breeding out of specific traits. Which the Icelanders are on their way too, as they massively reduced the number of downies born thanks to pre-natal diagnostics. Seriously, you can't encourage beneficial traits without discouraging the harmful or non beneficial ones.

>And it's equally true a sleeping person won't mind if you shoot them in the head. This is my point as to why it's shitty reasoning. In all these cases these states of non-awareness are transient and otherwise that person is going to achieve awareness in the future, it is wrong to deprive them of that whether they are asleep or they haven't been born yet.
Except the sleeper has been consciously aware in the past, while the fetus has yet to develop that. So no, that comparison is not at all valid. You compare something that exists with a potential.

[Anonymous No.15175727]

>>15175050
Can you expand what you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15175738]

“I’m a Virgin Incel” by Owpee Isa Fagot

[Anonymous No.15175780]

>>15175688
>Abortion is one of those subjects that perfectly demonstrates the state of the world around us. We live in a time so sheltered from the consequences of our own choices that we basically have the privilege to deny reality whenever it pleases us.
Exactly. We're so sheltered that even defective life is considered valuable enough to get some of our overabundant resources. Nearly every civilization practiced some form of infanticide because resources were scarce. It wasn't just Sparta, other people left crippled children in the woods or elsewhere.
And before very recently such defective humans rarely grew old, as medicine wasn't as advanced. So there was some natural selection going on, which we now eliminated.

>But abortion? It's one of the least ambiguous things imaginable, yet somehow the obvious moral stance is circumvented entirely.
>Abortion legislation is invariably designed not to make abortion more targeted, but more convenient.
Yes, the state of the world. Overabundance, waste and a lack of struggle.

[Anonymous No.15175882]

>>15175688
this is all just another consequence of capitalism and its over reliance on marketing and the need to breed consumers
>inb4 communist

[Anonymous No.15175907]

>>15175780
I know you're probably being snide trying to co-opt my point, but I totally concede that abortion should be an option in the event that a child would be severely retarded. People have no idea how bad it gets and how fruitless it can be. Unless we want to start talking euthanasia, abortion is the only thing we can do about it. I don't want to lose sight of my central point, however, which is that perfectly healthy children with healthy mothers are being aborted for the sake of mere convenience.

>this is all just another consequence of capitalism and its over reliance on marketing and the need to breed consumers
I'd wager it's just what naturally happens when you remove the selection pressure that forces people to accept reality or suffer, but I'd like to hear you elaborate.

[Anonymous No.15175918]

>>15175720
>That's just plain wrong. We have domesticated ourselves to be the way we are today.
"domesticated ourselves"
What the fuck does this even mean? Human civilisation emerged concurrently with human evolution and indeed unless you are some kind of Platonist rube you must admit it was evolution that preceded civilisation. It is a complete absurdity to say that mankind "domesticated itself" when even our most primitive hominid cousins live in societies of their own also.

>If you can't see that groups that are genetically aware will outcompete the unaware, you have fridge temperature IQ.
We live in the future with guns and nuclear weapons. At this point a midget with an AK could kill 10 gigachads and an irrelevant shithole like Pakistan could annihilate the USA. Serious conflicts are now impossible to win.
> Also, there's quite the difference between enforcing genetic health and the government controlling human evolution. You jumped a lot of steps there.
Bro, if you're trying to selectively breed certain traits out of existence and encourage other ones that is what evolution is on the immediate scale. Actual species to species evolution happens over hundreds of thousands of years, but it occurs as the result of these processes. And my point is that we should try to encourage "beneficial traits" either, we should let humanity evolve naturally and try to avoid over-reliance on technology so as to stay adapted to the environment.
>Except the sleeper has been consciously aware in the past, while the fetus has yet to develop that. So no, that comparison is not at all valid. You compare something that exists with a potential.
I'm comparing something that doesn't exist but once did and will once again to something that doesn't exist but will soon. In either case awareness is not present, only the potential of awareness. This was meant to demonstrate why it's silly to suggest that the fetus won't mind because it lacks awareness when you lack awareness for a third of your life and so neither would you mind a quick death in your dreams. If that seems absurd then you understand, but how is it any less absurd in the former case? It's not. As such awareness or the lack of awareness alone is insufficient grounds for whether or not you have the right to life.

Roasties and fags are just triggered by this because they want to be able to avoid responsibility but can't bite the bullet that half the time they don't even meet their own criteria for human rights.

[Anonymous No.15175931]

>>15175688
Very based

[Anonymous No.15176329]

>>15174230
The OP obviously can't be true since human beings have been performing abortions for thousands of years. There's evidence of abortion dating to and beyond ancient Egypt.

[Anonymous No.15177239]

>>15175918
>What the fuck does self-domestication of humans even mean?
It means we changed our genetics by influencing our selective pressures. For example the switch between semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers and agrarian settlers involved a lengthy time of intensive selection so our immune systems could deal with the new stressors. A more recent example is how the European societies have become less violent over time by punishing violent behaviour and rewarding communal behaviour. Wait, you don't think that society does not have an effect on evolution, do you?

>We live in the future with guns and nuclear weapons. At this point a midget with an AK could kill 10 gigachads and an irrelevant shithole like Pakistan could annihilate the USA. Serious conflicts are now impossible to win.
So? Genes aren't just for big muscles.

>Bro, if you're trying to selectively breed certain traits out of existence and encourage other ones that is what evolution is on the immediate scale. Actual species to species evolution happens over hundreds of thousands of years, but it occurs as the result of these processes. And my point is that we should try to encourage "beneficial traits" either, we should let humanity evolve naturally and try to avoid over-reliance on technology so as to stay adapted to the environment.
Genetic changes can happen extremely rapidly. But that has very little to do with genetic health. Besides, some humans using their knowledge and technology to shape their genes and some others not, is part of the environment. It's literally just a new invention, like animal husbandry, metallurgy or electricity.

>I'm comparing something that doesn't exist but once did and will once again to something that doesn't exist but will soon.
Bullshit. Just because a human is asleep doesn't mean their awareness does not exist. Their brain works fine even during sleep. While the fetus exists only in the future, if it doesn't die first.
You misunderstand the point anyway. The fetus doesn't have a human awareness, because it's not developed. The nervous system is not there. In the moment of its abortion. That's important, because if the fetus isn't aborted and can develop normally, no harm done. If it is aborted, then the maybe of human awareness will never happen. So no harm done.

>>15175907
I wasn't being snide. I really needed until the end of your post to understand that you're against abortion.

>I'd wager it's just what naturally happens when you remove the selection pressure that forces people to accept reality or suffer, but I'd like to hear you elaborate.
You pretty much name it. We live in such an overabundance of wealth and goods, that the consequences of our actions are very mitigated. This means we can allow ourselves to make decisions based not on necessity but on morality. I wouldn't call it a consequence of capitalism, more a side effect of modernity in general.

[Anonymous No.15177276]

I dumped a girl last week largely because she was a week late and told me she would've taken an early abortion pill. Turns out she had her period anyway and I broke up with her two days later.

[Anonymous No.15177282]

>>15176329
If anything that just supports the human sacrifice theory more

[Anonymous No.15177575]

>>15174402
Downies are capable of working simple jobs and can live with minimal assistance. They're retards but nowhere near brain-dead.
If you're using moderate cognitive impairment and increased instance of health complications as an excuse to kill someone, you're not going to like the brutal utilitarianism that logically follows.

[Anonymous No.15178522]

>>15175688
Based

[Anonymous No.15178558]

>>15175907
Agreed. And sorry, the last bit of >>15175907 was intended as a reply to this post: >>15175882.

[Anonymous No.15178572]

>>15178558
>>15177239
Fuck. I must be tired.

[Anonymous No.15178581]

You don't need to murder the retarded, you can fund asylums for both the mentally ill and deficient. Stop spending money on baby murdering centers and pointless future soldier programs and create centers for retards and the mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15178650]

>>15174391
Nazis did eugenics and I'm not a nazi so I don't support eugenics.

[Anonymous No.15178719]

Broke: abortion before 21 weeks of gestation
Woke: post birth abortion
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

[Anonymous No.15178744]

>>15174402
>barely conscious
Isn't that a good thing? I'm sure they're much better of without consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15178796]

>>15174230
even if you are born into a family that wanted a child, there is no guarantee of a happy and fulfilling life, what chance does a child have, if its parents wanted to kill it before birth?
just let them put the poor thing out of misery

[Anonymous No.15178812]

if the fetus can't survive if birthed it isn't human

[Anonymous No.15178849]

>>15178812
>it suddenly becomes a human the second a woman no longer has to take responsibility for it
How convenient

[Anonymous No.15178879]

Safe, legal, widely-available abortion creates freedom by enabling choice. A fetus isn't a person. A belief isn't a fact. Superstition is not knowledge and intelligence is the only real human virtue. There are no good stupid people.

An ideology that marries itself to the idea that a fetus is a fully-human person will always inevitably get to the point where a woman is NOT a fully-human person. It is the logical endpoint of religious conservatism. We can be governed either by thinkers or by believers. Choose

[Anonymous No.15178920]

>>15178879
"Pro-life" is the most Orwellian doublespeak ever created in modern politics. Reproductive freedom is a triumph of science and human equality over superstition and oppression, and is a vital component of our advancement toward a stronger, smarter, better future. Fetuses aren't people, they don't have rights, anyone who "believes" otherwise or raises similar "moral" objections to trans patients is either mentally-deficient or subscribes to an arcane superstition and in both cases has ZERO business practicing medicine in the first place.

Fetuses aren't people, climate change is real, racism exists and is bad, the wage gap is a thing, 90% of what you were told is "morality" is actually baseless superstition, global-unification is good, nations and borders are going to sound very silly to your great grandkids.

[Anonymous No.15178921]

>>15178879
>An ideology that marries itself to the idea that a fetus is a fully-human person will always inevitably get to the point where a woman is NOT a fully-human person
Yes
Women are not people, they have no sense of humanity. They are glorified beasts mockingly molded into the shape of man.

[Anonymous No.15178953]

>>15178879
>An ideology that marries itself to the idea that a child is a fully-human person will always inevitably get to the point where the parents are NOT fully-human persons. It is the logical endpoint of religious conservatism. We can be governed either by thinkers or by believers. Choose

[Anonymous No.15179004]

Because it is better to not be born at all than to be born and eventually die, I support mandatory abortions.

[Anonymous No.15179009]

>>15174500
>>15174513
>>15174557
>What is Planned Parenthood?

>>15174720
Almost no one adopts children over age one.

>>15178650
The USA was much deeper into eugenics than the nazis during the time period when nazis actually existed.

>>15178920
You must be 18 to post here.

>>15174230
Here are some other fun thought experiments.
1.Abortion is only legal for married women. If she still wants it there is probably a strong reason.
2.Men must opt-in to fatherhood, just as women must.
3.Men always get full custody.

[Anonymous No.15179016]

>>15178920
what's the point of even posting bait this obvious

[Anonymous No.15179026]

>>15178879
>>15178920
Agreed. I'd even go as far as asserting that a baby's life is nowhere near as relevant as a kid, a teen or an adult.

A fetus isn't even human.

[Anonymous No.15179031]

>>15178796
This is the best bit of pro-choice logic that I know of, and it's still never sat well with me because it ultimately isn't trying to treat anything. It's like trying to "fix" a cold by funneling your runny nose into your mouth.

>>15178812
Fetuses can survive outside the womb as early as about 20 weeks. There are several states in the US that will basically allow mothers to abort up to the point of birth and there are active, legitimate pushes to reduce the limits of this every day.

>>15178879
>>15178920
Weak samefag trolling. Should've left it at the first post. It was so solidly retarded I was convinced it had to be pasta.

[Anonymous No.15179037]

>>15178920
>so completely "I LOVE THE STATUS QUO!!!!!!! I LOVE BELIEVING THAT CONSENSUS DECIDES IS RIGHT, BECAUSE CONSENSUS DECIDED IT!!!!" that you have to scare-quote "believe" when you refer to the purportedly mistaken beliefs of others

Usually when people do that it's a joke. Never seen someone do it for real. You must be a really angry person about, uh.. believing.. what the fictional statistically average man believes, because (and only because) it's the average thing to believe. Sorry, """"believe.""""

[Anonymous No.15179039]

>>15178796
Remember that the antinatalists should be immediately finished because that will save them from a chance of further trouble.

[Anonymous No.15179042]

Personally I think that there needs to be some kind of a common ground on abortion. Abortion discussion severely impacts the lifestyle of a one gender, but not at all another. Personally I believe in order for the discussion to be more even, men should also have some kind of disadvantage stemming from it, maybe a pregnant woman should get some huge governement grant (upwards of 5 000$ per month) during pregnancy so that they have something for sacrificing the 9 months of their lives. Or maybe the father of the child should be forced to provide instead of having the freedom to just drop her off causing extra psychologial harm on top off the hormones going crazy.

[Anonymous No.15179044]

>>15174230
>satan
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15179055]

>>15178849
It's not convenient if it's the truth. Being a human means having a certain amount of individuality and independence. Fetuses have none.

[Anonymous No.15179064]

>>15179055
>Being a human means having a certain amount of individuality and independence.
99.99% of people don't have that.

[Anonymous No.15179066]

>>15179042
>give me money or its ok for me to kill my baby
Why do pro-choicers do this so much? Just admit you are holding an innocent life at ransom you subhuman trash

[Anonymous No.15179078]

>>15179064
Even the more reason for it to be moral to shit out dead babies.

[Anonymous No.15179080]

>>15179066
It's a persons life being put at a significant work throughout the span of 9 months. 24/7. If they don't have an intention of being a mother or raising the kid I think they should be compensated for that work, unless you're some kind of a socialist and don't believe in money

[Anonymous No.15179081]

>>15179064
Not him but what are trying to say? That people are slaves to some societal force? That free will doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.15179091]

>>15179066
Do you think that giving birth and raising a human being until it's able to sustain itself should be done for free? Or maybe that it's some kind of duty women ought to do no matter what?

[Anonymous No.15179093]

>>15179080
If they don't have an intention of being a mother maybe they shouldn't have done our species reproductive ritual for some dopamine.

[Anonymous No.15179096]

>>15179081
The simple fact that you hardly have any individuality and independence. That probably does not make it OK to kill you, but if you insist you may argue the opposite.

[Anonymous No.15179104]

>>15179093
It takes 2 to tango, in order to ban abortion you'd need to ban sex without the sole purpose of recreation. And how to monitor that, have it only done in government facility or something, put chastity cages on men and women outside of them?

[Anonymous No.15179106]

>>15179091
Yes, it's parental obligation to do so (maybe help should be provided in some cases, but that's more of a charity). Don't create children if you don't want that.

[Anonymous No.15179117]

>>15179096
Aborting a fetus is amoral. Not good, not bad.

[Anonymous No.15179125]

>>15179104
>in order to ban abortion you'd need to ban sex without the sole purpose of recreation.
No.
>you have sex and nothing is conceived
No consequences then.
>you have sex and a child is conceived
Now you have responsibility.

[Anonymous No.15179129]

>>15179106
A fetus is not a child.

[Anonymous No.15179132]

>>15179117
>killing human is amoral. Not good, not bad.

[Anonymous No.15179136]

>>15179129
and you aren't human

[Anonymous No.15179139]

>>15179129
That's a separate question from "should be done for free".

[Anonymous No.15179141]

>>15179132
Prove an aborted fetus is a human

[Anonymous No.15179148]

>>15179141
Prove that dead corpse is a human.

[Anonymous No.15179167]

>>15179125
There are no 100% methods of stopping conception. I don't think it's right to take away liberty of 1 of the 2 parties involved because of a random chance of something going wrong.

[Anonymous No.15179179]

>>15179167
Then either avoid it completely, or use 99% methods and take responsibility in the 1% case.
>take away liberty of 1 of the 2 parties involved
2 of the 2.

[Anonymous No.15179218]

>>15179179
Men don't get pregnant, they don't go through the things women do during it so it's impossible for both parties to have their liberties taken from them.
Why would anyone need to take an insane responsibility and go through so much hardship just because of a random chance

[Anonymous No.15179226]

>>15179218
What is life?

[Anonymous No.15179229]

>>15179218
Trans men can get pregnant in some cases, as a progressive individual you should know that.

[Anonymous No.15179232]

>>15179148
It was.

[Anonymous No.15179234]

If it's inside your body you can do whatever you want with it. Keep it, get rid of it, it's your decision.

[Anonymous No.15179238]

>>15179218
Then don't have sex with men if you are a woman? Why would you please someone who gets no risk while you are risking a lot?

[Anonymous No.15179239]

>>15179218
There is a term for this: dead-beat dad. Now apply the same to women who don't take on the responsibility for their actions.

[Anonymous No.15179242]

>>15179232
That's the answer to your previous question.

[Anonymous No.15179252]

>>15179218
Even if we'll assume that parents should have no responsibility for the child after it is born, then men should pay at least half of the pregnancy costs to woman. Now obviously parents should care after a child even after birth, but that's symmetrical now.

[Anonymous No.15179257]

>>15179238
This takes rights from 1 gender but not other. I believe we should give the most possible freedom to both of them, but if you believe we should strip them instead, how would you enforce them on men

[Anonymous No.15179261]

>>15179234
>If it's inside your house you can do whatever you want with it. Keep it, get rid of it, it's your decision.
>If it's inside your society you can do whatever you want with it. Keep it, get rid of it, it's your decision.

[Anonymous No.15179269]

>>15179257
don't fuck dead beats

[Anonymous No.15179273]

>>15179257
>This takes rights from 1 gender but not other.
No, it does not take away any right from anyone. If you are woman, then you have the right to have sex (or to have no sex). If you are a man, then you have a right to have sex (or to have no sex).

[Anonymous No.15179274]

>>15179252
First of all they should pay the same cost as woman since they're equally responible. And second I just don't see how they could do it, since it's physicly impossible for them to do so. The womens body goes through so much during pregnancy(changes, pains, hormone imbalances) there is no real way for men to experiance something like that without injecting them with some sorts of chemicals and there is no real reason too, since at that point it just becomes physical punishment. Unless we consider pregnancy a punishment as well.

[Anonymous No.15179276]

>>15179273
>>15179257
This perfectly illustrates how retarded the concept of rights are when applied to men and women.

[Anonymous No.15179288]

>>15179274
>First of all they should pay the same cost as woman since they're equally responible.
That's what I wrote.
> And second I just don't see how they could do it,
Estimate the medical costs + costs of not working during that time.
>Unless we consider pregnancy a punishment as well.
No, it isn't. If you have a way to stop pregnancy without killing a fetus, do it.

[Anonymous No.15179299]

>>15179288
I don't think a money fine works in this case considering a woman has to go through excruciating pain and hormone-induced psychological alterations while the other one has to pay some change. Forcing a woman to carry a man's child against her will is frankly horrible and I could never approve of that

[Anonymous No.15179314]

>>15179299
>I don't think a money fine works in this case considering a woman has to go through excruciating pain and hormone-induced psychological alterations while the other one has to pay some change.
If a man will get pregnant, he will be forced to do that too.
>Forcing a woman to carry a man's child
I don't remember cases when a child was born out of sperm cell only (not that it's very relevant).
>against her will
Don't have sex then.
>is frankly horrible and I could never approve of that
Alas, killing an innocent human being is vastly more horrible.

[Anonymous No.15179340]

>>15179314
>If a man will get pregnant, he will be forced to do that too.
Sold me.

[Anonymous No.15179345]

>>15179340
Yes, it's pretty symmetrical, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15179356]

>>15179314
>If a man will get pregnant, he will be forced to do that too.
Explain to me how is the father going to be pregnant as well then, because I don't understand this point you're making
>Alas, killing an innocent human being is vastly more horrible.
they're embrios and fetuses, not human beings. The sperm in your balls is not a human being or everyone on this website would be killed for genocides.

[Anonymous No.15179377]

>>15179356
>Explain to me how is the father going to be pregnant as well then, because I don't understand this point you're making
The point is: you get pregnant, you carry the child to the term, no matter who you are.
>they're embrios and fetuses, not human beings.
They are babies, not human beings. They are adults, not human beings. They are elders, not human beings.
>The sperm in your balls is not a human being or everyone on this website would be killed for genocides.
No, it isn't, that's a basic biological fact. What genocides?

[Anonymous No.15179443]

What is a human? What classification exists that dictates something as 'human' and can that classification change?

[Anonymous No.15179450]

>>15179377
>The point is: you get pregnant, you carry the child to the term, no matter who you are.
Not they don't, and they shouldn't
>They are babies, not human beings. They are adults, not human beings. They are elders, not human beings.
During the first twelve weeks of the fetus's existence, the fetus is not alive. It does not move or respond to its environment (one of the seven characteristics of life) until at least the thirteenth week of pregnancy. To me, this completely invalidates the argument that an early abortion is murder, since the fetus hasn't actually displayed all of the characteristics of life.
https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/80547/excerpt/9780521680547_excerpt.pdf

[Anonymous No.15179459]

>>15174732
If humans are ever conscious, which there is no serious evidence to support, why would it not be immediate, in that the promise or potential of consciousness exists immediately at conception? This is certainly in line with naturalistic thought. In the same vein, why do we shudder to kill mentally retarded individuals or the physically infirm as a violation of their rights, when they possess either equivalent motor or mental function to that of a fetus or young child? Especially if conscious is inherent in individuals in that they are potential conscious upon conception?
The truth is, in my humble opinion, is that there is no rationale behind any of these things. Individuals rationalize based on their own perception and more often whimsy or desire and then personally reinforce and seek reinforcement for these "convictions". If there is a truth it is probably absolutely, and there is no truth then it is also absolute. But there can only be one. Your argument is just as contrived as those of a Catholic bent.

[Anonymous No.15179467]

>>15179299
Even taking a human life has a price, or have you never heard of insurance? I’m sure the disaster relief calculators can figure this one out too.

[Anonymous No.15179478]

>>15179450
>Not they don't, and they shouldn't
If you do, then you should. Just like if you birth a child you should raise it (or at least give it to someone who can raise it without killing it while giving up).
>the fetus is not alive
That claim is beyond nonsensical, because even a lot of non-human things are definitely alive.
> To me, this completely invalidates the argument that an early abortion is murder, since the fetus hasn't actually displayed all of the characteristics of life.
It is not murder, just like killing a child is not murder.

[Anonymous No.15179491]

>>15175507
>Besides, a fetus lacking awareness means that it won't feel bad being aborted, not necessarily that it's not a person.
>it's not murder so long as they don't know they're being murdered, because if they don't know they can't mind, and if they can't mind it's okay to kill them
>in other words, it's okay to kill sleeping people
Genius.

[Anonymous No.15179494]

>>15179478
They're not children, they're not human beings, and they are not alive
Before it is becomes a human it's just part of someone else's body, and we have no right to take away anyone's freedoms at. Women are free and will continue to decide these things for themselves, as you will and would want to.

[Anonymous No.15179511]

>>15179494
>and they are not alive
Once again, if you want to give not just wrong claims, but absurdly wrong claims, go on. But then I'll argue that you are not alive too, not even talking about your personhood.
>Women are free and will continue to decide these things for themselves, as you will and would want to.
Just like people will continue to murder other people in the future.

[Anonymous No.15179518]

>>15178796
The better choice would be to create a society where wanton relationships and sex are not rampant. There is no way to eliminate these things entirely of course, but much better to foster a social environment which encourages courtship and long term relationships between men and women for the end goal of producing happy, prosperous families.
This way, both the parents and child are more likely assured a greater amount of happiness and fulfillment overall.

[Anonymous No.15179524]

>>15179080
Getting pregnant and having a child isn't work any more than eating food and taking a shit is work you dumb whore.
>>15179091
Yes and yes.

[Anonymous No.15179531]

>>15179141
Prove that you're a human.

[Anonymous No.15179533]

>>15179167
>Liberty
Your liberty has not been taken away. You are just as free to have casual sex without being able to perform abortions. You just won't, because you will have to face the consequences.

And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.15179546]

>>15179274
First of all they should pay the same cost as child since they're equally responible. And second I just don't see how they could do it, since it's physicly impossible for them to do so. the childs body goes through so much during life (changes, pains, hormone imbalances) there is no real way for parents to experiance something like that without injecting them with some sorts of chemicals and there is no real reason too, since at that point it just becomes physical punishment. Unless we consider birth a punishment as well.

[Anonymous No.15179560]

>It's okay to kick out a starving homeless person who's taken refuge in your house
>But it's not okay to kick out a starving homeless person who's taken refuge in your uterus
Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.15179582]

>>15179560
You have to be retarded or mentally ill to think that these two things are the same.

Did you create the starving homeless person by a voluntary act of procreation? Are you, along with your sexual partner, solely and wholly responsible for the existence of the homeless person? Would kicking out the homeless person result in the end of their existence? Would it result in the end of their ability, potential or otherwise, to contribute to the people, nation, and species to which you belong?

[Anonymous No.15179583]

So none of you have any recommendations for books on the subject then? I'm just gonna fill in the gaps of this thread with my own shit and publish a gay-ass book about abortion for when the subject comes up, niggas can then just point to my book and go like, "read that faggot, we're talking about pussy not used up roast beef".

[Anonymous No.15179597]

>>15179560
>It's okay to kick out a starving homeless person who's taken refuge in your house
I believe that if you will kill a homeless person, in most countries you will suffer consequences. So even a weaker case is against you.

[Anonymous No.15179604]

>>15174305
>>15174323
>>15174349
You can kill retards for the same reason you can kill animals: they don't have the capacity for higher reason

[Anonymous No.15179606]

>>15179583
Who on Earth would write, much less read, an entire book about abortion? The issue can only be meaningfully explored within a much broader framework.

[Anonymous No.15179617]

>>15179604
Why does this reasoning not apply to all fetuses?

[Sage all fields No.15179632]

>>15174230
Remember when this used to be a literature board? Given the lack of appropriate moderation, can’t you guys go debate this on /pol/, the board meant to contain this kind of thing? You’re shitting up the board, killing actual threads and attracting the wrong kind of people here.

[Anonymous No.15179645]

>>15179632
We should do like /a/ and delete the offtop content.
Oh wait, they also delete pepes and wojaks.

[Anonymous No.15179651]

>>15179582
Abortion after rape is ok, then?

[Anonymous No.15179663]

>>15179651
Let's say that rapechild is born. Is it ok to kill her? What about the case when you can give her up only after a couple of months?

[Anonymous No.15179668]

>>15179651
The termination of pregnancy resulting from a genuine act of rape is fine in my book.

[Anonymous No.15179672]

I think we should just kill all the people in the world. Then, there won't be an issue.

[Anonymous No.15179674]

>>15179604
how the fuck is that a reason. please explain.

[Anonymous No.15179928]

>>15179606
I could easily grift 80 pages and let the internet run wild with it.

[Anonymous No.15179934]

>>15179928
How long would it take you to produce such a thing and make it good?

[Anonymous No.15179961]

>>15179672
Agreed. But it has to be everyone, no cheating.

[Anonymous No.15180094]

>>15179934
who said anything about good?

[Anonymous No.15180100]

>>15180094
Okay, scratch that, but how long would it take you to write it?

[Anonymous No.15180340]

>>15179009
>1.Abortion is only legal for married women. If she still wants it there is probably a strong reason

Isn't the strongest argument for abortion in the cases of rape? Wouldn't a women saying she does not want to enable that reproductive strategy be a decent argument?

[Anonymous No.15180811]

>>15180340
I'm not sure about the strongest argument, but that's certainly the one that holds the greatest currency in our societies.

[Anonymous No.15181093]

>>15174230
>what distinguishes abortion from amputation
>why is cosmetic amputation indefensible
>what is entailed in sex act consent
>how do personal rights and copyright apply to genomic data; when do they begin
Never mind Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and purpose built PP for exterminating the black population -- but by all means, take your direct gene editing slapdash RNA COVID vaccine from Bill Gates when he himself exercised moral exception for his own children from their boosters.

[Anonymous No.15181711]

>>15179524
>>15179546
>>15179511
All these arguments are invalid because they operate on a premise that when the women gets pregnant she has a "child" in her. It's not a child, it's a fetus, a cluster of cells no diffrent than any other tumor or cancer. And the only person who has the right to decide about what happens with it, is the person hosting it which are the people undergoing the pregnancy as they're the only ones who have to deal with what it causes.

[Anonymous No.15181715]

>>15181711
>It's not a child, it's a fetus, a cluster of cells no diffrent than any other tumor or cancer
Do tumors and cancers result in the production of another living human being, or do they result in the death of their host?

[Anonymous No.15181716]

>>15179009
>1.Abortion is only legal for married women. If she still wants it there is probably a strong reason.
This kind of thing shows that the whole anti-abortion movement is actually just about taking rights from women

[Anonymous No.15182029]

Abortion is cringe because it enables women to be massive whores and removes all the natural costs of their bad behavior. Incels always wonder how women became so shit, it's because they're never expected to face any consequences for their actions while the costs of said actions are always forwarded onto men, the stste, or their unborn child.

[Anonymous No.15182064]

>>15174500
Is it really eugenics though? It's not like retards or people who are severely deformed were ever going to breed anyways, they're already a genetic dead ends, so you're really just killing off social undesirables at that point.

[Anonymous No.15182076]

>>15181716
Of course we want to take rights away from women. Murder is not a right.

[Anonymous No.15182119]

>>15182029
This. Welfare gibs or abortion, either way its men (mostly white men) paying for it.

[Anonymous No.15182202]

>>15181711
Everything is just a cluster of cells if you phrase it like that.

[Anonymous No.15182682]

>>15180340
The man would seem to have less rights/claim to the child in that case, Which seems more relevant to thought experiment #3, so:

>>15180340
>>15181716
Perhaps not, but it seems like you jumped on your favorite hobbyhorse rather than considered the idea. They weren’t arguments for or against abortion, they were considerations for the meaning of abortion, pregnancy and parenthood. Could you explain how what you said relates specifically?

[Anonymous No.15182776]

>>15174230
So the moral of the story is that Satanists are fucking retarded? Not surprising at all.

[Anonymous No.15182783]

Did you notice the decrease of religious thread while this one was on