So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[farran34]

? 21% Inadequate finances
? 21% Not ready for responsibility
? 16% Woman??s life would be changed too much
? 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
? 11% Too young and/or immature

All the above reasons are why these women shouldn''t get pregnant in the first place ^. Make Abortion legal so that degenerates like the "immature" don''t continue breeding.

www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/ ... n-america/

To me this is more in support of why we shouldn''t legalize abortion. I agree with you that women who are in the positions of these women should not be getting pregnant. This is the real issue however, that they should not be getting pregnant. If we are allowing the killing of a member of the human race solely because of reasons such as the ones listed above then we have a problem. I do not see how not feeling one is ready for responsibility is an adequate reason to abort their fetus.

You are arguing we should legalize abortion not because of the reasons listed in the list, but because you don''t want these "immature" people to keep breeding. If we want to argue that abortion should be legal to keep these immature people from breeding, then we are saying immature people should abort their fetuses. Wouldn''t it make more sense for immature people to just put their babies for adoption and focus on programs that educate and promote them from getting pregnant in the future? I also do not think this addresses the moral issue of killing a member of the human race. If the only focus is on keeping the immature people from breeding, then a law forcing abortion on all people deemed immature by the government would seem fine. For surely there are people who want to keep their baby yet are much more immature then some who would rather abort it.

[noissance]

? 21% Inadequate finances
? 21% Not ready for responsibility
? 16% Woman??s life would be changed too much
? 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
? 11% Too young and/or immature

All the above reasons are why these women shouldnt get pregnant in the first place ^. Make Abortion legal so that degenerates like the "immature" dont continue breeding.

www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/ ... n-america/

To me this is more in support of why we shouldnt legalize abortion. I agree with you that women who are in the positions of these women should not be getting pregnant. This is the real issue however, that they should not be getting pregnant. If we are allowing the killing of a member of the human race solely because of reasons such as the ones listed above then we have a problem. I do not see how not feeling one is ready for responsibility is an adequate reason to abort their fetus.

You are arguing we should legalize abortion not because of the reasons listed in the list, but because you dont want these "immature" people to keep breeding. If we want to argue that abortion should be legal to keep these immature people from breeding, then we are saying immature people should abort their fetuses. Wouldnt it make more sense for immature people to just put their babies for adoption and focus on programs that educate and promote them from getting pregnant in the future? I also do not think this addresses the moral issue of killing a member of the human race. If the only focus is on keeping the immature people from breeding, then a law forcing abortion on all people deemed immature by the government would seem fine. For surely there are people who want to keep their baby yet are much more immature then some who would rather abort it.

The problem with these degenerates is that they dont even bother giving the baby up for adoption, and some even leave the babies by dumpsters (Ive seen 2 cases personally). Also, i think it is more humane to spare a child a life of suffering due to shitty parents, rather than giving it a chance to suffer. There are rare cases where people rise from childhood hunger/poverty, and those are rare. The programs you mentioned are those of planned parenthood agencies, which the bible belt flat-earthers flame to death.

[farran34]

To me this is more in support of why we shouldnt legalize abortion. I agree with you that women who are in the positions of these women should not be getting pregnant. This is the real issue however, that they should not be getting pregnant. If we are allowing the killing of a member of the human race solely because of reasons such as the ones listed above then we have a problem. I do not see how not feeling one is ready for responsibility is an adequate reason to abort their fetus.

You are arguing we should legalize abortion not because of the reasons listed in the list, but because you dont want these "immature" people to keep breeding. If we want to argue that abortion should be legal to keep these immature people from breeding, then we are saying immature people should abort their fetuses. Wouldnt it make more sense for immature people to just put their babies for adoption and focus on programs that educate and promote them from getting pregnant in the future? I also do not think this addresses the moral issue of killing a member of the human race. If the only focus is on keeping the immature people from breeding, then a law forcing abortion on all people deemed immature by the government would seem fine. For surely there are people who want to keep their baby yet are much more immature then some who would rather abort it.

The problem with these degenerates is that they dont even bother giving the baby up for adoption, and some even leave the babies by dumpsters (Ive seen 2 cases personally). Also, i think it is more humane to spare a child a life of suffering due to shitty parents, rather than giving it a chance to suffer. There are rare cases where people rise from childhood hunger/poverty, and those are rare. The programs you mentioned are those of planned parenthood agencies, which the bible belt flat-earthers flame to death.

I believe if abortion was made illegal, more would be willing to give their baby up for adoption. Why would an immature person wish the go through child-birth just to give up their baby for adoption. If they are forced to either birth the baby however, more would be willing to give them up for adoption if they do not want to keep the baby. I think for incredible circumstances such as extreme poverty or lack of ability to parent, perhaps the government should just not allow the parents to keep their children.

I understand your argument for sparing a child a life of suffering, but I feel it is still lacking. While many people do not rise from childhood hunger/poverty, I do not think the majority of them would consider their lives worthless. I also do not think we should be able to choose for them whether or not they have the right to live. I think the potential for a promising life is strong enough to argue that we have no right to take their life away from them.

[noissance]

The problem with these degenerates is that they dont even bother giving the baby up for adoption, and some even leave the babies by dumpsters (Ive seen 2 cases personally). Also, i think it is more humane to spare a child a life of suffering due to shitty parents, rather than giving it a chance to suffer. There are rare cases where people rise from childhood hunger/poverty, and those are rare. The programs you mentioned are those of planned parenthood agencies, which the bible belt flat-earthers flame to death.

I believe if abortion was made illegal, more would be willing to give their baby up for adoption. Why would an immature person wish the go through child-birth just to give up their baby for adoption. If they are forced to either birth the baby however, more would be willing to give them up for adoption if they do not want to keep the baby. I think for incredible circumstances such as extreme poverty or lack of ability to parent, perhaps the government should just not allow the parents to keep their children.

I understand your argument for sparing a child a life of suffering, but I feel it is still lacking. While many people do not rise from childhood hunger/poverty, I do not think the majority of them would consider their lives worthless. I also do not think we should be able to choose for them whether or not they have the right to live. I think the potential for a promising life is strong enough to argue that we have no right to take their life away from them.

It is not you (or society) who is taking away the life of the child, it is the mother whose womb it is in, and the doctor who performs the procedure or prescribes drugs. I suppose where we differ is that i am a utilitarian and you are not.

[farran34]

I believe if abortion was made illegal, more would be willing to give their baby up for adoption. Why would an immature person wish the go through child-birth just to give up their baby for adoption. If they are forced to either birth the baby however, more would be willing to give them up for adoption if they do not want to keep the baby. I think for incredible circumstances such as extreme poverty or lack of ability to parent, perhaps the government should just not allow the parents to keep their children.?

I understand your argument for sparing a child a life of suffering, but I feel it is still lacking. While many people do not rise from childhood hunger/poverty, I do not think the majority of them would consider their lives worthless. I also do not think we should be able to choose for them whether or not they have the right to live. I think the potential for a promising life is strong enough to argue that we have no right to take their life away from them.?

It is not you (or society) who is taking away the life of the child, it is the mother whose womb it is in, and the doctor who performs the procedure or prescribes drugs. I suppose where we differ is that i am a utilitarian and you are not.

I am not sure what your point is with the distinction between the mother/doctor vs society taking the life away. We consider innocent murder to be wrong even though it is the murderer taking the life away and not society.

I agree with you the problem is you are utilitarian and I am not. I think there are some major flaws with utilitarianism, but I feel it is too big/off topic to discuss.

[noissance]

Farran, i think that as humans, we are selfish, and that any act of "selflessness" or "caring for distant strangers" is just a fallacy that applies to psychopaths who want to be accepted by others (politicians mostly). There is no such thing as "humane" or "inhumane, " and the only things that exist are what you want to exist. For example: "domesticated pet abuse" vs. child abuse, which would matter more to you? FEMA would answer animal abuse, but most people would answer "don't kick the baby!." I think we have NO business infringing on OTHER'S personal choices, particularly THEIR OWN BODIES.

[farran34]

I don't understand, you were just arguing for utilitarianism, and now you are arguing for subjective morality?

[noissance]

My mistake, i over-estimated your ability to infer from what i wrote.

From utilitarianism: human population growth will cause problems for people as they compete for resources -> control population growth by choice rather than mandate.

Subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition.

And finally, Right to privacy: guys dont have vaginas or a uterus, so they cant really decide what a woman does with her body, only request them. Anyone who does otherwise is nothing but a prick that needs to sod off.

[farran34]

My mistake, i over-estimated your ability to infer from what i wrote.

From utilitarianism: human population growth will cause problems for people as they compete for resources ->' control population growth by choice rather than mandate.

Subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition.

And finally, Right to privacy: guys dont have vaginas or a uterus, so they cant really decide what a woman does with her body, only request them. Anyone who does otherwise is nothing but a prick that needs to sod off.

First, no reason to insult me, this does not add to the debate at all. Also you did appear to infer subjective morality (whether it was by accident or bad writing), "saying the only things that exist are what you want to exist" and your example of kicking the baby.

From utilitarianism your viewpoint seems to make sense. Again, I reject utilitarianism, but that is a different discussion. I have no clue what you mean by "subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition." Subjective morality means ultimately there is no right or wrong, which means the statement abortion being right or wrong doesn''t even make sense.

Finally, there is no such thing as a right to privacy in utilitarianism. If you hold utilitarianism as your ethical standpoint, no one has individual rights, it is all about the total amount of happiness produced. If you are a true utilitarian, you will agree with this, which completely gets rid of your right to privacy argument.

[momuuu]

Isnt a possible argument for abortian that getting a child at the age of 16 is gonna severely reduce your happiness both shirt and long term (via making it borderline impossible to get additional education)?

That might be one way of looking at it. However, who is to say that a 16-year-old might not want a child??My twice-great-grandfather was fighting in the American Civil War as a cavalry trooper at the age of 16, was discharged at 18, and then started a family?with his 16-year-old wife the next year. My great-grandmother was married with a baby?at 14 and was proud and happy to be the woman of her own household at that age. I was in college when I enlisted in the?US Army at 17. Perhaps, nowadays, society is trying to?keep its?children "children" too long.

I watched a little bit of 16 and pregnant and teen mom and decided you most likely do not want a child at 16. Im not sure Id have been able to finish high school or study if I had had a child at my 16th.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Competing for resources is a bad thing. We should exterminate all people so that there will be no competition left. A world without evil is the best of all possible worlds.

[Metis]

Competing for resources is a bad thing. We should exterminate all people so that there will be no competition left. A world without evil is the best of all possible worlds.

All life competes for resources, without exception. Therefore, by your logic all life should be exterminated.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Competing for resources is a bad thing. We should exterminate all people so that there will be no competition left. A world without evil is the best of all possible worlds.

All life competes for resources, without exception. Therefore, by your logic all life should be exterminated.

If there was no life there would be no suffering, so yes, it would be better if all life was exterminated.

Its a good thing I already dont have a life myself or else Id be suffering on a daily basis.

[gibson]

That might be one way of looking at it. However, who is to say that a 16-year-old might not want a child??My twice-great-grandfather was fighting in the American Civil War as a cavalry trooper at the age of 16, was discharged at 18, and then started a family?with his 16-year-old wife the next year. My great-grandmother was married with a baby?at 14 and was proud and happy to be the woman of her own household at that age. I was in college when I enlisted in the?US Army at 17. Perhaps, nowadays, society is trying to?keep its?children "children" too long.

I watched a little bit of 16 and pregnant and teen mom and decided you most likely do not want a child at 16. Im not sure Id have been able to finish high school or study if I had had a child at my 16th.

Most people dont want a baby at 16 and it wouldnt be good for them, which is why a young boyfriend and girlfriend shouldnt put themselves in the position where the girl might get pregnant...... Thats like rule #1,dont have unprotected sex lol

[noissance]

My mistake, i over-estimated your ability to infer from what i wrote.

From utilitarianism: human population growth will cause problems for people as they compete for resources -> control population growth by choice rather than mandate.

Subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition.

And finally, Right to privacy: guys dont have vaginas or a uterus, so they cant really decide what a woman does with her body, only request them. Anyone who does otherwise is nothing but a prick that needs to sod off.

First, no reason to insult me, this does not add to the debate at all. Also you did appear to infer subjective morality (whether it was by accident or bad writing), "saying the only things that exist are what you want to exist" and your example of kicking the baby.

From utilitarianism your viewpoint seems to make sense. Again, I reject utilitarianism, but that is a different discussion. I have no clue what you mean by "subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition." Subjective morality means ultimately there is no right or wrong, which means the statement abortion being right or wrong doesnt even make sense.?

Finally, there is no such thing as a right to privacy in utilitarianism. If you hold utilitarianism as ?your ethical standpoint, no one has individual rights, it is all about the total amount of happiness produced. If you are a true utilitarian, you will agree with this, which completely gets rid of your right to privacy argument.?

Whoops, I didnt finish that sentence. What I typed was that because morality is entirely subjective, people can either spare a child of growing up being unwanted or not loved along with economic disadvantages, which means they will suffer in their youth. The second option of course is to give the child up for adoption and hope that the one who takes the child is a decent human being, but I have seen many who adopt kids for the $ they get for taking the kid in. I would rather be homeless than be adopted by these greedy leeches.

I would also argue that privacy is utilitarian in nature. If there was no right to privacy, then there would be more conflicts of interest among people. These conflicts would then grow to undermine the all of us and eat away at order. I am also a realist, not an idealist' besides, it will be nigh impossible to be everyones policeman.

[farran34]

First, no reason to insult me, this does not add to the debate at all. Also you did appear to infer subjective morality (whether it was by accident or bad writing), "saying the only things that exist are what you want to exist" and your example of kicking the baby.

From utilitarianism your viewpoint seems to make sense. Again, I reject utilitarianism, but that is a different discussion. I have no clue what you mean by "subjective morality: sparing a life of suffering under a bad familial condition." Subjective morality means ultimately there is no right or wrong, which means the statement abortion being right or wrong doesnt even make sense.

Finally, there is no such thing as a right to privacy in utilitarianism. If you hold utilitarianism as your ethical standpoint, no one has individual rights, it is all about the total amount of happiness produced. If you are a true utilitarian, you will agree with this, which completely gets rid of your right to privacy argument.

Whoops, I didnt finish that sentence. What I typed was that because morality is entirely subjective, people can either spare a child of growing up being unwanted or not loved along with economic disadvantages, which means they will suffer in their youth. The second option of course is to give the child up for adoption and hope that the one who takes the child is a decent human being, but I have seen many who adopt kids for the $ they get for taking the kid in. I would rather be homeless than be adopted by these greedy leeches.

I would also argue that privacy is utilitarian in nature. If there was no right to privacy, then there would be more conflicts of interest among people. These conflicts would then grow to undermine the all of us and eat away at order. I am also a realist, not an idealist' besides, it will be nigh impossible to be everyones policeman.

There is a problem, you cannot argue both for subjective morality and utilitarianism. They are just radically different theories, one stating there is objectively right and wrong actions, while the other states there is not such a thing as a right or wrong action. If you argue from subjective morality then your utilitarian arguments fall apart.

Privacy unfortunately is not in the nature of utilitarianism. It would be moral to infringe on someones right to privacy if it brings greater happiness. Even torturing an innocent child would be a moral act if it brought about greater happiness than the sadness it would bring. Perhaps a situation like this would never occur, but it is still a counter example to utilitarianism having personal rights in theory. You may be able to derive a general rule of privacy from utilitarianism because that rule would create more happiness, but the rule itself is not apart of utilitarianism.

This means if you wish to keep arguing for utilitarianism you need to drop the argument that morality is entirely subjective, and the argument we should legalize abortion for women to have abortions because of a right to privacy. (You need to argue that abortion should be legal because it causes a greater amount of happiness for women, whether it be through that right to privacy, or another means).

[noissance]

:redflag: Did you even bother reading what I said? Pure theorists have no place In the real world. You can argue for eternity, but that wont change the fact that people are BREEDING.

Again, leave this topic to sane, rational women to argue, and not bible belters/flat earthers/other relegion brainwashed people.

[farran34]

Being a realist does not mean you can argue both subjective morality and utilitarianism. They are just different theories plain and simple, you apparently cannot understand this. I am not a pure theorist by the way, but I would not consider myself to necessarily be a consequentialist. I agree there is a big problem with the amount of underprivileged people who are breeding, but this does not mean that I support the action of killing a human being.

[noissance]

Being a realist does not mean you can argue both subjective morality and utilitarianism. They are just different theories plain and simple, you apparently cannot understand this. I am not a pure theorist by the way, but I would not consider myself to necessarily be a consequentialist. I agree there is a big problem with the amount of underprivileged people who are breeding, but this does not mean that I support the action of killing a human being.

Thanks for the input, bigbird. Look forward to seeing you at the museum.

[Metis]

dont have unprotected sex

From the stats as to why most women have abortions, its clear that the vast majority of abortions are performed as a method of a posteriori birth control. Those who immediately claim that abortion should be legal and is moral because of incidents of "rape or incest" or to "preserve the life of the mother" are just blowing smoke. Rape or incest accounts for fewer than 1% of abortions and abortion to preserve the life of the mother occurs so infrequently as to not even be listed in the reasons for abortion by even pro-choice websites. I worked in medicine for a couple of decades and I never heard of it being done once. In the UK, a report to Parliament indicated that only 0.002 percent of abortions were performed to preserve the health or life of the mother (143 out of 6.4 million).

[farran34]

Being a realist does not mean you can argue both subjective morality and utilitarianism. They are just different theories plain and simple, you apparently cannot understand this. I am not a pure theorist by the way, but I would not consider myself to necessarily be a consequentialist. I agree there is a big problem with the amount of underprivileged people who are breeding, but this does not mean that I support the action of killing a human being.

Thanks for the input, bigbird. Look forward to seeing you at the museum.

Haha, I love when people start insulting me in an argument, this just means they have no good response. Maybe you shouldnt argue in ethics if you cannot understand the difference between subjective morality and utilitarianism.

[noissance]

And haha have fun getting a job with a degree in ethics in lets say, starbucks?

My solution to this is: make men sterile after a certain age.

[gibson]

dont have unprotected sex

From the stats as to why most women have abortions, its clear that the vast majority of abortions are performed as?a method of?a posteriori birth control. Those who?immediately claim that abortion should be legal and is moral because of?incidents of "rape or incest" or to "preserve the life of the mother" are just blowing smoke. Rape or incest accounts for fewer than 1% of abortions and abortion to?preserve the life of the mother?occurs so infrequently as to not even be listed in the reasons for abortion by even pro-choice websites. I worked in medicine for a couple of decades and I never heard of it being done once. In the UK a report to Parliament indicated that it was done in only 0.006 percent of procedures.

And this is why I believe abortion is ultimately a scape goat for irresponsible action. Its not actually about womens rights, its that people want to behave irresponsibly and than have an easy out. It really boggles my mind because abortions are expensive,while you can buy a condom for 50 cents at any second rate gas station or a plan b or day after pill for a few bucks at any large chain supermarket....

[farran34]

And haha have fun getting a job with a degree in ethics in lets say, starbucks?

My solution to this is: make men sterile after a certain age.

Well I actually study business, so I doubt I will be working at starbucks . I see you have given up on your argument, since you have no answer to how you can both argue for utilitarianism and subjective morality, so I guess we are done.

[arriah]

And haha have fun getting a job with a degree in ethics in lets say, starbucks?

My solution to this is: make men sterile after a certain age.

Well I actually study business, so I doubt I will be working at starbucks . I see you have given up on your argument, since you have no answer to how you can both argue for utilitarianism and subjective morality, so I guess we are done.?

Instead of wasting everyone elses time expecting them to spend hours re-discussing the topic maybe you should go back and read the thread.

For cases that involve rape I believe abortion can be justified. Other than that its more or less the result of irresponsible life decisions and is nothing more than murder. Curious to know the rate that abortions occur among rape victims compared to the rates amongst pregnant teenagers as a result of irresponsible decisions.

If you REALLY thought that abortion was murder you would not be ok with it just because someone was raped.

@farran you can live in a fantasy world if you want, but here in the real world, most children in the system are not adopted and instead will live a shitty life of abuse and being passed around between families. Unwanted children will be more likely to face neglect (especially amongst poor) and abuse.

-A lot of abortions happen because poor women dont have access to birth control or proper education about it and can not afford to raise a child or even to give birth really (hospitals are expensive you know)

-On top of that, the fools saying that women getting abortions are dodging responsibility must not know enough about contraception to know that none of it is foolproof. There is always a failure rate. Also, abortion IS taking responsibility. Its preventing a life for a child when you know you cant give it proper support and love.

-Illegal abortion is going to affect colored people more since they are stuck in a cycle of systemic oppression and poverty.

-Lets not erase women coming from relationships of domestic violence and abuse. They have their own myriad of reasons for abortion.

-obviously, women who are raped should not be forced to birth the child of their attacker.

- with high risk pregnancies the woman should definitely be allowed to decide if she wants to risk her life and well being even more than she already is (pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion)

- children that get pregnant through "consensual" sex is a no brainer. Children are legally not held responsible for most things.

-making abortion illegal is not going to stop abortion. In fact, making it illegal has not really decreased the rate in the past but instead has driven many women to get illegal and unsafe abortions in unsanitary conditions or even try to induce miscarriage on their own, some even resorting in self harm out of desperation.

Im sure there are many more reasons. These are a few off the top of my head.

Honestly, anyone who knows anything about social class situations, contraception (lots of ignorance in this thread here), pregnancy, and life in general should realize that abortion has a place in society, despite your feels or your distaste for women.