Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within a human-based morality-proper framework and system [FSERC] the moral standard and maxim is,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
However, this is merely a moral standard to be used as a guide for moral progress and with anything morality, moral maxims are not to be enforceable on any individual[s].

Any issues with the above?

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

1. I am not proposing humans abstains from sex.
What I had accused is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.
I am advocating humanity seek the approach to the best sexual experience [maybe 100 times better] while in control to avoid unplanned births.
This avoidance will include the need to cultivate [mental training] heavy mindfulness to avoid unplanned birth and very effective foolproof contraceptive measures with optimal sexual experiences.

............
2.
"If one fail to plan, one plan to fail" is applicable to morality.
To establish and execute a plan effectively, there is a need for an objective to start with.
The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' & therefrom "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

Any issues with the above?

It contains zero reasoning.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, the stupidity of VA's FSERC moral theory is laid bare, as follows.

'Within a human-based morality-proper framework and system [FSERC] the moral standard and maxim is,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
However, this is merely a moral standard to be used as a guide for moral progress and with anything morality, moral maxims are not to be enforceable on any individual[s].'

Here's another assertion.

Within a human-based morality-proper framework and system [FSERC] the moral standard and maxim is,
Abortion is Permissible, Period!

Point is, VA has absolutely nothing to justify the 'objectivity' of the first claim, and deny the 'objectivity' of the second claim. It's brute subjective fiat. Grotesque!

When you jump to condemn another's idea as stupid without detail argument, you are merely exposing your own stupidity.

As I had argued elsewhere, there is an inherent objective moral fact within ALL humans, i.e. the 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans'.
This objective moral facts is not an independent free floating "fact" but it is a fact that is contingent within a human-based moral framework and system; it exists only physically within a living human.

From the human-based moral framework and system and the above main 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' we derive the moral maxim and standard,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
If the above is not a categorical imperative, moral maxim, standard and universal, it implies the moral framework and system open up the possibility for the extermination of the human species in theory.
In constructing an effective moral framework and system, we should not construct one that is shoddy and has holes in it.
As such the quality of an effective moral framework and system must be idiot-proof and fool-proof.

The above moral maxim and standard are merely guides in practice and thus not enforceable on individual[s].
As in the past and at present psychological states of all humans, it is obvious, the above moral maxim and standard aiming at ZERO abortion will not be met by the majority where abortion will be necessary for various reasons [frivolous and rational].

If an effective moral framework and system is established based on the objective moral fact of ZERO abortion, the present state could be:
1. Target: Zero Abortion per year within the world
2. Actual: say, 50 million abortions done in 2024 within the world.

Now, if there are no knowledge of the moral fact re abortion and expectations, humanity will be indifferent to the number of abortions per year which could rise each year.

But if there is an established moral framework and system that is effective, then humanity will strive with extra effort to research into the root causes of abortion and nip the problem at the bud or roots instead of complaining and whining about it.

So what is the root cause of abortions?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons- ... ion-906589
From the above, it would appear most of the abortions are due to unplanned births.

Why there are unplanned births?
This is due to uncontrollable sexual lusts from both genders.

If uncontrollable sexual lusts from both parties is the root cause, rationally humanity must find ways to enable the majority of humans to modulate their uncontrollable sexual lusts so that they do not end up with unplanned births.
I believe this is possible but we must first recognize the facts [FSERC] and problem.

Besides uncontrollable sexual lusts, humanity must identify the root causes and take steps to control those cause that are controllable.

From my above argument, surely my proposal;
Within a human-based morality-proper framework and system [FSERC] the moral standard and maxim is, Abortion is Permissible, Period!
is rational whilst not practical as present, it is very feasible in the near future based on the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology we are riding on at present.

As such, if an effective moral framework and system is established, the future scenario could be
1. Target: Zero Abortion per year within the world
2. Actual abortions done within the world per year,
2024: 50 million
2030: 25 million
2050: 10 million
2060: 5 million
2075: 500,000
2100: 1000 due to medical and other critical reasons.

[FlashDangerpants]

My bad, it was actually better before he gave us his reasoning.

[Peter Holmes]

My bad, it was actually better before he gave us his reasoning.

1 Humans are programmed with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.
2 Therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong.
3 Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

[Atla]

2100: 1000 due to medical and other critical reasons.

The correct number is 3119. Ey ey. Your future-scenario-FSK sucks big time.

[Alexiev]

The entire argument is ridiculous. If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence? If it's all in the programming, why are there 50 million abortions?

If morals are based on this "programming", aren't humans programmed to have sex? Based on you notions of morality, why should they refrain?

We need not discuss the stock problem of whether fertilized eggs (or sperm, or unfertilized eggs) are "humans", because the rest of the argument is nonsensical.

[Immanuel Can]

My bad, it was actually better before he gave us his reasoning.

1 Humans are programmed with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.

"Are programmed" is merely an "is." It doesn't entail that the imagined "oughtness" is real.

[Immanuel Can]

If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence?

The logical conclusion would be, "Human beings do things they ought not to do."

And in fact, that's true. Whether or not abortion is one of them is not, however, answered by the given argument. I would say it is, and you would say it isn't: but not because of the OP's attempted reasoning, because that doesn't work.

[Alexiev]

If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence?

The logical conclusion would be, "Human beings do things they ought not to do."

And in fact, that's true. Whether or not abortion is one of them is not, however, answered by the given argument. I would say it is, and you would say it isn't: but not because of the OP's attempted reasoning, because that doesn't work.

'Programned" is the wrong word. Humans are not "programmed". They are taught. Certain desires (food, water, sex) may be innate, but even they are not programmed. A computer can do only what it is programmed to do; humans can abstain from food, drink, and sex, if they want to, like the Buddha or those IRA prisoners.

[Immanuel Can]

If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence?

The logical conclusion would be, "Human beings do things they ought not to do."

And in fact, that's true. Whether or not abortion is one of them is not, however, answered by the given argument. I would say it is, and you would say it isn't: but not because of the OP's attempted reasoning, because that doesn't work.

'Programned" is the wrong word. Humans are not "programmed". They are taught. Certain desires (food, water, sex) may be innate, but even they are not programmed. A computer can do only what it is programmed to do; humans can abstain from food, drink, and sex, if they want to, like the Buddha or those IRA prisoners.

Yep, that's another problem whith the objection. There isn't any such thing as a "programmed" human being. Although we do have some instincts and pre-set inclinations, it seems we can resist all of them, if the incentive is sufficient to do so.

[FlashDangerpants]

My bad, it was actually better before he gave us his reasoning.

1 Humans are programmed with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.
2 Therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong.
3 Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Weirdly, his "reasoning" in this instance is even more all over the place than usual. He's also gone with some threat of extinction to the human species as a reason for not aborting zygotes... but then he's identifying the cause of the issue as too much lustful fucking. So his plan to avoid the death of the species by overabortion(????) is to promote the death of the species through sexual abstinence(¿¿¿).

[accelafine]

A depiction of utopia for the resident zygote-worshipping (but child-hating) males: