Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:No one is FORCED to have an abortion, silly.

chaz wyman wrote:

what is the morally significant difference here between a child just before the child is born and the same child right after birth

If you don't know that, then you have lost the plot.

Kayla wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:No one is FORCED to have an abortion, silly.

would strongly pressured be better

Yes, like some are strongly pressured to keep the child. Which is probably more common.

e.g. if you dont have an abortion you are out of the house you slut

e.g. If you have an abortion you will be damned in hell and regret it forever.

chaz wyman wrote:

what is the morally significant difference here between a child just before the child is born and the same child right after birth

If you don't know that, then you have lost the plot.

well why dont you tell me

this is a philosophy form

saying 'its obvious does not cut it here

The Voice of Time wrote:My problem with abortion is simply the question: "if the life of an unborn child is judged rightful-of-life by its parents, then, can we say that it's the parents who are the rightful judges of an unborn child's life and death?" logically the answer is "yes", but more forward; how does one avoid setting precedences for killing those who are not desired by their makers? History is after all full of people who kills "products" of themselves, be it students of teachers, followers of leaders, workers of bosses, who do not meet the requirements necessary to be worthy of life, namely; that they are a burden and therefore undeserving. How can one say that an unborn child is not close in idea to a birthed human being? Logically they are separate by definition, but human brains are not always logical, and to a child which hears that her could-be-sister was killed because her parents didn't have enough money, or were too busy studying, or were too young, could easily associate that same intentional killing, in other words murder, with a range of dark fantasies that brings chills up the bones of even every adult; about being robbed the right to live.

chaz wyman wrote:
As 'parents' are already the arbiters of a potential life, in that they can choose to have sex or not. Abortion is nothing more than an extension of this right into the pregnancy - a right that is maintained by the necessity of the foetus to enjoy the nurture of the womb until birth. The rights of such an environment can only be bestowed on the foetus by the gestatory woman carrying the foetus.
The only question remains - by what right can society demand that she carries a foetus against her will?

The Voice of Time wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
As 'parents' are already the arbiters of a potential life, in that they can choose to have sex or not. Abortion is nothing more than an extension of this right into the pregnancy - a right that is maintained by the necessity of the foetus to enjoy the nurture of the womb until birth. The rights of such an environment can only be bestowed on the foetus by the gestatory woman carrying the foetus.
The only question remains - by what right can society demand that she carries a foetus against her will?

A similar question could be said: why should we avoid people who wants to die from killing themselves?

Do you mean why should we prevent people from killing themselves?

A normal

(NORMAL??? now you are taking the piss!)

answer to this question is that, without stating a number I'd say many people do not *want* to kill themselves, they want to end the things which leads them to it, but finds only comfort in death and endings. Many people who once tried to kill themselves, and with aid probably would, still lives today and some of them are full of life and joy, although a number unbeknown to me do not and still suffer. But who are you to tell which one deserves to die because they in the moment want to and who not? Because doing nothing is also doing. You judge people, and you can say: "I don't care about you so go die if you want to", but is that really the kind of relationship you want with people?

Compared with the above you could ask the question: what if she would change her opinion upon birth? Then there's no return back. Death is death. Society has the right to save people from doing very stupid choices based upon arguments short-sighted and that will come back at them in the aftermath with high probabilities.

I don't see that as a natural right.
If someone wants to kill themselves or take drugs, then it is up to them. The only proviso is that they maintain their responsibilities that they have already agreed to.
Thus if they are parents then they have a responsibility to their children.
Society also has taken upon themselves the right to warn people about dangers, but not prevent them from doing a dangerous thing.



The resolve to this dilemma is usually a middle-way where doctors and stuff have the final saying. Probably doctors are too often too busy to take proper notice of the weight of their choice and probably too biased to make it, but that is the present solution here where I come from.

I don't think it is right to let this decision fall on the shoulders of doctors alone; though they actually make this decision every day.


Society can demand that people respect society's member. And a member generating a new member does not automatically have to be the master of life and death to that member. For a political philosopher, like Plato, a question would probably pop as such: Who are to be considered members of society and who not?

You and I would probably have ended up in the slave pit, with Plato having the power of life and death over both of us.

If you were crippled, would you like somebody to just kill you because they don't have the time to do something for you?

That is such a confused question. If the person did not have time to do something for me then they would not have the time to kill me. If no one had the time or the inclination to help then I hope they would at least do that simple thing and kill me if I asked.

I like my life, and as such I prefer to preserve it, and people around me who care about me gives me the opportunity to do that even if I were to crash my car and turn permanently paralytic from toes to neck (actually that would give me a lot of time to philosophize, so I would still find a meaning in life. Probably though I'd have to discover some extremely short sentences or my "yes" and "no"-ing with my eyes would take extremely long time to produce full texts).

Hopefully I would also find enough to do for my life to be liveable, but it is not beyond my imagination that I might reach a point when I wanted to end it all.
When I was treated for cancer a few years ago, I had reached a point where I was in extreme pain from radiation burns to my throat; the chemotherapy mean that I was vomiting acid all over the burns; I had lost 33 lbs in weight due to the treatment; I was weak; I didn't think I was gonna make it; I felt like shit and had done so for some weeks; my heartbeat was down to 40bbm; I was feeble and if I had had a button to press to swallow me down to hell I might have pressed it.
So I know what that sort of despair feels like, and I would not appreciate 'society' telling me what I could and could not do.

The Voice of Time wrote:You have to be kidding me about that stuff of nothing having time to kill you when not having time to take care of you. Taking care of you is a responsibility for life. Killing you is a once-trip to the crematory.

Eh? how many people love me enough that would go through with killing me?? There are always going to be more people who love me enough to look after me, than people who would be willing to kill me!

As for you saying that people are allowed to do stupid things if they want to, then I'd have to ask: how does that go for kids?
No, obviously kids need some protection until they grow up, but after that stoping people from being stupid is an infringement on their personal liberty.
At what age for instance is a man or woman to be considered in their full right to destroy their own lives and, given that they are in a social context, probably the lives of a lot of other people who depend upon stuff like their expertise, their love and caring, their moments of dedication to making other people's life a little bit better.

As you are able to be tried for a criminal offence at the age of 10, then I don't see why that would not be a fair age.
However I think this low age is a legal anomaly and would suggest 15 as a more reasonable age.



What if the favourite person of a village, the person who everybody loves, the person who is the single skilled doctor, the single skilled leader, the single skilled diplomat and the only one with experience of the outside world and therefore how to deal with it; what if this person suddenly experienced a huge depression because of the loss of his wife and for that reason went unmoving, aggressive and with constant thought of dying and killing himself.

Have you got a question?
If he wants to kill himself then that is his decision. I would not stop anyone from trying to talk him out of it. But I think it would be wrong to physically restrain him against his will.


And this I note you is NOT a case of fantasy, perhaps the part of the village, but it is a known case that deep grievances in important or leading people can turn the world of those critically depending on those people upside down, that is; also into misery.

I'm looking for a point to this hypothetical.

What if you had a doctor in town, he was the only one, and suddenly one day he said: "I'm too depressed to do you any good today, and probably for the next few months", how would that affect the rest?

Like I already said, if he had a contractual obligation then it is his duty to fulfil that obligation.
But when his current contract ended , he would be free to do with his life what he will.
What would you do? Would you chain him to the desk and tie his hands to stop him killing himself?


People ARE dependant on each other and all they do DOES affect each other for better and worse, and just saying that "do whatever the fuck you want to yourself because I don't care if it puts the entire town into misery" is just simply cruel, if not directly advocating a dystopia of a society where all hurtful behaviour is accepted solely on the grounds that it is physically only affecting the person him- or herself.

You are so wrong it is beyond my ken.
Most people in fact do follow a sense of duty, but it is only of any value when that duty is fulfilled voluntarily.
There is absolutely no scope whatever for imposing a duty on a person.
So we are back to square one. That doctor guy can take a walk, or can blow his brains out - it is his decision and not yours.

The Voice of Time wrote:Well if he wants to hurt me by doing nothing as I suffer, let's say from a critical wound (as most appointments with the doctor are for rather minor issues), then by all means he is evil and must be dealt with.

Advocating such extreme forms of unbound existence is an advocation of nihilism, and nihilism in its turn a threat and enemy of all living things. The doctor as a whole may not be my enemy, but he is my enemy at the point he stares at my dying self and does nothing, and I would have to rid him off such hostility to me if I ever was to appreciate my own life.

That is rubbish. The doctor has the freedom to do his duty.
What is your solution to a state of affairs when he wants to leave? Shoot him? Enslave him?

Some obligations of mutual understanding in society, especially those highly critical to the life and well-being of other humans, must, given that you value these things, be enforced when threatened, and if a person tries to relieve him- or herself of such a responsibility, that person is a threat.

I'm not arguing against any of that. I am arguing for voluntarism.

Of course, there are many ways of looking upon this in context. For instance: if my misery is a condition for somebody else's happiness, that is mutual conflict of interests, but if I can do something about my life which does not threaten that person and which will lead me my own happiness, then it does not make sense to destroy that persons happiness.

By my experience, good people always try something else, a lot of something else, before they give up and accept the separation of people where one or more is notably dependant on the other and the separation will lead to great damage for the dependant. However, such separates are by those people I call good not acceptable in highly critical situations, because the death of one person is usually considered more severe than the other persons happiness. The argument for this is that a person can at any time return to happiness, whereas death is irreversible.

tbieter wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

AustinGJones wrote:Personally I think abortion should be legal under extreme circumstances like rape or if the mother is at a risk of death giving birth. I do not believe it should be open publicly to anyone ( although the way our society in America is right now i don't think most people should be raising children ). To me the problem of abortion isn't whether to allow it or not, but abortion itself. It is a social problem, there is a reason teenagers are having kids. I know its a vague correlation to make but with shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore on TV, it doesn't seem to be influencing our generation well. We should concentrate on why people want abortions, not whether they are justified. The problem isn't if it is morale or not, the problem is abortion itself. As of right now it should be legal and stay that way. we need to fix the social problems causing abortion to even be worried about.

Why is there an assumption in your writing that abortion is a problem and that abortion is undesirable?
Obviously contraception would be preferable, and timely abortion a necessary part of any legal framework, but the law cannot so easily be adjusted to your personal version of "extreme'. In a society that champions the freedom of the individual and self reliance, one persons 'extreme' is not the same as another's
The reason teenage kids are having abortions is the same as it has always been; they have become pregnant before they are capable of looking after a child; they become pregnant because they have sex.
What do you mean the 'problem is the abortion itself'?
There have always been abortions, and not just amongst teenagers. Where the practice has been made illegal it has led to a situation where dangerous and unlicensed illegal abortions have taken place with many tragedies.
Legal abortions are an unfortunate but necessary part of our society. Though it is more desirable that there were no unwanted pregnancies; what is worse is the situation where women suffer at the hands of illegal practitioners or keep an unwanted child they are not capable of rearing.

(Do you favor infanticide? Voluntary abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being. Infanticide is the intentional killing of a young born human being. A widespread practice of infanticide occurs in the US. The mother gives birth, then throws the baby in a dumpster or in the river. In response, states have passed laws granting the mother immunity if she takes the living child to a hospital. Minnesota's law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... &year=2011 The law is ineffectual. A couple of years ago, in a six month period four bodies of dead newborn infants were found in Minnesota. If the status of being unwanted by the mother justifies abortion, why doesn't it justify infanticide?

tbieter wrote: If the status of being unwanted by the mother justifies abortion, why doesn't it justify infanticide?

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote: If the status of being unwanted by the mother justifies abortion, why doesn't it justify infanticide?

For the same reason that contraception is not genocide. It is called drawing a distinction.

a Foetus is not a child.

artisticsolution wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote: If the status of being unwanted by the mother justifies abortion, why doesn't it justify infanticide?

For the same reason that contraception is not genocide. It is called drawing a distinction.

a Foetus is not a child.

I agree with Chaz, however, I must say that I am understanding the right to lifer's point of view more than I have in the past. I think there is a cut off period in gestation where the fetus does become a life. I don't think we can call a bunch of cells "life" but I think a fetus which is over 30 weeks gestation can certainly be called " life."

The main distinction between justifying abortion vs. infanticide boils down to the difference between breathing as a single individual vs. depending on a host body in order to live. I think forcing women to have a baby borderlines on slavery. In other words...I think it is also unethical. So then it comes down to which is more unethical....to force a woman into slavery or to kill a 'life'? I think a compromise is in order. Perhaps a good compromise would be, No abortion after a certain gestation period, unless the host body is in danger of losing their life or some other health issue.

It's a complicated issue...and it appears to me the infant always wins out over the woman. But I am not so sure why that is....