Philosophy Now Forum

We already know that - from a scientific point of view - a new, human organism, a new living member of the human species, Homo sapiens (latin for: "wise man") comes into existence at the moment of human conception.This is now an incontrovertible, established scientific fact and no mainstream scientist in the West denies it.



This is why the pro- abortion lobby do not deny the fact either, doing so would expose an abysmally low level of scientific literacy and thus undermine the already dubious "credibility" their movement currently has in the United States today.



So, when we are referring to a human being, that is, to a BIOLOGICAL human entity there is no serious objection by the pro-abortion lobby that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception; - that at the moment a male human sperm cell fertilizes a female ovum in the womb, a new biological organism that we call a human being comes into EXISTENCE.



What IS a matter of intensely heated dispute between the "Pro-life" and so-called "Pro-Choice" factions in the US today centres on the question of PERSONHOOD. Personhood is a basic moral concept in philosophical ethics; and a HUMAN person is a moral category. In North America, a PERSON is recognised by law as such, not because they are human, but because RIGHTS and DUTIES are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or SUBSTANCE of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."



Most "Pro-lifers" hold that at the moment of conception a human person exists (in addition to a biological human being,i.e. an individual organism who is a bone fide member of the species, Homo sapiens. Those who advocate for womens' rights to abortion, naturally deny this.




What the advocates and medical practitioners of abortion in the United States claim is that the unborn is NOT a human PERSON from the moment of conception. Their argument is that the unborn does not become a person UNTIL some decisive time AFTER conception. As to what this decisive time happens to be there are a broad range of differing opinions among pro-abortion academics; I will set some example out below...( NB:Tragically, in the US there is abortion legislation that has been passed in some states that permits the murder of a healthy, 9 -month infant DURING the actual process of birth. And if that is not horrific and distressing enough in itself, other legislation has been drafted that permits INFANTICIDE - i.e; the murder of a newborn infant by an abortionist if that is what the mother so wishes).




Here are some of the differing opinions regarding WHEN the unborn becomes a HUMAN PERSON...



(1) Some claim that Personhood does not arrive until between 40 and 43 days after conception when brain waves can be detected.




(2) Mary Anne Warren, a controversial scholar and outspoken former pro-abortion activist, defines a human person as a being who can engage in: cognitive acts; such as sophisticated communication; active consciousness; solving complex problems; self-motivated activity and the possession of a self-concept.




(3) Others like, academic, Luke Summer, hold a more moderate position and argue that human personhood hoes not arrive until the foetus is sentient ( has the ability to feel and sense as a conscious/aware being) According to Summer, this occurs possibly as early as the middle weeks of the 2nd trimester and definitly by the end of that trimester.




Although, - as you can see -, the Personhood criteria above, (and these are just three examples of many similar lists) differ from each other in important ways, all of these views of Personhood nevertheless have the same thing in common. Namely, they all assert that IF AND ONLY IF an entity FUNCTIONS in a certain way are we warranted in calling that entity a PERSON ( the technical term for this perspective in the relevant philosophical literature is "empirical functionalism"). Typically, empirical functionalists make a distinction between "being a human" and "being a (human) person". Their standard argument is that although foetuses are members of the species Homo sapiens, and in that sense are human, they are not truly persons until such time as the have satisfied a particular set of functional personhood criteria.




My personal view is that abortion - ( whether it is the administration of abortifacient drugs like the chemical, RU-486, or the performing of a medical/surgical operation) is morally wrong at any time after conception. Abortion, frankly, is murder. It is precisely the the calculated, premeditated, intentional killing of unborn human persons. There are, I think, some very rare exceptions to the rule where a medical abortion can be morally justifiable, but, as I say, such cases are extremely uncommon.




The purpose of this post is to present a philosophical argument in support of my view that abortion, except in a number of very rare, extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, should be outlawed. I will not be appealing to any Christian religious dogma or theological principles in presenting my case, as I know that doing this would generate an intense outpouring of scorn along with volleys of poisonous, critical barbs shot at my good self, from many members this forum.



ABORTION AND THE ONTOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD



A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an fundamental entity (what Aristotle called a "SUBSTANCE") who has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY to GIVE RISE TO HUMAN FUNCTIONS , whether or not those functions are ever attained. (And) since the unborn human person has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY from the moment of conception s/he is also a person as long as s/he exists.




It is because an entity , for example, each kind of living organism, a dog, a horse, a human being, has an essence (essence can be thought of as denoting the very BEING of any thing, whereby, it is, what it is) and falls within a natural KIND that it can possess a UNITY of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through change. It is the natural KIND that determines what kinds of activities are appropriate and natural for that entity. To put it another way; first, each kind of living organism or SUBSTANCE, has a nature , or ESSENCE, that makes certain activities and functions possible. A SUBSTANCE'S INNER NATURE IS ITS ORDERED STRUCTURAL UNITY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITIES. A substance cannot change its ultimate capacities, that is, it cannot lose its ultimate nature and continue to exist.




For example, I currently have, as a pet, an adult, miniature, smooth, red , Dachshund dog called Mr Peanut ( He is a former Australian Champion ) Now a Dachshund dog, because it has a particular nature, has the ultimate capacity to develop the ability to bark and to hunt and kill badgers. A Dachshund dog might die when s/he was still a puppy and never develop those abilities. Regardless of this s/he would still be a Dachshund dog as long as s/he existed, because s/he possesses a particular nature, even if s/he never acquires certain functions that by nature s/he had the capacity to develop.




In contrast, a frog is not said to LACK something if it cannot bark, for it is by nature not the sort of being that has an ability to bark. A dog that lacks the ability to bark is still a dog because of its nature. A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (e.g; Veggie, Lacewing ) either because she is too immature/young or she suffers from a mental disability is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes no sense to speak of a human beings LACK, if and only if she is an actual person..




Second, an individual Dachshund dog, remains the same particular Dachshund dog over time from the moment it comes into existence. Suppose I buy this particular Dachshund dod (as a companion for "Mr Peanut") and name him "Pickle". When I first bring "Pickle" home as a puppy, I notice he is tiny compared to his parents, and lacks their intellectual and physical abilities. But over time "Pickle" develops these abilities, learns a number of things his parents never learned, sheds his hair, has his toenails clipped, becomes five times larger than he was as a puppy, undergoes significant development of his cellular structures, brain and cerebral cortex. Yet this grown up "Pickle" is IDENTICAL to the puppy "Pickle", even though he has gone through many and substantial physical changes. WHY ? It is because living organisms or SUBSTANCES maintain ABSOLUTE IDENTITY through change. If not, then YOU never were literally the person you were last week ( or 5 minutes ago), a teenager, a 10-year-old, 3-year-old, infant or newborn. But YOU know that you were, right (?) even though the physical differences between you as an infant and you as an adult are considerable. In fact, the SAME YOU was also once a foetus, an embryo, a zygote, a fertilized ovum. Make no mistake, you HAVE changed. But it is YOU who has changed. THat is the critical thing to understand. YOU remain YOU through all the changes. Thus, if you are a valuable human person now, then you were a valuable human person AT EVERY MOMENT IN YOUR PAST INCLUDING WHEN YOU WERE IN YOUR MOTHER'S WOMB.




Finally - i know this post is already too long (!), but I felt compelled to try and set down my argument in some detail, given that in the United States this year countless hundreds of thousands of healthy, unborn human persons will be murdered. This represents profound, moral evil on a titanic scale and it is high time more people started to realise this. Everyone bewails the horrors of the holocaust during the second world, while in America an industrial scale, killing apparatus has already murdered far, far more innocents than were ever killed in the Nazi's gas chambers. To continue with my final points. Isn't it true that we (you and I) have first person awareness of ourselves as being unified and enduring selves over time ? Isn't it true that our knowledge that we are substantial, unified, enduring selves that have bodies and minds (mental states/events) but are not identical to them is surely grounded in our awareness of ourselves ? This is why, for example, we may fear punishment in the future for deeds we committed years ago in the past, have regrets for decisions we made in the past we ought not to have made, look back fondly on our childhood and reflect upon what we have accomplished and whether we have fulfilled our potential.




Because the functions of Personhood are grounded in the essential nature of humanness, and because human beings are persons that maintain identity through time from the moment they come into existence at conception, it follows that the unborn are human persons of great worth because they possess that nature as long as they live.




The unborn are fully-fledged members of the human community. Therefore abortion is murder - it is a profoundly immoral act, and the current abortion laws in the US must be reformed to acknowledge this.


Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Dachshund wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:50 pm We already know that - from a scientific point of view - a new, human organism, a new living member of the human species, Homo sapienes (latin for: "wise man") comes into existence at the moment of human conception.This is now an incontrovertible, establish scientific fact and no mainstream scientist in the West denies it.

Rubbish.
This is no such thing as membership of the human species. Membership is not a scientific category but a social one. New borns are only established as members of society on registration of live birth.

This is why the pro- abortion lobby do not deny the fact either, doing so would expose an abysmally low level of scientific literacy and thus undermine the already dubious "credibility" their movement currently has in the United States today.

There is nothing here to deny, except your emotive misconception of the process of pregnancy.

So, when we are referring to a human being, that is to a BIOLOGICAL human entity there is no serious objection by the pro-abortion lobby that that human life being at the moment of conception; that at the moment of a male human sperm cell fertilizes a female ovum in the womb, a new biological organism that we call a human being comes into EXISTENCE.



What IS a point of intensely heated dispute between the "Pro-life" and so-called "Pro-Choice" faction in the US today concerns the question of PERSONHOOD. Personhood is a basic moral concept in philosophical ethics; and a HUMAN person is a moral category. In North America, a PERSON is recognised by law as such, not because they are human, but because RIGHTS and DUTIES are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or SUBSTANCE of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."



Most "Pro-lifers" hold that at the moment of conception a human person exists (in addition to a biological human being,i.e. an individual organism who is a bone fide member of the species, Homo sapiens. Those who advocate for women's rights to abortion, naturally deny this.




What the advocates and medical practitioners of abortion in the United States claim is that the unborn is NOT a human PERSON from the moment of conception. Their argument is that the unborn does not become a person UNTIL some decisive time AFTER conception. As to what this decisive time happens to be there are a broad range of differing opinions among pro-abortion academics; I will set some example out below...( NB:Tragically, in the US there is abortion legislation that has been passed in some states that permits the murder of a healthy, 9 -month infant DURING the actual process of birth. And if that is not horrific and distressing enough in itself, other legislation has been drafted that permits INFANTICIDE - i.e; the murder of a newborn infant by an abortionist if that is what the mother so wishes).




Here are some of the differing opinions regarding WHEN the unborn becomes a HUMAN PERSON...



(1) Some claim that Personhood does not arrive until between 40 and 43 days after conception when brain waves can be detected.




(2) Mary Anne Warren, a controversial scholar and outspoken former pro-abortion activist, defines a human person as a being who can engage in: cognitive acts; such as sophisticated communication; active consciousness; solving complex problems; self-motivated activity and the possession of a self-concept.




(3) Others like, academic, Luke Summer, hold a more moderate position and argue that human personhood hoes not arrive until the foetuus is sentient ( has the ability to feel and sense as a conscious/aware being) According to Summer, this occurs possibly as early as the middle weeks of the 2nd trimester and definatly by the end of that trimester.




Although, - as you can see -, the Personhood criteria above, (and these are just three examples of many similar lists) differ from each other in important ways, all of these views of Personhood nevertheless have the same thing in common. Namely, they all assert that IF AND ONLY IF an entity FUNCTIONS in a certain way are we warranted in calling that entity a PERSON ( the technical term for this perspective in the relevant philosophical literature is "empirical functionalism"). Typically, empirical functionalists make a distinction between "being a human" and "being a (human) person". Their standard argument is that although foetuses are members of the species Homo sapiens, and in that sense are human, they are not truly persons until such time as the have satisfied a particular set of functional Personhood criteria.




My personal view is that abortion - ( whether it is the administration of abortifacient drugs like the chemical, RU-486, or the performing of a medical/surgical operation) is morally wrong at any time after conception. Abortion, frankly, is murder. It is precisely the the calculated, premeditated, intentional killing of unborn human persons. There are, I think, some very rare exceptions to the rule where a medical abortion can be morally justifiable, but, as I say, such cases are extremely uncommon.




The purpose of this post is to present a philosophical argument in support of my view that abortion, except in a number of very rare, extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, should be outlawed. I will not be appealing to any Christian religious dogma or theological principles in presenting my case, as I know that doing this would generate an intense outpouring of scorn along with volleys of poisonous, critical barbs shot at my good self, from many members this forum.



ABORTION AND THE ONTOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD



A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an fundamental entity (what Aristotle called a "SUBSTANCE") who has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY to GIVE RISE TO HUMAN FUNCTIONS , whether or not those functions are ever attained. (And) since the unborn human person has the NATURAL, INHERENT CAPACITY from the moment of conception s/he is also a person as long as s/he exists.




It is because an entity , for example, each kind of living organism, a dog, a horse, a human being, has an essence (essence can be thought of as denoting the very BEING of any thing, whereby, it is, what it is) and falls within a natural KIND that it can possess a UNITY of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through change. It is the natural KIND that determines what kinds of activities are appropriate and natural for that entity. To put it another way; first, each kind of living organism or SUBSTANCE, has a nature , or ESSENCE, that makes certain activities and functions possible. A SUBSTANCE'S INNER NATURE IS ITS ORDERED STRUCTURAL UNITY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITIES. A substance cannot change its ultimate capacities, that is, it cannot lose its ultimate nature and continue to exist.




For example, I currently have, as a pet, an adult, miniature, smooth, red , Dachshund dog called Mr Peanut ( He is a former Australian Champion ) Now a Dachshund dog, because it has a particular nature, has the ultimate capacity to develop the ability to bark and to hunt and kill badgers. A Dachshund dog might die when s/he was still a puppy and never develop those abilities. Regardless of this s/he would still be a Dachshund dog as long as s/he existed, because s/he possesses a particular nature, even if s/he never acquires certain functions that by nature s/he had the capacity to develop.




In contrast, a frog is not said to LACK something if it cannot bark, for it is by nature not the sort of being that has an ability to bark. A dog that lacks the ability to bark is still a dog because of its nature. A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (e.g; Veggie, Lacewing ) either because she is too immature/young or she suffers from a mental disability is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes no sense to speak of a human beings LACK, if and only if she is an actual person..




Second, an individual Dachshund dog, remains the same particular Dachshund dog over time from the moment it comes into existence. Suppose I buy this particular Dachshund dod (as a companion for "Mr Peanut") and name him "Pickle". When I first bring "Pickle" home as a puppy, I notice he is tiny compared to his parents, and lacks their intellectual and physical abilities. But over time "Pickle" develops these abilities, learns a number of things his parents never learned, sheds his hair, has his toenails clipped, becomes five times larger than he was as a puppy, undergoes significant development of his cellular structures, brain and cerebral cortex. Yet this grown up "Pickle" is IDENTICAL to the puppy "Pickle", even though he has gone through many and substantial physical changes. WHY ? It is because living organisms or SUBSTANCES maintain ABSOLUTE IDENTITY through change. If not, then YOU never were literally the person you were last week ( or 5 minutes ago), a teenager, a 10-year-old, 3-year-old, infant or newborn. But YOU know that you were, right (?) even though the physical differences between you as an infant and you as an adult are considerable. In fact, the SAME YOU was also once a foetus, an embryo, a zygote, a fertilized ovum. Make no mistake, you HAVE changed. But it is YOU who has changed. THat is the critical thing to understand. YOU remain YOU through all the changes. Thus, if you are a valuable human person now, then you were a valuable human person AT EVERY MOMENT IN YOUR PAST INCLUDING WHEN YOU WERE IN YOUR MOTHER@S WOMB.




Finally - i know this post is already too long (!), but I felt compelled to try and set down my argument in some detail, given that in the United States this years countless hundreds of thousands of healthy, unborn human persons will be murdered. This represents profound, moral evil on a titanic scale and it is high time more people started to realise this. Everyone bewails the horrors of the holocaust during the second world, while in America an industrial scale, killing apparatus has already murdered far, far more innocents than were ever killed in the Nazi's gas chambers. To continue with my final points. Isn't it true that we (you and I) have first person awareness of ourselves as being unified and enduring selves over time ? Isn't it true that our knowledge that we are substantial, unified, enduring selves that have bodies and minds (mental states/events) but are not identical to them is surely grounded in our awareness of ourselves ? This is why, for example, we may fear punishment in the future for deeds we committed years ago in the past, have regrets for decisions we made in the past we ought not to have made, look back fondly on our childhood and reflect upon what we have accomplished and whether we have fulfilled our potential.




Because the functions of Personhood are grounded in the essential nature of humanness, and because human beings are persons that maintain identity through time from the moment they come into existence at conception, it follows that the unborn are human persons of great worth because they possess that nature as long as they live.




The unborn are fully-fledged members of the human community. Therefore abortion is murder - it a profoundly immoral act, and the current abortion laws in the US must be reformed to acknowledge this.


Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Personhood starts with registration of live birth.
Women have a greater right to their bodies.
Abortion is rarely lightly entered into, and has always been an important part of human life, eugenics, family planning, and the ONLY valid response to RAPE resulting in pregnancy.

Sculptor,

1. Personhood, like I said, is a moral concept in philosophical ethics; at least that is how I was using the term in my post It is not something that is confirmed by a state's bureaucracy signing a "certification of a live birth" "Here's a bit of paper from some clerk in Whitehall that says your newborn baby John Citizen is now a bone fide person; congratulations Mr and Mrs Citizen, now its official !"

2. A pregnant woman = (her body) + (another body) she is carrying around internally that is NOT hers (that is totally genetically distinct from her body) The decision to have an abortion is not, therefore, JUST ABOUT HER BODY, there is ANOTHER BODY, another human being/person in the picture as well. Pregnant Women do NOT have a GREATER (moral) rights and (moral) duties respecting their Personhood than those of the unborn human being/human person they are carrying.

3. How naive are you, man ? Thousands of women in the US use abortion as birth control sometimes well into the 1st trimester of their pregnancy (sometimes further). Generally speaking, as Kant and Nietzsche observed women have a deficiency in moral reasoning relative to men, this explains why so many have no personal qualms about having abortions to sort out the consequences of irresponsible sexual promiscuity, etc.

4. This whole disingenuous palava about abortion and rape is 99% "political". For instance the number of women who are actually impregnated by a rapist in the West is EXCEEDINGLY low (as you would expect). The entire issue is just bogus, emotive "Pro-Choice" propaganda.

5. Abortion has not always been a long-time, standard part of life in Western societies, in the sense that industrial scale, for-profit, mass- murder factories like those currently operating in the US (in particular) have only existed over recent decades (i.e; they began sprouting up over America after the" Roe v Wade" Supreme Court of the US decision of 1973 that legitimised abortion on demand over the 9 months of pregnancy for all American women).


See ya later alligater!


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Dachshund wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:22 pm Sculptor,

1. Personhood, like I said, is a moral concept in philosophical ethics; at least that is how I was using the term in my post It is not something that is confirmed by a state's bureaucracy signing a "certification of a live birth" "Here's a bit of paper from some clerk in Whitehall that says your newborn baby John Citizen is now a bone fide person; congratulations Mr and Mrs Citizen, now its official !"

2. A pregnant woman = (her body) + (another body) she is carrying around internally that is NOT hers (that is totally genetically distinct from her body) The decision to have an abortion is not, therefore, JUST ABOUT HER BODY, there is ANOTHER BODY, another human being/person in the picture as well. Pregnant Women do NOT have a GREATER (moral) rights and (moral) duties respecting their Personhood than those of the unborn human being/human person they are carrying.

3. How naive are you, man ? Thousands of women in the US use abortion as birth control sometimes well into the 1st trimester of their pregnancy (sometimes further). Generally speaking, as Kant and Nietzsche observed women have a deficiency in moral reasoning relative to men, this explains why so many have no personal qualms about having abortions to sort out the consequences of irresponsible sexual promiscuity, etc.

4. This whole disingenuous palava about abortion and rape is 99% "political". For instance the number of women who are actually impregnated by a rapist in the West is EXCEEDINGLY low (as you would expect). The entire issue is just bogus, emotive "Pro-Choice" propaganda.

5. Abortion has not always been a long-time, standard part of life in Western societies, in the sense that industrial scale, for-profit, mass- murder factories like those currently operating in the US (in particular) have only existed over recent decades (i.e; they began sprouting up over America after the" Roe v Wade" Supreme Court of the US decision of 1973 that legitimised abortion on demand over the 9 months of pregnancy for all American women).


See ya later alligater!


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

You are too thick to realise that you are your own perfect argument in support of abortion

Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.
Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

The abortion equation is;

Humans + sex + lust + bad impulse controls = unwanted conception or babies.

Humans + sex + good impulse controls = no unwanted conception or babies.

Thus to achieve ZERO Abortion, humanity need to deal the loose variables of lust and impulse control. Humans and sex are permanent variables but lust and impulse control can be improved.
The above are the major variables and there are minor ones to be considered.

At present we cannot expect nor demand no abortion.
At present with the current state of the average humans, the lust would be great and impulse controls are weak.

Thus instead of passing legal laws on abortion, humanity must set to modulate the lust factor with improving impulse control.
The improvement in these two variables will be slow and thus we can only expect the number of abortions to reduce gradually.

The question is how to implement the above efficiently which will be another topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.

Do you not think that over population of the human species is more of a concern?

Billions of people are being brought out of poverty and can now afford air-conditioning, fridges, cars, high-end gaming computers ->> all sucking electricity, all throwing giga-tons of carbon into the atmosphere thanks to 'western' capitalism..

Where in the fuck is abortion gonna threaten the human species in comparison?

As with pregnancy, when all that electrical consumption becomes a problem it will stop.

For example, the electric company in California (PG&E) is said to have caused last year’s destructive wild-fires. PG&E is getting sued because of this. For PG&E, this is a problem. In their own defense they should have blamed climate change for the fires.

To partially solve their problem, during this year’s fire season PG&E is shutting off the juice to about a million customers, which means millions of people won’t be consuming electricity.

This way PG&E can’t be sued for starting forest fires.

The electrical consumption was a problem, so it stopped.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.
Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

The cause of all problems is self-cherishing.

Abortions are performed when pregnancy is a problem.

When self-cherishing ends, pregnancy as a problem ends.

When pregnancy is no longer a problem, abortion ends.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:44 pm
You are too thick to realise that you are your own perfect argument in support of abortion

Veggie,


Have you got any children ?

(And don't wimp out by saying, "It's none of your business !")


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Dachshund wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:44 pm
You are too thick to realise that you are your own perfect argument in support of abortion

Veggie,


Have you got any children ?

(And don't wimp out by saying, "It's none of your business !")


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Why the fuck would I tell a weirdo kunt like you anything about myself, especially the kind of weirdo kunt who obsesses over female reproduction?

And speaking of cowardice, why don't YOU admit that you don't give a flying fuck about other people's embryos (and certainly not their children), and that your only 'concern' is motivated by repulsive kristian misogyny? Everyone knows this now. You fucks have been at this for decades and anyone with even half a brain can see what your agenda is. It's embarrassingly transparent.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.

If abortion, being universal, would be common enough as to threaten humanity, then this would represent a serious claim that all antiabortion was totally unethical since it would be setting up such proscription against human activity as to prevent millions of women from making a free choice.
The fact is that the only time where abortion were to be so common as to threaten the existence of the human species would be where women were raped into pregnancy rather than becoming pregnant through choice.
The claim you make is the height of hyperbolic absurdity.

In reality universal abortion rights have always led to good things. Abortion has many advantages.
Birth control makes great sense in a time of dwindling resources.
Abortion in particular ensures that raped women are not doubly punished by having to carry the spawn of their attacker.
Abortion is also beneficial to allow women to avoid bringing children with serious birth defects into the world.

There is no reasonable grounds for making timely abortion illegal, none. And no man is even qualified to suggest that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:30 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.

Do you not think that over population of the human species is more of a concern?

Billions of people are being brought out of poverty and can now afford air-conditioning, fridges, cars, high-end gaming computers ->> all sucking electricity, all throwing giga-tons of carbon into the atmosphere thanks to 'western' capitalism..

Where in the fuck is abortion gonna threaten the human species in comparison?

I think you missed the points from the rest of my post.

Note I stated,

• Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
  But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

Overpopulation is a problem but it can be solved via the following;

The over population equation is;

Humans + sex + lust + bad impulse controls + bad planning + no holistic outlook = overpopulation

Humans + sex + good impulse controls + good planning + plus holistic outlook = optimal population.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.
Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

The cause of all problems is self-cherishing.

Abortions are performed when pregnancy is a problem.

When self-cherishing ends, pregnancy as a problem ends.

When pregnancy is no longer a problem, abortion ends.

I don't think self-cherishing contribute directly to abortions. It is at most secondary factor and there are many secondary factors.

I had stated the problem is within the following equation;

Humans + sex drive + lust + no planning + no contraception + bad impulse controls + [others] = unwanted conception or babies.

The bolded variables are permanent on average, thus the effective strategy is to deal with other variables.
When those not-bolded variables are within control, then there will be less unwanted contraception.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:55 am Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.

If abortion, being universal, would be common enough as to threaten humanity, then this would represent a serious claim that all antiabortion was totally unethical since it would be setting up such proscription against human activity as to prevent millions of women from making a free choice.
The fact is that the only time where abortion were to be so common as to threaten the existence of the human species would be where women were raped into pregnancy rather than becoming pregnant through choice.
The claim you make is the height of hyperbolic absurdity.

In reality universal abortion rights have always led to good things. Abortion has many advantages.
Birth control makes great sense in a time of dwindling resources.
Abortion in particular ensures that raped women are not doubly punished by having to carry the spawn of their attacker.
Abortion is also beneficial to allow women to avoid bringing children with serious birth defects into the world.

There is no reasonable grounds for making timely abortion illegal, none. And no man is even qualified to suggest that.

You have missed many of my points above.

I did not say, abortion should be made illegal.
I stated the ZERO Abortion moral rule should not be enforced, i.e. legally.

• Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
  But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

The point here is we do not mix morality & ethics with jurisprudence [politics].
Morality and Ethics are personal affairs like making personal resolutions to improve oneself, in this case by adopting absolute moral rules as a GUIDE only.
If one breaks one's own rules out of critical necessity [e.g. rape, etc.], there is no punishment, but the standard set should spur one/others to avoid and improve later.
How to get every individual to do the above is the question for another topic on morality and ethics.

To make abortion a right or legal to resolve something like overpopulation and the likes is very immoral and inefficient.

As I had stated the 'ZERO Abortion' target is merely a guide and not a legal enforcement.
Therefore if anyone want or it is necessary to break one's own rule, then one can do the abortion [this time only] against the overriding rule of No Abortion which will prevail in the future.

What is critical for humanity is to understand what are the root causes of abortion. The abortion equation is;

• Humans + sex instinct + lust + no planning + no contraceptive methods + bad impulse controls + no holistic outlook + [?others] = unwanted conception or babies.

Thus the critical approach is to tackle the critical root causes effectively on a progressive basis and the number of abortions will be reduced gradually.
Within the 'no holistic outlook' we will look at the theistic factor where God do not permit abortion. With the proof 'God is an impossibility to exists as real' that will cut off the ground for any real God to command abortion as a sin.
All the root causes will be dealt with to resolve the issue of abortion.

Because of Human beings being human, it is not likely abortion will be ZERO, but the ideal target is a standard that drives improvement toward the ideal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:12 am I don't think self-cherishing contribute directly to abortions. It is at most secondary factor and there are many secondary factors.

Do you know why you think what you think?
Aspects of abortion are like branches growing from the root.
The root is self-cherishing.

Problems contribute directly to abortions.

No self-cherishing, no problems.

No problems, no abortion.

Thus, self-cherishing is not only the primary cause of abortion, it is the primary cause of every problem.

*

Cherishing the unborn within oneself, more than oneself, ends the cause of abortion.