Philosophy Now Forum

In the OP;
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
viewtopic.php?t=42514
it is merely a standard to guide moral progress.

Within a moral FSERC, any deliberate action to end life [including unborn] of humans by humans is immoral.
A fetus as an unborn life.
Therefore "abortion is immoral" [the oughtnotness of abortion] is a moral fact conditioned upon a moral FSERC.
However, within a moral FSERC, "abortion is immoral" is merely a moral ideal & standard imperative to guide moral progress within humanity.

The moral FSERC is merely a model with moral ideals as guide to moral progress.

In the present psychological states of humans; that people are more 'animal' than being human [lack of impulse control on sexual lusts], anyone can have as many abortions as they need to; but there is need to be mindful to strive towards the ideals.

Inherent within all humans [DNA hardcoded], there is potential [seed] of a moral drive as represented by set of physical neurons with and algorithm.
If the sexual drive is pegged at 100 in terms of activeness, the moral drive at present is 20/100.
In addition, there varying degrees of activeness [from 1-20] in different people.
As humans continue to evolve from the present, the moral drive activeness is increasing but very slowly; this is why there is so much evil [wars, killing, violence and so on] at present.

Those within the 18/20 percentile will have the inclinations to expedite the average activeness of the moral drive in the future with the hope the number of deliberate abortions due to unplanned birth will be on a reducing trend.

As for now, given our current reasonable medical capabilities, go ahead and have any many abortions as you need to.

Discuss?? [disgust for the theists?]
Views??

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am If the sexual drive is pegged at 100 in terms of activeness, the moral drive at present is 20/100.

VA uses is to get to ought. He has worked hard to argue that is can lead to ought. But when this isn't enough he just makes up 'is'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am The moral FSERC is merely a model with moral ideals as guide to moral progress.

That's the perfect quote for my purposes, perfect in that it explicitly states that your version of morality is not action-guiding. I am merely quoting it to make it easily searchable tbh.

"The moral FSERC is merely a model with moral ideals as guide to moral progress."

The mention of "moral progress" implied the drive from continual improvements to sustain progress is inherent within the whole model.

Not action-guiding

Why does this Jesse guy use ChatGPT to write all his posts?

olivia101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:42 am The comparison of humans to animals in terms of impulse control is provocative. It suggests a deterministic view of human behavior, which could undermine personal responsibility. How do we balance biological impulses with moral reasoning?

[SPAM LINK DELETED. PLEASE BE CAREFUL NOT TO REPOST SPAM LINKS]

At present and certain circumstances, moral reasoning [judgment, balancing, calculation] is necessary but that is fire-fighting.

Humanity should strive towards a future [not possible at present] where all [the majority] are naturally and spontaneously moral in all their acts without having to do much reasoning before they act.
This can be done by understanding and addressing the root causes so that humans are naturally and spontaneously moral in their acts or no actions.

Once they have achieved that, humans will enjoy as much sex as they want but with strong mindfulness to avoid unplanned birth so to meet the moral maxim, no killing of humans [born and unborn] by humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:43 am

olivia101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:42 am The comparison of humans to animals in terms of impulse control is provocative. It suggests a deterministic view of human behavior, which could undermine personal responsibility. How do we balance biological impulses with moral reasoning?

[[SPAM LINK DELETED. PLEASE BE CAREFUL NOT TO REPOST SPAM LINKS]

At present and certain circumstances, moral reasoning [judgment, balancing, calculation] is necessary but that is fire-fighting.

Humanity should strive towards a future [not possible at present] where all [the majority] are naturally and spontaneously moral in all their acts without having to do much reasoning before they act.
This can be done by understanding and addressing the root causes so that humans are naturally and spontaneously moral in their acts or no actions.

Once they have achieved that, humans will enjoy as much sex as they want but with strong mindfulness to avoid unplanned birth so to meet the moral maxim, no killing of humans [born and unborn] by humans.

so much for free will - act without thinking and be deemed moral because it was more of a virtuous reflex than an intentional act...

who needs an intentional act when you get moral absolution?

Manny would eventually evolve into this enlightened view of the golden rule too...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 6:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:43 am

olivia101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:42 am The comparison of humans to animals in terms of impulse control is provocative. It suggests a deterministic view of human behavior, which could undermine personal responsibility. How do we balance biological impulses with moral reasoning?

[SPAM LINK DELETED. PLEASE BE CAREFUL NOT TO REPOST SPAM LINKS]

At present and certain circumstances, moral reasoning [judgment, balancing, calculation] is necessary but that is fire-fighting.

Humanity should strive towards a future [not possible at present] where all [the majority] are naturally and spontaneously moral in all their acts without having to do much reasoning before they act.
This can be done by understanding and addressing the root causes so that humans are naturally and spontaneously moral in their acts or no actions.

Once they have achieved that, humans will enjoy as much sex as they want but with strong mindfulness to avoid unplanned birth so to meet the moral maxim, no killing of humans [born and unborn] by humans.

so much for free will - act without thinking and be deemed moral because it was more of a virtuous reflex than an intentional act...

who needs an intentional act when you get moral absolution?

Manny would eventually evolve into this enlightened view of the golden rule too...

-Imp

What is absolute [freewill, enlightenment, moral perfection] is an ideal which is not reachable in practice, as such no final eventuality.

What is going to happen is, the necessary recognition of the objective ideal moral target will act as a standard to nudge each individual[s] within humanity to strive [despite failures] to progress toward the ideal, thus triggering continuous improvement from whatever their current moral status.

So, at present based on the current psychological state of the majority [notably lack of impulse controls in relation to sexual lusts], one can have many abortions as needed to cover for one's impulse control weaknesses.
But humanity must be mindful of such a weaknesses and work collectively to improve the average individual's impulse control re sexual lusts toward the future [as fast as possible] with the ideal target, ZERO abortion due to unplanned birth.
When moral competency is improved, all moral-acts or not-acting-immorally, will be spontaneous and autonomous.

The problem with moral relativism is, they must respect the abortionists views; the moral skepticism, moral nihilism, amoralism are just indifferent toward anything moral.
In this case, there is no possibility of moral progress in the future in relation to address the serious cons of abortion at all.

jasonlava wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:34 am Personally, I think in the modern era, most people have nothing against abortions because they realize that having a child is better when you want to have it and not by accident, since a child needs real love, not a fabricated one. And of course, there is the money aspect, since it's not cheap to raise a child.

Abortion is not something like drinking water or something ordinary.
Morality is about universal principles and abortion cannot be something that is universal [thus immoral], else in theory, the human species will be extinct in time.

The main point is why don't we tackle the root causes that caused unplanned birth and its potential consequences rather than merely fire-fighting it, such that there is no need to decide whether to abort or not in the first place.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:32 am Why does this Jesse guy use ChatGPT to write all his posts?

Because he's an AI bot. The clue is in the small advertising link at the end of his post. I'll delete him now.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:57 am Abortion is not something like drinking water or something ordinary.
Morality is about universal principles and abortion cannot be something that is universal [thus immoral], else in theory, the human species will be extinct in time.

But we consider many actions moral or neutral when they are not treated as universals.

What you wrote confuses an action 'abortion' with a rule. It's an act. What are some other acts that are considered moral or neutral morally if universalized them.
Tracheotomies
Having sex.
Arresting someone
Denying service
Punching someone

These can be moral but, obviously, we don't say Give everyone you meet a tracheotomy. We don't want arresting to be a rule.

Only if we create a rule: Abort every fetus - then we have a problem with the survival of the species. But we don't have to worry about that as a real threat because many people want to have kids.

The implicit rule you have in the above is 'if we always perform act X, and this would lead to negative consequences then we should strive to never do it. That would be a terrible rule.

Now I am sure you will now call out STRAWMAN

But that is precisely what you did with abortions. If we universalize an act so that it is always performed, it would lead to the end of the species, so that act is immoral.

But there are millions of acts that can be moral, but would lead to horrible problems if we universalized them.

Donating organs. If everyone donated all their organs, we would all die.

It can be moral to for certain reasons, performs acts, that if we made performing those acts rules would lead to all sorts of horrible consequences. Plus the abortion application of this type of thinking has nothing to do with human behavior. There will always be large number who do not have the feelings and situations of those who want abortions. So, there will always be babies. And even nations with very liberal abortion access increase their populations.

No one, except perhaps some antinatalists would ever suggest aborting all fetuses and having that as a rule or law.

That it is an option is what many people argue for.

No one here (always all men on these threads) EVER suggests making vasectomies easily accessible and free, or compulsory after perhaps two children. What about castration? There's a thought. That would definitely greatly reduce the abortion rate and thus appease the tender sensibilities of the men on here. In fact men are rarely mentioned. Women just happen to be the ones who carry the pregnancies, and in the most fundamental and practical way possible are entirely responsible for them. That's a biological fact that can't be argued about. Whether or not a man CHOOSES to take any responsibility for the resulting child is ENTIRELY in his hands and there is nothing any woman can do about that.

Why any man feels that he has a right to any say whatsoever over women's pregnancies is beyond rational discussion.
How about if a woman decides to please the sensitive male souls of the men on here but can't look after the child for any number of reasons, then if the man doesn't take on the full, legal responsiblity of the child he must have a full castration? Is that a good idea? Would that make you happy? What if he's a useless pr1ck who will only abuse the child? What? You don't care about that? Oh. So it's only the 'before birth' part you care about, especially the first few weeks when nearly all abortions occur. What about the ones where serious defects are detected at the 20 week scan? Are you saying women should be forced to continue with those pregnancies?

What if you were married to a woman whose scan showed some horrible syndrome that might not kill the baby immediately, but would ensure that they linger and suffer for at the most two years, torturing both the baby and the entire family for the duration (yes, I knew such a person who had this happen to them).
No one ever mentions the 'immorality' of forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she's not prepared for/can't mentally cope with/can't afford/has no way of supporting. Just dismissing it as 'well she can get it adopted out' just shows how little any of you know about women, the maternal instinct, mental health....There is a particular kind of hell for women who are tormented by worry about what kind of life their child is having (and often rightly so) and no legal right or means to do a thing about it. Besides, no one adopts now anyway. People just buy a baby from a surrogate these days. Even paedophiles can do it. Now that's what you call 'moral'...

I'm well aware of the unsaid thought that is going through your tiny male minds.,,''Well those 'immoral' WOMEN shouldn't have had sex in the first place/should have taken contraception blah blah'. Of course it's never 'Well those men should have had vasectomies, used condoms, controlled their urges blah blah'.
Some women have terrible trouble with EVERY kind of contraception. Contraception doesn't come without side effects--sometimes horrible ones, and isn't 100 percent effective either.
How would any of YOU like to have forced celibacy for your entire life? Or are you all life-long celibates/incels, or never had sex with a female human (that wasn't inflatable)? Or, better still, did you have yourselves castrated early on, to ensure that you are never 'tempted by the devil' to have sex and risk an unplanned procreation? Yep. That must be the case since it would be the only 'moral' pathway because it's the only way to eliminate any chance that you will need an abortion or risk being a vile little hypocrite.



And for all you ignoramuses who believe the religious propaganda that religious scumbags like to spread, 'late term abortion' is NOT the same as 'late term pregnancy'. A late term abortion is anything after 20 weeks. Many catastrophic defects don't show up until the 20 week scan.
A 'late term pregnancy abortion' doesn't exist and is also a physical impossibility. No, women do NOT decide they want an 'abortion' when they are in labour, and demand that the baby have poison injected into its skull or have its skull crushed with...pliers?...all of which would likely kill the mother as well. For fuck sake. What do they put in the water in the US to make y'all so bloody thick?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:57 am Abortion is not something like drinking water or something ordinary.
Morality is about universal principles and abortion cannot be something that is universal [thus immoral], else in theory, the human species will be extinct in time.

But we consider many actions moral or neutral when they are not treated as universals.

What you wrote confuses an action 'abortion' with a rule. It's an act. What are some other acts that are considered moral or neutral morally if universalized them.
Tracheotomies
Having sex.
Arresting someone
Denying service
Punching someone

These can be moral but, obviously, we don't say Give everyone you meet a tracheotomy. We don't want arresting to be a rule.

Only if we create a rule: Abort every fetus - then we have a problem with the survival of the species. But we don't have to worry about that as a real threat because many people want to have kids.

The implicit rule you have in the above is 'if we always perform act X, and this would lead to negative consequences then we should strive to never do it. That would be a terrible rule.

Now I am sure you will now call out STRAWMAN

But that is precisely what you did with abortions. If we universalize an act so that it is always performed, it would lead to the end of the species, so that act is immoral.

But there are millions of acts that can be moral, but would lead to horrible problems if we universalized them.

Donating organs. If everyone donated all their organs, we would all die.

It can be moral to for certain reasons, performs acts, that if we made performing those acts rules would lead to all sorts of horrible consequences. Plus the abortion application of this type of thinking has nothing to do with human behavior. There will always be large number who do not have the feelings and situations of those who want abortions. So, there will always be babies. And even nations with very liberal abortion access increase their populations.

No one, except perhaps some antinatalists would ever suggest aborting all fetuses and having that as a rule or law.

That it is an option is what many people argue for.

Yes, the above is a strawman [as usual].

I wrote in the OP:
"Within a moral FSERC, any deliberate action to end life [including unborn] of humans by humans is immoral.
A fetus as an unborn life.
Therefore "abortion is immoral" [the oughtnotness of abortion] is a moral fact conditioned upon a moral FSERC.
However, within a moral FSERC, "abortion is immoral" is merely a moral ideal & standard imperative to guide moral progress within humanity.
The moral FSERC is merely a model with moral ideals as guide to moral progress."

Abortion is not just an 'act' like any other human act.
The justified moral standard within the moral FSERC is,
"the oughtnot-ness of humans killing humans [born and unborn]" to ensure the preservation of the human species.
Abortion is an act that contra the above ideal, thus immoral; but it is only to be used as a standard to guide moral progress.

Any act that meet the above conditions and standard is immoral.

Donating organs cannot immoral because it contribute to the preservation of the human species.
Immorality only comes in if normal humans are killed for their organ; its the killing of humans that is immoral, not the donation of organs.

As such, any human act cannot be immoral but only those humans acts that the justified as immoral within a moral FSERC, e.g. genocide, abortion, rape, homicide, slavery and others.

Again, whatever is a moral standard is merely a guide for moral progress and should not be enforceable as a law, rule or force-upon any individual[s].

The moral standards [ideals] as verified and justified as objective and universal as a moral compass [fixed goal post] for all human individuals to strive at in the best of their abilities.
By definition, the ideals [moral objectivity] are not expected to be met in practice; but they are moral guides so that humans do not deviate into evil acts which is possible within moral relativism.

While it is impossible to achieve moral ideals, the moral ideals [something universal and objective] will nevertheless motivate humanity to strive toward it which will result in continuous improvements in moral knowledge and practices closer and closer to the impossible ideal.

So, given the current psychological state of the current conditions, i.e. where the majority has uncontrollable sexual lusts, we have to accept the wishes to those who want to get rid of the unplanned birth, but there is need for humanity educate these irresponsible humans who lack impulse control to be mindful they need to avoid abortion due to unplanned birth. Humanity must thus resolve the issue at its root causes to prevent future unplanned births.

Since it is only an ideal, abortion can still be done where is necessarily and optimally warranted, e.g. rapes cases, medical and other justifiable critical reason; however, humanity must research on the root causes to minimize abortions.

There are nuances to the above; I am not bringing them it to mess up the points raised.