/lit/ - Literature

a what?

>against abortion
I really don't understand why people are against abortion or even killing infants. They're literally as intelligent as beasts, and have about the same degree of self-awareness. Maybe I'm just a sociopath.

>pro-lifers genuinely consider the fetus to be a human with a soul and do not think it should be killed
>THEY JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN’S BODIES, THEY’RE JUST HEART WHITE MEN OMG THIS IS JUST LIKE A HANDMAID’S TALE
>pro-choicers genuinely don’t consider the fetus to qualify as human and want women who can’t raise a child to be able to save themselves from ruining their lives
>THEY LOVE KILLING BABIES, THEY CAN’T GET ENOUGH OF KILLING BABIES, THEY’D KILL EM AT A YEAR OLD IF THEY COULD

>>13120090
nigga what

Dying is a better fate than to be raised by a woman who wants an abortion. I grew up in a meth town- most of those kids were better off dead.

>>13120116
Under Enlightenment ideologies (liberalism, communism), only homo economicus counts as human and deserves to live.

>>13120090
You are no sociopath, just a basic edgelord who doesnt know shit about life

>>13120113
this is why literal confucius says "things must be called by their proper names", if you don't have some legalistic autistic authority defining everything from the government top down and smacking people when they start getting all retarded with language, they will just argue against straw men the entire time

>>13120153
People who say Eastern thought is traditionally nominalist have always confused me.

>>13120078
Yes.

>>13120078
If you think fetuses can feel pain then yes.

As far as I understand anti natalists have three main premises

1)Don't produce children
2)Don't infringe upon the liberties of other people
3)Utilitarianism with extreme emphasis on harm avoidance

If these are followed, abortion would never happen. However the question of whether fetuses are people with rights depends on your point of view

I guess so since you are still deciding that beings fate outside of its own choice, even if it doesnt have the capability to choose. An antinatalist I suppose would want abortion to be something that shouldnt even have to exist anymore

>>13120134
Educate me.

>>13120201
I can't. I'm not smart enough. But I can guarantee you, once you have an offspring you won't think of them as of "dumb beast" once you see how responsive and fast learning they get very soon after birth.

>>13120078
An antinatalist doesn't want it to come to that in the first place. Same goes for suicide, antinatalists are against breeding, not killing. I mean, I wouldn't mind getting aborted, but I'd prefer if my parents never conceived me to begin with.

>>13120078
Maybe

yes, it's intellectually defensible, although few take this position (I find it a bit weird myself):

https://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/09/notes-on-aborti.html

Thered have to be an authortarian sterilisation campaign to even remotely get to what antinatalists want. Its a losing position

>>13120183
anti-natalists are retarded because:

>humans go extinct
>some indeterminate time later, abiogenesis pops up again
>now you not only have new, suffering life, but it's an unknown variable, perhaps worse than the now

you played yourself utilitarian retard, and it wasn't even a good position in the first place for other reasons, checkmate. anti-natalism is short-sighted, the end of suffering cannot be known until the genesis of life/consciousness is known, and to do that you have to be some ultra IQ techno wizard. I've noticed, also Mr. Benatar, that you have conveniently avoided animal welfare. enter a neoplatonist strand of transhumanism...

>>13120078
I agree with >>13120090with my issue lies with the dissonance within pretending the word abortion doesn't mean kill. Just as much as aborting a fetus, an unborn life can you abort a living person, kill them. No consent will always result in the willful taking of a life.
On the case of consent, abortions shouldnt be carried out unless theres a medical reason, they dont have to be strict, even the possibility of a gene becoming live and expressing itself could be grounds for abortion. Often times whatever the fault is may not be discovered until after birth hence post-birth abortions, considering nobody can convince me that they are sentient on birth which evidently is not the case, there is no memory of a person to be destroyed
Memory and grand scale time on a deterministic or compatibilist framework issues all possible lives a eternal soul, pre-birth, pre-conception and post death, which renders all forms of preventative measures for the manefestation of physical life an act of murder and by extension relieves the act of its taboo nature, making way for a society that is tolerant of the many variations of these murders or if it doesn't relieve the taboo nature then pre birth abortions are still taboo

>>13120246
>once you have offspring
Dumb breeder trying to trick others into having kids, as if it's set in stone. There's already too many irresponsible dickheads popping out babies, so many orphans without a home. People should start adopting before making kids of their own, remember this, your genes are worth shit. Just lol at you "you have to spread your seed" fuckers, you're truly sick

>>13120260
Antinatalism is still a good position to hold regardless. Your decision to not reproduce is like a chain of dominos, it affects the world as a whole. It's the same reason why you should vote, one vote can make a difference. A world where everyone embraces antinatalism will never happen, there's no point driving it that far.

>>13120270
Calm down, sperg. I don't advise anybody to have kids, it's the hardest task (if your goal is to raise a decent human being) and the responsibility is enormous. I'm also not against abortion. Better to have an abortion than to have neglected, unwanted kid. Your advise about adopting is sound and it's true that there is already enough people here.
Don't wanna have kids? More power to you.

>>13120090

A sociopath in a society

>>13120270
Are you aware that if it wasn't for your "dumb breeder" parents, you wouldn't be here having a tantrum?
Inb4: "I didn't ask to be born" edgelord attitude.

>>13120293
my point was taking anti-natalism/anti-mortalist/suffering ethics to its logical conclusion, anti-natalists are just idealist cucks who live in edgy fantasy land, but the reality is staring us in the face. instead of being a pessimistic retard, realize that abiogenesis makes your whole utilitarian schema stupid in the first place, and become the transhumanist master race. you won't kill everyone, and even if you did, it wouldn't be good because abiogenesis is a thing as mentioned. so you look to transhumanism to find better answers and ends to the issue of suffering in consciousness, you're just a stonecold retard if you don't see the transhumanist future in front of your eyes. bodybuilders inject steroids, trannies become whatever they are with science, boomers walk around with pacemakers, military vets walk around with robo legs (like I do, my shit got blown off and my new leg is baste and superior but fuck it costs thousands to replace after some years) the transhuman future is not science fiction. it's a reality that will be hitting the political forefront within a few generations or just decades once the improvements become more accessible, and then you dumb political software goofs will be left with your dicks in your hands as hardware passes you by. posthumanity is post-political, it discards human psychology for something greater that no existing philosophy is even capable of understanding, and anti-natalists are just the equivalent of salty boomers who still think that their fighting in the 'nam of ideas means anything

>>13120317
I owe my parents shit. It's too bad I won't ever live up to their expectations, because like every dumbass parents they wanted a perfect child- social, smart, kind, etc. They never even considered that their child could grow up to be a reclusive autistic retard. That's the risk of child-bearing you must be willing to take, it's all a genetic gamble. Don't then blame it on the child when it's your shitty genes that he inherited. Parents are so delusional about their kids and think they're special, they need to protect their self-esteem and pretend their child isn't a fucking loser, because by association, they'd also be

>>13120134
So an acorn and an oak tree are functionally the same?