/lit/ - Literature

>>8802642
Go to /pol/, retard

This board is for literature

>>8802650
Ethics is a part of philosophy and philosophy is related to literature, retard.

Also, I don't browse /pol/. I am clearly asking about adopting a stance, I never said a right wing one.

Christ, shut the fuck up.

You don't need a moral stance on abortion.

>>8802642
You don't need to have one.

Opinions are, in a lot of situations, useless anyway...

>>8802642
Read this:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

>>8802667
>>8802669
Well, surely you should have a moral stance on an issue which is likely to come up at one point in your life or that is regularly committed in society.

My gf could get raped or impregnated by myself by accident or a friend of mine could be raped or a friend of mine might accidentally impregnate his wife/gf and ask me what he should do.

>>8802674
>gf

You're never going to have this dilemma

>>8802671
Apologies but I have read the first paragraph and have to ask, does the author approach this through metaphysics and his idea of 'being'?

If so, it is unlikely I will find myself in agreement or disagreement, I don't think this issue should be tackled in this way.

But I will read it anyway, thank you.

>>8802680
It is probably the single most famous philosophical exploration of ethics of abortion. It's required reading, regardless of how incompatible you find it.

>>8802683
Thank you for the information, I will make sure I read it.

>>8802691
just read the wiki instead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
the meandering encompass and preempt all possibilities approach of philosophical discourse is too tedious to genuinely read

>>8802642

Do you believe in property rights? If so, abortion is no different than kicking out squatters.

>>8802714
>>8802740
Well, allow me to apply a different thought experiment with the use of property rights.

Judith argues that the 'house' aka the 'body' belongs to the mother and that at any point she can deject her intruder from the house or deprive it of the mother's resources without actually actively murdering the child in the case we believe it has a right to life but let us propose a different thought experiment;

Let us say we believe in property rights and I have sex with my wife. Now let's say that in a world which does not seemingly act in the same causal manner, the moment I ejaculated into my wife a starving man popped into our home in the blink of an eye. He is lying on the floor starving and it was my action of ejaculating my wife that brought him into being. Now let us say that because he is in my home, I seemingly have the right to remove him, I have the right to deject him from my property and restrict of him my resources as we are not seemingly obligated to help one another.

But a question here arises, by dejecting the man after bringing him into existence, am I not murdering him? Can it not be seen as a morally questionable act? Sure, he is on my property and I used the necessary protection in the form of a birth control pill and yet he still came into existence. Does this now mean that I am not responsible for his death?

>>8802674

>>8802773
Except I've actually read Stirner and you haven't.

Also, I don't see morals the same way he does so your non-existent point is moot.

>subscribing to metaphysics

idiot

>>8802804
>he hasn't read wittgenstein

Pleb

>>8802679
OP destroyed.