[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 49 KB, 325x531, Heidegger3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508547 No.2508547 [Reply] [Original]

Let's talk about abortion.

Conservatives think that abortion is wrong because a human being is a human being from conception. Liberals think otherwise, that it is a fetus until a certain time later, i.e. that it's not a human being, just a collection of cells that will one day turn into a human being.

So what the conflict is about is human beings. Those who believe humans have souls are more likely to believe abortion is wrong and those who believe humans do not have souls (i.e. that they are solely their bodies) will believe abortion should be permitted.

Both sides are wrong. Human beings are not souls, nor are can they be understood atomically as the collection of their parts (i.e. bodies).

The essence of human beings is existence. What human beings do as human beings is exist as the openness or location where being unfolds and reveals itself as a world.

A human being isn't a being until it has a world. At first this a process. This is why we say that human beings develop themselves, they aren't imminent from the beginning.

Fetuses are at the dawn of developing a world. They can hear their mothers voices, noises, etc. But they aren't humans, and according to our Constitution, they do not have rights, and thus abortion should be legal until such rights are given.

Of course the next question would be do they deserve to have rights.

>pic related. heidegger is a saving power.

>> No.2508555

Applied ethics is a load of horseshit. This topic can't be argued unless we can answer the question of what it means to be moral.

>> No.2508559
File: 32 KB, 550x298, fuck you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508559

>Let's talk about abortion.

Let's fucking talk about literature.

>> No.2508560

>>2508555
That question has been answered time and time again, it's all opinion.

>> No.2508561

To me abortion must be legal because it will happen regardless of its legal status and if it is legal it can be made safe and be conducted ''above ground'' so to speak. To make abortion illegal will only endanger people.

>> No.2508564

>>2508547

Terrible argument OP, too convoluted and misses the point.

Here's a simpler one for you. The status of the fetus is irrelevant. Let's assume it's a full grown adult, with rights, etc.

It still doesn't have the right to use a woman as a life-support machine, leeching her nutrients, impairing her freedom and autonomy.

Does the woman have a moral or legal duty to exist as a life-support machine? No.
Is it nice if she did? Sure.

Doesn't matter who or what it is, if its Tom Cruise, or a 10day Fetus, you can't attach yourself to another person and demand they carry you around for 9 months.

The process of attachment is irrelevant. Abortion is basically self-defense against an obstacle that removes your autonomy.

>> No.2508569

I think that abortion is killing the same way war is killing. Not murder, maybe not even wrong or bad exactly. Just something that sometimes has to be done due to some grand scale of convenience. If you don't at least see both as sad things, things that shouldn't have had to happen in a purely good world, maybe think about it.

>> No.2508570

All those moral questions are bullshit. No one involved in the debate pays any attention to them. They start with their opinion and come up with moral argumentation to justify it. In the case of conservatives, their position is decided by their church; in the case of liberals, their position is a consequence of their desire to have reproductive rights for women. None of this argumentation about when right begins matters worth a damn. The only interesting argument is on the Supreme Court level, because the justices actually do makes some attempt to care about the justification for their decisions, and on that level it's entirely a question of privacy. It's a complete waste of time to pretend that the rightness of abortion has anything to do with the moment when life begins.

>> No.2508574

Abortion is great.

>> No.2508575

>>2508561

To me murder and theft must be legal because it will happen regardless of its legal status and if it is legal it can be made safe and be conducted ''above ground'' so to speak. To make murder and theft illegal will only endanger bystanders.

>> No.2508578

>>2508560

So the topic cannot be argued and law has nothing to do with right action?

>> No.2508580

>>2508564
The woman chooses to have sex and produce a child you fucking idiot, this is a choice with the outcome of being pregnant.

If she didn't want to get pregnant the choice is NOT TO HAVE SEX LIKE A FILTHY FUCKING WHORE.

>Abortion is basically self-defense against an obstacle that removes your autonomy.

Ah ok, so i can kill my parents when they reach old age and need help to support themselves, right?
Wouldn't want to damage my autonomy!

>> No.2508582

>>2508580
itt we troll

>If she didn't want to get pregnant the choice is NOT TO HAVE SEX LIKE A FILTHY FUCKING WHORE.

seriously though if anyone reading this legitimately believes this, stop

>> No.2508583

>>2508578
No, but there can be no definite answer because it's just an idea.

>> No.2508586

>>2508582
So it's impossible for a woman to not have promiscuous sex with strangers outside of marriage, huh?

Surely all women should have the right to murder their unborn children because having kids is such a drag........

>> No.2508591

let's say rightwing christians / whatever people are right. and abortion is immoral. it's murder, just the worst. can't we sometimes violate our own morals for the sake of practicality and common sense, or violate certain morals for the sake of others (women's rights)?

why this need to be always philosophically consistent when we're just a bunch of dickhead monkeys running around anyway and we're all in this together... sometimes we have to eat our own ideals

i don't think anyone here can mount a convincing argument against executing a serial child killer unless he's strictly being loyal to abstract principles and ignoring the stupidly meaningful everyday world (crude example and poor analogy but you dig my point)

>> No.2508596

>>2508583

There are definite answers in systems of ideas. Have a look at mathematics.

>> No.2508598

>>2508564
You're making the assumption that autonomy is the most important end all thing. That is your opinion, but it isn't the truth.

>> No.2508600

>>2508596
have a gander at godel's incompleteness theorem.

>> No.2508601

>>2508580
>The woman chooses to have sex and produce a child you fucking idiot, this is a choice with the outcome of being pregnant.

And the fetus naturally dies as a consequence of abortion.

She may choose to not be a life support machine.

Just because cancer is an effect of smoking doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it and remove it.

>Ah ok, so i can kill my parents when they reach old age and need help to support themselves, right?

If they are attached to your body biologically, and using you as a life-support machine, yes. You have the right to remove them, be they friends, family, fetus, king, rapist or burglar.

Would it be nice if you let them stay attached to your body? Sure, I guess...should it be legally necessary? Never.

>> No.2508603

>>2508586
>So it's impossible for a woman to not have promiscuous sex with strangers outside of marriage, huh?

we shouldn't give a shit if it is or is not possible

because it doesn't matter if people want to fuck outside of marriage. they can do that. it's not a bad thing.

>> No.2508605

>>2508586
it's not impossible, it's incredibly realistic. I guess you could shame all men and women from having sex outside of marriage, but then I guess it would be far more effective to simply encourage anal and oral sex, if the only goal is to prevent abortions.

>> No.2508607

>>2508591
What are ethics without consistency? If you consciously go against what you might think is the "ethical" decision in a situation, you either have to re-assess your ethical views or self-deceive until you forget about it or rationalize that you made the right decision.

>> No.2508610

An embryo/fetus doesn't show brain activity until around the 30th week of development. Up until that point it should be fair game to abort it.

>> No.2508612

>>2508603
Correct, it doesn't matter what people do, that doesn't mean that a woman should be able to murder her child just because the inevitable occurs from her risky immoral behavior.

>>2508601
>If they are attached to your body biologically, and using you as a life-support machine, yes. You have the right to remove them

More like, if you contractually entered the arrangement with them to be hooked together for 9 months, (aka sex without necessary preparations) and then decided to just kill them instead because you don't want the responsibility or to be "tied down".

Is this right?

>> No.2508613

>>2508601
>If they are attached to your body biologically, and using you as a life-support machine, yes. You have the right to remove them, be they friends, family, fetus, king, rapist or burglar.

This makes sense.

>> No.2508615

>>2508591
Every time you spill your seed outside a woman, you're killing millions of possible-people. In turn, every menstruation sheds thousands of life-giving eggs. Humans are born life-killers.

>> No.2508626

>>2508600

mathematics can't be developed from basic logic, but mathematical knowledge is still certain if proved

>> No.2508631

>>2508613
but where do we end as human beings.

phenomenology has long shown, and now cognitive science agrees, that humans extend themselves beyond their bodies. my existence is depended on my world, as is my world dependent on my existence. it's a feedback circle that isn't so dualistic. same with our relationships with people.

>> No.2508641

>>2508607
why do you have to re-assess your ethical views? can't you imagine an extreme situation in which you would violate your personal morals or ethics yet still retain that same sense of right and wrong?

>> No.2508645

>>2508612
>, if you contractually entered the arrangement with them to be hooked together for 9 months

They might have a case if you make a legally binding contract with the other party.


However, a fetus will have a hard time understanding the terms of the contract and agreeing to them. But if he does, then yes, the fetus has a case.

Saying the woman's actions imply she consents to the arrangement isn't fair either, she has to know the terms of the contract and agree to them.

In this case there is no contract, and neither party signed it.

>> No.2508647

>>2508645
It was an analogy you idiot.

>> No.2508651

>>2508645

Not to mention a fetus doesn't exist at the time of copulation.

So in fact, the woman can't even agree "implicitly" because the other party doesn't exist...who is she agreeing to support? What person? No one.

>> No.2508655

>>2508580

Get the fuck out of here, Limbaugh.

>> No.2508661

>>2508651
this thread is so off topic.

but whatever. just because the woman didn't enter a legal agreement doesn't free her from responsibilities. when the child is born and until it's 18, she is legally required to care for it and if she can't she is punished.

so no, legality and rights do not solely rest in contracts.

>> No.2508662

>>2508615

>every menstruation sheds thousands of life-giving eggs.
>every mentruation
>thousands of eggs

Someone didn't pay attention in health class...

And this is why you assholes shouldn't even begin to have an opinion on abortion: most of you don't even know how the fuck female bodies work.

>> No.2508672

>>2508662
LOL +1

>> No.2508680

>>2508662
are you saying women are forever fertile? If not, what exactly ARE you saying?

>> No.2508684

>>2508680

theres only 1 egg per cycle

>> No.2508686

/lit/ - same as /pol/

hang on it doesn't actually say that, does it

>> No.2508691

>>2508661

>just because the woman didn't enter a legal agreement doesn't free her from responsibilities.

She has no legal responsibility to care for a dead fetus.
I don't follow your argument.
Since she has the right to remove foreign intruders from her body, she can choose to remove the fetus.


>when the child is born and until it's 18, she is legally required to care for it

Assuming she doesn't abort it. Which is what we're talking about, and which she is fully allowed and encouraged to do.

>> No.2508695

>>2508686
it was posted at the same time in:
>>>/pol/2262077
and
>>>/sci/4501760

lol, /pol/ didn't even respond. so ya, hurp derp. lit and sci are more pol than pol is.

jk, it was a bit long for pol.

>> No.2508698
File: 49 KB, 248x280, 1328156153299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508698

>>2508680

>mfw he attempts to condescend

The combination of arrogance and ignorance is absolutely staggering.

>> No.2508699

>>2508684
so you're just preventing one person from living per month

well i guess that's better than thousands

>> No.2508703

>>2508691
>Since she has the right to remove foreign intruders from her body, she can choose to remove the fetus.

It is by her choice that it was fertilized via sex

she is bound by this to carry the child to term.

Further its a human life and endangerment of it/abuse of it/murder of it, should be against the law.

>> No.2508704

If the essence of human beings is existence, how come human beings aren't immortal? How come they formerly did not exist?

CHECK MATE PRO-LIFERS

>> No.2508706

>>2508698
>mfw you think it matters how many eggs a woman chooses not to inseminate, when the ultimate result is a life prevented from living each time regardless

and I thought Hitler was bad!

>> No.2508712

>>2508691
She doesn't have the right to remove it at eight months and thirty days, even though she is still it's life support machine.

Anyways, the baby can't care for itself for the first year or so, she's still the life support machine, so should she still have the right to chop it up and suck it into a vacuum?

>> No.2508715

>>2508699

No. The point I'm trying to make is this: You obviously don't know very much about the female reproductive cycle. I assume your lack of knowledge extends to both the physical and the emotional aspects. Why the hell should your opinion on this subject matter be acknowledged?

Hell, I agree with your stance on the issue. I support the right to legal abortions. But, the fact remains, you're essentially talking out of your ass. Not only does it weaken your argument, it makes you sound dumb as fucking fuck.

TL;DR: Know what you're talking about before you talk about it.

>> No.2508719

>>2508712

You should really leave it out in the elements. It's the only moral way to dispose of a newborn baby.

>> No.2508721

If it's come to the point in time when abortion is the form of birth control then maybe the woman is really far too stupid to either mother a child.

>> No.2508725

>>2508703
>it is by her choice that it was fertilized via sex
>she is bound by this to carry the child to term

She is consenting to a penis entering her vagina, not a stranger growing in her body.

Just because cancer is an effect of smoking doesn't mean we "consent" to it, and we shouldn't treat it and remove the tumors.


>Further its a human life and endangerment of it/abuse of it/murder of it, should be against the law.

A human's life can be ended justly if they interfere with your autonomy, i.e they try to rape you, assault you, steal your organs, live in your body, etc....

There are many cases in which autonomy trumps "life"
This is one of them

>> No.2508728

>>2508703

>It is by her choice that it was fertilized via sex

That's like saying that, by buying a losing lotto ticket, that person actively chose to lose.

>> No.2508733

>>2508725
ah so children are cancer?

>A human's life can be ended justly if they interfere with your autonomy,

So i can kill my ex-wife if she is demanding alimony payments?

>> No.2508736

>>2508715
and I'm saying it's irrelevant how many eggs a woman bleeds out every month. IRRELEVANT. Just as it's irrelevant how many spermatozoa a male ejaculates. One or one million. Doesn't matter. You're still preventing a life from being lived.

we're on an anonymous image board because one flawed or incorrect thought shouldn't be used to ridicule a person's entire argument. That's pure prejudice.

>> No.2508741
File: 69 KB, 290x434, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508741

>>2508703

Perhaps she was only consenting to sex, and not to fertilization. For instance, maybe a condom broke. I would conjecture that most women considering abortions did not want to be impregnated in the first place.

As an analogy - If I keep my doors unlocked at night, although I am engaging in an activity that could allow an invader to enter my home, I am not consenting to an invader entering my home. If somebody does choose to enter my home, and they do not leave, I have the right to use whatever force necessary to get them out of my house**, including lethal force (especially if I feel my life is being threatened).

Along the same lines, if a woman who has sex without the intent of procreation becomes pregnant, she should have every right to remove the invader. A simple, "would you please leave," most likely will not suffice in the case of a fetus, and at that point, lethal force may be necessary, especially in cases where her well-being is threatened.

**not all States grant this right.

>> No.2508742

>>2508736

Are you a man or woman?

I'll go first: I am a woman.

>> No.2508743

>>2508641
Sure, we can look at a classic example used against Kant, the murderer chasing a person running past you. The killer stops to ask you which way his target went, you can either lie and protect the person, a small contradiction, or tell the truth and go on your way with an easily prevented death on your conscience.

I think the difference is that outside of rape, the woman is engaging in sex knowing she could be impregnated. This is where she loses the ethical high ground, she's taking a risk and a human life is at stake. I don't think it's ever justifiable to kill an innocent person (regardless of their state of development) unless their wishes can be expressed.

>> No.2508748

>>2508736

>You're still preventing a life from being lived.

A woman is preventing life from being lived if she is not pregnant every 9months.

Now what?

>> No.2508750

>>2508743

>unless their wishes can be expressed.

Fetuses don't have wishes. Therefore, they yield to the wishes of the mother.

>> No.2508760

>>2508741
>Perhaps she was only consenting to sex, and not to fertilization.

Then she should have taken the necessary precautions. By not taking them, she has consented to fertilization by default.

>>2508743
Is the killer white? Is the target white? These are critical things to know, why for is he trying to kill the person?

>> No.2508763

>>2508748
Exactly. But then having constantly pregnant women everywhere would entail other problems, so we as a society have come to settle upon abortion as a necessary evil.

>> No.2508768

Here's a question...When does a fetus cease to be a part of the mother and begin to assume it's own identity? When does it cease to be a tumor and begin to be something akin to a conjoined twin (you know what I'm getting at, folks)?

What the hell separates a fetus from those weird tumors with teeth and shit...You know, those tumors that might have grown into another person if God wasn't such a sick prick.

>> No.2508769

>>2508743
>I don't think it's ever justifiable to kill an innocent person (regardless of their state of development) unless their wishes can be expressed.

You aren't killing the person.
You are taking them off life-support and whatever happens remains to be seen.

The problem the fetus faces is that he has no right to demand another person become his life-support machine.

We aren't killing the fetus, it's just early emancipation.

>> No.2508771

>>2508742
I have no gender for the purposes of the argument. Does this make you angry?

>> No.2508777

>>2508769
>early emancipation

best euphemism of the decade

"I'm not pro-choice. I'm pro-emancipation."

>> No.2508778

>>2508768

That is a matter of science and definition.

It doesn't matter, even if we treat the fetus as a full grown adult with full human rights, it still doesn't have the right to use another being as a life-support machine...

you see how easy this is? Abortion is always justifiable.

No one has the right to use your body or steal your organs and manipulate how they function, etc

>> No.2508779
File: 1.21 MB, 1536x1007, 1a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508779

>>2508760

>Then she should have taken the necessary precautions

Read the rest. There are plenty of situations where contraception was used properly and a pregnancy still occurred.

Even if contraception wasn't used, intercourse does not always result in a pregnancy. Regardless of if the couple in question is idiotic for not taking necessary precautions, she may not have consented to fertilization.

If I walk through a bad neighborhood without adequate self defense, that doesn't mean I am consenting to being shot. It would be an idiotic thing for me to do, but the point stands.

>> No.2508780

>>2508769
If a woman throws her child out into the snow/grass

she will be charged with murder.

Why is it different just because it hasn't been born yet?

>> No.2508781

>>2508768
lol read op's post.

>> No.2508784

>>2508780
ding ding ding.

this is what i was getting at here:
>>2508712

and is where the kantian self-autonomy argument you learn in ethics 101 falls apart.

mother is still a life-support machine (though diminishing) until the child develops into something that can care for itself.

>> No.2508786

>>2508778
who's to say the mother isn't choosing to use her fetus' body? And by use I mean destroy. That's what a pro-life person would argue.

>> No.2508791

>>2508780
>If a woman throws her child out into the snow/grass
>she will be charged with murder.
>Why is it different just because it hasn't been born yet?

If she kills her children or anyone else, that is murder, unless its justified.

It's justified if the children are trying to mortally assault her, rape her, steal her organs, or live inside her body.

The difference is in how you justify it.

>> No.2508794

>>2508786

The fetus is the one leaching nutrients from the woman and using her body as life-support.

It's a matter of science, not opinion, that the woman can survive on her own, while the fetus can't.

You must be thoroughly confused.

>> No.2508795

>>2508786

She isn't destroying it. Nature does that for her.

She is simply removing a parasite invader from her clean womanly body.

>> No.2508802

Women are designed by nature to bear children. When we defy nature we all pay a very dear price. Our humanity has always relied and always will rely on gender roles.

>> No.2508804

Doesn't matter if you consent or not. You always have the right to change your mind and correct your mistakes.

No one has the right to use another person's organs as life-support mechanisms.

You can't steal other people's organs, you can't use them for yourself.

All of my examples involve fully conscious humans. Tom Cruise gets attached to your body?

Tough luck for him, it's up to you to decide if he stays or not. Not the government.

>> No.2508809

>>2508804
>You always have the right to change your mind and correct your mistakes.

No you fucking don't.

>Tough luck for him, it's up to you to decide if he stays or not.

If you AGREED to let him get attached, for a certain period of time(9 months), you cannot just turn around and fucking change your mind and kill him!

>> No.2508810

>>2508771

No, not particularly. It's just...I have a funny feeling that you're a man. I'm not one of those people that run around screeching "MEN WILL NEVA BCUM PREGNANT SO THEY DONT GET 2 HAVE A OPINION!!!" because, you know, that's fucking retarded. Men are often drastically affected by an unwanted pregnancy, just in different ways and to a different degree. Women are affected emotionally, physically and financially, while men are often affected emotionally and financially. I don't think many people would argue the fact that women are affected more by their pregnancy than that child's father is, though.

What does make me uncomfortable, however, is the fact that a lot of men develop an opinion without bothering to do basic research on things like the female reproductive system and the emotionally impacts of pregnancy on women, or to develop a working knowledge of the argument surrounding reproductive rights.

While I appreciate the fact that men have different stakes in the argument, I feel like an attempt should be made to familiarize themselves with the feminine standpoint of the debate because, as I stated above, women are impacted more so than men.

But don't get me wrong: I don't think it's fair for women to shoot through this debate without understanding the male perspective, either. That includes understanding the laws surrounding child support, understanding the rights of the father, so on and so forth.

But let's face it: the deciding factor of my of my reproductive rights will be predominantly male. It scares me to realize that so few men have actually taken the time to familiarize themselves with information outside of the religious and philosophical.

...

And if you're a woman who doesn't know how the female reproductive system works, then you're a stinky cunt, and I hope you get teen pregnant.

>> No.2508814

>>2508794
Baby breast feeding is leaching nutrients from her and using her body as life support, though of course just a little bit less than a fetus.

Woman can survive on her own, baby can't. It needs the mother like a fetus does.

Fetus could survive with doctor assistance, and can be born as early as 22 weeks.

>> No.2508815

I... I don't understand what the huge deal is about.

Legally speaking, fetuses don't have any rights. In the US, you don't technically become a citizen until you have a birth certificate. Fetuses, having not been born, are not citizens and are therefore not allotted the rights and protection that living, breathing people have.

Probably because they're not people yet. Shocking.

Bitches need to stop pressing their morals on people and trying to get them passed as laws. Morality is a completely grey area, and it's not the same for everyone; that's why we subscribe to (generally) cold, logical law, which has allowed the option to nuke that bun in the oven if you so desire. If you're against abortion, then don't get a fucking abortion, it's that easy.

>> No.2508823

>>2508815
I think we should murder women who have abortions, stop pushing your fucking morals on me, you can't judge me!

Also non-whites and liberals.

>> No.2508829

>>2508810

Excuse those grammar mistakes by the way.

>> No.2508837

>>2508809
>If you AGREED to let him get attached, for a certain period of time(9 months), you cannot just turn around and fucking change your mind and kill him!

The other party has to also agree to your contract and its terms. You and Tom Cruise both have to agree.

In the case of the fetus, the fetus does not exist to agree at the time of copulation. Since it doesn't exist, you can't agree to be it's life support machine, who are you allowing in your body? He doesn't exist, so you can't acquiesce.

What if its 2 people not 1? You never agreed to 2. What if its 3? What if its 6? Who are they? You don't know.


So by default there is no contract, no agreement, and you can do as you please. Because the other party doesn't exist; Simple. :)

>> No.2508838

>>2508837
The fetus agrees by default as it can't exist until the act. The woman enters into the agreement by having sex without precautions.

>> No.2508840

>>2508837

<3 anon
bullet proof argument

>> No.2508847

>>2508837
haha you keep choosing the easy arguments. why don't you try something a little harder? :-> liek this:
>>2508814

awe, babby didn't get further than ethics 101?

>> No.2508851

>>2508838
>The fetus agrees by default as it can't exist until the act.

This makes no sense. If it doesn't exist it can't agree. To agree is to acquiesce to the terms of the contract, if the contract stipulates termination at 6months, or monetary compensation of 10000 dollars, what then?

There is no such thing as default agreement. Try some other silly tactic.

>The woman enters into the agreement by having sex without precautions.

The woman agrees to sex. Yes.
But there is no contract, no terms and no conditions, no counter-party, so there is nothing to agree to other than sex.

>> No.2508860
File: 1.11 MB, 850x854, yuyulick.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508860

>>2508778
>>2508769
>You are taking them off life-support and whatever happens remains to be seen.
Again, this type of analogy only works if the woman was hooked up to life support against her will. Unless she's raped, she's engaging in sex knowing she could be impregnated.

>>2508750
>Fetuses don't have wishes. Therefore, they yield to the wishes of the mother.

So if a human lacks autonomy, it's no longer illegal and immoral to kill them if we wish? What's stopping us from killing the mentally ill or the comatose? If you argue pro-choice through autonomy, you have to draw some sort of line where humans are protected or you can't really punish a mother for suffocating her newborn or blowing away her elderly father with advanced alzheimers. Is there anything significant enough about birth that it changes the situation ethically? Very young children are still pretty much completely reliant upon others and still can't really understand the situation or express their wishes.

>> No.2508861

I'm agreeing to have sex without precautions and I'm agreeing to have an abortion if I get pregnant.

Potential Fetuses do you agree? Ok. So we are all in agreement, whoever enters my body will be aborted.

>> No.2508875

>>2508860
>this type of analogy only works if the woman was hooked up to life support against her will..

It works as long as she doesn't have an explicit contract with the counter-party.

In the case of a fetus there is no contract, the counter-party doesn't exist.

>So if a human lacks autonomy, it's no longer illegal and immoral to kill them if we wish? What's stopping us from killing the mentally ill or the comatose?

It's legal to kill them if they infringe on your autonomy.
If the comatose patient requires your body as his life-support machine, you have no duty to surrender your body to him.

If a person requires your kidneys, you have no duty to give them to him.

If a person gets pregnant, they have no duty to remain pregnant.

>> No.2508876

>>2508860
I've been arguing the autonomy thing (that babies are leeches to their mothers, but mothers can't let them die) for a while now, and that fucker won't respond.

>> No.2508889

>>2508860

>So if a human lacks autonomy, it's no longer illegal and immoral to kill them if we wish? What's stopping us from killing the mentally ill or the comatose?

I am all for killing comatose people and mental vegetables, actually, There is no fucking reason to keep them alive. All they do is suck up resources and space. If it were up to me, the family of these people would be fully allowed to choose whether these sacks of dead weight live or die.

>If you argue pro-choice through autonomy, you have to draw some sort of line where humans are protected or you can't really punish a mother for suffocating her newborn

Newborns have brain functions. Until a certain point in development, fetuses do not. Therefore, they are fair game.

>Is there anything significant enough about birth that it changes the situation ethically? Very young children are still pretty much completely reliant upon others and still can't really understand the situation or express their wishes

But they have a clear desire for survival. If you put a pillow over a newborn, it will squirm. If you hook a newly-conceived fetus, it will do nothing but make stupid fish-eyes at you.

>> No.2508900

>>2508889
>If you hook a newly-conceived fetus, it will do nothing but make stupid fish-eyes at you.

what? These aborted children live for several minutes squirming around outside the womb

>> No.2508928

>>2508900

>These aborted children live for several minutes squirming around outside the womb

So they die of natural causes then.

>> No.2508929

>>2508928
everyone dies of natural causes, supernatural stuff doesn't exist right?

>> No.2508932

>>2508900

Nope. Brain develops last. That squirming must be because the body is doing something similar to what a chicken does when you cut it's head off.

>> No.2508943

>>2508875
>It works as long as she doesn't have an explicit contract with the counter-party.
Society is formed around implicit contracts, the technology to safely perform ultrasounds, abort fetuses, run MRIs etc would not exist without these contracts. For example, we implicitly agree to obey laws and pay taxes by utilizing the benefits provided to us by the community. Things like hospitals, firefighting teams, police, paved roads and highway systems, public schooling. The fact that pregnancy isn't desired is irrelevant if you agree with the idea of implicit contracts and ethical responsibility.

To the second part of your argument, again advanced societies have to cope with people both young and old that can't take care of themselves. You provided no alternative plan to deal with the mental ward patients or the comatose? If their wishes aren't known, you might be able to allow the family to act on their behalf and terminate life support, or leave it running. What do you plan on doing with adults that have serious mental problems that might endanger themselves or others? Lock them up in taxpayer-funded asylums or wait until they hurt someone so we're morally in the clear to kill them and be done with it?

>> No.2508960

>>2508815
I... I don't understand what the huge deal is about.

Legally speaking, illegal immigrants don't have any rights. Illegal immigrants have no legal right to residency in the US and are therefore not allotted the rights and protection that legal people have.

Probably because they're not citizens yet.

Bitches need to stop pressing their morals on people. Morality is a completely grey area, and it's not the same for everyone; that's why we should pass to the (generally) cold, logical law, which has allowed the option to eliminate intruders by any means necessary (if you so desire). If you're against killing illegals, then don't get fucking kill them, it's that easy.

>> No.2508969

>>2508943
>implicit contract
>public goods, roads, taxes...im a moron

A woman's body isn't a public good that everyone can use, so your analogy is quite comical and ludicrous.
I'm not interested in mentally handicapped and how we should treat them.

My argument is against people using others as life-support machines, using their organs as they see fit.

And so far no one has been able to raise one problem with it.

>> No.2508992
File: 43 KB, 500x545, 1331172222335.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2508992

>>2508943

>> No.2509006

>>2508889
I agree that the family should be given the choice to pull the plug if they think it's what the patient would want. A grown person usually interacts with family enough that they can get a pretty good idea of how they might have wanted it handled.

>All they do is suck up resources and space.
I think your argument runs a little astray here. Is autonomy all that would stop you from marching around executing people once they become too old to work/ reproduce?

>Newborns have brain functions.
So do cows and dogs, yet we don't award them rights equivalent to an adult human, do we? The problem with this angle of argument is you have to do the exact same thing a pro-lifer might do: put value on the ~potential~ for autonomy.

>>2508969
Not going to bother responding if you're going to resort to ad hominem.

>> No.2509025
File: 50 KB, 425x319, 1c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2509025

>>2509006

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

He rebutted your argument when he said...
>A woman's body isn't a public good that everyone can use, so your analogy is quite comical and ludicrous.

He simply added on an insult on top of it.

>> No.2509035
File: 23 KB, 300x300, 51iJwsVa8XL._SL500_AA300_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2509035

That's it, I'm pro-life now

>> No.2509039

>>2509025
he also said "im a moron" in the greentext

>> No.2509063

>>2509006
>So do cows and dogs, yet we don't award them rights equivalent to an adult human, do we? The problem with this angle of argument is you have to do the exact same thing a pro-lifer might do: put value on the ~potential~ for autonomy.

I ain't gotta do shit. I'm saying that a human fetus should not have the rights of a human because it lacks brain function, thus putting it below the status of humans. Animals are implicitly below the status of humans because they're not, nor do they ever have the potential to be, human beings.

Since human fetuses have the potential to become human, they are just slightly above animals. But really, not by enough to really matter in this instance.

>I think your argument runs a little astray here. Is autonomy all that would stop you from marching around executing people once they become too old to work/ reproduce?

Yep, because those people have obvious wishes and desires not to be killed, unlike young fetuses.

>> No.2509070

>>2509063
A human fetus does not have the rights of a human.

BUT IT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

>> No.2509076

>>2509070
It can have the right to life, but not the right to womb and board.

>> No.2509092
File: 92 KB, 400x400, baby laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2509092

>>2509076

>womb and board

>> No.2509168

>>2508651
in addition to all that a minor can't legally enter into a contract anyway.
Children have limited rights as compared to an adult. It would make sense that a fetus has even less rights.

>> No.2509171

>>2508651
You can have a contract with future persons. Not as much of a problem as you'd think.

>> No.2509174

>>2509070
>BUT IT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

YEP.

AND IT LOSES THAT RIGHT WHEN IT INFRINGES ON YOUR BODILY RIGHTS & AUTONOMY

>> No.2509178

>>2509171
>You can have a contract with future persons. Not as much of a problem as you'd think.

Sure, as long as he agrees to be aborted at 3months it's all good bro, thats what my implicit contracts always state.

Seems legit, good response, glad I could clear things up for you.

>agreeing by default to a contract with no terms
>nice try

>> No.2509181

>>2509178
>agreeing by default to a contract with no terms
Look up social contract.

>> No.2509182

>>2509171
>agrees to a contract with no terms

>Gets aborted and used in chinese soup recipe

hmmm...maybe the fetus should read the details before agreeing

>> No.2509185

>>2508564

A life–support machine that, in nearly every case, volunteered to be one. This argument is retarded, and always has been. It's also demeaning to women.

>> No.2509189

>>2509181

>social contract

good thing its only a thought experiment and even then it only relates people to their governments through political action

cool point, seems about as irrelevant as all your other ones,

>> No.2509195

>The essence of human beings is existence.

lol no

>> No.2509196

>>2509185

It's demeaning to women to say they consent to being life support machines by virtue of the fact that they had sex, and that once they are pregnant they must remain pregnant.

You have no way to combat this argument though, since its quite obvious its immoral to steal peoples organs or use them for your own purposes without their continual consent.

As soon as a woman denies you consent of her body, you must leave it.

This applies in all cases. From sex to medicine to life support.

If you are having sex and a woman says GTFO, you have to GTFO.

Same applies to a baby or person living in her body. She might consent at first, but when she says GTFO, you GTFO.

NO exceptions :)

>> No.2509199

>>2509189
It's as much of a thought experiment as any contract.

>> No.2509203

>>2509196

yep, the important thing is continual consent. without it you are trespassing and obstructing her body.

fetus or adult, it doesn't matter.

I don't think it would be legal to make any sort of contract like this...its absurd. It's like a contract allowing someone to "rape" you...

If you consent then its not rape...but once you get rid of consent then its illegal...

There is no contract or agreement in this case, all that matters is the will of the woman

>> No.2509209

The only thing that matters is the woman's continual consent.

We can compare this to sex. She can consent to sex, but if she changes her mind mid-pump, you have to leave and pull out.

You can't make a contract that potentially overrides her will.

As soon as the person disallows you entry into their body, you must leave. yes I like this.

Continual consent is key.

>> No.2509210

>>2509203
>continual consent

what the fuck is this? You consent ahead of time, you can't fucking change your mind.

>> No.2509228

>>2509210

Continual consent is exactly what it means.

you can't make a contract that stipulates "we will have sex until I orgasm"

Because if the woman changes her mind in the middle of sex, and tells you to get out, and you decline, then you are essentially raping her.

Your contract with her would basically legalize rape. you can't make a contract like that, you can't have contracts regarding illegal actions.

Likewise, the moment a woman removes her consent, you must leave her body and you can't use her as a life-support machine.

You can't contractualize turning someone into a life-support machine, that would be similar to the rape analogy, its illegal in and of itself.

Once consent is removed, your presence is inherently immoral. You can't contractualize such a thing.

>> No.2509243

>>2509210


You can't make a contract in which you turn someone into a life-support machine for yourself.

Just like you can't make a contract with someone to rob a bank and split the profit. Such contracts aren't enforceable by law, because they center around inherently immoral actions.

If you made a contract and turned someone into a life-support machine, and during the process they declined and removed their consent and wanted you out--you would essentially be raping their body, trespassing and removing their autonomy against their will---this is illegal and immoral and you can't contractualize such a situation.

>> No.2509253

>>2509243
>because they center around inherently immoral actions.

ah so pregnancy is immoral now?

>> No.2509265

>>2509253

if you don't have their continual consent to be in the body, then yea...you're basically trespassing and infringing on their rights

it's like anything else, if you're having sex and your partner changes their mind and tells you to stop, and get out...but you continue for half an hour while their screaming "stop" at you--you're basically committing rape

continual consent.


but pregnancy is even more serious than the sex-rape example, since the person is literally IN YOUR BODY taking it over and living inside you--a really terrifying experience

>> No.2509294

>>2509265
What if the woman wakes up the next morning and regrets it
was it rape?

>> No.2509305

>>2509294

Its not illegal for her to regret it.

>> No.2509314

>>2509294
What if the woman wants to try some BDSM, but the man ends up torturing to the point of painful mutilation?

>> No.2509324
File: 185 KB, 563x285, shut the fuck up comrade.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2509324

>> No.2509415

>>2509314
There's such a thing as due diligence, and choosing a safe word is part of that. If the guy was pressured into BDSM you could argue some form of duress, but that aside, both are equally responsible for the result of their agreement.

>> No.2509510

>>2509228
Show me a 6 week old fetus that can pull itself out of a woman's womb and be like "oh sorry mum, I'm not going to continue raping and pillaging your body if you don't want me here anymore, please don't abort me"
unlike a human male raping a woman, a fetus was given no choice in the matter, so there have to be EXCEPTIONS.

Your whole woman being used as a life-support machine is so bullshit, I can see the tower of shit that is your brains from here. It's all based around the assumption that this fetus inside her body is somehow doing something unnatural and horrible to her body. Rape is abhorred because it is often closely associated with violence and the act of forcing someone to do something against there will. A fetus does none of these things and cannot be accounted for them, so you decide to kill them for that reason?

Boom, there goes your argument, mr. Stupid as shit.

But I am pro-abortion.

>> No.2509519

> ITT: Rapists

Jesus fuck guys, when someone tells you to stop doing something you stop.

>> No.2509968

>>2509510
>unlike a human male raping a woman, a fetus was given no choice in the matter, so there have to be EXCEPTIONS.

No. We have to pull it out.
Just like if a mentally handicapped person starts raping someone and he has no idea wtf is going on, if the girl says stop, then the authorities have to remove the person.

There are no exceptions. Intruders are removed, the will of the intruder is IRRELEVANT.

>> No.2510739

>>2509968
but doing so doesn't directly lead to death (Obviously every party in this analogy would be fully aware that his raping her would not in any way escalate to her death, or else it falls flat).

If the only way to get the retarded person off of the woman was killing it (or let's say it was hooked up to some life support system and you consciously pulled the plug), that man or woman who did so would get charged with murder (especially if it was a vigilante), for the mental guy was not directly threatening her life, just her rights and "autonomy".

Furthermore, the mentally handicapped individual would not get charged with a crime for he is not responsible for his actions, just like the fetus. He would obviously get detained in some way, but he would not go to prison or be considered a criminal.

>> No.2510744

>>2509519
Jesus fuck guys, obviously when someone infringes on your rights you have every right to murder them.

>> No.2510758

All OP has done is change the question from 'is abortion moral' to 'do foetuses deserve rights', which is basically the same fucking thing.

>> No.2510759

Valid literary critique threads get 4 responses and sink down to page 15 in 2 days.

Abortion threads, tripfag threads (which are also abortion threads, really), politics threads, and race threads go on for days and garner 100+ posts.

Why are you guys even here? It's obvious you don't give a too much of a shit about literature.

Oh, and don't say "you're not posting /lit/ threads, complaining here." I've posted many. They got an average of 4 replies.

Sage this shit!

>> No.2510765

>>2510759
>2012
>going on /lit/ to talk about books

>> No.2512523

>134 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

lol you guys are fucking retarded

>> No.2512540

I'm liberal and I say of course a foetus is human. It's ludicrous to think otherwise.If it wasn't human it'd be another species. Or no species, which is stupid. Both mother and child have rights and that's the whole basis of law - negotiating priority of rights. Mother has to have priority because the child is living off her, wouldn't exist independent of her. Once it's safe and legal to take the foetus out and leave it to grow independent of mother then we can have that argument, but mommy is boss while the little guy is inside her.

>> No.2512573

Modern medicine and society makes humans too efficient at avoiding death. On the surface, we've historically been enemies of death so it's ingrained in our mindset and morals to be opposed to and work against death. Abortion feels wrong because it's fundamentally opposed to our instinctive, traditional approach of having as many babies as possible and cherishing them because they are so vulnerable.

Being healthy and wealthy all around means we have to look at the bigger picture. I don't like abortion but preserving life for Americans and other upper-classers of the world means we have to side with death at some point. If society is safe and wealthy to the point that convenience takes precedence over survival then we have to force ourselves to accept that.

>> No.2512587

>>2508564
aww, look someone read Thomson.

>> No.2513071

>>2508837
It's a social contract.

You never actually sign a contract authorizing the State to tax you in return for police protection, yet you still pay your taxes and enjoy police protection because it is socially consented by society.
A mother, or soon-to-be mother, or whatever, works in the same way, she never signs anything and neither does the fetus, yet society at large agrees (or maybe not, but that's not the issue right now) that since you consciously decided to have sex (rape not withstanding) you should be subject to the duties of motherhood (or fatherhood).

I'm not pro-life, but I just wanted to make it clear that legislation isn't the only source of obligation in the world.

>> No.2513078

>>2513071
>Socially consented by society
Damn, I'm retarded.

>> No.2513081

is it weird that the left is generally for animal rights but against abortion and the right are generally all about hunting but rant about how precious life is in regards to abortion?

>> No.2513083

>>2513081
No, because both make a distinction between an animal and a person - the right most of all.

>> No.2513087

>>2513078
Yet somehowa voice of clarity. A case of a moron amongst imbeciles?

>> No.2513088

>>2513071

Once consent is removed, the counter-party is tantamount to being a rapist, an intruder and a violator.

You can't have a social or legal contract that inherent violates someone's autonomy and right to their body.

Once the woman changes her mind and removes consent, the counter-party has to vacate her body. Similarly if she consents to sex and then removes her consent, the counter-party must pull out--or face rape charges.

>> No.2513091

>>2513083
you're right. i was thinking that. and the idea is what was said earlier, about WHEN life is actually life. i thought it was an interesting idea though. maybe for a story. maybe not lol

>> No.2513095

>>2513088
When Odysseus begged to be untied while listening to the sirens, were his rights being violated?

>> No.2513098

>>2508547
>girlfriend is batshit Christian.
>gets preggers.
>wont have an abortion
>says it's against gods will
>drop Gladdis' The Recognition on her stomach while she sleeps
>gets up and starts shouting how I could kill the baby
>"God wills it bitch!"
True story.

>> No.2513100

>>2513095
To loosely quote Robert H. Jackson, withdrawing sexual consent is not a matter of suicide.

In any case, weren't all the ears of Odysseus's sailors plugged up anyways?

>> No.2513106

>>2513100
That's what I thought when I read it in Dialectic of Enlightenment. I can only assume lip reading.

>> No.2513107

>>2513098
your fault for not using a condom!!!

>> No.2513120

>>2513095

We could argue he was under duress / coercion because of the sirens song, and was not of sound mind to give consent to anything.