trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 11, 2014 17:36:08 GMT
Women have it bad both ways and I want to reduce all blame, shame, guilt, and fear that leads them into denial about what abortion is.
Now that I think we are both on-board with. We might, however, have different understandings surrounding "what abortion is" and what it's not (and how its related to ethics).
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 11, 2014 23:24:25 GMT
Trick, I agree with your reasoning, however, the free will belief-climate change denial thesis I developed probably also applies to the abortion issue, perhaps making disbelief in free will the wiser perspective. In other words, to the extent women feel that they, of their own free will, are choosing to have an abortion, this perspective might, in an effort to protect their self-identity as a "good" person, lead them to therefore conclude that abortion is not actually immoral. Climate change denial causes (will cause) much suffering, but I'd argue so does procreation. In other words, I'd argue the ethics of abortion itself (due to me being an antinatalist/consequentialist) are dissimilar to climate change denial...and that birthing may actually have an immoral consequence itself that is closer to climate change denial. 'Trick, considering the pervasive suffering in our world, I can appreciate your antinatalist position, however wouldn't that position nontheless have to conclude that abortion amounts to killing an unborn fetus, and, as euthanasic as the act might actually be, doesn't it invite the corollary that if it's alright to kill the unborn to spare them suffering, wouldn't it seem equally ethical to kill the already born for this same reason? Leaving aside the "fundamental" morality, or lack thereof, of each, it seems that the vast majority of people on our planet consider both climate change and abortion wrong, and it is this immorality that leads people to, in some cases, deny that immorality, (and the very existence of the phenomena in the case of climate change)as a direct result of believing in free will, with blameworthiness implications on our self-identity.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 12, 2014 1:28:12 GMT
Climate change denial causes (will cause) much suffering, but I'd argue so does procreation. In other words, I'd argue the ethics of abortion itself (due to me being an antinatalist/consequentialist) are dissimilar to climate change denial...and that birthing may actually have an immoral consequence itself that is closer to climate change denial.[/quote] 'Trick, considering the pervasive suffering in our world, I can appreciate your antinatalist position, however wouldn't that position nontheless have to conclude that abortion amounts to killing an unborn fetus, and, as euthanasic as the act might actually be, doesn't it invite the corollary that if it's alright to kill the unborn to spare them suffering, wouldn't it seem equally ethical to kill the already born for this same reason? Leaving aside the "fundamental" morality, or lack thereof, of each, it seems that the vast majority of people on our planet consider both climate change and abortion wrong, and it is this immorality that leads people to, in some cases, deny that immorality, (and the very existence of the phenomena in the case of climate change)as a direct result of believing in free will, with blameworthiness implications on our self-identity.[/quote] Killing the unborn is part of the causal chain that leads to killing of the born. It is partly for this reason that I still cannot accept abortion as a good thing even if it does spare the fetus from future suffering.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 12, 2014 1:30:45 GMT
Women have it bad both ways and I want to reduce all blame, shame, guilt, and fear that leads them into denial about what abortion is.
Now that I think we are both on-board with. We might, however, have different understandings surrounding "what abortion is" and what it's not (and how its related to ethics). I believe that we can work together at creating a better world even if we are not yet completely agreed on the ethics of abortion. Being the determinist that I am now, I expect us to have differences because our causal past could not be identical.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 12, 2014 13:06:11 GMT
Climate change denial causes (will cause) much suffering, but I'd argue so does procreation. In other words, I'd argue the ethics of abortion itself (due to me being an antinatalist/consequentialist) are dissimilar to climate change denial...and that birthing may actually have an immoral consequence itself that is closer to climate change denial. 'Trick, considering the pervasive suffering in our world, I can appreciate your antinatalist position, however wouldn't that position nontheless have to conclude that abortion amounts to killing an unborn fetus, and, as euthanasic as the act might actually be, doesn't it invite the corollary that if it's alright to kill the unborn to spare them suffering, wouldn't it seem equally ethical to kill the already born for this same reason? Leaving aside the "fundamental" morality, or lack thereof, of each, it seems that the vast majority of people on our planet consider both climate change and abortion wrong, and it is this immorality that leads people to, in some cases, deny that immorality, (and the very existence of the phenomena in the case of climate change)as a direct result of believing in free will, with blameworthiness implications on our self-identity. I think we truly need to look at the distinctions between infanticide and abortion in regards to a fully developed brain / central nervous system that has a greater capacity to feel pain - and in which if we are only concerned about preserving "life in general" we'd recognize a sperm and ovum as just as living as a fetus; the suffering a mother, father, or others who are psychologically interconnected endure when a child dies compared to an aborted fetus; and the fact that one is reliant on the body of another for survival (not sure if you ever heard of the famous pianist thought experiment) while the other anyone could take care of. We also need to be careful of using arguments from popularity considering the vast majority of people believe in free will as well as have some religious notion for why abortion is immoral rather than logical ideas surrounding such. ;-)
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 12, 2014 13:08:46 GMT
Now that I think we are both on-board with. We might, however, have different understandings surrounding "what abortion is" and what it's not (and how its related to ethics). I believe that we can work together at creating a better world even if we are not yet completely agreed on the ethics of abortion. Being the determinist that I am now, I expect us to have differences because our causal past could not be identical. Indeed Chandler, such is a great attitude and way to think about differences. And talking about such points is causality that has some effect on everyone. :-)
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 12, 2014 14:38:12 GMT
I believe that we can work together at creating a better world even if we are not yet completely agreed on the ethics of abortion. Being the determinist that I am now, I expect us to have differences because our causal past could not be identical. Indeed Chandler, such is a great attitude and way to think about differences. And talking about such points is causality that has some effect on everyone. :-) I can't help but wish that I had gained this attitude years sooner. I was taught free will as a Christian belief since I was a child.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 12, 2014 14:41:36 GMT
I think we need to be careful not to use a slippery slope argument (e.g. smoking marijuana will causally lead to heroin addiction). Also, it isn't only the person (who was once a fetus) that suffers, but the animals and other people who are harmed based by it's very existence (it's footprint) - not to mention a potential entire line of ever expanding family members if that person decides to procreate, causing the ecological footprint those people would require as well.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 12, 2014 14:44:55 GMT
'Trick, considering the pervasive suffering in our world, I can appreciate your antinatalist position, however wouldn't that position nontheless have to conclude that abortion amounts to killing an unborn fetus, and, as euthanasic as the act might actually be, doesn't it invite the corollary that if it's alright to kill the unborn to spare them suffering, wouldn't it seem equally ethical to kill the already born for this same reason? Leaving aside the "fundamental" morality, or lack thereof, of each, it seems that the vast majority of people on our planet consider both climate change and abortion wrong, and it is this immorality that leads people to, in some cases, deny that immorality, (and the very existence of the phenomena in the case of climate change)as a direct result of believing in free will, with blameworthiness implications on our self-identity. I think we truly need to look at the distinctions between infanticide and abortion in regards to a fully developed brain / central nervous system that has a greater capacity to feel pain - and in which if we are only concerned about preserving "life in general" we'd recognize a sperm and ovum as just as living as a fetus; the suffering a mother, father, or others who are psychologically interconnected endure when a child dies compared to an aborted fetus; and the fact that one is reliant on the body of another for survival (not sure if you ever heard of the famous pianist thought experiment) while the other anyone could take care of. We also need to be careful of using arguments from popularity considering the vast majority of people believe in free will as well as have some religious notion for why abortion is immoral rather than logical ideas surrounding such. ;-) The similarity between abortion and infanticide is that they both are effects of prior causes that we will work to reduce. I will not deny that they are different in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 12, 2014 14:49:03 GMT
I think we need to be careful not to use a slippery slope argument (e.g. smoking marijuana will causally lead to heroin addiction). Also, it isn't only the person (who was once a fetus) that suffers, but the animals and other people who are harmed based by it's very existence (it's footprint) - not to mention a potential entire line of ever expanding family members if that person decides to procreate, causing the ecological footprint those people would require as well. I think some slippery slope arguments have some merit if we can show that there is a causal connection. Tell me more of what we can do to reduce the ecological footprint of all those who are alive now and will be born in the future.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 12, 2014 14:53:57 GMT
Our understanding of the ways these differ is important information regarding whether we should causally "work to reduce" such. Another factor to consider is that those areas in which unwanted birth rates increase due to abortion not being legal are those with unhappy homes and higher crime rates (potentially). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 12, 2014 14:58:36 GMT
I'd argue, considering the differences between abortion and infanticide, that there is no causal connection (the slippery slope is a fallacy). Regarding ecological footprints, there are many ways, and one way is to educate people on the ethical problems of procreation (for example, using the asymmetry argument).
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 13, 2014 3:12:43 GMT
I'd argue, considering the differences between abortion and infanticide, that there is no causal connection (the slippery slope is a fallacy). Regarding ecological footprints, there are many ways, and one way is to educate people on the ethical problems of procreation (for example, using the asymmetry argument). One weakness I have on the subject of procreation is that I don't understand why people want to procreate. I don't have a desire for sex and therefore will automatically not reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 13, 2014 9:10:31 GMT
I'm not sure I see a genuine difference between abortion, infanticide, and the killing of children and adults. In all cases, a human life is being ended, and I believe it is this belief in free will, fundamentally implicating us as it does, that results in many of us remaining incapable of facing squarely what we are doing when we abort a fetus.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 13, 2014 13:08:51 GMT
I'm not sure I see a genuine difference between abortion, infanticide, and the killing of children and adults. In all cases, a human life is being ended, and I believe it is this belief in free will, fundamentally implicating us as it does, that results in many of us remaining incapable of facing squarely what we are doing when we abort a fetus. No doubt that it is "ending a life" that is "genetically human", but most of the time such is ended before it even has the same mental and pain capacity as a leach attached to your arm, nor is there the same psychological connection to a fetus that one has toward an infant, child, or adult, nor does an infant, child, or adult require to be physically attached to a person to survive. I think the free will (the lack thereof) understanding does help us understand the causality of each ethical decision, but I don't see where understanding that we don't have free will necessarily will lead to an understanding that one ought not abort (an understanding that such is ethically the best option).
|
|