Abortion

I can construct a rational argument against abortion without needing religion.

1- Establish a logical set of "human beings" (homo sapiens). The set of "human beings" includes all members of the species "homo sapiens", as defined genetically.

2- Establish a logical subset of this set, of "developing human beings (homo sapiens)". The subset of "developing human beings" includes all members of the species "homo sapiens" as defined genetically, that are in some stage of the process of developing or gestating toward full autonomy. This can include either embryos, fetuses, or even infants. It may also be said to include people in a coma who need to wake and go through tremendous rehab and learning again how to do things like speaking or eating.


Now, we logically grant recognition of rights to things in the primary set (1) above. Of course it is quite possible for something in that set (i.e. a person) to forfeit some or maybe even all of their rights, such as if they commit certain crimes.

Not all rights apply to all people at all times. So we add a third premise:

3- Rights are applicable to things in set (1) or (2) [or any other subset of 1 or 2 that we might wish to establish] based on whether or not that right specifically can reasonably be said to apply to that thing individually.


So for example, we do not accord a fetus the right to freedom of speech, even though this is a rational human right that all things in set (1) are entitled to, assuming they have not forfeited that right and assuming that the right in question is reasonably applicable to that thing; in the case of a fetus, since it cannot talk and does not know language, the right to freedom of speech obviously does not apply to it. This also goes for very young infants.

Now, I need to establish the rationale of the second premise. This premise of the subset to (1) is a reverse engineering of the following argument: That it is impossible to establish or define a point at which a developing embryo or fetus becomes a human being. There is no point from conception to birth that can be logically and in non-contradictory manner demonstrated to be the precise moment at which this gestating thing suddenly becomes human. Because of this utter lack of any absolute dividing line, we must push the logical recognition of the categorical entity as far back as possible in order to avoid committing the error of failing to accord the thing membership in the category, precisely because we cannot logically and concretely establish the point at which entry into the category is granted.

Namely, because no one can coherently argue a precise moment somewhere between conception and birth that this developing/gestating thing becomes "human", we must recognize that no such line exists, and therefore we must add the category "developing/gestating human being" as a subset within the broader category "human being". There is no other non-contradictory resolution here than to include the developmental process within the overall category, since, again, there is no way to establish a dividing line between that developmental process and the catgegorical thing in question.


Now, it becomes clear that the right to not be harmed, or maybe just the right to life, should be granted to anything in category (1), and this now includes the subset (2) which is also within (1). We must also establish that "life" or "not being harmed" are reasonable rights to grand to the embryo/fetus, since of course certain rights do not apply to it (such as we saw above with the right to freedom of speech). So the question is: does an embryo or fetus have a reasonable capacity to possess a "right" to life and/or to not be harmed? Namely, is this embryo/fetus alive or capable of being harmed?

The answer is clearly yes. Since of course the embryo or fetus is indeed alive, and it cannot be argued that it is not alive, just as the cells or organs in your body are also alive, and as a consequence of that are capable of being harmed, just as an embryo or fetus can also be harmed. Therefore this right does reasonably apply to the embryo/fetus.

Next I will look at cases such as rape, incest, convenience, genetic defects, etc.

Two problems with this argument:

--That people are not so easily universally defined as simply members of the same species, but our cultural, individual, biological etc. differences can be very profound. The attribution of value of rights to the category as universalized 'homo sapiens' species is perhaps an attempt at idealization, but also perhaps a noble such attempt. Nonetheless, this categorization cannot be the final say when it comes to determining species-status. It cannot only be that black and white, yes or no, but it is also this black and white, yes or no, too, just not only this. For example, self-valuing alone proves that we ascribe value with bias, and necessarily so, and therefore any universalized value-assertion per species categorization is going to leave some of that individualization out.

--Just because the argument states that abortion would be morally wrong, does not mean that we can say one should never get an abortion. Often the choices are between two wrongs, or between a wrong and a very intense motivation or desire/need, a prevailing context, and it comes down to a choice that a person must make... and then live with after making it.

But that still does not give the government the right to play God with a woman's body.

The thing about abortion here in the USA is mostly regarding government funding of abortion.

Sisyphus wrote:

But that still does not give the government the right to play God with a woman's body.

The thing about abortion here in the USA is mostly regarding government funding of abortion.

It's not about "a woman's body", that is just propaganda. It is about another living being that just happens to be in her body at the time.

A developing human being as either embryo or fetus is not in any way the same as the body of the woman in whom it is gestating.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

But that still does not give the government the right to play God with a woman's body.

The thing about abortion here in the USA is mostly regarding government funding of abortion.

It's not about "a woman's body", that is just propaganda. It is about another living being that just happens to be in her body at the time.

A developing human being as either embryo or fetus is not in any way the same as the body of the woman in whom it is gestating.

Just look at how people are treated by others around the world. There is no value in a human being. None.

How about practicing restraint and not having so many babies and take better care of the humans who are already alive?

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

But that still does not give the government the right to play God with a woman's body.

The thing about abortion here in the USA is mostly regarding government funding of abortion.

It's not about "a woman's body", that is just propaganda. It is about another living being that just happens to be in her body at the time.

A developing human being as either embryo or fetus is not in any way the same as the body of the woman in whom it is gestating.

Just look at how people are treated by others around the world.  There is no value in a human being.  None.

Entirely false. People care about others, for others, treat others with respect and love, in addition to doing the opposite. You're only taking a very one sided view.

Quote :

How about practicing restraint and not having so many babies and take better care of the humans who are already alive?

How about having enough babies to meet the replacement rate of 2.1 without needing to import millions of people from outside of your own society and culture to meet that rate? What, you think having babies is evil or something? That's just more leftist propaganda.

Since you didn't try to refute my point about how a developing human being as embryo or fetus is not "a woman's body" I'll assume you concede the point. Although it would be nice if you were honest enough to say so.

I agree to your points here, Thrasymachus, at least on general principle -  Fuck it, barring rape-induced cases, before her 6th pregnancy no western woman should even consider abortion.

Thrasymachus wrote:

You're only taking a very one sided view.

How about having enough babies to meet the replacement rate of 2.1 without needing to import millions of people from outside of your own society and culture to meet that rate? What, you think having babies is evil or something? That's just more leftist propaganda.

Since you didn't try to refute my point about how a developing human being as embryo or fetus is not "a woman's body" I'll assume you concede the point. Although it would be nice if you were honest enough to say so.

Of course I am taking a one-sided view. I'm disagreeing with you.

That's what I've been talking about - population control.

No, I don't think having babies is evil. I do think that having twelve babies when you can't even afford yourself and wife a comfortable way of life is stupid.

To have many children in any part of the world where there is already high unemployment is stupid as well.

I do not have the knowledge to state when an egg in a woman's body becomes a human being. Therefore I cannot argue the point.

I have stated many time, prevention first. If an abortion is desired then it should happen within the first three months. But these are just my opinions. It is what I would recommend if I were asked.

It is my opinion also that as long as the fetus is in the woman's body it is a part of the woman's body and not a separate entity.

Quote :

It is my opinion also that as long as the fetus is in the woman's body it is a part of the woman's body and not a separate entity.

Since it has different DNA, it is not at all part of the woman's body.

Yes having a dozen kids when you are poor is stupid.

Quote :

I do not have the knowledge to state when an egg in a woman's body becomes a human being. Therefore I cannot argue the point.

Exactly. No one has that knowledge because that knowledge does not exist. Namely, the entire idea is bullshit to begin with.

And yes, prevention is fine. But, again, you need your society to hit the replacement rate with its own people.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Quote :

It is my opinion also that as long as the fetus is in the woman's body it is a part of the woman's body and not a separate entity.

Since it has different DNA, it is not at all part of the woman's body.

Yes having a dozen kids when you are poor is stupid.

Quote :

I do not have the knowledge to state when an egg in a woman's body becomes a human being. Therefore I cannot argue the point.

Exactly. No one has that knowledge because that knowledge does not exist. Namely, the entire idea is bullshit to begin with.

And yes, prevention is fine. But, again, you need your society to hit the replacement rate with its own people.

Nice to see that, although we do not have total agreement, we at least are agreeing to some aspects of this topic.

I really can't go much further with this. I have stated my opinions and understandings. We have different opinions. Fairly natural and normal.

So perhaps we could change the label of "Birth Control" to "Population Management"?

“Dear abortionists,

You are evil. Yes, this is directed toward both the doctors performing the horrific procedures, and the women making the heinous, murderous decision allowing them to do so. Yeah, Yeah I know. I can already hear the #SJW feminists foaming at the mouth. I can also hear all of their complicit, wimpy Christian allies demanding the need for “compassion” and understanding.

You deserve neither.

Everyone deserves forgiveness, absolutely. But your ending of a baby’s life deserves no compassion. Inhumane acts merit no human “understanding.” We all tip-toe around this. Why? Why, when the issues that modern leftists seem willing to tackle head on, are quite trivial by comparison?

See you’re likely reading this column because to some varying degree, it’s shocking. After all, who am I to call anyone “evil”? That’s a pretty damn strong statement. What makes me so sure? What gives me the right?

Well, let me take a stab at it (pun not intended). We use the word “evil” so often, it’s lost all meaning. Take Obama’s colleagues at the poverty summit this week, who accused Conservatives of practicing “evil”. How so? By cutting funding to extracurricular activities like band, and chess club. I know, I know. Individual states might actually have to pay for their own unused percussion instruments and obos? What are we, animals?

One needs only take a passing glance at Twitter to observe literally thousands of leftists calling Darren Wilson evil. Their justification? Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown… in what was ruled to be self-defense. Ah yes. There’s a special place in hell reserved for people like him.

So then why, I ask again, should it be any more shocking for me to place the moniker of “evil” squarely on the shoulders of women who “choose” to have scissors jammed into their babies head and ultimately see it sucked down a tube?

Listen, there was a time in this country where I believed that you abortionists truly thought you were arguing the point of “where life beings.” But as the science is increasingly revealed, I become more convinced that you know where life begins… you’d just rather have the right to kill a baby anyway.

Well known atheist, Christopher Hitchens, acknowledged that abortion was the equivalent of murder. Even Richard Dawkins did so (albeit unknowingly). If you look at leftist enclaves in Europe or even Canada who find themselves further along the progressive trail, feminist-warriors have nearly always, without exception, pushed for abortion up until well into the third trimester. This is well beyond the point of scientific debate as to whether the baby is significantly developed, can feel pain or in some cases, even survive outside of the womb.

To abortionists, it matters not. I call that evil.

Liberal politicians always use the “Well, of course abortion is bad, but” line of argument when addressing the issue. But they don’t believe it for a second. It’s why they champion that today, 1 in 3 women have an abortion in their lifetime. They’ve created a campaign around it. I don’t know exactly why. Perhaps it makes abortionists feel less lonely when dealing with their more than likely depression and/or psychological disorders later in life. But I’m sure that this statistically observable data will be chalked up to nothing more than guilt resulting from false societal constructs of morality. Cue the social justice warrior alarm!

Yes, we live in a world where it is seen as more callous to state the observable ramifications of performing a murder… than it is to perform the act of murder. We find ourselves in a time where it is seen as more sexist to condemn the act of sex-selective abortion… than it is to perform sex-selective abortion. We find ourselves in a time where it is more offensive to demand the defunding of Planned Parenthood, than Planned Parenthood’s repeated harvesting and selling of baby organs.

I’m supposed to tip-toe around this, because it’s considered offensive to do otherwise. Particularly to the women reading this who may be thinking about having an abortion, or have already had one.

That’s the point where we ultimately end up. I’m not supposed to call you evil, because it hurts your feelings.

That’s not enough. To you I say, consider your “offense” merely a product of “societal construct,” as it’s certainly much more imaginary than the life you aim to take. If I offend people willing to take innocent life, good. I have plenty of friends, I could use a few enemies. That means you.

…you evil abortionists.”


https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/dear-evil-women-who-abort-their-babies/

One of the best ways to attack the libera leftist delusion that envelops people’s minds into their brainwashed non-reality is to start with the issue of abortion. Once there becomes a crack in their ideological leftist view of abortion, it becomes more likely that they will have to deal with the bullshit of their entire paradigm. Back when I was still more sympathetic to the left I reasoned step by step through the issue of abortion, on my own, and ultimately concluded it was murder. This insight helped me to eventually break free of the liberal-leftist delusion.