How do those disapproving of abortion view abstaining from having children?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. [...] Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should not be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I would argue that a mother committing pain- and stressless infanticide, is close to synonymous with deciding to not have a child in the first place.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I think [the question about infanticide] is one of countless examples that illustrate the absurdity of utilitarianism and/or moral consequentialism.

In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of money.

Even human egg cells can be sold for a good amount of money.

So wasting either is like flushing money down the toilet.

If you have either and don't want them, you can sell them. It's a kind helpful way to make some money.

Wow! Even though they are taken out of the context of your post, these are, er, surprising sentiments. Only an American would see profit as being relevant to a discussion like this one? Just: Wow!

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your reply.

I'll use green for money, and red for utilitarianism and/or non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

I imagine the way you feel about (1) peaceful pro-freedom people such as myself seeing ways to kindly and profitably create wealth by engaging in peaceful consensual mutually beneficial transactions involving money is roughly analogous to the way I feel about (2) violent statists and/or violent utilitarians supporting non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

Granted, my overall negative emotions or disturbance is probably much less since I have consistent inner peace (a.k.a. true happiness), and since I do not have any expectations at all, and since I don't engage in judgemental moralizing at all but rather I practice unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness. So you possibly may never see me use a puke face at all (""), not that this human body of mine never gets sick.

Most likely, even hearing about the very things that would sicken me most (e.g. the murdering of newborn babies) won't make me so bothered, at least not as sickened ("") as you may get by the thought of peaceful pro-freedom people peacefully making money by voluntarily engaging in consensual mutually beneficial transactions. Needless to say, wealth and making money is not a zero sum game, since when free people engage in voluntary consensual transactions wealth is thereby created due to the subjective nature of value. (Granted, violent anti-freedom people who support non-defensive state-sponsored violence and/or who support violently state-run economies might use an absurd objective theory of value, treating wealth as if it was a zero-sum game while doing their violent utilitarian calculations to decide who to murder, enslave, or rape, etc.).

In a discussion about infanticide or such, I doubt you are correct that only an American would notice and propose a mutually profitable non-violent solution as being preferable to murdering a newborn baby or other utilitarian violence.

Regardless, even by American standards, I am definitely and openly (and I quote) "an extremist and a fundamentalist when it comes to supporting freedom and peace".

To suggest that the average American supports peace and freedom as much as I do is (IMO) an undue compliment to the average American. Even by American standards, I think I am significantly above average in my support for peace and freedom and in my opposition to non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.). Americans may be more opposed to state-sponsored non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.) than our big government sisterlands in Europe, but the aggressively violent imperialistically genocidal taxing monarchies that originally invaded America have not been fully outgrown even here even after tea parties and such. While it is surely worse in many countries including especially much of Europe, particularly in countries that still have rich kings and queens sitting on their piles of violently stolen wealth, the lingering violent European imperialistic culture such as that exemplified by "manifest destiny" and classism itself still ripple in our zeitgeist. Granted, a native American in a reservation might be able to explain that better than even I can. Even Nazi Germany didn't put up numbers to rival the genocides and death rates and violent taxation and wealth stealing and land grabs of the violent big government monarchies from countries like England and Spain. If such countries are doing even moderately okay financially now, it's because they are thieves, and it's directly connected to why poor countries suffer the way they do even when they have amazing reservoirs of natural resources (i.e. wealth). I don't doubt that fading monarchies would struggle to make an honest buck. Peaceful freedom-supporting people create wealth; others violently steal it and treat wealth like a zero-sum gum. Peaceful people create; Aggressively violent people destroy. They murder, they rob, they rape, they steal, they do forced population control or such, they kill, and often they say the non-defensive violence they do is for the greater good. As I wrote in my book, In It Together, "self-proclaimed utilitarians may be the most dangerous people, if not for their self-righteousness, then for the eager willingness with which they commit violent atrocities."

Violent utilitarians and other supporters of non-defensive violence may strongly agree when you say things like, "Anything that helps to ease that is good." They may say, the ends justify the means, even when those means are non-defensive violence such as murder, rape, and slavery.

I'm sure there are many people who are money-averse.

I'm violence-averse.

I'm murder-averse.

Not averse enough to put up a puke face (""), but I think you understand my position on it.


Thank you,
Scott

[Vagueabsolute]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. [...] Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should not be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I would argue that a mother committing pain- and stressless infanticide, is close to synonymous with deciding to not have a child in the first place.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I think [the question about infanticide] is one of countless examples that illustrate the absurdity of utilitarianism and/or moral consequentialism.

In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of money.

Even human egg cells can be sold for a good amount of money.

So wasting either is like flushing money down the toilet.

If you have either and don't want them, you can sell them. It's a kind helpful way to make some money.

Wow! Even though they are taken out of the context of your post, these are, er, surprising sentiments. Only an American would see profit as being relevant to a discussion like this one? Just: Wow!

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your reply.

I'll use green for money, and red for utilitarianism and/or non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

I imagine the way you feel about (1) peaceful pro-freedom people such as myself seeing ways to kindly and profitably create wealth by engaging in peaceful consensual mutually beneficial transactions involving money is roughly analogous to the way I feel about (2) violent statists and/or violent utilitarians supporting non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

Money, useful of a system as it is, does carry connotations of avarice, which is what may have roused such disgust in Pattern. Of course, when putting ethics into practice, money can become a topical factor. I believe, however, that a focus on morale takes precedence over monetary gain in this conversation. Not that the two concepts can’t mingle.

Also, giving away a life for monetary gain could seemingly lead to, as much as i don’t like the word, inhumane, treatment of the child.

Money does often leave a sour taste in my mouth , but I realise that this notion stems from prejudice.

[Pattern-chaser]

I assume you don't actually mean this, but perhaps you should avoid writing things you don't mean. "Unwanted additions cannot be accepted, or even tolerated"? Break out the gas chambers! Send "additions" to the showers! "Anything that helps ease that (over population that is destroying the world) is good"? So the gas chambers and "showers" are good? So are murder, and war, and pandemics, according to PC

OK, I got a little carried away with my vocabulary, but this straw-man drivel is a bit much! Have I offended you in some way?

I specifically said that I thought you didn't mean what you wrote, but of course what you wrote offended me,. It would offend any decent person. That has nothing to do with "the vocabulary". It offends due to your statements that "unwanted additions cannot be accepted or even tolerated" and that "anything that helps ease (over population) is good." These sentiments are obnoxious, even evil, and responding to exactly what you wrote can hardly be described as addressing a straw man.

I have already apologised for getting carried away with my vocabulary. That was unhelpful of me.

But I mentioned nothing about Nazi atrocities, as you seem to accuse me of (see highlighting, above).

My sentiments, contributed in the context of the environment, and drastic human over-population, are not obnoxious, but simply factual. However, I made no mention at all as to how these imbalances might be corrected. You did that for me.

[Pattern-chaser]

I imagine the way you feel about (1) peaceful pro-freedom people such as myself seeing ways to kindly and profitably create wealth by engaging in peaceful consensual mutually beneficial transactions involving money is roughly analogous to the way I feel about (2) violent statists and/or violent utilitarians supporting non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

Granted, my overall negative emotions or disturbance is probably much less since I have consistent inner peace (a.k.a. true happiness), and since I do not have any expectations at all, and since I don't engage in judgemental moralizing at all but rather I practice unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness. So you possibly may never see me use a puke face at all (""), not that this human body of mine never gets sick.

Most likely, even hearing about the very things that would sicken me most (e.g. the murdering of newborn babies) won't make me so bothered, at least not as sickened ("") as you may get by the thought of peaceful pro-freedom people peacefully making money by voluntarily engaging in consensual mutually beneficial transactions. Needless to say, wealth and making money is not a zero sum game, since when free people engage in voluntary consensual transactions wealth is thereby created due to the subjective nature of value. (Granted, violent anti-freedom people who support non-defensive state-sponsored violence and/or who support violently state-run economies might use an absurd objective theory of value, treating wealth as if it was a zero-sum game while doing their violent utilitarian calculations to decide who to murder, enslave, or rape, etc.).

In a discussion about infanticide or such, I doubt you are correct that only an American would notice and propose a mutually profitable non-violent solution as being preferable to murdering a newborn baby or other utilitarian violence.

Regardless, even by American standards, I am definitely and openly (and I quote) "an extremist and a fundamentalist when it comes to supporting freedom and peace".

To suggest that the average American supports peace and freedom as much as I do is (IMO) an undue compliment to the average American. Even by American standards, I think I am significantly above average in my support for peace and freedom and in my opposition to non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.). Americans may be more opposed to state-sponsored non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.) than our big government sisterlands in Europe, but the aggressively violent imperialistically genocidal taxing monarchies that originally invaded America have not been fully outgrown even here even after tea parties and such. While it is surely worse in many countries including especially much of Europe, particularly in countries that still have rich kings and queens sitting on their piles of violently stolen wealth, the lingering violent European imperialistic culture such as that exemplified by "manifest destiny" and classism itself still ripple in our zeitgeist. Granted, a native American in a reservation might be able to explain that better than even I can. Even Nazi Germany didn't put up numbers to rival the genocides and death rates and violent taxation and wealth stealing and land grabs of the violent big government monarchies from countries like England and Spain. If such countries are doing even moderately okay financially now, it's because they are thieves, and it's directly connected to why poor countries suffer the way they do even when they have amazing reservoirs of natural resources (i.e. wealth). I don't doubt that fading monarchies would struggle to make an honest buck. Peaceful freedom-supporting people create wealth; others violently steal it and treat wealth like a zero-sum gum. Peaceful people create; Aggressively violent people destroy. They murder, they rob, they rape, they steal, they do forced population control or such, they kill, and often they say the non-defensive violence they do is for the greater good. As I wrote in my book, In It Together, "self-proclaimed utilitarians may be the most dangerous people, if not for their self-righteousness, then for the eager willingness with which they commit violent atrocities."

Violent utilitarians and other supporters of non-defensive violence may strongly agree when you say things like, "Anything that helps to ease that is good." They may say, the ends justify the means, even when those means are non-defensive violence such as murder, rape, and slavery.

I'm sure there are many people who are money-averse.

I'm violence-averse.

I'm murder-averse.

Not averse enough to put up a puke face (""), but I think you understand my position on it.


Thank you,
Scott

I was taken aback, somewhat, that in a discussion about abortion, a contributor introduced money and mutual profit. Many people find this a difficult topic to discuss, and it is, but I think many (most?) of us would consider that the discussion has nothing to do with money or profit, except incidentally and trivially. Some might even consider it tasteless (maybe even offensive?) to introduce money into a discussion about abortion.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, I got a little carried away with my vocabulary, but this straw-man drivel is a bit much! Have I offended you in some way?

I specifically said that I thought you didn't mean what you wrote, but of course what you wrote offended me,. It would offend any decent person. That has nothing to do with "the vocabulary". It offends due to your statements that "unwanted additions cannot be accepted or even tolerated" and that "anything that helps ease (over population) is good." These sentiments are obnoxious, even evil, and responding to exactly what you wrote can hardly be described as addressing a straw man.

***************************************************

OK, let's not get carried away here. This is what I posted, with all of the text included to provide context:

So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

The latter is preferable to the former. Abortion is putting right a mistake, as promptly as we can. The mistake is where the problems start, not the pregnancy or the abortion. Humans being human, people have unprotected sex even though they know they shouldn't, and have access to contraceptives. This is undesirable, but it happens. A lot. So we need to face the practical facts, and deal with them.

The authoritarian view might say "they made the baby, now they can damn well deal with the consequences!" But this punishes the (innocent) child, which is unwanted, and (quite probably) the parents are not equipped to raise a child, financially, emotionally, or in a multitude of other ways.

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. And yes, pragmatism does play a part in this decision. It's not only a matter of principle. There are practical issues too, that contribute. Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good. Abortion is one such thing, even though we all agree (I think) that it would be better if we could avoid it, by not 'generating' unwanted babies in the first place.

In my passion, and care, for this issue, I worded one short phrase far too strongly, for which I have apologised, and for which I apologise again. I expressed myself far too strongly.

But I made no recommendation as to how population might be decreased, and I certainly made no mention of Nazi atrocities, or even implied that such were in any way acceptable. If you had asked, I would've told you that (IMO) such issues might be addressed by ensuring that no more "unwanted additions" occurred by not getting pregnant! [N.B. It takes two to make a pregnancy; I am not blaming only women!]

[Ecurb]

I have already apologised for getting carried away with my vocabulary. That was unhelpful of me.

But I mentioned nothing about Nazi atrocities, as you seem to accuse me of (see highlighting, above).

My sentiments, contributed in the context of the environment, and drastic human over-population, are not obnoxious, but simply factual. However, I made no mention at all as to how these imbalances might be corrected. You did that for me.

Wrong again! You wrote:

"Anything that helps ease that (over population) is good"?

. Clearly, such "anythings" include gassing Jews or murdering my little grandchildren.

Of course I find that comment obnoxious and evil. If you didn't mean what you clearly wrote -- OK, fine. But you can hardly blame me for thinking "anything" includes Nazi atrocities, because it clearly DOES include Nazi atrocities.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In a world where there are 8,000,000,000 humans, unwanted additions simply cannot be accepted, or even tolerated. [...] Even the drain on the environment of an extra child should not be ignored.

Human consumption is destroying the world. Anything that helps to ease that is good.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I would argue that a mother committing pain- and stressless infanticide, is close to synonymous with deciding to not have a child in the first place.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I think [the question about infanticide] is one of countless examples that illustrate the absurdity of utilitarianism and/or moral consequentialism.

In practice, it is generally moot, since newborn babies are so valuable and can sell for a lot of money.

Even human egg cells can be sold for a good amount of money.

So wasting either is like flushing money down the toilet.

If you have either and don't want them, you can sell them. It's a kind helpful way to make some money.

Wow! Even though they are taken out of the context of your post, these are, er, surprising sentiments. Only an American would see profit as being relevant to a discussion like this one? Just: Wow!

I imagine the way you feel about (1) peaceful pro-freedom people such as myself seeing ways to kindly and profitably create wealth by engaging in peaceful consensual mutually beneficial transactions involving money is roughly analogous to the way I feel about (2) violent statists and/or violent utilitarians supporting non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

[...]

Violent utilitarians and other supporters of non-defensive violence may strongly agree when you say things like, "Anything that helps to ease that is good." They may say, the ends justify the means, even when those means are non-defensive violence such as murder, rape, and slavery.

I'm sure there are many people who are money-averse.

I'm violence-averse.

I'm murder-averse.

Not averse enough to put up a puke face (""), but I think you understand my position on it.

I was taken aback, somewhat, that in a discussion about abortion, a contributor introduced money and mutual profit. Many people find this a difficult topic to discuss, and it is, but I think many (most?) of us would consider that the discussion has nothing to do with money or profit, except incidentally and trivially. Some might even consider it tasteless (maybe even offensive?) to introduce money into a discussion about abortion.

I didn't introduce money into a discussion about abortion. I introduced money into a discussion about infanticide (i.e. murdering newborn babies).

I was responding to what Vagueabsolute wrote specifically about infanticide (murdering newborn babies).

I'm a proudly free-spirited amoral American who is shamelessly improper. I only eat with one fork at dinner (just one!), and sometimes I even skip that and eat with my hands. When it comes to propriety and such, I reject it with a proud shamelessness that many would describe as spiritual anarchism--all moral laws and shaming propriety be damned.

I will continue to do the following because I am interested in philosophy and in speaking truth, plain hard truth, not avoiding offending anyone. But, with that said, I am sorry that I ruined a classy polite pleasant proper dinner conversation about murdering newborn babies by talking about peacefully making money in a way that saves lives.

I'd say it won't happen, but I assure you it will.

As I wrote once on Twitter, I don't give trigger warnings; I give unsolicited exposure therapy until you're cured.


Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

"Anything that helps ease that (over population) is good"

.

The objection is not to the vocabulary you have used, but to the "ends justify means" philosophy that your phrasing suggests

I think you will the end without willing the obvious and direct means of achieving it. And you're not alone in either. Concern about the environmental impact of ever-increasing numbers of people seems entirely reasonable.

But how to act on that concern without treating people as objects, without resorting to an authoritarianism which we would not want others to adopt in dealing with us ?

[Pattern-chaser]

"Anything that helps ease that (over population) is good"

The objection is not to the vocabulary you have used, but to the "ends justify means" philosophy that your phrasing suggests

I'm sure I have already admitted a poor word choice on this matter. I did not intend to discuss implementation ("ends"), but only possible, and still theoretical, solutions ("means"). And therefore, I did not intend to offer an " "ends justify means" philosophy ".

Concern about the environmental impact of ever-increasing numbers of people seems entirely reasonable. But how to act on that concern without treating people as objects, without resorting to an authoritarianism which we would not want others to adopt in dealing with us ?

I cannot see why you keep on introducing individual consent to this discussion. It is not an individual issue. It is a global issue that affects all of us, en masse, without exception.

If the problem is universal, surely the solution (if there is one) will be too? Individual 'rights' have no place here, given the gravity of the issue, its universality, and the fact that 'rights' are not 'rights' at all, but only privileges we conceitedly award to ourselves and each other, as though we had the, er, right to do so.

This issue goes far outside human culture, ethics and morals, doesn't it?

[Agent Smyth]

"Blue! Blue! Johnny! I want blue!" cried Adrian as Jhonny held up two teddy bears, one blue and the other red. Will watched, quite shocked at this outburst. When Johnny was out of earshot, Will, never missing an opportunity to rhyme, asked, "what's up with blue and the two of you?" "Honestly Will, I can't tell the difference between blue and red, I just do what I just did to humor Johnny! It makes him so happy! I don't wanna ruin that, so precious!"

[Count Lucanor]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

I'm not sure if when you point to a "consequential perspective" you're referring to consequentialism as an ethical theory, because what you're describing here is not consequentialism.

In any case, almost anything could have been avoided if someone had not mated and brought to life the people that were active participants of those events. You end up with the old "blame it on Adam and Eve", which is pointless.

[Vagueabsolute]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

I'm not sure if when you point to a "consequential perspective" you're referring to consequentialism as an ethical theory, because what you're describing here is not consequentialism.

In any case, almost anything could have been avoided if someone had not mated and brought to life the people that were active participants of those events. You end up with the old "blame it on Adam and Eve", which is pointless.

Yes i am indeed referring to consequentialism, in the sense of ethically judging an action by isolating it’s results. Perhaps i may have compromised the theory by replacing results for intended/expected/known result. Both killing a fetus and refraining from ever breeding results in a life not lead. This isn’t a scenario of Hitlers mother killing her child because it might commit genocide. His mother had no idea what tragedies her son would cause. Not having a child on the other hand is sure to deprave that child of life, the same way abortion would.
What I’m getting at is the absurd naivety of banning abortion and naming it murder. Im not blaming a couple for not having a child and I’m not blaming a mother for committing abortion.

[Good_Egg]

A long time ago, I read a thought experiment about abortion. It goes something like this:

Imagine a future in which science and technology have developed an artificial womb.

Mr A is a surgeon, who removes the fertilised egg from the mother's womb, places it in the artificial womb, and switches the machine on. So that, if no other intervention takes place, nine months later a healthy baby will be born.

Mr B is a technician who tampers with the artificial womb, so that it will keep the developing foetus alive indefinitely but will never give it the nutrients it needs to develop. Thereby preventing any further growth.

Mr C is an accountant, who noting that the damaged machine will never deliver a baby in its current state, orders it stripped down and repaired, a process that will kill the foetus inside.

The technology is such that all three acts are effectively irreversible.

By the combined acts of these three men, an abortion has in effect taken place. If abortion is murder, runs the question, who is the guilty man ?

At the time, that seemed to me a good question. Mr A has interfered with nature. Mr B has snuffed out the future human being but not killed anything. Mr C has killed a being with human DNA but with (depending on the timing) less sentience than a goldfish and no capacity for physical pain or mental anguish or their opposites. Any of these could be considered wrong.

None of the possible answers seemed to me then to be philosophically sound. Mr B's act seemed to me the most morally weighty, but such consequences occur every time any man has the opportunity to father a child and does not do so.

Any views ?

(The question as posed said nothing about the consent of either biological parent. Which may well affect the moral rightness of each act, but does not at first glance cause any act to become murderous).

[Count Lucanor]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

I'm not sure if when you point to a "consequential perspective" you're referring to consequentialism as an ethical theory, because what you're describing here is not consequentialism.

In any case, almost anything could have been avoided if someone had not mated and brought to life the people that were active participants of those events. You end up with the old "blame it on Adam and Eve", which is pointless.

Yes i am indeed referring to consequentialism, in the sense of ethically judging an action by isolating it’s results. Perhaps i may have compromised the theory by replacing results for intended/expected/known result. Both killing a fetus and refraining from ever breeding results in a life not lead. This isn’t a scenario of Hitlers mother killing her child because it might commit genocide. His mother had no idea what tragedies her son would cause. Not having a child on the other hand is sure to deprave that child of life, the same way abortion would.
What I’m getting at is the absurd naivety of banning abortion and naming it murder. Im not blaming a couple for not having a child and I’m not blaming a mother for committing abortion.

There's an ambivalent use of the word "life" here, because one could argue that a foetus, since it is alive, is living a life, regardless of not being considered a human being yet. There's of course the idea of "human life" as the human experience of being in the world, outside the womb. If we use the first definition, the mere existence of the foetus implies that the only way to avoid its state of living is by destroying it. That doesn't seem to be similar to simply not mating, which doesn't imply the existence of anything alive, and does not require its destruction. Therefore they are not similar, ethically speaking, in terms of results. The destruction of something has obvious implications that are different to this something not being produced at all. They are different results.

[Anil G]

I believe people gets attached with the topic of abortion, as they might feel that against the nature of reproduction. When I think this in a emotional perspective, I also might think same. Although, it is totally agreeable that the abortion is a option to choose if the mother is not ready to raise a child. If the child is not born yet, how it would be consider it as a murder or killing through Abortion. Being practical in the matter of Abortion is difficult for the society.