Check out the Philosophy Vibe 'Ethics and Political Philosophy Anthology' paperback, available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
People always get Kant wrong. The universal maxim can't be made more specific to fit your own personal situation. If this was the case, you could justify anything. "Anyone of my sex, my race, my height doesn't like a particular thing in a particular situation, can do this to rectify the situation." The maxim must apply to everyone in every situation equally or it's not valid. It doesn't matter what your situation is, lying is always wrong. It doesn't matter what your situation is, murder is always wrong.
Thanks to this channel for making me understand concepts of philosophy in a very easy and understandable fashion,I was able to complete my Philosophy course with flying colours
This is very good except the final concern from Kant should be about whether fetuses are rational beings, not "human beings." Think about who he argues is an end in themselves.
just wonder for 9 months if it's morally permissible so that the child gets born and you don't have a dilema anymore but wait... what if the conclusion would be that abortion is the only moral choice
I would reason that the categorical imperative would fail the test of universalising the law that one could will for abortion to be outlawed, since it would remove a persons choice powers over whether the baby as an empirical being would get to exist in them, which would entail that whatever Alien and non-concenting force put that baby in the mothers womb would be of more moral worth than that of the mothers choice power. The baby can’t have a right to a mothers womb in virtue of its life being predicated upon her non-choice, since if any human life can only exist if another life is enslaved, the death of such a life would be a tragedy, but the enslavement of her would be still be the erasure of humanity in a human being.
A think a kantianist would clearly be pro-life. Kant cared about the action itself, so using the motivations for abortion (the mother wanting to abort) isn't valid under kantianism. If it were, we could say that everyone should have money to buy food and therefore stealing is ok if you need food, something Kant would have not liked at all. I'm not a kantian, i'm just trying to see where it would lead
I don't know I mildly disagree with that. I think from a Kantian perspective it could be argued that using the mother as a vessel for pregnancy uses her as a means to an end. Especially if she doesn't want to be pregnant. So even if you grant a fetus personhood there's still an ethical argument that you can't force her to carry it to term. Or at the very least have to have a deeper debate on who's rights and liberties are more important. But that would probably end up being a case-by-case kind of argument.
@@antinataliz9633 Serious question: Upon what would they base the premise that pro-creation is wrong? Is it because life, including being pregnancy, always involves harm? I.e. Suffering is a part of life? Or pregnancy always bears risk of harm? That human life harms other life on earth?
@@carriechildress5032 Yes, any combination of those reasons u mentioned can support it. But the strongest reason would probably be that procreation imposes suffering and death on another being.
As a Rule Utilitarian who is pro-life, I argue that Human beings arguably produce the most of amount of utility naturally and termination of the life is wrong, out weighing the mother's hypothetical potential suffering. In regards to the bit about feeling pain, there are people who are alive today that cannot feel pain, I don't believe that makes their life any more or less valuable than anyone elses. I consider a fetus a innocent human life and if we got into the practice of killing innocent human beings for the sake of convenience, this will overall be a net negative and thus, wrong.
I’m disappointed that potential utility is never mentioned, so here’s a dialogue I wrote to demonstrate this kind of argument: X: I’d like to ask a few questions about your opinion on abortion Y: Ask away X: If I kill a 7 month old foetus is that worse than killing a 7 minute old baby? Y: Yea that is worse X: Why? Y: The foetus is a bundle of cells, the baby is a sentient human being X: Why is killing the sentient human being, or any sentient human being bad? Y: Because it ends a life. X: So there is value in life? Y: Yes X: Why? Y: Because life is pleasurable to those experiencing it X: Life can also be displeasurable Y: In times, yes, but the amount of pleasure in a human life is usually quantitatively bigger than the amount of displeasure in that life X: Usually? Y: If you killed a sentient being, the being probably would’ve had a pleasurable life, had you not killed it, therefore making it wrong; it would only be a mercy killing, therefore justified, if the displeasure that is to be experienced in someone’s life is bigger than the pleasure that they’ll experience, but that is hard to determine. X: So the average human life is pleasurable? Y: Yes X: So in creating human life you are creating pleasure? Y: Most likely, yes. X: So in ending human life you’re not creating displeasure, but preventing pleasure. Y: For the victim, yes, but you’re also creating displeasure for the friends and family of the victim. X: But the victim would have died anyway, the grief at his death would have been felt whether he lived to 7 or 70. Y: The victim probably would have died from natural causes, making his death less distressing. Even if the death of the victim was painless. X: But the greatest loss is to the victim themselves, would you agree? Y: Yes. X: So I’ll rehash, in ending his life the greatest loss is not the displeasure caused, but by the pleasure that has been prevented from arising in the future. Would you agree? Y: Yes. X: And if you were a utilitarian you’d want to maximise net pleasure Y: You would X: And so by taking a human life, that reduces net pleasure? Y: Yes, obviously X: So the biggest crime is the waste of human life, would you agree? Y: Yes X: Since there is pleasure, and therefore value, in human life, and that value is comprised of the things that happened that add pleasure to their own lives or others lives. The longer the life, the more things that will happen and therefore the more pleasure that will be brought about. Y: Correct X: For every second lived that is a second less left to live. Y: Go on X: And if I end a human life I am not erasing him from time, the pleasure he brought into the universe is not undone, he is just prevented from producing any more pleasure from this point in time forward? Y: Yes X: And your capacity to produce pleasure into the future is heavily influenced by how many more years you have left to live. Y: Yes, what is it with these pointless truisms? X: So the lives of the young are more valuable than the lives of the elderly? Y: Yes X: So the death of a 7 year old is worse than the death of a 70 year old? Y: yes X: And the death of a 7 week old is worse than the death of the 7 year old. Y: That is what logically follows, yes. X: So the death of a 7 month old foetus is worse than the death of a 7 year old child Y: The foetus is not a person, the 7 year old is. X: But the foetus could become a person, and killing it would waste human pleasure would it not? Y: But now you’re forcing the mother to carry the baby, which is displeasurable to her. X: Does the amount of displeasure in 2 months of pregnancy and then childbirth outnumber the amount of pleasure of 80 years worth of life? Y: No X: What about 9 months of pregnancy? Y: Where are you going with this? X: Before I get to that, another question Y: Yes? X: Is killing a 7 month old foetus worse than killing a 7 minute old baby? Y: Yes X: But they both have practically the same effect, that is: no life. Y: So the mother has an obligation to carry the baby, because it creates more pleasure to keep it than to abort it? X: That is my argument, yes. Y: So your neutrality, your rights to bodily autonomy must be discarded, for the sake of utilitarianism. X: All must be discarded if it is an impediment to utilitarianism Y: Then where do you draw the line? X: Sorry? Y: By your logic women are now morally obligated to get impregnated and bear as many children as they can, because aborting a foetus, and not having that foetus at all have the same outcome, and since not keeping the foetus is a waste, so to is not having children, they both have the same waste since they both had the same potential. X: That is why I weighed up the pleasures of 80 years of life, vs. the displeasures of 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. Y: So you’re saying that their is a moral obligation for having children. X: Yes
Hi-(Kant Newbie here) I am curious to know how a mother carrying a baby for sure means that she is creating more "possible pleasure" from deciding to have the baby than to have an abortion. Keeping the child means a parent risking still being alive when the child dies and feeling the worst emotional and psychological pain and displeasure known to humans. Keeping the baby means finding the feeling of true satisfaction and "pleasure" from fulfilling our one purpose, meeting a pleasurable end, then wouldn't the opposite feelings apply at the loss of the child's life? If lives have so much value that the mother HAS to keep a baby then there is that much emotional and mental connection to consider. We are "rational" beings and it wouldn't be rational to not consider all outlets for pleasure. Keeping the baby is GUARANTEED displeasure common to all pregnancies with nothing but risks and hopeful sureties as well as with risks of loss of mother's or child's life, risks of deformaties or handicaps, ETC. on top of the possibility of one day experiencing the child's death; whereas abortion carries a long list of GUARANTEED scenarios that increase the amount of pleasure. So is possibly feeling the worst displeasure ever and never wanting to have kids again OVER for sure being able to numb to the loss of aborting your child due to the many feelings of pleasure because of the abortion and can still have a baby one day and create more pleasures ?--serious question and I appreciate your thoughts.
Sorry one more-Wouldn't we ultimately be going against ourselves as rational beings by creating a maxim on abortion and using ourselves as a means to a specific end-to make a decision about our life on something that might not even happen? Doesn't that go against our rationality?
@@tfowler9162 The displeasure of losing a loved one hurts because of the pleasure they brought to our lives. Basically every parent will be sad at the death of the their child, or vice versa, but the parent would most likely not regret bringing the child into existence because they died, and the child would most likely rather grow up with than whiteout the parents. The displeasure of losing a loved ones is inapplicable to the abortion debate, it’d however be applicable to the anti-natalist debate. The reason why it is inapplicable is because unlike say, the displeasure of having a child to young and being too immature or poor to raise it properly, not being able to enjoy your youth, having your body damaged as a result, going through an immense amount of pain, or the psychological trauma of having to give birth to your rapists baby, you or the child dying is inevitable and will happen as a result of childbirth regardless of whether the pregnancy was willingly or unwillingly continued, however the sources of displeasures I just mentioned are particularly prevalent among pregnancies that involved the mother wanting to abort the foetus, but being legally barred from doing so.
If a tree seed was in the soil and the soil was rich and had enough nutrients…there’s no doubt in your mind that you will say “in a few years there will be a tree here” so you could say a fetus it’s undoubtedly a human in a year. Just because it’s a seed or a fetus doesn’t change the structure of its nature. It’s 1000 trillion percent chance to become a human (the number is even higher but we try to put it into human reasoning) Life is the rarest thing in all of the universe. And if you don’t like it, then you can always opt to suicide because at least YOU made that choice, not someone for you.
If having children is solely her choice why do men have to pay child support her body her baby her choice , the proof is in the pooding if the man made a baby and begs her don't abort it the pro abortion people say her body her choice so if it's her baby let it be all the way hers and no more rutlesly to touchering men for a baby they have no jurisdictions over it
Utilitarian would be against abortion since 35,000 animals are harmed in order to feed the fetus during it's 80 years on earth. The harm caused to 35,000 animals is more harm than the pleasure of one human
There is more to the debate than that. Is the fetus a living human? Do all humans have a moral worth? Should everything that is wrong be illegal? Ben Shapiro believes that saying n***** is wrong (and rightfully so). He also believes that despite it being wrong people should have the right to say it. That is free speech. He believes the same about gay marriage. Starting with the premise that abortion is wrong, should it be illegal? I say yes. I am libertarian and I believe one of the one jobs of the government is to protect life. Did Hitler have worth after he committing genocide? I say yes. Should he have been put to death, and who should make that decision? I say no and I do not know. Is a fetus a living human. Yes. It is living and it is human. Even though I agree with you. There is more that needs to be asked.
Anubis does Leonardo da Vinci have access to modern information about fetusi, or is Leonardo da Vinci’s information about fetusi more accurate than our information
I can't believe you're even bringing up Ben Sha-p-word with people like Bentham and Kant. They'd smack you if they were alive. And beat Ben Sha-p-word for good measure for minimizing utility
I think a Utilitarian would have to take the morality of abortion case by case. For example if the woman was in a society with a declining birth rate and a shrinking workforce than she should not have an abortion. As is the case with many issues in a utilitarian system, the rightness or wrongness of the act in question turns mainly not on the effects of the act on the agent, nor on the being(s) directly affected by the act, but on the less direct effects on the community at large. The issue of abortion, stripped of the language of "rights" and emotional sway over "murdering babies", actually becomes one of the desirability of increasing or decreasing the population.
I see, but I'd be inclined to note that the fetus is also innocent and committed no wrong doings. But the personhood of the fetus is a better question than if it is a human life.
Even if a fetus was alive and human, it's likely to live a life of suffering especially when the parents are poor greedy and unhealthy. Surely it would be wrong to bring a human into a world of suffering. Sometimes no life is better than a bad life
That’s a metaphysical statement because life only exists because you are here…if you don’t exist, then what are you? You’d be nothing…and even a terrible life is subjective, because one person could experience complete horror but still be grateful to have eyes to see, ears to hear, and to be enriched with the pleasures of a physical life.
Everyone suffers to some form of degree, but it’s how you approach and overcome that suffering that changes your life. It’s a question of willingness to cling to hope or abandon it because of your own self despair.
@@alleymiltko7500 Thats why these new age thinkers are so okay with the idea of "saving a fetus from a bad upbringing" when if they had any idea what the upbringing of people in the past was like they wouldn't understand how everyone wasn't't "traumatized". So what if the kid has a bad childhood. At least he is fucking alive and wasn't ripped apart in the womb.
This reasoning works for people who are already born too. People who are already born can also be doomed to a miserable life, so killing them is justified with this logic, after all you would be doing them a favor, wouldn't you?
@@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714 we already do when it comes to dying victims or like when we euthanize our pets in old age to reduce suffering. The difference between a fetus and a born human is many factors like intelligence and other metrics. A fetus is nothing in comparison. Even the chicken you eat is more intelligent than a fetus. Shows the hypocrisy
Willingly engaging in or even promoting any activity that you know may produce a child that you will eventually kill speaks volumes about who you truly are.
Carmen Sprague I feel like you are a psychologist. Yes, those cases are exempt. They had no free will or knowledge that their activity would lead to a death. You realize that rape is almost never a reason for an abortion. It is less than 1% of all abortions. Everyone likes to bring up those instances. How are you supposed to legislate that? Would you require proof of a rape? Would you require a conviction? Or could someone who just regretted having sex claim that they were raped and receive an abortion? Since you are bringing up rape, pedophilia, sex trafficking, and mental illness, I assume that you believe that having an abortion out of convenience is wrong. By making abortion legal for everyone, millions of babies will be murdered for reasons that you did not list. They will be murdered simply because the mother does not want the baby. And yes, I believe birth control is okay. Preventing a life is different than murdering that life once it exists. Even in those cases I do not believe that abortions are moral. Rape is disgusting and anyone who commits it should be locked away. It is not that baby’s fault. It is the rapists fault. It is not the baby’s fault. It is the sex traffickers fault. It is not the baby’s fault. It is the molesters faults. Do not murder a baby because someone else committed a crime. I feel awful for those women and they should have aid and help during and after the pregnancy. It was not their fault either.
@@sorenspiller The fetus in question cannot form conscious thought nor hold biological desires greater than reaction to stimuli. The fetus is alive, yet not given personhood. To use natural capacity is a foolish argument, is an acorn then the same as an oak tree? There is a clear point of change, for the oak, germination, for the fetus, consciousness. Plus, I have major issues with the state being able to supersede the rights to organs of another. The woman's organs are her property and she should not be coerced into using them for the fetus. Because you have kidneys that another person needs to live, are you morally bound and should you then be forced to give them? No. Also, by driving, do I consent to the breaks failing and become responsible for an accident? No. because I didn't intend for a pregnancy to occur.
You sound like you are an advocate for martial law. Driving can kill people as well. So can going hunting. Your argument is very weak as you impose controlling people's actions as a means to prevent death? Do people not have free will? According to your logic people can't choose and make decisions for themselves. that logic degrades a person's rationality and personhood.
Didn't these women think before they had sexual intercourse? Their lack of sex education makes them unaware of how their bodies work. Use protection if you don't want to get pregnant or wait for marriage. Stop glamorizing carelessness.
Check out the Philosophy Vibe 'Ethics and Political Philosophy Anthology' paperback, available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Just like everyone else, thank you a ton- this helps so much more than a textbook reading with confusing wording that makes you go cross-eyed.
You're very welcome, glad we could help.
People always get Kant wrong. The universal maxim can't be made more specific to fit your own personal situation. If this was the case, you could justify anything. "Anyone of my sex, my race, my height doesn't like a particular thing in a particular situation, can do this to rectify the situation." The maxim must apply to everyone in every situation equally or it's not valid. It doesn't matter what your situation is, lying is always wrong. It doesn't matter what your situation is, murder is always wrong.
This was a very educational video, helped with my ethics class.
Glad we could help.
same i am righting a essay
thanks so much! helped with my essay soooo much, not to sure about the vibe ahaaahha but the vibe of you two is great! thanks and keep it up :))))
Glad we could help. Good luck in the essay.
How's the essay
Thanks to this channel for making me understand concepts of philosophy in a very easy and understandable fashion,I was able to complete my Philosophy course with flying colours
Excellent, so glad we could help.
Thank you so much. This video just explained to me what I’ve seen in two classes of 3 hours.
You're welcome, glad we could help.
Thank you! It gives me a big help with my Ethics class.
You're welcome, glad we could help.
What about birth control? I think it also cannot be universalized .
I had an essay on this due today and my god this video helped so much thank you
You're very welcome :) good luck in with the essay.
Bro… same😭 oral presentation tomorrow at 8 am lol. This video saved my ass
Thank you so much, this really was educational aswell as easy too understand!
Glad we could help :D thanks for watching.
Wow, this is a very interesting argument significantly eye opening. Thank you so very much for this video
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
Thank you very much
You're very welcome, glad we could help :)
I LOVE YOUR JOB!!! You have a new suscriber. :")
Thank you for the sub!
Such a good video. thank you
Pleasure, thank you for watching.
great help for my paper on abortion and moral theories!
Glad we could help.
never thought I would here a animated character spit facts so hard
This is very good except the final concern from Kant should be about whether fetuses are rational beings, not "human beings." Think about who he argues is an end in themselves.
Thanku for such an informative video
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Came here from Online Class and Lazy Education System
just wonder for 9 months if it's morally permissible so that the child gets born and you don't have a dilema anymore
but wait... what if the conclusion would be that abortion is the only moral choice
I would reason that the categorical imperative would fail the test of universalising the law that one could will for abortion to be outlawed, since it would remove a persons choice powers over whether the baby as an empirical being would get to exist in them, which would entail that whatever Alien and non-concenting force put that baby in the mothers womb would be of more moral worth than that of the mothers choice power. The baby can’t have a right to a mothers womb in virtue of its life being predicated upon her non-choice, since if any human life can only exist if another life is enslaved, the death of such a life would be a tragedy, but the enslavement of her would be still be the erasure of humanity in a human being.
legendary. thank you,
You're welcome :)
3:03 bookmark
Deontology: How about the question of if a child is a rational being. Is there a direct duty towards irrational beings?
Children are rational beings until around the age of 2
Nice video guys
Thank you :)
A think a kantianist would clearly be pro-life. Kant cared about the action itself, so using the motivations for abortion (the mother wanting to abort) isn't valid under kantianism. If it were, we could say that everyone should have money to buy food and therefore stealing is ok if you need food, something Kant would have not liked at all. I'm not a kantian, i'm just trying to see where it would lead
I don't know I mildly disagree with that. I think from a Kantian perspective it could be argued that using the mother as a vessel for pregnancy uses her as a means to an end. Especially if she doesn't want to be pregnant.
So even if you grant a fetus personhood there's still an ethical argument that you can't force her to carry it to term.
Or at the very least have to have a deeper debate on who's rights and liberties are more important. But that would probably end up being a case-by-case kind of argument.
A deontologist can quite clearly be pro-abortion instead, if they hold the unassailable view that procreation is wrong.
@@antinataliz9633 Serious question: Upon what would they base the premise that pro-creation is wrong? Is it because life, including being pregnancy, always involves harm? I.e. Suffering is a part of life? Or pregnancy always bears risk of harm? That human life harms other life on earth?
@@carriechildress5032 Yes, any combination of those reasons u mentioned can support it. But the strongest reason would probably be that procreation imposes suffering and death on another being.
@@antinataliz9633 as opposed to what? Not procreation? That would lead to the end of humanity. I don't think a deontologist would go for that.
As a Rule Utilitarian who is pro-life, I argue that Human beings arguably produce the most of amount of utility naturally and termination of the life is wrong, out weighing the mother's hypothetical potential suffering. In regards to the bit about feeling pain, there are people who are alive today that cannot feel pain, I don't believe that makes their life any more or less valuable than anyone elses.
I consider a fetus a innocent human life and if we got into the practice of killing innocent human beings for the sake of convenience, this will overall be a net negative and thus, wrong.
Very educational
Thank you :)
Bookmark 3:17
I’m disappointed that potential utility is never mentioned, so here’s a dialogue I wrote to demonstrate this kind of argument:
X: I’d like to ask a few questions about your opinion on abortion
Y: Ask away
X: If I kill a 7 month old foetus is that worse than killing a 7 minute old baby?
Y: Yea that is worse
X: Why?
Y: The foetus is a bundle of cells, the baby is a sentient human being
X: Why is killing the sentient human being, or any sentient human being bad?
Y: Because it ends a life.
X: So there is value in life?
Y: Yes
X: Why?
Y: Because life is pleasurable to those experiencing it
X: Life can also be displeasurable
Y: In times, yes, but the amount of pleasure in a human life is usually quantitatively bigger than the amount of displeasure in that life
X: Usually?
Y: If you killed a sentient being, the being probably would’ve had a pleasurable life, had you not killed it, therefore making it wrong; it would only be a mercy killing, therefore justified, if the displeasure that is to be experienced in someone’s life is bigger than the pleasure that they’ll experience, but that is hard to determine.
X: So the average human life is pleasurable?
Y: Yes
X: So in creating human life you are creating pleasure?
Y: Most likely, yes.
X: So in ending human life you’re not creating displeasure, but preventing pleasure.
Y: For the victim, yes, but you’re also creating displeasure for the friends and family of the victim.
X: But the victim would have died anyway, the grief at his death would have been felt whether he lived to 7 or 70.
Y: The victim probably would have died from natural causes, making his death less distressing. Even if the death of the victim was painless.
X: But the greatest loss is to the victim themselves, would you agree?
Y: Yes.
X: So I’ll rehash, in ending his life the greatest loss is not the displeasure caused, but by the pleasure that has been prevented from arising in the future. Would you agree?
Y: Yes.
X: And if you were a utilitarian you’d want to maximise net pleasure
Y: You would
X: And so by taking a human life, that reduces net pleasure?
Y: Yes, obviously
X: So the biggest crime is the waste of human life, would you agree?
Y: Yes
X: Since there is pleasure, and therefore value, in human life, and that value is comprised of the things that happened that add pleasure to their own lives or others lives. The longer the life, the more things that will happen and therefore the more pleasure that will be brought about.
Y: Correct
X: For every second lived that is a second less left to live.
Y: Go on
X: And if I end a human life I am not erasing him from time, the pleasure he brought into the universe is not undone, he is just prevented from producing any more pleasure from this point in time forward?
Y: Yes
X: And your capacity to produce pleasure into the future is heavily influenced by how many more years you have left to live.
Y: Yes, what is it with these pointless truisms?
X: So the lives of the young are more valuable than the lives of the elderly?
Y: Yes
X: So the death of a 7 year old is worse than the death of a 70 year old?
Y: yes
X: And the death of a 7 week old is worse than the death of the 7 year old.
Y: That is what logically follows, yes.
X: So the death of a 7 month old foetus is worse than the death of a 7 year old child
Y: The foetus is not a person, the 7 year old is.
X: But the foetus could become a person, and killing it would waste human pleasure would it not?
Y: But now you’re forcing the mother to carry the baby, which is displeasurable to her.
X: Does the amount of displeasure in 2 months of pregnancy and then childbirth outnumber the amount of pleasure of 80 years worth of life?
Y: No
X: What about 9 months of pregnancy?
Y: Where are you going with this?
X: Before I get to that, another question
Y: Yes?
X: Is killing a 7 month old foetus worse than killing a 7 minute old baby?
Y: Yes
X: But they both have practically the same effect, that is: no life.
Y: So the mother has an obligation to carry the baby, because it creates more pleasure to keep it than to abort it?
X: That is my argument, yes.
Y: So your neutrality, your rights to bodily autonomy must be discarded, for the sake of utilitarianism.
X: All must be discarded if it is an impediment to utilitarianism
Y: Then where do you draw the line?
X: Sorry?
Y: By your logic women are now morally obligated to get impregnated and bear as many children as they can, because aborting a foetus, and not having that foetus at all have the same outcome, and since not keeping the foetus is a waste, so to is not having children, they both have the same waste since they both had the same potential.
X: That is why I weighed up the pleasures of 80 years of life, vs. the displeasures of 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth.
Y: So you’re saying that their is a moral obligation for having children.
X: Yes
Hi-(Kant Newbie here) I am curious to know how a mother carrying a baby for sure means that she is creating more "possible pleasure" from deciding to have the baby than to have an abortion. Keeping the child means a parent risking still being alive when the child dies and feeling the worst emotional and psychological pain and displeasure known to humans. Keeping the baby means finding the feeling of true satisfaction and "pleasure" from fulfilling our one purpose, meeting a pleasurable end, then wouldn't the opposite feelings apply at the loss of the child's life? If lives have so much value that the mother HAS to keep a baby then there is that much emotional and mental connection to consider. We are "rational" beings and it wouldn't be rational to not consider all outlets for pleasure. Keeping the baby is GUARANTEED displeasure common to all pregnancies with nothing but risks and hopeful sureties as well as with risks of loss of mother's or child's life, risks of deformaties or handicaps, ETC. on top of the possibility of one day experiencing the child's death; whereas abortion carries a long list of GUARANTEED scenarios that increase the amount of pleasure. So is possibly feeling the worst displeasure ever and never wanting to have kids again OVER for sure being able to numb to the loss of aborting your child due to the many feelings of pleasure because of the abortion and can still have a baby one day and create more pleasures ?--serious question and I appreciate your thoughts.
Also-isn't denying a woman the right to an abortion, denying her right to bodily autonomy? We are rational because we are autonomous?
Sorry one more-Wouldn't we ultimately be going against ourselves as rational beings by creating a maxim on abortion and using ourselves as a means to a specific end-to make a decision about our life on something that might not even happen? Doesn't that go against our rationality?
@@tfowler9162 Can you explain what you mean by rationality and autonomy and stuff?
@@tfowler9162 The displeasure of losing a loved one hurts because of the pleasure they brought to our lives. Basically every parent will be sad at the death of the their child, or vice versa, but the parent would most likely not regret bringing the child into existence because they died, and the child would most likely rather grow up with than whiteout the parents.
The displeasure of losing a loved ones is inapplicable to the abortion debate, it’d however be applicable to the anti-natalist debate. The reason why it is inapplicable is because unlike say, the displeasure of having a child to young and being too immature or poor to raise it properly, not being able to enjoy your youth, having your body damaged as a result, going through an immense amount of pain, or the psychological trauma of having to give birth to your rapists baby, you or the child dying is inevitable and will happen as a result of childbirth regardless of whether the pregnancy was willingly or unwillingly continued, however the sources of displeasures I just mentioned are particularly prevalent among pregnancies that involved the mother wanting to abort the foetus, but being legally barred from doing so.
Root Problem to be Identified and Universally Agreed upon: Whether a Fetus should be considered human life or not.
If a tree seed was in the soil and the soil was rich and had enough nutrients…there’s no doubt in your mind that you will say “in a few years there will be a tree here” so you could say a fetus it’s undoubtedly a human in a year. Just because it’s a seed or a fetus doesn’t change the structure of its nature. It’s 1000 trillion percent chance to become a human (the number is even higher but we try to put it into human reasoning)
Life is the rarest thing in all of the universe. And if you don’t like it, then you can always opt to suicide because at least YOU made that choice, not someone for you.
@@alleymiltko7500 Don't worry bro, I', Pro Life. Its just that I look at this in a Philosophical and Psychological perspective of both sides.
A fetus is only a fetus for a few months so don’t spend too long trying to decide if it is a “real being” or else it will already be born. 😂😂😂
I think fetus is just pre birth stage. Where you exist but in very first devolaping phase. Even though as a cluster of cells.
If having children is solely her choice why do men have to pay child support her body her baby her choice , the proof is in the pooding if the man made a baby and begs her don't abort it the pro abortion people say her body her choice so if it's her baby let it be all the way hers and no more rutlesly to touchering men for a baby they have no jurisdictions over it
Utilitarian would be against abortion since 35,000 animals are harmed in order to feed the fetus during it's 80 years on earth. The harm caused to 35,000 animals is more harm than the pleasure of one human
Go vegetarian
You mean pro-choice?
I think you meant to say for abortion.
Like Ben Shapiro says it always comes down to is the fetus a living human?
There is more to the debate than that. Is the fetus a living human? Do all humans have a moral worth? Should everything that is wrong be illegal? Ben Shapiro believes that saying n***** is wrong (and rightfully so). He also believes that despite it being wrong people should have the right to say it. That is free speech. He believes the same about gay marriage. Starting with the premise that abortion is wrong, should it be illegal? I say yes. I am libertarian and I believe one of the one jobs of the government is to protect life. Did Hitler have worth after he committing genocide? I say yes. Should he have been put to death, and who should make that decision? I say no and I do not know. Is a fetus a living human. Yes. It is living and it is human. Even though I agree with you. There is more that needs to be asked.
Leonardo da Vinci, who discovered the huma phenomenon of pregnancy, says no.
Anubis does Leonardo da Vinci have access to modern information about fetusi, or is Leonardo da Vinci’s information about fetusi more accurate than our information
@@JL-yq9xn He knew everything about pregnancy, except that smoking and shitty alimentation can kill him, obviously.
I can't believe you're even bringing up Ben Sha-p-word with people like Bentham and Kant. They'd smack you if they were alive. And beat Ben Sha-p-word for good measure for minimizing utility
I think a Utilitarian would have to take the morality of abortion case by case. For example if the woman was in a society with a declining birth rate and a shrinking workforce than she should not have an abortion. As is the case with many issues in a utilitarian system, the rightness or wrongness of the act in question turns mainly not on the effects of the act on the agent, nor on the being(s) directly affected by the act, but on the less direct effects on the community at large. The issue of abortion, stripped of the language of "rights" and emotional sway over "murdering babies", actually becomes one of the desirability of increasing or decreasing the population.
literally so sad that i finished binge-watching all the episofes..
I thought that the question was whether or not a fetus is a PERSON
We know definitively that a fetus is alive and that it is human
I see, but I'd be inclined to note that the fetus is also innocent and committed no wrong doings. But the personhood of the fetus is a better question than if it is a human life.
Even if a fetus was alive and human, it's likely to live a life of suffering especially when the parents are poor greedy and unhealthy. Surely it would be wrong to bring a human into a world of suffering. Sometimes no life is better than a bad life
That’s a metaphysical statement because life only exists because you are here…if you don’t exist, then what are you? You’d be nothing…and even a terrible life is subjective, because one person could experience complete horror but still be grateful to have eyes to see, ears to hear, and to be enriched with the pleasures of a physical life.
Everyone suffers to some form of degree, but it’s how you approach and overcome that suffering that changes your life. It’s a question of willingness to cling to hope or abandon it because of your own self despair.
@@alleymiltko7500 Thats why these new age thinkers are so okay with the idea of "saving a fetus from a bad upbringing" when if they had any idea what the upbringing of people in the past was like they wouldn't understand how everyone wasn't't "traumatized". So what if the kid has a bad childhood. At least he is fucking alive and wasn't ripped apart in the womb.
This reasoning works for people who are already born too. People who are already born can also be doomed to a miserable life, so killing them is justified with this logic, after all you would be doing them a favor, wouldn't you?
@@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714 we already do when it comes to dying victims or like when we euthanize our pets in old age to reduce suffering. The difference between a fetus and a born human is many factors like intelligence and other metrics. A fetus is nothing in comparison. Even the chicken you eat is more intelligent than a fetus. Shows the hypocrisy
Willingly engaging in or even promoting any activity that you know may produce a child that you will eventually kill speaks volumes about who you truly are.
Rape, molesting a young girl, sex trafficking, mentally ill....hmmmmmmmm. Are they exempt from your criticism. Is birth control ok in your opinion?
Carmen Sprague I feel like you are a psychologist. Yes, those cases are exempt. They had no free will or knowledge that their activity would lead to a death. You realize that rape is almost never a reason for an abortion. It is less than 1% of all abortions. Everyone likes to bring up those instances. How are you supposed to legislate that? Would you require proof of a rape? Would you require a conviction? Or could someone who just regretted having sex claim that they were raped and receive an abortion? Since you are bringing up rape, pedophilia, sex trafficking, and mental illness, I assume that you believe that having an abortion out of convenience is wrong. By making abortion legal for everyone, millions of babies will be murdered for reasons that you did not list. They will be murdered simply because the mother does not want the baby. And yes, I believe birth control is okay. Preventing a life is different than murdering that life once it exists. Even in those cases I do not believe that abortions are moral. Rape is disgusting and anyone who commits it should be locked away. It is not that baby’s fault. It is the rapists fault. It is not the baby’s fault. It is the sex traffickers fault. It is not the baby’s fault. It is the molesters faults. Do not murder a baby because someone else committed a crime. I feel awful for those women and they should have aid and help during and after the pregnancy. It was not their fault either.
Amy if a woman can do whatever she wants to her body, is she allowed to kill her baby the day before it comes out?
@@sorenspiller The fetus in question cannot form conscious thought nor hold biological desires greater than reaction to stimuli. The fetus is alive, yet not given personhood. To use natural capacity is a foolish argument, is an acorn then the same as an oak tree? There is a clear point of change, for the oak, germination, for the fetus, consciousness. Plus, I have major issues with the state being able to supersede the rights to organs of another. The woman's organs are her property and she should not be coerced into using them for the fetus. Because you have kidneys that another person needs to live, are you morally bound and should you then be forced to give them? No. Also, by driving, do I consent to the breaks failing and become responsible for an accident? No. because I didn't intend for a pregnancy to occur.
You sound like you are an advocate for martial law. Driving can kill people as well. So can going hunting. Your argument is very weak as you impose controlling people's actions as a means to prevent death? Do people not have free will? According to your logic people can't choose and make decisions for themselves. that logic degrades a person's rationality and personhood.
Didn't these women think before they had sexual intercourse? Their lack of sex education makes them unaware of how their bodies work. Use protection if you don't want to get pregnant or wait for marriage. Stop glamorizing carelessness.