Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:20:18 GMT
Relax.
It's not that big of a deal.
However, I don't think I misinterpreting at all the notion that you think that killing something is for the benefit of that something on the bais of what could happen to them.
You repeated that view repeatedly which is one I have no reason to ever agree with. If you more in line with what I think then I did misunderstand something.
In any event, abortion sucks and there's no reason at all to encourage as something that is good or beneficial.
That's something for each individual woman who makes that horrible choice to come to grips with and then we will start to see pride in it, not by people pretending that they have some special insight into how awesome it is for everyone involved - Including dead prekid.
The reality is that many women who have it after being encouraged to have it, don't think it's something to be proud or indifferent about (Especially since it costs so much...) and that is perfectly understandable.
The goal should be, not to get all women to think that an abortion is the right fit for all of them as if it were oxygen, but rather that only women who would be indifferent or proud of their often irresponsible behavior are the only ones obtaining them.
I think that my point is more nuanced than what you are reading into it. A non-existent being can never feel that they have been the recipient of a benefit; but equally, they can never feel that they have been trespassed against or feel deprived of something. The act of giving birth to someone can be perceived as an act of imposition. You are imposing a whole host of risks, dangers and also responsibilities upon this new organism, and were not able to obtain its consent before making this unilateral decision on its behalf.
An abortion is a procedure that may help to relieve a woman of the burden of having to carry to term, give birth to, and ultimately care for (or find care for) a newborn baby. Looking at it from that perspective, it is understandable why many would consider this to be a selfish act. However, when you consider it also from the perspective of the potential life, it should be concluded that the potential life has not been deprived of anything from this decision. Looking at the problem from the antinatalist perspective (my perspective), one realises that the potential life is actually being spared from the risks and responsibilities to which it could never have consented in the first place, without losing out on any of the benefits that it might reap were it to be brought to term (on account of the fact that a non-existent person can never have any desires or feel any deprivation).
Most people don't see things from the antinatalist perspective that I've laid out in this thread, because we are hardwired to see life as a great boon, to be driven to want to pass that on to a new generation and to overlook these difficult existential questions.
Abortion should really just be seen as a medical procedure to assist people in maintaining the kind of lifestyle that they desire. People don't get pregnant just so that they can have an abortion, and this is not something that anybody would encourage. Most pro-choice atheists probably see abortion as an ethically neutral procedure, or some may see it as a kind of necessary evil in order to uphold a woman's bodily sovereignty. Whereas I see it as ethically positive to refrain from creating new human life. Ideally, women would simply take the necessary precautions to ensure that they don't become pregnant, but if that falls through, then the most ethical thing that they could do would be to get an abortion.