Abortion as Mercy

[whirlingmerc]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

Most abortions in the world are little girls... so... by your reasoning and by extension it would be merciful to let little girls die and little boys live? ... that doesn't seem to be reasonable.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes you are selfish. The US is less than 5% of the world's population but using 25% of the world's oil, 25% of the coal and 25% of natural gas. Yet you think it is a good idea to selfishly bring more consumers into this world so they can take and take and take while 2/3rds of this world suffer poverty. Yes it is absolutely certain that you have children for no other selfish reason but to inflict your DNA upon the world. It is selfishness, always has been.

Wow.

Just.....

wow.

 

[dianaiad]

You are anthropomorphizing animals. The fight or flee response has nothing to do with a creature's volition but is an evolutionary adaptation. It is a automatic physiological response that has nothing to do with will


Again, evolutionary adaptation. The biological imperative or babie-rabies as I call it is physiological in nature. All creatures that reproduce demonstrate it. Thus, clearly it had nothing to do with them preferring existence to non-existence but their selfish genes promoting their survival in disregard to the health, safety or happiness of the organism. Just go ask Dawkins about this one.



I have shown that most of the world and it's people are suffering and all you have done is construct fantasy about water buffaloes and cavemen.

OK, and why are you so much more superior in your understanding of this than the rest of us?

And since you are...why don't you either a; have children and teach them the 'truth' of this, or
b: perform the most unselfish act you can, and remove yourself, not just from the gene pool, but from that group of consumers you so despise?

...........or is it that you believe that selfishness is a proper thing for humans?

How are you being so contemptuous of the selfishness of those who have children...but do nothing to mitigate your own?

Is 'unselfishness' a good thing, in your view? Or is it good to be selfish? If it is good...i.e., appropriate for the propagation of the species, to be selfish in this way, why are you contemptuous of it?

If it isn't, why is your selfishness, in taking up air, water and goods required to live, acceptable but ours is not?

I do not understand your position at all. It seems very contradictory.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You are anthropomorphizing animals. The fight or flee response has nothing to do with a creature's volition but is an evolutionary adaptation. It is a automatic physiological response that has nothing to do with will

No I'm not. There is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans are animals.

Again, evolutionary adaptation. The biological imperative or babie-rabies as I call it is physiological in nature. All creatures that reproduce demonstrate it. Thus, clearly it had nothing to do with them preferring existence to non-existence but their selfish genes promoting their survival in disregard to the health, safety or happiness of the organism. Just go ask Dawkins about this one.

Agreed, evolution doesn't favor self-loathing animals. And clearly, the genes cause the animals to prefer existence over non-existence, which is why the animals actually fight for survival rather than giving up and dying.

I have shown that most of the world and it's people are suffering and all you have done is construct fantasy about water buffaloes and cavemen.

Of course people suffer. But you're arguing that it is better for most people to never be born. I disagree. There are many people who have suffered a great deal who would also disagree with you. Many Holocaust victims, prisoners of war, etc. saw and experienced unspeakably horrible things, yet they still had a will to live and preferred existence to non-existence.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes you are selfish. The US is less than 5% of the world's population but using 25% of the world's oil, 25% of the coal and 25% of natural gas. Yet you think it is a good idea to selfishly bring more consumers into this world so they can take and take and take while 2/3rds of this world suffer poverty. Yes it is absolutely certain that you have children for no other selfish reason but to inflict your DNA upon the world. It is selfishness, always has been.

We also produce more food and export it than pretty much everybody else. Just so you know. We produce far more food than we use resources. Also, just so you know.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Actually a very good OP
I can not answer for others, But my Fianceè and I have decided to not have children, due to how the world is now.

Makes about as much sense as me not buying an iphone because there will always be an upgrade. Apparently you and your wife don't give each other enough credit to know that you can potentially endow your child to change the world.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Makes about as much sense as me not buying an iphone because there will always be an upgrade. Apparently you and your wife don't give each other enough credit to know that you can potentially endow your child to change the world.

It means that we see other things as more important then to have children born into a world like the one we are witnessing now.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It means that we see other things as more important then to have children born into a world like the one we are witnessing now.

That's one perspective to have but hey to each its own. This world still has hope and I pray one day I'm blessed enough to have a child and that my child will set ripples in the future of humanity where he or she will be the future catalyst for change. If the Creator decides I'm worthy of that.

 

[Erebus]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

If you haven't already, you should look into antinatalism which is the position that humans shouldn't have children. There are quite a few flavours of antinatalism but since your post is concerned with suffering, that's what I'll focus on. I wanted to expand on this post to give people a bit more of the reasoning behind this particular branch of antinatalism.

To start with, there's a principle called negative utilitarianism which posits that the best ethical approach is to reduce suffering rather than increase happiness. This seems to be the basis of your post.
Now there's an important distinction to make with negative utilitarians which is whether the goal should simply be the reduction of suffering or the elimination of suffering. If you take the latter view then antinatalism is the likely end result. Non-existence means a complete absence of suffering and so by bringing a consciousness into being, you're acting in an unethical manner by creating something capable of suffering.

Second, there's the stance that the potential for suffering outweighs the potential for joy. That can be interpreted in terms of negativity bias (that negative experiences have a greater emotional impact than otherwise equivalent positive experiences) or in terms of risk assessment or a combination of the two. Since we don't know what the future of our child holds, we have to consider the possibility that their life will be awful and weigh that against the possibility that it won't be. It's a gamble that some antinatalists argue isn't worth it, especially since negativity bias suggests that the impact of suffering will outweigh the impact of joy.

Finally, following on from the gambling idea, there's the fact that we don't know what your child or humanity itself will become. Your little bundle of joy could turn out to be the next Jack the Ripper or Stalin. Not only are you gambling on your own child's well-being, you're gambling with the well-being of others. Furthermore, humanity itself could find itself in a far worse situation than it currently is. While you may argue that life isn't currently all that bad, there's absolutely no guarantee that it will stay that way. We may end up scrabbling through the ruins of a post nuclear world within the next few decades. We just don't know.

So, all of that is intended to give a little background on why somebody might well argue that abortion really is a mercy. If you were to round up all the antinatalists of the world and ask them their stance on abortion, I'd put money on the majority being in favour. However, it's by no means universal and there are still those who are dead against it. They argue that a foetus constitutes a human life and that while it's unethical to create a life, it's at least equally wrong to end one.

People are of course free to agree or disagree with this stance on having children. Personally, I disagree with the view that having children is inherently selfish. The simple fact is that some people will see a greater capacity for joy and could give a perfectly logical argument that it's selfish not to create a new life (for example, by taking a utilitarian view in which maximizing happiness is the goal). Ultimately, it has to be a choice.

I choose not to have children.

 

[Prestor John]

If part of your ethics are to do no harm, to prevent and mitigate suffering and to be unselfish shouldn't be the act of abortion be construed as a mercy? When a child is born into this world, I am 100% sure that it will suffer, most likely for the rest of its life, this is an act of causing harm. And what is child-bearing? What is the reason for it other than some selfish need? Other than someone gets it into their head that they want children regardless of the consequences of the act. That seems to me the epitome of selfishness. We cannot determine the fate of the child born into this world other than they will suffer and cause harm, so what makes you think that bringing a child to term is anything other than selfishness unless you find some means to prevent that suffering and that harm? If you can't then why have children other than your own selfish desire?

Why haven't you killed yourself yet?