An ethics approach to abortion

[Mentieth]

A Theists View on an Atheists View on Abortion
First and foremost I must make the grave admittance that I am a theist, namely a devout Christian; however I will herein seek to lay that aside for a rational, yet emotion-factoring, look at abortion from an atheist perspective. I hope this disclaimer can go to justify some of the remarks I make, be they irrational (I am unused to discussing on this side of the fence) or against the beliefs of non-theism (I say this as atheism denotes non-belief). Also, this is designed not that divinity should be a response, but that there be grounds besides divinity that may be adhered to. As (from what I know in my ignorance) Popper has postulated: this is to provide a supplementary reason for the phenomena that is, 'the thought against abortion.'

Knowing, or rather believing, there is no God, no higher power humans must be the highest life form in existence. This radical conclusion I have come to as the lack of existence of God is due to there being no evidence for his existence, and so any belief in aliens must likewise be dealt away. As a non-theist the only conclusion of a rational mind must therefore be to further humanity to its utmost point, advancing humanity until there is a limit (which with no divine existence, may be that we ourselves become divine) reached. I make the assumption that the collective be worth more than the self for moral stoicism deems it. How the moral code came to be is perhaps out of need for survival, and so logically if we build from it, from survival, we should not only survive but excel. If it was built from chaos, by sheer fluke, and there is no reasoning for it then one can only conclude that humanity should ignore it. If such an apathy were to occur then humanity could be ruined – as such it would then find its existence in the first way. If the ruining of humanity would occur then by all means destroy the highest universal being.

Knowing the above, abortion. Abortion is the taking of a life potential, that is the ending of what very well could be the next Albert Einstein or Mahatma Gandhi; if the universe is all but chaos and chance then by aborting children we lower the number of instances of life and hence lower the opportunities for exception to be birthed. On this note, one cannot then deem those that we know to not be exceptional invalid; for if we have learnt nothing of an empire it is that it requires workers, and that even a slave can rise to be the great Spartacus. Moreover, any test showing that a child is to be born with a mental or physical debilitation must note the following:
1.If the test is not 100% accurate, then the birthing of a child free from such illness as the test has predicted would already be exceptional, and solidifying this would be all that was needed to maintain and then utilise this exception for the benefit of the universal great.
2.Such a debilitating disease may only incorporate one aspect (the two being mental and physical); the child may be an idiot but a perfect specimen of physicality – see Forrest Gump (kind of). Or, a physical lacking may be compensated for by increased mental capacity – see Stephen Hawkings (kind of).
3.A mental disease by no means means stupidity and no intellectual use. One just looks at the examples of savants and finds such an idea utterly redundant.

However, if those points above are met, if the child is to be born with a 100% chance of being physically and mentally useless then abort. Or, one could use the child in question as a control to compare useless with infinitely useful. And so I am tempted to say that until we fully understand the base model of human we should not abort anyone. If such a point is reached, and still the above points are considered and met, then abortion would be viable.

The then moral issue of whether it is ethically right to allow a child to be born into poverty, into neglect, into just a really bad situation can be met. Out of the undergrowth doth rise a rose. Often the greatest and most loved heroes of society are those that came from a bad situation and turned it good; we should not so easily count out the slave who would be Spartacus – I have already mentioned that.

Abortion cannot be a choice that a non-theist can stomach, for a moral non-theist knows man to be the highest form in the universe. However, if the latter fact were to change. If humans discovered a higher sentient race, or rather they decided to become known to us, the argument must change also. There are always 2 aims for a human:
1.Seek to benefit the self.
2.Seek to benefit the other (the collective).
This is the premise that all above statements were built on – the moralist and the humanitarian must aim for the 2nd. However, a third strand is added when a higher race is added. (Note: the option of living for a lower life form is not added for its pure pointlessness. If we were to aid a lower life from, get them to our level, they could then exceed us – from which we could emulate them and further ourselves, meaning we were ultimately furthering ourselves. Or we could bring all life forms to our level in which case the prior could be true, or they would then help us and the redundancy continues; or we would then cease all furthering of ourselves which, as the theory of evolution states, can not happen. Not to mention that by aiding the lower life forms we do better ourselves in terms of morality – we become more charitable.) The resulting 3 aims must then be:
1.Seek to benefit the self.
2.Seek to benefit the like other (human/s).
3.Seek to benefit the highest other (aliens).
This makes more sense if we note the new inclusion of the middle strain not the last. Compare the above if we rephrase the first 2 aims:
1.Seek to benefit the self. (This remains unchanged).
2.Seek to benefit the highest other (If no aliens exist then this means humans).
The addition of the middle strain means a possible aim to equal the higher/est other race. Which, with their help or not - one would suppose the latter on the prior argument of ourselves in that position – would mean furthering of ourselves; which must be done through the aforementioned means, no abortion. If we however seek to further the higher race – realising ourselves to be but bantha fodder before their cannon of advancement – then the topic of abortion is to be dealt with by them.

Until such time as a higher power or race is found; until a test can exist with 100% certainty of mediocrity – and even then only after we fully understand the base on which mediocrity sits: abortion is not a viable option! Also, which I didn't mention, we must maintain humanity whilst waiting for exception; and at such time when a great leader or just a great (wo)man arrives they will need to have people to lead. So, again the conclusion must be to say no to abortion.

*A woman's right to her body is the aim referred to as: 'seeking to benefit the self.'

Mentieth (wearing his atheist mask, it's coming off now – back to the attic).

And I shall say no more.

[KlaigMorona]

The only true answer to this phenomenon bases itself within the standards of cutlery. The mere fact is, we are wasting babies rather than using them as resources. Heck, even the Native Americans knew the treachery of waste.
Thus, I propose the usefulness of a person to be considered in terms of their current ability. The fact is, if you don't, you're really not living in the moment. Carpe Diem, as some might call it.
I propose, then, that the baby should be consumed. Simply take a moment to think about the usefulness of a baby. Do babies fight wars? Construe politics? Bring the meal to the family? My dear fellows, I may say that they do not. Thus, in the spirit of the moment and all good consideration of the present, I believe they may be eaten.
Please, in constructing your response, understand that I apply this standard to myself as well. If I never lent any progress to society, I'd be better off as a human battery. You would be too. Allowing ourselves to be too weak now will only serve to create a ripple effect, shearing the future away before it is even born...

[technomage]

The only true answer to this phenomenon bases itself within the standards of cutlery. The mere fact is, we are wasting babies rather than using them as resources. Heck, even the Native Americans knew the treachery of waste.
Thus, I propose the usefulness of a person to be considered in terms of their current ability. The fact is, if you don't, you're really not living in the moment. Carpe Diem, as some might call it.
I propose, then, that the baby should be consumed. Simply take a moment to think about the usefulness of a baby. Do babies fight wars? Construe politics? Bring the meal to the family? My dear fellows, I may say that they do not. Thus, in the spirit of the moment and all good consideration of the present, I believe they may be eaten.
Please, in constructing your response, understand that I apply this standard to myself as well. If I never lent any progress to society, I'd be better off as a human battery. You would be too. Allowing ourselves to be too weak now will only serve to create a ripple effect, shearing the future away before it is even born...

Thank you, Jonathan Swift....