So what if there are unsuccessful pregnancies? How does that make any difference to the fact that it is wrong to kill (as if using the word ‘kill’ makes it any better) children? The answer, so that you don’t have to think about it, is it doesn’t. It’s not about souls and spirit — AJJ

Souls and spirits are entirely relevant to the nature fate of a life.

Now you are using the word child which is manipulative also because the unborn does not have identical status to someone born. It is not a fact that it is wrong to kill you are stating your opinion as a fact.

Children can have their life support machine turned off because they have a poor quality of life and can even have an assisted suicide now in some countries. We don't just assume every life is valuable and must be preserved at all costs.

A lot of people live perfectly good lives. — AJJ

I would contest that, however even if this were true it doesn't justify creating the millions of people who have poor quality lives.

I’m not talking about pigs or apples. I’m talking about innocent, defenceless, human life. Innocent because it has done no wrong; defenceless because it cannot defend itself against violence; human because it is human; a life because it is alive. Destroying such a life because you’d rather not take care of it (which would be an inconvenience) is wrong. Destroying it because Andrew4Handel thinks it would be better off dead, is also wrong. — AJJ

You are using emotive language that could be applied to anything. if you watch crime documentaries you will notice they don't use terms like "destroying." When someone is murdered. They tend to say killed or brutally killed if the murder was particular drawn out. The majority of time something is killed people do not use the word destroyed.

As I mentioned and you just do not respond to like most points is that there are lots of miscarriages and unsuccessful pregnancies and mothers can die giving birth. There is no benevolent natural of spiritual plan for us a children. The species most successful at breeding are things like plankton. Being able to reproduce is no award winning profound feat.

If you believe humans have a soul then you cannot destroy a person only their body.

I have no idea what AJJ mean by "innocent".

In the bible it says:

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."

On a moral code of any worth, destroying an innocent human life because you find it convenient to do so is wrong, even if life isn’t always great. — AJJ

I don't know what you mean by "because it is convenient to do so". I think creating suffering is worse than terminating an unborn child.
You keep on calling it a innocent human life. But it is someone who has not been born into the world, has no hopes dreams and aspirations and is not even aware that they exist.

I don't think anyone has a coherent justifiable moral code. Creating a child that will have a poor quality a of life and is unwanted, is no basis for a moral code.

A child has no interests in the womb because they can express no desires and do not exhibit waking states of consciousness. They do not need to continue to exist.

I think life for everyone is substandard personally and I think people who think this world and life is acceptable are delusional.

Comparing killing a fetus to killing a child or adult independent of their mother is disingenuous and dishonest.

You may as well just keep parroting "destroying an innocent apple's life when you eat it" or "Destroying the innocent pigs precious life" when you have a bacon sandwich It is just trite.

The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake — Rank Amateur

My older brother developed primary progressive Multiple sclerosis in his mid 20's .He has now had the illness for over 20 years and it has left him fully paralyzed for at least the last 10 years and he has had to communicate by blinking. He is fed by a tube in the stomach and has a catheter and a tracheotomy to breath through.

This was biologies fate for him.

I don't think the child in the womb has a right to life because of its lack of independent existence.

It cannot survive without its mothers body and is therefore not individually viable.

It's right to life would interfere with the mothers right to life and many women in history have died in pregnancy.

If someone "simply" doesn't wan't a child what will it benefit the child to be born?

(which is no simply situation).

Like I said life and nature is destructive and not a gift or inevitable joy.

If you are a Christian or some other religious person then the idea of an innocent human is problematic but I think you are using it in a purely emotive way.

The aborted fetus could be the next Hitler, or simply a chronic depressive or an anonymous mediocre person with few friends. But at least you know if they are aborted they had no desires or goals and will not suffer.

I think it is nearly evil to create life especially unwanted life in an overcrowded, polluted planet exposing them to disease, struggle and anxiety.

If you think someone should be punished for an accidental pregnancy by being forced to bear the child to full term knowing there is someone in the world they are responsible for who could produce many more clones I think that is a bit sadistic.

Is it relevant to the abortion argument? — TheMadFool

It is relevant because it s a realistic often occurring result of creating a child.

Creating more children is just going to create more children in that situation and not alleviate the situation.

If child welfare was so high on the anti-abortionist agenda then why are so many children in dire circumstances? Children can only suffer because they are created.

Then I'd not have an opinion on abortion. — Terrapin Station

But would you been happy to have been aborted?

People have abortions because they are raped, because they are unfit to raise a child, have mental health problems, cannot afford to, or are in an abusive relationships and more.
There is not just one reason.

Children suffer because irresponsible parents creating them and childhood abuse neglect and famine etc. It is much more humane to have an abortion than bring a child into poverty, dysfunction and other gross harms.

The word destroyed is emotive in this context. A lot of conceptions and pregnancies fail with the child not making it alive out of the womb and in the past many children died soon after birth. Nature is destructive.

I think most people are against abortion for religious reasons yet religious scriptures do not tend to mention the subject and complain verses that do not support the sentiment.

I and biology believe we are all fully human, — Rank Amateur

I don't think the idea "fully human being" is meaningful. Humans are very different and have different capacities and go through many different stages of development.

I take the view that destroying innocent human life because we find it convenient to do so is wrong. If that lacks nuance then so be it. — AJJ

Well this doesn't apply to abortion.

People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this:

No good arguments for right and morality? This isn't reason speaking but something else. — tim wood

Moral positions tend to be incompatible. For example deontology or divine command theory would say that you should not have an abortion because it is wrong and you are commanded not to whereas utilitarianism would say weigh up the harms

If you have to obey a moral system as facts or commands then arguments don't matter. I don't see any evidence of moral facts or innate rights.
I think utilitarian calculations would not favour creating a life dependent on what you put in your equation. If the harm of existing outweighs being terminated as a fetus that favors abortion.

I think once you invoke moral terms like good and bad then you are on your way to a natural utilitarian calculation. However a deontologist would probably defer to God or moral absolutes and say that life was intrinsically valuable or Gods laws infallible regardless of levels of suffering involved being born.

But as an antinatalist I think creating new life conflicts with most moral intuitions like not to harm others or infringe on consent.

If you think life is a good thing then it would be a bad thing to be aborted.

By life I mean being a living sentient organism or just a human life which appears to be the richest/ most multifaceted form of life.

If life with really great and harm free for everyone it would be hard to justify terminating a pregnancy. But this is not that world.

In general I don't think there are good arguments for the existence of rights and morality as opposed to preferences. But from a standpoint of minimizing harm it will probably minimize harm not to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy.

I am not opposed to abortion and I am an antinatalist. But you could argue "What if you had been aborted?"

One reason I am not opposed to abortion is because I don't think life is a good thing.

I don't think that killing is obviously wrong.
— Andrew4Handel

Well if we all make ourselves Godless self-appointed gods about the matter then I think that will be problematic for wider society. — AJJ

Well God apparently didn't think killing is wrong since he kills the most people in the Bible.

Including flooding the whole earth.
Killing all the First born of Egypt.
Ordering people to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath
Sending bears down to kill children for insulting Elijah
To name but a few.

I gave an argument for my position on killing and it was nothing to do with playing God. Even the Bible that I quoted has a more nuanced view than you apparently do on the matter.

God is the ultimate murderer who has created us all and sentenced us to death.

But as for unborn children, we’re allowed to decide for them? — AJJ

When someone commits suicide it is because they have suffered or are suffering immensely or predict future suffering.

A fetus has none of these statuses.

We are not deciding for them because they have no desires or knowledge (except maybe knowledge of their womb experience). There is just no comparison.

If you want to argue that a fetuses desires can be thwarted you have to show they have these long term goals.

I think that imagining what a child in the womb feels is just fantasy or speculation.

Well that scuppers your Biblical argument then. — AJJ

No it doesn't it scuppers your complain against me. You can't claim I am using the wrong interpretation of the bible. I am arguing based on what several translations of the bible say and I don't think the but you claimed was missing changes my point anyway.

I am not using the bible as an authority by any stretch of the imagination I am saying that Christians cannot coherently use the bible to justify an anti abortion stance. But also Ecclesiastes offers a sentiment far different from the idea life is desirable and a gift etc.

And this could be used as a justification for killing anyone you saw as living a sad life. — AJJ

It is not a justification for anything it is just a refutation of the idea that life is an automatic good and valuable.

If life is not an automatic good then you have to come up with a different argument against abortion. It is only an argument against one reason to oppose abortion.

Nevertheless the status of the fetus is not the same as the status of someone who is much older and where you are not talking about hypothetical outcomes. Adults can choose to kill themselves having decided whether or not life is desirable for them. Some people can see ways to improve their life.

This is all diverging from the biblical stance any way which is based on what the bible claims about the quality of this life. Anyone that believes in a better afterlife has a problem justifying this quality of life.

I don't think that killing is obviously wrong.

The idea we are being deprived of something by being killed, makes death itself problematic because death will always deprive people of a lot of potential. But a dead person cannot be deprived of anything if they have ceased to exist.

Being alive causes deprivation anyway because there are a lot of things we would like to do but can't do when we are alive. I have never been to Disney World. I am not a poly-linguist, I can't play the Oboe, I have not been in love etc.

To me the harm of being killed is the physical suffering, if it is a painful death, the suffering of friends and relatives and the fear of death whilst facing it. But these are all things attached with being alive which involves a lot of suffering, deprivation, loss and fear.

This is an argument for not having children, not conceiving and then killing them. — AJJ

I agree. But it is an argument against the idea that killing a fetus prevents someone having a fulfilling life because a fulfilling is not guaranteed. It opposes the claim someone is always robbed of something good by dying.

So it could be used to justify arbitrarily killing only holy people, then, which is also absurd. — AJJ

It is not a justification for killing someone it is pointing out that if you believe in heaven then killing someone is giving them a better life. Many Christians believe they are going onto something much better. And they and other religions value martyrdom also.

Your translation omitted an important line. — AJJ

The important thing about the quote is that being still born maybe better than living in some circumstances. I think you could undermine any interpretation of the bible by referring to another one.

I am angry because you quoted a clearly questionable website quoting disputed sources and without presenting an argument cited it as if infallible.

It would not logically follow that if a woman suffers from mental illness after abortion that abortion is wrong (especially considering most woman do not suffer these problems)

But also as I pointed out the source of the mental health issues could be societal stigma as well as many other thing such hormonal changes.

If people used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy that would be ideal.

Your first quote omits an important line: — AJJ

No. I quoted one translation of the bible you are quoting another.

By the same token you could justify arbitrarily murdering people — AJJ

No because this only applies to children who are not at the age to be damned to hell. But it is true that killing someone may spare them suffering. Personally I was happier as a child despite having lots of problems and had I died then I would have died happier and also I was a Christian and believed in heaven.

The other Ecclesiastes quotes points out that a human will witness a lot of evil and suffering and may have been better not existing. Which is a reasonable point because there is a lot of evil and suffering and life is not Disneyland.

I think from a non theological standpoint that creating a child creates far more suffering than terminating a pregnancy or being childless. From a theological standpoint it is hard to justify creating a child who will be sinful, experience evil and may be condemned to hell.

Anyone can uses references whilst misrepresenting the findings of studies and selecting a few studies out of thousands.

I hope you are not coming from a Christian standpoint because I have just cited the scripture on related issues and can provide a lot more quotes.

The one quote I mentioned is that it is better to be still born than have a poor quality life.
Being a live is not a gift if you have a poor quality of life.

The bible contradicts itself on whether killing is wrong but it does not condemn abortion.

Abortion is very clearly a terrible thing. One denies a potential human being the chance to live. — Tzeentch

Presumably you have created hundreds of children then? If not then why are you denying them the chance to live?

Why are you denying them the chance to live in poverty? Why are you denying them the chance to commit suicide like a million+ humans do every year? Why are you denying them the chance to experience cancer or war?

Clearly, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with abortion — Tzeentch

No there isn't and the non academic fundamentalist website you link to discredits you.

Any mental problems health suffered after abortion can be easily explained by the stigma on having abortion.

I think Christians and Jews have a problem when opposing abortion.
Because if a child dies then they will go straight to heaven and be better off and not be exposed to sin and suffering.

If you believe in a heavenly eternity and that children won't go to hell then they are better off dying prematurely.

Then look at what Ecclesiastes says:

"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3

and

But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun. Ecclesiastes 6:3

Why would it take a whole book to make an argument against a straightforward premise?

You sound like you teach English but most people don't and don't have time to read all the classics.

I read a lot as a child and young adult and I have read quite a few classics like Anna Karenina, Great expectations, Wuthering Heights and so on, a couple of decades ago. If you teach literature then you certainly have an advantage.

But I just wanted to know a specific explicit argument like the one contained in The Matrix derived from one of these novels. If you want to encourage people to read these works it is worth giving an interesting summary of what to expect.

I grew up in a house without a television so I only read books as a source of entertainment until my late teens/early twenties. I got top marks in my English Language and English Literature classes.

I remember when our class went to see "Much ado About Nothing" at Stratford on Avon and one of the English Teachers was falling a sleep and the consensus was that it was a boring production I believe. The summary of "Much ado about Nothing" we were given was better than the play. I enjoyed reading Macbeth however and I really enjoyed Euripides Medea.

A good refutation of solipsism can be found in Robinson Crusoe, btw — NKBJ

How does it offer to refute solipsism and do you have to read the entire novel to find this out?

Do you think that most people who read the novel are aware that it offers a refutation for solipsism?

I have a problem with the style of language old novels are written in because we don't talk like that anymore. If these authors were alive to day would they write in that style?

I liked the film The Matrix for offering a simple exposition of the idea that reality could be an illusion. I think if a film just incorporated one idea like that it would make it more enjoyable.

How can a society be based on subjective meaning?
— Andrew4Handel

Well it's either based on that or what seems to be nothing other than a fiction. Much of society is based on fiction actually. — S

If society is based on consensuses I wouldn't call that subjective meaning or entirely fiction.

I would agree society is based on fictions but I don't think the people that makes societies believe this.

It is hard to justify values and ideologies that are fictions.

I feel that he is saying that the self is everything we know. Knowledge is part of the self and new knowledge is contained in the self.

Maybe he is saying "Objectivity is a viewpoint from nowhere" Thomas Nagel.

I don't like Wittgenstein's statement style of writing.

But personally I think it is impossible to have knowledge without knowing that you exist (Cogito Ergo Sum)

I don't know if wanting to die is the same as wanting to cease to exist.

Death seems like it could be a pain killer but if you are dead then you won't get to experience the effect of the pain killer.

My idea of a philosophical novel is one that makes a clear proposition or arguments and defends it. I think any novel can feel philosophical or inspire philosophical thought.

I feel like you are playing lip service to the "classics" because of their status. But many people are made to read classic novels in school as part of literature class and are bored by them.

I would like someone say to me something like "You should read this novel it offers a great refutation of solipsism"

A problem I have had with fiction is that it seems like lying. You are making people feel things based on events that did not happen. Even Autobiography and biography can be fictional being an interpretation of an event.

How can a society be based on subjective meaning?

An impediment to getting a message a cross is if the reader is bored. I don't think you can blame people if they are bored or uninterested in a novel or its theme. I think you could engage the masses with philosophy more if you made it easier to access in an entertaining format. I don't think philosophy is better if it is long winded and uses fancy prose.

I think that some messages in books have already impacted society and so even if you have not read the book you will be influenced by the ideas such as With Dickens criticisms of society.

It's really not though.
And classics have stood the test of time because they are well-written and contain important thoughts about the human condition and other philosophical issues.

It's one thing to dislike a classic novel--that's just taste. It's another to to fail to realize why the novel is a classic, your own preferences aside. That failure shows that you really don't understand the novel at all, likely through a lack of literary ability and knowledge. — NKBJ

I think the point of writing a novel is to entertain people in some way.If you wanted to inform someone you could write something factual or write a philosophy article.

I want to know if a book made a coherent powerful philosophical point then what was it?

Your positions seems a bit elitist.

There's no real comparison to be made, since an objective meaning to life is a chimaera. The subjective meaning is all we have — S

I don't see how you know objective meaning doesn't exist yet you know subjective meaning exists.

I think when people say they find meaning in X they are referring to an emotional state they have and likewise some people find no meaning in anything.

I don't think that an emotion or belief that Xis meaning equals meaning. I enjoy certain foods but do not have a meaningful experience when eating food. It is verging on solipsism to rely solely on your own feelings and perceptions.