Bullish's position on abortion (restarted)

. .. Like Con stated, this is me trying to defend my position. Con appears to want to be more informed of the opinions of others on the issue of abortion. From what I gather of his comments in the comments section, I'm supposed to just say what I believe and he will observe it. So, this "debate" will have a different format than my former debates. This debate will be in a more prose style, flowing from one idea to another, instead of having organized sections and contentions. I need to explain my view on abortion more. What I believe is that abortion itself should be practiced without social backlash. I believe that that there are situations where abortion is an objectively better option than not aborting. What I had stated in my opinion on abortion is not a guideline, just an assertion that there are cases where it is better for one decision to be made for another person, rather than having them make it themselves. To support this view, and perhaps avoid the constant stream of "why"s and "so what"s, I must start from the basics, the very basics. Obviously we have to pragmatically accept some sort of reality for this debate to happen; I want to stay on philosophy, not metaphilosophy. I assume that I and my opponents live in similar realities. I don't want to debate matter this further. The reason that any of this even matters is because life-forms are cybernetic systems. While the universe may not have a purpose, cybernetic systems do. The purpose of life and society is simple: to live on. Humans have acquired a unique goal: to be happy. As a fellow cybernetic system myself, and a part of a greater cybernetic system, I care. As an individual, I am a rational egotist with bases in Game theory. I believe I am the best at benefiting myself in some cases, but I other cases, I'd rather lay taxes. Societal, I am a pragmatic utilitarian. The term pragmatic simply means I think there isn't a practical calculus that we can apply to every situation and come up with the best solution. We should rely on empirics, experiences, and even intuition for certain things. Utilitarian is more descriptive of my philosophy. I believe that the greatest good for the greatest number is the "best. " Each individual has his own version of what is "best," but ultimately, when he achieves what he believes is best, one thug happens: chemicals in his brain. When he is hooked up a hypothetical machine that constantly injects dopamine, serotonin, adrenalin or any other chemicals into his brain without building any resistance, he is happy, and that is what he is looking for, regardless of what noble causes he believe he is looking for. These labels I put on myself are not absolute. They are good guidelines, but the pragmatist part says I'd rather treat each case individually. Although most humans look at what I described with the disdain they have for 1984, it's what we have been working towards for eons. Look at all the periodicals, do they not provide advice on how to be happy? ==========Society itself is as complex as the human body. Each cell in the human body is selfish, yet selfless at the same time. So in human society, we must make amends and compromises where possible. Perhaps one finally begins seeing where my position on abortion comes from. The concept of rights is useful, but not absolute. Arguing from rights is therefore pointless unless those rights govern society. Rights do govern society, IMO pretty effectively. I will argue for abortion partly from rights. It is a woman’s right to do what she wishes with her body. Theoretically, she’s not killing the baby. She’s removing it from her body. While it is true that in many abortion cases, it is simply more practical to grind up the baby and suck it out with a tube, induced premature birth is also possible. Just because you suddenly became dependent on me doesn’t mean I’m suddenly obligated to help you. Bsh1 had summarized this position well with the “violinist” example: . http://www.debate.org... . Young people don’t have rights until they turn 18 in this country. They can’t drive, can’t vote, can’t even drink, and have to spend 6 hours a day in a labor camp. That’s perfectly acceptable because young people do not have the same mental capacity to make rational choices for themselves, and they do not have the same societal position to do what an established adult can do. Babies who can’t even put 2 and 2 together don’t deserve rights. Imagine a case where abortion would be good. Say, the mother was raped, in danger of dying if she does not abort the baby, and unable to support the baby if it is born. Say the baby was prenatally diagnosed with a rare disease which made it paralyzed from the neck down, be in constant pain, and mentally retarded. If it were born, it would be a burden on the mother, itself, and society. Any wise person would abort. The problem with society is that it looks at abortion as inherently bad. Whatever the reason, society will look down upon those who abort; worse, they want to physically punish those people. Society believes that stealing from the corrupt is justifiable, it believes drugs should be banned, it even believes murder in self-defense is honorable; why not abortion? What if it wasn’t for all of the reasons listed above? What if it was just one? The most practical thing would be to leave it up to mother. If she doesn’t want the baby, what good could come out of it? If she wants to kill the baby when it’s not born, what makes her suddenly want to keep it alive after it’s born? The mother loses utility if she is forced to give birth, and the baby doesn’t have the capacity to have utility. What if the baby has a debilitating disease that renders him unable to feel happiness, but the mother out of her selfish desire to raise an offspring decides to keep it? Ideally, she would be forced to abort. But she has rights, and rights are a practical way to govern society. She would gain her utility, society would see her suffering, and learn that giving birth to a sad baby is bad. Abortion shouldn’t be illegal at any stage. ==========One can extend some of what I said above to fully grown adults who are too retarded to rake care of themselves. Yes, I believe that if a person doesn’t have to capacity to ask for their own rights, then they have no rights. Their rights come from someone else’s. Their care takers “own” them in a special form, and they share rights.