THE FOLLOWING IS COPY-PASTED FROM MY GROUP "How to Save the World: Arguing for an objectively provable ethical code that should be agreed upon by all rational persons." EVERYBODY JOIN THAT GROUP OF MINE! I'M A LOT MORE POLITE THERE THAN I AM ELSEWHERE, AND I HUNGER FOR PEOPLE TO DISAGREE WITH ME! THAT GROUP IS THE RESULT OF SEVERAL YEARS OF CONVERSATION AND THOUGHT BY ME!

LESSON #2: ABORTION AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT USED TO TEACH RATIONAL THINKING...AND THE BENEFITS OF PERSONIFICATION

The goal of life is to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure...because there can be no other goal of life.

Therefore, death is not inherently negative.

Therefore, abortion, at least before the 24 week pregnant mark that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the U.K. and the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians says that is the point before which fetuses lack the equipment to experience pain, likely cannot cause harm.

Again...death does not necessarily cause harm. Harm must, well, hurt something, or it isn't harm. You can't hurt something if it can't feel it, and has no objection to being harmed.

And some people will not see things that way. Some people's maternal or paternal instincts will scream, "its a baby" no matter what other parts of their mind tell them, and their desire to protect their offspring will overwhelm all other mentalities they have...and the only instance in which they'd even consider an abortion for themselves would be in the instance of the most severe of birth defects...perhaps ones that seriously endanger the child's life.

So...are these people a threat? Are these people who follow their instincts to never get abortions a danger to society...through viewing the world unrealistically? Should we discourage their view? Should we push them to agreeing with a more realistic view of reality?

Well...let's engage in a thought experiment examining a world in which we did such a thing.

Let's imagine a cold, brutally logical world in which we pushed people to constantly be brutally logical. The little kicks and movements that mothers once thought of as cute baby movements are the mere spasms of a yet-to-be human-like organism...a kind of seed, more than a person.

No more personification of the fetus...getting parents excited. It's just a seed.

That personification of the fetus, in which parents imagine it having far more qualities of born
people than it actually does, probably makes people better parents. It probably gets people more interested in their developing child.

Emotions are not rational...but they are also our source of energy. They motivate us. They inspire us...and humans love few things more than personification. Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "Buildings, too, are children of Earth and Sun." He personified them. Buildings lack sentience, but there's a part of Frank Lloyd Wright's mind that no doubt disagreed with that, on some subconscious level...and that made them more intriguing to him.

Personification is an invaluable tool to humanity...and one often underestimated. When Einstein said, "I want to understand the mind of God," he held a worldview that appears very similar to atheism. He denied being an atheist, but he also denied believing in a personal God. Einstein said he believed in the God of Baruch Spinoza...a god whose sentience consists of the sentience of life forms in the universe, and a God whose traits are being composed of everything in the universe except for movement. To Baruch Spinoza, in our universe there was God, and movement, and nothing else.

So...why would Einstein feel a drive to call that God? It would not necessarily contain any kind of ruling intelligence...so, without a definite belief in the God being an intelligent being with a single ruling mind, what's the point of calling that God at all? Well...one benefit could be social pressures to conform, to fit in better, by saying oneself believes in some kind of God. Another benefit, however, could be the inspirational benefits of personifying the universe. Perhaps the personification Einstein engaged in, in imaging the universe as a person with thoughts, inspired Einstein. Perhaps it drove him to achieve some of his intellectual accomplishments. Perhaps it was an important part of his thought process as a scientist...this slightly misleading, but potentially inspiring, worldview of his.

And so...pushing for a brutally logical reality in which everyone speaks like machines and dreamy fantasies are stomped out would, I think, likely not be a desirable reality...and so I'll say parents personifying their developing children is a healthy behavior...because it's an inspiring behavior.

But when it comes to laws...we need to be brutally logical. We need to accept that without suffering, there is no cost to death, and therefore ending the life of a developing fetus does not harm it, and therefore allowing abortion up to 24 weeks, at minimum, is vital, because there is, provably, no rational reason not to do so.

Now...what if the experts are wrong? What if fetuses can experience pain at earlier stages of development? Well, that is a possibility. If that turns out to be true, that's certainly something it'd be good to know about. (it is noteworthy that it's quite possible that fetuses won't experience pain until much later than 24 weeks too).

Well, to factor unpleasant abortions - abortions that cause suffering - into the equation we need to engage in some even more abstract thought, a type of abstract thought that, for whatever reason, very few people ever consider...and I don't know why.

I'm going to end this post here now, though, and continue a description of that form of extremely abstract thought in the next post though, because it's quite difficult for some people to understand, and I'd like to focus on that throughout the whole post, rather than it being a mere side note that some people may skim over.