As i stated when I first started the conversation, I'm new to this forum - which is why my reply above looked so cluttered.
regarding the straw man issue - you argued that it would be akin to NOT accepting my offer and I still trying to claim you kidney from you and that is in no way my arguement so I think the term straw man is appropriate.
Regarding causality then there is things such as direct causes and indirect causes (as well as non causes). In natural settings (IVF and angelic rape aside - neither is natural - not a moral judgement just not "of nature") the ONLY known causality of pregnancy in humans is intercourse so I would assume this is a direct cause. The rate does not have to 100% to be considered a cause.
Certainly a retort would be what does the % have to be then? I don't have an # for that, though the "loose answer" is I guess use of the term reasonable - an answer without a meaning, but I hoped that the discussion would include people with common sense not didantic trollytes. We may have slightly different beliefs in reasonable, but I would hope our Ven diagrams would mostly overlap. This was not really the disussion I was trying to initiate.
Regarding you analogy to sushi I think where you and I break down is to WHOM the responsibily to. seem to regard it to only your self, but my arguement is that there is another - the fetus - to whom you have a responsibilty. Every arguement I have made involves a second party to whom you have a moral (not necessary legal as I have mentioned numerous times but still keeps being brought back up)
This brings up the concept of when do human rights begin? That may be a more plausible critique of my arguement and I do concede that.
To step back a bit, this thought process is born from a few debates among secular people on the morality of abortion I have been listening to. In this context, I often do hear that a fetus may indeed have rights, but they do not trump the right of autonomy of the mother. (see Matt Dillahunty). If that is the starting view then my arguement flows forward that the mother has already accepted the responsibility of pregnancy by willingly engaging in intercourse and the party to whom she is culpable is not herself but the fetus. If she did not agree (rape) or was incapable of understanding the risk (age, intellect, possibly education - there have been various peoples who did not realize sex led to pregnancy) then she would have not implicit responsibilty.
If you believe the fetus has no rights ever and is not a party of moral consideration at all then I do concede that my arguement is weak.
Please note that I never consider the rights to be superior or equate abortion to murder so PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO DO SO (I am trying to avoid more straw men critiques that seem to be so rampant here). I am ONLY addressing this as a question of moral responsibility.
Perhaps a more broad question is does responsibility exist at all? Again NOT LEGAL OR SOCIAL CATEGORIES but the CONCEPT of responsibility as I have tried to address it as a framework (A -> B -> C)?
regarding the straw man issue - you argued that it would be akin to NOT accepting my offer and I still trying to claim you kidney from you and that is in no way my arguement so I think the term straw man is appropriate.
Regarding causality then there is things such as direct causes and indirect causes (as well as non causes). In natural settings (IVF and angelic rape aside - neither is natural - not a moral judgement just not "of nature") the ONLY known causality of pregnancy in humans is intercourse so I would assume this is a direct cause. The rate does not have to 100% to be considered a cause.
Certainly a retort would be what does the % have to be then? I don't have an # for that, though the "loose answer" is I guess use of the term reasonable - an answer without a meaning, but I hoped that the discussion would include people with common sense not didantic trollytes. We may have slightly different beliefs in reasonable, but I would hope our Ven diagrams would mostly overlap. This was not really the disussion I was trying to initiate.
Regarding you analogy to sushi I think where you and I break down is to WHOM the responsibily to. seem to regard it to only your self, but my arguement is that there is another - the fetus - to whom you have a responsibilty. Every arguement I have made involves a second party to whom you have a moral (not necessary legal as I have mentioned numerous times but still keeps being brought back up)
This brings up the concept of when do human rights begin? That may be a more plausible critique of my arguement and I do concede that.
To step back a bit, this thought process is born from a few debates among secular people on the morality of abortion I have been listening to. In this context, I often do hear that a fetus may indeed have rights, but they do not trump the right of autonomy of the mother. (see Matt Dillahunty). If that is the starting view then my arguement flows forward that the mother has already accepted the responsibility of pregnancy by willingly engaging in intercourse and the party to whom she is culpable is not herself but the fetus. If she did not agree (rape) or was incapable of understanding the risk (age, intellect, possibly education - there have been various peoples who did not realize sex led to pregnancy) then she would have not implicit responsibilty.
If you believe the fetus has no rights ever and is not a party of moral consideration at all then I do concede that my arguement is weak.
Please note that I never consider the rights to be superior or equate abortion to murder so PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO DO SO (I am trying to avoid more straw men critiques that seem to be so rampant here). I am ONLY addressing this as a question of moral responsibility.
Perhaps a more broad question is does responsibility exist at all? Again NOT LEGAL OR SOCIAL CATEGORIES but the CONCEPT of responsibility as I have tried to address it as a framework (A -> B -> C)?
