Abortion is morally wrong

[bennyboy]

When we say morals, I say who's morals ?, where did these morals come from, and why should we obey these morals, my morals might be different from your morals, so who's morals a right ?.

Your grammar makes baby Jesus cry. You's have good point's though.

[answer-is-42]

I admit that I don't really consider the fetus in my equation. A fetus only has value, in my opinion, if the woman carrying it assigns value to it. I don't see it as having or deserving rights, but if I allow for a fetus to have rights I will not ever allow for a fetus' rights to trump the rights of the woman's body that it is violating with it's presence.

I think this is the crux of the equation, if the fetus has no value other than that assigned to it by the mother then does it only obtain value when it is delivered? IE does a viable 38 week gestation have no rights or value because it happens to still reside within the womb? If not then what is the determinant of value?

Back to my basic question though, this is the crux of my arguement -- IF you accept that the fetus does have moral values (as atleast some pro-choice advocates do) then the common arguement is that is cannot trump that of the mother - as you have stated. However THIS is where my arguement lives, I suggest that the mother has implicited responsibility to the fetus by knowingly and willingly engaging in an action that led to them (and only with these conditions met) ANALAGOUS {not identical to} the examples that I provided and no different in my mind then as I said if you agreed to give me your kidney on the off chance mine failed for something in return and did not hold up you end of the bargain despite taking whatever I offered in exchange. This is not a LEGAL arguement, heck organ trafficking is illegal, but a MORAL one.

---

When we say morals, I say who's morals ?, where did these morals come from, and why should we obey these morals, my morals might be different from your morals, so who's morals a right ?.

Your grammar makes baby Jesus cry. You's have good point's though.

Certainly I agree that we can all have different morals, which is WHY MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ACTION MORAL OR NOT AND WHY!
I'm assuming this is directed at me, since that is the what I have been talking about and don't see much recent activty by others on this subject.
LAWS are what we ALL MUST OBEY, MORALS are what we EACH CHOOSE to obey -- HENCE THE QUESTION (in the philosophy forum)

[The Grand Nudger]

"Rights" are a legal issue. You're slipping.

[answer-is-42]

A broader question (probably needing it's own thread rather than under this one) is WHAT are our individual morals and WHY?
Theists have it easy - they each have their own book, scroll, golden tablet, golden iPad, whatever to tell them what to do and not do {may or not be right based on my standards, but it is easier because the really don't have to think about these things.}
Secular people have more work to do - there is no common source of morality and we each try to figure it out, but we need to know WHY we think the way we think.
If there is no reason for coming to a conclusion, then are our moral standards any more justifiable then a theist who is told what to believe?
Hence the discussion....
AGAIN this is NOT about what is LEGAL but what is MORAL

---

"Rights" are a legal issue. You're slipping.

NO different conversation as I stated, my primary conversation was on the MORALITY of action, however the response involved the fact that fetus had no rights and hence could not be considered a moral agent - in THAT context I am trying to assess at what point a fetus becomes a moral agent and as such acquires rights, value, etc.

[Losty]

I will just have to agree to disagree with you. You haven't given any reasons for your opinion that make me want to change mine. I don't have any desire to change your opinion on the matter.

My opinion is that people engage in risky activities all of the time and I don't ever think it's immoral for them to try to mitigate (thanks esq. for the new word) the consequences of those actions. Sometimes I think that's all life really is. We take risks and we either enjoy or mitigate the consequences.

[bennyboy]

Your grammar makes baby Jesus cry. You's have good point's though.

Certainly I agree that we can all have different morals, which is WHY MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ACTION MORAL OR NOT AND WHY!
I'm assuming this is directed at me, since that is the what I have been talking about and don't see much recent activty by others on this subject.
LAWS are what we ALL MUST OBEY, MORALS are what we EACH CHOOSE to obey -- HENCE THE QUESTION (in the philosophy forum)

Your rant against my post, which makes no sense, also makes baby Jesus cry. Oops, I mean it MAKES baby JESUS cry.

[answer-is-42]

Certainly I agree that we can all have different morals, which is WHY MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ACTION MORAL OR NOT AND WHY!
I'm assuming this is directed at me, since that is the what I have been talking about and don't see much recent activty by others on this subject.
LAWS are what we ALL MUST OBEY, MORALS are what we EACH CHOOSE to obey -- HENCE THE QUESTION (in the philosophy forum)

Your rant against my post, which makes no sense, also makes baby Jesus cry. Oops, I mean it MAKES baby JESUS cry.

replied to wrong one - meant to be the same you replied to, thought that was obvious. But your attempts at humiliation are weak at best - I do use caps for emphasis, not randomly - neither MAKES or JESUS needs emphasis, though in your previous sentence NO SENSE would seem reasonable. Therefore I must conclude that you're a butt hurt douche (rectal tampon?)

---

I will just have to agree to disagree with you. You haven't given any reasons for your opinion that make me want to change mine. I don't have any desire to change your opinion on the matter.

My opinion is that people engage in risky activities all of the time and I don't ever think it's immoral for them to try to mitigate (thanks esq. for the new word) the consequences of those actions. Sometimes I think that's all life really is. We take risks and we either enjoy or mitigate the consequences.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, if anything I am looking for feedback on whether I should change mine. I specifically asked for feedback on my opinoin (what do you think, why, etc) NOT this is right and you are wrong for your beliefs. If you took it that way, that's on you. However, given that i DID ask for feedback, you haven't given me any reason that I would or should change mine. It's unfortunate that there is so much pedantic bickering and squabbling that it drowns out the actual conversation that I was trying to have (not really directed at you losty, atleast I got some directed responses). Regardless, it was helpful to me, as it gave me a forum to "air out" my position on a topic that is hard to find such a venue. I did realize how much my arguement depended on the fetus being a moral agent to whom someone (the mother) had moral accountability. Since I do feel that way anyway, it didn't change my belief, but did help me see a potential "crack." Too bad I had to come to this realization on my own, but again the arguements here get so pendantic that the PHILOSOPHY get diluted {again not so much with you losty}.

Regarding your second statement, of course we try to mitigate (which means LESSEN) BOTH risk and consequence and I have never argued against that {eg birth control, condoms, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, whatever}. HOWEVER there is a difference between MITIGATING and SHIRKING (which means AVOID -- didn't even need a dictionary) responsibilty for consequences, which was my arguement. Back to my ball through the neighbors window analogy - you can mitigate risk by using a rubber ball, putting up a fence, etc, but ultimately if you hit a ball through you neighbor's window you have a moral responsibility and obligation to repair the damage - you could mitigate the total damage by paying some small amount ahead of time INCASE you broke his window, have spare windows in your garage, be involved with a window repair man/woman, etc - but ultimately I still argue you have a moral responsibility to repair his window. If this is NOT a position you support then I would be interested to know why not so that I may see if it causes ME to adjust my views or arguements.
Regarding the extension of this analogy to abortion, I have heard it many times that abortion is "taking responsibility." This is NOT a sentiment I share. Again IF you accept that the fetus is a moral agent (different arguement that I would be happy to have seperately) then you are NOT addressing your obligation to THEM but only to you -- again analagous to burning down the neighbors house or killing them (again I DO NOT FEEL THAT ABORTION IS MURDER, THIS IS ONLY AN LOOSE ANALOGY) in the sense that ultimately you problem of responsibility for the broken window is gone, but you have not really redressed the obligation to the other party.

IF you feel that the fetus IS a moral agent and do not agree with this line of thinking, I would be interested in understanding why?

[The Grand Nudger]

A fetus...as a moral agent? Not under any definition that I'm aware of. Haven't we already established (between many of us, for the sake of argument) that a mother does have a moral responsibility? If it ends there, then abortion is fine, adoption is fine, and having the child is fine.

You're really not going to be able to make abortion morally wrong without simply claiming it to be so.

[Bibliofagus]

Your rant against my post, which makes no sense, also makes baby Jesus cry. Oops, I mean it MAKES baby JESUS cry.

replied to wrong one - meant to be the same you replied to, thought that was obvious. But your attempts at humiliation are weak at best - I do use caps for emphasis, not randomly - neither MAKES or JESUS needs emphasis, though in your previous sentence NO SENSE would seem reasonable. Therefore I must conclude that you're a butt hurt douche (rectal tampon?)

---

I will just have to agree to disagree with you. You haven't given any reasons for your opinion that make me want to change mine. I don't have any desire to change your opinion on the matter.

My opinion is that people engage in risky activities all of the time and I don't ever think it's immoral for them to try to mitigate (thanks esq. for the new word) the consequences of those actions. Sometimes I think that's all life really is. We take risks and we either enjoy or mitigate the consequences.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, if anything I am looking for feedback on whether I should change mine. I specifically asked for feedback on my opinoin (what do you think, why, etc) NOT this is right and you are wrong for your beliefs. If you took it that way, that's on you. However, given that i DID ask for feedback, you haven't given me any reason that I would or should change mine. It's unfortunate that there is so much pedantic bickering and squabbling that it drowns out the actual conversation that I was trying to have (not really directed at you losty, atleast I got some directed responses). Regardless, it was helpful to me, as it gave me a forum to "air out" my position on a topic that is hard to find such a venue. I did realize how much my arguement depended on the fetus being a moral agent to whom someone (the mother) had moral accountability. Since I do feel that way anyway, it didn't change my belief, but did help me see a potential "crack." Too bad I had to come to this realization on my own, but again the arguements here get so pendantic that the PHILOSOPHY get diluted {again not so much with you losty}.

Regarding your second statement, of course we try to mitigate (which means LESSEN) BOTH risk and consequence and I have never argued against that {eg birth control, condoms, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, whatever}. HOWEVER there is a difference between MITIGATING and SHIRKING (which means AVOID -- didn't even need a dictionary) responsibilty for consequences, which was my arguement. Back to my ball through the neighbors window analogy - you can mitigate risk by using a rubber ball, putting up a fence, etc, but ultimately if you hit a ball through you neighbor's window you have a moral responsibility and obligation to repair the damage - you could mitigate the total damage by paying some small amount ahead of time INCASE you broke his window, have spare windows in your garage, be involved with a window repair man/woman, etc - but ultimately I still argue you have a moral responsibility to repair his window. If this is NOT a position you support then I would be interested to know why not so that I may see if it causes ME to adjust my views or arguements.
Regarding the extension of this analogy to abortion, I have heard it many times that abortion is "taking responsibility." This is NOT a sentiment I share. Again IF you accept that the fetus is a moral agent (different arguement that I would be happy to have seperately) then you are NOT addressing your obligation to THEM but only to you -- again analagous to burning down the neighbors house or killing them (again I DO NOT FEEL THAT ABORTION IS MURDER, THIS IS ONLY AN LOOSE ANALOGY) in the sense that ultimately you problem of responsibility for the broken window is gone, but you have not really redressed the obligation to the other party.

IF you feel that the fetus IS a moral agent and do not agree with this line of thinking, I would be interested in understanding why?

Your analogy is flawed. A fetus is not an 'other party'.

[answer-is-42]

This is why I use caps. I specifically state IF you agree the fetus is a moral agent (hence the other party) THEN .... If you do not as I already stated MULTIPLE TIMES it is a different discussion.
I would think literacy rates would be higher on a secular forum. Even caps don't help. People only see what they want to I guess