Abortion is morally wrong

[MJ the Skeptical]

First --
FUCK YOU.

I'm not a theist and have repeatly proved that point.

I don't even know who you are but, theist or atheist etc. there is no good argument I've seen against abortion (especially in the first trimester). I mean, in this whole reply of yours, you're the one who brought up no Anti-abortion arguments.

Even IF i was (again not) that HAS NOTHING TO DO with my moral arguements.

Most Anti-abortion people are theists, so sorry you got generalized. I'll make sure next time to exclude the atheists who want to impose their choice onto others, who want more unwanted babies in the world in an overpopulated world, who think women and men shouldn't have the right to choose parenthood. Don't go down the road of calling a fetus a person, especially not the early stages in utero.

This is a moral question, and if you don't think so then you are a dumba$$ and you should get out of this thread

Where's your argument that it's immoral that hasn't been refuted a hundred times a hundred different ways? This is like you saying we shouldn't use antibiotics because it kills all the good bacteria in our body along with the bad bacteria, so therefore it's immoral. That's your logic, pal. A fetus does not have sentience yet, maybe a case can be made for late term fetuses but not early on.

If you're against early abortions you're the immoral fuck here. I would actually concede to you that there is grey area of morality when it comes to late term fetuses but not much of a moral choice. The mother and father's rights always trumps the babes, I mean we will use abortion when the baby has defects or the mother's life is in danger because she is a fully grown, fully feeling human being, a baby and fetus is not.

what did you think you were going to see in a thread labelled abortion is morally wrong? LOL CATS?

If you have an arguement why you believe that abortion is not immoral - you have made a positive claim

And I've given evidence to that effect in this thread and in this reply. How about if the mother's life is in jeopardy example I brought up. Then you must concede that sometimes it is moral whether the baby lives or not. Unless you want us to kill the mother instead of a barely conscious fetus or baby. Or a baby who is going to be born of horrible birth defects, then abortion is the moral high ground in that instance. There is nuance, you know...

But I have given a completely secular rational for my belief.

[Cato]

Morality as i see it is about what is right and wrong, not what maximizes good or bad outcomes.

Care to share what your standard for right and wrong is? I'm curious since you've already demonstrated your inability to differentiate a fetus and a homeless person.

On that note, I wonder what your thoughts would be if a homeless person took up residence in a woman's womb? Assuming it were physically possible, would you still not allow for an abortion?

[bennyboy]

This thread is now on my Psy video rotation: I'm mainly just checking it to be shocked at how many posts it draws. At 1 billion pages, will answer get a little dancing Arthur Dent next to his name?

[Losty]

Nah, he didn't start the thread, he's not the only cray cray that's been in here with terrible arguments and annoyingly abrasive debate styles, and he probably won't be the last.

[Esquilax]

Back to your arguement. If you read my arguement you would see that I began by stating that the pre-requistite for this arugement is that the fetus is a moral subject/agent/{whatever pompous term you want to put in here}/being.

If your argument begins by requiring an unjustified presupposition, it's not much of an argument. You might as well just go full on circular, cut out the obfuscation altogether, and simply assert that you think abortion is morally wrong because it's morally wrong. Adding in a shopping list of things you must believe to be true before the argument works as intended is dishonest until you start demonstrating why the initial conditions are, you know, true.

If you do not hold to that belief - as I have stated many times - then this arguement is null from the outset.

Then why would you use it?

No, seriously: if your position isn't convincing unless you already agree with it, what's the point of all this? Evidently it's not to sway anyone else over to your side, because the pro-choice peeps will see the holes in the position and you've already said you know that. If it's just to preach to the choir you'd get a much larger audience for that elsewhere, and I simply don't understand the attraction of that, so... what's the deal?

Whether you should or shouldn't have that belief is a seperate and interesting debate that I would like to have someday (maybe start a thread - that would be fun) but not within the context of this thread. PLEASE READ MY DAMN POSTS.

I'm pretty sure the justifications for your moral stance on abortion are pretty germane to a thread about the morality of abortion.

Finally "It means accepting that your actions have consequences, and attempting to minimize bad ones. To many, this means not allowing a child to be brought into the world with disadvantageous circumstances." Couple issues. This seems to justify the eradication of anyone who is in a disadvantageous circumstance.

Only if you think the fetus is already a person... which it isn't. If a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. There's no person in potentia that loses a chance at existence. If you start killing people, well, they already exist, making their death a worsening of a bad situation, not an alleviation of one.

Morality as i see it is about what is right and wrong, not what maximizes good or bad outcomes.

How the hell do you think "right and wrong" are derived, if not from the outcomes of the actions we ascribe those labels to? You say you're not a theist, so what outside source can you possibly appeal to, here?

[answer-is-42]

So many things to say...
First to Godslayer ...


address my arguements, not your perception of arguements. I have NEVER made any claim to IMPOSE my position on ANYONE. As I have stated NUMEROUS times, this is a PHILOSOPHICAL question NOT a legal one, so FUCK YOU for completely making up a position and claiming I hold it (also known as a straw man).
Next, for all of you who claim that my claim that a fetus deserves right, as I have stated this is a requirement for MY arguement, if you do not believe that then this arguement has no meaning to you, FINE, I'm not trying to convince you of it in this thread. I will someday start or join such a thread because I do think it is an important discussion, but that is not the purpose of this arguement, which is about abortion. This whole arguement actually stems from an arguement made by Matt Dullahunty (sp?-too lazy to google) that I have heard made by others as well that EVEN if the fetus is a person, abortion is not wrong, and that is niche that my arguement lives. The primary arguement in that context is that of personal autonomy, but I have tried to argue that there are numerous times that we willingly give up autonomy and if you actually read my original arguement you would see that is the basis of my arguement. (Esquilax I'm specifically directing this to you because I have repeatedly stated this point over and over - I'm making a philosophical arguement with certain pre-req, that is what pre-req's mean. If you don't like them then FINE say you don't think a fetus deserves rights and move on, it doesn't add to the discussion I was trying to have in THIS thread. start a seperate thread on that question and I will be happy to join and argue or we can start that arguement here - let me know and I will respond in that context, but I was not and have not made that arguement here.

Next -- a great many of you START at the position that oppositon to abortion is immoral but do not justify this belief. Having unjustified beliefs is intectually lazy no matter what side of the arguement you are on.

Next -- I'm tired of correcting people for out-of-context quotes or arguements, but I NEVER equated abortion to eugenics, poverty cleansing, or anything else, I merely responded to a particular (see that's what quotation marks mean) arguement that stated that abortion is moral because of the greater good arguement and gave examples of why the greater good arguement is not a valid moral one. I AGREE that those are bad things, but my point is that if you use a greater good arguement then those become legit conclusions that can (not should) be drawn

Finally to losty. Thank you for actually addressing the arguement at hand. I think you have a misunderstanding about my entire arguement and structure. I may be because I was not clear or you may have misunderstood. Regardless let me try again...
I agree with your first assumption that a fetus is a moral subject so let's move from there. If you willing take an action that you know or should know can have a repercussion on another subject then I beleive that it is not moral to not take responsibility for that consequence (double negative, I know sorry, late and can't quite figure out a more clear messsage at this time). So if you willingly have sex with the knowledge that sex can cause pregnancy then you have by virtue of your action morally accepted that responsibility (remember a whole bunch of pages back the example of the rich guy and the kidney?) The subject of your responsibility then becomes the fetus that you (and a sperm donor of some sort) created. That is responsibility portion of my arguement and is the main counter to the my body, my choice arguement because I am arguing that by willingly and knowingly engaging in sex you have willingly and knowingly accepted the responsibility for that action. The next part (which I also previously outlined seperately) is what type of action consitutes responsibility? IF you agree that the fetus is a subject then destroying the subject is not in my estimation demonstrating any more responsiblility then (and as I said previously I am not equating abortion to murder, this is ONLY an EXAMPLE) killing someone (also a moral subject) because you broke their arm - yes the issue (broken arm) is taken care of, but how is this a remedy to the affected subject? In the case of the fetus, I would say it is reasonable to take the fetus to viability then deliver it (premature that it may be). The question of who should then foot the additional medical costs due to the intensive care of a premature infant is not mine and has nothing to do with the moral arguement at hand. If you have another example or option of responsibility or can argue that destroying a subject is an act of responsibility to that subject then I would like to hear it as a counter (this is genuine).

To anyone else, I am done responding to arguements you have decided to make up for me, if you would like to address the arguement above, fine, if not say what you want but please do not direct it at me because I will ignore it.

OK I lied, I just re-read Esquilax's post and could not help my self but to respond to this statement "Only if you think the fetus is already a person... which it isn't. If a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. There's no person in potentia that loses a chance at existence. If you start killing people, well, they already exist, making their death a worsening of a bad situation, not an alleviation of one. " (Esquilax not me) OK - If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost - what crime (or sin/evil/immoral act) if any have I committed? You clearly feel that "nothing is lost" with the loss of a fetus so murder is certainly off the table.

OK now I'm done going off topic.

[psychoslice]

By who's morals is abortion wrong, my mum had two abortions, and she was always a beautiful person, people who are afraid of death project their so called morals onto others when they should shut their mouth up and keep their morals to themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

IF you agree that the fetus is a subject then destroying the subject is not in my estimation demonstrating any more responsiblility then (and as I said previously I am not equating abortion to murder, this is ONLY an EXAMPLE) killing someone (also a moral subject) because you broke their arm - yes the issue (broken arm) is taken care of, but how is this a remedy to the affected subject?

Your estimation doesn't follow.

Again, this is due to your leaving -the usual assumption- undeclared. You simply must demonstrate that the destruction of the fetus is not fulfilling the responsibility one assumes upon oneself. You'll have to avoid assuming your conclusion in doing so.

"If you agree that the fetus is a moral subject, and if you agree that we have a responsibility to the subject, and if you agree that the responsiblity is thus -and not thus- - then." This idea of "remedying the situation" is one of those "thus's" - and I fail to see how the language even applies. Is a fetus the situation, how can a fetus be remedied?

If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost

LOL, malpractice? What an odd question for you to ask....

[Bibliofagus]

OK - If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost - what crime (or sin/evil/immoral act) if any have I committed? You clearly feel that "nothing is lost" with the loss of a fetus so murder is certainly off the table.

That would be assault on the woman. Quite telling you don't realise that.

[answer-is-42]

By who's morals is abortion wrong, my mum had two abortions, and she was always a beautiful person, people who are afraid of death project their so called morals onto others when they should shut their mouth up and keep their morals to themselves.

You confuse a morally wrong choice with being a bad person. even if she made a morally wrong decision, no one, and certainly not I, have stated she is a bad person.

However, given the fact that you are trying to suppress discourse on a subject you disagree with, may be I can state that I wish you mum had had 3 abortions instead?

We all have the right to discuss our moral positions, and I certainly have never intentionally tried to suppress discourse (I did miss type a line a few pages back that came off wrong, that I did correct) but I do not believe that you or I or anyone else has the right to shut any one else up, whether we agree or not.
I have seen death more then most based on my profession and I accept it, but that has nothing to do with my moral positions and I hope that most people here whether they agree or disagree with the position would agree that open discourse should generally not be suppressed.

---

OK - If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost - what crime (or sin/evil/immoral act) if any have I committed? You clearly feel that "nothing is lost" with the loss of a fetus so murder is certainly off the table.

That would be assault on the woman. Quite telling you don't realise that.

No. The question was is it murder? Also I could cause a spontanous abortion without physically touching her myself.

as·sault
əˈsôlt/
verb
verb: assault; 3rd person present: assaults; past tense: assaulted; past participle: assaulted; gerund or present participle: assaulting

1.
make a physical attack on.

noun
noun: assault; plural noun: assaults

1.
a physical attack.

So quite telling you don't realise that.

Though for clarity let's just say what crime if any have I committed to the fetus?