Why spend so much time discussing something that is highly prone to subjective appreciation of morality? Some people will consider abortion morally wrong, others won't, others will consider it morally neutral, all choices are valid ones as long as they don't violate your personal principles. My girlfriend considers a fetus (or an embryo to be more precise) to be a life and so she wouldn't abort unless she was raped, but she doesn't go out imposing the view on everybody, as long as no one does that, we're all cool.

(August 16, 2014 at 9:21 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: You made a claim that I made a circular arguement, but that is NOT what i did - EVER = please quote where I made such a claim. I DID state I feel abortion is morally wrong and HERE IS WHY - that is calld a justification

Which you did. If the premise of your argument is that we have a responsibility to provide life for a particular moral subject (in this case a fetus) then you have simply delineated abortion in that premise. It doesn't matter that you've managed to obfuscate this so completely that you don't even realize it. You don't actually require an argument, because your conclusion is already contained within the premise - and there's a word for that...nevertheless, I'm still trying to help you find that argument, whatever it may be.

Quote: so OF COURSE they are going to be consistent - gigglesticks -

They should not be interchangeable.

Quote: just because you think you corrected some of my terms does not mean you UNDERSTOOD my arguement.

lol,.........

Quote:My arguement is that we chose to have sex and that we therefore chose to be responsible for the repercussion of THOSE actions

Would this, then -more accurately- be your premise, rather than the last claim you made about what your premise was? K, I'm with you, good to see that you're trying. I think it's shaky, but so what, it's a premise - we haven't quite reached the point where we start to question the contents.

Quote: - and if it involves a moral subject then we DO have a responsibility to that subject.

K, yup..yup, still with you on this (as I already mentioned)

Quote: IF you do not feel the fetus is a moral subject, then fine the rest of the arguement does not hold and we can have a different discussion on wether the fetus is a moral subject in a thread dedicated to that and I would be happy to

Already let you run with this one, page or so (maybe more) ago...but ah......your conclusion now seems to be a non-sequitur.

Quote:. Not sure where that arguement is circular, but please enlighten me.

Nope, you managed to fuck it up in an entirely different way this time. Back to the drawing board. Let me lay this out for you,

We are responsible for the consequences of actions which we undertake by choice.
pregnancy is a consequence of sex
a fetus is a moral subject
Therefore abortion is morally wrong.

You're missing something to tie it all together. We could add yet more cumbersome claims (and we're already trying to take the long route) - or, we could change our premise to provide more direct access to the conclusion that we desire (reverse engineering logic, if you will..lol). As it stands, you're all over the board.

I still can't find the connection between this:

"We are responsible for the consequences of actions which we undertake by choice.
pregnancy is a consequence of sex
a fetus is a moral subject"

And this:

"Therefore abortion is morally wrong."

Because it doesn't exist, he's missing an undeclared assumption (which he's made in the thread but ommitted this go round)- I'd just like to see him put it all together again - so that I don't have to pitch straw.

It's actually refreshing to see an atheist to take a pro-life stance. I don't like seeing groupthought dragging somebody to their view on the matter "or else". I've always been on the fence about abortion. It's just a disgusting wedge issue for politicians to drag their base out to the voting booths.

I met a small group of lobbyists in DC and asked why they didn't bank roll the Libertarian party, since that's the party with the rights of lobbyists in mind. They all agreed abortion was the wedge issue that makes libertarians a non-starter. They'd cut the funding to abortion clinics, but keep them legal. Neither the bible belt or non-religious feminists will go for that.

answer-is-42 Wrote:YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising.

You would have to define what is morality. For theists, generally it is God's command. As you can guess, that won't hold water for atheists.

Generally for atheists, morality is a human construct. As a general guide, anything that is harmful to the individual or to society would be considered morally wrong, with emphasis on "general".

On the issue of abortion, one can argue that it is dangerous to make abortion illegal, as woman will seek to have an abortion without medical expertise. Secondly, you have authority on your body, so a woman has the final decision if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. Thirdly, we have a population that is growing exponentially: we need to limit this growth somehow and having legalized abortion is one measure to do that. Fourthly, illegal abortion puts poor women at a disadvantage as rich women have the financial means to get better and safer illegal abortions.

(August 17, 2014 at 10:40 am)little_monkey Wrote: Ben Davis said:
"YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising. "

You would have to define what is morality. For theists, generally it is God's command. As you can guess, that won't hold water for atheists.

Generally for atheists, morality is a human construct. As a general guide, anything that is harmful to the individual or to society would be considered morally wrong, with emphasis on "general".

On the issue of abortion, one can argue that it is dangerous to make abortion illegal, as woman will seek to have an abortion without medical expertise. Secondly, you have authority on your body, so a woman has the final decision if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. Thirdly, we have a population that is growing exponentially: we need to limit this growth somehow and having legalized abortion is one measure to do that. Fourthly, illegal abortion puts poor women at a disadvantage as rich women have the financial means to get better and safer illegal abortions.

Little Monkey, please edit your post to attribute your quote to the correct person. Ben Davis is not who you quoted, it was the answer is 42.

(August 16, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Because it doesn't exist, he's missing an undeclared assumption (which he's made in the thread but ommitted this go round)- I'd just like to see him put it all together again - so that I don't have to pitch straw.

OK giggles here we go in the simplest terms and smallest words

Prereq: A fetus is a subject (NOT DEBATING THIS ISSUES IN THIS ARGUEMENT)

1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral.

WHERE IS THE CIRCLE {i just noticed your cussing, didn't realize that was allowed here so } dipsh*t?

You may not agree with every step, fine we can talk about that. But to call this circular is a straw man in everysense. This is what my multiple posts have given examples of.
If i failed to lay it out in EVERY post, sorry but it's stupid to have to rehash the whole damn thing, instead go back in read the first ones where i did and intellectually honestly debate the points. If you want to argue on those points, fine, but I'm still waiting on arguements on merit rather than structure.

---

(August 17, 2014 at 10:40 am)little_monkey Wrote: Ben Davis said:
"YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising. "

You would have to define what is morality. For theists, generally it is God's command. As you can guess, that won't hold water for atheists.

Generally for atheists, morality is a human construct. As a general guide, anything that is harmful to the individual or to society would be considered morally wrong, with emphasis on "general".

On the issue of abortion, one can argue that it is dangerous to make abortion illegal, as woman will seek to have an abortion without medical expertise. Secondly, you have authority on your body, so a woman has the final decision if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. Thirdly, we have a population that is growing exponentially: we need to limit this growth somehow and having legalized abortion is one measure to do that. Fourthly, illegal abortion puts poor women at a disadvantage as rich women have the financial means to get better and safer illegal abortions.

Morality is/are the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Those are subjective terms, theist may derive them from their scripture but it has nothing to do with the term. My morality is my guide to right and wrong and good and bad. My societal contract is more made up of the laws of the land in a secular society. There are many things that are immoral in my estimation (or others for that matter) but are still legal and vice versa.
You name a number of social or logistical consequence in opposition of baning legal abortion (a position I have NOT ONCE taken) that have nothing to do with it's MORALITY. Sometimes doing something wrong is for the greater good and sometimes it is not, but that is not the arguement that seems to be here. Killing an innocent person is immoral, but if that death would guarantee the end of a deadly disease is it the right thing for society to do? don't know but that doesn;t neccessarily change the morality of the action.

Oops, we've assumed our conclusion. Try again.

Don't get pissy with me just because you can't do logic...lol. "Ermagrd, you jst dnt understand mah brilliant ar-gu-ment"

Structure -is- merit jackass. If the structure is invalid you don't have an argument - were you unaware of this?

(your argument was circular pages back when you defined your premise - and I;ve already explained this to you-, you've since changed the structure, fucking it up a different way twice now, in two re-tellings)

(August 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:

(August 16, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Because it doesn't exist, he's missing an undeclared assumption (which he's made in the thread but ommitted this go round)- I'd just like to see him put it all together again - so that I don't have to pitch straw.

OK giggles here we go in the simplest terms and smallest words

Prereq: A fetus is a subject (NOT DEBATING THIS ISSUES IN THIS ARGUEMENT)

1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral.

WHERE IS THE CIRCLE {i just noticed your cussing, didn't realize that was allowed here so } dipsh*t?

I don't offhand see where your circularity is, but allow me to point out a couple things.

First, you seem to be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation regarding the term responsibility here. If in #1 you mean that you have an obligation (responsibility) regarding the consequences of your actions, then this is an unfounded premise. Having an obligation is neither moral nor immoral; I have obligations attached to some of my voluntary actions (such as driving) but not attached to others (such as thinking about apple pie or wiping my nose). If in #1 you mean responsibility in the form of culpability, then you've equivocated, because the responsibility in #3 is in the sense of an obligation.

Second is the whole issue of diminished responsibility. If my mechanic tells me that the brakes on my car need fixing, and I do nothing, if the brakes fail and I get in an accident, then I face considerable responsibility for any harm done. However, if I get the brakes fixed and they fail anyway, I'm held to a lesser standard of responsibility for any harm done than if I had done nothing. This is a principle of law, but it's also an ethical principle. It would be immoral to hold the person who did his best to prevent consequences to the same standard as the person who does nothing at all to minimize harm. As you've stated your argument, the couple who takes steps to prevent conception is held to the same standard as a couple who does nothing to prevent pregnancy. Given this, it would seem that there is something hinky with your standard. The only way I can see to rectify this would be to make a person responsible for bearing and caring for the child no matter how much care they took to mitigate the risk; in other words, you'd have to assume the error so heinous that, even with diminished responsibility, the couple are still responsible for the pregnancy (in both senses). We do that for heinous acts like murder, but I think applying that level of responsibility to sex and pregnancy is unjustified. Thus, I would argue that an ethic of diminished responsibility should be applied in this case, and that any other view is simply inconsistent with the ethics of personal responsibility involved, and is likely simply fitting the moral to your desired end of making all abortions immoral.

There's a parallel question concerning the moral significance of the life of the fetus at each stage of pregnancy. And in that, too, it seems unethical to apply an absolute standard and that those who place the moral significance of any embryo post-conception at the same bar as an autonomous human being are manipulating the equation of values with a particular goal in mind, namely outlawing abortion.