answer-is-42; 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?

What did you mean by the above statement ?.

(September 4, 2014 at 1:08 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote: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?

Quote: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....

You have put the fetus (subject) in a state of existence that they did not have before - that is the "situation" that you are responsible for. What actions do you suggest would morally encompass resposibility to the subject (fetus) in this situation? Again within the constraints of the arguement I have made (if you argue the fetus is not a subject then we are at a non-starter and you are adding nothing to the discussion that I am having)

regarding the malpractice-- that only applies if I were treating her in a medical capasity and not the broad sense the question was asked - sooo want to try again?

Atleast you are trying to stay on topic

---

(September 4, 2014 at 1:22 am)psychoslice Wrote: answer-is-42; 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?

What did you mean by the above statement ?.

hmmm. not sure I'll get back to you

(September 4, 2014 at 1:23 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: You have put the fetus (subject) in a state of existence that they did not have before - that is the "situation" that you are responsible for.

Granted. But wheres this responsibility to provide life then?

Quote:What actions do you suggest would morally encompass resposibility to the subject (fetus) in this situation?

To avoid causing harm (to the limit of harm to ones self, of course), to cause the least harm (your actions would be modified by your situation, of course). That's the tricky bit with moral subjects in the first place (and the question that moral subject and agency get trotted out for most often).

Quote:regarding the malpractice-- that only applies if I were treating her in a medical capasity and not the broad sense the question was asked - sooo want to try again?

Ah,. so you mean you non-consentually caused a women to abort outside of medical treatment? Yeah, probably assault, as has been said. Oh..wait, wait, maybe attempted murder.....could have poisoned the poor girl(but maybe it was just bad fish, and then it'd be civil, not criminal).

(September 4, 2014 at 1:23 am)answer-is-42 Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 1:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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?

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

You have put the fetus (subject) in a state of existence that they did not have before - that is the "situation" that you are responsible for. What actions do you suggest would morally encompass resposibility to the subject (fetus) in this situation? Again within the constraints of the arguement I have made (if you argue the fetus is not a subject then we are at a non-starter and you are adding nothing to the discussion that I am having)

regarding the malpractice-- that only applies if I were treating her in a medical capasity and not the broad sense the question was asked - sooo want to try again?

Atleast you are trying to stay on topic

---

(September 4, 2014 at 1:22 am)psychoslice Wrote: answer-is-42; 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?

What did you mean by the above statement ?.

hmmm. not sure I'll get back to you

Yea I thought so, I think there should be lots more abortions, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Yea I thought so, I think there should be lots more abortions, I'm sure you know what I mean.
[/quote]
I'm back - nope don't know what you mean, I think only 1 person in this world should have had more abortions and I think I may have mentioned that person, but I could be wrong, I'll have to check again.

---

(September 4, 2014 at 1:28 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 1:23 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: You have put the fetus (subject) in a state of existence that they did not have before - that is the "situation" that you are responsible for.

Granted. But wheres this responsibility to provide life then?

Quote:What actions do you suggest would morally encompass resposibility to the subject (fetus) in this situation?

To avoid causing harm (to the limit of harm to ones self, of course), to cause the least harm (your actions would be modified by your situation, of course). That's the tricky bit with moral subjects in the first place (and the question that moral subject and agency get trotted out for most often).

Quote:regarding the malpractice-- that only applies if I were treating her in a medical capasity and not the broad sense the question was asked - sooo want to try again?

Ah,. so you mean you non-consentually caused a women to abort outside of medical treatment? Yeah, probably assault, as has been said. Oh..wait, wait, maybe attempted murder.....could have poisoned the poor girl(but maybe it was just bad fish, and then it'd be civil, not criminal).

don't think you read well - that's the crux of my arguement - if you willing cause an action (break a subject's window or cause a subject to exist) you have a moral responsibility to that subject. Do you object to this statement? I'm still not clear on you position here. If you do no agree then why not is a question reasonable question.

If you don't onject then part two - what action constitute responsibility. Going WAY back to my original example - if you agree to possibly donate your kidney to someone on the off change (say <1%) that theirs shuts down in the next 2 days or whatever in exchange for {xx insert whatever you really want here xx} and you accept {xx} then are you not responsible to the other? If so what constitues responsibility to the subject? again I argue destroying the subject is not responsibility to the subject - it may be in your OWN best interest, but that was not the question. I agree we try to avoid harm to our selves, but we agree to takes risks to ourselves all the time - the military would not work if we could say that avoiding personal harm paramount. Additionally, I have tried to argue (see the kidney analogy) that the mother has accepted the usual potential harm that comes with a pregnancy by virtue of her actions - that's kinda the point of the first part. I'm not being circular, but I think it is fairly straight forward to say that the unwilling destruction of a subject without their consent is generally not a responsible act to the subject - if you disagree then why is a more apt question. If you agree that descruction of the fetus is not a responsible act to the fetus and you agree that the mother has agreed to the responsibility of pregnancy by her action willing and knowledgable action THEN .... TADA

Finally I clarified (you really have to learn to read) what if any crime has been committed to the fetus? Also assault does not apply if I do not physically harm her (I could cause enough psychological trauma to cause and abortion) or I could invent a substance that has NO effect on the mother but only effects the fetus or there could be no intent and it could be a car crash that I was at fault in - ran a red or slid on a rainy day.

The only things more churlish and tiresome than your arguments, are your insults. Takes practice though (argument and insult both), so keep at it.

Quote: if you willing cause an action (break a subject's window or cause a subject to exist) you have a moral responsibility to that subject. Do you object to this statement?

Nope.

Quote:if you agree to possibly donate your kidney to someone on the off change (say <1%) that theirs shuts down in the next 2 days or whatever in exchange for {xx insert whatever you really want here xx} and you accept {xx} then are you not responsible to the other?

Donate in exchange for "x"? Doesn't sound like donation. Sounds like a transaction of property for ammenable (and agreed upon) compensation. I'd say you'd have to give the money back, at the least, if you welshed. I couldn't ask the cops to cuff you to the table so that my doctor could remove your kidney though? I mean, I could ask that - but I wouldn't (and I hope they wouldn't comply anyway).

Quote:Finally I clarified (you really have to learn to read)

For a fucker that harps on about responsibility so much you don;t seem very keen on assuming responsibility for your failure to adequately communicate your message 42.

Quote: what if any crime has been committed to the fetus?

Depends on the state and the duration of the pregnancy. For example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vict...olence_Act

Quote:Also assault does not apply if I do not physically harm her
(I could cause enough psychological trauma to cause and abortion) or I could invent a substance that has NO effect on the mother but only effects the fetus or there could be no intent and it could be a car crash that I was at fault in - ran a red or slid on a rainy day.

Sure, we could sit around and imagine all sorts of ways to cause an abortion without the consent of the mother and the manner in which we've done so will modify what laws apply. If they do, they will always involve the mother - but only sometimes will they involve the fetus. The car crash could be civil proceedings, btw. You wouldn't be hatching a plan would you.........?

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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).

I've yet to hear a sound philosophical argument against abortion all together though. You're proving that every time you fail to present an argument.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.

You don't get to decide what stage of life constitutes rights. The law does.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: abortion is not wrong, and that is niche that my arguement lives.

Which you've failed to justify this entire thread.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: The primary arguement in that context is that of personal autonomy,

Which fetuses do not have.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.

When do you give up autonomy? when you get pregnant? if so, then no, that's asinine.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.

Yes, cognitive human beings have precedence over a barely conscious fetus.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.

You're the one who's against a law in place. Abortion is legal, you're the one who has to prove that it should be unlawful, and so far the pro-life knuckle-draggers have nothing that holds water.

Pages and pages and pages of debate and it still boils down to, if you are not going to pay for the kid after it is born, you have no say. Only the doctor and the patient have the right to make that decision. Third parties have no fucking right to play morality police.

(September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.

I just want to clarify that this is not my assumption. This is an allowance I am making for you to be able to make your argument based on this assumption.

answer42 Wrote:If you willingly take an action that you know or should know can have a repercussion on another subject then I beleive that it is immoral 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)
[fixt :p]
. 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.

I am with you so far.

answer42 Wrote: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?

If you could actually say what you mean with out all the extra stuff it would be easier for me to respond.
Example:"The next part is what type of action consitutes responsibility? If you agree that the fetus is a moral subject then destroying the subject is not in my estimation demonstrating responsibility."

To which I would respond, why not? If you can, answer this question directly without making any examples from irrelevant, separate circumstances like broken arms or windows.

answer42 Wrote: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).

Why is this reasonable?

answer42 Wrote: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.

I think it's very relevant.

answer42 Wrote: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).

As I haven't seen that you've made any argument (rather you've just given blind assertions with silly irrelevant examples), I will choose to do the same. If a fetus is a moral subject that does not mean the mother is morally obligated to provide life for said fetus.