RE: Abortion is morally wrong
July 26, 2014 at 10:44 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2014 at 10:49 pm by answer-is-42.)
(July 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm)Little lunch Wrote: Perhaps the contract should include a zipper surgically installed above the kidney so as to show that the conditions are fully understood.The question was not really about the "contract" but about the philosophical question underlying it (considering the board section is philosophy). A response to that would be more on point.
(July 26, 2014 at 10:43 pm)Losty Wrote:I don't think this is the worse arguement and I would very much be interested in your counter point.(July 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: Hello, new user here so I apologize if my arguement has been "beat to death" already. I read as much of the 95 pages of posts on the subject as I could, and saw no mention of it, so I thought I would put it out there and see what people thought.
I come at the question of abortion from a slightly different angle. I look at it more of a question of implicit responsibility and informed consent. Let me preface that this is my MORAL view, NOT my legal view on abortion - as you all well know the two are not interchangeable.
A simplistic analogy would be if I offerred you a trip to Paris(or Amersterdam or Denver) and access to a great private party there where we would have lots of fun. The only catch is that there is a 1:1000 chance that my kidneys are going to fail and I would need 1 of yours. I don't expect it, but it could happen. You don't have to go, and you know the conditions before we leave. If you willingly accept the proposition and then my kidneys do fail then would you still be responsible to assist me and my health? Obviously if you didn't undestand the conditions (informed) or didn't agree (consent) then this issue is moot, but if you did then what are your moral obligations?
I contend that unless the condition have changed that would make the agreement unreasonable (eg you lost 1 of your kidneys and need your only remaining 1 to survive) you would be MORALLY responsible to assist me and it would be wrong not to.
What is the consensus on this and the obvious extension to abortion.
Seperately I do personally think fathers are not obligated enough during the pregnancy to necessarily be more responsible prior. I think it would do wonders if fathers were required to attend pre-natal visits with expectant mothers and as such atleast have some required inconvience as a consequence of their actions if they are not willing to otherwise be a part of the pregnancy that they caused, but that is an entirely seperate issue.
Look forward to hearing the responses.
Additionally, I don't think this arguement has anything to do with autonomy as people give up their personal autonomy willingly all of the time (eg joining the Armed Forced you can be required to do all kinds of things - within certain bounds) so I personally start at a position that a person can willingly give up a portion of their personal autonomy. Just wanted to clarify, thanks
No. No no no. Worst argument ever and I don't have the energy right now.
All I can say is this, "as a consequence of their actions" automatically rules your argument invalid in my eyes. Sex is not illegal and governments have no business imposing moral consequences.
And
"people give up their personal autonomy willingly all the time" well yea, willingly being the key word
Regarding legallity - i specifically state this is a MORAL question NOT a LEGAL question so goverment has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS QUESTION.
I feel people DO have personal responsibilties for their willing actions and tried to outline it in a simplistic arguement, I agree the analogy does not convey the full ethical dillema's of abortion, but it does go to the point of assumed responsibility.
I would be again interested to hear your discussion on this, and I am truely open to changing my opinoin, but I really need to hear more than this. thanks
