RE: Abortion is morally wrong
July 27, 2014 at 1:44 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm by answer-is-42.)
(July 26, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Losty Wrote: I come back to you, love. I am just too tired right now. You're right it's not the worst argument ever. Also, I can only argue from a legal standpoint. Because personal opinions mean nothing. I honestly would accept abortion is bad mmmkay for a reason for a personal opinion. Because I don't really care about opinions as long as they don't legally affect me.Thisis a philosophy forum, not legal - go to politics if you want to change the law. This is a discussion to discuss the MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF ABORTION, if that is not what you want to talk about, then don't talk
(July 27, 2014 at 4:06 am)Esquilax Wrote:Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex, meteor strikes are NOT a accepted consequence of anything. For example, you drive your car everyday, if one day you get into an accident and damage someone else's car can you argue I only wanted to get around, I didn't agree to hit your car so I'm not going to pay the bill. Or if you play ball in your backyard, use reasonable precautions (a fence or whatever) and you still accidently hit the ball into your neighbor's window can you aruge you are not responsible becuase you only want to play ball not break a window?(July 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:
Except that in the case of abortion, nobody agreed to the pregnancy. Sex and pregnancy aren't the same thing; sex is sex, and pregnancy is pregnancy, and in the case of accidental conception nobody signed up for the latter. In your example the risks were not only known, but agreed to, so a more accurate version of that story is that you offer the trip with the caveat of potential organ donation, I refuse and pay my own way so that we can live it up, and you still expect me to donate my kidney when yours fails.
We don't stop people from mitigating consequences that they didn't consent to, in a neutral scenario. There's a possibility that a meteor will fall on me whenever I leave my house, but that doesn't mean I should be denied medical care because, in some abstract sense, I "accepted the risk" of meteor strike. Sometimes accidents happen, and we shouldn't hold them against people just because they accept that they exist in an unpredictable world.
Quote: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
Sure, but when you unwillingly give up your autonomy, that's where the problem is.
) 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?Regarding automony, I specifically state willingly and I argue by enganging in behavior that has a potential consequence you implicitly agree to those consquence assuming you knew of them and it was voluntary. Not sure where I forced anyone to do anything. thanks
Again my point here is to look at the moral question being asked not a legal question.
(July 27, 2014 at 4:06 am)Esquilax Wrote:(July 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:
Except that in the case of abortion, nobody agreed to the pregnancy. Sex and pregnancy aren't the same thing; sex is sex, and pregnancy is pregnancy, and in the case of accidental conception nobody signed up for the latter. In your example the risks were not only known, but agreed to, so a more accurate version of that story is that you offer the trip with the caveat of potential organ donation, I refuse and pay my own way so that we can live it up, and you still expect me to donate my kidney when yours fails.
We don't stop people from mitigating consequences that they didn't consent to, in a neutral scenario. There's a possibility that a meteor will fall on me whenever I leave my house, but that doesn't mean I should be denied medical care because, in some abstract sense, I "accepted the risk" of meteor strike. Sometimes accidents happen, and we shouldn't hold them against people just because they accept that they exist in an unpredictable world.
Quote: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
Sure, but when you unwillingly give up your autonomy, that's where the problem is.
I disagree with your changing of the analogy - if anything paying your own way is masturbation so you won't get pregnant (if you do they will worship your kid for 2K years) hence you didn't agree to my conditions and I have no claim to your.
Sex is sex pregnancy is pregnancy is not a valid statement as sex leads to pregnancy, to paraphrase another response I gave, driving is driving and accidents are accidents, I didn't agree to the accident so I'm not responsible?
Again meteor strikes are not a known consequence of anything, though if you invent a machine that could attract them to you and then get hit by one then it would be. let me know when that happens
