RE: Abortion is morally wrong
July 27, 2014 at 8:24 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2014 at 8:35 pm by answer-is-42.)
(July 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Blackout Wrote:(July 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Natachan Wrote: For personal reasons I don't hold with the "accepted risk" argument. If a person believes or is told that conception is impossible, then they don't know and do t accept that risk.
And while you say well life isn't fair I point out that human sacrifice is immoral. Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't choose is to tell her that her life is less valuable than a clump of cells in her uterus.
I agree. I'm just saying everybody implicitly accepts risks if he/she knows there is a 1% or 0.5% chance of pregnancy, it doesn't mean you have to take the consequences, it just means you are aware of the risks. I'm aware of mine, not because I want, but because I acknowledge the highly unlikely possibility of failure
Actually a reasobable point, certainly if you felt the consequence was NOT possible - eg in my analogy about the kidney if you had very good reason to believe my kidney was indestructible or the ball analogy the wall had no windows - then you may not be able to adequately factor that into your agreement (ie not be fully informed). But by your own admission it is a non 0% chance. As such why would you NOT accept responsibility for the consequence, no matter how remote?
However it is still not addressed if you are still morally culpable - eg with hitting a ball through your neighbors window, maybe they put in a window you did not know about or the ball richoetted off a tree and hit their side window - are you no longer reasonsible for the result because you did not think there was a significant chance of damage? Any non 0% is still a chance that you implicitly take. The only 0% chance of hitting a ball through your neighor's windows is not hitting a ball. Does the % change your moral responsibility? If so, at what cut off?
(July 27, 2014 at 8:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "My fundamental question is do people have implicity responsibility for actions they willfully take assuming they can or should understand the consquences."
-I'd say yes. In this case it would be the responsibility of the involved parties to either abort or raise a child.
You are confusing issues - you are giving OPTIONS and I would dare say there are more OPTIONS that those 2: you could allow for adoption or send them to a relative to raise or a friend or a random stranger on the street. None of this addresses my question - do you have a responsibiilty to complete the pregnancy (which is the DIRECT RESULT of the action)? I make no mention of what to do with the child after.
You implying abortion (termination of the pregnancy) IS a form of responsibility and I would argue it is NOT. It is no more a means of taking responsibility then burning down the house of a window you broke - the broken window is no longer and issue, but you really havent addressed your action.
This is NOT to say abortion is an easy or cavalier thing for a woman to do, in most cases it is excrutiating and difficult, but just because you are torn or sad or hurt does not mean you have taken responsibility.
