RE: Abortion is morally wrong
September 4, 2014 at 12:11 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2014 at 1:05 am by answer-is-42.)
So many things to say...
First to Godslayer ...
![[Image: what-not-to-say-to-single-girls-8.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.teen.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fwhat-not-to-say-to-single-girls-8.gif)
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).
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, if you do not believe that then this arguement has no meaning to you, FINE, I'm not trying to convince you of it in this thread. I will someday start or join such a thread because I do think it is an important discussion, but that is not the purpose of this arguement, which is about abortion. This whole arguement actually stems from an arguement made by Matt Dullahunty (sp?-too lazy to google) that I have heard made by others as well that EVEN if the fetus is a person, abortion is not wrong, and that is niche that my arguement lives. The primary arguement in that context is that of personal autonomy, 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. (Esquilax I'm specifically directing this to you because I have repeatedly stated this point over and over - I'm making a philosophical arguement with certain pre-req, that is what pre-req's mean. 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. start a seperate thread on that question and I will be happy to join and argue or we can start that arguement here - let me know and I will respond in that context, but I was not and have not made that arguement here.
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.
Next -- I'm tired of correcting people for out-of-context quotes or arguements, but I NEVER equated abortion to eugenics, poverty cleansing, or anything else, I merely responded to a particular (see that's what quotation marks mean) arguement that stated that abortion is moral because of the greater good arguement and gave examples of why the greater good arguement is not a valid moral one. I AGREE that those are bad things, but my point is that if you use a greater good arguement then those become legit conclusions that can (not should) be drawn
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. If you willing take an action that you know or should know can have a repercussion on another subject then I beleive that it is not moral 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). 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. 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? 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). 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. 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).
To anyone else, I am done responding to arguements you have decided to make up for me, if you would like to address the arguement above, fine, if not say what you want but please do not direct it at me because I will ignore it.
OK I lied, I just re-read Esquilax's post and could not help my self but to respond to this statement "Only if you think the fetus is already a person... which it isn't. If a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. There's no person in potentia that loses a chance at existence. If you start killing people, well, they already exist, making their death a worsening of a bad situation, not an alleviation of one. " (Esquilax not me) OK - If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost - what crime (or sin/evil/immoral act) if any have I committed? You clearly feel that "nothing is lost" with the loss of a fetus so murder is certainly off the table.
OK now I'm done going off topic.
First to Godslayer ...
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).
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, if you do not believe that then this arguement has no meaning to you, FINE, I'm not trying to convince you of it in this thread. I will someday start or join such a thread because I do think it is an important discussion, but that is not the purpose of this arguement, which is about abortion. This whole arguement actually stems from an arguement made by Matt Dullahunty (sp?-too lazy to google) that I have heard made by others as well that EVEN if the fetus is a person, abortion is not wrong, and that is niche that my arguement lives. The primary arguement in that context is that of personal autonomy, 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. (Esquilax I'm specifically directing this to you because I have repeatedly stated this point over and over - I'm making a philosophical arguement with certain pre-req, that is what pre-req's mean. 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. start a seperate thread on that question and I will be happy to join and argue or we can start that arguement here - let me know and I will respond in that context, but I was not and have not made that arguement here.
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.
Next -- I'm tired of correcting people for out-of-context quotes or arguements, but I NEVER equated abortion to eugenics, poverty cleansing, or anything else, I merely responded to a particular (see that's what quotation marks mean) arguement that stated that abortion is moral because of the greater good arguement and gave examples of why the greater good arguement is not a valid moral one. I AGREE that those are bad things, but my point is that if you use a greater good arguement then those become legit conclusions that can (not should) be drawn
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. If you willing take an action that you know or should know can have a repercussion on another subject then I beleive that it is not moral 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). 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. 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? 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). 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. 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).
To anyone else, I am done responding to arguements you have decided to make up for me, if you would like to address the arguement above, fine, if not say what you want but please do not direct it at me because I will ignore it.
OK I lied, I just re-read Esquilax's post and could not help my self but to respond to this statement "Only if you think the fetus is already a person... which it isn't. If a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. There's no person in potentia that loses a chance at existence. If you start killing people, well, they already exist, making their death a worsening of a bad situation, not an alleviation of one. " (Esquilax not me) OK - If I cause a spontanous abortion in another person without their consent and the fetus is lost - what crime (or sin/evil/immoral act) if any have I committed? You clearly feel that "nothing is lost" with the loss of a fetus so murder is certainly off the table.
OK now I'm done going off topic.
