RE: Abortion is morally wrong
September 4, 2014 at 1:39 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2014 at 1:59 am by answer-is-42.)
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.
