Abortion is morally wrong

[answer-is-42]

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

---

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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?
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.

---

---

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.

---

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.

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

[Bibliofagus]

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex.

Not by me.

[answer-is-42]

The problem with the argument that once you have axe you accept the risk is somewhat faulty. First there's the issue that others have mentioned that consenting to sex and consenting to possible pregnancy is not the same thing. In that vein I would ask what about those who use the pill but get pregnant anyway? What if the man has had a vasectomy or had been otherwise deemed infertile but the gal gets pregnant anyway? How about broken condoms? Ineffective spermicides? The couple have in these cases taken precautions and assumed there was no risk and still ended up with a pregnancy. The analogy falls apart.

The other issue I take is that it punishes women for their sexuality. She wants sex? Deal with the possible consequences. Men don't have to consider these consequences. Men don't suffer permanent changes to their body or risk fatal complications.

Actually it doesn't, all you are trying to do is reduce the risks with the procedures your mention. It's like saying you drive safely, follow the rules, and wear your seatbelt. If despite this you still cause an accident, YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE. If your action has a reasonable consequence that you know about and agree to then the question still remains, are you not responsible? If not why not?

Regarding the punishing of women, I do agree that women bear the brunt of the consequence of the action and I agree it does not seem implicitly fair. I'm not sure the solution for this (I did offer an example of one though), but that does not really change the MORAL arguement. Just because one guy is rich and gets a car doesn't mean it is morally ok for you to steal so you can have on too.

---

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex.

Not by me.

Then learn basic biology or graduate the 3rd grade

[pocaracas]

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?

For road accidents, we have insurance.
Hmmm... are you suggesting we invent a new kind of insurance? pregnancy insurance... only available to women ages 10 to 55... the more kids you have, the higher the premium.
On the plus side, they can have any abortion they want (or the insurance company allows), if they have this policy....
if not, then they must have the kid and then be the crap mothers typical women who wish to abort become, leading to the typical crappy childhood, typical neglected adolescence and... guess what?

[Bibliofagus]

Not by me.

Then learn basic biology or graduate the 3rd grade

If I buy and use anti-conception, am I then 'accepting' pregnancy as a consequence of having sex?

[Dystopia]

Then learn basic biology or graduate the 3rd grade

If I buy and use anti-conception, am I then 'accepting' pregnancy as a consequence of having sex?

I don't know where this discussion is going, but just stating that if you use a contraceptives that aren't 100% effective you are accepting pregnancy as a highly unlikely consequence. I accept my girlfriend could get pregnant, but I think there hasn't been a single report in the world of her contraceptive resulting in pregnancy. And if she gets I'm fucked because she won't abort

[Natachan]

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.

[Ravenshire]

Because it's not a moral argument. "If you don't believe in slavery. . . don't have a slave." This is a pragmatic argument, but we wouldn't accept it, because it is abhorrent to our mores-- much as the destruction of a fertilized egg or fetus is to Christians.

And before everyone starts getting on their moral high horse and mocking outrage that I'm equating black people with fetuses, please skip the rhetoric get the point-- that we all have some mores so important to us that we will not tolerate the behaviors of those who violate them. It is not reasonable to expect those with different mores to just leave you alone to your own decisions, so long as you are part of a society which allows freedom of expression.

Actually Benny, an unwanted pregnancy is more akin to slavery than an abortion is. Further, slavery causes measurable harm to both the slaves and to the society that condones it. If abortion does, I've yet to see any studies by reputable scientists to show any evidence.

Abortion solves a plethora of very real world problems while the pro-lifers simply want to exacerbate them. They offer no alternative other than forcing an unwanted pregnancy on women, some of whom are unfit to be parents. Do you really believe a crack addict or a violently abusive person should ever be given the responsibility of a child?!? Seriously, do you really believe that anyone put in a position where a child is forced upon them is likely to become a good parent? Maybe it can, but call me a cynic, I don't think it would be the norm. I've seen way too much of the opposite.

---

Nope. It's the pro-birth position. Once the kid is born it becomes straight up the don't-give-a-fuck-'bout-you-or-your-kid position.

That's one reason why I called it the Pro-death or Pro-negligence position, how could you possibly disagree...

Ok, I now see what you're saying and yes, we're in total agreement.

[Losty]

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

Wow. I'm not really sure why you want to be mean to me. I don't remember making any Dom/sub agreements with you though so I guess I will talk about whatever I want wherever I want to

I'm sorry I must have missed the point in your argument where you explained why abortion is wrong. All I saw was you saying people should be punished for having sex. Would you be okay with abortions if the promiscuous miscreants agreed to some other form of punishment for choosing to have sex when they knew there was a slight risk of pregnancy? Or do you think forced birth is the only acceptable punishment for such disgusting behavior?

[Ravenshire]

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

Who the fuck are you to dictate what can and cannot be discussed in this (or any other) part of this forum or to dictate how someone chooses to make their argument?!?