Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 26, 2014 at 10:44 pm (This post was last modified: July 26, 2014 at 10:49 pm by answer-is-42.)
(July 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm)Little lunch Wrote: Perhaps the contract should include a zipper surgically installed above the kidney so as to show that the conditions are fully understood.
The question was not really about the "contract" but about the philosophical question underlying it (considering the board section is philosophy). A response to that would be more on point.
(July 26, 2014 at 10:43 pm)Losty Wrote:
(July 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: 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.
Seperately I do personally think fathers are not obligated enough during the pregnancy to necessarily be more responsible prior. I think it would do wonders if fathers were required to attend pre-natal visits with expectant mothers and as such atleast have some required inconvience as a consequence of their actions if they are not willing to otherwise be a part of the pregnancy that they caused, but that is an entirely seperate issue.
Look forward to hearing the responses.
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
No. No no no. Worst argument ever and I don't have the energy right now.
All I can say is this, "as a consequence of their actions" automatically rules your argument invalid in my eyes. Sex is not illegal and governments have no business imposing moral consequences.
And
"people give up their personal autonomy willingly all the time" well yea, willingly being the key word
I don't think this is the worse arguement and I would very much be interested in your counter point.
Regarding legallity - i specifically state this is a MORAL question NOT a LEGAL question so goverment has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS QUESTION.
I feel people DO have personal responsibilties for their willing actions and tried to outline it in a simplistic arguement, I agree the analogy does not convey the full ethical dillema's of abortion, but it does go to the point of assumed responsibility.
I would be again interested to hear your discussion on this, and I am truely open to changing my opinoin, but I really need to hear more than this. thanks
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.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
For fuck sake, why is this soooooo fucking hard for people to figure out?!?
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.
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.
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.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(July 27, 2014 at 4:06 am)Esquilax Wrote: Sure, but when you unwillingly give up your autonomy, that's where the problem is.
I think once the sex act starts, that autonomy has already been given up, taken over by a monkey brain that cares little for the body it inhabits or the human brain it subverts.
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.
) 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?
