Abortion is morally wrong

[Dystopia]

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

[Whateverist]

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.

Then you didn't really miss anything.

---

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?!?

No one at all, actually.

---

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

Oh, you have consequences alright. You have to make an appointment to get the unwanted leach removed. You have to endure a wistful moment or too. And sometimes you have to endure a blowhard asshole telling you how immoral you are. (Fuck them.)

[FlyingNarwhal]

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

Way to be a dick bro.

[Dystopia]

Oh, you have consequences alright. You have to make an appointment to get the unwanted leach removed. You have to endure a wistful moment or too. And sometimes you have to endure a blowhard asshole telling you how immoral you are. (Fuck them.)

I was talking about the possible consequence that results in a pregnancy (a 0.5% or less chance). The options could be simply carrying it on or schedule a procedure to terminate the pregnancy. My consequence was more directed towards the natural result of pregnancy if contraceptives fail rather than what the woman will do after discovering she is pregnant. Not all women with unwanted pregnancies recur to abortion, many consider it immoral or at least unwanted, so they prefer to carry it on, specially if they have a wish of motherhood and have reasonable financial stability. My girlfriend's sister had recently two twin babies, she is only 19 years old, it's a particular case where abortion could have been a good option

I don't have to do anything, I'm a male, and my girlfriend won't abort anyway so it's something I don't really have to think about.

[answer-is-42]

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?

Let me start by apologizing, I did not mean that statement quite as stern as it came off, the last 2 words were truncated - I meant do not talk TO ME. If you read my original post I specifically stated I had no intention of discussing the legality of abortion, only the the morality of the issue from a slightly different view that I do not often see discussed. I have no right or desire to curtail your discussion with others, but do have one regarding the discussion that I wanted to initiate and that was the intent of the statement, again sorry the last 2 words got cut off . Whether that changes things or not is up to you.
Regarding not being mean

"No. No no no. Worst argument ever" -- neither respectful, kind, nor meaningful. Just wanted you to be aware

Regarding the point of whether abortion was morally wrong or not -- I'm not sure if i can be more clear - the intent was to start a discussion the important Y question as I see it.
Again regarding being mean - your tenor is demeaning = i never called sex disgusting nor women promiscious - those are your words and thoughts NOT MINE. I never called pregnancy a punishment nor did I ever say that there should be one - you can try to straw man me {actual appropriate use of the term} if you want but that is not intellectually honest. I look at actions and consequences -- good or bad is up to you but they are still consequences.

My fundamental question is do people have implicity responsibility for actions they willfully take assuming they can or should understand the consquences. I suggest they do, but if not, why not?
I put abortion into this category because that is how I see it, if it does not belong here, philosphically why not?

I am happy to listen and discuss thoughts on topic.

---

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

Way to be a dick bro.

see above - apologized as i see it

[The Grand Nudger]

"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.

[answer-is-42]

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?

---

"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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The consequences of biology lead to those options, a person has the responsibility to decide between them. One cannot simply decide not to abort -and- not to raise a child. You'd have to at least give the kid up for adoption, thus abdicating your responsibilities while providing for the child (who shouldn't suffer for your choices).

[Losty]

Let me start by apologizing, I did not mean that statement quite as stern as it came off, the last 2 words were truncated - I meant do not talk TO ME. If you read my original post I specifically stated I had no intention of discussing the legality of abortion, only the the morality of the issue from a slightly different view that I do not often see discussed. I have no right or desire to curtail your discussion with others, but do have one regarding the discussion that I wanted to initiate and that was the intent of the statement, again sorry the last 2 words got cut off . Whether that changes things or not is up to you.
Regarding not being mean

"No. No no no. Worst argument ever" -- neither respectful, kind, nor meaningful. Just wanted you to be aware

While I do appreciate your nonpology, it's not really necesarry. Some people are rude on the internet. We all are at some point or another.
I did admit that I was wrong and it wasn't actually the worst argument ever. I won't apologize because I don't really see the point in fake apologies.

Regarding the point of whether abortion was morally wrong or not -- I'm not sure if i can be more clear - the intent was to start a discussion the important Y question as I see it.
Again regarding being mean - your tenor is demeaning = i never called sex disgusting nor women promiscious - those are your words and thoughts NOT MINE. I never called pregnancy a punishment nor did I ever say that there should be one - you can try to straw man me {actual appropriate use of the term} if you want but that is not intellectually honest. I look at actions and consequences -- good or bad is up to you but they are still consequences.

I was making a point. Actually 2 points.
The first point is that you really never did state and argument for abortion itself being immoral.
The second being that unless you consider sex to be immoral there is no reason why people should deal with the consequences of it. I like to eat sushi at a tiny little family owned restaurant that isn't very clean and has no AC. I know the risks are high for food poisoning, but I choose to take the risk because their sushi is so amazingly delicious. If I get food poisoning, is it immoral for me to take antibiotics?

My fundamental question is do people have implicity responsibility for actions they willfully take assuming they can or should understand the consquences. I suggest they do, but if not, why not?
I put abortion into this category because that is how I see it, if it does not belong here, philosphically why not?

I am happy to listen and discuss thoughts on topic.

Yes people should be responsible for their actions. In the case of accidental pregnancy, if you cannot or are not willing to have a child, then being responsible for your actions would mean either having an abortion or giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption.

[Natachan]

Choosing to abort is not an abdication of responsibility. A woman finds herself pregnant and she must choose. Does she keep a child she can't support, possibly impoverishing herself and this child and all the problems that come to a child with such a background? Does she give her child up to a foster system which might never find a home for this child, thereby condemning this child to a life of lessened opportunity? Does she place that child with an adoptive family whose morals and values she can't be sure of? Or does she terminate during the first trimester, when the cluster of cells has no the least semblance to humanity, can't suffer, and is most likely to miscarry anyway?

More than that the idea still puts the life of the woman as less than the zygote. I find this odd, and I can't understand it. Why is the life and well being of the woman less important than the cluster of cells?