Abortion is morally wrong

[Ravenshire]

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?

Best analogy ever! If it's immoral to remove (regardless of method) one unwelcome life form than it must also be immoral to remove (regardless of method) millions.

---

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?

It can even be argued that abortion is a more responsible choice than having to carry a child to term and offering it up for adoption, dropping it at the local police station or, sadly true in some cases, the nearest dumpster.

Abortion prevents far more suffering than it can ever cause and that is the root of whether it's immoral or not. An aborted fetus did not, does not and will not suffer. People saddled with unwanted pregnancies (including the kid) can and in many, if not most, cases, will.

[bennyboy]

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 think Arthur Dent meant that you accept the consequences. I think he meant that it is accepted that sex leads to pregnancy.

[Esquilax]

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex, meteor strikes are NOT a accepted consequence of anything.

What an arbitrary line: pregnancy is a consequence of sex in exactly the same way that meteor strikes are a consequence of existing in physical space. Why is one thing something one just has to face the consequences for, despite the protections they use, whereas the other is somehow home free?

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.

Ah, but now you're talking about a different scenario, one in which fault and blame enter into the equation. But on the topic of pregnancy you've already stated that all the protection in the world wouldn't change your moral position, and pregnancy itself, especially in that case, would have nothing to do with either party actually involved. In your car scenario someone is at fault, intentions or not, but I wasn't discussing intentions, was I? If the cars were empty and a landslide smashed them together, would either owner be at fault there? If not, why would the woman be responsible for biological processes that she can't control?

Moreover, if I got into an accident and was injured, I am allowed to seek healthcare for that injury. No doctor in the world would refuse to work on me because I "knew the risks" of driving a car.

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?

And again you bring up a scenario in which responsibility plays a part, when in conception we have no control at all over sperm or ovulation.

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

So as long as you define "willingly" as "unwillingly, so long as some abstract but known consequences may or may not be present," then they were doing it willingly. Gotcha.

When I go into the city, I recognize that there's a chance I might be mugged. The city is dangerous, especially at night. If I get mugged, does the fact that I knew the risk mean I consented to be mugged? That's the problem with your argument; there's a ton of situations in which we technically know there are risks associated with doing them, but that doesn't mean we've consented to those risks, nor that we should be prevented from lessening the consequences of them. As I've said before, we live in an unpredictable world, and we shouldn't take that fact as a tacit acceptance of every possible risk there is.

... Unless you're just talking about pregnancy, in which case I'd love to know how you resolve the special pleading there.

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.

That's the entire point. Merely asserting by fiat that the analogy should be something else isn't terribly convincing.

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?

You know what? Both of those statements are true, because there are accidents where nobody is at fault. Which is the situation most closely analogous to pregnancy: if you're not in control of your car, and it's at a dead stop, and then another car at a dead stop is pushed into your car by some external force, are either of you drivers at fault?

So why on earth would the pregnant woman be at fault for the mindless, external forces she couldn't control, in the form of sperm?

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

Meteor strikes are a known consequence of living on a planet with gravity; after all, we know how meteors are attracted down here, and we know what happens when they land. According to your logic we have just as much information to make the decision to live on a planet outside of an armored bunker one in which we consent to being hit with meteors.

[answer-is-42]

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.

Not a "fake apology" but was a clarification, may I would have been better to say I was wrong, what I meant to say was "TO ME" Better?

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?

I certainly do not think sex is immoral nor does my arguement have anything to do with that question. Again, a straw man arguement - please look up what that is and see that you are doing the same thing over and over.
I am making a moral arguement that i will break down again. Before I do, you are again making a "straw man" analogy by arguing a position I do not take. The question of morality comes from responsibility, ie taking responsibilty is moral and not to do so is immoral, it says NOTHING on the morality of the action itself. In your example, the responsibility is between you and your self and presumptively you have given yourself permission for any action.
However to use your analogy, more in line with my arguement would be if you OWNED the restaurant and provided risky food (because it was cheaper, easier, you're a bad person, whatever) and they became sick. If you knew your food carried a risk of carrying disease and you none the less gave it to SOMEONE ELSE then are you culpable to them for the consequence?
Now back to my moral arguement. In the most simplest terms: If person A does action B willingly and knowing it could directly result in C is A responsible for C? If not WHY?
My belief is not taking responsibility for your actions is "immoral"
To make this apply to abortion the arguement must also be wether or not having an abortion is "taking responsibility." I argue it is not and did give an example. I also requested if you disagree please provide support for your stand as I have done.

I hope this clarifies my arguement and responses will be on point.

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.

Again see above, the direct question to you is why do you believe that having an abortion is a means of "taking responsibility." while it does "solve the problem" I don't feel that it is an act of responsibility anymore then burning down the house of a neighbor you broke the window of is - both cases the initial consequence is moot but in neither do I see personal culpability.

---

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?

While some of those arguements deal with outcomes, none address the question of personal responsibilty I have addressed. The closest analogy I can think of is if you cause and accident and damage something, yet you are poor and canot afford to repair the damage you have caused, are you there for morally absolved of responsibility becuase it would be hard for you? Again this is not a legal arguement, you can certainly file for bankrupcy and I would not collect anything, but that is not the PHILOSOPHICAL point I am trying to raise here.

---

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex, meteor strikes are NOT a accepted consequence of anything.

What an arbitrary line: pregnancy is a consequence of sex in exactly the same way that meteor strikes are a consequence of existing in physical space. Why is one thing something one just has to face the consequences for, despite the protections they use, whereas the other is somehow home free?

SEX CAN RESULT IN PREGNANCY, I'm not sure how to make it anymore clear than that. Again I said if you invent a machine that COULD attract meteors then maybe you would have cuplability for a meteor strike. IF A CAUSES B THEN THERE IS an accepted consequence. Note homosexual sex does NOT cause pregnancy therefore this arguement does not apply to anyone who gets pregnant from homosexual intercourse, but im sure the medical community would be interested to hear about it. I just wanted to clarify because I am getting a lot of folk who don't understand biology here.

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.

Ah, but now you're talking about a different scenario, one in which fault and blame enter into the equation. But on the topic of pregnancy you've already stated that all the protection in the world wouldn't change your moral position, and pregnancy itself, especially in that case, would have nothing to do with either party actually involved. In your car scenario someone is at fault, intentions or not, but I wasn't discussing intentions, was I? If the cars were empty and a landslide smashed them together, would either owner be at fault there? If not, why would the woman be responsible for biological processes that she can't control?

Again, if you are in an action where a result is known to occur then you can be responsible. If you park you car at the top of a hill, do not turn your wheel or engage the brake and it slide down hitting another car you are responsible, if an earthquake that you have NO CONTROL OVER does damage then there is no one that is responsible. You argue woman (and men) cannot control their biology, but I argue they can - it sucks and they wouldn't be maximally happy (I know I wouldn;t be happy) by not having sex. You CHOOSE to have sex, if you don't ITS RAPE!
Moreover, if I got into an accident and was injured, I am allowed to seek healthcare for that injury. No doctor in the world would refuse to work on me because I "knew the risks" of driving a car.

Not sure how this applies to my arguement of personal responsibility in anyway - please try to frame it in way that deals with your personal responsibility to another as a consequence of your action and I woudl consider

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?

And again you bring up a scenario in which responsibility plays a part, when in conception we have no control at all over sperm or ovulation.

WE HAVE CONTROL ON HAVING SEX, just liek the ball game - we can't control physics, and gravity, and momentum but we can control IF WE PLAY THE GAME

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

So as long as you define "willingly" as "unwillingly, so long as some abstract but known consequences may or may not be present," then they were doing it willingly. Gotcha.

When I go into the city, I recognize that there's a chance I might be mugged. The city is dangerous, especially at night. If I get mugged, does the fact that I knew the risk mean I consented to be mugged? That's the problem with your argument; there's a ton of situations in which we technically know there are risks associated with doing them, but that doesn't mean we've consented to those risks, nor that we should be prevented from lessening the consequences of them. As I've said before, we live in an unpredictable world, and we shouldn't take that fact as a tacit acceptance of every possible risk there is.

... Unless you're just talking about pregnancy, in which case I'd love to know how you resolve the special pleading there.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy as mugging or murder, or anything else done by another person then involves someone infringes on your personal rights in a way they should not and that brings in a different set of moral issues which I would be happy to discuss seperately. Perhaps a more close analogy would be if you decided to go hiking in the mountain. If you knew the dangers and went anyway are you not responsible if an accident does befall you? I'm not saying people should not help you or you "deserved to die," but rather ultimately the blame for any unfortunate outcome would still be on you and if you broke your arm you would be responsible that the outcome occurred. If there was then a consequence to someone else, say you lot a hard drive with your company data in the woods whie hiking then you would be culpable for that. My point is personal responsibility to others for your actions.

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.

That's the entire point. Merely asserting by fiat that the analogy should be something else isn't terribly convincing.

THIS IS A STRAW MAN I SPECIFICALLY SAY IF YOU AGREE TO MY TERMS THEN AND ONLY THEN DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR KIDNEY (read my analogy), if you then say NO it's more like if i do my own think then you still have a right that is indeed a DIFFERENT ARGUEMENT. My arguement is if you agree to the terms then you agree to the consequences, if you don't agree to my terms then you don't agree to the consequences.

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?

You know what? Both of those statements are true, because there are accidents where nobody is at fault. Which is the situation most closely analogous to pregnancy: if you're not in control of your car, and it's at a dead stop, and then another car at a dead stop is pushed into your car by some external force, are either of you drivers at fault?
If someone makes you pregnant without your consent it is RAPE, otherwise you are saying that SEX IS COMPLETELY INVOLUNTARY AND CANNOT BE CONTROLLED, is that your position?

So why on earth would the pregnant woman be at fault for the mindless, external forces she couldn't control, in the form of sperm?

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

Meteor strikes are a known consequence of living on a planet with gravity; after all, we know how meteors are attracted down here, and we know what happens when they land. According to your logic we have just as much information to make the decision to live on a planet outside of an armored bunker one in which we consent to being hit with meteors.

I'm tired of writing the same thing -- see above

[Losty]

I will admit, I don't know a lot about debating terminology. Everything I do know, is something I have learned on this forum and one other. I'm not even going to bother trying to quote from that huge mess up there, but in the future it would be greatly appreciated if you quote properly. Let me see if I can just try to make some bullet points based off of your responses.
• We can drop the "apology" as it is pointless. What you said would not have been much less rude had you said do "not talk to me" instead of "do not talk". I am over it anyways. We can just move on from that.
• I am not trying to straw man you. I may be doing exactly that, but I'm not sure if it counts. My understanding of a straw man is arguing against a point that someone did not make. I don't think I'm doing that. I was just trying to say that, to me, your point doesn't make sense unless sex is an immoral act. Now I would like to change my mind and say your argument doesn't make sense, to me, unless either sex is an immoral act or it results in the harm of another person or their property.
Since you have stated that you do not think sex is immoral and it is obvious that (except in rare cases) it doesn't harm people who are not involved, then I can now say your argument does not make sense to me.
•I don't understand why you get to just change my analogy to fit your argument. My analogy fits perfectly with accidental pregnancy. I give myself permission to do what I like to do and to deal with any resulting consequences of my actions in whatever way I deem apropriate.
In my analogy I eat the sushi, I know the risks I am taking for myself, and I choose for myself what actions I will take if the result of my choice means something in my body that I don't want there.
When I have sex I have sex, I know the risk I am taking for myself, and I choose for myself what actions I will take if the result of me choice means something in my body that I don't want there.
In your analogy I would know the risk of harming someone else, and choose to take that risk anyways, and I would be responsible for harming someone else. I suppose the person I caused to be sick would get to choose how I should fix the problem I caused for them.
The only way that could compare to unwanted pregnancy is if my having sex could result in the unwanted pregnancy of the lady in the ark suite opposite mine.
•Now I guess we go to the broken window analogy. I don't understand why all of these analogies you make are about harming other people, but I will get to that in a minute.
If I break someone's window by throwing a ball through it, then I will pay to have the ball removed and the window replaced. What I will not do is make monthly payments for nine months so my neighbor can have a stain glass window and let them keep my ball. Nope won't.
Now let me get back to the whole harming others thing. Where are going with this? If I have sex and I get pregnant, then taking responsibility would mean dealing with the consequences myself in whatever way I I choose. I cannot understand why having an abortion would not count as taking responsibility.
• Also, I was wondering. You said that when people have sex if they know the risks then by having sex they choose to accept them. What if two people discuss this beforehand. They decide that they understand the risk of pregnancy, but they refuse to accept it and in a bout of premeditated responsibility they plan an abortion in the case of any pregnancy because they do not accept pregnancy as a possible consequence. Would you still say the abortion is immoral?

[Bibliofagus]

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

I don't think Arthur Dent meant that you accept the consequences. I think he meant that it is accepted that sex leads to pregnancy.

I should have elaborated more I guess. I was on my phone however and I'm still struggling with typing anything on that thing

The original (and full) statement was:

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex, meteor strikes are NOT a accepted consequence of anything.

Which is heavily loaded towards his moral argument - if - he's tying to make a scientifically accurate statement - which is what I assume you are getting at. And it's a false analogy to boot - if - he's just talking 'facts'.
Let's look at the first half of it: Since non-pregnant women do not get pregnant every time they have even unprotected sex, he should have said something like "Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence that sometimes occurs because of sex" or something. 'Sometimes' being the most important word here. Edit: (The rest could probably be phrased better.)
What he's doing is not unlike saying: "Actually being killed in a horrific car crash is a consequence of driving a car."

And that's not nitpicking - given the second half of the statement.
Like it is possible to never get pregnant by never ever having sex, it is possible to never die of meteor strikes if you never leave your bunker.

The first move (not having sex to prevent pregnancy) is widely propagated and thus I assumed 'accepted'. The second... less so.

Also there is the rest of the post:

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.

This is about social acceptance and legalities.

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?

This is about social acceptance and legalities.

The last part:

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

This is a point I wanted to address later on, but I wanted to argue that there are good reasons for the term Proportionality in law.

Again my point here is to look at the moral question being asked not a legal question.

Heh.

[Whateverist]

In the most simplest terms: If person A does action B willingly and knowing it could directly result in C is A responsible for C? If not WHY?
My belief is not taking responsibility for your actions is "immoral"
To make this apply to abortion the arguement must also be wether or not having an abortion is "taking responsibility." I argue it is not and did give an example. I also requested if you disagree please provide support for your stand as I have done.

Back when fertility was an issue, I was fine with my wife deciding to have an abortion if our purely recreational sex resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. She knew that would be my wish as well. Our use of birth control was a clear indication of our intentions. Of course we recognize there is a small chance our efforts to avoid pregnancy would fail. Abortion was our fall back solution to the problem. Your suggestion of avoiding the sex altogether was not an option for us as we were determined then as we are now to have a good time. But by all means do what you feel is right for you.

If you would like to make an argument for why other people should feel as you do about this, go ahead. But if analogy to burning down your neighbor's house is your best shot, don't bother.

[answer-is-42]

As i stated when I first started the conversation, I'm new to this forum - which is why my reply above looked so cluttered.

regarding the straw man issue - you argued that it would be akin to NOT accepting my offer and I still trying to claim you kidney from you and that is in no way my arguement so I think the term straw man is appropriate.

Regarding causality then there is things such as direct causes and indirect causes (as well as non causes). In natural settings (IVF and angelic rape aside - neither is natural - not a moral judgement just not "of nature") the ONLY known causality of pregnancy in humans is intercourse so I would assume this is a direct cause. The rate does not have to 100% to be considered a cause.
Certainly a retort would be what does the % have to be then? I don't have an # for that, though the "loose answer" is I guess use of the term reasonable - an answer without a meaning, but I hoped that the discussion would include people with common sense not didantic trollytes. We may have slightly different beliefs in reasonable, but I would hope our Ven diagrams would mostly overlap. This was not really the disussion I was trying to initiate.
Regarding you analogy to sushi I think where you and I break down is to WHOM the responsibily to. seem to regard it to only your self, but my arguement is that there is another - the fetus - to whom you have a responsibilty. Every arguement I have made involves a second party to whom you have a moral (not necessary legal as I have mentioned numerous times but still keeps being brought back up)

This brings up the concept of when do human rights begin? That may be a more plausible critique of my arguement and I do concede that.

To step back a bit, this thought process is born from a few debates among secular people on the morality of abortion I have been listening to. In this context, I often do hear that a fetus may indeed have rights, but they do not trump the right of autonomy of the mother. (see Matt Dillahunty). If that is the starting view then my arguement flows forward that the mother has already accepted the responsibility of pregnancy by willingly engaging in intercourse and the party to whom she is culpable is not herself but the fetus. If she did not agree (rape) or was incapable of understanding the risk (age, intellect, possibly education - there have been various peoples who did not realize sex led to pregnancy) then she would have not implicit responsibilty.
If you believe the fetus has no rights ever and is not a party of moral consideration at all then I do concede that my arguement is weak.
Please note that I never consider the rights to be superior or equate abortion to murder so PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO DO SO (I am trying to avoid more straw men critiques that seem to be so rampant here). I am ONLY addressing this as a question of moral responsibility.
Perhaps a more broad question is does responsibility exist at all? Again NOT LEGAL OR SOCIAL CATEGORIES but the CONCEPT of responsibility as I have tried to address it as a framework (A -> B -> C)?

[Losty]

I admit that I don't really consider the fetus in my equation. A fetus only has value, in my opinion, if the woman carrying it assigns value to it. I don't see it as having or deserving rights, but if I allow for a fetus to have rights I will not ever allow for a fetus' rights to trump the rights of the woman's body that it is violating with it's presence.

[psychoslice]

When we say morals, I say who's morals ?, where did these morals come from, and why should we obey these morals, my morals might be different from your morals, so who's morals a right ?.