Abortion is morally wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

To reiterate, Mr. Literacy.......I think you're misusing the term. You seem to be thinking of a fetus as a moral subject.

[Whateverist]

To reiterate, Mr. Literacy.......I think you're misusing the term. You seem to be thinking of a fetus as a moral subject.

Yeah the little buggers ought to organize and publish a manifesto. As soon as I get a copy I'll take their stake in all this a hell of a lot more seriously. In the meantime I'd suggest that those who have no standing in the decision but still feel distraught find a way to chill out.

[answer-is-42]

To reiterate, Mr. Literacy.......I think you're misusing the term. You seem to be thinking of a fetus as a moral subject.

Agreed I misused the term, correction appreciated. However still a little pedantic and does not really address the nature of my question. I will change my terminology in the future

---

To reiterate, Mr. Literacy.......I think you're misusing the term. You seem to be thinking of a fetus as a moral subject.

Yeah the little buggers ought to organize and publish a manifesto. As soon as I get a copy I'll take their stake in all this a hell of a lot more seriously. In the meantime I'd suggest that those who have no standing in the decision but still feel distraught find a way to chill out.

Not really sure what you are talking about. If you feel a fetus is not a moral SUBJECT then fine my arguement does not stand on its own. As I have already conceded, this is more a question for those who do accept the premise by feel that a woman's autonomy trumps, like a continue to say. Please read my statements. I'm genuinely trying to have a rational discussion but the internet keeps proving that the lowest common denominator wins out

---

Also, if he requirement to publish a manifesto is a requirement for human rights as you imply or to be a moral subject, then does any group that cannot not have these rights or be considered a moral subject? Is that a required part of te criteria? If not then how bout you chill out and try to be consistent and if it is then please justify why a person in a coma, under anesthesia , Etc loses their status

[FatAndFaithless]

To reiterate, Mr. Literacy.......I think you're misusing the term. You seem to be thinking of a fetus as a moral subject.

Agreed I misused the term, correction appreciated. However still a little pedantic and does not really address the nature of my question. I will change my terminology in the future

---

Yeah the little buggers ought to organize and publish a manifesto. As soon as I get a copy I'll take their stake in all this a hell of a lot more seriously. In the meantime I'd suggest that those who have no standing in the decision but still feel distraught find a way to chill out.

Not really sure what you are talking about. If you feel a fetus is not a moral SUBJECT then fine my arguement does not stand on its own. As I have already conceded, this is more a question for those who do accept the premise by feel that a woman's autonomy trumps, like a continue to say. Please read my statements. I'm genuinely trying to have a rational discussion but the internet keeps proving that the lowest common denominator wins out

---

Also, if he requirement to publish a manifesto is a requirement for human rights as you imply or to be a moral subject, then does any group that cannot not have these rights or be considered a moral subject? Is that a required part of te criteria? If not then how bout you chill out and try to be consistent and if it is then please justify why a person in a coma, under anesthesia , Etc loses their status

You can propose an argument based on whatever premises you want, but if you can't justify why you draw those premises in the first place then you're kind of tilting at windmills here.

[Losty]

Your rant against my post, which makes no sense, also makes baby Jesus cry. Oops, I mean it MAKES baby JESUS cry.

replied to wrong one - meant to be the same you replied to, thought that was obvious. But your attempts at humiliation are weak at best - I do use caps for emphasis, not randomly - neither MAKES or JESUS needs emphasis, though in your previous sentence NO SENSE would seem reasonable. Therefore I must conclude that you're a butt hurt douche (rectal tampon?)

I am glad you said this, because you're now in my swear word/insult thread and I always love when people post in that thread. I am trying to understand you, but it's difficult for me. I will explain further somewhere down in my post.
For emphasis in future you can use caps or you can use [/b] and [b] to bold your words. Just put them in opposite order and the word and becomes bolded. I wasn't sure if you knew that so if you did then sorry I was just letting you know.

I will just have to agree to disagree with you. You haven't given any reasons for your opinion that make me want to change mine. I don't have any desire to change your opinion on the matter.

My opinion is that people engage in risky activities all of the time and I don't ever think it's immoral for them to try to mitigate (thanks esq. for the new word) the consequences of those actions. Sometimes I think that's all life really is. We take risks and we either enjoy or mitigate the consequences.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, if anything I am looking for feedback on whether I should change mine. I specifically asked for feedback on my opinoin (what do you think, why, etc) NOT this is right and you are wrong for your beliefs. If you took it that way, that's on you. However, given that i DID ask for feedback, you haven't given me any reason that I would or should change mine. It's unfortunate that there is so much pedantic bickering and squabbling that it drowns out the actual conversation that I was trying to have (not really directed at you losty, atleast I got some directed responses).

You didn't ask me to change your mind. You asked for thoughts and opinions and so I gave mine. Abortion debate is too exhausting for me and yet I continue coming back here. I'm trying to understand your position.

Regardless, it was helpful to me, as it gave me a forum to "air out" my position on a topic that is hard to find such a venue. I did realize how much my arguement depended on the fetus being a moral agent to whom someone (the mother) had moral accountability. Since I do feel that way anyway, it didn't change my belief, but did help me see a potential "crack." Too bad I had to come to this realization on my own, but again the arguements here get so pendantic that the PHILOSOPHY get diluted {again not so much with you losty}.

It didn't take you long to realize that saying mean things when quoting Losty is not a fun choice hehe. What can I say, I love that my friends iz protective of me :p
Really though it would make more sense to me if you directed these things at whoever they are meant to be directed at.

Regarding your second statement, of course we try to mitigate (which means LESSEN) BOTH risk and consequence and I have never argued against that {eg birth control, condoms, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, whatever}. HOWEVER there is a difference between MITIGATING and SHIRKING (which means AVOID -- didn't even need a dictionary)

While I'm excited for you that you have a nice vocabulary, my thanking Esquilax for the new word was not a request for all words to be defined for me in the future. I have a dictionary, if I don't know a word I will look it up. Thanks though.

responsibilty for consequences, which was my arguement. Back to my ball through the neighbors window analogy - you can mitigate risk by using a rubber ball, putting up a fence, etc, but ultimately if you hit a ball through you neighbor's window you have a moral responsibility and obligation to repair the damage - you could mitigate the total damage by paying some small amount ahead of time INCASE you broke his window, have spare windows in your garage, be involved with a window repair man/woman, etc - but ultimately I still argue you have a moral responsibility to repair his window. If this is NOT a position you support then I would be interested to know why not so that I may see if it causes ME to adjust my views or arguements.

I will agree with you this far.

Regarding the extension of this analogy to abortion, I have heard it many times that abortion is "taking responsibility." This is NOT a sentiment I share. Again IF you accept that the fetus is a moral agent (different arguement that I would be happy to have seperately) then you are NOT addressing your obligation to THEM but only to you -- again analagous to burning down the neighbors house or killing them (again I DO NOT FEEL THAT ABORTION IS MURDER, THIS IS ONLY AN LOOSE ANALOGY) in the sense that ultimately you problem of responsibility for the broken window is gone, but you have not really redressed the obligation to the other party.

IF you feel that the fetus IS a moral agent and do not agree with this line of thinking, I would be interested in understanding why?

As I have said, I do not feel that anyone has a moral responsibility to the fetus itself. I will allow for the fetus to be what you call a "moral agent" for a moment though.
A mother has equal responsibility to all of her children (let's just let the fetus be a kid too). It is up to the mother to make choices based on what she thinks is best for her children. There are so many factors that need to be considered, and I would say thousands of factors that may or may not apply for each case of accidental pregnancy. That is why each individual woman is most suited to make a decision in her own case. She knows all the circumstances. By having an abortion, a woman who places value on her fetus is not only mitigating consequences for herself, but also for her fetus. She is allowing for it to die not having ever known it existed, rather it being born into whatever it would have been born into that she didn't think was best for it. That may be a family with 4 kids who are barely surviving, a shitty apartment where he was brought home and propped in a bouncy chair at 2 days old and left to die while she sits in the next room doing drugs with her friends, an abusive relative, or maybe just a home where it is unwanted or unloved.
You can argue that these women could give the baby up for adoption when it's born, but they know they won't. A woman knows what she is and isn't capable of. If she chooses to abort she's not shirking her responsibilities to the fetus. She's doing what she thinks is best for all parties including the fetus.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you feel a fetus is not a moral SUBJECT then fine my arguement does not stand on its own. As I have already conceded, this is more a question for those who do accept the premise

Well, accepting that a woman has a moral responsibility, and accepting that a fetus (and later a child) is a moral subject still leaves me no further towards concluding that abortion is morally wrong. I haven't seen you tie that knot either.

Let me give you a little hint, your idea of a moral responsibility appears to have some undeclared baggage.

[answer-is-42]

Let me respond quickly as best I can
1) Lotsy I true to exclude you specifically because you seemed to actually engage the conversation I was having not bcause I give one rat's rectum about your friends. I was trying to be intellectually honest and if that came across as weakness then let me be the first to rectify that.
2) I defined the premise that I was working under and specifically requested that. If you don't want to engage fine behave your discussions but don't direct them at me. It's intellectually dishonest to say I have not justified that a fetus should be a moral subject then disregard my arguement when I SPECIFICALLY SAY I am directing my arguement At people who believe the fetus is a moral subject but still have not objection to abortion. If you want to debate the point on the fetus FINE but if have repeatly stated that's not My point and if you don't accept it then my arguement won't hold with you. You are beating a dead horse and I wonder If literacy skills are lacking. I'm not trying to control the forum, only my part in it.
3) regarding the fact I didn't tie the knot so to speak. My arguement a loigicao conclusion is it is immoral to abdicate responsibility, engaging in intercourse results I implicit responsibility, then failing to honestly complete the responsibility and terminating the pregnancy willfully is immoral. Is that tied up neat enough? You may or not agree with the arguement but that is the logical conclusion. I keep assuming people have more intellect then they seem to

---

Regarding the example of the mother. If she has 4 children and are starving then by your analogy that the outcome is the main issue should she just kill off a couple of her current kids. Older children can be more expensive so does she not have a moral obligation in your world view to minimize dr kids suffering by ending them? If not why?

[Losty]

Let me respond quickly as best I can
1) Lotsy I true to exclude you specifically because you seemed to actually engage the conversation I was having not bcause I give one rat's rectum about your friends. I was trying to be intellectually honest and if that came across as weakness then let me be the first to rectify that.

The part when I said "Really though," was me trying to imply that what I had said before that was just a joke. I'm sorry. I was just kidding.

2) I defined the premise that I was working under and specifically requested that. If you don't want to engage fine behave your discussions but don't direct them at me. It's intellectually dishonest to say I have not justified that a fetus should be a moral subject then disregard my arguement when I SPECIFICALLY SAY I am directing my arguement At people who believe the fetus is a moral subject but still have not objection to abortion. If you want to debate the point on the fetus FINE but if have repeatly stated that's not My point and if you don't accept it then my arguement won't hold with you. You are beating a dead horse and I wonder If literacy skills are lacking. I'm not trying to control the forum, only my part in it.

What are you even talking about? I said "As I have said, I do not feel that anyone has a moral responsibility to the fetus itself. I will allow for the fetus to be what you call a "moral agent" for a moment though."
That is me clarifying that although I do not agree that the fetus is a "moral subject" I am going to pretend like I do for the sake of responding to your post in the way that you asked for it to be responded to. What more do you want from me?

3) regarding the fact I didn't tie the knot so to speak. My arguement a loigicao conclusion is it is immoral to abdicate responsibility, engaging in intercourse results I implicit responsibility, then failing to honestly complete the responsibility and terminating the pregnancy willfully is immoral. Is that tied up neat enough? You may or not agree with the arguement but that is the logical conclusion. I keep assuming people have more intellect then they seem to

I got your argument, but what are your reasons to believe this?

Regarding the example of the mother. If she has 4 children and are starving then by your analogy that the outcome is the main issue should she just kill off a couple of her current kids. Older children can be more expensive so does she not have a moral obligation in your world view to minimize dr kids suffering by ending them? If not why?

We are discussing abortion. If you want to discuss the morality of killing children, then feel free to start a new thread.

[answer-is-42]

Thanks for a straight forward reply
It was pointed out to me earlier that I miss used the term moral agent and have since corrected my statements to use moral subject as that wa my intent. If you accept that the fetus is a moral subject then you have responsibility to him/her to Atleast provide life until they can do so or you can safely abdicate it (responsibility of pregnant). If you willingly engage in intercourse you willingly accept the risk of pregnant. To terminate it is an abdication of THAT responsibility only. I argued that abdication of responsibility to another is morally wrong. Hence abortion under these conditions is morally wrong.
The central question then would be is abdication of acquired responsibility to another morally wrong? Again this is the central point I have trying over and over to drive at.
The mother example was not in this vein but a response to what I consider a preposterous arguement. Agreed it is a different question than mine. But it was brought as a retort to me and as such I answered it

[Losty]

I like to keep my priorities straight personally. If I were to find myself pregnant I would have an abortion. My responsibility to my children is so much greater than any responsibility to a fetus could ever be. Even if I wasn't at risk of dying (which I would be, again) I don't think having babies and giving them up for adoption when you could abort is good for anyone. People need to be adopting the millions of orphans we already have.