Abortion is morally wrong

[psychoslice]

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.

I think this is the crux of the equation, if the fetus has no value other than that assigned to it by the mother then does it only obtain value when it is delivered? IE does a viable 38 week gestation have no rights or value because it happens to still reside within the womb? If not then what is the determinant of value?

Back to my basic question though, this is the crux of my arguement -- IF you accept that the fetus does have moral values (as atleast some pro-choice advocates do) then the common arguement is that is cannot trump that of the mother - as you have stated. However THIS is where my arguement lives, I suggest that the mother has implicited responsibility to the fetus by knowingly and willingly engaging in an action that led to them (and only with these conditions met) ANALAGOUS {not identical to} the examples that I provided and no different in my mind then as I said if you agreed to give me your kidney on the off chance mine failed for something in return and did not hold up you end of the bargain despite taking whatever I offered in exchange. This is not a LEGAL arguement, heck organ trafficking is illegal, but a MORAL one.

---

Your grammar makes baby Jesus cry. You's have good point's though.

Certainly I agree that we can all have different morals, which is WHY MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ACTION MORAL OR NOT AND WHY!
I'm assuming this is directed at me, since that is the what I have been talking about and don't see much recent activty by others on this subject.
LAWS are what we ALL MUST OBEY, MORALS are what we EACH CHOOSE to obey -- HENCE THE QUESTION (in the philosophy forum)

So called morals are only what works for each one of us as a society, in the bigger picture it means nothing, your morals may not be my morals, so again its what works as a society.

[Little lunch]

Don't accidentally take the exit.

I wouldn't mind

Ha ha, Losty your a shocker.

[Ravenshire]

Don't accidentally take the exit.

I wouldn't mind

I'd rather we just hijack the bus....

[answer-is-42]

Certainly I agree that we can all have different morals, which is WHY MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ACTION MORAL OR NOT AND WHY!
I'm assuming this is directed at me, since that is the what I have been talking about and don't see much recent activty by others on this subject.
LAWS are what we ALL MUST OBEY, MORALS are what we EACH CHOOSE to obey -- HENCE THE QUESTION (in the philosophy forum)
[/quote]

So called morals are only what works for each one of us as a society, in the bigger picture it means nothing, your morals may not be my morals, so again its what works as a society.
[/quote]

Morals and morality do have importance. They are a framework that we use to decide what is right and wrong and therefore to help guide us in the actions we should take. It is exactly a personal issue and my morality is not a societal question - those are question of LAW, atleast in the USA. My question has been what personal framework or moral assumption would you base your arguement that my stated supposition is not moral if you disagree with it. Just saying it's wrong because I think it is wrong is no more intellectually honest then saying it's wrong because my "god(s)" said so and therefore you position is inherently weak.
I am coming at this with a sense of intellectual honesty, and have heard arguements that have forced me to reconsider or modify my position, but few if any that actually directly address the question at hand.
So, to conclude, I'm not sure what saying I have different morals then you really accomplishes, if you have different morals, what are they and why do they lead you to believe my position is not a moral one? If you can't do that then maybe you should reconsider your moral positions or your processs of determining your personal morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you'd have to be awfully damned spotty about when you chose to leverage any personal morality that made the claim that you have a responsibility to provide life for a moral subject. The list of moral subjects in this world is loooong. Are you providing life for all of them? No? How many of them then? How many is enough? Let's negotiate.

[Losty]

"My question has been what personal framework or moral assumption would you base your arguement that my stated supposition is not moral if you disagree with it."

My thing is, I'm not going to make an argument against your morals. I have no reason to. I don't need to prove you wrong on your morals, because they're yours. I live my life based on my morals. Your morals don't have anything to do with me. So I have told you what I believe and why I believe it. That's my philosophy. I don't need to prove your morals wrong, they're not mine.

[Esquilax]

So, to conclude, I'm not sure what saying I have different morals then you really accomplishes, if you have different morals, what are they and why do they lead you to believe my position is not a moral one? If you can't do that then maybe you should reconsider your moral positions or your processs of determining your personal morality.

The content of your morals is less important than your ability to support and justify them using argument and evidence that maps to reality, in accordance with principles of well being- and many others- that form the cornerstone of morality.

Just saying what your morals are isn't compelling, it's an assertion. In the case of abortion stuff, every pro-life argument relies on some form of logical fallacy or disregard for the factual case, in order to function. Hence, pro-life morals, from what I have experienced, do not map to reality, and thus have no validity.

[bennyboy]

In the case of abortion stuff, every pro-life argument relies on some form of logical fallacy or disregard for the factual case, in order to function.

That's not true. The argument is that personal identity begins with fertilization of an egg. That's not a logical fallacy-- it's just drawing a different line in the sand than others do.

Anyway I don't think any SHOULD argument "maps to reality," because should implies a value, and no value is intrinsically real. I think "maps to reality" is a way of saying that morals are objective, without having to go through the fail of actually arguing that morals are objective.

[Whateverist]

The argument is that personal identity begins with fertilization of an egg. That's not a logical fallacy-- it's just drawing a different line in the sand than others do.

Looks more like a claim than an argument to me. I don't share that claim as a belief of mine. Is there actually an argument to go with it?

[Esquilax]

In the case of abortion stuff, every pro-life argument relies on some form of logical fallacy or disregard for the factual case, in order to function.

That's not true. The argument is that personal identity begins with fertilization of an egg. That's not a logical fallacy-- it's just drawing a different line in the sand than others do.

That's why I added in that bit about the factual case:all of the evidence we possess points to the idea that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and at the point of conception there is no brain, and hence no mind. Thus, in order to claim that one's identity begins at conception, you would need to disregard the evidence we have in biology.

Anyway I don't think any SHOULD argument "maps to reality," because should implies a value, and no value is intrinsically real. I think "maps to reality" is a way of saying that morals are objective, without having to go through the fail of actually arguing that morals are objective.

Morals aren't objective, but the values we use to determine morals are; living is preferable to dying, pain is bad, etc etc.

Besides, when I said "maps to reality," I was discussing the factual and logical structures of the argument. Specifically, the pro-life case disregards large swathes of biological science in order to reach its conclusion, and doesn't map to reality because of that.