Abortion is morally wrong

[Losty]

"1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral."

I must be missing a link between 2 and 3. Can you help me find it?

[The Grand Nudger]

"we have a responsibility to provide life for a particular moral subject"

Would be the missing bit there. Since he failed to declare it the last time as well (despite it being the most important claim in his entire "argument").

[Losty]

I will agree that there is a responsibility to the fetus, sure. I do not see why that reaponsibility must be to provide life. Unless simply to prove abortion is immoral.

[The Grand Nudger]

bingo. He's already conceded as such, as this responsibility doesn't have anything to do with "moral subjects" or "responsibility" - it only applies to adopted kittens, puppies, and unborn human spawn (in his estimation). It is an assumption that is entirely interchangeable with his "conclusion". I still don;t see why he feels that he needs (let alone has) an argument after such an assumption.

[Eel_LahjicK]

Abortion is morally wrong... Depending on the poll, you may find about 40% of the people disagree, including myself. Early on in the pregnancy, the fertilized egg isn't even close to being a human-like imo. Six weeks in, the embryo is 1/4" in length. I chose that because, that is about the time the heart starts beating. People could argue that it shouldn't aborted at that time, I just disagree. I see the point of view that it is human egg or an embryo, but I draw the line at a different spot than some people. If I was a woman, I don't think I'd want to have an abortion past the first trimester. Depending on the circumstances and the availability of a doctor, I would change my mind though.

[little_monkey]

Ben Davis said:
"YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising. "

You would have to define what is morality. For theists, generally it is God's command. As you can guess, that won't hold water for atheists.

Generally for atheists, morality is a human construct. As a general guide, anything that is harmful to the individual or to society would be considered morally wrong, with emphasis on "general".

On the issue of abortion, one can argue that it is dangerous to make abortion illegal, as woman will seek to have an abortion without medical expertise. Secondly, you have authority on your body, so a woman has the final decision if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. Thirdly, we have a population that is growing exponentially: we need to limit this growth somehow and having legalized abortion is one measure to do that. Fourthly, illegal abortion puts poor women at a disadvantage as rich women have the financial means to get better and safer illegal abortions.

Little Monkey, please edit your post to attribute your quote to the correct person. Ben Davis is not who you quoted, it was the answer is 42.

Thanks for point that out... Unfortunately I can't change the post as the editor option is not available after a certain times.

---

Because it doesn't exist, he's missing an undeclared assumption (which he's made in the thread but ommitted this go round)- I'd just like to see him put it all together again - so that I don't have to pitch straw.

OK giggles here we go in the simplest terms and smallest words

Prereq: A fetus is a subject (NOT DEBATING THIS ISSUES IN THIS ARGUEMENT)

1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral.

WHERE IS THE CIRCLE {i just noticed your cussing, didn't realize that was allowed here so } dipsh*t?

You may not agree with every step, fine we can talk about that. But to call this circular is a straw man in everysense. This is what my multiple posts have given examples of.
If i failed to lay it out in EVERY post, sorry but it's stupid to have to rehash the whole damn thing, instead go back in read the first ones where i did and intellectually honestly debate the points. If you want to argue on those points, fine, but I'm still waiting on arguements on merit rather than structure.

Ben Davis said:
"YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising. "

You would have to define what is morality. For theists, generally it is God's command. As you can guess, that won't hold water for atheists.

Generally for atheists, morality is a human construct. As a general guide, anything that is harmful to the individual or to society would be considered morally wrong, with emphasis on "general".

On the issue of abortion, one can argue that it is dangerous to make abortion illegal, as woman will seek to have an abortion without medical expertise. Secondly, you have authority on your body, so a woman has the final decision if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. Thirdly, we have a population that is growing exponentially: we need to limit this growth somehow and having legalized abortion is one measure to do that. Fourthly, illegal abortion puts poor women at a disadvantage as rich women have the financial means to get better and safer illegal abortions.

Morality is/are the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Those are subjective terms, theist may derive them from their scripture but it has nothing to do with the term. My morality is my guide to right and wrong and good and bad. My societal contract is more made up of the laws of the land in a secular society. There are many things that are immoral in my estimation (or others for that matter) but are still legal and vice versa.
You name a number of social or logistical consequence in opposition of baning legal abortion (a position I have NOT ONCE taken) that have nothing to do with it's MORALITY. Sometimes doing something wrong is for the greater good and sometimes it is not, but that is not the arguement that seems to be here. Killing an innocent person is immoral, but if that death would guarantee the end of a deadly disease is it the right thing for society to do? don't know but that doesn;t neccessarily change the morality of the action.

It's seems to me that your position is inconsistent. OTOH, you seem to imply that morality is subjective but then you make claims like "killing innocent people" is morally wrong as if that was an absolute objective moral position. That is, it is wrong regardless of circumstances or factors such a deed might have been done. You can't have both ways. I invite you to re-examine your position: either you believe that moral values are subjective, in which case a deed is morally right/wrong depending on certain factors and what are those factors; or they are objective and certain deeds are always right/wrong regardless of any factors, in which case you need to prove that objective moral values do exist.

[Whateverist]

@Answer is 42,

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post, on the other hand, is subject to ridicule.

[Minimalist]

Fuck morality. Let's talk money.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2014081...f000d.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A message for new parents: get ready for sticker shock.

A child born in 2013 will cost a middle-income American family an average of $245,340 until he or she reaches the age of 18, with families living in the Northeast taking on a greater burden, according to a report out Monday. And that doesn't include college — or expenses if a child lives at home after age 17.

So, not only are these fine xtian fuckheads sentencing a woman to 18 years of hard labor raising a kid she didn't want but they are slapping her with a $245,000 bill for the privilege...and all because some busybody thinks they get to dictate how someone else should live their lives. And...if they don't have the $245,000 the same shits who bitch about abortion get equally pissed if the woman applies for social services.

Fuck all of you religious scumbags.

[bennyboy]

Prereq: A fetus is a subject (NOT DEBATING THIS ISSUES IN THIS ARGUEMENT)

1) Responsibility for the consequences of your voluntary actions is moral
2) Sex is a voluntary action and pregnancy is a consequence
3) Abortion is by definition a FAILURE to be responsible to the fetus (subject of action for that action
4) THERE FORE (a word I have used MULTIPLE TIMES) abortion is not moral.

Being responsible in general and imagining a social contract with a bundle of cells are very different things. If I knock up a girl, I'm responsible to her; I either have to support her if she decides to keep the bundle of joy, or I have to drive her to the clinic and maybe foot the bill if she decides not to keep it. It would be immoral for me to walk away and make her deal with the consequences of our shared act alone.

Being responsible doesn't mean doing what you, answer-is-42, personally think someone should do. It means accepting that your actions have consequences, and attempting to minimize bad ones. To many, this means not allowing a child to be brought into the world with disadvantageous circumstances.

Also, please stop shouting FAILURE at people who disagree with you. What about your FAILURE to understand that people have moral reasons for refusing to demand that others do what you want them to do?

[Whateverist]

Okay 42, explain this to me: if God didn't want us to abort babies, why did He make them taste so good?

Checkmate! (I mean .. FAILURE!)