Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[The Architect Of Fate]

Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

Courts make these decisions all the time, it's not really a burning ethical question.  The father of a child is generally obligated to contribute financially to the support of that child and is punished if he fails in that obligation.  The mother generally contributes less financially because the burden of care tends to be on her.

But I'm not sure that the two situations have anything to do with one another.  Carrying a foetus to term entails health risks, both physical and emotional.  Signing a support cheque does not.

Boru

Not to mentions ones jus paying some money the other is literally giving up sovereignty of their body .The idea these two things are equal is absurd .

[The Grand Nudger]

Force is force. It probably isn't ethical all the time. There's a disparity in how we view and apply our ethical summaries of men and women. Patriarchy hurts mentoo..and all that shit.

This would be an argument for expanding a mans reproductive rights, not diminishing a womans.

[The Architect Of Fate]

At what age can a child survive without the help of other human beings? The carer needs his own organs to survive, and the child needs the carer. Therefore, the carer's organs are necessary for the child's survival, long after it is born.

Put into the forest without assistance, no child could survive. Put into the world without the whole network of society, very few adults could survive. 

A fetus is dependent on others, but so is every adult.

Yes, and it's unethical to force somebody to give his meal to a poor hungry person just because that poor hungry person depends on that for their survival. Similarly, it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

Agreed somewhat 

It's wrong to force a women to carry entity withing her body .It's a violation .This not the same a social dependence .Thus the comparison is absurd .

---

Force is force.  It probably isn't ethical all the time.  There's a disparity in how we view and apply our ethical summaries of men and women.  Patriarchy hurts mentoo..and all that shit.

This would be an argument for expanding a mans reproductive rights, not diminishing a womans.

That maybe true i'm simply saying that it's not the same

[Agnostico]

A man is beating a six year old with a stick. Is bashing him immoral?

Another man is raping a woman. Is stabbing him immoral?

A third man is hold a bus load of people hostage. Is shooting him immoral?

Uv shown that inflicting pain isn't immoral in a few cases
It doesn't mean that inflicting pain is never immoral cos most of the time it is

You can look up a definition of morality for yourself. It’s a little more complicated than inflicting pain.

It can be more complicated but it can also be very simple. Causing harm is usually immoral, not always but most of the time

But I’m more interested in an answer to my question. If a fetus is anesthetized so that it feels no pain during the abortion, does that abortion become moral?

You have to cause pain to deliver the anesthetic. I've never had an injection that didn't hurt

All this talk about causing pain, seems to me the little fucker is going to cause mommy more pain regardless. Seems to me that you would like to cause mommy some pain as well

It has to be a conscious act for it to be immoral. The baby doesn't consciously hurt the mother

It's not just that your moral condemnation is childish, Agno..it's that you're not going to apply it to the bay-bee or yourself

Resorting to ad hominem. We all know what that means. 
An honest person would admit that it's not a bad argument
A dishonest person acknowledges the good argument by resorting to ad hominem

The baby is incapable of committing a conscious act so it's not being immoral.
Myself? I have nothing to do with it. I didn't fuck her... LoL... Its not mine im not paying alimony

The woman put herself in this position. She is the only one to blame for being in this situation, not the baby

But if ur still simpin many women opt for cesarean births these days
If u don't want to stretch out your womans vagina its a good option  


@SUNGULA
Hehehe man u are a classic. Notice how no one is responding to u. Its cos ur always a step or two behind mate.
I bet u can't identify the post we are all talking about.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A man is beating a six year old with a stick. Is bashing him immoral?

Another man is raping a woman. Is stabbing him immoral?

A third man is hold a bus load of people hostage. Is shooting him immoral?

Uv shown that inflicting pain isn't immoral in a few cases
It doesn't mean that inflicting pain is never immoral cos most of the time it is

You can look up a definition of morality for yourself. It’s a little more complicated than inflicting pain.

It can be more complicated but it can also be very simple. Causing harm is usually immoral, not always but most of the time

But I’m more interested in an answer to my question. If a fetus is anesthetized so that it feels no pain during the abortion, does that abortion become moral?

You have to cause pain to deliver the anesthetic. I've never had an injection that didn't hurt

Of course inflicting pain can be immoral. But since we agree that it isn’t ALWAYS immoral, your assertion fails, as it becomes evident that not all abortions are immoral. Inflicting pain  cannot be said to be the sole determining factor of morality.

Who says the anesthetic has to be delivered via injection? There’s gas and (I would imagine) other methods of delivery that don’t require an injection.

So you’ve never had a shot that didn’t hurt. So what? If pain is, as you claim, a determining factor of morality, isn’t reason you got the shot (preventing/curing disease, prep for surgery, alleviating greater pain, whatever) more moral than the pain of a pinprick?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The baby is incapable of committing a conscious act so it's not being immoral.

I'm glad that we're establishing more specific grounds for an immoral act.  That's the point entirely.  It may even be that consciously causing pain isn't enough to establish that something is an immoral act, as your conversation with Boru handily demonstrates.  

Myself? I have nothing to do with it. I didn't fuck her... LoL... Its not mine im not paying alimony

Insomuch as you would support or enact any restriction based upon these positions of yours..ofc you do.  Just as much as my own refusal to support any such restriction does mean bay-bees will die.  Let's remind ourselves that this chain of responsibility is not a one way street.  

The woman put herself in this position. She is the only one to blame for being in this situation, not the baby

No one doubts that a woman is responsible for the decision.  At issue, and correct me if I'm wrong here..is whether a woman making that decision can be said to be acting ethically.

But if ur still simpin many women opt for cesarean births these days
If u don't want to stretch out your womans vagina its a good option  

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[FlatAssembler]

Belacqua
it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

Well, I think it's unethical for a government to force a father to pay alimentation. Unless the father stole the money from the mother. The father might have legitimate reasons for refusing to pay. Maybe he needs that money more than the mother does, maybe he needs that money to pay for his medication which he will die if he doesn't manage to pay. The government can't be expected to always have the information it needs to make such decisions.

[Silver]

I do agree that if a woman can make the decision on her own what to do with her own body, the man should have a viable option of not providing care for a child he never wanted. There are two people to consider, and the law favoring the woman in a time when women are keen on equality and independence makes no sense. If the woman wants autonomy over her body, let her alone take care of the child she wants to keep when the father wants no part.

[Agnostico]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Knowledge i guess...  Some cesarian births are done for the sole reason of pussy stretch. Look it up if u don't believe me. A vagina changes totally after childbirth

I'm glad that we're establishing more specific grounds for an immoral act.

I established that conscious act was a part of it in my argument already

It may even be that consciously causing pain isn't enough to establish that something is an immoral act

I made this clear in my argument. It must be a conscious act that causes harm for it to be immoral. Yes there are some rare acceptations
An unconscious act causing harm is usually an accident

I tend to still follow the morals of scripture seeing its got western society this far and there isn't much wrong with it. 
Some atheist want to scrap all that. How then would we define what is moral without it just becoming peoples subjective opinions?

3 minutes into this video has a good explanation of how to discern a moral act from an immoral one without using religion.

Of course inflicting pain can be immoral. But since we agree that it isn’t ALWAYS immoral, your assertion fails, as it becomes evident that not all abortions are immoral

I didn't assert that all abortions were immoral, Im just showing how some can be viewed by people as immoral
Your statement that not all abortions are immoral shows me that you are aware how some abortions can be immoral

We won't change each others minds but it looks like we understand each other i think. That's really all i can hope to achieve, understanding

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that we're dealing with rare exceptions. We could rattle off thousands of these exceptions between us - and there would still be more. You offered an incomplete ethical assessment.

"Following the rules of scripture" a whole hell of alot would be forbidden - but that's no indication that their taboo status is warranted by some ethical provision. Abortion, though...fine by scripture. Suspicious of your wife? Put her through the ordeal of the bitter waters. She has no choice in the matter. As far as problems with scriptural morals.....history and the present moment is a running account.

You've confused magic book and it's necessarily subjective morality for moral realism.