Moral Permissibility of Abortion

[PLAYER57832]

oops, off topic, post deleted

[OnlyAmbrose]

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?

If you're referring to the "open window" argument, I'm going to say that that's a false analogy... The argument that a child resulting from sex is like a bum crawling through an open window is absurd. Reproduction is the purpose of sex - I would certainly consider it morally impermissible to terminate an innocent life in the case of an "unintended pregnancy." A woman who gets pregnant is experiencing the natural result of her actions. A bum crawling through a window is wholly different, because windows do not exist for the purpose of bums breaking into the house through them. Furthermore, kicking a bum out of a house is quite a different story from killing a child.

And let's propose a different analogy. You leave the window open at night and a black man being chased by the KKK comes inside. They will surely lynch him if you kick him out. Is it morally permissible in that case to kick him out, knowing that he will surely be killed? I should say not. In that case, it is not simply "frightfully nice" to keep him in your house, it is morally obligatory.

[kentington]

I think the rapist/violinist case is moot until you decide whether it's morally permissible to abort under normal circumstances. If you can abort as a form of birth control then it should be no question that you could abort in a rape case.

If you have sex and get an STD because you were a lucky 1/10,000, then you would be responsible for getting the STD not the other person for giving it to you or the condom company. You could only blame yourself, because it was your decision. It is your decision whether to chance pregnancy. If you really want to avoid it, then make sure the woman is using the pill and use a condom.

[MeDeFe]

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?

If you're referring to the "open window" argument, I'm going to say that that's a false analogy... The argument that a child resulting from sex is like a bum crawling through an open window is absurd. Reproduction is the purpose of sex - I would certainly consider it morally impermissible to terminate an innocent life in the case of an "unintended pregnancy." A woman who gets pregnant is experiencing the natural result of her actions. A bum crawling through a window is wholly different, because windows do not exist for the purpose of bums breaking into the house through them. Furthermore, kicking a bum out of a house is quite a different story from killing a child.

And let's propose a different analogy. You leave the window open at night and a black man being chased by the KKK comes inside. They will surely lynch him if you kick him out. Is it morally permissible in that case to kick him out, knowing that he will surely be killed? I should say not. In that case, it is not simply "frightfully nice" to keep him in your house, it is morally obligatory.

I wouldn't say that the purpose of sex is reproduction, sure, sex is the main means of reproduction, but I dare say most sex takes place because it feels really good, not because people are desperate to reproduce. There's not really such a thing as purpose in nature, things that are around will be put to use, but that does not mean they exist for the purpose of being put to that use.

As for the new analogy, yes, it would be frightfully nice of you to let him stay in your house, but spin it a little further, what if one of the KKK members saw him climb in and they come knocking at your door, or knock it down even. Maybe one step less, they stay in front of your house and as soon as the black man leaves they'll lynch him. Are you really obligated to let him stay until they give up in a year, or maybe even indefinitely if they never give up?

And what is the difference between kicking a bum out of your house to his certain death and kicking a fetus from an unintended pregnancy out of a womb? (Both kicks are metaphorical)

[CrazyAnglican]

You are arguing what someone "ought" to do, as emotion is involved, and Thompson, the writer of the article very much agrees with your opinion. She just doesn't believe that simply because someone "ought" to do it, doesn't believe they are morally obligated to (aka you would be immoral if you didn't).

I think part of the trouble I'm having with the premise is that I don't see the differece between what "I ought to do" and what "I'm morally obliged to do". I've been operating under the assumption that they are synonymous and you appear to see a distinct difference in them. If you'll explain the difference I might be able to go a little farther with my position.

Despite the fact we're dealing with (assuming the condom is used 100% correctly and it's ONLY because of the defect of the product) around a 1/10,000 chance. Are you telling me (which it IS very possible you are, you've been making defending this argument quite the hassle!) that you believe that people who don't want to risk having a child should completely abstain? That is if a couple will DEFINITELY not want to take a baby no matter what, they should abstain completely? "Only have sex if you willing to take the chance of getting pregnant." I'm not sure I could go with that, although it's true we're stripping out emotion and arguing from a point of logic, so I'm not really sure where to go with this. I think your argument is valid, yet it doesn't necessary override hers... it more so just conflicts... I'll think about this, and discuss it in class...

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. No, I'm not being hypocritical about it either as I was celebate and am monogymous. Certainly I've used contraception, but it was always with the understanding that the ultimate responsibility for my actions (and my partner's) was ours. Even if their is an infinitesimal risk of pregnancy, you are still taking a risk. It flies in the face of personal responsibility to say that it's the condom manufacturer's fault when the risk is labelled right on the product. Do you blow the condom up every time to check for leaks as it suggests in the directions? I don't either; I just accept the risk.

... although I am going to say that if you move to an area where there are TONS of bums, and thus are subjecting yourself to the risk of having them try to break in by moving there, you still are not "inviting" them to come in, just as people engaging in intercourse are not "inviting" the sperm inside the vagina (as in fact they definitely DON'T want it there, and a condom usually wouldn't let them all through anyways).

I think the fundamental problem that I see with the analogy (and I do think that it's a faulty analogy) is that we have an individual who made a choice to break into your house. The homeless man, no matter how dire his circumstances might have been, made the choice to enter into your house without your doing anything to encourage it. He was never supposed to be there in the first place. The weight of the law is against any such act. It is a violation of property that was undertaken by someone who had no right to act in such a manner.

On the other hand, we have a zygote who was placed in the womb by two individuals who made the choice to take the risk (no matter how small that risk may have been). There is a biological precedent for this happening and people are routinely educated about the risks associated with sex from the age of eight (or so) in most public schools systems in the US. I can't speak for other countries, so I'll assume this hypothetical situation takes place in the US. In this case the zygote is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. It made no action beyond cooperating with two other bodies to assure its safety. Therefore in the case of an unintended pregnancy, the actions of the two people having sex directly caused the pregnancy (intended or not). While in the case of the homeless man the fault for the situation is mostly if not entirely his.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.
P.S. I hope I never have to meet this Thompson woman, she sounds scary

Well, I disagree with you on it. I do NOT believe that people should be obligated to take responsibility for the mentally disabled. Should we? I think yes. Are we obligated to? No. It is not morally impermissible for me to ignore a mentally disabled person that would need me to survive. Should I help him? Yes. Would it be indecent not to? Yes. Am I obligated to as a person and would be unjust if I didn't? No. Simply from the basic philosophical argument of ethics concerning the rights of non-interference. People seem to be forgetting this is NOT even Thompson's personal view on the matter on what she would do. She might decide to never get an abortion, etc. She thinks it's harmful to character and selfish if you don't. But she thinks it's still PERMISSIBLE as everyone has their own right to autonomy as well. And once again we keep getting off topic - you don't refute the condom statement, yet rather say it's an excuse. That's a terrible argument - show the flaw in the argument's logic itself, not in what you believe the intention is.

And why in the world do you think there needs to be repercussions for sex?

Well, it's not rape in that a rapist is not interested in offspring, and the hypothetical impregnator here is not interested in sex. I'm not sure how this affects the morals - just giving a slightly more plausible thought experiment than the violinist. (BTW why does the guy play the violin? is that relevant? what if he was, um, an assembly-line worker, or , um, a doctor specialising in abortions?)

it also segues into another question: in fertility treatments, several eggs are frequently fertilised and implanted, to increase the chances of a healthy pregnancy that reaches term. Sometimes more than one succeeds - there are more twins and triplets around these days for just this reason. But there comes a point at which there can be too many, and it is common practise to abort some. There was one celebrated case where the woman refused to lose any of the 7 (or was it 9) fetuses, despite great risks to herself, and despite the fact that continuing the multiple pregnancy put all the fetuses (feti?) at risk. I don't know the end of the story, I lost track of it, but I doubt it was a happy one.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say, but the violinist was a random example by her. It could be anyone. It was merely the argument we gave. In class the professor wasn't even sure he could think of a famous violinist...

You're missing the point of the argument... it seems everyone in this thread is. I posted to discuss Thompson's argument, not on what you think of abortion personally, rather what you think of HER argument on abortion. I admit I must have not made it clear enough as 80% of these replies are concerning abortion itself. To your case of artificial insemination, that would obviously be consenting to getting pregnant and thus it would be morally impermissible to abort the fetus.

[FabledIntegral]

So after responding to everyone, I'd just like to say I think CrazyAnglican and MeDeFe are the only two the see the point I'm trying to make in this topic, Crazy taking an opposite viewpoint (more than welcome, in fact) and MeDeFe taking a relatively neutral stance, but definitely understanding the point I'm (well she) is trying to make (OnlyAmbrose is the only other that potentially gets the gist of it). Apparently I wasn't quite clear. I care more about the validity of Thompson's argument and how it relates to the permissibility of abortion in the circumstances mentioned (concerning CONSENT). We are also under the hypothetical premise that a fetus IS a person from conception.

You are arguing what someone "ought" to do, as emotion is involved, and Thompson, the writer of the article very much agrees with your opinion. She just doesn't believe that simply because someone "ought" to do it, doesn't believe they are morally obligated to (aka you would be immoral if you didn't).

I think part of the trouble I'm having with the premise is that I don't see the differece between what "I ought to do" and what "I'm morally obliged to do". I've been operating under the assumption that they are synonymous and you appear to see a distinct difference in them. If you'll explain the difference I might be able to go a little farther with my position.

It basically boils down to obligation and justice vs character. It's hard to clarify, because it's sort of in the definitions. Such as, you're not required to give anything to charity. It is morally permissible to give absolutely nothing. But it's something you can argue that you "ought" to do, or that it's of good character to do. Thompson argues that abortion is permissible, but she believes in terms of character, it's something that in many situations becomes "indecent" (her word choice for the opposite of nice).

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. No, I'm not being hypocritical about it either as I was celebate and am monogymous. Certainly I've used contraception, but it was always with the understanding that the ultimate responsibility for my actions (and my partner's) was ours. Even if their is an infinitesimal risk of pregnancy, you are still taking a risk. It flies in the face of personal responsibility to say that it's the condom manufacturer's fault when the risk is labelled right on the product. Do you blow the condom up every time to check for leaks as it suggests in the directions? I don't either; I just accept the risk.

Either way - it's the same concept with the homeless bum. As stated, there is a small (doesn't really matter how small as we've established) chance a homeless person gets inside your house even though you didn't want him in there. By leaving your windows open at night, you directly are the cause for that homeless person having the opportunity to sneak inside. If you left your windows closed, such as if someone abstained from sex, then there is no chance. Thus since you are the one to leave it open, you need to take the responsibility for your actions of leaving the window open because you knew when you did it that there was a small chance he'd climb inside. Remember, the homeless person WILL die if you kick him out.

... although I am going to say that if you move to an area where there are TONS of bums, and thus are subjecting yourself to the risk of having them try to break in by moving there, you still are not "inviting" them to come in, just as people engaging in intercourse are not "inviting" the sperm inside the vagina (as in fact they definitely DON'T want it there, and a condom usually wouldn't let them all through anyways).

I think the fundamental problem that I see with the analogy (and I do think that it's a faulty analogy) is that we have an individual who made a choice to break into your house. The homeless man, no matter how dire his circumstances might have been, made the choice to enter into your house without your doing anything to encourage it. He was never supposed to be there in the first place. The weight of the law is against any such act. It is a violation of property that was undertaken by someone who had no right to act in such a manner.

Suppose then, for the sake of the argument, that someone else forced the bum to enter your house. This situation is different from the rape case because you elect to leave your window open rather than closed. You are well aware that within the last 5 years there has been 10 cases where a bum has been forced into someone's house (please... don't ask me why!). Thus by leaving your window open at night, you are subjecting yourself to the possibility that the crazy person has forced a bum into your house. Remember, the bum will still die if you kick him out. It would be, as Thompson says, frightfully nice if you decided to let the bum stay, but you are under not obligation of justice required to let him stay with you.

On the other hand, we have a zygote who was placed in the womb by two individuals who made the choice to take the risk (no matter how small that risk may have been). There is a biological precedent for this happening and people are routinely educated about the risks associated with sex from the age of eight (or so) in most public schools systems in the US. I can't speak for other countries, so I'll assume this hypothetical situation takes place in the US. In this case the zygote is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. It made no action beyond cooperating with two other bodies to assure its safety. Therefore in the case of an unintended pregnancy, the actions of the two people having sex directly caused the pregnancy (intended or not). While in the case of the homeless man the fault for the situation is mostly if not entirely his.

Yes well as I may have modified the situation, you are now aware that there is a slight chance because of the criminal sprees that someone could force a bum into your house. Being educated about the risks is irrelevant because it boils down to the consent of it happening. I've also now changed it to the bum being forced into your house, and was able to get in because of a defect in the bars you installed. The homeless person is innocent. Yet he is still dependent on you for survival as if he's kicked outside again he will die.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?

If you're referring to the "open window" argument, I'm going to say that that's a false analogy... The argument that a child resulting from sex is like a bum crawling through an open window is absurd. Reproduction is the purpose of sex - I would certainly consider it morally impermissible to terminate an innocent life in the case of an "unintended pregnancy." A woman who gets pregnant is experiencing the natural result of her actions. A bum crawling through a window is wholly different, because windows do not exist for the purpose of bums breaking into the house through them. Furthermore, kicking a bum out of a house is quite a different story from killing a child.

And let's propose a different analogy. You leave the window open at night and a black man being chased by the KKK comes inside. They will surely lynch him if you kick him out. Is it morally permissible in that case to kick him out, knowing that he will surely be killed? I should say not. In that case, it is not simply "frightfully nice" to keep him in your house, it is morally obligatory.

I wouldn't say that the purpose of sex is reproduction, sure, sex is the main means of reproduction, but I dare say most sex takes place because it feels really good, not because people are desperate to reproduce. There's not really such a thing as purpose in nature, things that are around will be put to use, but that does not mean they exist for the purpose of being put to that use.

As for the new analogy, yes, it would be frightfully nice of you to let him stay in your house, but spin it a little further, what if one of the KKK members saw him climb in and they come knocking at your door, or knock it down even. Maybe one step less, they stay in front of your house and as soon as the black man leaves they'll lynch him. Are you really obligated to let him stay until they give up in a year, or maybe even indefinitely if they never give up?

And what is the difference between kicking a bum out of your house to his certain death and kicking a fetus from an unintended pregnancy out of a womb? (Both kicks are metaphorical)

You and I have very different definitions of "morally obligatory," it seems. If you don't find saving a man's life morally obligatory even if it may inconvenience you for nine months, then I think we just have very different conceptions of morality.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Apparently I wasn't quite clear. I care more about the validity of Thompson's argument and how it relates to the permissibility of abortion in the circumstances mentioned (concerning CONSENT)

This is related to what I was saying to MeDeFe in the above post - I don't think consent makes a damn bit of difference. At the very most this argument moves abortion from "murder" to "fatal neglect," but either way it results in a death. It is absolutely morally impermissible to kill a child for convenience's sake. The child's right to live is a far more weighty matter than the mother's right to a slim physique and normal hormone patterns for a period of nine months. Consent doesn't make a bit of difference.

A man is dying on the street. You did not "consent" to be morally responsible for that man's life, but you have a moral (and legal) responsibility to call the paramedics and administer first aid if you can. That's not just a "nice thing to do", it's a moral obligation which is upon you regardless of whether or not you "consented" to it.

[FabledIntegral]

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?

If you're referring to the "open window" argument, I'm going to say that that's a false analogy... The argument that a child resulting from sex is like a bum crawling through an open window is absurd. Reproduction is the purpose of sex - I would certainly consider it morally impermissible to terminate an innocent life in the case of an "unintended pregnancy." A woman who gets pregnant is experiencing the natural result of her actions. A bum crawling through a window is wholly different, because windows do not exist for the purpose of bums breaking into the house through them. Furthermore, kicking a bum out of a house is quite a different story from killing a child.

And let's propose a different analogy. You leave the window open at night and a black man being chased by the KKK comes inside. They will surely lynch him if you kick him out. Is it morally permissible in that case to kick him out, knowing that he will surely be killed? I should say not. In that case, it is not simply "frightfully nice" to keep him in your house, it is morally obligatory.

I wouldn't say that the purpose of sex is reproduction, sure, sex is the main means of reproduction, but I dare say most sex takes place because it feels really good, not because people are desperate to reproduce. There's not really such a thing as purpose in nature, things that are around will be put to use, but that does not mean they exist for the purpose of being put to that use.

As for the new analogy, yes, it would be frightfully nice of you to let him stay in your house, but spin it a little further, what if one of the KKK members saw him climb in and they come knocking at your door, or knock it down even. Maybe one step less, they stay in front of your house and as soon as the black man leaves they'll lynch him. Are you really obligated to let him stay until they give up in a year, or maybe even indefinitely if they never give up?

And what is the difference between kicking a bum out of your house to his certain death and kicking a fetus from an unintended pregnancy out of a womb? (Both kicks are metaphorical)

You and I have very different definitions of "morally obligatory," it seems. If you don't find saving a man's life morally obligatory even if it may inconvenience you for nine months, then I think we just have very different conceptions of morality.

Really? You think it would be morally wrong to kill him even though you never consented to saving him? Then what about if as soon as the 9 months were up, you were kidnapped and attached to another person for 9 months? And it continually happened until you died?

If you truly feel that you think saving a man's life in such a situation is morally obligatory, I would place you in a very very small minority group. And I would say not only that you are in less than a .01% minority of people, yet you are morally wrong if you don't donate 100% of your money to poor people that are starving. Sure, it may inconvenience you, but other people are dying without the food they could purchase if you gave it to them (they are dependent on you for the food).

In terms of moral permissibility, not moral ethics, we all have a right to non-interference and are not required to do ANYTHING to help someone else.

Here's an example Thompson also gave. If you were aware that there was a child in China that was going to die from a fever only YOU could cure from touching him on the forehead with your hand, and that he would die within 7 days if you did not save him, are you morally obligated to drop everything you have, fly to China, and save this person? Of course not! You might think otherwise as it's very apparent you're in a very small minority of the people, yet I think the conclusion is rather obvious. Yet what now if this person that you had to save was not in China but in Chicago? And then what if they were merely in another city? And then, to continue, what if they were in the same room, 20 feet away? In none of these situations, Thompson (and most of society) would maintain, is someone morally obligated to help save the person with the fever. You would be a very indecent person if you didn't save the person in the same room. And at the same time it would be frightfully nice to go and save the person in China. But you, by the definitions of rights of non-interference, are never obligated to go out of your way. And that is the point of this entire situation.

It seems to two biggest problems that CrazyAnglican and OnlyAmbrose are having (bwahaha, both the Christians ), is dealing with what morality is. I'm not discussing how good the character of a person is. I'm discussing whether the actions are PERMISSIBLE or not. Thus the actions themselves may permissible even if you would judge the character to be indecent or nice. Whilst it would be indecent not to call the police if you witness someone else being raped, it is not by any means your obligation as a person to do so. You have done no injustice to the victim of the rape, rather you were merely a person of poor character.

[FabledIntegral]

Apparently I wasn't quite clear. I care more about the validity of Thompson's argument and how it relates to the permissibility of abortion in the circumstances mentioned (concerning CONSENT)

This is related to what I was saying to MeDeFe in the above post - I don't think consent makes a damn bit of difference. At the very most this argument moves abortion from "murder" to "fatal neglect," but either way it results in a death. It is absolutely morally impermissible to kill a child for convenience's sake. The child's right to live is a far more weighty matter than the mother's right to a slim physique and normal hormone patterns for a period of nine months. Consent doesn't make a bit of difference.

A man is dying on the street. You did not "consent" to be morally responsible for that man's life, but you have a moral (and legal) responsibility to call the paramedics and administer first aid if you can. That's not just a "nice thing to do", it's a moral obligation which is upon you regardless of whether or not you "consented" to it.

Most people regarding ethics would completely disagree with you. You are not obligated to do anything for someone else as a person. It shows good character if you do, but you can not be judged as being guilty of anything if you don't.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Apparently I wasn't quite clear. I care more about the validity of Thompson's argument and how it relates to the permissibility of abortion in the circumstances mentioned (concerning CONSENT)

This is related to what I was saying to MeDeFe in the above post - I don't think consent makes a damn bit of difference. At the very most this argument moves abortion from "murder" to "fatal neglect," but either way it results in a death. It is absolutely morally impermissible to kill a child for convenience's sake. The child's right to live is a far more weighty matter than the mother's right to a slim physique and normal hormone patterns for a period of nine months. Consent doesn't make a bit of difference.

A man is dying on the street. You did not "consent" to be morally responsible for that man's life, but you have a moral (and legal) responsibility to call the paramedics and administer first aid if you can. That's not just a "nice thing to do", it's a moral obligation which is upon you regardless of whether or not you "consented" to it.

Most people regarding ethics would completely disagree with you. You are not obligated to do anything for someone else as a person. It shows good character if you do, but you can not be judged as being guilty of anything if you don't.

That's ridiculous. So you wouldn't consider it morally wrong to just walk by a wounded man on the street without calling an ambulance? That's just "morally neutral" as far as you're concerned?

[FabledIntegral]

Apparently I wasn't quite clear. I care more about the validity of Thompson's argument and how it relates to the permissibility of abortion in the circumstances mentioned (concerning CONSENT)

This is related to what I was saying to MeDeFe in the above post - I don't think consent makes a damn bit of difference. At the very most this argument moves abortion from "murder" to "fatal neglect," but either way it results in a death. It is absolutely morally impermissible to kill a child for convenience's sake. The child's right to live is a far more weighty matter than the mother's right to a slim physique and normal hormone patterns for a period of nine months. Consent doesn't make a bit of difference.

A man is dying on the street. You did not "consent" to be morally responsible for that man's life, but you have a moral (and legal) responsibility to call the paramedics and administer first aid if you can. That's not just a "nice thing to do", it's a moral obligation which is upon you regardless of whether or not you "consented" to it.

Most people regarding ethics would completely disagree with you. You are not obligated to do anything for someone else as a person. It shows good character if you do, but you can not be judged as being guilty of anything if you don't.

That's ridiculous. So you wouldn't consider it morally wrong to just walk by a wounded man on the street without calling an ambulance? That's just "morally neutral" as far as you're concerned?

I'm saying that you have absolutely no OBLIGATION to do it. You can't be found GUILTY of anything wrong if you did it. It shows you have piss-poor character and you SHOULDN'T do it, but just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean you're obligated to. Are you saying that you believe that society should be mandated lest be found guilty if we don't look out for others? I believe we have the right as human beings to noninterference. Otherwise it becomes a very slippery slope on when we have to take upon the dependence of others. It's similar to welfare - we have to pay taxes to help others. Why am I required to do so against my will to have money taken out of my paycheck for others?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'm saying that you have absolutely no OBLIGATION to do it. You can't be found GUILTY of anything wrong if you did it. It shows you have piss-poor character and you SHOULDN'T do it, but just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean you're obligated to. Are you saying that you believe that society should be mandated else be found guilty if we don't look out for others? I believe we have the right as human beings to noninterference.

A few things.

First, abortion is not merely a neutral act, in which you don't do anything. It's a physical act of murder. That's different from passing by a dying man or kicking someone out of their house - abortion is paying someone to kill someone else, if we are working under your assumption that a fetus is a person.

Secondly, I do believe that passing by a dying man clearly in need of medical attention is a crime of neglect in most societies (correct me if I'm wrong). Nonetheless, that it is fundamentally different from abortion in that abortion directly kills a fetus.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Let me sum it up another way:

It is clear that by having sex, you run the risk of becoming pregnant, regardless of what contraceptive measures you use. I could easily argue that that is consent right there - in having sex, you accept the chance that you could become pregnant. That means you accept the risk of gaining a dependent. That's consent as far as I'm concerned. Murder is not permissible when there is a clear risk that through your actions you could gain a person dependent on you for life.

In fact, murder is impermissible even when it's not so clear.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm saying that you have absolutely no OBLIGATION to do it. You can't be found GUILTY of anything wrong if you did it. It shows you have piss-poor character and you SHOULDN'T do it, but just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean you're obligated to. Are you saying that you believe that society should be mandated else be found guilty if we don't look out for others? I believe we have the right as human beings to noninterference.

A few things.

First, abortion is not merely a neutral act, in which you don't do anything. It's a physical act of murder. That's different from passing by a dying man or kicking someone out of their house - abortion is paying someone to kill someone else, if we are working under your assumption that a fetus is a person.

Secondly, I do believe that passing by a dying man clearly in need of medical attention is a crime of neglect in most societies (correct me if I'm wrong). Nonetheless, that it is fundamentally different from abortion in that abortion directly kills a fetus.

1. I didn't come up with the act of a dying man. You did. So don't try to tie it into Thompson's argument... I was merely commenting on what would be said about it from her perspective, from what I could gather. It's paying someone to kill someone else to whom they didn't consent to having in the first place, hence the violinist. If you didn't consent to being attached to the person, why in the world are you suddenly obligated to save that person's life? In short - what I personally would conclude, you aren't. And fyi, I would kill the violinist and unplug myself.

2. And thus the societies are forcing their people to be good Samaritans. Which is in essence infringing on people's right to noninterference. The law of society doesn't make it right, you know that all too well. We are talking about the rights of people, not laws.

[OnlyAmbrose]

1. I didn't come up with the act of a dying man. You did. So don't try to tie it into Thompson's argument...

Why not? It's perfectly relevant in that it's an analogy of a situation which you do not consent to enter, but at which it could be argued you have a moral obligation to do what you can to keep the man alive. You apparently place the moral standard at "do nothing", I place the moral standard a little higher.

It's paying someone to kill someone else to whom they didn't consent to having in the first place, hence the violinist.

Paying someone to kill someone for no other reason than that you don't want to get fat for a few months is morally impermissible. Period.

2. And thus the societies are forcing their people to be good Samaritans. Which is in essence infringing on people's right to noninterference.

A right which you seem to think exists, but apparently legislative bodies around the world don't.

[FabledIntegral]

1. I didn't come up with the act of a dying man. You did. So don't try to tie it into Thompson's argument...

Why not? It's perfectly relevant in that it's an analogy of a situation which you do not consent to enter, but at which it could be argued you have a moral obligation to do what you can to keep the man alive. You apparently place the moral standard at "do nothing", I place the moral standard a little higher.

Wait what? Go reread what I've said. You gave me an example of a dying man, I said that it was morally permissible to do nothing (yet incredibly indecent), and then you tell me "well the dying man example doesn't even work when comparing to abortion because..." Well YOU are the one that came up with the example and then tell me that it isn't the same as an abortion. Then use an analogy that IS analogous to abortion.

Paying someone to kill someone for no other reason than that you don't want to get fat for a few months is morally impermissible. Period.

100% irrelevant and offtopic. It has NOTHING to do with your intention. As I've stated, the pregnancy could last for ONE MINUTE and the conclusion would NOT be different. You're starting to deviate from the actual topic and instead put a lot of bias in your word usage. Aka "killing other people because you don't want to be inconvenienced." You know that has no relevance. And as said, I would kill the violinist because I don't want to be inconvenienced for 9 months and would maintain that I did nothing morally impermissible. And as I stated before, would you still do it if the violinist had to be attached to you for 9 years? Are you going to tell me someone's right to life is dependent on time? I surely hope not.

2. And thus the societies are forcing their people to be good Samaritans. Which is in essence infringing on people's right to noninterference.

A right which you seem to think exists, but apparently legislative bodies around the world don't.[/quote]

A right which nearly every single person that has debated ethics in history has argued for. A right to make your own decisions for yourself and not be interfered by others. For example you have the right for me NOT to come up and kick you in the face, otherwise I'd be interfering with you. Oh, and to use the exact same argument you just used, apparently most legislative bodies around the world think it's fine to leave the choice up to a woman on whether or not to abort ====> Abortion is fine?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Let me put this another way:

It's paying someone to kill someone else to whom they didn't consent to having in the first place, hence the violinist.

Let's take something like your forehead example and turn it around.

What if there was a person in the world, who by some magic spell not of their own doing and not of your consent, would cause you to get fat for 9 months if they were alive. Do you have the right to kill that person?

(That's more or less exactly what pregnancy and abortion is as far as as a moral standpoint is concerned if we assume a fetus is a human being)

[FabledIntegral]

Let me put this another way:

It's paying someone to kill someone else to whom they didn't consent to having in the first place, hence the violinist.

Let's take something like your forehead example and turn it around.

What if there was a person in the world, who by some magic spell not of their own doing and not of your consent, would cause you to get fat for 9 months if they were alive. Do you have the right to kill that person?

(That's more or less exactly what pregnancy and abortion is as far as as a moral standpoint is concerned if we assume a fetus is a human being)

Different situation. They aren't directly leeching off your existence for survival. Yet I can see the relevance in the point you're making. Although as said I don't think it's pertinent to abortion, I will think of a response. Although I'll maintain you still haven't answered half the stuff I've put forth, only little excerpts. I will say however that if the person decided to cast that spell/consented to it happening, you have the right to kill him. If he didn't consent to it happening, I'm not quite sure, and as said I'll think about it.

Please answer concerning the violinist however, as I've restated myself like twice now. For the rest of your life, would you do it?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I love a good debate, and you put forth a very interesting point, I've merely been annoyed that most of your other posts have been neglecting lots of points and merely picking out your own, or not staying relevant to the topic at hand.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Let me put this another way:

It's paying someone to kill someone else to whom they didn't consent to having in the first place, hence the violinist.

Let's take something like your forehead example and turn it around.

What if there was a person in the world, who by some magic spell not of their own doing and not of your consent, would cause you to get fat for 9 months if they were alive. Do you have the right to kill that person?

(That's more or less exactly what pregnancy and abortion is as far as as a moral standpoint is concerned if we assume a fetus is a human being)

Different situation. They aren't directly leeching off your existence for survival. Yet I can see the relevance in the point you're making. Although as said I don't think it's pertinent to abortion, I will think of a response. Although I'll maintain you still haven't answered half the stuff I've put forth, only little excerpts. I will say however that if the person decided to cast that spell/consented to it happening, you have the right to kill him. If he didn't consent to it happening, I'm not quite sure, and as said I'll think about it.

Please answer concerning the violinist however, as I've restated myself like twice now. For the rest of your life, would you do it?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I love a good debate, and you put forth a very interesting point, I've merely been annoyed that most of your other posts have been neglecting lots of points and merely picking out your own, or not staying relevant to the topic at hand.

I think my above discussion fairly well covers the violinist analogy.

I mentioned before that pregnancy is the natural result of sexual intercourse, and the natural manner in which a human fetus is created. Needless to say there is nothing natural about a violinist being connected to another person. This is further reinforced by the fact that sex with or without protection implies consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. I said that earlier as well:

It is clear that by having sex, you run the risk of becoming pregnant, regardless of what contraceptive measures you use. I could easily argue that that is consent right there - in having sex, you accept the chance that you could become pregnant. That means you accept the risk of gaining a dependent. That's consent as far as I'm concerned. Murder is not permissible when there is a clear risk that through your actions you could gain a person dependent on you for life.

In fact, murder is impermissible even when it's not so clear.

If you are set on killing the child should you become pregnant, I would argue that it is morally irresponsible to have sex at all, because that means you are consenting to the 1/10,000 chance of having to murder someone who didn't consciously intend to harm you. YOU are the only one culpable in pregnancy in the case of consentual sex. That said, this whole "violinist argument" could AT BEST be used to defend abortion in cases of rape or nonconsentual sex, but even then I would argue that it is wrong.

Like I said in several posts before, the key difference between this analogy and abortion is that abortion is murder, not simply "unplugging" someone, it's killing someone (in a great many cases). Even in cases that you could argue that you're "unplugging" the person by simply detatching them from their mother and letting them die, the difference between "unplugging" in this sense and "unplugging" in the sense of the violinist is that the "unplugging" here is removing a child from a biologically ordained source of nourishment... murder is bodily harm to a person. Cutting biological bond is certainly bodily harm.

Anyways, as I said before, false analogy, on many levels.

[Martin Ronne]

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.
P.S. I hope I never have to meet this Thompson woman, she sounds scary

Well, I disagree with you on it. I do NOT believe that people should be obligated to take responsibility for the mentally disabled. Should we? I think yes. Are we obligated to? No. It is not morally impermissible for me to ignore a mentally disabled person that would need me to survive. Should I help him? Yes. Would it be indecent not to? Yes. Am I obligated to as a person and would be unjust if I didn't? No. Simply from the basic philosophical argument of ethics concerning the rights of non-interference. People seem to be forgetting this is NOT even Thompson's personal view on the matter on what she would do. She might decide to never get an abortion, etc. She thinks it's harmful to character and selfish if you don't. But she thinks it's still PERMISSIBLE as everyone has their own right to autonomy as well. And once again we keep getting off topic - you don't refute the condom statement, yet rather say it's an excuse. That's a terrible argument - show the flaw in the argument's logic itself, not in what you believe the intention is.

And why in the world do you think there needs to be repercussions for sex?

I didn't say there needs to be repercussions to sex, there are repercussions to sex. If one has sex with out taking proper precautions, they can get pregnant or an STD etc. The only 100% effective birth control is abstenince, (cliché I know) but it is a risk one takes.

Also, what you said earlier about not being morally impermissible, your right, because morals are imposed by society, and change depending on what society you are in. However ethically it is impermissible.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is her position, she is arguing on it's behalf.

[FabledIntegral]

I think my above discussion fairly well covers the violinist analogy.

I mentioned before that pregnancy is the natural result of sexual intercourse, and the natural manner in which a human fetus is created. Needless to say there is nothing natural about a violinist being connected to another person. This is further reinforced by the fact that sex with or without protection implies consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. I said that earlier as well:

So let me get this straight, as I'm very confused on your response. First of all, you've already said that you do NOT think it's morally permissible to kill the violinist. So what are you talking about in what I'm quoting you on right now? What I was referring to was you answering the time frame question, aka is it morally impermissible to stay detach yourself if it's 9 years instead of 9 months? What about an eternity? Does someone's right to life depend on a certain time on what you feel like giving them, or is it universal?

Second, let's say you've changed your mind and you think now it IS permissible to kill the violinist, thus creating a distinction between abortion and the analogy in your eyes. First of all, I don't buy the "sex with protection implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy." I think, quite frankly, we simply disagree on that and to argue that further is useless. However, I will try to argue your point on it being natural. So since being pregnant is "natural" and being attached to a violinist is not, you're going to tell me the right to life is different? The only distinction you've made between the two is that one is a natural event in nature and one is not. The right to life is really that fragile? Because the violinist case is an "oddity" you can kill him, but since fetuses come about all the time, you can't? Care to elaborate more for me on that?

It is clear that by having sex, you run the risk of becoming pregnant, regardless of what contraceptive measures you use. I could easily argue that that is consent right there - in having sex, you accept the chance that you could become pregnant. That means you accept the risk of gaining a dependent. That's consent as far as I'm concerned. Murder is not permissible when there is a clear risk that through your actions you could gain a person dependent on you for life.

In fact, murder is impermissible even when it's not so clear.

Which no longer uses the violinist argument, rather the homeless bum argument. It's the exact one I've given to CrazyAnglican. Say that you KNOW there has been a random psychopath that is forcing homeless people inside person's homes at night. You know that the bum can only get in if you decide to leave your windows open. Let's say to avoid this from happening, you install bars on your window. However, you know ahead of time there is a 1/10,000 chance that the bars are defective. You consent to leaving your windows open anyways. During the night, the psychopath, chooses your house to force the bum into, which is say a 1/100,000,000 chance he picks your home. You left your windows open for the purpose of the mere pleasure of wanting a breeze. Now, for some odd reason or another (just as you've given me a magical reason for why a person would become fat), I'm giving you the reason if you kick this bum out of your house, he will die.

Do you reserve the right to deny this bum his right to life by kicking him out on the street? I say yes, you reserve the right to do so, although it might be considered to be an indecent thing to do, it is still permissible.

If you are set on killing the child should you become pregnant, I would argue that it is morally irresponsible to have sex at all, because that means you are consenting to the 1/10,000 chance of having to murder someone who didn't consciously intend to harm you. YOU are the only one culpable in pregnancy in the case of consentual sex. That said, this whole "violinist argument" could AT BEST be used to defend abortion in cases of rape or nonconsentual sex, but even then I would argue that it is wrong.

The violinist argument IS only supposed to defend abortion in cases of rape or sex that isn't consensual, I make that clear in the OP.

Like I said in several posts before, the key difference between this analogy and abortion is that abortion is murder, not simply "unplugging" someone, it's killing someone (in a great many cases). Even in cases that you could argue that you're "unplugging" the person by simply detatching them from their mother and letting them die, the difference between "unplugging" in this sense and "unplugging" in the sense of the violinist is that the "unplugging" here is removing a child from a biologically ordained source of nourishment... murder is bodily harm to a person. Cutting biological bond is certainly bodily harm.

Anyways, as I said before, false analogy, on many levels.

So now we're into multiple other ethical moral problems, aka "killing vs letting die," and euthanasia. You're going to tell me that if you unplug yourself from the violin, you aren't depriving him of the necessities he needs for survival? Of course you are, it's the exact same concept, if you abort a fetus you're essentially depriving it from the nourishment it needs from it's mother. I think your argument here is weak.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm going to have agree with OA on this one. The notion that any one who is dependent on another for there life does not have the right to live harkens back to the nazi's eugenics program. In which people with mental disabilities were murdered because they could not take care of them selfs. If one has no right to live simply because they are dependent on another, then half the worlds senior citizens over 70 don't deserve to live. We ought to just load them into dump trucks and ship them off to processing plants where they can be made into soilent green. To me the argument of 1 in 10,000 condoms breaking really just sounds like a person who wants to have sex with out any repercussions, they don't want to be held accountable for there actions.
P.S. I hope I never have to meet this Thompson woman, she sounds scary

Well, I disagree with you on it. I do NOT believe that people should be obligated to take responsibility for the mentally disabled. Should we? I think yes. Are we obligated to? No. It is not morally impermissible for me to ignore a mentally disabled person that would need me to survive. Should I help him? Yes. Would it be indecent not to? Yes. Am I obligated to as a person and would be unjust if I didn't? No. Simply from the basic philosophical argument of ethics concerning the rights of non-interference. People seem to be forgetting this is NOT even Thompson's personal view on the matter on what she would do. She might decide to never get an abortion, etc. She thinks it's harmful to character and selfish if you don't. But she thinks it's still PERMISSIBLE as everyone has their own right to autonomy as well. And once again we keep getting off topic - you don't refute the condom statement, yet rather say it's an excuse. That's a terrible argument - show the flaw in the argument's logic itself, not in what you believe the intention is.

And why in the world do you think there needs to be repercussions for sex?

I didn't say there needs to be repercussions to sex, there are repercussions to sex. If one has sex with out taking proper precautions, they can get pregnant or an STD etc. The only 100% effective birth control is abstenince, (cliché I know) but it is a risk one takes.

Also, what you said earlier about not being morally impermissible, your right, because morals are imposed by society, and change depending on what society you are in. However ethically it is impermissible.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is her position, she is arguing on it's behalf.

I'd just love to have a huge stamp and just post IRRELEVANT in red across your post... I don't need anything concerning how any particular society views an issue, etc. You can say that on any moral issue and it's an insanely weak argument. Concerning abstinence - who cares, it's not related to the act of aborting a fetus, rather related to the "how not to get into a situation where you'd have the possibility of aborting a fetus in the first place."

[MeDeFe]

Still, as in the hypothetical cases, while it would be frightfully nice, does she have to? And if she does, why?

If you're referring to the "open window" argument, I'm going to say that that's a false analogy... The argument that a child resulting from sex is like a bum crawling through an open window is absurd. Reproduction is the purpose of sex - I would certainly consider it morally impermissible to terminate an innocent life in the case of an "unintended pregnancy." A woman who gets pregnant is experiencing the natural result of her actions. A bum crawling through a window is wholly different, because windows do not exist for the purpose of bums breaking into the house through them. Furthermore, kicking a bum out of a house is quite a different story from killing a child.

And let's propose a different analogy. You leave the window open at night and a black man being chased by the KKK comes inside. They will surely lynch him if you kick him out. Is it morally permissible in that case to kick him out, knowing that he will surely be killed? I should say not. In that case, it is not simply "frightfully nice" to keep him in your house, it is morally obligatory.

I wouldn't say that the purpose of sex is reproduction, sure, sex is the main means of reproduction, but I dare say most sex takes place because it feels really good, not because people are desperate to reproduce. There's not really such a thing as purpose in nature, things that are around will be put to use, but that does not mean they exist for the purpose of being put to that use.

As for the new analogy, yes, it would be frightfully nice of you to let him stay in your house, but spin it a little further, what if one of the KKK members saw him climb in and they come knocking at your door, or knock it down even. Maybe one step less, they stay in front of your house and as soon as the black man leaves they'll lynch him. Are you really obligated to let him stay until they give up in a year, or maybe even indefinitely if they never give up?

And what is the difference between kicking a bum out of your house to his certain death and kicking a fetus from an unintended pregnancy out of a womb? (Both kicks are metaphorical)

You and I have very different definitions of "morally obligatory," it seems. If you don't find saving a man's life morally obligatory even if it may inconvenience you for nine months, then I think we just have very different conceptions of morality.

But what if it's 9 years? Or 90 years? You still haven't answered that question. Are you still obligated to stay hooked to the violinist or to carry the fetus around if it were for 90 years? And we haven't even started on whether one is under any obligation to put ones own life at risk to save someone else. Like going into a river in winter to pull out a child, or jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge to save a suicidal person.