Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Abortion

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in. The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

In any case, you forced the fetus to be in a situation without obtaining its permission.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.

People generally don't like dying. Also, there's no way to find out before asking them, and you can't ask them if they're dead.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:07:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:37:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

In any case, you forced the fetus to be in a situation without obtaining its permission.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.

People generally don't like dying. Also, there's no way to find out before asking them, and you can't ask them if they're dead.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. People also believe that its better to have never been too, but I don't think it's right to assume the baby shouldn't be born either.
http://www.debate.org...

The way I see it, we can't assume what a fetus wants, because it cant want. So the only thing to really do is leave it up to the mother. No one else can really determine if that baby would want to live when it grows up or not.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:47:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:07:17 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:37:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

In any case, you forced the fetus to be in a situation without obtaining its permission.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.

People generally don't like dying. Also, there's no way to find out before asking them, and you can't ask them if they're dead.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. People also believe that its better to have never been too, but I don't think it's right to assume the baby shouldn't be born either.
http://www.debate.org...

The way I see it, we can't assume what a fetus wants, because it cant want. So the only thing to really do is leave it up to the mother. No one else can really determine if that baby would want to live when it grows up or not.

Life is, on balance, something of prima facie value. Meaning that if someone doesn't give a preference whether they want to live or die, we should presume they want to live, based on the fact that life is prima facie something that is desirable.

To use an analogy, if we find a comatose patient on a desert island, we shouldn't leave him to die. This is because we rightly presume that he would want to live.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:47:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:07:17 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:37:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

In any case, you forced the fetus to be in a situation without obtaining its permission.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.

People generally don't like dying. Also, there's no way to find out before asking them, and you can't ask them if they're dead.

That sounds like an emotional appeal. People also believe that its better to have never been too, but I don't think it's right to assume the baby shouldn't be born either.
http://www.debate.org...

The way I see it, we can't assume what a fetus wants, because it cant want. So the only thing to really do is leave it up to the mother. No one else can really determine if that baby would want to live when it grows up or not.

Life is, on balance, something of prima facie value. Meaning that if someone doesn't give a preference whether they want to live or die, we should presume they want to live, based on the fact that life is prima facie something that is desirable.

That sounds like a hefty burden to bear.
Prima facie, life seems to have whatever arbitrary value we assign it.

To use an analogy, if we find a comatose patient on a desert island, we shouldn't leave him to die. This is because we rightly presume that he would want to live.

Things that experience life, generally want to live, so I say thats a reasonable presumption. However, your analogy doesn't play well with fetus' since they haven't "experienced" life.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:51:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

What if they use birth control, but still get pregnant? They are taking responsible measures to prevent such an occurrence, but it fails.

The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:28:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in. The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

It's true that the woman is responsible for the fact that she's pregnant. But how does that show that she has a moral obligation to remain pregnant for the next 9 months?

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Assuming you're talking about Thomson's violinist analogy, this counter analogy in no way undermines her argument. The reason you may unplug from the violinist, according to the argument, is because he does not have a right to the life support that you are providing him. So, you may discontinue said life support even if he dies as a result. In the case that you described, the person tied up is not using your bodily functions for continued life like a pregnancy or in Thomson's story. This fact alone shows that your analogy is mistaken.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:58:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:51:18 AM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

What if they use birth control, but still get pregnant? They are taking responsible measures to prevent such an occurrence, but it fails.


It's unfortunate, but unless she was raped, I don't see how abortion would be justified. She knew the risks going in - why should the fetus pay for her decision?

The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:58:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The question really is "Do people have the right to put others - or engage in acts which might put others - in dependent situations and then proceed to not help them, even when it means that person will die?" I don't see why such a "right" would exist.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:20:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.


This scenario is completely different. By going to the opera, you are not the one responsible for the dependency, so you have no obligation to lend your assistance. The person with kidney ailments would need assistance anyway, while an infant wouldn't need a mother's body to survive if she didn't decide to have sex in the first place.

By consenting to sex, you are pretty much by definition consenting to the possibility that you might get pregnant, because that's what sex is. You can't say "I consented to sex, not pregnancy" anymore than you can say "I consented to running into the street, not getting hit by a car".

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:27:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in. The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.

Your argument leads to the conclusion that conception is, at the outset, immoral, not just that abortion is immoral. Who are you to gamble on the chance that the fetus wants to live? If you deny this on the grounds that "the fetus didn't care before he was brought into being", then that same reasoning applies to abortion - it doesn't matter that the fetus came into being as a result of the parents, so it can still be viewed as an invader.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:40:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:27:41 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in. The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.

Your argument leads to the conclusion that conception is, at the outset, immoral, not just that abortion is immoral. Who are you to gamble on the chance that the fetus wants to live?

I simply don't recognize someone's absolute right "not to be born".

If you deny this on the grounds that "the fetus didn't care before he was brought into being", then that same reasoning applies to abortion - it doesn't matter that the fetus came into being as a result of the parents, so it can still be viewed as an invader.

The point is not that conception violates the rights of the "pre-fetus", it's that conception forces the fetus into a certain situation which it has no say over.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:44:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:40:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:27:41 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It is the position of many pro-choicers that abortion would be justified even if the fetus were a person, because the mother has the "right to her own body". I don't think this is accurate. By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in. The fetus is not "invading" the mother's right to her body; the mother is invading the fetus' rights by forcing it to be inside and dependent on her. The fetus did not "choose" to be inside the mother; the mother, in effect, made the choice for the fetus. I.e., dictated to the fetus where it must initially be. She might as well have kidnapped it.

If someone purchased a new car and heard thumping from inside the trunk, only to discover upon reaching their garage a person tied up inside, and then proceeded to exercise their "right" to fill their garage with toxic gas in order to rid their property of "invaders", what would we say? Of course, we would say that person is a murderer. By neglecting to check whether he was bringing someone onto his property against their will, he gave up his right to dispose of his property as he wishes.

Thus, by choosing to have sex, one assumes responsibility for any situation that could result from it. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, and then insist on getting an abortion, you are in effect engaging in reckless endangerment (assuming the fetus is a person) and no one has the right to endanger others.

Your argument leads to the conclusion that conception is, at the outset, immoral, not just that abortion is immoral. Who are you to gamble on the chance that the fetus wants to live?

I simply don't recognize someone's absolute right "not to be born".
Then you don't recognize the autonomy of the fetus, leading to the conclusion that they can never be cut a raw deal if aborted - they had no right to be in the womb, as you accept.: : If you deny this on the grounds that "the fetus didn't care before he was brought into being", then that same reasoning applies to abortion - it doesn't matter that the fetus came into being as a result of the parents, so it can still be viewed as an invader.

The point is not that conception violates the rights of the "pre-fetus", it's that conception forces the fetus into a certain situation which it has no say over.

And the same couldn't be said for bringing it into existence to begin with? If not, then there's obviously no way to say that you're "forcing" the fetus into the womb, since you deny that there's anything to force beforehand - if that's so, then the fetus didn't somehow sign a contract to be carried 'till birth, and therefore doesn't get protection for "not being a parasite".
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

It does work, I just substitute the body for the home.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:20:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.


This scenario is completely different. By going to the opera, you are not the one responsible for the dependency, so you have no obligation to lend your assistance. The person with kidney ailments would need assistance anyway, while an infant wouldn't need a mother's body to survive if she didn't decide to have sex in the first place.



You have now changed your objection to the violinist analogy. Initially you were using the tacit consent objection. But now you're using the responsibility objection. Both of them are objections from voluntariness, but the details are different. My case of the opera was actually a good response to the tacit consent objection, but you have now decided to chance the objection to one from responsibility.

If that's right, then you need to explain why the woman causing the fetus to become dependant on her means that she must stay pregnant for 9 months.

By consenting to sex, you are pretty much by definition consenting to the possibility that you might get pregnant, because that's what sex is. You can't say "I consented to sex, not pregnancy" anymore than you can say "I consented to running into the street, not getting hit by a car".

To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

Let's assume everything you said is correct, and that by having sex the woman does consent to being pregnant for 9 months. Does consenting to that state of affairs show that it would impermissible for her to abort? No, it does not. To show this, let me provide a modified example of the violinist story.

Suppose that you walk into the hospital where the violinist is staying at, and the doctors explain to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you decide to go and voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist. In this case you have consented to the fact that the violinist is now using your body. But have you consented by that act to continue letting him use your body for as long as is necessary?

Suppose that after a week you decide that being plugged into the violinist is more burdensome than you expected, and that you now wish to unplug. Would it be morally impermissible to discontinue providing aid to the violinist merely because you began providing aid voluntarily?

To say that it would be would mean that the violinist's right to life does not entitle him to the use of your body for 9 months if you were plugged in involuntarily, but that it does entitle him to the use of your body if you plugged into him voluntarily. This is absurd.

I can think of other examples as well. Suppose that a woman consents to have sex with a man, but that during sex she decides that she no longer wants to engage in this act. Does initially consenting to sex mean that the woman has consented to continued sex if she decides that it's no longer desirable? Absolutely not, and to say otherwise would be to defend rape.


To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

It does work, I just substitute the body for the home.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:56:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:30:21 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

Let's assume everything you said is correct, and that by having sex the woman does consent to being pregnant for 9 months. Does consenting to that state of affairs show that it would impermissible for her to abort? No, it does not. To show this, let me provide a modified example of the violinist story.

Suppose that you walk into the hospital where the violinist is staying at, and the doctors explain to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you decide to go and voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist. In this case you have consented to the fact that the violinist is now using your body. But have you consented by that act to continue letting him use your body for as long as is necessary?

Suppose that after a week you decide that being plugged into the violinist is more burdensome than you expected, and that you now wish to unplug. Would it be morally impermissible to discontinue providing aid to the violinist merely because you began providing aid voluntarily?

To say that it would be would mean that the violinist's right to life does not entitle him to the use of your body for 9 months if you were plugged in involuntarily, but that it does entitle him to the use of your body if you plugged into him voluntarily. This is absurd.

I can think of other examples as well. Suppose that a woman consents to have sex with a man, but that during sex she decides that she no longer wants to engage in this act. Does initially consenting to sex mean that the woman has consented to continued sex if she decides that it's no longer desirable? Absolutely not, and to say otherwise would be to defend rape.

You seem to misunderstand what a right to life is. A right to life isn't a right to be kept alive, a right to life is a right not to be killed.

The thing is, abortion isn't just withdrawing the support, it's actively killing the foetus.
In your analogy, it would be akin to you plugging in, changing your mind and then stabbing the violinist in the heart.



To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

It does work, I just substitute the body for the home.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:18:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:56:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:30:21 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

Let's assume everything you said is correct, and that by having sex the woman does consent to being pregnant for 9 months. Does consenting to that state of affairs show that it would impermissible for her to abort? No, it does not. To show this, let me provide a modified example of the violinist story.

Suppose that you walk into the hospital where the violinist is staying at, and the doctors explain to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you decide to go and voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist. In this case you have consented to the fact that the violinist is now using your body. But have you consented by that act to continue letting him use your body for as long as is necessary?

Suppose that after a week you decide that being plugged into the violinist is more burdensome than you expected, and that you now wish to unplug. Would it be morally impermissible to discontinue providing aid to the violinist merely because you began providing aid voluntarily?

To say that it would be would mean that the violinist's right to life does not entitle him to the use of your body for 9 months if you were plugged in involuntarily, but that it does entitle him to the use of your body if you plugged into him voluntarily. This is absurd.

I can think of other examples as well. Suppose that a woman consents to have sex with a man, but that during sex she decides that she no longer wants to engage in this act. Does initially consenting to sex mean that the woman has consented to continued sex if she decides that it's no longer desirable? Absolutely not, and to say otherwise would be to defend rape.

You seem to misunderstand what a right to life is. A right to life isn't a right to be kept alive, a right to life is a right not to be killed.

The thing is, abortion isn't just withdrawing the support, it's actively killing the foetus.
In your analogy, it would be akin to you plugging in, changing your mind and then stabbing the violinist in the heart.

You have dropped the tacit consent objection to Thomson's argument, and have decided to raise the killing versus letting die objection. There are many things that could be said in response to this objection, but the most simple and straightforward response is as follows. The killing versus letting die objection is not really an argument against abortion per se. But rather the type of method that is used. Abortions like hysterotomy and RU-486 do not kill the fetus but rather remove it and let it die. So, these types of abortions are more analogous to Thomson's story.




To use an analogy, closing your eyes at night is an act that is ordered towards falling asleep. So if you close your eyes you give tacit consent to the possibility that you might fall asleep, even if you don't explicitly consent to falling asleep.

Another analogy, let's say you live underground and you've created a pitfall trap into your home in order to catch food to eat. But unexpectedly a human walks along and falls in the trap. You bear some responsibility for the fact that this person has fallen into your trap, even if you didn't intend to catch any humans. Because of this, you don't have the right to kill this person on the grounds of trespassing because the person didn't deliberately enter the home; the only reason he/she is in the home is because of your actions.

This is not analogous to the violinist/pregnancy case. In the situation you described, the person who falls into your home is not using your bodily functions to go on living, nor are benefiting him like in the pregnancy and violinist case. These facts alone show that your analogy is mistaken.

It does work, I just substitute the body for the home.

In the analogy, you are the woman, the home is your womb, setting up the trap is consenting to sex and the unfortunate person is the foetus.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:27:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:18:29 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:56:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:30:21 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

Let's assume everything you said is correct, and that by having sex the woman does consent to being pregnant for 9 months. Does consenting to that state of affairs show that it would impermissible for her to abort? No, it does not. To show this, let me provide a modified example of the violinist story.

Suppose that you walk into the hospital where the violinist is staying at, and the doctors explain to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you decide to go and voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist. In this case you have consented to the fact that the violinist is now using your body. But have you consented by that act to continue letting him use your body for as long as is necessary?

Suppose that after a week you decide that being plugged into the violinist is more burdensome than you expected, and that you now wish to unplug. Would it be morally impermissible to discontinue providing aid to the violinist merely because you began providing aid voluntarily?

To say that it would be would mean that the violinist's right to life does not entitle him to the use of your body for 9 months if you were plugged in involuntarily, but that it does entitle him to the use of your body if you plugged into him voluntarily. This is absurd.

I can think of other examples as well. Suppose that a woman consents to have sex with a man, but that during sex she decides that she no longer wants to engage in this act. Does initially consenting to sex mean that the woman has consented to continued sex if she decides that it's no longer desirable? Absolutely not, and to say otherwise would be to defend rape.

You seem to misunderstand what a right to life is. A right to life isn't a right to be kept alive, a right to life is a right not to be killed.

The thing is, abortion isn't just withdrawing the support, it's actively killing the foetus.
In your analogy, it would be akin to you plugging in, changing your mind and then stabbing the violinist in the heart.


You have dropped the tacit consent objection to Thomson's argument, and have decided to raise the killing versus letting die objection.

Even the tacit consent objection isn't answered by Thomson's analogy. The tacit consent objection is that the woman has *caused* the foetus to be in a state of dependence and therefore has responsibility to care for it that way. In the analogy, the violinist is already in a dependent state - the woman didn't cause him to be in that state and therefore has no obligations to care for the violinist.

There are many things that could be said in response to this objection, but the most simple and straightforward response is as follows. The killing versus letting die objection is not really an argument against abortion per se. But rather the type of method that is used. Abortions like hysterotomy and RU-486 do not kill the fetus but rather remove it and let it die. So, these types of abortions are more analogous to Thomson's story.

RU-486, whilst not a direct killing of a foetus, is something that is done in order to end the life of the foetus by expelling it from the womb. So it isn't really as passive as 'unplugging'. It is more akin to throwing someone off a cliff- the actual killing is indirect but it still amounts to 'killing' as opposed to 'letting die'.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:13:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:27:51 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:18:29 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:56:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:30:21 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:32:09 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:02:14 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:06:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:37:34 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:38:31 PM, Philocat wrote:
I agree. The act of engaging in sexual intercourse is a tacit consent to the possibility of conceiving. This is because sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

No, it's not. The woman consents to the sex, not being pregnant for 9 months.

She consented to the possibility that she might get pregnant, whether she acknowledges it or not. Contraceptives are not foolproof and everyone knows it. If she gets pregnant, she can't then turn around and say 'But I didn't sign on for this'. People are not absolved of responsibility for their actions just because they wanted one thing but ended up getting something else - particularly when the risks are well-known.



Again, by having sex the woman does not consent to being pregnant for 9 months. This should be obvious, but you don't seem to understand. Let's put this into a better perspective with a modified version of the violinist analogy.

Suppose that you go to the opera and you read news reports that say some of the people who attend this opera have been kidnaped and hooked up to violinist who have kidney ailments. So, you know that there is a possibility that you might get hooked up if you attend the show. But despite this fact, you choose to go anyway and sure enough you get hooked up.

In this story you know that if you went to the show you might get hooked up to a violinist. But does knowing this risk mean that you have therefore consented to allow another person to use your body for 9 months? Clearly not. You consented to go see the show, not to being hooked up to a violinist.

This same line of reasoning applies to the pregnant woman. When the woman consents to sexual intercorse that does not mean she consents to being pregnant for 9 months.

Sex is an act that is intrinsically ordered towards pregnancy, that is the whole point of sex. Just like going on a diet is intrinsically ordered to losing weight; it doesn't make sense to say 'I consented to going on a diet, not losing weight!'.

So in you analogy, it isn't analogous to pregnancy because the act of 'going to operas' isn't intrinsically ordered towards 'getting plugged into a violinist'. If there was a possible world where people go to operas to get plugged in to violinists, then the act of attending the opera *would* be tacit consent to getting plugged in.

Let's assume everything you said is correct, and that by having sex the woman does consent to being pregnant for 9 months. Does consenting to that state of affairs show that it would impermissible for her to abort? No, it does not. To show this, let me provide a modified example of the violinist story.

Suppose that you walk into the hospital where the violinist is staying at, and the doctors explain to you that he needs your body for the next 9 months if he is to go on living. Once this is explained to you, you decide to go and voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist. In this case you have consented to the fact that the violinist is now using your body. But have you consented by that act to continue letting him use your body for as long as is necessary?

Suppose that after a week you decide that being plugged into the violinist is more burdensome than you expected, and that you now wish to unplug. Would it be morally impermissible to discontinue providing aid to the violinist merely because you began providing aid voluntarily?

To say that it would be would mean that the violinist's right to life does not entitle him to the use of your body for 9 months if you were plugged in involuntarily, but that it does entitle him to the use of your body if you plugged into him voluntarily. This is absurd.

I can think of other examples as well. Suppose that a woman consents to have sex with a man, but that during sex she decides that she no longer wants to engage in this act. Does initially consenting to sex mean that the woman has consented to continued sex if she decides that it's no longer desirable? Absolutely not, and to say otherwise would be to defend rape.

You seem to misunderstand what a right to life is. A right to life isn't a right to be kept alive, a right to life is a right not to be killed.

The thing is, abortion isn't just withdrawing the support, it's actively killing the foetus.
In your analogy, it would be akin to you plugging in, changing your mind and then stabbing the violinist in the heart.


You have dropped the tacit consent objection to Thomson's argument, and have decided to raise the killing versus letting die objection.

Even the tacit consent objection isn't answered by Thomson's analogy. The tacit consent objection is that the woman has *caused* the foetus to be in a state of dependence and therefore has responsibility to care for it that way. In the analogy, the violinist is already in a dependent state - the woman didn't cause him to be in that state and therefore has no obligations to care for the violinist.

You are confusing the tacit consent objection with the responsibility objection. The two are both ones from voluntariness, but the details are different. The tacit consent objection claims that because the woman voluntarily had sex, she has tacitly consented to be pregnant for 9 months. The responsibility objection claims that because the woman engaged in act that caused the fetus to become dependant on her, she has an obligation to provide aid to it by staying pregnant.

If you now want raise the responsibility objection to Thomson's argument, you need to explain why the woman causing the fetus to become dependant on her shows that she must remain pregnant for 9 months.

There are many things that could be said in response to this objection, but the most simple and straightforward response is as follows. The killing versus letting die objection is not really an argument against abortion per se. But rather the type of method that is used. Abortions like hysterotomy and RU-486 do not kill the fetus but rather remove it and let it die. So, these types of abortions are more analogous to Thomson's story.

RU-486, whilst not a direct killing of a foetus, is something that is done in order to end the life of the foetus by expelling it from the womb. So it isn't really as passive as 'unplugging'. It is more akin to throwing someone off a cliff- the actual killing is indirect but it still amounts to 'killing' as opposed to 'letting die'.

I think RU-486 is a clear case of letting die. When the embryo is expelled from the womb it's allowed to die. There is no "stabbing" like you mentioned earlier. Also, comparing RU-486 to throwing someone off a cliff is kind of silly. Taking that drug in no way resembles doing something of that nature. Moreover, I didn't see where you responded to abortion in the case of hysterotomy.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:29:56 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:24:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:22:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2015 10:11:53 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
By engaging in a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy, one bears responsibility for any situation that the fetus may find themselves in.

y

Because you brought about the situation against the fetus' will. Thus, you have the obligation to resolve the situation in a way that is favorable to the interests of the fetus. If you don't, then you've engaged in unjustifiable kidnapping, and should be sent to prison.

The fetus has no will.

"Against someone's will" simply means "without someone's permission".

I don't think those are very synonymous. In any case, the baby didn't ask to be born either, as you mentioned.

I'm not seeing the reason why we should assume they want to born instead of being aborted.

Life is naturally ordered to remaining alive. It is a passive will that is also reinforced by an active will. In the case of a 1 cell zygote, it is a passive will in that it attempts to continue to grow and live.