Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sure. But the moral cause is the programmer who made the robot commit the act, not the robot.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Late term abortions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
adonis
Footballguy
So if rape is wrong because her body is being violated against her will, why is it unreasonable to suggest that a fertilized egg implanting in her body and taking up residence against her will can be seen as being wrong?
adonis
Footballguy
You attacking the cold virus is acceptable because you didn't consent to getting a cold.
Except by your concept of consent, you did consent to getting a cold because you breathed, or wiped your nose, or rubbed your eyes, knowing full well the chances that this would give you a cold.
adonis
Footballguy
I think it depends on what kind of accountability we're holding for folks.
For women, having sex doesn't mean we should hold them accountable for getting pregnant, imo. That's an indirect, and undesired, consequence of an action with a completely different purpose.
It's like inviting a guy back to your place to continue good conversation and companionship, and being ok with that, knowing there's a risk of unwanted consequences probabilistically, but not consenting to them.
At what point can a woman decide to take an action with a possible risk attached, without consenting to that risk, or being held accountable for a side outcome that they dont' want to happen?
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m pro choice. If some one has access to abortion procedures and has struggled with the decision that long, I think they have answered their own question and should give parenting a shot or give their child a shot with someone else. Unfortunately that is difficult and there is no money in connecting parents that want kids with parents who do not. There is money and simplicity in a medical procedure.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
You've been sitting on those links for a bit now, haven't you.
Are those guys in here talking about the other side like you claim? Also, I took your post to be a generalization of anti-gun people, not just the 2 dudes that posted that. Apologies if that wasn't the case.
adonis
Footballguy
I'm just enjoying having a conversation about a different way to look at pregnancy and abortion through a moral lens. I'm not fully sold on my own view, I just like to explore it.
But I do think there's something at the core of the concept of someone consenting to possible bad outcomes of an action just because they take an action, that explains a lot of how folks look at pregnancy, a woman's responsibility, and the morality of abortion in general.
I think that's truly erroneous and a concept that generally only applies when it comes to women, sex, and pregnancy. A guy would generally not operate with this concept of consent on a daily basis.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You ever feel like someone’s not listening to you?
I suppose it can be wrong. The question is, who has the moral responsibility for the wrong? In the case of consensual unprotected sex, she bears as much as anyone.
KCitons
Footballguy
Nope. It took me 5 minutes to search the gun thread using "blood" and "hands" as key words. I should bookmark them. Since you are the third or fourth poster that has made the claim that nobody has said it. The proof is there. And in the exact words as I stated. There are others comments that suggest the same, just not with the harsh wording. You're one that wants people to accept facts. I gave you facts, now you want to ignore them.
That wasn't two dudes, it was six. And they propose that anyone that doesn't call for stricter gun regulations to prevent mass shootings, has blood on their hands. Some would say the same could be applied to anyone that supports abortion for any reason other than medical or rape. Somehow we can justify one, but not the other. Interesting how that happens.
NREC34
Footballguy
I have no idea what you’re asking for but you want to bring up guns in almost every other thread outside of the gun threads so I figure it’s an important issue to you and I was pretty sure you wouldn’t trade your precious gun rights for it. I’m not surprised you won’t answer me except for asking me a bunch of questions.
As for your questions, yes, apply it to guns if you want. If someone can’t afford a gun they won’t buy it. Likewise if someone can’t afford to bring a baby into the world they might decide to have an abortion. If you want that to change come up with a government program that will pay women for 9 months of their time and guarantee a good home for the baby afterwards. Or just allow abortions early in the pregnancy at least. Late term ought be super rare and highly restricted but I guess there could be medical reasons. I’m definitely no expert.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, the cold analogy isn’t very helpful for that.
Now, for the question of whether we’re entitled to extricate parasitic organisms that have taken up root inside our bodies... that gets more interesting.
adonis
Footballguy
So would you say that a woman who goes back to a mans house, but doesn't want sex, but ends up getting raped bears moral responsibility for the wrong?
Or would you say that the actions of the rapist breaks the chain of control, and fully exonerates the woman from any moral responsibility? It's not that I'm not listening, it's that I am not focused on the same part of this equation of morality as you are. And perhaps I'm being dense...but i'm truly curious.
adonis
Footballguy
Basically the premise for this line of conversation. Is it acceptable to extricate parasitic ogranisms that have taken up root inside our bodies, against our will and without our consent?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The latter. Because an intentional, immoral act over which she has no control was undertaken by the rapist. She has zero moral responsibility.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
In my opinion, yes, but it’s not because of some morally culpable action by an egg, it’s purely because of the inviolable right to control one’s own body.
adonis
Footballguy
But she has control because she put herself in the position where the rape could take place, according to the analogy for sex.
A consensual unprotected act of sex is done with the express intent for pleasure, if the woman has no desire and is adversely disposed to getting pregnant.
So in that situation, the act of having sex is like the act of the woman entering the apartment with the man. The "rape" is the fertilization and implantation of the fertilized egg inside of her body, without her consent.
The fact that the rapist has free will and the fertilized egg does not, doesn't seem relevant.
adonis
Footballguy
I agree, and my questions weren't intending to assign morally culpable actions by an egg, but an attempt to reframe an unwanted pregnancy as something happening to a woman's body without her consent, much like we all accept rape is something we're not OK happening to a woman, under much the same circumstances.
One we generally accept as a problem in which we don't (shoudn't) blame the woman, but the other is fraught with the woman bearing responsibility for the unwanted outcome of pregnancy.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It is. The way to cut the thread of moral responsibility is with a morally justicisble act. An egg cannot. A rapist can.
I find the helpful question for me is not whether the egg “deserves” to be removed. Instead it is simply whether anyone’s rights trump the rights of a woman to control her own body.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I would imagine that it would be helpful if you could pinpoint the first action that has moral implications in that scenario.
adonis
Footballguy
Do you interpret my argument as being that the egg "deserves" to be removed because it's violating a woman's body without her consent?
adonis
Footballguy
The first action that has moral implications, even though I'm not entirely comfortable talking about this on a purely moral playing field, is when the woman's body is being used by another living thing against her will.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I interpret your argument as ascribing moral value to the actions of an egg. And I can’t find any other moral value in the discussion, so I’m not really sure what the argument is.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
@adonis -- HF and I disagree on the issue of abortion, but we both agree that this is the right way to frame the problem. Everybody's being polite to you because we get that you're just thinking out loud in good faith, but after you reflect on it a little you're going to realize that you've wandered down a wrong path here.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
But there is no moral value to the egg’s actions, any more than there would be to a virus. Or someone clinically insane.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I never said I wanted all abortions to be illegal. Yet you want to offer making it so, as long as all guns are confiscated and made illegal. That's why I said, that's not my point.
I think you would agree that gun ownership is a responsibility. The same way having sex is a responsibility. When you choose to be selfish or irresponsible, the outcome can be life threatening. Just as in the gun thread, we are trying to find ways to prevent without banning freedoms. Everyone agrees that the shooter is responsible when they take someone's life. It's being proposed that the gun owner is responsible if a child has access to an unsecured firearm and causes a loss of life. But, in the case of having sex, it's nobodies responsibility? If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, there is no guarantee that person will die. You could miss or it could just wound them. The same applies to sex. You could miss, or it could lead to pregnancy.
adonis
Footballguy
I appreciate the conversation, and admit that it seems that I'm missing a key point y'all are making. So this is the last question I'll ask and then sit back and think a bit more about this, because to me it's not about the morality or immorality of the egg or the rapist, it's about the reasonableness of a woman being able to do what she wants with her body. The rape analogy was just an attempt to put in stark contrast how much value we place on a woman being able to choose what happens to her body in one case (rape), but not in another (pregnancy).
For instance, assume a specialized AI pops up that's not conscious, and it develops an army of raping robots that look like men. They go out and rape women, without any specific initial actor, as they're basically just 0's and 1's without any free will, without any ability to do anything different, and without an original programmer who can accept moral culpability anymore than a rock can accept moral culpability by falling off a building and hitting someone on the head and killing them.
In that case, we can say that regardless of the free will, or the intention of the rapist robot, any woman has a right not to have her body invaded or used against her will. It's pretty straightforward, without need for there to be a morally culpable other party.
So in that case, it seems pretty clear that we'd be completely supportive of a woman doing whatever she can to protect herself and her body against these rapist robots, and if she had to blast one to bits to protect herself, no one would really care.
Yet in a similar fashion, a fertilized egg implants itself in her womb against her consent or wishes. It wasn't her intent when having sex for this to happen, and this mindless, morally-absent entity has done something against the wishes or consent of the woman. I find it hard to say why in one case it'd be totally justifiable for her to protect her body against something she doesn't want inside it, but in the other she has to accept it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think you’re just going from New Orleans to Baton Rouge by driving east all the way around the world.
What I think you’re getting at is “people have the right to control their own bodies. Period. Full stop.”
I don’t think you need to argue that an egg implanting itself is like rape to get there.
NREC34
Footballguy
Accidents can happen. Married people in general want to have sex. If they can’t afford a baby would you advocate they just abstain from sex, just in case?
If we ban sex other than sex expressly intended for procreation and ban guns I would think abortion and gun deaths would be totally solved, right?
KCitons
Footballguy
This is not a valid argument. There are birth control options that will prevent pregnancy without abstinence. It's the same thing as saying a gun owner can leave a gun sitting on a table and it may never be used to harm another human being. But, locking it up in a safe decreases that possibility greatly. It's about doing everything possible to prevent the negative outcome. Which is what is being proposed in the gun thread. But not here?
adonis
Footballguy
Was simply trying to reframe something that folks think of as OK (pregnancy in a woman without her consent) can be thought of in terms of something they don't think is ok (sex without her consent). It was more of a framing conversation, trying to approach the topic from a different angle than normal, to go around the traditional defenses.
I could simply have said a woman has the right to control her body, but that's a pretty standard approach.
If we agree that a woman has the right to control her body in situations like preventing rape, what arguments make that different than her protecting her body against a pregnancy she doesn't consent to? (and yes, I did read y'alls arguments)
Last edited by a moderator:
NREC34
Footballguy
Well it’s a valid argument for me because it could’ve happened to me. I have low T and didn’t have my medicine for a couple of months so I had no sex drive. I kept getting birth control pills for my wife each month anyway. We happened to have sex once for the first time in awhile and a couple days later she tells me she didn’t take her pills for a couple of days. In my mind I did nothing wrong unless you feel I need to watch her take her pill every day.
So my analogy to guns in my case would be that I bought my friend a gun and bought him a safe. He went out for target practice one day and laid it down on the table and forgot to put it in the safe. Then his kid played with it and something bad happened and I’m getting the blame for it.
I’m 46. I’ve already brought two kids in this world and I worry all the time if I’ll even be able to take care of what I have and I’d like to be able to retire at some point too to have a little time for myself before my time in this world is through.
It was a stressful couple of days until I got her a pregnancy test and found out she was not.
Main thing is that people aren’t perfect. It’s possible an unwanted pregnancy can happen. Having a choice is a good thing. If need be I’m 6 hours from Canada in case the conservatives they’ve packed on the court get Roe overturned. It would suck if it had to come to that though.
KCitons
Footballguy
The fundamental difference is that all people see the shooting of kids as being a bad thing. Even gun owners. Every shooting fuels the fire of people pushing for more gun control. Gun owners don't want more shootings, it's only going to lead to our inability to own guns. In the case of abortion, somehow there are those that can justify the death of an unborn child and they choose to ignore the other solutions that could lead to prevention. When compared to things like gun registration, safety courses, or even insurance, it does very little to effect the criminal element that would still acquire guns. In the case of abortion, the prevention methods would have a profound effect on the outcome.
KCitons
Footballguy
BTW, how is this argument any different than Stealthycat's claim that he could be a victim of a violent crime. And therefor needs the right to own a gun?
adonis
Footballguy
So how about this:
People care about the violation of a woman's consent in cases of rape, but not when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy.
"No, means No" is generally accepted when it comes to understanding that men have no place invading a woman's body without her consent, but if a woman takes birth control to say No to pregnancy, but still gets pregnant, her No no longer seems to matter to many pro-lifers.
In both cases her consent was violated. In both cases her body is being used in ways she doesn't approve of. And to me, it doesn't matter whether the rapist is a man with free will, or a sex robot programmed by AI overlords. The rape is wrong because her consent is violated.
Similarly in pregnancy, the pregnancy is wrong because the fertilized egg implanting in her womb against her wishes violates her consent.
Both the fertilized egg, and the rapist, are entering her body without consent, yet folks seem to be OK with saying she shouldn't have to just accept the rape, but can fight back and regain autonomy but are not OK with the woman regaining autonomy of her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
Many people who are pro-life would support a rape-victims ability to use lethal force to oppose a rape. If in the event of being raped, the woman gets a gun and shoots the man...most folks would consider that justifiable. And that act will only take a few minutes for the woman to bear. Why then is it wrong for a woman to protect her autonomy, to have her consent respected, by using lethal force to remove a fertilized egg from the wall of her uterus?
People care about the violation of a woman's consent in cases of rape, but not when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy.
"No, means No" is generally accepted when it comes to understanding that men have no place invading a woman's body without her consent, but if a woman takes birth control to say No to pregnancy, but still gets pregnant, her No no longer seems to matter to many pro-lifers.
In both cases her consent was violated. In both cases her body is being used in ways she doesn't approve of. And to me, it doesn't matter whether the rapist is a man with free will, or a sex robot programmed by AI overlords. The rape is wrong because her consent is violated.
Similarly in pregnancy, the pregnancy is wrong because the fertilized egg implanting in her womb against her wishes violates her consent.
Both the fertilized egg, and the rapist, are entering her body without consent, yet folks seem to be OK with saying she shouldn't have to just accept the rape, but can fight back and regain autonomy but are not OK with the woman regaining autonomy of her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
Many people who are pro-life would support a rape-victims ability to use lethal force to oppose a rape. If in the event of being raped, the woman gets a gun and shoots the man...most folks would consider that justifiable. And that act will only take a few minutes for the woman to bear. Why then is it wrong for a woman to protect her autonomy, to have her consent respected, by using lethal force to remove a fertilized egg from the wall of her uterus?
KCitons
Footballguy
Let's take it one step further. If woman says that she is using birth control, but isn't, and the father proceeds to have sex, should the father be able to force the woman to have an abortion? After all, she is using his sperm to create a life, without his consent.
Tom Skerritt
Footballguy
This is a stupid argument. You said that pro-choicers claim that mass shootings are the fault of all gun owners. And that’s not at all what anyone is saying. These are two totally different arguments, and you’re making #### up.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If we agree that a person’s right to control his or her own body is inviolable, there aren’t many arguments against it.
There’s the prison argument - but restricting movement isn’t the same as controlling the internal workings of someone’s body. Even solitary. Even restraints.
The best one may be this: it is not permissible to choose your own freedom of control of your own self over the life of another human being.
Of course, that’s a tough one to justify if you follow it down the rabbit hole.
KCitons
Footballguy
The links tell a different story.
Since this board leans left, and many of the posters in the gun thread share a left leaning mentality, it's easy to make that correlation.
I'm open for reasons why you think that's not true. Calling my argument stupid and saying I make things up doesn't prove your point.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Because the use of force to end the rapist’s life is justified because he is morally culpable.
This is what I mean about viewing conservative morality through a punitive lens. He deserves what happens to him.
Similarly, traditional conservative morality says that even if she doesn’t want to have a baby but has consensual sex, she deserves what happens to her because she had consensual sex.
adonis
Footballguy
The moral culpability doesn't come from free will though, it comes from violating the woman's consent.
This is why the distinction for me matters. Both the rapist, and the rapist robot, would deserve equally whatever outcome comes to them because they are involved in violating the woman's consent. Free will doesn't matter, violation of the consent does.
So in the case of a fertilized egg violating the consent of the mother, why wouldn't that meet the same criteria?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No, it does come from free will. Traditionally we don’t hold people responsible for things they don’t do of their own free will because of this.
adonis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
It is an interesting conversation to talk about consent as it pertains to parenting. I have a feeling a society built on pure consent would be chaotic. If father could disown kids legally just because they no longer consent to having a kid, well, that'd be pretty bad.
KCitons
Footballguy
There are a couple of thoughts I had around this approach.
1 -- According to my son, the Marine Corps has discussions about women that seek out military members in an effort to get pregnant. They are easy targets (young, out on their own for the first time, etc), and have a guaranteed child support and health benefits for the child. If given the option, would the service member force the woman to get an abortion? It would eliminate the financial responsibility of paying child support and the I could see the government pushing this approach to save on healthcare costs.
2 - Whether true or not, it seems that many women on government assistance have multiple children. Some believe that it's in order to receive more assistance. Again, we see the financial burden falling to the father or tax payer. The penalty for failure to pay child support can include jail time. If given the choice, would these fathers choose abortion?
adonis
Footballguy
I don't believe it'd be right for them to "choose" abortion for a woman. The best society could do is allow them to "abort" their legal obligation to the child.
However, a society that allowed this type of thing would be a pretty chaotic one indeed.
Being a man myself, and some of my best friends being men, I know how fickle we can be.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I highly doubt you learned that - I don't know anyone who supports slavery
equating abortion to genocide ... that's what Sanger was but today's abortion is just more like infanticide
Similar threads
