This discussion is closed.
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#41
Report 17 years ago
#41
(Original post by Cate)
So is it alright if I murder a random person just because I so wish?
No. But abortion in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, isn't murder.
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#42
(Original post by corey)
you have not answered my question, abortion is wrong in your view except in a few cirucumstances (i.e Rape) but that is irrelevant to the issue. Your beliefs are therefore inconsistent.
sorry i dont mean to be stupid but i dont actually think i understand your question then, could you please rephrase it for me?
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#43
(Original post by Howard')
Well, if you are such an imbecile that you don't want a baby but can't be bothered to take the pill or at least ensure your partner wears something then perhaps you aren't perfect parent material.
no need to get personal with the if you are such an imbecile, define the perfect parent?
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#44
Report 17 years ago
#44
(Original post by Speciez99)
no need to get personal with the if you are such an imbecile, define the perfect parent?
Not getting personal. It's called speaking in the subjunctive.
0
Custard
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 17 years ago
#45
(Original post by Howard)
No. But abortion in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, isn't murder.
Its not murdering a baby its removing a foetus. This on going debate over abortion will never be settled!
0
pedy1986
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 17 years ago
#46
(Original post by Speciez99)
sorry i dont mean to be stupid but i dont actually think i understand your question then, could you please rephrase it for me?
The issue we are dicussing is - Is abortion (morally) right or wrong?

Your argument is based on the view that if it is right or wrong hinges on cirumstances. For instance, if the girl was raped then abortion is morally right; on the other hand, if it was an accidently pregnancy then abortion is morally wrong.

What i'm questioning is how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong? Surely this is inconsistent.

Now, i'm sure you will argue on circumstance - but can we really bring circumstance into this? The action is not dependant on the cirucumstance, it is the same action regardless of the events leading up to it. Therefore I believe you cannot stand and say it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - because that is an inconsitent belief.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 17 years ago
#47
(Original post by corey)
Is that consistent? What you are saying is...given these circumstances then abortion is morally OK, but given other circumstances it is not OK.

Surely, the action must be viewed independant of circumstances, the action is what is under question and that does not alter with circumstances it is still 'an abortion'. So, you are saying that is it right and wrong at the same time - not consistent.
Circumstances DO matter.
In most cases, lying is wrong. (I suppose you agree.)
Yet, put yourself for instance in a WWII setting. You're a German farmer and you are hiding a Jewish family. If the Gestapo ask you: "Are you hiding Jews?", do you think it would be right to tell the truth?

Actions are not "good" or "bad", because of themselves, but because of the consequences they may have.
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#48
(Original post by Corey)
The issue we are dicussing is - Is abortion (morally) right or wrong?

Your argument is based on the view that if it is right or wrong hinges on cirumstances. For instance, if the girl was raped then abortion is morally right; on the other hand, if it was an accidently pregnancy then abortion is morally wrong.

What i'm questioning is how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong? Surely this is inconsistent.

Now, i'm sure you will argue on circumstance - but can we really bring circumstance into this? The action is not dependant on the cirucumstance, it is the same action regardless of the events leading up to it. Therefore I believe you cannot stand and say it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - because that is an inconsitent belief.
ok the difference is that if the women didnt use protection the baby is part of her body and she has accepted it, thus she has no control of it, ie its like a contract, if you found that the was a massive tv in your living room and you signed a contract for it u cant complain however if u didnt agree to it being there then you shouldnt have to have it there as u never wanted it there
sorry for the starnge example? are my views clear now and consistant ot u?
0
pedy1986
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#49
Report 17 years ago
#49
(Original post by zizero)
Circumstances DO matter.
In most cases, lying is wrong. (I suppose you agree.)
Yet, put yourself for instance in a WWII setting. You're a German farmer and you are hiding a Jewish family. If the Gestapo ask you: "Are you hiding Jews?", do you think it would be right to tell the truth?

Actions are not "good" or "bad", because of themselves, but because of the consequences they may have.
I do not think that is the case. You are advocating in a way ultilatarionism. Which says - 'a moral action is the one that gives the greatest happiness to greatest number etc etc' now is that really true?

Let us take for example the persecutation of Blacks? Everybody was happy for that to happen and saw it as 'right' but that does NOT make it a good action.
Also, we could kill an innocent man for stealing and that act as a dettorant of crimnals and reduce crime significantly -> Surely that is not a good action?

I am more inclined to Kants Catergorial Imperative than your version of morality.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#50
Report 17 years ago
#50
(Original post by corey)
The issue we are dicussing is - Is abortion (morally) right or wrong?

Your argument is based on the view that if it is right or wrong hinges on cirumstances. For instance, if the girl was raped then abortion is morally right; on the other hand, if it was an accidently pregnancy then abortion is morally wrong.

What i'm questioning is

Now, i'm sure you will argue on circumstance - but can we really bring circumstance into this? The action is not dependant on the cirucumstance, it is the same action regardless of the events leading up to it. Therefore I believe you cannot stand and say it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - because that is an inconsitent belief.
Well, you answered your own question........."how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong?" Looking at it from this angle there is clearly an inconsistency.

However, you're assuming that abortion is solely about the rights of the foetus and have scant regard for the rights of the mother. I disagree with this basic premise.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 17 years ago
#51
(Original post by corey)
The issue we are dicussing is - Is abortion (morally) right or wrong?

Your argument is based on the view that if it is right or wrong hinges on cirumstances. For instance, if the girl was raped then abortion is morally right; on the other hand, if it was an accidently pregnancy then abortion is morally wrong.

What i'm questioning is how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong? Surely this is inconsistent.

Now, i'm sure you will argue on circumstance - but can we really bring circumstance into this? The action is not dependant on the cirucumstance, it is the same action regardless of the events leading up to it. Therefore I believe you cannot stand and say it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - because that is an inconsitent belief.
From a utilitarian point of view, Speciez99's argument is not inconsistent.
If you define a morally right action as an action the sum of the consequences of which have a positive effect on the morally valuable beings involved, then in certain cases you could say abortion is right, in others you could say it is wrong.
If you suppose that the interests of the foetus do matter, then it would be wrong of a woman to abort just because she decided that after all ahe doesn't want a child. If the foetus is a human being, than that would be murder.
However if the same woman encounters some trouble in her pregnancy and if not aborting might put her life in danger, than abortion can be morally right, because the interests of the mother are more important than the interests of the foetus and because both are threatened at the same level: life and death.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report 17 years ago
#52
(Original post by Howard)
Well, you answered your own question........."how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong?" Looking at it from this angle there is clearly an inconsistency.

However, you're assuming that abortion is solely about the rights of the foetus and have scant regard for the rights of the mother. I disagree with this basic premise.
yes ok point taken, obviously this is opinion about whose rights we are dealing with. However, I justify my belief that it is soley the foetus rights because an abortion removes the right to life (which I think foetuses have). Although i admit it is removing the right to choice etc from the mother this for me is OK because it is less of a right than the right to life.

Again, this is just difference of opinion on rights etc so will never be resolved
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#53
(Original post by zizero)
From a utilitarian point of view, Speciez99's argument is not inconsistent.
If you define a morally right action as an action the sum of the consequences of which have a positive effect on the morally valuable beings involved, then in certain cases you could say abortion is right, in others you could say it is wrong.
If you suppose that the interests of the foetus do matter, then it would be wrong of a woman to abort just because she decided that after all ahe doesn't want a child. If the foetus is a human being, than that would be murder.
However if the same woman encounters some trouble in her pregnancy and if not aborting might put her life in danger, than abortion can be morally right, because the interests of the mother are more important than the interests of the foetus and because both are threatened at the same level: life and death.
thanks its always nice to have support in explaining ideas
0
pedy1986
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#54
Report 17 years ago
#54
(Original post by zizero)
From a utilitarian point of view, Speciez99's argument is not inconsistent.
If you define a morally right action as an action the sum of the consequences of which have a positive effect on the morally valuable beings involved, then in certain cases you could say abortion is right, in others you could say it is wrong.
If you suppose that the interests of the foetus do matter, then it would be wrong of a woman to abort just because she decided that after all ahe doesn't want a child. If the foetus is a human being, than that would be murder.
However if the same woman encounters some trouble in her pregnancy and if not aborting might put her life in danger, than abortion can be morally right, because the interests of the mother are more important than the interests of the foetus and because both are threatened at the same level: life and death.
I disagree with seeing this from a utiltarion viewpoint (study Philosophy?) as i don't believe it is really a valid ethical theory because it results in many perverse actions being justified.
0
llama boy
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#55
Report 17 years ago
#55
Ah, a good ol abortion thread.

The conservatives recite rhetoric and expect it to be taken as fact. ("it is murder")

The liberals debate such details as rape, how many weeks etc etc, which really avoids the issue.

Why does any being, inside or outside the womb, have a right to life if they are not self-aware?
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#56
(Original post by llama boy)
Ah, a good ol abortion thread.

The conservatives recite rhetoric and expect it to be taken as fact. ("it is murder")

The liberals debate such details as rape, how many weeks etc etc, which really avoids the issue.

Why does any being, inside or outside the womb, have a right to life if they are not self-aware?
ok thanks for your generalisations, so when does the baby become self aware and how can u detect it? surely that varies from baby to baby and thus is pretty ineffective in law?
0
llama boy
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#57
Report 17 years ago
#57
(Original post by corey)
I disagree with seeing this from a utilitarian viewpoint (study Philosophy?) as i don't believe it is really a valid ethical theory because it results in many perverse actions being justified.
Or, more concisely, "I disagree with utilitarianism because it isn't deontology."

:confused:
0
curryADD
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#58
Report 17 years ago
#58
(Original post by corey)
The issue we are dicussing is - Is abortion (morally) right or wrong?

Your argument is based on the view that if it is right or wrong hinges on cirumstances. For instance, if the girl was raped then abortion is morally right; on the other hand, if it was an accidently pregnancy then abortion is morally wrong.

What i'm questioning is how can the same action of having an abortion and the foetus which has the same rights in both cases be justified as both right and wrong? Surely this is inconsistent.

Now, i'm sure you will argue on circumstance - but can we really bring circumstance into this? The action is not dependant on the cirucumstance, it is the same action regardless of the events leading up to it. Therefore I believe you cannot stand and say it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - because that is an inconsitent belief.
according to christanity, abortion is wrong. however, not all people are christian, some people are atheists and dont believe that killing a fetus, is in fact, killing.

that is my basis of argument for abortions legality. such things should not be decided or restricted for some people, if their beliefs dont restrict it. why would it be fair for someone to say you cant do this because of my MORAL beliefs?

however, once you are outside of the womb, you can effectuively live without your mother, thus, in EVERYONE's case, make you THEN a holder of human rights.......
0
pedy1986
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#59
Report 17 years ago
#59
(Original post by llama boy)
Or, more concisely, "I disagree with utilitarianism because it isn't deontology."

:confused:
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 17 years ago
#60
(Original post by corey)
I do not think that is the case. You are advocating in a way ultilatarionism. Which says - 'a moral action is the one that gives the greatest happiness to greatest number etc etc' now is that really true?

Let us take for example the persecutation of Blacks? Everybody was happy for that to happen and saw it as 'right' but that does NOT make it a good action.
Also, we could kill an innocent man for stealing and that act as a dettorant of crimnals and reduce crime significantly -> Surely that is not a good action?

I am more inclined to Kants Catergorial Imperative than your version of morality.
How does utilitarianism justify the "persecution" of Blacks? (BTW, when were Blacks persecuted? I think you mean exploitation or servitude).
Not everybody was happy for these things to happen, as the interests of the black people involved were strongly undermined. Your arguments only works if the interests of Blacks are worth less than those of Whites, which I am sure is not what you wanted to say.

Killing an innocent man for stealing would also be wrong from an utilitarian point of view. The interests of the victim are threatened much more than those of society would benefit. And anyway, why would it be in society's interest to kill an innocent man? It would not be deterrant for criminals as the victim was not a criminal!

The Categorical Imperative says this, 'Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.' I don't see how aborting in a case of rape for instance would go against the categorical imperative: If a woman thinks that victims of rape should be allowed to abort that it is right for her to abort if she is a victim of rape.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (55)
4.82%
Uncertainty around my education (175)
15.35%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (127)
11.14%
Lack of purpose or motivation (163)
14.3%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (49)
4.3%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (65)
5.7%
Loneliness (97)
8.51%
Financial worries (38)
3.33%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (54)
4.74%
Exposure to negative news/social media (54)
4.74%
Lack of real life entertainment (60)
5.26%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (103)
9.04%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (100)
8.77%

Watched Threads

View All