let me give it one more try.

The first premise of the argument is just about people like you and me. That is it. The point is to establish if is morally impermissible, without justification, to kill people like you and me, and one significant harm done to us by being killed is the loss of our future, which we value. This is the first premise because it would make no sense to argue the killing of the fetus is morally impermissible - before establishing that killing people like us is morally impermissible.

than the arguments establishes a pure biological time line between born people like you and me, and the unique human organism we were before we were born. Without break, in time and space in the world we live in you moliere can trace your existence directly back to a unique human organism that could only have ever been the thing we have come to call Moliere.

If there is a direct and unique time line to the past - each point on that line was at one point a future.

So that human organism had a future, and if without justification, taking a future is morally impermissible, abortion is morally impermissible.

The classic objections are - than this future should extend back to the sperm and egg and every possible of their combination - making contraception impermissible. That is countered back with it is concerned with a unique human organism. And there is no unique organism until shortly after conception

The next classic objection is, that because the fetus is unaware of its future, it does not value it. So abortion is permissible. That is countered with the concept of ideal desire, basically If you get hit by a car and do to the injury are unable to tell us you want medical assistance, we should assume if you were able to ask, you would desire medical treatment. If the fetus was able to tell you it desired to live, it would.

And the current twist on this last point made by David Boonin, and where it stands today is. One is not able to grant ideal desire to a being, until that being has the mental development to know what some desire is.

That is basically it.

To justify the people we want dead? So the future value of people is what we care about, yes?

It seems to me that this point is still unaddressed by you. You claim academic authority to ignore the point about people, but even you use the plain language that makes the most sense of the arguments you're making -- that people's lives are at stake, according to yourself. So you skip the quagmire of personhood while still caring about future value in your argument because of the quagmire of personhood -- it's just unaddressed and assumed. — Moliere

you are taking that comment completely out of the context of the conversation I was having with bitter -

he said -

I may not like that arrangement, but it seems to be an exceedingly well established set up. Just about everybody approves of the properly presented war. Just about everybody agrees that killing to protect one's property is OK. Self-defense, sure -- fire away. Just like nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like certain kinds of killing. People who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that persons are being killed could at least be consistent and be committed Quakers. 99 times out of 100 they are not. — Bitter Crank

my response was

↪Bitter Crank hard to argue with that. I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago. — Rank Amateur

it was in response to the killings of war. etc.

does that help ??

I am more than happy to address any point in any argument I have made, but on such a long and scattered thread - if you could kind of clearly state the concept or issue you want me to address. With all the scattered words over all these pages - easy to find a few to highlight and argue. But I will do my best

Translation, the fetus can be whatever you want it to be to support your position. — Rank Amateur

is as good a translation of this :

Does that preclude us from thinking usefully about the idea of a person, though he or she be not-yet, non-existing? Certainly not! But neither is it a license to grant existence to something that isn't - as pro-lifers try to do. They, I argue, are not about the efficacy of the thinking about, but rather represent that the thought about is a present fact. — tim wood

as anything.

It is a jumble of words without any meaning. You can think of the fetus as a possible person, but you cant think of them as a possible person if in doing so is in conflict with your opinion.

The paragraph is just a mess.

Without amending the situation there is no moral judgement one could make on either course of action the cop chooses. We are all free to opine action A or action B is preferable, for whatever reason we find suits us. But to pass a moral judgement on the impossibly difficult situation the officer is in, well that may be immoral itself.

Some fetuses that were not aborted are never satisfied. — Bitter Crank

Truer words....

If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future,
— Rank Amateur

It would be nice if you read with any comprehension; and it would be nice if you were intellectually honest. See, this is what I wrote above:

Does that preclude us from thinking usefully about the idea of a person, though he or she be not-yet, non-existing? Certainly not! But neither is it a license to grant existence to something that isn't - as pro-lifers try to do. They, I argue, are not about the efficacy of the thinking about, but rather represent that the thought about is a present fact.
— tim wood

The question throughout has been distinguishing between what is, and what you can think about. You can think about anything you like, but that does not mean that what you think about actually exists other than as the idea you're thinking about. — tim wood

Translation, the fetus can be whatever you want it to be to support your position.

Tim: Your explanation has convinced me. I will strike "potential person" from my thinking on abortion. Fetus it is. (I would offer to strike "potential person" from my future thinking on abortion, but I haven't had those future thoughts yet, so they don't exist, and can not be edited.) — Bitter Crank

So gentlemen, a logic question. If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future, how than can it be a future burden on the mother, how can it have an effect on her future life she would want to avoid, how can it be a future burden on society?

It would seem you want your future cake, and eat it too.

not really all that important to my philosophy on the issue. Like most of where the discussion is today, personhood is not an issue. Although often discussed in forums like this, or in legal discussions. It is not really a part of near any academic discussions on the topic, because it is not a very defendable concept. Even if not believed to be true, it is usually granted.

My view is pure biology, at some point after the process of conception is complete, there is now a new and unique human, at exactly the correct state of human development commensurate with its age.

Where I do think there is a valuable discussion is a discussion on the competing rights of the fetus and the mother. Dr. Judith Thompson's pro choice argument is to me the best one. And while I believe I have a reasonable objection to it, it is not absolute.

As for personhood, as a philosophical concept it can have merit depending on the issue that is being discussed. As a legal concept, it has a long history of being used by those in power, to cleave off a group of people, so those in power can do things to them, they could not do to them if they were persons.

2 things, firstly, when one talks of personhood, one needs to declare if it is being used in a philosophical or legal way, because the stakes are different.

Secondly, the issue with the concept of personhood, is it is arbitrary, variable, and used with a prejudice toward the desired answer.

It always comes down to:

A fetus is not a person because it does not have trait X, Then someone will give an example of what we consider a person that does not have trait X, than trait X is modified so it only applies to the fetus.

Which turns the logic of the argument into, the fetus is not a person because it is not a person

In your case, a fetus is not a person until it has developed lungs to breathe air.
I come back, but there are many persons, who either through illness, or accident have lungs that do not work, and need outside assistance to breathe. They are still persons

And you would come back, modifying your point so it only applies to fetuses.

And once again the personhood argument ends in the same place it always does, a fetus is not a person because you say a fetus is not a person.

agree

Women might have fewer abortions IF policy and practice in the United States really were pro-child, and pro-family. They are not. From pre-natal care to post-natal support to family leave to flexible work schedules to high-quality affordable day-care services, The US fails across the board. — Bitter Crank

Completely agree

The American working class (which is about 90% of the population) has experienced decades of economic decline. Affordable support services have become much harder to find, if they exist at all. For the mother and father to both work, most to all of one of their incomes will be devoted to day-care for the first 6 years. If the other spouse's income isn't enough for everything else (it often isn't) then the family falls into a downward spiral of rising costs and declining income, or a sacrifice of one of the spouses careers, or both, and other untoward consequences. — Bitter Crank

Completely agree

It is no wonder that couples choose to abort children they simply can not afford to have. For single working women, a child is a much more difficult proposition. — Bitter Crank

And, that is a shame

The rate of poverty, marriage failure, single parenthood, dysfunctional families, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on and so forth has been on an upward curve because of adverse economic trends for most people. Middle-aged working class white men in the rust belts and rural districts aren't committing suicide at remarkably high rates because they lack imagination and drive. The number of school children who do not know for sure who will feed them or provide them with a bed tonight is and has been on the rise because families are falling apart. — Bitter Crank

Completely agree

The connection to abortion? Abortion is the most affordable solution. Don't like abortion? Then work for a social democratic government that is capable of organizing economic resources for the benefit of the majority of the people--the 90%--rather than the 10% richest people. — Bitter Crank

Completely agree, and this is very much what I was trying to say. And the person who is bearing the real emotional burden is the woman. The incredibly high rate of abortion is a symptom of some core problems of society. All these pressures you correctly point out, are not making abortion a choice, they are taking the choice away.

. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. — Bitter Crank

I think every child is a child is better

But it does point to how badly we as a people need to distort biology and logic to justify abortion.

Examples:

Pro choice people will say there is no such thing as a potential person, but the pospect of how that potential person will affect their life is why they are having an abortion.

Unwanted children are bad, so we should kill them. We just need to do it at a point in their development where it is easier to justify.

Unborn humans are not persons, because ( fill in the arbitrary criteria), and since they are not persons we can kill them. Not the philosophic, but the "legal" concept of personhood has been human societies go to method of carving off a class of people, so we can do things to them we can't do to real persons like us.

A new and unique human life doesn't begin after the process of conception. And even if it does that doesn't matter.

I don't think it's terrible that women abort pregnancies the Plan B or early abortions (before 21 weeks). It is terrible when the possibility of getting a safe abortion is precluded. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. Couples who bring a wanted baby home are going to do a much better job of caring for this child. (I'm in favor of couples raising children, too. Two parents are better than 1, two breadwinners are better than 1, two role models (male/female) are better than the model of one person only, etc. — Bitter Crank

I think abortion, as a method of birth control, is a symptom of a rather complicated web of social issues and pressures. I don't believe anyone at the time of Roe vWade, would have imagined that since then, there have been over 60 million abortions done in the US. That is a hard number to grasp. If 60 million names were put on the Vietnam memorial wall, it would stretch for 50 miles.

I believe at the beginning of legal abortion the premise was they would be rare, a last resort, and a lesser evil than having those rare cases seek illegal abortions. That changed. Sex has changed, some for the better, some for the worse. Sex has become more transactional, comoditized, since the pill made the prospect of sex without responsibility a possibility.

What happened was, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.

Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.

But that’s an illusion. Abortion can’t really “turn back the clock.” It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone around the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. Life stretches on after abortion, and generally the only person who worries about her irreversible choice is the woman.

Abortion is pro men, pro power, pro all the people around the mother who perceive their life will be inconvenienced by a child. Who want a do over for that responsibility free sex society promised them.

What awful pressure we are putting on woman when we now have a tug of war between a woman and her baby. It may be the first time in history when mothers and children have been assumed to be at odds. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her own child. This is an aberration of reality.

This is a fiction, caused by a societal revolution in the last 50-60 years. Much of it good, some of it with a cost. And woman are paying a high price.

We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child?

Abortion indisputably ends a human life. But this loss is usually set against the woman’s need to have an abortion in order to freely direct her own life. It is a particular cruelty to present abortion as something women want, something they demand, they find liberating. Because nobody wants this. No woman wants to have an abortion. But once it’s available, it appears to be the logical, reasonable choice. All the complexities can be shoved down that funnel. Yes, abortion solves all the problems; but it solves them inside the woman’s body. And she is expected to keep that pain inside for a lifetime, and be grateful for the gift of abortion.

No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.

Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.

What abortion has become is just a new form of oppression of women.

60 million abortions since Roe is the butcher bill we are paying for our continued oppression of women. Society says we should have responsibility free access to their bodies, and when responsibility and all the fear and uncertainty that comes with it does happ, we do violence on the woman's body to make every one around the woman's life easier.

That is what abortion has morphed into. Money and power have just turned it into a well marketed, readily available, means of oppression of women.

Yes, something is wrong: We are doing a piss-poor job of sex education and pregnancy prevention education. Both of which are a critical piece of "life education" which we don't do very well at either. Still, even well-informed people engage in sex without pregnancy prevention in place, and women get pregnant who would really rather not have. — Bitter Crank

Agree

I have no better way of saying this.

He is going to make an argument about the nature of the fetus

Before he starts he is asking the reader to assume that before he goes on, the nature of what a fetus is has something to do with the morality or immorality of killing it.

If the reader can not grant that whatever a fetus is, has no bearing on the morality or immorality of abortion he can stop reading.

That's it.

This is a simple concept, and now you are so committed to your completely baseless and inane position you will fight it to the bitter end, instead of a simple admission that you are misreading the assumption.

hard to argue with that. I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago.

Something is very wrong when 1 in 5 pregnancies in the us ends in abortion. Any one who finds that acceptable has lost their compass.

I didn't even make it through the whole post, All this shows is you have not even made the slightest effort to understand the argument, you are arguing against.

You believe what you believe because you believe it. So much for philosophy.

l, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being. The argument is based on a major assumption. Many of the most insightful and careful writers on the ethics of abortion—such as Joel Feinberg, Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., L.W. Sumner, John T. Noonan, Jr., and Philip Devine—believe that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that they are — tim wood

My God, for the now 5th time. The major assumption he is making is, that the nature of what a fetus is, is a determining factor in if abortion is or is not moral. It does NOT assume anything other than, if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion moral, OK, or if the fetus is such a thing as would make abortion immoral OK.

All that assumption is saying, and why it is first in the argument is, before I make a case about what the nature of the fetus is, we need to assume that the nature of the fetus has something to do with the morality or immorality of abortion.

Your continued inability to understand this rather easy point of logic is pure ignorance, arrogance or obstinance take your pick.

yes p1 is all about you me, want to call us persons, I don't care.

But it had nothing at all, about fetuses, they are not even mentioned in p1. ALL P1 SAYS IS IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

After pages and pages what I have come to realize is that for many they don't care what the argument says, they disagree with it because they disagree with it. So much for philosophy.

my goodness, for like the 20th time. p1 of the argument has NOTHING to do with the fetus, NOTHING

Here is the whole logic of the argument

First- you have to show killing born humans is morally wrong, because if it is not immoral to kill born people you can't argue it is immoral to kill the unborn.

Next, it makes the case the major harm done when killing the born is the loss of their future, which they value

Next it just makes a pure biological argument that links a time line between born humans to the unborn humans they were at one time.

And says, that human organism has a future, just as we all had a future at the same exact time in our development

And says, if an unjustified taking of a future is immoral, it is immoral all the time, and the stage of development does not matter

That is the whole logic of the argument, and it has nothing to do with personhood, nothing

The FOV argument has ben shown to be in error. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/250662) — Banno

You changed the argument into what you want it to say so it doesn't work, and then say see it doesn't work. That is just garbage.

At the time I told you there is nothing at all in the FOV argument that makes any claim of personhood, it was the whole point of the argument.

You defeat of FOV argument is completely in your head.

But don't feel bad, what you did is the very heart of most pro choice arguments.

The fetus is not a moral actor, because (fill in some arbitrary criteria- modified so it only applies to the fetus), now since it is not a moral actor we can kill it.

Ok, you are right the proposition is not conditional. It is "the car has an engine" , If you wish to argue it, you say, "the car does not have an engine because....."

You want to say, the car does not have an engine, because I don't believe it has an engine, and I don't have to tell you why, so until you can convince me, to my satisfaction, there is an engine. There is no engine just because-

So the argument fails because you say so.

But can we not do this about flying horses and cars, what is the specific proposition in Dr Marquis argument you want to claim is false, and why.

but to address your point yet again.

In a syllogistic argument, the person making the argument states propositions they claim to be true, and if those propositions are true - lead to a logical conclusion.

If one believes the propositions are false, he argues back your proposition is false, because ....

If i understand your unique objection to this 30 year old argument is:

The proposition that people like you and i have a future that we value, and the the unjustified taking of that future is a significant harm to us.

When applied to the fetus is in effect begging the question

And is the equivalent of a proposition of there are flying pink horses in the air, therefor there are flying pink horses in the air.

When we did this the first time, i countered with, it is not the same thing, because i claim your proposition is false - because i looked outside and there are no pink horses in the air. Since your proposition is false, your argument fails. But it fails because your proposition is false. If you said I propose that sometimes there are clouds in the sky, therefor sometimes there are clouds in the sky. Your argument would be not be false -

So, if you think Marquis' propositions are false, you need to show how they are false. Where this got us before was - no I had to prove to you the proposition was true for you to accept it. Which is not what an argument is, otherwise every argument ever made can be defeated with the universal objection

Your proposition is false, because i don't believe it and I don't have to tell you why, and until you convince me it is still false so there ...

at least that is my understanding where we are on this point.

Deep breath indeed! From the first citation on your list: "Marquis makes the points that:..." Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them. (I had to resist putting that last in all caps. Do I need to?) — tim wood

so I am sure you are right, but I have gone back over those links I sent you - and I can't find the quoted line above in them -

Or am i reading your post incorrectly.

is this part "Marquis makes the points that:..." not sure what the .... part is, from the links, and are you adding the

Alas, he never did, he merely assumed them, and he clearly says that he was assuming them.


which if this is the case, you are just once again making the same point over and over and over again -

agree - seem to be talking passed each other, and sure i am in no small measure to blame - enjoy the rest of your day

I have no original arguement to make on the issue - and in 18 pages have not seen an origiinal one against -

if originality was a requirement on this forum it would require much less band width

The hypothetical judge just above, in my opinion, is not making a case for moral or ethical responsibility, or cause. I'm guessing he orders support as the defendant's burden to help defray the cost of an expense he created, as opposed to others paying for it. — tim wood

and the difference between " burden to --- an expense he created" and responsibility is ???

just a quick grab off the internet, these folks who argue against marquis
seemed to have missed your point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/119
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Marquis_abortion_outline.htm
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873
https://arcdigital.media/misunderstanding-marquis-ba6242d0d873


and in maybe the single best serious book on the subject “ A defense of Abortion” by David Boonin
he refers to FOV argument as “ the most significant potentiality argument for the immorality of abortion” and then goes on with his argument against - which I have shared with you - somehow – he missed it too.

Again take a deep breath - if all of these people have missed your point in an argument that has lasted 30 years, shouldn't you, just as a thoughtful person - only for the briefest of moments consider the possibility you could - dare i say - be wrong.

please don't continue to make vague semantic references - if you actually have a point about what you want responsibility to mean in the case we are discussing - than tell me what it is, so we can examine it. Stop dancing, make a clear, concise and supported point please.

EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T ARGUMENTS. Did you not read them? Did you not read where more than once the author made explicitly clear that he was merely assuming his premises? Look: I can assume the moon is made of green cheese, and I can have that as a premise in an argument. But neither assuming it nor using it as a premise makes it true, and if it isn't true the argument is reduced to rhetorical exercise (which I believe the author understood perfectly well, being a professional philosopher). And any conclusion therefrom gets no value from the argument. Indeed, if the conclusion happens to be true, that truth has nothing to do with the argument. But all of this you pay zero attention to. So, what are you selling? — tim wood

he and they ( one by the way was a pro choice argument) does no such thing, and i have explained your error in on this point a few times.

But just take a dispassionate step back, you are saying the most published, argued, and referenced arguments on the topic for the last 30 years, are the equivalent of

Look: I can assume the moon is made of green cheese, and I can have that as a premise in an argument. — tim wood

does that really make sense to you ? Has the world of serious argument on this topic missed the point you are making for 30 years ? And only you Tim Wood has seen it. Or, is it just possible, the rest of the world has found some reason to continue to discus this argument because it has some merit.

If the results are direct and predictable, there is no problem with responsibility. If they are neither - like a butterfly effect - then there is a problem.. — Echarmion

Is pregnancy as a result of sex the former or the later ?

We know what we are talking about -

I say there is a responsibility
You say no - Butterfly effect
I say really -
You say as above

This is really hard to continue with

First, the moral standing of the foetus is questionable, particularly in early pregnancy. — Echarmion

for like the 4th time, this is an assumption in the concept we are discussing, has to be - if the fetus has no moral standing - there is no need for tacit consent - the woman can do as she sees fit. If we want to discuss the concept this has to be an assumption.

This is really hard to continue with

Second, in order to establish a responsibility for the well being of that foetus, we need to somehow connect it's dependence on the mother to an act of her. — Echarmion

Really - there is the whole have sex thing

But the only act that is apparently available is the act of conception, and at that point the person that is supposedly impacted by that act does not exist. That is unless we assume they already existed as some kind of spirit waiting to be incarnated. — Echarmion

There is zero logic in this. How does conception, and that being come into existence - for now the 5th time for the sake of this argument we have to assume has moral standing, oh yea i remember - sex

And third, even if we ignore these points, as we have done so far, it's still not clear just how much we can demand from the mother based on her responsibility, and it seems we need to examine specific cases. — Echarmion

With this I agree. In this example it is a case of competing rights, and the answer would in many cases be dependent on the individual circumstances. For example life of the mother, serious or permanent damage to the mother, the prospect of a servery handicapped child. etc etc. But none of that matters if the there is no tacit approval. Without it, the mother has absolute autonomy over the use of her body with regard to the fetus.

I am having trouble attaching a consequence as significant as several months of unwanted pregnancy, and then giving birth, to sex, even unprotected sex. Of course small errors can have life-changing consequences under various circumstances. But these consequences are usually the result of having to alleviate damage done, not to create some desirable state of affairs. — Echarmion

I understand that is your belief, and that is 100 pct fine. But that is not argument.

I think we have been back and forth enough on this -

these are the types of exchanges with you on this topic - that i find frustrating.

You say

"In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options."
— Echarmion

then I respond

"So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes."

and you just say

No.

it is like "who's on first " ( hope you get the reference )

This is just weird. Is there a "not" missing somewhere? — Echarmion

Yes it should be.


So we are NOT responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina?

Is responsibility consent? — tim wood

Is not an answer to the question, is a dodge

assuming only for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a moral actor,
— Rank Amateur
You can demonstrate anything if you can assume anything. — tim wood

I asked at the start that this be assumed for the sake of arguing this concept - because it has to be for the concept to apply. If the child is not a moral actor - the concept is absurd. - Again - if one is not willing, just for sake of exploring this concept, to play along with that - fine.

Sure, but what exactly does "responsibility" mean here? — tim wood

for the existence of the fetus - seemed to follow to me

Sorry, but the question is substantive. Reason in argumentation, here, is what I think the whole point is - because it's a philosophy site. But you're arguments seem anti-reason., as if all that mattered was your conclusion, never mind who it's got to.. Is that the truth of it? — tim wood

really - i have put forth the 2 major - non person hood arguments on the topic. Published, referenced and seriously argued for 30 years. I have given the premises, and the conclusions. And at least to my POV have not had a reasoned objection on this thread.

It appears to me your definition of doing philosophy is agreeing with you.

In any case, my consent is linked to my intention. Consent is an intentional act, and implied consent needs to conserve that intentionality, either by reference to another intention I do actually have, or by reference to an intention I would presumably have formed, had I been aware of the options. — Echarmion

So, are we relieved of the responsibility of our acts of free will, simply by them not being intended? I didn't want to hit that car as I ran the red light, my intention was only to save a few minutes.

uming you do not disagree that consent needs to be linked to intention:
If you do not intent to have a child, and do in fact hope or assume that the sex will not lead to pregnancy, then you do not consent, implicitly or otherwise, to the consequences of that pregnancy. To assume you implicitly consented by having sex would ignore your actual intentions and replace them with the opposite. — Echarmion

Yet, you have agreed already that the father has to pay child support, after he has said he had no intention of having the child. Can you bridge that for me?

So there is a case to be made on the basis of implied consent, but only for intentional pregnancies. — Echarmion

You realize that is a blatant contradiction in terms

I did not expect that statement to be controversial. You are familiar with the term "butterfly effect", I assume? I think it's fairly obvious that you cannot be responsible for every possible outcome of your actions. That would turn responsibility into mere causality. — Echarmion

So we are responsible for the direct and predictable results of our act of free will because a butterfly flapped it wings in Argentina? Not buying the butterfly defense in this specific set of circumstances. Seems a reach to me. But, thank you for the reasoning behind the statement, it helps.

In the realm of morality, I think in order to progress at this stage, we'd need to establish just how much responsibility sex entails. I don't think having protected sex is negligent. Unprotected sex, maybe, but it's probably not "running a red light during rush hour" negligent. — Echarmion

I would agree, for sure that their is a continuum of responsibility of degree with not having sex at one end, and unprotected sex, during ovulation at the other end.

And in a practical sense, if an effective method of contraception is used effectively, well over 95 or more percent of this issue is moot. And, while effectively trying to limit the possible results of your actions is the right thing to do, I still would argue the mere change in the probability of the result does not relieve you of the responsibility

A stone cannot consent. An infant cannot consent. A minor cannot consent (to some things). Of people who can consent, being subject to gravity is not something they consent to. Needing food and water to survive is not something they consent to. Being the brother of your brother is not something you consent to. — tim wood

Can you tie that to the father and mother having no responsibility for the consequence of their act of free will please.

Sheer failure to understand plain English in favor of what you want it to say. Responsibility is arguably so, although subject to qualification. The "therefore" is wishful fantasy - I cannot even call it thinking. I wonder if you are confusing implication and inference. You infer "tacit consent." And you're free to infer whatever you like. What you mean, or should want to mean to make your case, is that the consent is implied, and it is not. — tim wood

Yet again, just a bunch of words that say I disagree, With no support.

Are we or are we not responsible for the predictable outcomes of our acts of free will?
If no, why.

If yes,
Is pregnancy the predictable out come of sex?

Again, assuming only for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a moral actor, Why are the mother and father not responsible?

But throughout this thread you have seemed immune to reason What exactly is your purpose? What are you about? — tim wood

And the Tim wood closing barb that no comment is complete without

thanks , banno. An assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral actor. Has a right to life. Otherwise the argument is absurd. So, just for the sake of arguing the concept it has to be assumed.

I can try again: Implied consent is not imposed consent. The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions. Corresponding to that, if the declared intent of a person is to avoid a certain scenario, this rules out implied consent.[/quote

"The intent must be actually implied by either the interests of the person whose consent you try to establish, or their actions." - Ok, the argument is, that the actions of the mother, in this case, having sex where pregnancy is a possible result is " or their actions" What this point does not address is

there is no implied consent by the mother, because ...........

] — Echarmion

Consent is an intentional act, it's giving permission. You cannot reduce it to merely being aware of a possibility. — Echarmion

That is true of explicit consent, But implied consent, as you have already agreed here

Implied consent is a valid concept. — Echarmion

to as a valid concept is by definition not an intentional giving of permission.

This is again all based on the assumption that you use the common, approximately legal definition of consent. If by implied consent you mean something significantly different, I'd ask you to provide an explanation. — Echarmion

well here

Implied consent is a valid concept. — Echarmion

, you accept the concept and 2 lines later you ask me to define it.

but in any case - this should work
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation

The reasoning here is that unpredictable or extremely unlikely outcomes of an act of free will are not actually expressions of that will. — Echarmion

because ...... yet again you need to support the reasons behind statements like that. Give an example of where it would apply. As it stands it is just an opinion -

Your argument was explicitly based on the notion of consent. If you want to establish the moral obligation some other way, you need to actually make that argument. I cannot respond to arguments in your head. — Echarmion

My argument was about implied consent, which you have already agreed is valid. I have defined it, I have shown how it could possibly apply to the use of the mothers body, and gave an example in the case of paternal child support where it is used. Not sure how much better it could be explained.

It's odd that you arrive at this conclusion given that I have explicitly stated that it's not based on responsibility. — Echarmion

but your wrote

Because the parents are the ones most closely associated to the creation of the child. Given that a child has certain material needs in order to develop, who else is supposed to shoulder this burden if not the parents? — Echarmion

The issue I have with your "style", for lack of a better word, is that it seems to me you don't stick to one specific line of argument. You have alternatively used either responsibility or consent as the basis for your argument, but those are different concepts. I don't see how you can switch from one to the other without changing the entire structure of your argument. — Echarmion

yea - i feel the same, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I tried to be clear. Looks like i failed. But I hold to my point, that so much of your objections have been completely unsupported opinions - i am aware you don't see it that way.

This seems close to my position, though I don't think the thought experiment is a great way to illustrate the point. — Echarmion

I was trying to be helpful, and give the best argument against.

Is it wrong to deny a born human usage of your body? Let's say you cause a car accident by being negligent, which leads to a severe injury of another person. It seems fairly straightforward that you are responsible for the injuries. Are you morally obligated to donate blood to the injured person? donate a kidney? I don't think the answer is always yes regardless of circumstance. — Echarmion

I agree.

but in the what would be the right thing to do " give blood" - I vote yes. Give a kidney - I say no.

How about a 9 month blood transfusion - that only you can do, to save the life you put in danger ?

which is why I tried to summarize -

So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim. — Rank Amateur

Why - no - ? What is it you want to establish? Do you know what "tacit" means? It seems you want to establish consent. Consent is both a moral and a legal construct. In either case, for there to be consent, there has to be the capacity to consent, and the consent has to be meaningful. Among the things "meaningful" means is that the person consenting, when he consented, had a real choice and could have not consented if he had so wished.

As to the saying, "silence consents," it can, but in itself does not. — tim wood

Quick aside, and it may just be me - but i find your prose most confusing. But let me give it a try.

"It seems you want to establish consent. "

Not really, what the proposal is, is that by some action of free will consent is already present - such as, by my act of free will of choosing to live in the US I have given tacit consent to abide by the laws. I haven't signed anything. No one said these are your options.

"Consent is both a moral and a legal construct. "

OK

"In either case, for there to be consent, there has to be the capacity to consent, and the consent has to be meaningful. Among the things "meaningful" means is that the person consenting, when he consented, had a real choice and could have not consented if he had so wished. "

I think you want to hold this to a standard of explicit consent, like signing an ok to do an operation

the point I am making is, there is a non explicit consent given, even without knowing one had, as the result of a willful act.

Tacit consent is a silent consent given by your actions.

and again the argument.
We are responsible for the predicable results of our acts of free will
The existence of a depended being is a predicable result of sex

therefore - the act of sex is an act of tacit consent for the care of the fetus.

and again - we hold to this standard in most cases involved with the child - such as paternity suits. It is the same concept, applied differently in 2 different situations. Which is fine, so it is either because the use of the mothers body is a very different thing than the use of the father's body and effort to make money, which it might be. Or because the of the different nature of the born human, versus the unborn human.

But in either case we once again modify a criteria or principal for the fetus.

My take, an opinion is an unsupported belief. It certainly can be true and useful, but it either can't or is not for some reason defended. Knowledge can be defended by reason. Knowledge is then a true opinion accompanied by a rational defense, or a justified true belief.

just to help a little. David Boonin in his "pro choice" book " In defense of abortion" addresses the issue of Tacit Consent this way.

He grants, that the free act of having sex establishes a responsibility for the existence of the fetus, it does not, however establish a responsibility of the dependence of the fetus on the woman's body. The though experiment is, a doctor saves my life today, 2 years later I develop Parkinson's. I sue the surgeon for support, because if he had not saved my life, I would not have gotten ill.

My problem with this argument is, by granting the parents are responsible for the existence, and since not responsible for the dependence and can deny the use of her body on this rational. We are right back to where we usually get in the abortion discussion. Some action that most people would consider wrong, to a born human, is somehow not wrong in an un-born human.

If you tried to make a case that a mother or father does not need to take care of a 1 month old, because their act of sex does not directly establish the dependence of the baby would seem insane.

So we get back to where we normally end up. The moral rules that apply outside the womb, do not apply inside the womb. Because we are able to convince ourselves, maybe correctly, maybe not, that the fetus is without the moral standing to deserve like protection.

No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it. — Echarmion

not sure I stopped responding. Again you denied the concept of implied consent - out of hand.

An interesting angle. The consent seems manufactured though. You cannot implicitly consent to a result you explicitly try to avoid. Having sex entails a non-zero chance of pregnancy, but awareness of a possibility is not sufficient to establish consent, implied or otherwise. To use an absurd example: Walking down a dark street might entail a non-zero chance of being robbed, but I do not implicitly consent to that outcome just by taking the risk. — Echarmion

You give no reason at all why, it is manufactured, that attempts to avoid relieve you of responsibility, or why awareness is not sufficient. You just state they are. It is not just you, but this seems rather normal on here. Without any reasons why or supporting those points, they are just your opinions - which is fine. But it just boils down to - your argument is wrong because I don't believe it.

On the final point on the robber I can back explaining you had the backwards, the child in the innocent actor and the mother is the robber.

to this you cam back

An act of free will does not make you responsible for all possible outcomes of that act. But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.

In that sense, your question is not without merit, or your initial question had merit, because it explicitly based it's argument on consent. In your latest posts, however, you seem to have gotten no closer to actually establish consent, implied or otherwise. — Echarmion

Yet again, one more declaration that an act of free will does not make you responsible - with no support of the idea, acknowledgement of where it does or where it does not - and why the difference.

then granting for the sake of argument you go to declare - once again -

But even if we ignore the details and assume that the mother is responsible for the resulting pregnancy, this does not impact her right to bodily autonomy. In order to overcome bodily autonomy, you need consent.

So my base argument asks does the sex provide some obligation on the use of the mothers body - this above is just a long way to say NO, because i say so. Once again - just one more declarative sentence - without support. Just opinion

However, when it came to the child support question - you seem quite willing to assign the father responsibility for his action. seemingly based on differentiation between financial support and the use of the woman's body as below

Because the obligation is not absolute or all encompassing. There is an obligation to support the child, but that obligation does not extend to your bodily integrity. You have asked why, before, and my answer would be that your body is the only connection to the outside world you, as a consciousness, have, and is therefore central to your freedom. As such, it is strongly protected — Echarmion

I was attempting here to summarize where we are to continue:

So, in some type of summary, To the question I proposed, although you seem to believe in the concept of an implied consent, you point is it does not apply to pre birth, because it seems your view is bodily integrity is a stronger claim. — Rank Amateur

which still seems a rather good summary

to which you come back.

No, my answer to the question you initially proposed is that implied consent cannot be established in those circumstances. Since you stopped responding to any of the arguments on that point, I had assumed you dropped it.

My answer to your other, unrelated, question of why child support is a moral obligation while carrying a child to term is not is what you quoted. — Echarmion

Which still is just saying, yet again, that Rank you are wrong because I say so. And for good measure your example is unrelated because i say so.

I am not trying to be a jerk, but it just turns into twitter if we just share unsupported opinions. You can and should attack my position, and I make that easier by giving you the basis of the belief. So we can logically argue the concepts. See if the concepts apply uniformly across other scenarios or not, and if not why.