It's never enough for anything, to simply want it. — tim wood

So you've changed your mind? Or you're just interpreting what I said in a way that I never intended? You said that "wanting" an abortion "is enough" to morally justify getting one. I disagree. My addition of "simply" was just a way of distinguishing your position from my more complex one. In my position, want alone is insufficient grounds for moral justification. Additional factors need to be taken into consideration.

The requirement for two doctors seems intrusive to me. — tim wood

It's a matter for doctors, and the requirement of two is a safeguarding measure. Seems sensible to me.

Does UK law require such duplication in most things? — tim wood

I don't know. I'm just a layman on the topic of UK law.

it is not good philosophy because it makes absolutely no attempt to be good philosophy. Quite the contrary, Judge Blackmun states -

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The core underlying statement of fact in the decision, that allows the killing of the fetus, is the court does not really know when life begins, and they don't need to resolve it.

As I mentioned earlier - the case was about the privacy clause in the 14th amendment. Roe claimed the woman's right was absolute up to birth, The court, with the wisdom of Solomon - looked to split the difference and came up with:

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

And allowed states to establish some guidelines for when and when not - the prior post above about the fetus was to be a rational for establishing some guidance to the states on such a guidelines.

In short - the court ruled the woman's choice to have an abortion was protected by the 14th amendment
it however was not absolute
the court relied on prior legal criteria on if the fetus had standing, saying it did not, while acknowledging all along that it has no real knowledge of when human life begins.

Trolling, Fool? — tim wood

What's your problem? You keep saying things along the lines that want alone is enough for a pregnant woman to justify getting an abortion, and that it's no one else's business, but then you complain that you're being misrepresented when he points out the consequences of your position to you. It's like you're moving the goalposts to prevent him from scoring. If there are no other factors that we should consider besides whether or not someone wants one, or we shouldn't even judge it in the first place, then it is like getting a haircut. That's a typical way of thinking about someone getting a haircut. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I mean by this that there are no a priori grounds for interfering with her on the basis of her wants. Or, in other words, it's none of your business. As argued in Roe v. Wade, at some point it may become your business, but the grounds for that are not, in my opinion, either radical, controversial, or in question. — tim wood

If your position is conditional on other things besides the wants of the pregnant woman, then you should stop saying things which make it seem otherwise. You shouldn't be saying that want alone is enough or that it's none of our business if you agree with us that there are cases where that doesn't bear true. Want alone is enough! (Except when x, y, z...). It's none of your business! (Except when it is because of x, y, z...). Why are you excluding the exceptions to the rule, or trying to sweep them under the rug, as though they're not relevant? They're relevant in both a legal and an ethical sense. Want alone isn't enough, both morally (in my judgement) and legally (in the UK) as per the Abortion Act 1967, under the section about the medical termination of a pregnancy, subsection (1) (a) through to (d). It's my business because I make it my business: we're discussing the ethics of it. You're the one who started the discussion. Bit weird to start an ethical discussion and then when people tell you of their ethical judgement, you respond that it's none of their business.

Tim says an abortion is like having a haircut, a woman's right to do whatever to her body. — TheMadFool

No, he didn't. This tells us about you, not Tim.

and the requirement of two is a safeguarding measure. Seems sensible to me. — S

Protecting what, from whom, on what justification? In all of this there is the deep presupposition that this interference is justified and necessary, that it all somehow, seemingly automatically and without question, just is "your" business. And it is not, on those terms. Or, folks who claim it is need to make their purposes and justifications clear, in clear and reasoned terms. To date there is much that is heartfelt - much more that is awful. Of course if it's just all just a matter of "seems to me," but that "just seems to me" is disingenuous. In short, taken as a whole, I hold the pro-life position to have nothing ethical or moral about it; rather it is a vicious and relentless attack on people and sense and reason. And people of good will and good faith who have their own reasons for opposing abortion for any reason of their own have got to realize that their arguments, such as they may be, are lost in pro-life rhetoric.

It's never enough for anything, to simply want it. — tim wood

The original context of this is someone's arguing that, yes, some abortion is ok if a woman needs one, as opposed to wanting one. I replied it's enough for her to want one. That is, her wanting is her business, and her acting on the basis of her wants is her business. There can be no justification for requiring her want to be a "need." If you think there is, please make you case.

t is not good philosophy because it makes absolutely no attempt to be good philosophy. Quite the contrary, Judge Blackmun states -

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." — Rank Amateur

Let me introduce you to good philosophy: it's just above. You would do well indeed to study and emulate the wisdom therein contained.

The core underlying statement of fact in the decision, that allows the killing of the fetus, is the court does not really know when life begins, and they don't need to resolve it. — Rank Amateur

If you paid even "the cold respect of a passing glance" at what you yourself copied and pasted, you would have seen for yourself that the court knows it does not know, and refuses to substitute its ignorance for knowledge. As to allowing "the killing of the fetus," that is grotesquely inaccurate language, or are you just using inflammatory speech?

The state of Texas wanted to prevent a termination of pregnancy, The woman sued, and the case, Roe v. Wade, went to the US Supreme Court where it was decided, for reasons there listed, that the Texas law was unconstitutional, the reasoning being such that a lot of laws either were or would be also unconstitutional. To suppose they okayed, approved, or authorized any abortion simply exhibits a profound failure to understand what the Supreme Court does.

And since it cannot reasonably assumed that you are that ingnorant and that stupid, one has to wonder just why you argue in those fallacious terms.

A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? The grounds may be law or ethics.... And arguments should be just that, arguments and not merely rants or claims.
Can we do it? This is a philosophy site; let's do philosophy!
I start with the proposition that Roe v. Wade is a pretty good set of rules. — tim wood

This from the OP. If you wanted a driver's license, no one would stop you and say you needed to "need" a license before proceeding. They would say that there are some hurdles to clear and hoops to jump through on your way to getting your license. She wants an abortion. Is that the end of the matter? Of course not. But "need" does not enter in. Should it at some point? I think there's a fair argument to be made - but NO ONE has yet made it - that at some point in the pregnancy wanting by itself is maybe not enough, and Roe makes that point explicitly; it's part of the ruling. The reasoning in Roe is provisional, but it's good as it stands, and is proof against lesser and inadequate arguments.

Back to the OP. What do you say are grounds for controlling as to abortion? No mere rants or claims, unless they be granted, just sound argument.

Protecting what, from whom, on what justification? — tim wood

Sigh. Do you really have to ask? To protect the interests of both the patient and the doctor. The patient could claim that she was pressured or coerced or that the doctor was biased against her. The doctor might have judged it poorly or missed something. It's good to get a second opinion, for someone to look at it through different eyes, and to sign off on it, as an added layer of authorisation, so that it doesn't end up being treated as something more low-level or trivial like picking up a prescription or going for a checkup at the dentist. If you were a doctor or working in the legal department of a hospital, would you really argue against this?

In all of this there is the deep presupposition that this interference is justified and necessary, that it all somehow, seemingly automatically and without question, just is "your" business. And it is not, on those terms. Or, folks who claim it is need to make their purposes and justifications clear, in clear and reasoned terms. To date there is much that is heartfelt - much more that is awful. Of course if it's just all just a matter of "seems to me," but that "just seems to me" is disingenuous. In short, taken as a whole, I hold the pro-life position to have nothing ethical or moral about it; rather it is a vicious and relentless attack on people and sense and reason. And people of good will and good faith who have their own reasons for opposing abortion for any reason of their own have got to realize that their arguments, such as they may be, are lost in pro-life rhetoric. — tim wood

Lots of words, but you haven't really said anything. It's ironic that you end by talking of getting lost in rhetoric. The above is just uncharitable characterisation, ad hominems, loaded language... "awful", "disingenuous", "viscous", "relentless attack"... Give me a break.

The original context of this is someone's arguing that, yes, some abortion is ok if a woman needs one, as opposed to wanting one. I replied it's enough for her to want one. That is, her wanting is her business, and her acting on the basis of her wants is her business. There can be no justification for requiring her want to be a "need." If you think there is, please make you case. — tim wood

But want alone clearly isn't enough. And it's clearly not just her business. Isn't that why you objected to the comparison to getting your hair cut? Because there's more to it than that? Do you even know the implications of what you're saying? You need to look deeper into the wants to reach a sensible moral judgement. You can't just say "If she wants an abortion, then it's okay! Who am I to judge?". Well, you can say that, but it shows a lack of good judgement. If that's your view, then you can't reject the getting-a-hair-cut type of comparisons. If you're going to bite the bullet, then you'll have to accept the consequences. You can't just move the goalposts back and forth.

Obviously we agree that it's okay if a pregnant woman needs an abortion, say, for medical reasons, like I said in my very first comment in this discussion, and as per the Abortion Act 1967 which I've referenced. That's beside the point.

If you wanted a driver's license, no one would stop you and say you needed to "need" a license before proceeding. — tim wood

You'd need to qualify for one, which is the point. There are conditions you're required to meet. In the UK, to apply for your first provisional driving licence you must be at least 15 years and 9 months old and able to read a number plate from 20 metres away. You’ll need to provide an identity document unless you have a valid UK biometric passport; addresses where you’ve lived over the last 3 years; and your National Insurance number if you know it. There may be additional checks by the DVLA. You'll need to pay either £34 or £43 depending on how you apply. There are different rules for when you can drive with a provisional licence depending on your age and the type of vehicle.

And you need to qualify for an abortion too. There are conditions you're required to meet which I've quoted and referenced. These requirements are there for a reason. It's neither morally justified nor within the confines of the law for people to do whatever they want, whether we're talking about driving a car or getting an abortion.

They would say that there are some hurdles to clear and hoops to jump through on your way to getting your license. She wants an abortion. Is that the end of the matter? Of course not. — tim wood

You sure have a knack for making it sound otherwise in some of what you've been saying.

I think there's a fair argument to be made - but NO ONE has yet made it - that at some point in the pregnancy wanting by itself is maybe not enough... — tim wood

There you go again! How peculiar. You acknowledge that, beyond the wanting, there are "hurdles to clear" and you say that ("of course") the wanting is not the end of the matter, but then you say that the wanting is enough. Well, clearly it isn't, is it? By your own admission, they would still have to qualify or "clear the hurdles".

And it's not true that no one has made that case. I've made that case. Wanting by itself isn't enough because it would permit bad eventualities. A bad eventuality would be getting an abortion for a bad reason. And a bad reason would be a reason which doesn't qualify under the Abortion Act 1967.

Back to the OP. What do you say are grounds for controlling as to abortion? No mere rants or claims, unless they be granted, just sound argument. — tim wood

Weird.

Protecting what, from whom, on what justification?
— tim wood

Sigh. Do you really have to ask? To protect the interests of both the patient and the doctor. — S

Right, women in the UK are hazards to themselves (and doctors), and single doctors cannot be trusted. Is that your position? Is that it? Protect them from themselves because they can neither act in their own interest nor protect themselves? Or is it from someone or something else?

If you were a doctor or working in the legal department of a hospital, would you really argue against this? — S

And most abortions - really all that fall within guidelines - are not serious as in dangerous procedures. I guess that for the serious stuff you need quad- or quintuple opinions and no end of eyes looking at it. In that kind of environment if I were a doctor or in the legal department I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning or go to bed at night.

You need to look deeper into the wants to reach a sensible moral judgement. You can't just say "If she wants an abortion, then it's okay! Who am I to judge?". — S

What I say is that if she wants one, that's enough justification for her to pursue one. As to "a sensible moral judgment," you simply seem incapable of processing any question about that. But I try again: whose moral judgment, and on what authority? And do not misunderstand: the question is for clarity about your claim, not about any claim of mine.

And it's you who adds the "then its ok! Who am I to judge?" I have only argued that her first hurdle is to want; any further requirement at that point is invasive. As to judging, I keep asking you who the judges are, and by what authority they judge. You may answer that in the UK Parliament decides, end of discussion, and that would be it so far as law is is concerned, but it would still leave the why. And just blunt authority is an exercise of power, not of moral guidance.

The above is just uncharitable characterisation, ad hominems, loaded language... "awful", "disingenuous", "viscious", "relentless attack"... Give me a break. — S

It must be the debate in the UK is very much more civil than in the US. For the US my language is correct and accurate. It properly characterizes the sidewalk confrontations and the efforts of unprincipled lawmakers.

By your own admission, they would still have to qualify or "clear the hurdles". — S

Qualify? Certainly not. Look, let's not exhaust ourselves on outlier oddities. In the main, a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. She goes to her doctor. "Yep," he says, "you're pregnant." He goes on to advise her as to her being a candidate for the procedure in question. He may refer her for counseling both before and after - or not. I think it best if she is well-informed. He may advise her as to what her local laws have to say about it all. If you call this qualification, then I fault you on usage. On the other hand it seems you would have her and her case be reviewed y some kind of tribunal, to see if she qualified. If that's accurate, the same questions: who? why" what authority?

Now, I would prefer it if you gave some thought to your replies. It seems to me you're just in knee-jerk reaction mode. Why don't you try reasoning it through and skipping all the predigested cant you've been fed and apparently swallowed. The initial question of the OP is still unanswered, and it seems to me you've gone to much trouble to avoid it. Give it a try.

A woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? Are you able to handle this? Can you think it through and formulate your own reasoned response? I only ask you to be prepared to clarify and edify on any point you may make.

And you need to qualify for an abortion too. There are conditions you're required to meet which I've quoted and referenced. These requirements are there for a reason. It's neither morally justified nor within the confines of the law for people to do whatever they want, whether we're talking about driving a car or getting an abortion. — S

Yes, as a matter of law. So far as driving is concerned, I think it's pretty clear that the law is for the most part good and unobjectionable. It's for the public good, the which supported by collective community wisdom. And there are laws concerning abortion, some of which rules seem disquietingly odd to me - the requirement for two doctors; is that a standard practice for medical procedures in the UK? But I'm not asking you to account for quirks in UK law. I am asking you, in your understanding, if you can offer any account as to just what the reason is for the laws. On this Roe is reasonably straightforward: a reason for state interference is sought and not found, hence the law that would interfere is ruled null - the underlying right being one of privacy in the sense of not being subject to government interference without good cause.

That is, Roe is reactive and not proactive. Most US courts try not to establish law, but to apply it, and in the case of the Supreme Court, to occasionally rule some law out of court. But even if UK courts are proactive, it still leaves the three questions, who, why, what authority.

No, he didn't. This tells us about you, not Tim. — Banno

Something bad about me? I'm expressing a point of view here. I'm not against women or abortion. It's just that I feel women have the power to give life and this shouldn't be ignored for the sake of ''freedom''. What kind of freedom is this anyway? To be free to commit what is possibly muder - that's not worth fighting for is it? I'd rather fight for equal treatment at work, in politics, etc.

I say it's none of your business. You say that's a moot point. Ok, it is your business. How? Why? On what authority? To what end?

To be precise, how, exactly, is it your business? — tim wood

Isn't abortion a social issue? Social issues are everybody's business, no?

I understand the process of pregnancy is quite tough for a woman. Carrying a baby for 9 months, delivering it, taking care of it, is no easy job. I see it as power - to be the cradle of life. Do women want to give up this power for the sake of something so petty as the right to abortion which is a denial of what is woman's essence?

To be precise, how, exactly, is it your business?
— tim wood
Isn't abortion a social issue? Social issues are everybody's business, no? — TheMadFool

Ok, you're concerned with a social issue. What social issue is that, exactly?

I understand the process of pregnancy is quite tough for a woman.

It's nice you're concerned. But women can handle it - in any case, not your business.

Carrying a baby for 9 months, delivering it, taking care of it, is no easy job.

Very sensitive of you. But not your business.

I see it as power - to be the cradle of life. Do women want to give up this power for the sake of something so petty as the right to abortion which is a denial of what is woman's essence?

Isn't this a question for the woman to answer? In any case, Not. Your. Business. Remember above? Your business, that you have chosen for yourself, is a social issue, as yet not well-articulated, at least here.

But basing public policy on your private feelings about things is more than a little out of order. Translate it into a cogent argument if you can, or get therapy.

get therapy — tim wood

:rofl:

I see. So, now you resort to ad hominems.

You're seeing this from a woman's point of view and also in the very narrow sense of rights.

Rights are, by definition, formulated in terms of leasts. Every right, including the right of a woman you're so enthusiatically advocating, is minium of freedom.

I, on the other hand, am talking of a woman's true worth. It goes beyond rights - even slaves had rights. A woman's power lies in her womb and what it can do and not what can be done to it.

Also, I have a feeling that women don't think in your terms. They're not fighting the pro-lifers to do anything they want. They simply want abortion to be available to them in case there are no alternatives.

It could also be that they're confused about the whole issue as it's been, unfortunately and erroneously, linked to women's rights or emancipation. This is an incorrect view. Women's rights and abortion are two unrelated issues linked together by the unscrupulous and narrow minded.

This is a natural tendency and can be forgiven but not ignored. It happens to us all. Women want freedom (I second that) but some unscrupulous and, perhaps, foolish people, have attached this to absolute freedom in abortion. I say women can get equal rights and should fight for it but absolute freedom in abortion isn't an indication of that. In fact, it's to submit that they have an unwanted trait that they'd rather not have. What does that show? Nothing other than their tacit confession that they're the weaker sex and disliked by their own ilk.

Right, women in the UK are hazards to themselves (and doctors), and single doctors cannot be trusted. Is that your position? Is that it? Protect them from themselves because they can neither act in their own interest nor protect themselves? Or is it from someone or something else? — tim wood

:roll:

Right, here in the UK, you never get any pregnant women who are in any way vulnerable or at any risk whatsoever to themselves or by putting doctors at risk, and a single doctor can always be trusted completely, without giving it a second thought, and a single doctor is at no risk whatsoever for anything in anyway if the patient decides to take legal action against the doctor or the hospital. In fact, there is no such thing as health risks or legal risks here in the UK. You only get those in other countries. Would you believe it, we're risk free. We should therefore immediately scrap any kind of safeguarding in relation to these nonexistent risks. What were we thinking?

Is that your position? Is that it? Huh? Speak up. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Scrap any safeguards in place because patients and doctors are always in the right state of mind and always make the right judgements and decisions? Is that it? Is that what you think? They're infallible and safeguards are obsolete, are they? Well...?

the requirement for two doctors; is that a standard practice for medical procedures in the UK? — tim wood

You did not answer this. I don't question UK law, but I can question the why of it. If it's standard practice, then that's how it is. If it isn't then why just for abortion? The answer you did give:

Right, here in the UK, you never get any pregnant women who are in any way vulnerable or at any risk whatsoever to themselves or by putting doctors at risk, and a single doctor can always be trusted completely, without giving it a second thought, and a single doctor is at no risk whatsoever for anything in anyway if the patient decides to take legal action against the doctor or the hospital. In fact, there is no such thing as health risks or legal risks here in the UK. You only get those in other countries. Would you believe it, we're risk free. We should therefore immediately scrap any kind of safeguarding in relation to these nonexistent risks. What were we thinking? — S

is a non-sequitur. In this case an evasion of the point of the question.

Is it the case that the topic of abortion turns sane, sensible people into fools at best and usually worse, Or does the topic just attract those who are already that way? Now I think you would do us both a favor and just answer succinctly the question of the OP. But can you?

A woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? — tim wood

All that has happened so far in this thread is what usually happens. People project their own problems and concerns in a manner that is, basically, crazy. If that's all you got, we can save each other time and effort and just concede you are unable to address the question. Or you can try it, and who knows, shovel a little dirt off and we may find that on what we uncover, we agree! But we cannot get there until you get over your personal issues and just try to think about and answer the question. After all , this is a philosophy site; if you don't like being challenged in this way, maybe this site isn't for you.

You're seeing this from a woman's point of view and also in the very narrow sense of rights. — TheMadFool

Thank you! It is exactly what I am trying to do though not one myself. Where else would reason have us start? Why do you not start there?

Rights are, by definition, formulated in terms of leasts. Every right, including the right of a woman you're so enthusiastically advocating, is minimum of freedom. — TheMadFool

I would say limits in the sense of boundaries, not necessarily leasts. But I think you just wrote -- i can read it right there - that the right to abortion is a minimum of freedom. That seems a bit radical. If you mean the right to want one and to think about it and to investigate the matter in an open manner unconstrained by arbitrary, invasive, irrelevant and even irrational laws, then I agree.

I, on the other hand, am talking of a woman's true worth. It goes beyond rights - even slaves had rights. A woman's power lies in her womb and what it can do and not what can be done to it. — TheMadFool

Yes, you're writing about you and your own peculiar notions. But it's not about you, is it.

Also, I have a feeling that women don't think in your terms. They're not fighting the pro-lifers to do anything they want. They simply want abortion to be available to them in case there are no alternatives. — TheMadFool

Very few women think in my terms, but enough of my personal problems. Why do you add the clause, "if there are no alternatives"?

It could also be that they're confused about the whole issue as it's been, unfortunately and erroneously, linked to women's rights or emancipation. This is an incorrect view. Women's rights and abortion are two unrelated issues linked together by the unscrupulous and narrow minded. — TheMadFool

Unsupported claim. Support it or dismiss it. And please turn on your nonsense filter. I know - I have trouble with that myself. But to write that abortion is a minimum freedom of women, and then write that the "whole issue" is a source of confusion because of a wrong "association with women's rights or emancipation" is just nonsense. Let me be clear about that; it's no-sense. Trouble is, it's not innocent no-sense. Why are you adducing nonsense? And does it ever strike you as odd that there should be any issue about women's emancipation? If anywhere women are not free, why would you even think to block their aspirations for and movement to freedom? Especially "least" freedoms?

I say women can get equal rights and should fight for it but absolute freedom in abortion isn't an indication of that. In fact, it's to submit that they have an unwanted trait that they'd rather not have. What does that show? Nothing other than their tacit confession that they're the weaker sex and disliked by their own ilk. — TheMadFool

Un-effing-believable. So much, so much, wrong with this.

This is not argument; rather it is imposition of absurd personal notions. As such certainly nothing of philosophy, not even bad philosophy. Go back to the OP and its simple question: a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? Two or three or four simple sentences to answer. Do it, if you can.

Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.

the logic goes something like this:

People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.

Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.

By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.

As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence.

the requirement for two doctors; is that a standard practice for medical procedures in the UK?
— tim wood
You did not answer this. — tim wood

I previously answered that I'm a layman regarding UK law, suggesting that I don't know. I am also a layman regarding UK healthcare practices and procedures. I just know a few things specifically relating to abortion. This isn't the first discussion on the topic that I've read or participated in.

I don't question UK law, but I can question the why of it. If it's standard practice, then that's how it is. If it isn't then why just for abortion? The answer you did give is a non-sequitur. In this case an evasion of the point of the question. — tim wood

That wasn't an attempt to answer your question. That was me giving you a taste of your own medicine.

I might address the rest of your post which I left out before, if I think that it warrants a reply, and if I feel like it. But not right now. (I'm actually at work).

Is it the case that the topic of abortion turns sane, sensible people into fools at best and usually worse, Or does the topic just attract those who are already that way? Now I think you would do us both a favor and just answer succinctly the question of the OP. But can you? — tim wood

I have answered the question of the opening post, and you can't fault me on succinctness in doing so. The real question is whether you'll accept it, disagree with it properly, or dismiss it 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.

Since you referenced child support, the justification here is a little different, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place. Neither consent nor guilt (in a legal sense) are required.

Go back to the OP and its simple question: a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? Two or three or four simple sentences to answer. Do it, if you can. — tim wood

Thanks for replying. Sorry if what I say is nonsense to you but am I not right to state that women wanting abortions are, in a sense, undermining their own position by meaning ''I don't like my body''.

One must remember that the right to have an abortion is linked to women's rights. Women want to be considered equal to men (wonderful!) but if abortion is part of the effort then they're admitting, unwittingly and sadly, that they hate their own bodies and that they'd prefer NOT to be woman.

So, tell me, is the freedom to have an abortion really a woman's right or is it a repressed desire to be a man? It's really sad to see women wasting time and effort fighting to become men when there's so much more to she-ness than just a right to have an abortion.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine if sexism were in favor of women. Would they fight for abortion as they're doing? No, because equality of rights isn't an issue any more. I even would go as far as to say that women, if the stronger sex, would use their uterus, as life's source, to subdue men even further.

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

My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action.

, I think. It's not that the father implicitly consented to paying child support in the event of a child being born. It's that society defers the financial burden created by the child on the person who is responsible for creating the risk in the first place. — Echarmion

Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ?

↪tim wood ↪S ↪TheMadFool ↪Banno

Interested your guys view on the concept of Implied consent on the right of the fetus to the use of the woman's body.

the logic goes something like this:

People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.

Pregnancy is predictable consequence of sex, birth control can very effectively reduce, but not eliminate that this consequence.

By freely entering into sex, where pregnancy is a predictable consequence, there is an implied consent that the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.

As an example: A woman decides to have a baby, against the wishes of the father. He doesn't want the baby. Baby comes, she sues him for child support - and in general wins. The reason being that the child was a result of his willful act, with a child as a possible consequence. — Rank Amateur

I understand and agree with the reasoning, however I would have to word it differently because I think that implied consent from the foetus is literally nonsense. You could instead make it about the rights of the parents, saying that they'd have lost or diminished their rights.

yea understand - it really only makes sense if you could assume for the sake of argument the fetus is a moral actor. Didn't say that - because thought would generate like 6 pages

My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action. — Rank Amateur

You are missing the point, this is actually a non-response to the point raised against your position. The point is that doing something that has a non-zero chance of risk isnt consent of those risks. Consent is about a persons approval or willingness. When a doctor does surgery to save someone's life, they are not consenting to that persons death just because that is a risk entailed in the surgery...thats not what consent is.
When a person chooses to drive a car they are not consenting to anyones death if they get in a fatal accident, nor are they consenting that they should die if they happen to ram into a wall. They are accepting risk, not consenting to the results of the risks. You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesnt make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance.

- understand - however if there are predictable consensuses of the action we tend to hold people responsible for them.

In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street.

this is a legal definition of Implied consent:

"The assumption that a person has given permission for an action, which is inferred from his or her actions, rather than expressly or explicitly provided."

So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex.

In the example of the surgeon, before the operation you will sign to agree to the possible risks, and relieve the surgeon of most responsibilities - to specifically avoid an area of implied consent, and make it explicit.

You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance. — DingoJones

I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens.

My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action. — Rank Amateur

No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person.

In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street. — Rank Amateur

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up.

So there is some room for argument on granting or not granting that assumption. In the case o, for lack of a better word " accidents", - your robber, car driver etc" I would argue that assuming the risk, if needed it not a permission for the accident. I would not make the same case for sex. — Rank Amateur

Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"?

Not sure I understand the difference i those 2 points, seems to be saying the exact same thing twice, using different words. What am I missing ? — Rank Amateur

What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.

The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house.

No, if we are using the legal definitions of the term, at least approximately, then you can implicitly consent to someone elses actions. That's actually the main practical application of the notion of implied consent, for things like life-saving surgery. Given the way you framed your argument, it also seems to me you effectively consider the fetus another person. — Echarmion

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but consent and responsibility aren't correlated in the way you seem to imply. The responsibility of the person acting for the consequences of that action are unrelated to whether or not the person that is acted upon has consented. You can be responsible for moral or otherwise permissible actions, the question just doesn't usually come up. — Echarmion

I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street.

Could you elaborate on why you would exclude an unwanted pregnancy from the list of "accidents"? — Echarmion

because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant.

What I was trying to say is that there are different levels of justification necessary for the outcomes. In order for someone else to have "access" (to use a very general term) to your body, consent is necessary. In order to be held criminally accountable, you need to be guilty. In order to be asked to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from a risk, it can be sufficient that you are the person most closely associated with the risk, e.g. because you derived some kind of benefit from the action that caused the risk. Provided that there is no other actor who is more responsible.

The details will differ according to the specific laws, but here is another example: If you build a house, and an earthquake then damages the house to such an extend that it is a danger to the neighbors or passersby, you can be obligated to have the house torn down, at your expense. You did not consent to the earthquake and are not responsible for it, yet you still have to shoulder the costs because it's your house. — Echarmion

so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??

I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. In your example the robber is the woman and the fetus is innocent walking down the street. — Rank Amateur

That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example.

If it were the other way around, any consent of the mother, implied or otherwise, would be irrelevant.

because it does not require the deliberate of even accidental activity of a 3rd party. If the woman and man have sex, there is some probability - solely due to their actions alone - that they may become pregnant. — Rank Amateur

That still doesn't explain how the consent is implied though. Implied consent still needs to be actually established by the facts. The goal is to approximate a hypothetical state of mind, not to enforce a predetermined result. You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents. Whether or not you hit a tree or another car isn't relevant.

so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ?? — Rank Amateur

Yes.

That does not make sense to me. Your initial argument was that the mother implicitly consented to the use of her body by the fetus. That implies that you accept the notion of bodily autonomy, which holds that no other person has a right to use my body, or parts of it, without consent. Since the fetus is using the body of the mother, it is doing something that is not generally permissible, like the robber in my example. — Echarmion

actually what I argued was. by her action of free will, she was responsible for the possible outcomes of that action. So to put back in your example. Between the mother and the fetus, the only one who made an act of free will was the mother. The fetus was the innocent. It was just becoming a fetus. Like your innocent person just walking down the block.

And yes, i completely agree with your concept of bodily autonomy - that is the nature of the question - does sex imply consent to the possible outcome. Obvioulsy the world right now says no. And it could be right, but i don't think the question is without merit.

You need to establish that the person in question, if they had been fully aware of all facts, would have consented. This is not the case for unwanted pregnancies just as it is not the case for car accidents. — Echarmion

are you trying to say that the woman was not fully aware that sex can cause pregnancy? That last sentence of yours, at least as i see it now, makes no sense at all.

so after all that, should the Dad be required to pay child support ??
— Rank Amateur

Yes. — Echarmion

why ??