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. — Rank Amateur

Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does.

this is a legal definition of Implied consent — Rank Amateur

Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here.

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

Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response.

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. — tim wood

They're serious in other respects, so your response misses the mark. And no, your slippery slope fallacy isn't a good argument, either. If a case is judged to have reached a certain level of seriousness, then a second opinion is warranted. My understanding is that, generally, in some cases, it might be at the request of the patient, whereas in others, it might happen behind closed doors between medical professionals. In all cases of abortion, it happens to be a requirement of the law. That's probably because it's judged to be a fairly unique situation, and because it's not just about the patient, but the future of another living human foetus growing inside of her. At 8 weeks, it has a recognisably humanlike form, including a head, eyes, the beginnings of a nose, arms, legs, a beating heart...

What I say is that if she wants one, that's enough justification for her to pursue one. — tim wood

Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. Cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family. For example, she's simply changed her mind in the kind of way that she changed her mind about those shoes she bought last month.

If it's not pursued on an immoral basis, or if it's pursued on an immoral basis, but the pregnant woman is ignorant, then by all means, she should pursue one. In the case of the latter, that's what medical professionals and abortion laws are there for. She would be engaged and assessed, and an appropriate outcome would be determined. There's a process in place that she'd have to go through, involving checks and balances. It's not like going through a McDonald's drive thru.

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. — tim wood

That's a poorly considered question that I've answered multiple times now. Stop mindlessly re-asking it, please. The obvious answer again: 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. — tim wood

That phrasing is exactly the kind of thing that you've been saying, even if I haven't replicated your phrasing word for word. This is just the now infamous Tim Wood pedantry rearing its ugly head once again. You said "It's enough", I said "It's okay". You said "It's none of your business", I rhetorically asked "Who are you to 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. — tim wood

The UK Parliament makes the laws. But I'm the one who's judging the matter. This isn't really a matter of authority. I'm just sharing my judgement and my reasoning and arguing the case. You're doing the same. Your search for a presumed authority is misguided. What do you expect? Do you expect me to pull out some kind of certification in moral authority?

"I hereby present to you my certification of moral authority. As you can see, I have a level 5 moral authority, whereas you're only a level 2, so I'm your superior and you must concede".

Qualify? Certainly not. — tim wood

And you need to qualify for an abortion too. — S

Yes, as a matter of law. — tim wood

When you two have made your mind up, do me a favour and let me know.

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. — tim wood

Some kind of tribunal? Jesus Christ. What nonsense. What I'm saying really isn't that complicated and can be explained in just a handful of words. I judge the conditions for determining the morality of getting an abortion to match the conditions for determining the legality of getting an abortion. If the pregnant woman doesn't qualify for an abortion as per (1)(a), then she shouldn't get one - not merely because it would be against the law, but because it wouldn't be right. You're free to judge it differently, but if so, I would question your judgement.

Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does. — DingoJones

The name of the concept is "implied consent" I didn't chose it. You can surely make a case the concept doesn't apply. But it has nothing at all do to with my framing. I am just looking at the concept that is both moral and legal, and asking if it applies here.

Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here. — DingoJones

In this case both.

Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response. — DingoJones

no worries - we disagree. On to the next

no worries - we disagree. On to the next — Rank Amateur

No. You are wrong and im explaining why. This is a familiar display of cowardess from you. I had forgotten you were the guy who resorts to disingenuous withdrawal (disingenuous because this isnt agreeing to disagree as you imply but rather “i cannot admit I am wrong”).
I will try not to forget again: Rank Amateur is a pretender of civility (much more rude to dismiss rather than say “fuckoff dummy”) and an intellectual coward. I think it will stick now that Ive written it down, that seems to help my memory.

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. — Rank Amateur

You are jumping between two unrelated concepts here. Responsibility is a relation between a subject and an event. Consent is a relation between two subjects. Responsibility establishes whether or not the subject is the author of the event. Consent establishes the permissions the subjects have concerning each other.

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.

Whether or not my example with the robber convinces you, you still need to show how the consent is implied.

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. — Rank Amateur

No, I am saying awareness of a risk is not the same as consent. Consent is granting a permission, it requires not just awareness but also intent.

why ?? — Rank Amateur

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?

No. You are wrong and im explaining why. — DingoJones

That is the reason I stop. Why continue ? We each made our point, You seemed quite convinced. There was not going to be anything more of value to say. Why continue ?

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

and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity.

So that you can understand your error and stop making it. That you see no value in at least the potential for that is intellectual cowardice.

and the difference between that and, the taking care of the material needs before birth ? Again, an assumption of the argument is the fetus is a moral entity. — Rank Amateur

Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb.

because ???

Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. — S

What is an immoral basis for pursuing an abortion? If you have already discussed that, I might have overlooked it, the thread is long.

What is an immoral basis for pursuing an abortion? If you have already discussed that, I might have overlooked it, the thread is long. — Echarmion

Indeed, I have already discussed it prior to that post. But funnily enough, I just finished editing that part because I thought it appropriate to expand on it.

Here's that part again with my recently edited addition:

Except that it isn't in some cases. It's not morally justified in any case where the pregnant woman is consciously aware of pursuing an abortion on an immoral basis. Cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family. For example, she's simply changed her mind in the kind of way that she changed her mind about those shoes she bought last month.

Some of that wording comes from the Abortion Act 1967, which forms part of UK law.

Also, I think that the following - all the way back on page 4 - was a good point:

The same can be said of the pro-choice who accuse the pro-life of dictating what women can do with their bodies. Do we not all admonish pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak?

And in admonishing pregnant women who smoke, drink alcohol, or eat rare steak, are we not precisely considering the future potential of the foetus? — Michael

That might seem a little unrelated, but they're both points against what I called the "absolute freedom" ethical stance on abortion, whereby "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it!" and "Her wanting an abortion is enough!" and "It's none of your business!" or "Oh yeah, well by whose authority?". It's an extreme and unsophisticated position.

It's not morally justified — S

Where are you getting this moral justification? You presume it, but it is not a given!

That's a poorly considered question that I've answered multiple times now. Stop mindlessly re-asking it, please. The obvious answer again: mine! — S

Well I can be thick and dense. If this was clear before I failed to register it and I apologize. This at the least is crystal clear.

But whither now? If it's just your beliefs, then you're entitled and that's an end of it. And it follows that if they're just your beliefs, and you mean to safe-harbour them as such, then the right thing to do is withdraw them from the agon entirely. To hold them as beliefs and use them as premises in an argument handicaps all. You won't weigh the argument aright, and the rest of us will assail error without result. "What?!" you say, "there is no error!" And you would be correct, in beliefs held as beliefs, there is no error. But as argument those same beliefs may even be completely rotten.

because ??? — Rank Amateur

I am not going to be able to fully derive a system of moral philosophy right here. If I ever do that, perhaps you can buy it as a book. But I can try to do a very rough sketch:

Morality is the set of rules that allows for the greatest practical self-actualization of interacting subjects (or, more simply, the greatest practical freedom). Life has the highest moral weight because it's the sine qua non of any self actualization. Your body is the part of the outside world most closely associated with your self, so it has significant moral weight. Wealth is comparatively ephemeral. It is a general tool for many forms of self actualization, but it's also the product of social interaction, so it's already entangled with the interests of others and thus has only limited moral weight.

I judge the conditions for determining the morality of getting an abortion to match the conditions for determining the legality of getting an abortion. — S

To my way of thinking the only reasonable place to start, at least from this direction. But in this you have the law establishing morality. I'm inclined to think that morality is primordial, with respect to law. And would you accept that it must be? Else it's for you to reconcile laws that are mutually contrary and even contradictory.

The name of the concept is "implied consent" — Rank Amateur

Either it's a term of art, in which case cite the definition, or you're neglecting the meaning of "implied." I think what you might mean is inferred consent. That means that a third person supposes it, which imports in all its glory the potential for the error - and possible sheer irrelevancy - of the third person and his opinions.

Where are you getting this moral justification? You presume it, but it is not a given! — tim wood

If you've read other comments of mine in this discussion and in other ethical discussions that I've participated in, then I think that my position on such matters should be pretty clear. I don't posit an objective standard for moral justification. I'm just expressing my judgement. I've quoted the basis upon which I make my judgement (the Abortion Act 1967), but you might judge it differently. If so, and if I can't convince you otherwise, then we hit a brick wall, where all I can really say is that I don't judge it that way, and that my way seems right and yours wrong. Mine has a foundation in how I value the foetus, which is about how I emotionally connect.

Well I can be thick and dense. If this was clear before I failed to register it and I apologize. This at the least is crystal clear.

But whither now? If it's just your beliefs, then you're entitled and that's an end of it. And it follows that if they're just your beliefs, and you mean to safe-harbour them as such, then the right thing to do is withdraw them from the agon entirely. To hold them as beliefs and use them as premises in an argument handicaps all. You won't weigh the argument aright, and the rest of us will assail error without result. "What?!" you say, "there is no error!" And you would be correct, in beliefs held as beliefs, there is no error. But as argument those same beliefs may even be completely rotten. — tim wood

I've had a similar argument with Hanover about this, and would recommend that you check out that discussion between us in this thread - especially as I think that it addresses some of what you're saying above. I don't agree with him or you on this. There might come a point where the discussion between you and I cannot progress, but you shouldn't just dismiss my normative position on the basis of my meta-ethical position. I don't think that my meta-ethical position is that much of a problem, and I certainly don't think that the meta-ethics of objective morality is any kind of solution or fares any better.

please, you made a declarative statement

Financial interests don't have the same moral weight as the integrity of life and limb. — Echarmion

In general we follow those with support, so the person you are talking to can address it.


And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.

If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.

So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing.

To my way of thinking the only reasonable place to start, at least from this direction. But in this you have the law establishing morality. I'm inclined to think that morality is primordial, with respect to law. And would you accept that it must be? Else it's for you to reconcile laws that are mutually contrary and even contradictory. — tim wood

Don't get the wrong idea, I definitely wasn't suggesting that the law establishes morality. I agree that morality is primordial. I was just saying that in this particular case, the one and the other are in sync. In other contexts, that's not the case: there's a mismatch.

With the Abortion Act 1967, I judged it to be a good template for determining the morality of getting an abortion. But that's only because of my preexisting moral sentiments. It always stems back to that, as per Hume. "Reason is the slave of the passions".

In general we follow those with support, so the person you are talking to can address it. — Rank Amateur

This is honestly confusing to me. Can you not address the answer I gave?

And as a reminder, the necessary base assumption for the sake of argument is the fetus is a moral entity. It is a conflict of claims on bodily autonomy in this argument.

If you don't want to participate in that line of logic because you can't grand the concession for sake of the argument, I am 100% fine with that.

So, back to the argument if, as you say you are the parents have an obligation to the child by nature of the act of having sex, why does that obligation not extend pre birth, again, for the sake of this argument the fetus is something with moral standing. — Rank Amateur

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.

Thank you for elaborating. Would I mischaracterise your position if I summed it up as: A mother has a moral obligation to carry a child to term, unless doing so entails an significant net risk (as compared to termination of the pregnancy)?

I leave the details of what significant risks are out because it's not related to my follow up question. If you don't disagree with my summary, my question is this: Where does this obligation come from? And to whom is the mother obligated?

Thank you for elaborating. Would I mischaracterise your position if I summed it up as: A mother has a moral obligation to carry a child to term, unless doing so entails an significant net risk (as compared to termination of the pregnancy)?

I leave the details of what significant risks are out because it's not related to my follow up question. If you don't disagree with my summary, my question is this: Where does this obligation come from? And to whom is the mother obligated? — Echarmion

What's an obligation? I tend not to find much use for that word. Is it that she should behave in a certain way: a way which I judge to be moral? It comes from me and my emotions and my reasoning, which forms a judgement. If I'm right, which naturally I think I am, then naturally I think that she should act in accordance with what I judge to be right; or she's obligated to act in accordance with what I judge to be right, I suppose you could say.

What's an obligation? I tend not to find much use for that word. Is it that she should behave in a certain way: a way which I judge to be moral? It comes from me and my emotions and my reasoning, which forms a judgement. If I'm right, which naturally I think I am, then naturally I think that she should act in accordance with what I judge to be right. She's obligated to act in accordance with what I judge to be right, I suppose you could say. — S

An obligation means you should behave a certain way, yes. I use the term to signify that the mother should behave that way regardless of her personal feelings on the matter. I am aware that the judgement comes "from your reasoning", but what is that reasoning? If you reasoned there must be reasons, and I'd like to know what they are.

An obligation means you should behave a certain way, yes. I use the term to signify that the mother should behave that way regardless of her personal feelings on the matter. I am aware that the judgement comes "from your reasoning", but what is that reasoning? If you reasoned there must be reasons, and I'd like to know what they are. — Echarmion

I've already given them, haven't I? :chin:

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

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.

A thought experiment:

Imagine there's a building marked for demolition and all preparations are complete. Just before the teamleader presses the detonator someone comes running and screams ''there may be somebody inside the building!''.

What does a normal person do?

I would stop the demolition and send a search time inside the building to ensure it's empty of occupants.

Isn't abortion just like this situation? We don't know if a person is inside the fetus or not. What is the right thing to do?

I've already given them, haven't I? — S

Not that I can see, or are you saying you gave them earlier in the thread?

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

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.

A thought experiment:

Imagine there's a building marked for demolition and all preparations are complete. Just before the teamleader presses the detonator someone comes running and screams ''there may be somebody inside the building!''.

What does a normal person do?

I would stop the demolition and send a search time inside the building to ensure it's empty of occupants.

Isn't abortion just like this situation? We don't know if a person is inside the fetus or not. What is the right thing to do? — TheMadFool

No, in my view, abortion is not just like that situation. I said earlier that I think of personhood as a linguistic category. By that I mean that we can string together a bunch of words and declare that if these words fit, then "it" is a person. There's much less variation regarding personhood when it comes to categorising a typical adult human than a human foetus. We agree that a typical adult human is a person, and the issue is whether or not this person is inside the building - which we don't know - and what we should do.

But whether or not we know that there's a person "inside" the foetus depends much more on how we're using the word "person" (and whether or not it fits). The issue is not so much that we don't know, but rather how we're using language.

The way I see it, to focus on the language is the wrong approach. Let's just use "it" or "thing" instead. What really matters is how we value it, what we judge to be the right and wrong actions regarding it, and so on. It can be a dangerous route to go down to base value judgements on ruling out personhood.

I've considered the other positions in this discussion which take a different approach, but none of them seem better than mine.

Not that I can see, or are you saying you gave them earlier in the thread? — Echarmion

Why don't you check out what I've said and get back to me? I'm not sure exactly what it is you're after from me, and I don't really feel like starting from scratch or repeating myself. Perhaps you could be more specific.

how about we go with Tacit Consent ? Is that better ??