• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

Angel said:
And you've succeeded.
Have an interesting evening.
Click to expand...

Reverse psychology... I was trying to persuade you that I was not trying to persuade and I persuaded you into thinking that I succeeded.

I win.
 
Angel said:
Moral Responsibility ​

Moral Responsibility

Moral Responsibility (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A Hypothetical

A young woman, 25, two months pregnant and in good health, yet in despair over a failed love affair, commits suicide, knowing she is pregnant.
The MacGuffin inside her dies as a result.

Evaluate her act from both a moral and a legal standpoint.


Questions

Is the woman morally and legally responsible for her act and its consequences?
How is the question of responsibility related to the question of rights?

Has the woman a moral right to kill herself?
Has the woman a legal right to kill herself?

Has the woman a moral right to kill the MacGuffin?
Has the woman a legal right to kill the MacGuffin?



Members are invited to ponder and reply to these questions and if possible to share the thoughts behind their replies.​


Prerequisites:

Abortion 101
A moral argument for a rational Pro-Life/Pro-Choice view
Abortion 101
Abortion 201
The relation between the moral argument and abortion law
Abortion 201
Click to expand...

No, she does not have the moral right to kill herself, pregnant or not, suicide is immoral.
 
Angel said:
A woman has a moral responsibility to bear a child whose gestation does not threaten her life.
Click to expand...

Sez who?



And every human being has a right to life.
Click to expand...

All "right to life" means is the GOVT cannot take your life without due process. It doesn't mean a woman can't terminate her pregnancy.

And zefs are not human beings.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Sez who?

All "right to life" means is the GOVT cannot take your life without due process. It doesn't mean a woman can't terminate her pregnancy.

And zefs are not human beings.
Click to expand...
Talking points. Politics. In fact just so much crap.
Sez Reason.
See argument at #1 in Abortion 101.
 
Angel said:
No, I believe that if a person is not free to act immorally, then morality is meaningless. Morality must, it seems to me, recognize the right to act immorally if acting morally is to have any rational sense. You're right about the legal right, however. Homicide law, for example, does not say Thous Shalt Not Kill; it merely defines different degrees of murder and sets out punishment in some cases. Citizens are free, and therefore have the right, to break the law.
Click to expand...

I think you're conflating the two. If I have the moral right to be immoral, then morality is meaningless. I do not have the moral right to use racial slurs, even though I may have the legal right to do so. If I use racial slurs I am being immoral, even though there is nothing anyone can legally do about it. It might be a moral thing for a society of humans in certain circumstances to allow themselves the LEGAL right to be immoral, but this in no way makes immoral behavior a moral right.
 
KevinKohler said:
I don't think suicide is immoral. I think its stupid, short sighted, absolutely the "wrong" choice...but not immoral. It is a choice we are all free to make.

Suicide for a pregnant female is no different. She, or society, for that matter, owes that potential human nothing.

Now, to get into gristley details...if said woman were, say...2 weeks out from her due date...I will call that immoral, wrong, and effing tragic.

What's the difference? Its no longer a potential human. Why do I think that? Because at that point, the cerebral cortex has sufficiently developed that the thing is no longer a thing, but a being, self aware, cognizant. When is the precise moment that happens? No idea, I let the scientists and politicians hash that out.
Click to expand...

I should add, suicide is also illegal, KevinKohler. And I believe it should remain that way.
 
lwf said:
I think you're conflating the two. If I have the moral right to be immoral, then morality is meaningless. I do not have the moral right to use racial slurs, even though I may have the legal right to do so. If I use racial slurs I am being immoral, even though there is nothing anyone can legally do about it. It might be a moral thing for a society of humans in certain circumstances to allow themselves the LEGAL right to be immoral, but this in no way makes immoral behavior a moral right.
Click to expand...
No, I've taken pains to keep the legal and the moral discourses separate and distinct. If you use racial slurs, you may or may not be doing something immoral, but whether moral or immoral you have a moral right to act as you see fit. If you don't have that right, morality becomes meaningless. You conflate the two. There is no legal right to be moral or immoral; there is a legal right to freedom within the context of an organized society, a right that recognizes our moral freedom.

You seem to be just a tad off here:
this in no way makes immoral behavior a moral right.
Click to expand...
The moral right is to behavior grounded in your moral freedom; whether you use that freedpm to act morally or immorally is another question.
 
Lursa said:
Can you please explain why you believe it should be?
Click to expand...

Because I do not believe we should forced to allow people who are mentally or emotionally disturbed to commit harm to themselves. And before you start typing, Lursa, I am not referring to terminally ill people who are suffering from horrific incurable pain. I am referring to otherwise healthy adults who, due to depression, anxiety or severe emotional stress and other emotional or psychological issues who wish to take their own lives. I believe that morally responsible people should be legally allowed to prevent people who are not in their right state of mind from killing themselves, not merely because life is inherently precious, but because of the devastating emotional and fiscal cost that it puts on the rest of society.
 
Felis Leo said:
Because I do not believe we should forced to allow people who are mentally or emotionally disturbed to commit harm to themselves. And before you start typing, Lursa, I am not referring to terminally ill people who are suffering from horrific incurable pain. I am referring to otherwise healthy adults who, due to depression, anxiety or severe emotional stress and other emotional or psychological issues who wish to take their own lives. I believe that morally responsible people should be legally allowed to prevent people who are not in their right state of mind from killing themselves, not merely because life is inherently precious[/B], but because of the devastating emotional and fiscal cost that it puts on the rest of society.
Click to expand...


But you have already written that you object to "compassionate release" which is legal also, in previous exchanges so I dont believe you are being completely honest here. I believe you are trying to formulate an explanation that 'reads well' but isnt honest.

And having a moral responsibility to try and stop someone from committing suicide isnt the law. The act itself was (but no longer). And the law prevented nothing.

The blue is my guess that your entire stance is built on...and IMO, should not be forced on others. Many of us believe in quality of life over quantity. Or a heartbeat. I see no difference in the heartbeat of a human than the heartbeat of a cat. It's the "person" that counts and to assume that your beliefs should override those that believe differently...esp. when it means the extension of suffering and heartache for all involved...is very disturbing to me.

I'm pretty sure that you would accept ANY amount of devastating emotional impact on women or fiscal cost as reasons if it meant ending elective abortion, would you?

Do you see suicide prevention as something that can be done without laws? I do. It's the current means to try and help such people. Laws against suicide are only a punishment for people in grave distress. Of course, I hope we get much better in identifying these people before they harm themselves.

Do you see a need today for laws against suicide?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
But you have already written that you object to "compassionate release" which is legal also, in previous exchanges so I dont believe you are being completely honest here. I believe you are trying to formulate an explanation that 'reads well' but isnt honest.
Click to expand...

I am against so-called compassionate release as well because it opens the door to allowing suicide on demand, certainly. But that was not the point I was addressing. I am addressing the idea of healthy adults (or perhaps older minors) having the absolute right to commit suicide without interference. From what I am given to understand, most suicides are not committed by people who are terminally ill or in states of incurable vegetative agony.

Lursa said:
And having a moral responsibility to try and stop someone from committing suicide isnt the law. The act itself was (but no longer). And the law prevented nothing.
Click to expand...

I did not argue that it was. I believe that moral people with any empathy and who are not total solipsists should prevent otherwise-healthy people from committing suicide. That does not mean that I would impose a legal duty on people to do so (unless they are the legal caretakers with a legal duty of care to those people). But otherwise, I would not seek out a legal imposition any more than I believe that a person who is walking on the beach and sees someone out at sea drowning should be legally required to jump into the ocean to swim out and save them.

Lursa said:
The blue is my guess that your entire stance is built on...and IMO, should not be forced on others. Many of us believe in quality of life over quantity. Or a heartbeat. I see no difference in the heartbeat of a human than the heartbeat of a cat. It's the "person" that counts and to assume that your beliefs should override those that believe differently...esp. when it means the extension of suffering and heartache for all involved...is very disturbing to me.
Click to expand...

If you want to use this particular issue that I am arguing about as a jumping-off point with which to attack my other positions regarding late-trimester abortion or elective euthanasia, please feel free. But first, I must ask: Do you believe that a an otherwise healthy person should be legally entitled to commit suicide free of any interference? And that if anyone tries to interfere, that it is the people who interfere who should be criminally prosecuted?

Lursa said:
I'm pretty sure that you would accept ANY amount of devastating emotional impact on women or fiscal cost as reasons if it meant ending elective abortion, would you?
Click to expand...

I am talking about elective suicide of physically healthy people, not elective abortion or euthanasia , Lursa.

Lursa said:
Do you see suicide prevention as something that can be done without laws? I do. It's the current means to try and help such people. Laws against suicide are only a punishment for people in grave distress. Of course, I hope we get much better in identifying these people before they harm themselves.

Do you see a need today for laws against suicide?
Click to expand...

It depends. If non-terminally ill people have the right to engage in life-ending self-harm the moment they reach the age of majority (or perhaps even before), then we open the doors to suicide on demand. If suicide is an absolute right, then anybody who interferes with a suicide is a criminal. It can lead to the utterly bizarre situation in which you would be charged with assault for pulling the gun out of your daughter's mouth after she broke up with her boyfriend, for example.

Of course, perhaps you are such a believer in self-determination that if your daughter, or a friend, or any other loved one was severely emotionally distressed, you would encourage them to kill themselves and hand them the gun. Would you do so if you were asked? And if not, why not?
 
Felis Leo said:
Because I do not believe we should forced to allow people who are mentally or emotionally disturbed to commit harm to themselves. And before you start typing, Lursa, I am not referring to terminally ill people who are suffering from horrific incurable pain. I am referring to otherwise healthy adults who, due to depression, anxiety or severe emotional stress and other emotional or psychological issues who wish to take their own lives. I believe that morally responsible people should be legally allowed to prevent people who are not in their right state of mind from killing themselves, not merely because life is inherently precious, but because of the devastating emotional and fiscal cost that it puts on the rest of society.
Click to expand...

What cost is there to society if someone kills themselves?

Here, if someone attempts suicide, they can be detained in hospital. It doesn't need to be illegal to do that.
 
Scrabaholic said:
What cost is there to society if someone kills themselves?
Click to expand...

The same cost imposed on society when a family breadwinner or child suddenly dies in a horrible accident, especially when the suicide's beneficiaries are not entitled to receive life insurance proceeds (many life insurance policies have a two year time limit if someone commit.

Scrabaholic said:
Here, if someone attempts suicide, they can be detained in hospital. It doesn't need to be illegal to do that.
Click to expand...

If ending one's own life is a legal right that can be pursued by any adult, however healthy or unhealthy they are, on what basis do you believe they should be detained, Scrabaholic?
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
So you can't answer my question. I understand and accept your concession.
Click to expand...
You asked "Sez who?'
I replied "Sez Reason."
Answered but ignored and the ignoree does a victory strut. This seems to be the m.o. of a certain politicized talking-point clique in this form.
 
Angel said:
No, I've taken pains to keep the legal and the moral discourses separate and distinct. If you use racial slurs, you may or may not be doing something immoral, but whether moral or immoral you have a moral right to act as you see fit. If you don't have that right, morality becomes meaningless. You conflate the two. There is no legal right to be moral or immoral; there is a legal right to freedom within the context of an organized society, a right that recognizes our moral freedom.

You seem to be just a tad off here:

The moral right is to behavior grounded in your moral freedom; whether you use that freedpm to act morally or immorally is another question.
Click to expand...

I think the impasse is that I am attempting to find some objectively agreed upon morality, whereas you are embracing the subjective nature of morality. I.E. morality is what each individual decides it is. While this might be strictly true, it is not a useful definition for moral behavior. If morality is entirely subjective to the individual, then there can be no moral hypocrisy with abortion or anything else. If I am the final arbiter on what is moral for me, then both abortion and racial slurs can be moral without contradicting my love of children and other races. Morality becomes meaningless when we embrace it's subjectivity. Only by embracing some objective morality that applies to everyone regardless of whether they want it to or not can moral arguments become valid.
 
Felis Leo said:
If ending one's own life is a legal right that can be pursued by any adult, however healthy or unhealthy they are, on what basis do you believe they should be detained, Scrabaholic?
Click to expand...

They are detained as being a danger to themselves. Detained in hospital, not at the police station.
 
Felis Leo said:
I am against so-called compassionate release as well because it opens the door to allowing suicide on demand, certainly. But that was not the point I was addressing. I am addressing the idea of healthy adults (or perhaps older minors) having the absolute right to commit suicide without interference. From what I am given to understand, most suicides are not committed by people who are terminally ill or in states of incurable vegetative agony.

I did not argue that it was. I believe that moral people with any empathy and who are not total solipsists should prevent otherwise-healthy people from committing suicide. That does not mean that I would impose a legal duty on people to do so (unless they are the legal caretakers with a legal duty of care to those people). But otherwise, I would not seek out a legal imposition any more than I believe that a person who is walking on the beach and sees someone out at sea drowning should be legally required to jump into the ocean to swim out and save them.

If you want to use this particular issue that I am arguing about as a jumping-off point with which to attack my other positions regarding late-trimester abortion or elective euthanasia, please feel free. But first, I must ask: Do you believe that a an otherwise healthy person should be legally entitled to commit suicide free of any interference? And that if anyone tries to interfere, that it is the people who interfere who should be criminally prosecuted?

I am talking about elective suicide of physically healthy people, not elective abortion or euthanasia , Lursa.

It depends. If non-terminally ill people have the right to engage in life-ending self-harm the moment they reach the age of majority (or perhaps even before), then we open the doors to suicide on demand. If suicide is an absolute right, then anybody who interferes with a suicide is a criminal. It can lead to the utterly bizarre situation in which you would be charged with assault for pulling the gun out of your daughter's mouth after she broke up with her boyfriend, for example.

Of course, perhaps you are such a believer in self-determination that if your daughter, or a friend, or any other loved one was severely emotionally distressed, you would encourage them to kill themselves and hand them the gun. Would you do so if you were asked? And if not, why not?
Click to expand...

It's disingenuous to introduce implications like I wouldnt care if people committed suicide. That has little to do with laws AND/OR with rights. No matter how much I loved my father and didnt want to lose him, I stood up for his written and verbal requests for palliative care when he was dying of cancer. (I had to, because people like you STILL tried to block his wishes, including a Dr.) Because when you TRULY care about an individual, you want what's best *for them* and it's not about society.

The right to life is an individual right. It has nothing to do with society either. Your right to life is not an obligation to society. While I am against most suicide, I 100% stand behind someone's right to do so. What gives any other authority or individual a right to demand *if* a person chooses to continue to exercise their right to life or not? The govt sometimes takes authority here, with due process (i.e., the death penalty).

With that said, of course I would try to get someone help if they were suicidal. That help might be psychiatric care, it might be assisted suicide contacts...it all depends on their situation. If it was a minor, that would also make a difference in what I believe is appropriate involvement.

But that is a moral decision and has nothing to do with force of law (for me.) I would not use force of law to stop someone, if, after appropriate mental health treatment or other care, to stop them if they chose suicide. It's not up to me to demand what level of pain they should live with. I respect their right to decide. I cannot fathom what assumed right anyone else believes they'd have to demand someone live with tremendous emotional or physical pain against their will. (again, not on the spur of the moment, but after treatment and assessment.)

Any illegal use of force on someone's part to stop them (under any current laws against use of force) would still stand (as an answer to one of your questions).
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
You asked "Sez who?'
I replied "Sez Reason."
Answered but ignored and the ignoree does a victory strut. This seems to be the m.o. of a certain politicized talking-point clique in this form.
Click to expand...

I missed that part of your response.

But my response would have been and is - who's reason? Mine disagrees w/ you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom