The rights of consenting sex and child support

[vahleeb]

To support my argument for my resolution of the issue:

If we split up geographically, then:

Ms XXA who would prefer, if unintentionally pregant, to wait until month 8 and then perhaps decide to abort, would be living in a geographic area where that is quite acceptable. If Mr XYA allows her access to his sperm, he does so, understanding that the people around her, will support her decision to abort even until as late as that.

Ms XXB who intends to bring to term any unintentional foetus and live close to the father and facilitate the father's access to the child, may live in an area where that is the only acceptable decision. So let's say she does live in such an area. Then Mr XYB who allows her access to his sperm, is aware of the social influence that will pressure her to make that decision.

 

Those are the two extremes, but I am saying that this splitting up geographically, will address the concerns of men who at the moment are typically in the position that even if they discuss beforehand with a woman, her preferences, cannot predict what influence the people around her, will have on her decision, if she is pregnant. I am suggesting we split up according to the few permutations of preference that are distinct enough to actually attract a significant number of women away from other permutations.

If we meet a civilisation of space aliens, will we get involved in assessing their rules for aborting foetuses.

If so why, if not why not?

If space aliens tell us what is or is not moral with regard to abortion of humans, will we tell them our biology is different from theirs and they should shut up?

Is there a principle here that can be applied to thinking machines (self-aware robots)?

 

If different species would not instruct each other on the morality of abortion, is there actually any moral instruction, or is it just preference?

 

The reason why abortion would be immoral is because it is murder, right? Or am I oversimplifying the matter? 

 

But going by my first assumption, in order to get a clear view of where you stand on this issue, Des, can you tell me if it's murder to pull the plug on a braindead patient. Assume all the necessary forms have been filled out in appropriate time and there is a person with a valid medical proxy to determine if this plug should be pulled or not. If they say: pull the plug, is it murder?

[Des]

The reason why abortion would be immoral is because it is murder, right? Or am I oversimplifying the matter? 

 

But going by my first assumption, in order to get a clear view of where you stand on this issue, Des, can you tell me if it's murder to pull the plug on a braindead patient. Assume all the necessary forms have been filled out in appropriate time and there is a person with a valid medical proxy to determine if this plug should be pulled or not. If they say: pull the plug, is it murder?

The difficulty with arguing: action x meets the conditions for murder, therefore action x is immoral, is that the word murder has acquired it's definition through the precedents of law, over time, so that argument becomes equivalent to: people before us thought action x to be immoral, therefore action x is immoral.

 

I am not going to say abortion is murder, because I am aware that legal precedent has it that if a foetus draws no breath and is terminated, this is not murder. If I want to re-define the term murder, I need a general consensus among users of English.

 

Similarly, to cease using my resources to keep alive a brain-dead person, is not murder in it's accepted definition in English. In the case you put forward, to pull the plug is not murder.

 

My position is: I am willing to sign up a code for moral behaviour regardless of what it says about foetuses, and regardless of what it says about the brain-dead. I am willing to ignore incorrectness* in those cases, and sign, because by signing I decrease my odds of being murdered by those who can murder me (foetuses and the brain-dead cannot).

 

*Assuming incorrectness of one position has been established, which to my knowledge has not yet happened, and in my estimate will not happen (but I will stay curious, although without the passion I might have if it were a threat to me).

[vahleeb]

My position is: I am willing to sign up a code for moral behaviour regardless of what it says about foetuses, and regardless of what it says about the brain-dead. I am willing to ignore incorrectness* in those cases, and sign, because by signing I decrease my odds of being murdered by those who can murder me (foetuses and the brain-dead cannot).

 

*Assuming incorrectness of one position has been established, which to my knowledge has not yet happened, and in my estimate will not happen (but I will stay curious, although without the passion I might have if it were a threat to me).

 

In other words, argument from effect, not from morality. "I do not care what the reason behind things working is, as long as they work to my advantage."

[Des]

In other words, argument from effect, not from morality. "I do not care what the reason behind things working is, as long as they work to my advantage."

Of course I care why a thing works. If I don't know why something works, I don't know when it will break down and leave me stranded.

 

Morality is itself computed by computing the effect. The effect, if stealing is universalised as "the good" is that no-one can be good, so the morality of "stealing is good" can be computed to be unworkable - because the effect if "I can't be good" is : "I'll stop caring what is or isn't good".

 

Just tell me what proves the morality or otherwise of abortion.

[vahleeb]

Of course I care why a thing works. If I don't know why something works, I don't know when it will break down and leave me stranded.

 

Morality is itself computed by computing the effect. The effect, if stealing is universalised as "the good" is that no-one can be good, so the morality of "stealing is good" can be computed to be unworkable - because the effect if "I can't be good" is : "I'll stop caring what is or isn't good".

 

Just tell me what proves the morality or otherwise of abortion.

 

 

"Stealing is good" is not computed to be unworkable because it produces the effect "I can't be good so I'll stop caring", it is unworkable because through the definition of the act of theft it precludes all people from being moral at the same time, thus making morality non-universal. Whatever happens after this first and closest derived contradiction is irrelevant. Syllogistic reasoning stops at the first contradiction of the truth it encounters.

 

As far as wether or not abortion is immoral, my whole position throughout this thread is that we have an evidence where wilfully ending another life is not morally reprehensible (the case of the brain-dead) and that the only variance between the brain-dead and those for whom ending their lives is morally reprehensible is sentience (that means the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively). We also know for a fact that the foetus does not develop sentience for a while (certainly not before some kind of brain is developed) in the womb. Therefore I would argue that abortion during this period of time, would have to fall under the same moral rule applied when pulling the plug on the brain dead.

 

The principle used here is murder has a moral quality (it is immoral) while pulling the plug doesn't (it is morally neutral). Therefore it must follow that murder has to be connected to sentience (which is the only difference between the two subjects of the respective actions). 

 

The are problems with this position on abortion, in that we do not have a clear cut line of when this change in status occurs for the foetus (from non-sentient to sentient) and that it is very hard to determine empirically anyway which makes most people (on both sides of the debate) that prefer to hold on to their "religious" (both pro and against abortion) beliefs discourage investigating the matter further. 

 

There would be, I think, a second tier debate wether or not abortion would be moral even after that line is crossed, depending on certain characteristics (I'm not even sure of this position, but I can't flesh it out with anyone because no one will let go of their religious beliefs long enough to even go on an exploration with me), but until we can reach an agreement, at least for the purpose of the debate, going down that path would complicate things even further.

Edited May 16, 2016 by vahleeb

[shirgall]

The difficulty with arguing: action x meets the conditions for murder, therefore action x is immoral, is that the word murder has acquired it's definition through the precedents of law, over time, so that argument becomes equivalent to: people before us thought action x to be immoral, therefore action x is immoral.

 

I am not going to say abortion is murder, because I am aware that legal precedent has it that if a foetus draws no breath and is terminated, this is not murder. If I want to re-define the term murder, I need a general consensus among users of English.

 

Similarly, to cease using my resources to keep alive a brain-dead person, is not murder in it's accepted definition in English. In the case you put forward, to pull the plug is not murder.

 

My position is: I am willing to sign up a code for moral behaviour regardless of what it says about foetuses, and regardless of what it says about the brain-dead. I am willing to ignore incorrectness* in those cases, and sign, because by signing I decrease my odds of being murdered by those who can murder me (foetuses and the brain-dead cannot).

 

*Assuming incorrectness of one position has been established, which to my knowledge has not yet happened, and in my estimate will not happen (but I will stay curious, although without the passion I might have if it were a threat to me).

 

Here's my approach, and a universal when it comes to using force to end a life: "The circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent." Having a baby doesn't usually rise to this standard unless the baby directly threatens the life of the mother.

[vahleeb]

Here's my approach, and a universal when it comes to using force to end a life: "The circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent." Having a baby doesn't usually rise to this standard unless the baby directly threatens the life of the mother.

 

Hi shrigall, is pulling the plug on the braindead ending their life?

 

You are introducing force into the debate when it is not necessary. It's a level of complexity higher than the base process. No one is performing the abortion against the mother's will in my theory and the foetus doesn't have a will if they're not sentient. You're also reversing the argument: when is killing justified?". The position in the theory is that it is morally neutral.

 

The theory I'm pointing to is in a comment that was a reply to Des, that will appear above your post, once it clears moderation. Please indulge the process before replying. (The magic of timeline discontinuity thanks to "moderation" strikes again. I won't restate the theory here, since that's probably what triggered the moderation in the first place) 

 

I'm sorry if you feel I am addressing you unfairly, since you did make your comment while unaware of the theory I put forward (even though it is just a rehashing of the position I have defended all throughout the thread).

[ValueOfBrevity]

I brought up this idea with a family member, but her conclusion was "that is just not right" with no real argument. Maybe you guys could give this idea more of a test to see if it is right or wrong.

 

If two people have consenting sex, the woman becomes pregnant and the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not, she has the baby and the man likely still pays child support.

 

My argument is, to make it equal, if the woman does not want to have a child but the man does, the woman must have the child. If the woman aborts without his consent, he may press charges. However, does a person have a right to say what they do with their body, despite what the other wants?

 

If the above is true, then it is unfair for the man to have to pay child support when he does not want the child because in both situations it is in the woman's benefit and less of the man's. She gets to have her cake and eat it too, the man gets nothing unless both or neither want to have a child.

 

But if people are having consenting sex, they are also consenting to having a child (with no condom/pill). If this is true, unless both people agreed to get an abortion before hand, neither person after the fact can say they do not want a child. If this is the case, the woman must have the child if the man does and the man must pay child support (or stay with her) if she wants to keep the child. I feel this would also contradict the woman's right to do what she wants with her body after the fact (regret in decision) if she is forced to do something so no longer wants to do and can be avoided.

 

I know this is a bit of a merry-go-round. Because this goes in full circle of hypocrisy, my feelings are that if a man does not want to have the child, he does not pay child support (condom or not). Or the man must pay child support if she wants the child and the woman must have the child and pay support if he wants the child because of consenting sex implication of child making.

 

What do you guys think of this idea? At the moment it seems blatantly one-sided for the woman's benefit but would like to see some holes in it that I may not see.

Once the woman is pregnant, no one can make her do anything. She owns her body and whatever grows inside it.

The real issue is one of child support, which is state initiation of force and therefore immoral under NAP. 

[AncapFTW]

Once the woman is pregnant, no one can make her do anything. She owns her body and whatever grows inside it.

The real issue is one of child support, which is state initiation of force and therefore immoral under NAP. 

Do I own another person if I allowed them onto my property?  Same thing.

 

You created a debt, possibly by accident.  How is it immoral to collect on that debt?  If I let you borrow my car and you wreck it, you have to pay for the cost I incurred as a result.  Me collecting it, even if I have to get someone to take it from you, isn't immoral.  You refusing to pay that debt is, however.

[Merrifield]

 

 

As far as wether or not abortion is immoral, my whole position throughout this thread is that we have an evidence where wilfully ending another life is not morally reprehensible (the case of the brain-dead) and that the only variance between the brain-dead and those for whom ending their lives is morally reprehensible is sentience (that means the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively). We also know for a fact that the foetus does not develop sentience for a while (certainly not before some kind of brain is developed) in the womb. Therefore I would argue that abortion during this period of time, would have to fall under the same moral rule applied when pulling the plug on the brain dead.

 

The principle used here is murder has a moral quality (it is immoral) while pulling the plug doesn't (it is morally neutral). Therefore it must follow that murder has to be connected to sentience (which is the only difference between the two subjects of the respective actions). 

 

The are problems with this position on abortion, in that we do not have a clear cut line of when this change in status occurs for the foetus (from non-sentient to sentient) and that it is very hard to determine empirically anyway which makes most people (on both sides of the debate) that prefer to hold on to their "religious" (both pro and against abortion) beliefs discourage investigating the matter further. 

Vahleeb,

A couple of questions for you.

Is the brain dead patient already dead?

Is pulling the plug an initiation of force?

Is an entity required to be sentient to be considered human?

[vahleeb]

Vahleeb,

A couple of questions for you.

1. Is the brain dead patient already dead?

2. Is pulling the plug an initiation of force?

3. Is an entity required to be sentient to be considered human?

 

Hi Merrifield,

 

1. No, otherwise they wouldn't record "time of death" after the plug is pulled.

2. Not in the case that I have laid out. I'd even go so far as to argue that you can't initiate force against a non-sentient entity. I mean you "could" technically, but does it count? Is it any different from punching the side of a mountain? If your aggression is not perceived (in the moment or in the future), is it even an aggression? (And no, you can't kill someone in their sleep either, because 1 they are still sentient, 2 you cannot establish for sure that they do not perceive dying at all, 3 you are violating their reasonable expectation of waking - self ownership derived - when they have voluntarily gone to sleep).

3. Not in the physical sense. Certainly that is a question for DNA. In the psychological or in the moral sense? That's a complex topic, but I don't think that's what you were asking. In any case, that's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that sentience is a requirement for murder to exist.

[Gavitor]

How did this go from being about right and responsibilities to a debate about abortion?

 

Regardless the answer to the original post is simple, take the gun out of the room and let people suffer the natural consequences of their actions.

[dsayers]

How did this go from being about right and responsibilities to a debate about abortion?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the two are not intertwined? I think the discussion that ensued helped to demonstrate how they are. Does that make you uncomfortable?

[Gavitor]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the two are not intertwined? I think the discussion that ensued helped to demonstrate how they are. Does that make you uncomfortable?

I never mentioned whether they were intertwined or not. I simply noticed that abortion became the focus of discussion. No it doesn't make me uncomfortable at all.

[Des]

Regardless the answer to the original post is simple, take the gun out of the room and let people suffer the natural consequences of their actions.

I have an answer which I estimate is better (by being additional to taking co-ercion out of the picture):

Whoever wants grandchildren should save up, create a trust fund, and offer it as support for whichever sons or daughters wish to make grandchildren. This would be a better custom than past marriage customs (dowry with the bride, bride-price for the bride), because it would adjust the financial situation so that the pressure is for providing for grandchildren, (if you fail, at least the children don't suffer while children, only when adults and better prepared for setbacks like : oops, we have no trust fund to offer to support you to have children).

This is better than : oops, we thought we could afford 4 children, but  now our income collapsed and we can't, and the children suffer whilst children.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Do I own another person if I allowed them onto my property?  Same thing.

 

You created a debt, possibly by accident.  How is it immoral to collect on that debt?  If I let you borrow my car and you wreck it, you have to pay for the cost I incurred as a result.  Me collecting it, even if I have to get someone to take it from you, isn't immoral.  You refusing to pay that debt is, however.

A fetus is not a person.

Until it becomes a separate moral actor, it is the woman's property.

 

Collecting a debt is not immoral. 

However, since the fetus is not a moral actor, it cannot be owed a debt.

[AncapFTW]

A fetus is not a person.

Until it becomes a separate moral actor, it is the woman's property.

 

Collecting a debt is not immoral. 

However, since the fetus is not a moral actor, it cannot be owed a debt.

Yes, it is.  It may not YET me a moral actor, but it is capable of becoming one and is already on a path that will inevitably lead it there.  Why is "moral actor" the measure of if it's a person or not?  Small children barely fit that definition if they fit it at all.  Severely mentally handicapped people can do very little in the realm of rational thought, though they are people.  People in a coma cannot act morally or immorally, yet they are considered people.  So why do you degrade a human that will, in a few months, reach that point to the level of "property"?

 

And even if it you do consider it property, isn't it half the father's property as well?  If we buy a car together and park it in your garage because you have the room, I'm not relinquishing my ownership but letting it be parked there.

[dsayers]

And even if it you do consider it property, isn't it half the father's property as well?

You cannot own part of another person. Also, whether a fetus is the property of the mother is not up for debate. You'd have to assail self-ownership itself.

[AncapFTW]

You cannot own part of another person. Also, whether a fetus is the property of the mother is not up for debate. You'd have to assail self-ownership itself.

Please stop trolling me.  

 

You are literally saying that a person is her property, then saying that you can't own another person.  If you had actually read my post you would realize that I had just said that, but you would rather troll people by using a double standard instead.

 

If you respond to me again I'm going to report you for trolling.

[dsayers]

You are literally saying that a person is her property

Strawman. I said fetus.

 

If you respond to me again I'm going to report you for trolling.

I'm sure staff has more important things to do than dealing with somebody whining that they don't want to be called out when poisoning the well. It's a philosophy forum, eh?

[wdiaz03]

Please stop trolling me.

 

You are literally saying that a person is her property, then saying that you can't own another person.  If you had actually read my post you would realize that I had just said that, but you would rather troll people by using a double standard instead.

 

If you respond to me again I'm going to report you for trolling.

 

This is an interesting response from someone with the following quotes on their signature.

 

The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

George Bernard Shaw

 

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.

Tommy Smothers

 

Why wouldn't you just ignore his replies?

 

You cannot own part of another person. Also, whether a fetus is the property of the mother is not up for debate. You'd have to assail self-ownership itself.

 

 

In my opinion dsayers argument seems valid. He seems to be talking about the mother here. forcing her by the father to birth a child  would be like owning part of her body. 

[AncapFTW]

 

Why wouldn't you just ignore his replies?

 

 

 

In my opinion dsayers argument seems valid. He seems to be talking about the mother here. forcing her by the father to birth a child  would be like owning part of her body. 

 

Now that I know it's possible, I am ignoring it.  The last time I asked about it, though, I was told it wasn't possible.

 

We buy a cow together and it is in your pasture.  I say "it's not grown yet, so you can't take it to a slaughterhouse yet."  Am I claiming ownership of your land?   I see you about to slit a passed out hobo's throat and grab your hand to stop you.  Am I claiming ownership of your body?  I see a man ripping a screaming woman's clothes off in an alley.  I pull him off of her.  Did I claim ownership of either of their bodies?

[dsayers]

I was told it wasn't possible.

Somebody told you what you could and could not ignore? I can't imagine what that conversation would look like. A board member recently sent me a lengthy PM. He had demonstrated numerous times a pronounced lack of integrity. I simply didn't read the PM. I can't imagine whose permission I would need to dispose of my senses and time as I see fit.

 

We buy a cow together and it is in your pasture.

Shared ownership is not philosophically sound. Also, a fetus is pretty unique in terms of property. No amount of obfuscation will change the fact that it is part of the woman's body.

 

I see you about to slit a passed out hobo's throat and grab your hand to stop you.  Am I claiming ownership of your body?  I see a man ripping a screaming woman's clothes off in an alley.  I pull him off of her.  Did I claim ownership of either of their bodies?

This is more comparing apples to oranges. The assailant in these examples is creating a debt AND telling you that property rights are invalid. To forcibly stop them is to settle that debt and to take them at their word with regards to the standard they have put forth. Additionally, a reasonable expectation of consent is consent. It's just in these scenarios, you don't have the time or opportunity to secure consent before settling the debt for them. In the phrase, "the initiation of the use of force," the initiation part is key. Yes, you are exercising ownership over their body, but it is justified due to these circumstances they have voluntarily created.

[wdiaz03]

We buy a cow together and it is in your pasture.  I say "it's not grown yet, so you can't take it to a slaughterhouse yet."  Am I claiming ownership of your land? 

 

Not yet.

 

But If I tell you I do not want this cow in my land anymore. what then? I tell you, You can keep it if you want. But then you say, the cow will die if removed from your land.

I do not care about that...I want it out of my land. I'll gladly give you double the amount you paid for the cow, but I want it OUT.

 

If you force me to keep the cow in my land then that would be a violation of my property rights.

 

I currently lean towards the property rights argument. Similar to inviting someone into ones house then changing ones  mind and asking them to leave. Even if there's a blizzard that will kill the guest the property owner has the right to kick them out, (A dick move, but his rights as property owner)

 

similarly a woman could change their mind about the fetus. in the future this fetus could be adopted by someone else. Once technology makes it possible for younger and younger fetuses to survive outside their mothers.

[AncapFTW]

Not yet.

 

But If I tell you I do not want this cow in my land anymore. what then? I tell you, You can keep it if you want. But then you say, the cow will die if removed from your land.

I do not care about that...I want it out of my land. I'll gladly give you double the amount you paid for the cow, but I want it OUT.

 

If you force me to keep the cow in my land then that would be a violation of my property rights.

 

I currently lean towards the property rights argument. Similar to inviting someone into ones house then changing ones  mind and asking them to leave. Even if there's a blizzard that will kill the guest the property owner has the right to kick them out, (A dick move, but his rights as property owner)

 

similarly a woman could change their mind about the fetus. in the future this fetus could be adopted by someone else. Once technology makes it possible for younger and younger fetuses to survive outside their mothers.

You can't transfer a fetus and it survive, at least not with current medical tech, so the fact that it will die if you remove it is the main concern.  With a cow it doesn't matter so much, and is just a property rights issue, but with a human being there's someone else that will die if you kick them out.

 

Kicking someone out knowing that they will die if you do isn't just "a dick move", it's murder.  And in this case you pretty much kidnapped the person while they were knocked out and put them in your house in the first place.  The only reason they were there is because you put them there without them having a say in it one way or another.

 

Tell me, if I picked up a guy that was knocked/passed out on the docks, sailed with him out into the ocean, and through him overboard, knowing he would drown, would that just be a "dick move" or would I have murdered him?

[dsayers]

with a human being there's someone else that will die if you kick them out.

Poisoning the well and begging the question in the face of challenges to the contrary.

 

Tell me, if I picked up a guy that was knocked/passed out on the docks, sailed with him out into the ocean, and through him overboard, knowing he would drown, would that just be a "dick move" or would I have murdered him?

This is not at all comparable to what's being talked about and is therefore irrelevant obfuscation.

[WorBlux]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.

 

This isn't an argument for or against weather a man ought have a right to formally declare no support. If such a right were recognized it would simply be one of the possible outcomes both partners accept during consensual PIV sex.