Mise
isle of lucy
Another for the "immoral but not illegal" camp.
A Different Moral Question About Abortion
- Thread starter Skwink
- Start date
holy king
Deity
accidental post.
Mise
isle of lucy
Abort! Abort!
The husband obviously has some sort of interest in the pregnancy, but that doesn't mean he has gained a right to control it. My boss has an interest in my hand functioning enough to be able to write, but that doesn't mean she has a right to stop from me lopping it off if I so choose. Mere interest in something does not equate to a right to control it.
A more interesting hypothetical might involve an unmarried couple, whose finances and assets are completely separate. The man, relying on the belief that the baby will be born, spends money on the woman's healthcare and on various home improvements, that he otherwise would not have spent, as it is for the baby's benefit. This doesn't change the situation with regards to whether or not he should have control over the woman's body, but should the woman be liable for his expenditure if, having induced the belief that she would not obtain an abortion, she does so, resulting in loss for the man? If so, isn't the law placing some sort of control over the woman's decision, by sanctioning one of her choices? Or rather does the woman still have complete control, but must face the consequences of her decision and accordingly cover the man's loss, that she has induced?
Surely not if they don't have the capacity to consent.
A more interesting hypothetical might involve an unmarried couple, whose finances and assets are completely separate. The man, relying on the belief that the baby will be born, spends money on the woman's healthcare and on various home improvements, that he otherwise would not have spent, as it is for the baby's benefit. This doesn't change the situation with regards to whether or not he should have control over the woman's body, but should the woman be liable for his expenditure if, having induced the belief that she would not obtain an abortion, she does so, resulting in loss for the man? If so, isn't the law placing some sort of control over the woman's decision, by sanctioning one of her choices? Or rather does the woman still have complete control, but must face the consequences of her decision and accordingly cover the man's loss, that she has induced?
Surely not if they don't have the capacity to consent.
Disgustipated
Deity
Why are you guys saying it's immoral? How is it immoral? It's just disrespectful to your partner, and any partner who has any respect for himself should dump the ho for doing something like that. But it's not immoral.
Disgustipated
Deity
I agree. Next moral question about abortion please. This could be a ongoing thread line. 
How about if a lesbian couple is having a baby (from sperm donation), and the woman goes ahead and has an abortion without consulting her partner (but she knows her partner wants the baby). Same thing? Or different because her partner isn't responsible for fertilizing the egg?
How about if a lesbian couple is having a baby (from sperm donation), and the woman goes ahead and has an abortion without consulting her partner (but she knows her partner wants the baby). Same thing? Or different because her partner isn't responsible for fertilizing the egg?
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
The argument for the immorality of this action goes like this:
1. Breaking the trust of a partner is wrong.
2. This action breaks the trust of a partner.
3. This action is wrong.
4. An action which is wrong is immoral.
5. This action is immoral.
(4) is the premise one might want to deny. Dispute here, I strongly suspect, will be entirely verbal. There are at least two senses in which 'immoral' is used. One is captured by (4); an action is immoral simply if it is wrong. This sense takes immorality to be a property of every action which isn't moral, or right. However, another sense takes immorality more stringently than this. Immorality can also be reserved as a criticism for actions which are very wrong. On this sense, immorality is a particularly egregious form of condemnation. Arguable, this action does not deserve to be condemned in such strong terms. Both sense are, of course, admissible.
1. Breaking the trust of a partner is wrong.
2. This action breaks the trust of a partner.
3. This action is wrong.
4. An action which is wrong is immoral.
5. This action is immoral.
(4) is the premise one might want to deny. Dispute here, I strongly suspect, will be entirely verbal. There are at least two senses in which 'immoral' is used. One is captured by (4); an action is immoral simply if it is wrong. This sense takes immorality to be a property of every action which isn't moral, or right. However, another sense takes immorality more stringently than this. Immorality can also be reserved as a criticism for actions which are very wrong. On this sense, immorality is a particularly egregious form of condemnation. Arguable, this action does not deserve to be condemned in such strong terms. Both sense are, of course, admissible.
You don't have to yell.
I'm afraid he does....
What other people said is good too. Ultimately it is the woman's responsibility and authority. But doing something like that behind the others back without a consultation would, and probably should, be the deathnell of the relationship.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Hmmm. I've often wondered about the definition of immorality. An action which is merely wrong may not be immoral at all.
For example, accidental acts can't be considered to be immoral, though clearly they are wrong.
Acts from ignorance/incompetence similarly can't be considered to be immoral either.
The same reasoning would apply to "very wrong" acts.
Still, I'm not sure this leads us anyway, even if I'm right.
Spoiler :
Argh. I get nowhere with this.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
One thing you will want to do is recognize that there are many different senses to the same word. 'Wrong', for instance, means something different when applied to a mistaken calculation and a heinous action. The difference, roughly, resides in the different standards by which each thing is wrong. The calculation is wrong by mathematical standards, the action wrong by moral standards. When we are doing ethics we are interested in moral standards, not mathematical standards.
However, there can also be different senses of ethical terms. Take your worries about 'immorality'. As I have said, there certainly is a sense in which every wrong action is immoral. But, concurrently, there is a sense in which not every wrong action is immoral. You think of actions which are 'honest mistakes'; these can be wrong but there is a sense in which they aren't necessarily immoral (consider: friendly fire). The sense in which they aren't immoral is the sense in which immorality isn't a criticism of an action but of a character. He who does the wrong thing by mistake need not have a poor character (a brave soldier can mistakenly shoot his comrade) and thus, when we're taking 'immorality' to be a criticism leveled at character, need not be immoral. In this sense the act is not immoral because it does not indicate an immoral character. But in the other sense, the action still is immoral.
I don't think these issues go that deep. We can just say 'language is complex'. As long as we are clear about which of the many sense we use ethical terms in we shall not become confused. Clearly, an essential step towards this clarity consists in recognizing a multitude of sense for a single word.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
This untangles something's quite nicely.
On the other hand it doesn't really tell me much, apart from that I can replace immorality with criticism of a character.
It seems to tell me nothing about why I should, or how I should, criticize. What is the rationale behind such criticism?
On the other hand it doesn't really tell me much, apart from that I can replace immorality with criticism of a character.
It seems to tell me nothing about why I should, or how I should, criticize. What is the rationale behind such criticism?
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
This. She aborts the child, I abort the marriage.
Not specificially in and of itself. However divorce doesn't actually require any grounds other than "I don't want to be married to them anymore".
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no fault divorce is legal.
BTW regarding the thread, if I were to assume that the fetus has no right to personhood, and was simply part of the mother's body, I see no logical reason the husband would get a say in that anymore than a woman getting cancer surgery.
I don't take that view of course, my views on abortion are well known. But if that's your position, I don't see how the husband's objection should matter.
Similar threads
