is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[neuroleptics]

How are there 20 pages of reply to this?

If you need an abortion, get one. I'm not pro getting abortions, but I'm not about to limit anyones freedom to do so. Unless it's like a week until the birth and there isn't any medical reason to do so.

besides mother > baby

and baby without a mother = fked up baby

This is what gets the discussion going, sir.
Well, we're now going deeper into moral issues and also legal issues not just superficial.
Even if you are a doctor, you can't just decide the way you want it. Patient 1st, immediate family's consent too in certain cases. Every action, you have to back yourself up.
Plus, you're wrong about abortion/ rather termination of pregnancy. No doctor will ever do abortion at 39 w of pregnancy, so that's invalid. And if the case is MVA, and the child is 39w, saving both using our medical technology is definitely possible and we'll opt for C-sec . BT needed too. and if the mother died in the process, (of course NOT every operation is successful) that we leave it to God. We tried our best to save both. Unless the consent says otherwise but in this senario that i've given, it's possible that mother die even if we try to safe her and no way to make the child dead will save the mother. Anyhow, that why, explaination and the expertise of Dr. in charge is utmost vital

[northcity4]

@neuro, *sigh* Consent has nothing to do with this. Morals/ethics exist outside the law  in some cases and for the purpose of abortion, it probably does.

Secondly, don't try using complicated medical terms, but let's look at your situation:

You have just made a situation according to the third party theory. Here, as I posted earlier, the third party must make a decision or both will die. Yes, in America, consent is needed if mom cannot make the decision...but this is ethics, so let's pretend consent wouldn't change anything. The doctor is the third party scenario. In his scenario, whoever he saves will not be impermissible or considered murder since he only had one choice (refer to trees trolley example).

@trees, I can make my claim about abortion since moral obligation has little to do with abortion. I have yet to see how it strongly applies.

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

Since your foundation is shaky, your conclusion is shaky. You should fix that before criticizing others based upon your shaky assertion.

Letting Die
Since we don't have support for the assertion that "we have a moral obligation to prevent harm" then we do not have support for the assertion "letting die is morally impermissible". This is good news because the majority of people with access to this forum have let people die by not donating more than they currently do. Surely it is not morally impermissible to donate 10% of your income rather than 20% despite not being morally ideal.

P1) More people are allowed to die if we donate 10% rather than 20%.
2) If letting die is morally impermissible then donating 10% would be morally impermissible.
P3) Our moral intuitions find donating 10% to be permissible if not ideal.
4) Letting die must not be inherently impermissible.

Support
P1) Since letting die is not inherently impermissible, refusing to feed another begger is not impermissible.
P2) If it is not impermissible to refuse to feed another begger then it is permissible to prevent the begger from taking your food.
3) So preventing involuntary taking of one's resources is permissible.

Abortion
P1) Cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.
P2) Abortion is cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources.
3) Abortion is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.

p1: how can you say more people are 'allowed' to die? I think you meant something else.
p2: This is shaky since it is not solidified. Donating has many more factors that need consideration such as my people within the district theory.
p3: I agree
p4: You conclusion does not follow probably and thus this argument will not work until much more support is added.

Under abortion: you have committed a false analogy. Yes, fetus are involuntary consuming resources from the mother, but that is not why moms die from abortion nor does it allow for abortion to be legalized. If you study the row vs wade case, consuming resources was of little relevance.

Since you have mistakingly defined a fetus as one 'consuming resources,'

Before I go on, let us analyze your support.

You went from feeding a beggar to involuntary taking? This is a fallacy here. ( you guys can fight me all you want on the fallacy stuff, but I do have a lot of experience when it comes to arguments)

What I am saying is @trees: you drew a conclusion from donating to involuntary taking to abortion is permissible since it is cutting off involuntary taking. Even if this argument worked, abortion is not justified under involuntary taking.

Let me suggest an alternative argument starting from your support

1) Letting die is permissible in some cases
2) Refusing to feed a beggar is permissible in some cases.
3) Stopping a beggar from taking your food is permissible.
4) If you know the beggar is dying, yet you refuse him food after he asks, that is impermissible (refer back to my example of the rich/poor)
5) If you don't know, permissible to refuse even after asked.
Conclusion: permissible to refuse a beggar food based upon your knowledge of the person.

abortion:
I am arguing p1 is actually impermissible:

allow this:

p1) Cutting of involuntary taking is impermissible without warning
p2) you warn the person of their actions and they refuse to stop
Conclusion 1) based upon moral obligation, their actions are now considered impermissible.
Conclusion 2) as long as it is self defense, it is permissible to 'cut off' that involuntary taking

Fetus cannot be held to such standards of being warned and thus all actions fetus perform are actually permissible. Therefore, abortion would be considered murder, not killing in this case

[northcity4]

How are there 20 pages of reply to this?

If you need an abortion, get one. I'm not pro getting abortions, but I'm not about to limit anyones freedom to do so. Unless it's like a week until the birth and there isn't any medical reason to do so.

besides mother > baby

and baby without a mother = fked up baby

This is what gets the discussion going, sir.
Well, we're now going deeper into moral issues and also legal issues not just superficial.
Even if you are a doctor, you can't just decide the way you want it. Patient 1st, immediate family's consent too in certain cases. Every action, you have to back yourself up.
Plus, you're wrong about abortion/ rather termination of pregnancy. No doctor will ever do abortion at 39 w of pregnancy, so that's invalid. And if the case is MVA, and the child is 39w, saving both using our medical technology is definitely possible and we'll opt for C-sec . BT needed too. and if the mother died in the process, (of course NOT every operation is successful) that we leave it to God. We tried our best to save both. Unless the consent says otherwise but in this senario that i've given, it's possible that mother die even if we try to safe her and no way to make the child dead will save the mother. Anyhow, that why, explaination and the expertise of Dr. in charge is utmost vital

For the purpose of philosophy, consent/politics/law have much less power in this discussion.

[neuroleptics]

@neuro, *sigh* Consent has nothing to do with this. Morals/ethics exist outside the law  in some cases and for the purpose of abortion, it probably does.

Secondly, don't try using complicated medical terms, but let's look at your situation:

You have just made a situation according to the third party theory. Here, as I posted earlier, the third party must make a decision or both will die. Yes, in America, consent is needed if mom cannot make the decision...but this is ethics, so let's pretend consent wouldn't change anything. The doctor is the third party scenario. In his scenario, whoever he saves will not be impermissible or considered murder since he only had one choice (refer to trees trolley example).

LOL, what i'm saying is what practice in medicine. Consent still comes 1st, you need to pen it before any surgeons can perform operation UNLESS no one is available and that's a life threatening condition, sir. And obviously you are giving opinions outta medicine view (maybe third person view)
And you must understand that i give another senario  for special case and i'm telling that how we manage. Refer bioethics in medicine. We are pretty restricted and no doctor will want a law suite on his head just because of saving a person that he doesn't even know. It'seasy for pubic to say this and that but doctors are vulnerable for their decisions. That's why i agree with taking consent to protect ourselves. However, i believe in God and i'm answerable to Him even for the slightest mistake. I'm just lucky that my God can accept that NO humans are perfect.

Another thing i put all in layman's term. No medical term/ jargoons were used.

Yes, in terms of philosophy, consent has nothing related to that but a medical personal would have to base his philosophy on that and you can say wrong to that too. If i were to be free to say, yes, i would think like you do, unfortunately lawsuit will be on my head if i acted so.

[northcity4]

This topic is reserved for ethics. We are not discussing the laws of countries and their views of abortion legality. We are discussing whether it's moral or not for a mom to get an abortion. In this sense, we could care less whether the law permits or doesn't permit .

The outcome of this topic will of course be much different from the real world cause in America as long as the mom signs the papers...yeah, she can legally do what she wants for abortion. Doesn't mean what she did was moral though.

[neuroleptics]

-whichever one lives will be immortal

None. only immoral

This topic is reserved for ethics.

Yes, there's a topic called bio-ethics and i'm referring that. It's different from the what you think which is moral and which is not. However, this is still in line with the topic.

[OldTrees]

@trees, I can make my claim about abortion since moral obligation has little to do with abortion. I have yet to see how it strongly applies.

Your argument about abortion has relied on moral obligation to not let people die.

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

Since your foundation is shaky, your conclusion is shaky. You should fix that before criticizing others based upon your shaky assertion.

Letting Die
Since we don't have support for the assertion that "we have a moral obligation to prevent harm" then we do not have support for the assertion "letting die is morally impermissible". This is good news because the majority of people with access to this forum have let people die by not donating more than they currently do. Surely it is not morally impermissible to donate 10% of your income rather than 20% despite not being morally ideal.

P1) More people are allowed to die if we donate 10% rather than 20%.
2) If letting die is morally impermissible then donating 10% would be morally impermissible.
P3) Our moral intuitions find donating 10% to be permissible if not ideal.
4) Letting die must not be inherently impermissible.

Support
P1) Since letting die is not inherently impermissible, refusing to feed another begger is not impermissible.
P2) If it is not impermissible to refuse to feed another begger then it is permissible to prevent the begger from taking your food.
3) So preventing involuntary taking of one's resources is permissible.

Abortion
P1) Cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.
P2) Abortion is cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources.
3) Abortion is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.

p1: how can you say more people are 'allowed' to die? I think you meant something else.
There are people dying from lack of food. By not donating more, we are allowing this additional death.
p2: This is shaky since it is not solidified. Donating has many more factors that need consideration such as my people within the district theory.
How is this shaky? If donating more prevents more deaths, then donating less is letting people die. If letting people die is morally impermissible, then donating less is morally impermissible. (Simple substitution)
p3: I agree
p4: You conclusion does not follow probably and thus this argument will not work until much more support is added.
How does it not follow? Is the form flawed? If so, then where? Is a premise flawed? If so, then how?
It is in a simple form
2) If P -> Q
3) Not Q
4) Therefore not P
P= Letting die is impermissible
Q= Donating 10% rather than 20% is impermissible

Under abortion: you have committed a false analogy. Yes, fetus are involuntary consuming resources from the mother, but that is not why moms die from abortion nor does it allow for abortion to be legalized. If you study the row vs wade case, consuming resources was of little relevance.

Since you have mistakingly defined a fetus as one 'consuming resources,'

Before I go on, let us analyze your support.

You went from feeding a beggar to involuntary taking? This is a fallacy here. ( you guys can fight me all you want on the fallacy stuff, but I do have a lot of experience when it comes to arguments)

1) So what if the mother dies? That was not included in the argument.
2) So what about row vs wade? That was not included in the argument.
3) The fetus does consume resources (it feeds and mothers need to eat for 2).
4) You think that there was a fallacy in the begger to involuntary taking chain of thought. What did you consider fallacious?
I said it was permissible though not ideal to not feed the begger.
I said it was permissible to prevent someone taking your food without your volunteering it.
These were separate claims though related to the section titled 'support'.

What I am saying is @trees: you drew a conclusion from donating to involuntary taking to abortion is permissible since it is cutting off involuntary taking. Even if this argument worked, abortion is not justified under involuntary taking.

1) When I critiqued you I provided evidence for my doubt. You are being extremely vague and merely contradicting without providing evidence to support your criticism. This is poor form.

Let me suggest an alternative argument starting from your support

1) Letting die is permissible in some cases
2) Refusing to feed a beggar is permissible in some cases.
3) Stopping a beggar from taking your food is permissible.
4) If you know the beggar is dying, yet you refuse him food after he asks, that is impermissible (refer back to my example of the rich/poor)
5) If you don't know, permissible to refuse even after asked.
Conclusion: permissible to refuse a beggar food based upon your knowledge of the person.

abortion:
I am arguing p1 is actually impermissible:

allow this:

p1) Cutting of involuntary taking is impermissible without warning
p2) you warn the person of their actions and they refuse to stop
Conclusion 1) based upon moral obligation, their actions are now considered impermissible.
Conclusion 2) as long as it is self defense, it is permissible to 'cut off' that involuntary taking

Fetus cannot be held to such standards of being warned and thus all actions fetus perform are actually permissible. Therefore, abortion would be considered murder, not killing in this case

1&2) 'Some cases' has no detail yet. This is indeed where I would attack my argument from.

4) Your moral intuitions saw donating 10% rather than 20% as morally permissible. This would result in more people let die. This is a case of a rich person letting a poor person die.
p1) What support do you have for the claim a warning is needed? Do I need to warn a thief* before I can install security?
*Thief used to describe taking not specifically impermissible taking.
p2 is unneeded. You are allowed to install security regardless of whether the thief will return
Conclusion 1 and 2 come from nowhere. Not only is the moral character of the taking irrelevant to our argument and conclusion 2 allows the self defense of the mother, but self defense was not mentioned in your premises.

You are getting better at using the proof form for logical arguments. Thank you. It made your post easy to read.

@neuroleptics
I don't think there is any dispute about whether current medical procedure deals with abortion in an ethical fashion provided abortion is morally permissible. I think all 3 of us agree that a Doctor performing an abortion without consent of the mother is committing an impermissible action.

[northcity4]

First, let me say that the basis of abortion being immoral is not based on moral obligation in my theory. I am still holding to the claim it's murder with more regards to positive/negative rights.

Ok, please bare with me, I will cover each section starting with the highlighted orange part:

Yes, it's true, if we gave tons of money to charity and such, we could save more people, like hunger issues. The argument is that we shouldn't have to self sacrifice so much of ourselves, but rather everyone do thier part. In my assessment, if everyone was donating 10%, there would be no issues.

The reason I said p2 was shaky was since donating has other factors that make it impermissible/permissible is people are still dying. Your conclusion is not fully supported=shaky.
Lastly, your p4, 'inherently' had nothing to do with your previous premises. Also, by stating inherently, you fail to actually make a claim as to whether letting die is permissible/impermissible. All you have said is it may/may not be something 'inside' or 'genetic' within humans to not let people die.

Your form:
If p ( donate 10% instead of 20), then q( more people are allowed to die)
No Q...IF it's morally impermissible.
P3) actually confirms p exists. So right here you have a formal fallacy (proven from conclusion statement)
p4) As I have stated, inherently has nothing to do with your premises.

Your actual P and Q are actually different from what you have stated. Cause if you claim the If then Q, your P1 states them, but in a different order.

Your support clause:
You drew of a bad conclusion from your original argument which is screwing up the rest of your argument.

p1) Inherently has nothing to do with whether it's permissible or not.
p2) Involuntary taking is different from actual taking (like stealing). Please do not say these are the same as in ethics both have much different cases when either are permissible/impermissible.
P3 No. You said it's permissible to stop him from taking your food, but in reality you actually said it's impermissible to not feed him.

Beggar and involuntary taking= neither have a relationship. Definition of involuntary taking: taking that which is against your will.

Also, these are not separate claims. You may have intended that, but your claims in your support follow from what you said in your first set of premises


Abortion:

Mother dying does matter. You claimed the cutting off of involuntary taking is permissible. You have no support for this first of all, secondly, this is impermissible unless the person in knowingly doing it.
I used the example of row vs wade to illustrate as a side example that your analogy and comparisons of the fetus to consuming resources was weak in your argument.
The fetus does consume resources, but STOP using the word 'consume' as impermissible without support.


Let's go over my argument now:

p1) Is a true statement. Needs no support.
p2) Dido
p3) If someone is trying to take something from you without your permission, you have a right to stop them in a moral way. Simple.
p4) Correct in your analysis. The rich man is at fault IF he knew the poor man was dying. What also counts as 'knowing' is if the poor man made it clear to him.


Second set of premises regarding abortion:

Warning is always needed. You obviously are not very knowledgeable of the word 'involuntary.' Let me give an example. Each time I step on this red square outside my house, someone in the world dies, but I don't know that. So, I cannot be held accountable for those deaths (involuntary took lived). Now, you come along and tell me what happens when I step on that red square and prove it to me. Cool, NOW I KNOW. Now, I am accountable for any more deaths I committ on that red square.

Your example of the thief has nothing to do with involuntary since there is no involuntary taking. =(


Conclusion 2: since thieving is not involuntary taking, your anti argument is worthless.

Stay with abortion: baby is involuntary taking resources and even if it is voluntarily taking them, it doesn't know what it's doing. Since a baby can't realize the seriousness of what it's doing, it also cannot be held accountable even if you 'told' it, which thus means everything the baby does is permissible.

@trees: what I have presented is a solid argument. I have had other people look at it as well.

[OldTrees]

First, let me say that the basis of abortion being immoral is not based on moral obligation in my theory. I am still holding to the claim it's murder with more regards to positive/negative rights.

You seem to be misunderstanding what moral obligation is. Positive Rights create a moral obligation to do something for the right haver. Negative Rights create a moral obligation to not do something to the right haver. You based your claim on the premise that we had a specific moral obligation.

Ok, please bare with me, I will cover each section starting with the highlighted orange part:

Yes, it's true, if we gave tons of money to charity and such, we could save more people, like hunger issues. The argument is that we shouldn't have to self sacrifice so much of ourselves, but rather everyone do their part. In my assessment, if everyone was donating 10%, there would be no issues.

The reason I said p2 was shaky was since donating has other factors that make it impermissible/permissible is people are still dying. Your conclusion is not fully supported=shaky.
I failed to parse this sentence. If it is still relevant would you restate it?

Lastly, your p4, 'inherently' had nothing to do with your previous premises. Also, by stating inherently, you fail to actually make a claim as to whether letting die is permissible/impermissible. All you have said is it may/may not be something 'inside' or 'genetic' within humans to not let people die.
By providing a counterexample to letting die always being impermissible I can only conclude that it is not always impermissible. Hence it is not inherently impermissible. This is like showing you a white crow. I have not demonstrated all crows are not black. However I have shown that crows are not always/inherently black.

Your form:
If p ( donate 10% instead of 20), then q( more people are allowed to die)
No Q...IF it's morally impermissible.
P3) actually confirms p exists. So right here you have a formal fallacy (proven from conclusion statement)
p4) As I have stated, inherently has nothing to do with your premises.

Your actual P and Q are actually different from what you have stated. Cause if you claim the If then Q, your P1 states them, but in a different order.
P1 did not contain P->Q. It provided the background for the P->Q in step 2.

Your support clause:
There were 2 miscommunication here.
1) Read above to understand what inherently meant. You were way off.
2) The "involuntary" referred not to the taker but to the owner not volunteering the food. I had clarified this before. I might have used the word incorrectly. If so substitute the correct word to convey the clarified meaning.


Abortion:
cascading miscommunication


Let's go over my argument now:

p1) Is a true statement. Needs no support.
p2) Dido
p3) If someone is trying to take something from you without your permission, you have a right to stop them in a moral way. Simple.
p4) Correct in your analysis. The rich man is at fault IF he knew the poor man was dying. What also counts as 'knowing' is if the poor man made it clear to him.
You (as a rational being) do not get to declare a premise to be true without support.
"Cutting of involuntary taking is impermissible without warning" is a claim without any support. It is not self evident and thus needs support.
"you warn the person of their actions and they refuse to stop" is a premise that can be true or false depending on if Person A warned Person B and if Person B refused to stop or not. This makes me doubt you intended the literal meaning of this line.
"based upon moral obligation, their actions are now considered impermissible." Your argument had no premises to draw this conclusion from (you only mentioned the character of stoping the taking not of the taking itself), it does not impact the next conclusion and it did not address our discussion.
"as long as it is self defense, it is permissible to 'cut off' that involuntary taking" Where did self defense come from? Self defense without warning would still be impermissible under P1. If we assume that a warning is part of self defense then we still cannot conclude this (see below).

P1) If it has a 3 sectioned heart it is a reptile or a fish.
P2) It has a 4 sectioned heart.
C1) It is not a reptile or a fish.
C2) It is not necessarily a reptile or a fish.
Truth: Creatures with 4 sectioned hearts include Alligators, Crocodiles, Birds and Mammals
Thus we can see that C1 has bad form while the less extreme conclusion C2 is still valid.


@trees: what I have presented is a solid argument. I have had other people look at it as well.
I recommend you read for comprehension. It allows you to understand even if they miscommunicative. It tend to result in discussion rather than debate. However the attitude of this sentence of yours makes me doubt your intentions. I am willing to discuss but I refuse to debate.

[northcity4]

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

Since your foundation is shaky, your conclusion is shaky. You should fix that before criticizing others based upon your shaky assertion.

Letting Die
Since we don't have support for the assertion that "we have a moral obligation to prevent harm" then we do not have support for the assertion "letting die is morally impermissible". This is good news because the majority of people with access to this forum have let people die by not donating more than they currently do. Surely it is not morally impermissible to donate 10% of your income rather than 20% despite not being morally ideal.

P1) More people are allowed to die if we donate 10% rather than 20%.
2) If letting die is morally impermissible then donating 10% would be morally impermissible.
P3) Our moral intuitions find donating 10% to be permissible if not ideal.
4) Letting die must not be inherently impermissible.
p1=please re phrase the word 'allowed.' Maybe change it to a real scenario by saying more people WILL...
p2=Shaky. The situation of not donating more has too many factors and thus cannot be singled out to this generalization. Form is 100% correct, but content needs more specification.
p4=you are saying inherently=not always? I guess we have different understandings of the word at the moment?
Support
P1) Since letting die is not inherently impermissible, refusing to feed another begger is not impermissible.
P2) If it is not impermissible to refuse to feed another begger then it is permissible to prevent the begger from taking your food.
3) So preventing involuntary taking of one's resources is permissible.
p2=you actually have 2 true statements in a sense and since the two have no relation= this is not a good If P then Q. I don't see a relationship from stealing and refusing.
p3=I am still curious how you derived the word 'involuntary' from your previous premises. It has nothing to do with what you talked about before.

If we were to choose a different word, I would use 'so preventing someone from taking...' since it's more of a concept that needs change.
Abortion
P1) Cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.
P2) Abortion is cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources.
3) Abortion is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.

Cascade??? Please elaborate. I am only defending myself here on the terms/concepts I used.

Let's now go over your critique of my argument.

P1+2) are true statements. I as a rational being can say that since I used the word 'some.' In logic, that word 99% of the time will make a statement true if the people using are being reasonable.
Cutting off involuntary taking is impermissible. The person doing the involuntary action is not doing anything wrong. There is no evidence to support they are doing something wrong and there is evidence to support that they are not at fault (see my example I listed with the 'red square.'

Premise can be true or false depending if the person warned them? No, true or false has nothing to do here. I am simply saying that if someone is involuntarily doing something, this inherently (different from your definition) means they don't know they are doing it or they do and they don't know the causes. This is all definition and thus needs no support.

When you warn a person, they now know...if you can't agree to this then you need help to be honest.

I then concluded that if you are involuntarily doing something that was causing great harm and were told about it, whether or not person B (the recipient) decides to listen or not, they are now held accountable.

Maybe this restructured argument will help
p1) killing people doing involuntary actions is almost always impermissible (true statement due to the 'almost always' word).
p2) Involuntary acting BY DEFINITION means you are not aware of certain actions you are doing, someone/something forcing you against your will, and/or you know what your doing, but the harm it is creating was never/has never been made known to you.
p3) Outside the case of being forced, once you warn a person about their actions/make it known, the definition of involuntary changes=no longer an involuntary act to voluntary.
p4) Abortion is an act that kills a baby justified on the basis it is draining resources and thus killing the mother. (for this current discussion, I believe this is what we are talking about)
p5) A baby cannot even understand nor can it be held responsible for it's actions even if it was told. (Baby's do not have the kind of mind yet, especially as fetuses to understand language and are way too young/un responsive to be put in a situation where they can be accountable for what they do. If you disagree with this, please explain why)
p6) Conclusion from p1-5) Since a baby's actions can never change from the involuntary, all it does is considered involuntary.
p7) Conclusion from conclusion) Abortion then is killing of someone doing an involuntary act.
p8) Therefore, that killing is murder and thus immoral. or as the OP puts it, 'incorrect.'

The few cases where involuntary does get you away is like if you have a degree in medical practice. You accidentally unknowingly are pumping way too much of a chemical into a patient and they die. Are you not held accountable? You didn't know you were doing it, but your degree hold you accountable.

[OldTrees]

There was miscommunication. That miscommunication cascaded/snowballed/grew/escalated as previous parts were built upon. As such, I will ignore part 3 until this is settled.

No, that is incorrect. By not having abortion, the mom is killing herself, but really doesn't want to. The doctor didn't stab her to death.

scenario one: doctor gives the abortion. Mom allowed=she is guilty

scenario two: No abortion=mom dies. There is no murder going on.

neuro please get your facts straight before making a claim like that. Also, be clear with murder and killing as the two in logic are very different.

@trees. That is my dilemma which is why giving examples is the only way I know how at the moment. To be honest, I also don't have the time to go reading scholarly articles (all very long) regarding moral obligation philosophy.

Since your foundation is shaky, your conclusion is shaky. You should fix that before criticizing others based upon your shaky assertion.

Letting Die
Since we don't have support for the assertion that "we have a moral obligation to prevent harm" then we do not have support for the assertion "letting die is morally impermissible". This is good news because the majority of people with access to this forum have let people die by not donating more than they currently do. Surely it is not morally impermissible to donate 10% of your income rather than 20% despite not being morally ideal.

P1) More people are will die if we donate 10% rather than 20%.
2) If letting die is morally impermissible then donating 10% would be morally impermissible.
P3) Our moral intuitions find donating 10% to be permissible if not ideal.
4) Letting die must not be inherently impermissible.
p1=please re phrase the word 'allowed.' Maybe change it to a real scenario by saying more people WILL...
p2=Shaky. The situation of not donating more has too many factors and thus cannot be singled out to this generalization. Form is 100% correct, but content needs more specification.
p4=you are saying inherently=not always? I guess we have different understandings of the word at the moment?
p1 changed to reflect better wording
p2 I do not understand why you think there are too many factors. The amount of money donated is directly correlated and causally related to the amount of food available, which in turn is directly correlated and causally related to the number of people that don't starve.
p4 We do have different understandings of the word. I use inherently as in:
Murder (immoral killing) is inherently immoral. Killing is not inherently immoral. Murder is not immoral because it is killing but rather is immoral for another reason.

Support
P1) Since letting die is not inherently impermissible, refusing to feed another begger is not impermissible.
P2) If it is not impermissible to refuse to feed another begger then it is permissible to prevent the begger from taking your food.
3) So preventing someone from taking of one's resources is permissible.
p2=you actually have 2 true statements in a sense and since the two have no relation= this is not a good If P then Q. I don't see a relationship from stealing and refusing.
If we are not allowed to prevent taking then how are we able to refuse giving? In the case where we can refuse to give but cannot prevent taking, then we have the case where the refusal is meaningless. In order for a refusal to give to be meaningful it must be supported with prevention of taking. So if refusal of giving is permissible then prevention of taking is permissible.
If we were to choose a different word, I would use 'so preventing someone from taking...' since it's more of a concept that needs change.
changed


Abortion
P1) Cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.
P2) Abortion is cutting of involuntary taking of one's resources.
3) Abortion is not morally ideal but is morally permissible.

Maybe this restructured argument will help
p1) killing people doing involuntary actions is almost always impermissible (true statement due to the 'almost always' word).
p2) Involuntary acting BY DEFINITION means you are not aware of certain actions you are doing, someone/something forcing you against your will, and/or you know what your doing, but the harm it is creating was never/has never been made known to you.
p3) Outside the case of being forced, once you warn a person about their actions/make it known, the definition of involuntary changes=no longer an involuntary act to voluntary.
p4) Abortion is an act that kills a baby justified on the basis it is draining resources and thus killing the mother. (for this current discussion, I believe this is what we are talking about)
p5) A baby cannot even understand nor can it be held responsible for it's actions even if it was told. (Baby's do not have the kind of mind yet, especially as fetuses to understand language and are way too young/un responsive to be put in a situation where they can be accountable for what they do. If you disagree with this, please explain why)
p6) Conclusion from p1-5) Since a baby's actions can never change from the involuntary, all it does is considered involuntary.
p7) Conclusion from conclusion) Abortion then is killing of someone doing an involuntary act.
p8) Therefore, that killing is murder and thus immoral. or as the OP puts it, 'incorrect.'

The few cases where involuntary does get you away is like if you have a degree in medical practice. You accidentally unknowingly are pumping way too much of a chemical into a patient and they die. Are you not held accountable? You didn't know you were doing it, but your degree hold you accountable.

p1 content = misleading) Killing people is often impermissible and people are always doing involuntary actions (heart beat). These are not related.
p2) I would argue your definition is broader than normally given to the word. However it is this concept and not the word that is important.
p3) True
p4 for this current discussion is false. Abortion is preventing the fetus from taking resources from the mother thus resulting in letting the fetus die. The current discussion does not mention the mother's death. It is a discussion about letting die and the mother's resources.
p5) True but irrelevant. You are the only one that is even considering the possibility that what the fetus is doing might be impermissible.
p6) True the involuntary actions of the fetus are involuntary however you misunderstood what involuntary means.
p7) The form is good although it does not mention execution, mercy killing and hunting (breathing is involuntary). However there still is the detail that abortion is letting die not killing.
p8 form = invalid) You dropped the 'almost always' from p1. Unfortunately this has significant problems.

p1, p4 & p7
Although you feel killing and letting die have equal moral character, they are different actions. If we change p1 to reflect this we get:
"Letting people doing involuntary actions die is almost always impermissible."
Since people are always doing involuntary actions (breathing) this simplifies to
"Letting people die is almost always impermissible."
This premise is controversial and is currently being discussed above.

p1 + p7 => p8
Form:
Almost all birds fly. Kiwi are birds. Therefore Kiwi fly.
Almost all people are dead. We are people. Therefore we are dead.
Almost all numbers are not 0. 0 is a number. Therefore 0 is not 0.
If p1 had said "All" instead of "Almost all" then p8 would have a valid form. However that was not the case.

[northcity4]

I think I have gotten lost now on your current changes...could you please re post your argument with the changes?

I see your point on my argument, so what if I changed p1 to:

Killing innocent people doing involuntary actions is almost always impermissible? I don't know a better way to distinguish a bad person acting involuntary versus a good person unless I use the word 'innocent.' I still believe this premise needs 'almost' instead of just 'all' as you suggested since later in my argument I claimed the fetus does not meet a case where it is exempted from this definition. Because of that, I now can say fetus in particular would cause p1 to say: killing fetus' is always impermissible. If I say always right away, then I believe the statement becomes false.

As far as letting die vs killing.

We can say that cutting off resources from involuntary taking is okay, which I believe is okay as well. The issue, such as the rich/poor example, if we know this stoppage will end up killing the person, we have a moral obligation to still try to help them. At the least, get them to a hospital or to someone who can look after them further.

Donating. I mean...yeah, we could help more people by giving more money. Factors as I have suggested before included everyone doing their part. I argued before if everyone did their part we wouldn't have this issue and by finding out who didn't contribute, punish them.

I am still not convinced we should have to donate though, even for others. I believe there is a responsibility issue with location issue. You see a man dying in front of your house, he's not your responsibility (you probably don't even know him), but since he is now in your location (at your steps), maybe that changes things. I feel like government and charity agencies also have a responsibility to do the hard work (maybe ask government for help) to keep all alive. If charities honestly need more money, they need to make it known, but if 10% is fine, it's now our fault if a lot of people die as long as we do 10%.

One other issue: scam charities. Why not just say: I don't donate since I believe all charities are scams and thus not be responsible?