# data[].attributes.body
1-2 sentences stating thesis and explaining WHY you are arguing for this position or HOW you intend to support it.

# data[].attributes.body
1-2 sentences stating thesis and explaining WHY you are arguing for this position or HOW you intend to support it.

# data[].attributes.body
1-2 sentences stating thesis and explaining WHY you are arguing for this position or HOW you intend to support it.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Dougherty right that one can fail to provide morally valid consent to something without realizing it?

# data[].attributes.body
If we assume that (i) a fetus is a person, and (ii) it was not conceived from assault, is Thomson right that it is nevertheless permissible to abort it?

# data[].attributes.body
Supposing that abortion is at least sometimes permissible, is Mackenzie right that pregnant people also have a right to secure the death of the fetus?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Dougherty in cases of intentional deception that someone can fail to provide their consent without realizing it, but in other cases where dealbreakers are not discussed or emphasized before the act is consented to, there can still be morally valid consent.

# data[].attributes.body
One can fail to provide morally valid consent without realizing it. This is supported by the fact that one’s dealbreakers or needs may not always be discussed when it comes to giving or receiving consent.

# data[].attributes.body
Dougherty is right that one can fail to provide morally valid consent because if someone is deceived into breaking their moral values and beliefs for the other person, that person was not given morally valid consent. I plan to support this by providing examples of cases where someone would not give another morally valid consent

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that it is possible to unknowingly fail to provide morally valid consent to something. An example of this is the case of Chloe and Victoria from Dougherty's paper, in which Chloe misleads Victoria into thinking she is a vegetarian, and Victoria consents to having sex with Chloe as a result. As Chloe did not tell Victoria her true intentions, Victoria did not give morally valid consent.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes Thomson is correct because people have the right to their own autonomy and can not be expect to take care of something that depends on them especially when it can be cause dramatic harm. This can be justified through not only the dramatic damage that a person faces while pregnant, but the psychological, physical, and financial damage that can come to a person who is pregnant and gives birth.

# data[].attributes.headline
The path and the meaning of sex is different to everyone. This creates certain implications for sets of partners especially for religious people where sex is only done with lifelong partners. If a partner does not disclose that sex is just sex to them while other partner sees it as a big step, this is a way where there could be consent without consent for sex.

# data[].attributes.subject
The path and the meaning of sex is different to everyone. This creates certain implications for sets of partners especially for religious people where sex is only done with lifelong partners. If a partner does not disclose that sex is just sex to them while other partner sees it as a big step, this is a way where there could be consent without consent for sex.

# data[].attributes.body
Under the specified conditions of a fetus being considered a person and not being conceived from assault, it is permissible to abort it. This is based on the rights the child bearer has over the autonomy of their body and the rights they have over others using their body.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Thomson that if we assume that if a fetus is a person and it was not conceived from assault it is nevertheless permissible to abort the fetus because one has a right to what happens in and outside of their body and is not morally required to allow usage of their body based on what may be deemed "easy" or what someone "ought to do."

# data[].attributes.body
Morally valid consent is essential when letting another intrude on one's own bodily autonomy, and one can fail to give morally valid consent when deceived through lies. When these lies make one believe that what they are doing aligns with their moral code, the consent they give is morally invalid.

# data[].attributes.body
One cannot “fail” to give morally valid consent, however one can fail to obtain morally valid consent. Not providing morally valid consent is only possible if one is deceived by another into consenting to something that is not true, in which case they did not fail because they did nothing wrong, unlike the person who deceived them and failed to obtain morally valid consent.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that moral consent can't be fulfilled without one realizing it, thus I am in a position that is supporting Dougherty. I plan to support my thesis through examples and some thought experiments like jow the author do it.

# data[].attributes.body
Supposing that aborting is permissible under some circumstances, pregnant people do have the right to secure the death of the fetus. This is due to in part of the role they had in the conception and bearing of said fetus.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Mackenzie’s point that pregnant people have a right to secure the death of the fetus because of the moral responsibility and bodily autonomy that pregnant people have.

# data[].attributes.body
If we take on those assumptions, Thomson is morally wrong if the baby was conceived through other unintentional ways than assault because the mom would be paired up with a degree of moral responsibility to the baby. I plan to provide examples of a case that maybe can consist of accidental pregnancies.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with Thomson's opinion that abortion is still permissible given the two prerequisites. The argument ultimately comes down to the right and autonomy of the pregnant mother: she has the right to decide for her own body as the fetus reside within her, utilizing her body as a source of living. The mother should hold rights to decide whether she wants the child, whether that decision is affected by extraneous issues or mother's personal health

# data[].attributes.body
Dougherty is correct in saying that failing to provide morally valid consent can occur without an appropriate realization as not all information is always present when making a decision to provide consent.

# data[].attributes.body
If we assume that abortion is sometimes permissible, one has the right to secure the death of the fetus because of their moral responsibility they have over the fetus and their own bodily autonomy choices they have the right to make.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Dougherty that someone can fail to provide morally valid consent to something without realizing it, especially in cases of deception and when dealbreakers are not discussed/talked about it. To expand upon this, I would build upon Dougherty's example of the vegetarian (having sex with the meat-eater who was lying), and bring up another example of people not fully discussing their boundaries.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that it is still permissible to abort a fetus if it counts as a person and is not conceived from assault. The effects of pregnancy extend long after the child is born, and a pregnant person has a right to choose not to be subjected to it.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Dougherty, the frame in which one provides consent is a decision that can't be changed after the decision is made, but can be taken away. If what Dougherty says is true, then one can simply take away their morally valid consent after they have had sex with someone that has not deceived them, and claim they didn't give consent, when in the initial encounter they had every want to do so. This puts unnecessary and unrealistic expectations on the other party to prevent the other from removing their morally valid consent, so that they won't be viewed as committing a serious moral wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, even if we considered fetus as a person (which is questionable), abortion is still morally permissible. Thomson has some pretty solid arguments in the paper, the violinist one for example. And I am going to do the similar.

# data[].attributes.body
Dougherty is correct that one can fail to provide morally valid consent to something without realizing it since one can simply lie about other's dealbreakers without them knowing it. On the other hand, however, the flexibility of one's dealbreakers might create ambiguity regarding one's consent.

# data[].attributes.body
Thomson is right in her view that one's bodily autonomy outweighs another's right to life. Thomson's use of accurate analogies and logical reasoning is powerful and difficult to object against.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes I agree with Thompson because like the Henry Fonda and sick violinist analogies a person does not have to help someone else if they themselves do not wish to do so. If a mother is in danger then the fetus despite being a person should be aborted according to the mothers wishes. The way I will support this is to show that helping others is not a must.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, Thomson's logic for why abortion should be nevertheless permissible to abort a fetus holds true, but also I propose that the mother should be able to ensure the death of the fetus, and have complete control over their responsibility over the fetus. This is because viewing a mother as unable to decide whether they are able take care of the child or not removes their right to bodily autonomy.

# data[].attributes.body
If a fetus is a person and it was not conceived from assault, then there has to be a line drawn on when it is permissible to abort, such as in the case of “self-defense” when the mother’s life and the fetus’ life is in danger and in the case of aborting for self-appealing reasons such as traveling abroad. Drawing the line at a certain point will allow for a defining boundary at which abortion should be permissible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Woman have the right of what goes on with her body. According to Thomson, it’s morally permissible to have abortion if you go through the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy. Since a woman has the rights to what what happens with her body, abortion is morally permissible if she goes through precautions to limit her chances of pregnancy.

# data[].attributes.subject
Woman have the right of what goes on with her body. According to Thomson, it’s morally permissible to have abortion if you go through the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy. Since a woman has the rights to what what happens with her body, abortion is morally permissible if she goes through precautions to limit her chances of pregnancy.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that pregnant people do have a right to secure the death of a fetus through abortion, but not through other means. After the fetus leaves a pregnant person's body, it has become a person in its own right, and the control that a pregnant person exercises over it no longer applies to such an extent.

# data[].attributes.body
thesis 2:
I believe that Thomson is right that one can still choose to abort even when the premises are met. This is because one has autonomy over one's own body, and a fetus does not because it is not capable of making any meaningful decisions yet.

# data[].attributes.body
Daughtry is right in the fact that one could possibly provide morally valid consent without realizing it. There can always  be lack of information provided which can cause issues when approaching morally valid consent.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Thomson's argument that if a fetus is a person, and that they were not conceived from assault, it is permissible to abort it. However, my disagreement stems from her argument about taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy. I do not think that it is necessary to take reasonable precautions in order to justify abortion, as abortion may be a way to ensure that an unwanted child is born.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the parental responsibility the child bearer takes on, it would not be right for them to be the ones to secure the fetus' death.

# data[].attributes.body
Aren't we obligated to help others though. For example, consider a country in civil war that has a refugee crisis and starvation. Are we not obligated to help them to be moral, wouldn't it be immoral otherwise?

# data[].attributes.body
Excluding cases where her health or life is in danger, shouldn't the fact that the fetus utilizes her body for a source of living prevent the mother from killing the fetus? Especially if she is more than capable of taking care of and delivering the fetus?

# data[].attributes.body
Mackenzie is right that pregnant people also have a right to secure the death of the fetus, as one must bear the responsibility of one's own choice. in this case choosing to abort the fetus means that securing the fetus's death.

# data[].attributes.body
prompt #2:
What if the fetus comes from a voluntarily sex encounter without any precautions? (People don't want to have a baby but still have a sex without precautions.) Do you think it is still morally permissible to say that the women has the right over other things?

# data[].attributes.body
In Cloe and Victoria's case, Cloe explicitly states that she is a humanitarian in order to purposefully mislead Victoria. Here, Victoria's consent is not morally valid. However, we do have to consider other cases where neither party is inherently malicious. Where do we draw the line if there is only a misunderstanding?

# data[].attributes.headline
Objection for Mackenzie, Richard and Seamus

# data[].attributes.subject
Objection for Mackenzie, Richard and Seamus

# data[].attributes.body
Do pregnant people have the right to death. Considering the value that a baby gives to society, shouldn't the right to death be decided by the society, as the mother is not the only party affected?

# data[].attributes.body
One objection to your argument is that the mother has a moral responsibility to the fetus, therefore it is morally wrong to abort it. If the mother has a moral responsibility to the fetus, they have a moral responsibility to do what they deem may be best for the fetus, which may include aborting the fetus.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, its the same thing with the cat analogy. If someone fails to mention that they are allergic to cats and then their partner brings a cat it would be on accident.

# data[].attributes.body
One objection would be that the harm for the baby would be greater than the mother because they lose their entire life and future.

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the role they have with the fetus, it looks like they try to escape from their responsibility to take care of the fetus.

# data[].attributes.body
Imagine the scenario: if B killed A's mother/relatives, but during the conversation between A and B the discussion never came up with neither A or B aware of the situation. Would A retract the consent?

# data[].attributes.body
Dougherty is right in that one can fail to provide morally valid consent without realizing it. One example is the case of Stalin's skis. In this case, Candice did not know about the ski's history and was not able to tell Courtney this fact. Courtney gave her consent to store the skis, but this is not morally valid since she definitely would not have done so if she knew who the skis' previous owner was. Here, Courtney fails to provide morally valid consent without realizing it. However, Candice does have a valid justification (or excuse) to not obtaining Courtney's morally valid consent (she did not know of the skis' past).

# data[].attributes.body
The potential harm to society is theoretical and potentially 0, while the harm to the birthing individuals is concrete and greater than 0. Therefore, the society has no input.

# data[].attributes.body
If a fetus is a result of a sexual encounter in which the participants did not take any precautions, it does not automatically grant the fetus the right to make use of the pregnant person's body. This is because the individual has the right to decide who and how there body is to be used and if they do not wish to carry the fetus then they should not be forced to.

# data[].attributes.body
For more completely developed fetuses, the child no longer needs mother's body as their life support and may well survive after being "borned". Would the mother still have the right over the decision over the baby's life?

# data[].attributes.body
For your first thesis, we must consider the degree of morally valid consent. It is grey area of how much morally valid consent is given when deal breakers are not discussed. For your second thesis, there are many cases where there can be accidents, defective contraceptives or etc where the baby would be conceived from non assault means.

# data[].attributes.body
The parental responsibility forms when the fetus is born and becomes a baby. Because they need to make sure that they can afford this parental responsibility for the following years even till the end of the baby's life, they are taking the responsibility to make sure that the fetus will have all the rights and welfare, or a good living condition, after its birth.

# data[].attributes.body
When trying to care for a fetus, the parental role must be similar to that of a parent with their child.

# data[].attributes.body
Supposing that a fetus is of full moral status Mackenzie is incorrect in her view that a mother can secure the death of the fetus, as this does not fulfill the fetus's right to life

# data[].attributes.body
Assuming that the fetus counts as a person with a full set of human rights, how is choosing to abort them due to the effects of pregnancy and bodily autonomy different from choosing to euthanize a birthed baby because it is a burden on the mother?

# data[].attributes.body
This is an interesting case of absence of morally valid consent without malicious intent. But how do you intend to draw a distinction between such cases and cases with malicious intent?

# data[].attributes.body
We might morally obligated to help those in need but in reality we are not obligated at all. We step over homeless all the time and the reason is because sometimes is detrimental to ones own self to help others.

# data[].attributes.body
In cases of consent, there is either consent or no consent. There is degrees of moral permissibility, but no degrees of consent or no consent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Woman have a right to what happens over there body But how they “secure the death” of a fetus matters. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Woman have a right to what happens over there body But how they “secure the death” of a fetus matters. 